Question For Trump supporters [edit]

[luctor-et-emergo]

Rand couldn't even make it to the final 4 of the Republican Primary. Low energy I'm sorry to say.

Rand would have won the whole thing if the media hadn't focused on Trump. That's the real corruption that's influencing the elections.

 

[Tod]

It is hard to imagine that there are actually any Trump supporters on this forum, unless they are just visiting.

Trump is already backpedaling on some of his campaign promises, as we all knew he would do. However, his campaign was one of anti-globalism. I was wondering if now the Fed will raise rates, collapse the economy and dollar, Trump and anti-globalism gets the blame, and in comes the globalists to save the day. A day later, Rob Kirby's interview with Greg Hunter is headlined:
[h=2]Globalists Will Crash Markets and Blame it on Trump-Rob Kirby[/h]

 

[AuH20]

Yeah, had nothing to do with the billions of dollars of advertising the media gave to one of his opponents.

The Ron Paul treatment was alive and well in 2016 - and it was still directed at a Paul.

Rand wasn't selling anything appealing in comparison to Trump. Scott Adams has wrote numerous essays about this. That's why he lost. Stop crying about the media. Provocative statements vaulted Trump over the field. Boldness beat playing it safe. 2010 Rand would have fared better in the Primary, but I still don't think he could have won.

 

[JK/SEA]

Think about it JK, wouldn't it have been better for Rand in 20/20 if Hillary won?

twisted logic, and no.

i'm not willing to accept the fact that a hillary win would be good for this country. Apparently you think the continued erosion of the Constitution with hillary for at least 4 years would be good for Rand....how so?..

so lets say Rand gets elected, assuming he even runs, which i don't think he will, he MIGHT have a republican congress. Big risk. Now he has to resurrect the Constitution, along with all the other shit hillary screwed up...and you think thats a plan?...i want the drugs you're on. I need to escape this rabbit hole.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Rand wasn't selling anything appealing in comparison to Trump. Scott Adams has wrote numerous essays about this. That's why he lost. Stop crying about the media. Provocative statements vaulted Trump over the field. Boldness beat safety.

What Rand was selling was definitely not appealing to the average big government, warmongering Republican. But Trump gives them all they could ever ask for.

 

[newbitech]

your questions are basically a statement that go something like, "It's impossible to win a rigged game".

the gambit you present to start off this thread is weak if your intent is what I think it is.

No, it's not impossible to win a rigged game. The fact that it's rigged means "they" didn't let him win. He just overcame the rigging, perhaps because he understands how the cheaters cheat and the liars lie.

For instance, one of the more powerful tools "they" have in rigging is the MSM. He utterly destroyed that mechanism. The fall back is stirring up agitation in the minority populations and turning Americans against each other. He actively courted minorities and helped to establish common ground in the face of his blunders violating PC. He spoke to issues that unite Americans and disabled the fear mechanism that would have kept 99% of minorities away from him.

So yeah he did the impossible and beat them at their own game.

Or maybe it's all just a slight of hand and we are all being scammed yet again. So be it if that's the case, doesn't change the fact that the MSM manufactured divisions in this country have been exposed. If Trump is full of shit, then he can thank himself for his own crushing defeat 4 years from now.

The game may be broken now. We'll find out soon enough.

 

[Lucille]

Why The Deep State Is Dumping Hillary
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-26/why-deep-state-dumping-hillary

When the governed get tired of Imperial over-reach and expansion, they are willing to take chances just to get rid of the expansionist status quo. In this point in history, Hillary Clinton embodies the status quo. The differences in policy between her and the Obama administration are paper-thin: she is the status quo.

The governed are ready for a period of retrenchment, consolidation and diplomatic solutions to unwinnable conflicts, as imperfect as the peace might be to hawks.

For these reasons, the more adept elements of the Deep State have no choice but to dump Hillary. Empires fall not just from defeat in war with external enemies, but from the abandonment of expansionist Imperial burdens by the domestic populace.

Put another way: drones and proxies don't pay taxes.

The Clinton Collapse - Only The Deep State Is So Precise
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-31/clinton-collapse-only-deep-state-so-precise

I submit another much more powerful dynamic is in play: the upper ranks of the Deep State now view Hillary as an unacceptable liability. The word came down to Comey to act whether he wanted to or not, i.e. take one for the good of the nation/Deep State/Imperial Project.
[...]
The neo-conservative globalists who want Hillary to continue pushing their agenda are the more visible camp, but another less visible but highly motivated camp realizes Hillary and her neo-con agenda would severely damage the nation's security and its global influence. It is this camp that is arranging for Hillary to lose.

The consensus view seems to be that the Establishment and the Deep State see Trump as a loose cannon who might upset the neo-con apple cart by refusing to toe the neo-con line.

This view overlooks the reality that significant segments of the Deep State view the neo-con strategy as an irredeemable failure. To these elements of the Deep State, Hillary is a threat precisely because she embraces the failed neo-con strategy and those who cling to it. From this point of view, Hillary as president would be an unmitigated disaster for the Deep State and the nation/Imperial Project it governs.

Whatever else emerges from the emails being leaked or officially released, one conclusion is inescapable: Hillary's judgement is hopelessly flawed. Combine her lack of judgement with her 24 years of accumulated baggage and her potential to push the neo-con agenda to the point of global disaster, and you get a potent need for the Deep State's most prescient elements to derail her campaign and clear a path to Trump's executive team.

Pieczenik claims there was a deep state countercoup:

 

[scm]

And his name is TRUMP; not Thump.

You WON, MAGA, one thread at a time.

THUMP 2016
The sound you'll hear at rock bottom

YAY! 4 Merica'

 

[newbitech]

You WON, MAGA, one thread at a time.

are you really going to be a disingenuous thread starter with no purpose for posting other than to flame and troll?

Your e-tone to start this thread was transparent but I'll be waiting to feed you. I have a cookie for you. Come get some.

 

[scm]

are you really going to be a disingenuous thread starter with no purpose for posting other than to flame and troll?

Your e-tone to start this thread was transparent but I'll be waiting to feed you. I have a cookie for you. Come get some.

Not sure if Ill be starting more threads if they are just going to be changed to please a few. Whats the point?

 

[newbitech]

Not sure if Ill be starting more threads if they are just going to be changed to please a few. Whats the point?

why was your thread changed? did you say something troll-like and inflammatory?

Indeed, what is your point? I answered your couple of questions. are you satisfied with the discussion you started? Are you going to contribute to your topic in any meaningful way?

I look forward to your reply to my comment. I give you the benefit of the doubt. I am also concerned it's not starting out too well.

 

[scm]

why was your thread changed? did you say something troll-like and inflammatory?

Indeed, what is your point? I answered your couple of questions. are you satisfied with the discussion you started? Are you going to contribute to your topic in any meaningful way?

I look forward to your reply to my comment. I give you the benefit of the doubt. I am also concerned it's not starting out too well.

I offended someone. His name in my title was changed from THUMP.

 

[scm]

Indeed, what is your point? I answered your couple of questions. are you satisfied with the discussion you started? Are you going to contribute to your topic in any meaningful way?

I look forward to your reply to my comment. I give you the benefit of the doubt. I am also concerned it's not starting out too well.

I really just wanted to see the explanations to my questions, I personally wasn't looking for a debate. No one is going to change my mind on this topic, I'm probably not going to change anyone else. More or less just curious.

But, sure I'll contribute since you asked. The system IS rigged and the winner is the one they wanted.

 

[newbitech]

I really just wanted to see the explanations. to my questions, I personally wasn't looking for a debate.
But, sure I'll contribute since you asked. The system IS rigged and the winner is the "winner".

do you think "they" let him win?


yeah, it's probably not a good idea to be persistent with name calling. I can see once or twice inside of the post replies as comedy or maybe just a vent, but really serial name calling or labeling has no chance of persuading people to your views, esp. in the title of the thread.

Some of us (me) can look past it but it really starts you off on the low end of respect for your opinion or argument.

What good has ever come out of name calling for you anyways? I mean really? Maybe it builds camaraderie with people who share your views, but do you need that? Is there no other way to build camaraderie without it? Off topic, but just wondering.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

do you think "they" let him win?

Yes.

 

[scm]

do you think "they" let him win?

yes but I wouldn't use the word "let", "made" would be more appropriate

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

I found this comment on youtube....

surprised that Ron Paul isn't backing Trump. The establishment stole the election from Ron and is now trying to do the same to Trump.

Cognitive dissonance..

 

[Ender]

do you think "they" let him win?

YES.

 

[newbitech]

Yes.

why did "they" let him win?

 

[newbitech]

yes but I wouldn't use the word "let", "made" would be more appropriate

I see. Your question used 'let' so I responded to that.

So you are of the opinion that he was "their" choice all along? Am I reading you right?