Trump in 2013: We must 'leave borders behind' because future of US 'depends' on global economy.

[Teppodama]

Both are scum. Electing either of them is just a bite from the other end of the same shit sandwich.

 

[TheGreatA]

Its not like you were warned 24/7 by the MSM and pretty much anyone with a triple digit IQ that Trump was a massive fraud.

Everyone who has any semblance of intelligence has understood from the beginning that Trump is a hack, you do not need "mainstream media" to teach them this. That is not the question here and has never been, except to those who do not grasp the situation around them. From the very beginning, he was only designed as a protest vote against the system, for those in control of the government to gauge how much opposition exists against their ideas, and how long they will have to hold off in order to be able to implement them.

I've been the first one to tell people that voting for some hack candidate through a corrupted system is not going to fix things. At best, it will stall the plans of those who are currently in control. This is still, of course, preferable to giving a "hands off" vote in favour of blatant corruption, which a vote in favour of Clinton essentially means.

It is no different from voting in favour of someone that is not Putin in Russia, as a "fuck you" to the establishment basically. Everybody there clearly understands that the other candidates are going nowhere and that they are plants, but that is not the point. The point is to show the establishment that not everyone is on board with their agenda.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Trump is the true Quantum candidate; in a pure state of superposition on every issue. A nationalist for tariffs? Sure, why not. A globalist who wants to unify economies by removing barriers to trade and investment? Why, of course. Pro EU? Indeed, it helps all countries involved. Brexit? Forsooth, countries need to retain their national sovereignty and not allow the globalists to usurp their freedoms.

The more one tries to pin down what this buffoonish charlatan actually believes, the blurrier his convictions actually become. He's one big conman

 

[Rational Poster]

That was probably before the big push for Islamic refugees. I'm glad Donald has changed his position.

The Syrian war started in 2011 and the flow of immigrants started almost immediately. Nice dodge attempt tho.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

 

[IDL]

Everyone who has any semblance of intelligence has understood from the beginning that Trump is a hack, you do not need "mainstream media" to teach them this. That is not the question here and has never been, except to those who do not grasp the situation around them. From the very beginning, he was only designed as a protest vote against the system, for those in control of the government to gauge how much opposition exists against their ideas, and how long they will have to hold off in order to be able to implement them.

I've been the first one to tell people that voting for some hack candidate through a corrupted system is not going to fix things. At best, it will stall the plans of those who are currently in control. This is still, of course, preferable to giving a "hands off" vote in favour of blatant corruption, which a vote in favour of Clinton essentially means.

It is no different from voting in favour of someone that is not Putin in Russia, as a "fuck you" to the establishment basically. Everybody there clearly understands that the other candidates are going nowhere and that they are plants, but that is not the point. The point is to show the establishment that not everyone is on board with their agenda.

Controlled opposition is better than no opposition, as they say.

 

[Rod1]

Everyone who has any semblance of intelligence has understood from the beginning that Trump is a hack, you do not need "mainstream media" to teach them this. That is not the question here and has never been, except to those who do not grasp the situation around them. From the very beginning, he was only designed as a protest vote against the system, for those in control of the government to gauge how much opposition exists against their ideas, and how long they will have to hold off in order to be able to implement them.

I've been the first one to tell people that voting for some hack candidate through a corrupted system is not going to fix things. At best, it will stall the plans of those who are currently in control. This is still, of course, preferable to giving a "hands off" vote in favour of blatant corruption, which a vote in favour of Clinton essentially means.

It is no different from voting in favour of someone that is not Putin in Russia, as a "fuck you" to the establishment basically. Everybody there clearly understands that the other candidates are going nowhere and that they are plants, but that is not the point. The point is to show the establishment that not everyone is on board with their agenda.

Paper champ got exposed and now his fans are jumping off the bandwagon.

 

[Undying Poster]

LOL


Fucking LOL

Hoo boy, is there any position he can't take every side of?

Not surprising and not noteworthy. Better question is is there any position of his, his fans won't defend?

 

[Undying Poster]

now

<18>

 

[TheGreatA]

Paper champ got exposed and now his fans are jumping off the bandwagon.

I've been saying this for as long as I've been here.

http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/116838853/

 

[Rod1]

I've been saying this for as long as I've been here.

http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/116838853/

#Hespect

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I've been saying this for as long as I've been here.

http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/116838853/

Meh, the last thing people in this country should be playing chicken with is who's gonna lead us.

 

[TheGreatA]

Talking tough on reddit and forums?

Talking tough in beer halls to groups of drunken patrons is what got Hitler into power. We should not discount this type of "tough talk".

I'm merely saying that the nationalist-minded people are not being given a lot of options here, if both candidates are merely flip sides of the same coin. Trump being exposed as a globalist puppet would lead to a potentially terrible conclusion, which is why it is probably in the best interests of the media not to start pursuing this "smoking gun" any further (and why it hasn't been, up until this point).

 

[TheGreatA]

Meh, the last thing people in this country should be playing chicken with is who's gonna lead us.

They're not going to lead a damn thing, I'm sure you've all come to acknowledge this.

Did you seriously think that a buffoon like George W. Bush was making the calls, instead of his cabinet?

He wasn't qualified to coach a kids soccer team.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

They're not going to lead a damn thing, I'm sure you've all come to acknowledge this.

Did you seriously think that a buffoon like George W. Bush was making the calls, instead of his cabinet?

He wasn't qualified to coach a kids soccer team.

There's likely a fair difference between what I suspect, and what's truth.
I suspect it was as you suggest with W.
But the probable truth is that he was the Decider and made his own choices to the extent that Presidents do.
I don't accept that all Presidents are just figureheads for their party or cabinets.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Did you seriously think that a buffoon like George W. Bush was making the calls, instead of his cabinet?

Yes.

 

[TheGreatA]

There's likely a fair difference between what I suspect, and what's truth.
I suspect it was as you suggest with W.
But the probable truth is that he was the Decider and made his own choices to the extent that Presidents do.
I don't accept that all Presidents are just figureheads for their party or cabinets.

Not all. It depends on the character of a President, whether he can dominate his cabinet, or whether his cabinet will dominate him.

I suspect that Trump is too clueless, and Clinton too dependent, for the citizens to elect any kind of an "acting" President this time. They will have to settle for mere representation.

 

[TheGreatA]

Yes.

So you don't think the likes of Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld were having a disproportionate amount of say in comparison to the President himself, on the decisions that were made during the Bush administration?

 

[orangecuse]

Trump is the true Quantum candidate; in a pure state of superposition on every issue. A nationalist for tariffs? Sure, why not. A globalist who wants to unify economies by removing barriers to trade and investment? Why, of course. Pro EU? Indeed, it helps all countries involved. Brexit? Forsooth, countries need to retain their national sovereignty and not allow the globalists to usurp their freedoms.

The more one tries to pin down what this buffoonish charlatan actually believes, the blurrier his convictions actually become. He's one big conman

LOL.

Whoever the observer is will find the most probable outcome that they were looking for.

 

[Joe]

So you don't think the likes of Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld were having a disproportionate amount of say in comparison to the President himself, on the decisions that were made during the Bush administration?

Rumsfeld and Cheney were trying to convince bush to go into Iraq first after 9/11. They ultimately lost out by others like Powell who couldn't believe it. Cheney was crazier than W. George w was a far better politician than trump. Hell at least he was a Governor.