Arthur R. Thompson, Trump, NAFTA & the Elite's Globalist Agenda

[Petar]

I understand that. My point is that it's a major stretch to take Trump's position on the trade deals and spin it that he is threatening the global establishment, even if that happens to a degree.

If NAFTA was addressed to resolve Trumps issues it could still be done in a manner that is favorable to the global establishment. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, but what he's doing is not attacking the establishment, he just wants to tip the balance more in the favor of the American faction.

There are many shares of gray here, and if Trump takes office we would certainly want to push him to go after NAFTA as he has said.

Any US President that wants to work towards the interests of the USA is necessarily threatening to the interests of the globalists.

These people are out to sink the USA and merge it into a global system.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Any US President that wants to work towards the interests of the USA is necessarily threatening to the interests of the globalists.

These people are out to sink the USA and merge it into a global system.

Yes.

 

[Bryan]

Any US President that wants to work towards the interests of the USA is necessarily threatening to the interests of the globalists.

These people are out to sink the USA and merge it into a global system.

I think this [MENTION=8481]GunnyFreedom[/MENTION] post pretty much applies here too..

Goals are not distributed along a 1 dimensional line. Goals vector off in at least 3, and maybe 4 dimensions. Just because off-stage Oligarch Trump is travelling outside of his lane and pissing off his on-stage oligarch colleagues, does not mean that the direction an on-stage oligarch Trump is going to take us, will be anywhere remotely helpful.

This idea that "If my enemies hate it, then it must be good for me" is an illusion created by relying on overwhelmingly linear thinking. Whatever a player plans to do is not restricted to a single, back and forth line, but designs can spiral off in any direction, a lot of them are even more unhelpful to us than the current incarnation of the oligarchy.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I think this [MENTION=8481]GunnyFreedom[/MENTION] post pretty much applies here too..

The first paragraph, maybe; the second paragraph, no. Yes, there is the possibility that he could be harmful, sure. That same possibility exists with virtually anyone, however. However, the other candidates offer NO UPSIDE, whatsoever. They WANT what the globalists want. Trump does not appear to agree. So, if you compare a might be fairly good to a definite rotten, I'll go with the former, every time.

He doesn't espouse purist positions. You are right, he does not. But, then again, neither did Rand.