Would You Vote For Trump If He Promised A New 9/11 Investigation?

[economics102]

Trump said he hired investigators who had uncovered "absolutely unbelievable" dirt on Obama's birth certificate in Hawaii. We never saw that and he amazingly gets away with just saying "I don't talk about that anymore" when asked.

I'm not a "truther" but if I was, I sure as hell wouldn't trust a promise from the Donald to investigate something after the whole Obama birth certificate bullshit.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

No, there's nothing Trump could say that would convince me to vote for him.

Anyway, there's 0% chance that a President Trump would do anything about the 9/11 investigation.

 

[Origanalist]

Vote for Trump....does not compute....

 

[oyarde]

So last night at his victory speech somebody near the front held up a small sign that said "TRUMP4TRUTH", this got me thinking if he actually won and found out 9/11 was not as he had been told, by classified information, he would probably be pretty angry.

I know this is a subject that usually goes into hot topics, but I remember many 08 Ron Paul people didn't believe the OS of 9/11.

So my question to those of you in that category is would you vote for him if he promised this?

NO .

 

[hells_unicorn]

The relevance is that most of the actual perpetrators have not gone to jail, or even been identified. For all we know, ISIS is already linked to 9-11, if the same state operators behind the last covert false flag op are behind the current one. All unresolved murders, and mass murders, lose their freshness with time. The point of a new inquiry with subpoena power would be to expose how we were lied and manipulated into wars, so as to prevent future false flags from manipulating us again.

The Paul campaigns of the last three cycles, by themselves, probably deterred those operators from false flagging us into additional conflicts (out of fear it would generate a surge in Ron or Rand's popularity, as the peace candidate). Perhaps Trump and other candidates should at least promise to release, unredacted, not just the 28 pages, but nearly all classified documents and testimony concerning 9-11 (among other ongoing controversies), in which case the resulting transparency would accomplish nearly the same thing.

You missed the fundamental point of my post, which is who cares what any such investigation would potentially uncover? Seriously, if the last 3 election cycles have taught us ANYTHING it is that the truth is not only the radar of most voters. I'm not fully sold that 9/11 was an inside job (I would say that our government "caused it to happen" irregardless of what the truth is), but even if it was, so what? The media isn't going to cover it, Uncle Sam isn't going to do squat, and Trump is probably looking to score some extra votes should he pursue this route, as his sincerity is definitely a matter of debate.

The "actual perpetrators" as you call them, whoever they are, own the whole system. We didn't have another false flag because there didn't need to be one, people are sufficiently dumbed down to the point where a fictional boogieman on television is sufficient to justify multiple attacks on other nations. Nobody cares except for a smattering of "red pill" types, and they clearly don't decide things.

 

[nikcers]

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The "actual perpetrators" as you call them, whoever they are, own the whole system. We didn't have another false flag because there didn't need to be one, people are sufficiently dumbed down to the point where a fictional boogieman on television is sufficient to justify multiple attacks on other nations. Nobody cares except for a smattering of "red pill" types, and they clearly don't decide things.

My point was that most people do care about the present, and that the perpetrators do care about having a current figleaf of legitimacy behind conducting new attacks. As the mass public gains more awareness concerning the reality of false flag covert ops (mainly through the new media such as the web), that figleaf is stripped away, and fewer such ops happen, or are believed.

The 2013 Labor Day attempt by the US to start bombing Syria (based on false claims about a chemical attack) was firmly rejected by the public around the world, so serves as one example. Just by being in the GOP race, Ron Paul prevented a false flag from happening to justify attacks on Iran across 2007-8 and 2011-12, during the ideal window in which the war party wanted to launch them.

 

[EBounding]

Trump promised to make Putin turn him over so he can be tortured and killed.

Yeah, that was basically my creative way of saying "NO WAY".

 

[sdsubball23]

I've been curious about this and think he may be the only candidate in the two parties where there could be a chance for a new investigation to occur. However, I mainly say that because he appeared on the Alex Jones show.

Not sure if I'd still vote for him though.

 

[Sam I am]

If Donald Trump adopted Ron Paul's foreign policy that may be the only thing that might make me consider voting for him.

Trump's Foreign policy isn't exactly the same as Ron's but It's closer to Ron's than Hillary's, and the other Republican Candidates who haven't dropped out.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/13/donald-trump-foreign-policy-doctrine-nation-building

 

[The Gold Standard]

Trump's Foreign policy isn't exactly the same as Ron's but It's closer to Ron's than Hillary's, and the other Republican Candidates who haven't dropped out.

Yeah, is it close enough? Imagine Ron coming out and saying steal the oil and use the nuclear arsenal.

 

[mrsat_98]

If Ron was his vp chouice , yes I would vote for him

 

[opal]

If Ron was his vp chouice , yes I would vote for him

If that happened.. I'd start believing in the body snatchers.. you have heard what Ron thinks of DonWeezel right, right?

 

[enhanced_deficit]

That would be a dangerous idea with serious implications... especially if this new investigation found that gummit had lied to peoples.

 

[mrsat_98]

If Ron was his vp chouice , yes I would vote for him

If Ron is not his VP choice it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for him.

 

[AuH20]

Hasn't he talked about it already?

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/donald-trump-promises-to-reopen-911-investigation-if-elected/

 

[misterx]

America's not ready to hear that.

 

[MelissaWV]

Well, when you put it that way...



no.

 

[angelatc]

So last night at his victory speech somebody near the front held up a small sign that said "TRUMP4TRUTH", this got me thinking if he actually won and found out 9/11 was not as he had been told, by classified information, he would probably be pretty angry.

I know this is a subject that usually goes into hot topics, but I remember many 08 Ron Paul people didn't believe the OS of 9/11.

So my question to those of you in that category is would you vote for him if he promised this?

I don't need an investigation. I am not a Trump voter because of the whole taking of private property thing. But I'd certainly like to hear him at least promise to declassify the pages that Massie et al say should be declassified.

 

[AuH20]

One of the biggest moments in the GOP in years...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/trump-9-11-debate-219273

“Everything we know about political strategy suggests that Trump's decision to attack George W. Bush will backfire,” said Curt Anderson, the GOP strategist who guided Bobby Jindal’s campaign last year. “If it doesn't backfire, then it will be official; nothing can stop him.”