I’m not going to say it was in this case... but there is an admitted history of this being done in other countries. We’ll have to wait and see.
Trump in 2020?
- Thread starter Cock Throppled
- Start date
- Status
There was a time the US would invade some poor country to bolster its Presidents' ratings at home.
President Reagan would just start a war to take the heat off from other issues. Like they really needed to invade Granada?
HW Bush invaded Panama too. Neither invasion was necessary but got the popularity up for them.
Why is it the fashion now to throw wild speculation around as if it has equal weight to facts and evidence, and why do these things gain traction?
I despise the "post truth era" with all my being.
Both parties, which adds up to the Republicrats love having illegal immigrants come into the country. The dems want to use them to shore up their voter base because they know that they have no chance of winning in 2020 without it, and the Reps want them for cheap labour along the borders. Both sides knowing that there is a risk of criminals coming into the country. I think the exact opposite of what you are saying just happened. Didn’t some of the morons on the left just say that they don’t want them in their neighborhood because the people living on the streets in some of the major California cities wouldn’t be safe...what? He has totally trolled the left for their hypocrisy. It’s such a dumb argument that you can’t control your own borders. Name me one country in the world that would allow people to walk across the border without checking their criminal record or whether they are bringing in diseases?
I think you are right, both sides want a civil war, but not for the reasons you are giving. They want to cause division among the people so they don’t put any attention on themselves. Trump is trying to expose the system...that’s why they hate him. If he is as incompetent as you say he is, why has the Deep state pushed so dogmatically to get rid of him, and will continue to even after this phoney Mueller investigation?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html
Many people stepping up to the plate now. Curious to see how many will remain by the time autumn rolls around. I don't think Trump will see a second term, but I never thought Bush would see a second term either. I'm not a fan of Trump, but I don't think it makes a difference who gets the presidency. Countries aren't shaped by political leaders. They haven't been for a long time.
Many people stepping up to the plate now. Curious to see how many will remain by the time autumn rolls around. I don't think Trump will see a second term, but I never thought Bush would see a second term either. I'm not a fan of Trump, but I don't think it makes a difference who gets the presidency. Countries aren't shaped by political leaders. They haven't been for a long time.
Trump will win because his backers are united and will vote in unison.
Other Republicans and Democrats are all over the place. Only chance for Dems is if they unite behind a charismatic leader who doesn't have a bunch of baggage like Hillary did.
Over a hundred million didn't vote last time, that is one and a half times as many votes as either candidate got. I know a few Americans who have just given up on voting. If the Dems got even a few of those out they could win.
Other Republicans and Democrats are all over the place. Only chance for Dems is if they unite behind a charismatic leader who doesn't have a bunch of baggage like Hillary did.
Over a hundred million didn't vote last time, that is one and a half times as many votes as either candidate got. I know a few Americans who have just given up on voting. If the Dems got even a few of those out they could win.
The mid-terms are a 'review' of the current administration and The Republican Party is essentially The Trump Party (and I'm still baffled as to why the bastion of fiscal conservatism 'signed-off' on the 'tax cut' that exponentially increased The Deficit)...so as long as The Democrats don't send-up someone un-electable, read: Hilary, then they'll win The White House by double digits.
I've asked a few diehard Trump supporters why they're so vested in him, and after the usual tropes of 'the economy' and 'anti-establishment', I haven't heard any salient argument to support/defend his behavior. I ask if this is someone that you can be proud to say 'He's our Leader', or would you like your kids to 'look-up to him'? I guess they don't mind being lied to at every turn, or couldn't care less that he lines his pockets at The Country's expense...I just don't 'get-it'
Over the last 12 or 13 US general elections; average voter turnout has been in the 50-60 percent range. I don't think politicians go after that vote, simply because I don't think we've determined why there is such a consistently large percentage of voters that do not vote. So if you're a Democrat, I wouldn't hitch my hopes on the voters that don't vote. Interestingly; Obama's 1st election saw a small spike in voter turnout (I think it was close to 60% turnout); but some would say that was a historic election (first African American with real chance to win). Just a friendly piece of advice, best not to predict elections, a lot of people still have egg on their faces from 2016
you are exactly right in what you say that they want to cause division among the people of the states. It is at an alltime high
but the real problem I fear is they have got exactly what they wished for but I'm not certain they are liking the results
of it. Unless of course they are willing to embrace some sort of form of total chaos. It just seems so relevant givin what
is going on between the Republicrats. Love that name. lol.
What I don't like is how both sides are causing division among the people. They have created confusion, anymosity on both
sides depending again which outlet of news you favour. I favour both and like to make my own mind up about what
is best to decide is going on. "IS THAT POSSIBLE I WONDER?" after all the dust settles is true democracy going
to prevail through the biggest problem of all that they have. THE LIES upon LIES upon LIES encrusted with corruption.
Sickening.
In saying that this is where i relate back to my "nazi" reference as it happended nearly the identical same way.
One party bashing the crap outta the other and finally taking over. For the most petty of things with nonsensical
accusations that make you say.........HUH?!?!
I could be totally wrong but with all the
failings of both parties to come together to set a better example for ALL of the people they are doing the
exact opposite and doing their best to divide the people. Well........history has shown when you use those tactics
not very much positive things come from it and that is the true shame of it all. to me the true shame of greed, intolerance
and the focus of I'm in power seams to be the mainstay down there as of now.
speaking of the Mueller investigation I think it has both sides clammering for stability and focus. Could their be a devils
advocate in the Mueller probe all by itself? I wonder........... strange things are going on in the not so and deep south.
Nothing would surprise me as far as outcomes and it is going to get all the more interesting because of all of this stuff that
is happening.
If you look at it from a recent historical perspective you are correct. There has been very little difference between Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. Obama ect. Nor was there a campaign to impeach any of them before they were even inaugurated like there was with Trump. I keep asking why do you think this is? If what you are saying is true than why the difference with Trump? My feeling is that he is not part of their private club and talks about the wrong things. In the D.C. world the TRUTH works best when it is hidden! You might want to look closely and research what is happening with the Federal Reserve right now. Twice in the United States they have gotten rid of the Central banks. Thomas Jefferson in the early 1800’s and Andrew Jackson in the 1850’s. The cycle of central banks is usually around 40 or 50 years max. than it falls apart unless there is a war to extend it. Any reputable economist knows this. So it will either fall apart from its own weight, or transition with as soft a landing as possible. My guess is that Trump is looking to get out of the fiat paper currency that has no backing, and back it with gold, or crypto currency for a smooth transition. But he needs to keep the economy going long enough to win in 2020. Just to put a historical perspective on this I believe fucking around with the central banks was what got Kennedy killed.
Completely agree, and I will add one more thought that really needs to be considered. The U.S. president makes roughly $2M for a 4 year term including allowances, etc... Campaigning for a run at the presidency takes up a minimum of 2 years of a persons life. The cost to fund that shot at the presidency is somewhere in the neighborhood of $500,000,000 (not a typo) and higher if you go the distance and doesn't guarantee a win. It just makes zero sense for anyone to do this unless... you know where this is going.
Last edited:
Andrew Jackson died in 1845. He did very little in the 1850s.
Thomas Jefferson was a bit of a tinfoil hat type regarding banks.
I stand corrected it was earlier.
So you think the banking system helps people the way it is set up right now?
I believe in the end there will be a lot of good that comes out his presidency. There needs to be a purge in both parties because the people see that there is a huge stench coming from the swamp in both parties.
As for the Mueller probe. The truth will come out that people like Comey, Brennan and Clapper, among others survielled Trumps campaign starting in October 2016 when they thought that there was a possibility he might win as an insurance policy to make sure Hillary wins. The greatest irony about the Russian Collusion story will be that the people who falsely accused Trump were the ones actually colluding.
If the "truth" is well hidden by the DC elite; how did you uncover this well hidden "truth"? And if the main issue with fiat currency is that it is not backed by a hard asset, what is the benefit of backing it with crypto, which is also not backed by a hard asset. Although I am no expert on crypto; Bitcoins and the like are not backed by a hard assets either.
It's more than the fact that U.S. currency has no hard asset backing. U.S. currency is controlled and provided by a non governmental third party i.e. the Federal Reserve. This is perhaps one of the most ridiculous concepts I have ever heard of, period. True there have been several attempts over the years to end the Federal Reserve, none successful. Regardless of what I think of Trump, if he could abolish the Federal Reserve he might possibly be remembered as the greatest U.S. president ever.
Okay; then with the end of the Fed, what does that do for folks? There's situation A (i.e. the US has the Federal Reserve) and you want to move to situation B (i.e. get rid of the Fed), but no one can elaborate what situation B does for the folks in the US? What are the benefits of situation B and are those benefits greater than the benefits under situation A, and if so, explain please.
- Status
