What's in your eye?

I very much agree with the term 'mirage' as it's used in the title in this article, simply because what I've read and seen confirms rather than changes my view of the candidate's position - the composite that makes up this political candidate makes him far more likely to lean toward the policies of his present-day contemporaries than to hold his ground. It's a gentler way to say that should this candidate make it to the top seat, it won't take much to see the strings. Considering who he's tied to right now, I still think it's best to keep my vote where it is, no matter how much amusement this example has provided lately.

There's something amusing to see in the way people insist on holding to something that's no more than a star-studded tabloid, despite Ophiuchus being around since the development of the zodiac and despite readings that differ based on what's in their writers' feed. In the same way, it's amusing how evidence of bias within major news sources doesn't make their audiences any less insistent on holding to their chosen candidate - they'd rather seek to remove any reminder of the element that exposes just how much their part in the status quo, from entertainment to education, has burned the world around them.

(And apparently this medication still works - just in case anyone still respects science over politics in finding solutions that would help ease this pandemic, I'm thinking this blast from the past is the sort of dusty old story that needs to be told twice.)

I have to add - if I'm interpreting this correctly, it looks like an attempt to prevent rebellion that incited what it sought to prevent. If such a regime could accomplish that feat of self-injury with its repressiveness in treating the people on its borderlands, how much more trouble would it inspire in those who are within the more mainstream population? (加油.)