NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 3

Remove this Banner Ad

We need to break this devoutness to 'the narrative'.

The narrative should come from discussions.
Discussions shouldn't come from the narrative.


The most recent example of narrative controlling discussion, is pretending it's an issue of semantics in how the President-elects is discussing gaining control over the Panama Canal.


Two things about this bullshit rhetoric.
Firstly.
It's NOT about the semantics of if he did or didn't clearly rule it out. If it's more that he was 'just responding to the economics sactions' blah blah.

The issue is that it's being asked, based on his statements. It's being asked because THE PRESIDENT ELECT HAS IMPLIED MILITARY ACTION.

Stop blaming 'the left', or 'the media' for the US President Elect not being clear on if he intends on taking military action on something.

The problem is, the idea of the President-elect even posing the idea, of using military force as a threat against Panama... That's the ****ing issue...
That without him stating he won't, we aren't sure...


Secondly.
It's the ****ING PANAMA CANAL!!!
What economic restrictions do you think the US can apply to the Panama, that won't pale in significance to the economic impact on the US, if no US trade is allowed through the Panama Canal?
The obvious result being that the only coercion, in reality, would be military.
 
And now as an overall issue, that includes this current narrative.
STOP ****ING LYING ABOUT YOUR POSITIONS!

He didn't mean what he said.​
He didn't say what he means.​


It's always the same. You argue that Trump WILL NOT do A. Because of the optics.
You support A, you agree with A, you wish A was already happening.
Stop arguing that something you want or support won't happen. Argue why you think it should!

You get sucked into the narrative and scream black and blue that A will never happen.
It's almost always the same playbook.

Trump will never do A.​
Any suggestion that Trump will do A is just 'fake news', 'MSM', Globalism' whatever.​
Then Trump does A.​
Instantly you're now pointing out that 'of course Trump did A'.​
Trump needed to do A.​
You love that Trump did A, because of how badly it triggered all the inner-city-latte-lefy-soy-cuck-woke-dei-sjw-blm democrats!​

Best and most obvious example I can think of at the moment, is that Trump was not going to accept the 2020 election results if he lost. That Trump would deny the election results if he lost.

Leading up to the 2020 election it was all about the 'fake news MSN Woke Mafia' etc was just trying to attack Trump. That it wasn't true. That of course Trump would accept the election results (if fair). Trump would never attempt to stop the certification of the election results, that's something only the globalist establishment Hillary would do.
The Dems and Hillary are the only people evil enough to do that. Stop accusing Trump for for the Dems do!!!
Of course Trump would ensure the peaceful transfer of power and accept the results. It's his integrity and love for the US and the Constitution, which is why we support him!
Trump would never deny the election results.

Then Trump lost the 2020 election and denied the results. Trump does A.​

Instantly it's all about 'of course he denied the election results', 'of course he never accepted the 2020 election results', 'of course he tried to prevent the certification of the election. He had to. He needed to.
Of course he did it, it's what all politicians do. The Dems have done it for decades, of course Trump was going to do it. In fact, I'd be angry with him if he didn't!
Also, it's so awesome in how badly it triggers all the inner-city-latte-lefy-soy-cuck-woke-dei-sjw-blm democrats!
 
CM86 said:
And now as an overall issue, that includes this current narrative.
STOP ****ING LYING ABOUT YOUR POSITIONS!

He didn't mean what he said.​
He didn't say what he means.​


It's always the same. You argue that Trump WILL NOT do A. Because of the optics.
You support A, you agree with A, you wish A was already happening.
Stop arguing that something you want or support won't happen. Argue why you think it should!

You get sucked into the narrative and scream black and blue that A will never happen.
It's almost always the same playbook.

Trump will never do A.​
Any suggestion that Trump will do A is just 'fake news', 'MSM', Globalism' whatever.​
Then Trump does A.​
Instantly you're now pointing out that 'of course Trump did A'.​
Trump needed to do A.​
You love that Trump did A, because of how badly it triggered all the inner-city-latte-lefy-soy-cuck-woke-dei-sjw-blm democrats!​

Best and most obvious example I can think of at the moment, is that Trump was not going to accept the 2020 election results if he lost. That Trump would deny the election results if he lost.

Leading up to the 2020 election it was all about the 'fake news MSN Woke Mafia' etc was just trying to attack Trump. That it wasn't true. That of course Trump would accept the election results (if fair). Trump would never attempt to stop the certification of the election results, that's something only the globalist establishment Hillary would do.
The Dems and Hillary are the only people evil enough to do that. Stop accusing Trump for for the Dems do!!!
Of course Trump would ensure the peaceful transfer of power and accept the results. It's his integrity and love for the US and the Constitution, which is why we support him!
Trump would never deny the election results.

Then Trump lost the 2020 election and denied the results. Trump does A.​

Instantly it's all about 'of course he denied the election results', 'of course he never accepted the 2020 election results', 'of course he tried to prevent the certification of the election. He had to. He needed to.
Of course he did it, it's what all politicians do. The Dems have done it for decades, of course Trump was going to do it. In fact, I'd be angry with him if he didn't!
Also, it's so awesome in how badly it triggers all the inner-city-latte-lefy-soy-cuck-woke-dei-sjw-blm democrats!
Click to expand...
Umm we are different humans. We have different oponions

I think you are judging me, EasternTigers and co as one giant group think. Me and EasternTigers disagree on many aspects. Its not a changing of opinions. We are just two guys who believes differently.

He for example likes Musk and I think he is a piece of crap. This isnt a changed narrative. Its two people who believe differently. I get its hard to get who believes what though so respect why you believe that aspect however but just be a bit more aware that not all of us are coming with the same opinion and thought processes

In regards to the believe what he said and believe what he doesnt etc from my perspective I think its pretty clear. Do I believe he will follow through with stated polciies ? Yes, Do I believe when the media ask a loaded question and miscontrue what it means that he will follow through with that 1 line in a press conference? No. Stated policies and singular remarks at a press conference are simply not the same thing

Its important to follow the path of policies and not empty words at press conferences I feel. Press conferences mean nothing. Policies and decisions are what matter. You can see his polciies and decisions in his videos he is releasing where he is categorically stating what his actions will be. Thats the thing to focus on. His answering of random if and or statements just dont matter as much as that
 

Log in to remove this ad.

GoEaglesGoSGIO said:
Umm we are different humans. We have different oponions

I think you are judging me, EasternTigers and co as one giant group think. Me and EasternTigers disagree on many aspects. Its not a changing of opinions. We are just two guys who believes differently.

He for example likes Musk and I think he is a piece of crap. This isnt a changed narrative. Its two people who believe differently. I get its hard to get who believes what though so respect why you believe that aspect however but just be a bit more aware that not all of us are coming with the same opinion and thought processes
Click to expand...
I know you are all different, and that you have different opinions to each other, and you to them.

I believe you're almost entirely genuine with your initial thoughts and how you initially put them across.
I like you.
You're not my enemy.
I've got more kinship with you than I do with most 'progressives' these days.

I even pointed out earlier in this thread how you approach some things from the opposite direction to other posters on your 'side'.
As in, you and your 'side' will mock a statement as being absurd. But your reasoning for viewing the statement as 'absurd' is for completely opposite reasons.

As in you both reach the same outcome, but from opposite directions.
 
CM86 said:
I know you are all different, and that you have different opinions to each other, and you to them.

I believe you're almost entirely genuine with your initial thoughts and how you initially put them across.
I like you.
You're not my enemy.
I've got more kinship with you than I do with most 'progressives' these days.

I even pointed out earlier in this thread how you approach some things from the opposite direction to other posters on your 'side'.
As in, you and your 'side' will mock a statement as being absurd. But your reasoning for viewing the statement as 'absurd' is for completely opposite reasons.

As in you both reach the same outcome, but from opposite directions.
Click to expand...
Its basically why Trump won in a way. He approached people with different life views who believe differently and bundled them into one group alot better then Harris did.

I stand by the belief that the only reason he won the election is because he reached out to Hispanic voters better then Harris. If Harris put work into that she could have easily won
 
HitTheNailOnTheHead said:


Forget the clickbait title. I think the start of this video illustrates why he won.
Click to expand...

Did LOL @ Brian Cohen saying the Republican guy refused to shake Kamala Harris hand. He has a cane in 1 hand and the bible in the other. Not sure what other body part Brian wanted him to use to shake her hand with
 
CM86 said:
How do I do the same thing, from a 'left' or 'progressive' position?
Is it possible to do, with honesty and integrity?
Can it be done without powerful and influential support?


What can I do to approach people like you and ET, and make my progressive position an outcome you could support?
Click to expand...
Probably cant? Its a vice versa scenario.

One aspect though is to argue with actions, not words and feelings though. The vibe, he said this and she said this... it means NOTHING to me. What is the physical action? Has Trump stationed troops in Panaama?No. Did he poorly articulate his words when asking a loaded question with that intent in mind? Yes

As opposed to arguing his words will result in troops stationed in Panama like its some fait accompli, just understand that words are not something someone like me is going to hold to some grand standard. Its actions and results. You all seem to want to quote news articles as some form of evidence platform and the right just has no interest in it. We have zero faith, zero trust in this environment so its not all that helpful. YOU however have done the best job in this thread in not going down that path unlike bourbons who searches for Londom Tribune to make a point about something.

In the end a focus on grabbing a statement to create some definition of a result isnt going to help your position. What will is this action created this result. I think the right self reflects that way better then the left who seem to want to focus on oponion and not action.

Trump has created 31,000 lies or some crap is some form of grand issue as opposed to say the move to build a wall which wasnt completed (which is a issue). Thars the kind of thing that matters

I guess to summarise, tell me what he did, not what he said. We argue on that level
 
One giant issue also is the focus on particular actions which hold no electorate impact

  • Did the J6 issue have a human toll on the US community or was it a isolated incident? Isolated
  • Should Donald Trump take responsibility for other peoples crimes cos he mentioned a few words? Nope. Grown men should be responsible for themselves at all times. Its why we dont arrest bosses cos someone they worked for completed a crime etc
  • Did Donald Trumps legal issues with Stormy Daniels and loans impact his ability to govern the country and did that have a damaging impact to US and the world? Nope

You got 3 things that are focused on that have no long term impact and in some cases NO impact on society in anyway. The belief that these court cases mean he is a bad president is fundamentally without basis. Arguing with it as a point just cheapens the argument. If thats all you have, then you dont have much

"You elected a criminal" just isnt a argument because its not relevant to his role and duties. Ironically the one thing that is relevant is taking classified documents.... which everyone has been doing so because of that it seems to be excluded as a core argument and sidelined. It doesnt make any sense. That issue though is clearly more systemic then person based. Gotta fix it at that level.

To sum up, stop focusing on isolated issues that have no social impact. He is a president, not a role model pop star so lets focus on that
 
GoEaglesGoSGIO said:
Probably cant? Its a vice versa scenario.

One aspect though is to argue with actions, not words and feelings though. The vibe, he said this and she said this... it means NOTHING to me. What is the physical action? Has Trump stationed troops in Panaama?No. Did he poorly articulate his words when asking a loaded question with that intent in mind? Yes

As opposed to arguing his words will result in troops stationed in Panama like its some fait accompli, just understand that words are not something someone like me is going to hold to some grand standard. Its actions and results. You all seem to want to quote news articles as some form of evidence platform and the right just has no interest in it. We have zero faith, zero trust in this environment so its not all that helpful. YOU however have done the best job in this thread in not going down that path unlike bourbons who searches for Londom Tribune to make a point about something.

In the end a focus on grabbing a statement to create some definition of it isnt going to help your position. What will is this action created this result. I think the right self reflects that way better then the left who seem to want to focus on oponion and not action.

Trump has created 31,000 lies or some crap is some form of grand issue as opposed to say the move to build a wall which wasnt completed (which is a issue). Thars the kind of thing that matters

I guess to summarise, tell me what he did, not what he said. We argue on that level
Click to expand...
I appreciate the reply, and the effort you put in to help me understand.


I deleted my question as I realised it isn't about the approach, it's my position that matters.


I understand and can agree with you when you say you should judge someone on their actions, not their words.
That we should talk about something once it's happened, not speculate on if it might happen.

But my frustrations with that come from how it's applied.

Harris has never been the US President.
Trump Has.

People will argue as to why Harris could not be allowed to become the next US President, based on her time as VP, on her words, etc etc.
They condemn Harris on what she said, not on what she did... As it hasn't happened yet.
So with Harris, the "what they do not what they say" is replaced with "What they might do based on previous actions and statements, regardless of what they say".

Trump HAS been the US President.
And the "What they do not what they say" is replaced with "Yes he attempted that, but didn't succeed so it doesn't count. I believe what he says when I like it, and I know it's just a joke when I don't like it".


As in. You cannot take the approach that until something HAS HAPPENED, that it is just fake news.
While also understanding that you can make assessments, assumptions, educated guesses or make implications based on your understanding of things.

Like your replies with Kurve below.
You attribute incorrect information to someone, based on something that HAS NOT happened, but you expect to happen.

False - That Kurve wanted Harris to win.
False - That Kurve must enjoy wars, because she wants Harris to win.
False - That wars would start because of Harris.
False - That there were no new wars under Trump.

1736387140401.png

So while I can understand and agree with a person holing the position of "tell me what he did, not what he said"... It's the selective application to excuse maintaining pre-existing positions, that I take issue with.


You cannot say you support Trump, because he will end the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If it's not something he has done yet.
You cannot say you oppose Trump, because he will engage in military action to take control of the Panama Canal. If it's not something he has done yet.
 
CM86 said:
I appreciate the reply, and the effort you put in to help me understand.


I deleted my question as I realised it isn't about the approach, it's my position that matters.


I understand and can agree with you when you say you should judge someone on their actions, not their words.
That we should talk about something once it's happened, not speculate on if it might happen.

But my frustrations with that come from how it's applied.

Harris has never been the US President.
Trump Has.

People will argue as to why Harris could not be allowed to become the next US President, based on her time as VP, on her words, etc etc.
They condemn Harris on what she said, not on what she did... As it hasn't happened yet.
So with Harris, the "what they do not what they say" is replaced with "What they might do based on previous actions and statements, regardless of what they say".

Trump HAS been the US President.
And the "What they do not what they say" is replaced with "Yes he attempted that, but didn't succeed so it doesn't count. I believe what he says when I like it, and I know it's just a joke when I don't like it".


As in. You cannot take the approach that until something HAS HAPPENED, that it is just fake news.
While also understanding that you can make assessments, assumptions, educated guesses or make implications based on your understanding of things.

Like your replies with Kurve below.
You attribute incorrect information to someone, based on something that HAS NOT happened, but you expect to happen.

False - That Kurve wanted Harris to win.
False - That Kurve must enjoy wars, because she wants Harris to win.
False - That wars would start because of Harris.
False - That there were no new wars under Trump.

View attachment 2200239

So while I can understand and agree with a person holing the position of "tell me what he did, not what he said"... It's the selective application to excuse maintaining pre-existing positions, that I take issue with.


You cannot say you support Trump, because he will end the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If it's not something he has done yet.
You cannot say you oppose Trump, because he will engage in military action to take control of the Panama Canal. If it's not something he has done yet.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood me completely on the falses

False - That Kurve wanted Harris to win. - I was wrong on this and gave her kudos for this

False - That Kurve must enjoy wars, because she wants Harris to win. - This was directed at bourbons specifically. What I said is backed by evidence

False - That wars would start because of Harris. - I never said this. I said wars started when Biden was president. I couldnt see any new wars starting under Harris and wasnt really my thought pattern. My thoughts are to do with wars ending. I thought with Harris Russia/Ukraine continues.

False - That there were no new wars under Trump. - Just disagree on this completely. What wars did US actively engage in under Trump? All they did was help other countries fight terrorism. Based on UN reports in 2016-2020 US supported 2 wars. Phillipines vs ISIS and Iraq/Syria/Kurds vs ISIS. I 100% disagree on the fights against ISIS being a war. Its 100% a terrorist attack. ISIS is not a political entity in any way. Taliban is however and always has been. Its no different to the situation in Haiti. Haiti situation isnt a war. its protection from terroroism. The Haitian gangs are not political entities to wage war against

Kamala Harris was vice president. She held responsibility from actions as she was a part of them. In some case she was the primary decision maker over Biden (migrants) so that is her responsibility.

Trump has performed actions already. He is negotiationg peace deal between Russia/Ukraine which others were not. He has taken actions against net-zero already which is why US banks have backtracked on lending rules. The END result not occuring is 1 thing. The actions to begin the process is another. Actions have began which is a good start and more then we had 8 weeks ago
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GoEaglesGoSGIO said:
False - That Kurve must enjoy wars, because she wants Harris to win. - This was directed at bourbons specifically. What I said is backed by evidence
Click to expand...
This is my point.

Name a single war that Harris has started, while being the US President?
You can't, because she has never been the US President.

So you can't attribute any negatives to people supporting Harris as POTUS, as she has NEVER done ANYTHING as POTUS.


You are pointing out in your post, that you can support or oppose a person based on previous actions and their words.


You CAN oppose or support a person in the believe that an outcome WILL occur, based on their previous actions and their words.

You DO NOT need to wait UNTIL something has happened, before you can discuss the potentials of it, and why you support or oppose it.
 
CM86 said:
This is my point.

Name a single war that Harris has started, while being the US President?
You can't, because she has never been the US President.

So you can't attribute any negatives to people supporting Harris as POTUS, as she has NEVER done ANYTHING as POTUS.


You are pointing out in your post, that you can support or oppose a person based on previous actions and their words.
You can oppose or support a person in the believe that an outcome WILL occur, based on their previous actions and their words.

You DO NOT need to wait UNTIL something has happened, before you can discuss the potentials of it, and why you support or oppose it.
Click to expand...
I said bourbons wants wars to continue because he made a bet that he wins based on the war continuing, Thats a fair cliam since it has happened

Im also not sure Kamala has no responsibility for Ukraine funding given she was voting to support it in the Senate ie. this is a action to support it.
 
GoEaglesGoSGIO said:
You misunderstood me completely on the falses

False - That Kurve wanted Harris to win. - I was wrong on this and gave her kudos for this

False - That Kurve must enjoy wars, because she wants Harris to win. - This was directed at bourbons specifically. What I said is backed by evidence

False - That wars would start because of Harris. - I never said this. I said wars started when Biden was president. I couldnt see any new wars starting under Harris and wasnt really my thought pattern. My thoughts are to do with wars ending. I thought with Harris Russia/Ukraine continues.

False - That there were no new wars under Trump. - Just disagree on this completely. What wars did US actively engage in under Trump? All they did was help other countries fight terrorism. Based on UN reports in 2016-2020 US supported 2 wars. Phillipines vs ISIS and Iraq/Syria/Kurds vs ISIS. I 100% disagree on the fights against ISIS being a war. Its 100% a terrorist attack. ISIS is not a political entity in any way. Taliban is however and always has been. Its no different to the situation in Haiti. Haiti situation isnt a war. its protection from terroroism. The Haitian gangs are not political entities to wage war against

Kamala Harris was vice president. She held responsibility from actions as she was a part of them. In some case she was the primary decision maker over Biden (migrants) so that is her responsibility.

Trump has performed actions already. He is negotiationg peace deal between Russia/Ukraine which others were not. He has taken actions against net-zero already which is why US banks have backtracked on lending rules. The END result not occuring is 1 thing. The actions to begin the process is another. Actions have began which is a good start and more then we had 8 weeks ago
Click to expand...

So supporting Trump means you support defrauding of charities and grabbing womens private parts without their consent?
 
Ghost Patrol said:
So supporting Trump means you support defrauding of charities?
Click to expand...
What impact does this have on the world/the greater US community? Next you will be saying he promotes obesity cos he eats McDonalds

Its why so much of the Hunter Biden stuff was stupid. Couldnt give a shit he did coke etc. Did Biden receive money from foreign governments because he was a politician is all that mattered. ie. fraud based on his political power.
 
GoEaglesGoSGIO said:
I said bourbons wants wars to continue because he made a bet that he wins based on the war continuing, Thats a fair cliam since it has happened
Click to expand...
No, that's not a fair claim.

You can make a bet on an outcome, based on your knowledge and understanding of the situation, without supporting or agreeing with that outcome.

Wanting to win a bet is not the same as wanting the outcome of the bet to eventuate.

You can bet on your AFL team losing, based on your understandings of the most likely outcome.
It doesn't mean you want them to lose.
GoEaglesGoSGIO said:
Im also not sure Kamala has no responsibility for Ukraine funding given she was voting to support it in the Senate ie. this is a action to support it.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY!
I'm not saying you're wrong to make your assumptions.

I'm pointing out that you're wrong to arguing people can't make assumptions on something until it's happened.

Voting to support something in the senate... is what you're saying you consider as high enough action to contribute to saying someone started or will start wars?




I can understand your position.
Do you see what I'm trying to say?


I mean, even in your previous post you've gone from 'no new wars', to yes there were new wars but here are all the justifications.
So Harris voting to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion, is evidence of her starting new wars if she were to have become the POTUS.
But new wars under Trump don't count because of reasons a - z.


Do you see the different standards you set for people you support vs people you oppose?
 
GoEaglesGoSGIO said:
What impact does this have on the world/the greater US community? Next you will be saying he promotes obesity cos he eats McDonalds

Its why so much of the Hunter Biden stuff was stupid. Couldnt give a shit he did coke etc. Did Biden receive money from foreign governments because he was a politician is all that mattered. ie. fraud based on his political power.
Click to expand...

If you turn a blind eye to Trump defrauding charities, then one could assume you support Trump defrauding other countries, including Australia.
 
Kurve said:
I watched that earlier today, it's a sensible position to take. The people have voted like it or not and the parties need to work together.
Click to expand...
It's a nice sentiment, but the parties do work together on bipartisan bills only to have a Trump-Elon coalition block it.
The funding Bill more recently, and the bipartisan border Bill last year that Trump ordered torpedoed because he wanted a vote winner rather than a solution.

The Dems have at least committed to an orderly transfer of government, which basically every US government bar one has actually done.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 3

Similar threads

HitTheNailOnTheHead
Conspiracy Theory You have more chance of winning US lotto than drowning and yet the Obama and the Clinton chefs have both apparently drowned. What is going on?
Replies
7
Views
331
Ghost Patrol
Ghost Patrol

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top