Killary Clinton, The Donald, or Jill Stein: The US Election

[Ca.]

Oh So Charming.....................

FULL: Hear from Hillary Clinton for the first time at Democratic National Convention Jul 26, 2016

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD1IXa_DQ4M
FLIRT ALERT! Bill Clinton talks about meeting Hillary Clinton - Democratic National Convention Jul 26, 2016

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKI82sTijTU

From Billy "self-possessed"

FULL: Madeleine Albright - Democratic National Convention Jul 26, 2016 (Russian Fear Monger NATO lackey)

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SISdsAAvhoM
Clones From the Music and Motion Picture Industrial Complex
Elizabeth Banks, Mandy Moore, Aisha Tyler, Rachel Platten cover - Democratic National Convention

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OULcd5bKpk

Added:
Bill Clinton’s story of romcom relationship with Hillary leaves out a few details
https://www.rt.com/usa/353493-clinton-speech-affairs-silence/

 

[Wu Wei Wu]

Scott Adams (the guy who writes Dilbert) has written a lot about Trump in his blog. Adams, who always struck me as a bit creepy, studies hypnosis and manipulation as a hobby, and says Trump is a master at this (he calls him a wizard). A lot of the things he says that sound like gaffes or random shooting off of his mouth are actually well crafted. He predicted Trump would win this thing last summer.

The video at the top of this thread is a good example of how a good hypnotist/spellbinder lets the listener fill in blanks. When Trump is talking about terrorism or ISIS or something notice how in the video he repeats, "We have a problem, we have a problem, we have to get at the bottom of the problem. We can't solve the problem until we know what's the problem..." Etc. your average American nationalist can fill in the blank with the problem being immigrants or the violent nature or Islam or something. But even someone like me kind find himself nodding thinking that the problem is western imperialism or the U.S. bombing those countries and funding false flag groups.

In fact, I found myself nodding when he opened an attract on Hillary's weakest point, her warmongering. He actually said that the world would be better off if Ghaddafi and Saddam Hussein were still in power, that we've destroyed those countries, let a mess and made everything worse. It's scary that he's the only candidate that's said this.

I'm also a Scott Adams reader and someone who works in fields where professional persuasion is necessary.

It's clear that the trump team has a masterful command of marketing and story telling. All of their actions show a very methodical, organized approach to victory. They don't even pretend to win on substance, they're all method.

Assuming the Clinton's don't fudge the vote, which is expected, Trump will sweep the presidency. He's just got a better, and very colourful team. It's also worth noting that his family has substantial business dealings with Russian oligarchs, the non-Western backed ones.

No telling where things will go. One thing to people: Don't get triggered by Trump. He's not a major threat to anyone. Clinton, on the other hand, is a possessed she-devil.

I'm not American, but I wouldn't vote if I was. Deny the system that legitimacy.

 

[Niall]

Assuming the Clinton's don't fudge the vote, which is expected, Trump will sweep the presidency. He's just got a better, and very colourful team. It's also worth noting that his family has substantial business dealings with Russian oligarchs, the non-Western backed ones.

Wow, I did not know that. Got any links?

 

[NormaRegula]

Scott Adams (the guy who writes Dilbert) has written a lot about Trump in his blog. Adams, who always struck me as a bit creepy, studies hypnosis and manipulation as a hobby, and says Trump is a master at this (he calls him a wizard). A lot of the things he says that sound like gaffes or random shooting off of his mouth are actually well crafted. He predicted Trump would win this thing last summer.

The video at the top of this thread is a good example of how a good hypnotist/spellbinder lets the listener fill in blanks. When Trump is talking about terrorism or ISIS or something notice how in the video he repeats, "We have a problem, we have a problem, we have to get at the bottom of the problem. We can't solve the problem until we know what's the problem..." Etc. your average American nationalist can fill in the blank with the problem being immigrants or the violent nature or Islam or something. But even someone like me kind find himself nodding thinking that the problem is western imperialism or the U.S. bombing those countries and funding false flag groups.

In fact, I found myself nodding when he opened an attract on Hillary's weakest point, her warmongering. He actually said that the world would be better off if Ghaddafi and Saddam Hussein were still in power, that we've destroyed those countries, let a mess and made everything worse. It's scary that he's the only candidate that's said this.

I'm also a Scott Adams reader and someone who works in fields where professional persuasion is necessary.

It's clear that the trump team has a masterful command of marketing and story telling. All of their actions show a very methodical, organized approach to victory. They don't even pretend to win on substance, they're all method.

Assuming the Clinton's don't fudge the vote, which is expected, Trump will sweep the presidency. He's just got a better, and very colourful team. It's also worth noting that his family has substantial business dealings with Russian oligarchs, the non-Western backed ones.

No telling where things will go. One thing to people: Don't get triggered by Trump. He's not a major threat to anyone. Clinton, on the other hand, is a possessed she-devil.

I'm not American, but I wouldn't vote if I was. Deny the system that legitimacy.

I think Trump is definitely a threat. So is Hillary. It's a matter of picking your poison. Personally I refuse to vote anymore on a national or state level as the game is fixed no matter how hopeful or distrustful a voter is of a candidate. In the end the chosen one is a puppet of the PTB. Should they refuse to go along with the program they are offed or marginalized.

On rare occasions, I've voted on local issues that affect me and my family to some extent. Even now I wonder if my vote actually counted.

 

[Neil]

Assuming the Clinton's don't fudge the vote, which is expected, Trump will sweep the presidency. He's just got a better, and very colourful team. It's also worth noting that his family has substantial business dealings with Russian oligarchs, the non-Western backed ones.

Wow, I did not know that. Got any links?

Not sure how much stock I put in the Washington Post, but this article seems to be more or less the basis of it in a nutshell. _https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

Overall, it looks to me like Trump spent a bit of time in Russia schmoozing, and made a couple of small deals, but never really brought home the bacon. My personal thought on it is this is part of the effort to propagandize "those evil Russians" and throw out any and all puerile accusations in a desperate attempt to find something that sticks, especially if it benefits Hillary. Yeah, he had some business prospects and maybe entertained a couple of Russian elites for a night or two, but the thing is trumped up to be more than it actually was by the MSM, like Putin's "endorsement." It would be interesting if Putin and Trump were buddies, but I think it is just the Hillary campaign trying to make her look better by exaggerating Trump's associations with "the enemy," since he is not so rabidly anti-Russian. On Trump's side, this would enhance his image as a "maverick" with the alternative crowd and those who don't agree with Hillary's foreign policy, so maybe a deeper game is being played here as well. Trump's campaign, for the most part denies it.

 

[angelburst29]

Trump made a brief scheduled stop in Scranton, Pennsylvania Wednesday. The Clinton's and Biden's both have close family ties in this same area and I think, an interview Trump gave to a local TV Channel played into that scenario. This is one of his statements:

"I love Pennsylvania," Trump continued. "I love this section. You know, my boys went to the Hill School, and I love this area of Pennsylvania. I've been here many, many times. I went to school in Pennsylvania. I went to Penn (State - PSU); I went to the Wharton School of Finance. I love Pennsylvania, and I hear we're doing great. I hear we're up in the polls. We're winning, and that's good."

He made that message clear to the thousands of people who came to see him.

"You have to go November 8th and you have to vote or we've just all wasted our time."

So, Trump has some strong competition in this sector of the State.

As to - who will be elected President, I think this photo sums up my thoughts?

http://i0.wp.com/www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/13707780_275616636139856_492084063040073001_n-1.jpg

I have been keeping up with the election coverage and I keep getting this sour gut feeling, that everything has been nothing more than "a show and circus" and something is going to happen, to cancel the November 8th elections (11-8)?

When you take into consideration, how the White House and Industrial Complex/Pentagon and NATO have pushed red buttons in Syria, Iraq and now between China and the North and South Koreans and everything else that they have their hands into, the U.S. is itching for a direct confrontation? AND they want it NOW! Just the situation in Ukraine, alone, with NATO Forces only inches away from Russia's Border's, is enough to start a War? Even Putin has stressed to "the Journalist" on how serious this situation is?

Has "anyone" considered - WHO solely benefits, if the United States of America is turned into another Syria
or Iraq or Palestine?

What are your thoughts - that it might be financed with "the largest aid package" granted in History - to a foreign entity - at U.S. taxpayer expense? Would Putin's words - apply here?

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Angelburst29]When you take into consideration, how the White House and Industrial Complex/Pentagon and NATO have pushed red buttons in Syria, Iraq and now between China and the North and South Koreans and everything else that they have their hands into, the U.S. is itching for a direct confrontation? AND they want it NOW! Just the situation in Ukraine, alone, with NATO Forces only inches away from Russia's Border's, is enough to start a War? Even Putin has stressed to "the Journalist" on how serious this situation is?[/quote]

I am hoping that the NATO forces near Russia's border are there to intimidate. To signal Putin, to leave the geopolitical stage and open Russia up to western control. Or else …. (Bluff)

95% this show of force has worked for the PTB. But not with Putin, they just never met an opponent such as him. We all know that Putin will never bow, the Elite don't seem to get that.

Also the NATO forces near Russia's border is surely part of an aggressive policy but is no actually military threat for Russia. NATO would need a hell lot more to gain the upper hand from what I understand.


What I fear is that something totally unexpected will happen. At it's current pace the PTB will lose a significant global dominant position. They have to act somehow to turn he tide. Hard to say what these psychos will do, maybe they will go to war like you said.

Putin is surely wise to remind us what will happen if they do. But is anyone listening?



[quote author= Angelburst29]Has "anyone" considered - WHO solely benefits, if the United States of America is turned into another Syria
or Iraq or Palestine? [/quote]

I don't know, I think they be pretty pissed if the USA turns into a warzone. It means they lost control, the USA is their big enforcer for global control, without a strong USA many others within the Empire will break free. Can't have that happening.


[quote author= Angelburst29]What are your thoughts - that it might be financed with "the largest aid package" granted in History - to a foreign entity - at U.S. taxpayer expense? Would Putin's words - apply here?[/quote]

I think that the West may try to rid of their government debt by simply attempting to chance the global economic rules in the upcoming economic collapse. But for that to happen they need the world to play along. That won't happen, Russia and China are clearly prepared for another set of rules. Safe and secure implementation of the Gold Standard that will serve us all. I have the impression that the Elite have some digital currency (virtual economy) in mind.

 

[Andrian]

Scott Adams (the guy who writes Dilbert) has written a lot about Trump in his blog. Adams, who always struck me as a bit creepy, studies hypnosis and manipulation as a hobby, and says Trump is a master at this (he calls him a wizard). A lot of the things he says that sound like gaffes or random shooting off of his mouth are actually well crafted. He predicted Trump would win this thing last summer.

The video at the top of this thread is a good example of how a good hypnotist/spellbinder lets the listener fill in blanks. When Trump is talking about terrorism or ISIS or something notice how in the video he repeats, "We have a problem, we have a problem, we have to get at the bottom of the problem. We can't solve the problem until we know what's the problem..." Etc. your average American nationalist can fill in the blank with the problem being immigrants or the violent nature or Islam or something. But even someone like me kind find himself nodding thinking that the problem is western imperialism or the U.S. bombing those countries and funding false flag groups.

In fact, I found myself nodding when he opened an attract on Hillary's weakest point, her warmongering. He actually said that the world would be better off if Ghaddafi and Saddam Hussein were still in power, that we've destroyed those countries, let a mess and made everything worse. It's scary that he's the only candidate that's said this.

I'm also a Scott Adams reader and someone who works in fields where professional persuasion is necessary.

It's clear that the trump team has a masterful command of marketing and story telling. All of their actions show a very methodical, organized approach to victory. They don't even pretend to win on substance, they're all method.

Assuming the Clinton's don't fudge the vote, which is expected, Trump will sweep the presidency. He's just got a better, and very colourful team. It's also worth noting that his family has substantial business dealings with Russian oligarchs, the non-Western backed ones.

No telling where things will go. One thing to people: Don't get triggered by Trump. He's not a major threat to anyone. Clinton, on the other hand, is a possessed she-devil.

I'm not American, but I wouldn't vote if I was. Deny the system that legitimacy.

I think Trump is definitely a threat. So is Hillary. It's a matter of picking your poison. Personally I refuse to vote anymore on a national or state level as the game is fixed no matter how hopeful or distrustful a voter is of a candidate. In the end the chosen one is a puppet of the PTB. Should they refuse to go along with the program they are offed or marginalized.

On rare occasions, I've voted on local issues that affect me and my family to some extent. Even now I wonder if my vote actually counted.

I tend to agree with you NormaRegula, the USA political apparatus is rotten to the core, i think there is no hope for change for the better anymore, not even a little one. The saying, Choosing the lesser of the two evils it doesn't apply to the current US elections i'm afraid, both candidates are pretty disturbing to say the least.

But, still, i don't want to contradict myself here, but i will like just to add that the current geopolitical situation is pretty interesting and dynamic, there are a lot of forces involved and at work in this geopolitical chess game (see how ended the coup in Turkey, the Brexit referendum in the UK...) that could bring unexpected changes on the global geopolitical chessboard, what i'm trying to say is, if Trump wins the elections at least he may be open to talks with Russia and all that it may lead to. You know the saying, Don't throw the baby with the bathtub... Though i acknowledge that i'm too optimistic here and it may not imply in this case, but still...

 

[NormaRegula]

I tend to agree with you NormaRegula, the USA political apparatus is rotten to the core, i think there is no hope for change for the better anymore, not even a little one. The saying, Choosing the lesser of the two evils it doesn't apply to the current US elections i'm afraid, both candidates are pretty disturbing to say the least.

But, still, i don't want to contradict myself here, but i will like just to add that the current geopolitical situation is pretty interesting and dynamic, there are a lot of forces involved and at work in this geopolitical chess game (see how ended the coup in Turkey, the Brexit referendum in the UK...) that could bring unexpected changes on the global geopolitical chessboard, what i'm trying to say is, if Trump wins the elections at least he may be open to talks with Russia and all that it may lead to. You know the saying, Don't throw the baby with the bathtub... Though i acknowledge that i'm too optimistic here and it may not imply in this case, but still...

Yeah, I think you're being too optimistic here, Andre. :)

Just remind yourself that most Trump supporters interpret what he says and does by way of wishful thinking. They tend to pick and choose choice bits to cling to, ignoring the warning signs that the guy is a narcissistic jerk among his other more dangerous attributes. The same can be said about Hillary and her supporters.

Interestingly enough, you and Wu Wei Wu are not the first persons I've encountered recently who have attempted to convince themselves via hopeful narratives that Trump might turn into an anti-hero on some level - or at least not be beholden to the PTB - because Hillary is a known political evil. Wu Wei Wu's term "She-Devil" is just one of many names I've called her in the past.

There's very little one can do regarding the USA election's outcome at this point save to watch and wait. We were warned that the world - and especially the USA - would become a terrrible place for a time in the future. It's going to be an interesting ride.

 

[Mal7]

Just remind yourself that most Trump supporters interpret what he says and does by way of wishful thinking. They tend to pick and choose choice bits to cling to, ignoring the warning signs that the guy is a narcissistic jerk among his other more dangerous attributes. The same can be said about Hillary and her supporters.

I think what you are saying is true enough. At the same time though, in relation to the sentence I have bolded above, I think it would be true enough to say of anti-Trump people that:

They tend to pick and choose the worst bits to cling to, ignoring the positive signs that the guy might actually be significantly better than Hillary Clinton (who is the only alternative with a good chance of becoming president, whatever people might think of Sanders or third party candidates.)

I just watched Trump's recent press conference in Florida, where he answered many questions from the press for 3/4 of an hour. It confirms my own personal opinion that a Trump presidency would be better than a Clinton one, and that the differences are significant enough that they are worth voting on. People say "If there were a genuinely good candidate, they would be either manipulated or killed by the PTB". Okay fine, ignore national politics, bunker down, create a local community. The bunkering down and creating a local community stuff is fine, but if Hillary is elected President and the US/NATO ends up in a nuclear war with Russia, are you then going to say "oh well, there was no point in voting, as any real alternative to Hillary would just have been assassinated"? Even if an alternative faces a high chance of being assassinated or at least co-opted, I think it is still worth being optimistic and engaging in the political process. Yes there is also electoral fraud such as rigged electronic voting machines. Some of this stuff will go on, but if a candidate does get a decisive lead in real votes, it will be harder to throw the election the other way with fake votes.

Trump's press conference in Doral, Florida:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGHWou0h1kk "Donald Trump Delivers Scathing Response To Hillary Clinton, DNC at Press Conference 7/27/16" - Right Side Broadcasting - 27 July 2016.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Mal7]They tend to pick and choose the worst bits to cling to, ignoring the positive signs that the guy might actually be significantly better than Hillary Clinton.[/quote]

That's the overall spell all machines fall under, not just exclusively for anti-Trump people. Machines always selectivity ignore and choose what favors their ignorance.


[quote author= Mal7]I just watched Trump's recent press conference in Florida, where he answered many questions from the press for 3/4 of an hour. It confirms my own personal opinion that a Trump presidency would be better than a Clinton one
[/quote]

How come, both will never be in charge. They follow orders. And if they intent to do so some good they die. Simply as that. There is no hope under this current system.

Besides, this whole election is like The Joker vs Hannibal Lecter. And it will remain like that forever until the populaces get's together in huge masses and work something out.


I don't get how people listen to those clowns year after year and still vote. They are not trustworthy. I remember that Obama was saying all lot of the right things during his campaign.

No more interventions (Did more interventions than Bush)

Label GMO (GMO monopoly only got stronger)

No more removing of rights or spy on the population (Police State grew vastly more in power)

Closing of torture camp Guantanamo Bay (Guantanamo Bay still exists)

etc...


But you're right, maybe Trump is somewhat trustworthy. Because I am actually afraid that he will fulfill his promise of handling the so called Muslim problem. That alone should scare you for disliking the guy to the core.


If you go vote you only encourage the system that enslaves you.

 

[Ca.]

Got a Hoodie homey

Was Fred Trump (Donald’s Father) in the Ku Klux Klan?
_http://spitfirelist.com/news/was-fred-trump-donalds-father-in-the-ku-klux-klan/
July 28, 2016
COMMENT: From Dave Emory

Earlier this year, a controversy emerged when old newspaper articles about arrests at a 1927 Klan rally in Queens (New York City) mentioned a “Fred Trump” as among the “berobed marchers” arrested at the event.
Although the identification of Trump’s father as one of the Klan participants has not been definitively established, The Donald lied when confronted with the address of the arrested Fred Trump.

” . . . . asked if his father had lived at 175-24 Devonshire Road—the address listed for the Fred Trump arrested at the 1927 Klan rally—Donald dismissed the claim as “totally false.”
“We lived on Wareham,” he told Horowitz. “The Devonshire—I know there is a road ‘Devonshire,’ but I don’t think my father ever lived on Devonshire.” Trump went on to deny everything else in the Times’ account of the 1927 rally: “It shouldn’t be written because it never happened, number one. And number two, there was nobody charged.”

Full article @ the Link:

What a hot mess.......................LOL

Why Was Trump's Dad Arrested In KKK Brawl?
Published on Sep 10, 2015
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ircSEo2gUrQ

David Duke on Donald Trump!
Published on Dec 18, 2015
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrKC4syl9d4

 

[Mal7]

Got a Hoodie homey

Was Fred Trump (Donald’s Father) in the Ku Klux Klan?

He may have been. To put this in a historical context though, the KKK and white supremacist ideologies were practically part of American mainstream culture at this time, and not the socially unacceptable fringe group they are regarded as today.

In the early twentieth century, the story of the post-Civil War Klan was carried in the history books, and, most famously, in Thomas Dixon's 1905 romanticized racist novel The Clansman, on which D.W. Griffith based his epic 1915 motion picture, "The Birth of a Nation." Inspired by the film, "Colonel" William J. Simmons of Atlanta, a former Methodist minister and salesman, initiated a small group of Klansmen in front of a blazing cross on top of nearby Stone Mountain.

Simmons' reborn Klan would become the great fraternal lodge of the 1920s and the political engine of native-born, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, American nationalism. But it had only local success until after World War I, when Simmons hired a dynamic PR man, Edward Young Clarke, who saw the Klan's possibilities. Clarke and his salesmen would keep most of the $10 dollar initiation fee, so he hired hundreds of salesmen, mostly Protestant ministers, and sent them out across the country to sell the Klan. Soon the Klan was no longer narrowly Southern; law and order, prohibition and anti-Catholicism were added to its white supremacist beliefs, and it enrolled millions of Klansmen and Klanswomen. The aura of violence was part of the initial appeal — when you put on your robes, you were a warrior. In the early years there were hundreds of kidnappings and beatings in the South and Southwest, and outbreaks and episodes elsewhere. Often the victims of the Klan were not blacks, Catholics, Jews or new immigrants, but fellow white native-born Protestants who offended the Klan in some way.

Between four million and seven million men and women belonged to the Klan in this era. It was active in every state. It found support in many northern and western cities and was particularly politically powerful in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Colorado, and Oregon, as well as the South. The Klan helped elect state and local officials and at least 20 governors and U.S. senators — from Maine to California. In Oregon, a Klan-dominated legislature passed an anti-Catholic school law, later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925), that required public school attendance. The Klan was deeply involved in politics, but it did not form its own political party. It was generally Democratic in the South and Republican in the North. It had no national platform. The Klan was a major issue at the 1924 Democratic Convention and the national election; in the 1928 presidential election, when New York Catholic Al Smith was the Democratic candidate, it helped the Republicans win.

- https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2010/essay-ku-klux-klan

There are also a few ways of linking the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton to the KKK. I find it more interesting to concentrate on the present issues and the coming future.

John Halle and Noam Chomsky have co-authored a short article recommending that people should vote for Hillary Clinton as the lesser of two evils:

http://johnhalle.com/outragesandinterludes/?p=1065 "Halle/Chomsky: An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)"

RT has had a good-humoured discussion about Trump in relation to Russia, Putin, NATO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_xw5UYC01Q "CrossTalk on Trump: Siberian Candidate?" RT 27 July 2016

 

[Cosmos]

Got a Hoodie homey

Was Fred Trump (Donald’s Father) in the Ku Klux Klan?

He may have been. To put this in a historical context though, the KKK and white supremacist ideologies were practically part of American mainstream culture at this time, and not the socially unacceptable fringe group they are regarded as today.
[...]

So what exactly are you saying here? That it is not right or unfair to tread KKK as "socially unacceptable fringe group" today, because they were not so bad after all back then and had some good ideas and actions?

Or do I misunderstand something here? Can you clarify?

 

[NormaRegula]

Got a Hoodie homey

Was Fred Trump (Donald’s Father) in the Ku Klux Klan?

He may have been. To put this in a historical context though, the KKK and white supremacist ideologies were practically part of American mainstream culture at this time, and not the socially unacceptable fringe group they are regarded as today.
[...]

So what exactly are you saying here? That it is not right or unfair to tread KKK as "socially unacceptable fringe group" today, because they were not so bad after all back then and had some good ideas and actions?

Or do I misunderstand something here? Can you clarify?

Yes, please clarify.

Despite historical context, the KKK was an evil organization founded on ignorance and fear. Even back then, there were people who knew right from wrong and the specific situation that made it so.

Case in point: My husband's family on his mother's side was from the South. During the period between 1900 and 1930, my husband's great-great grandfather was repeatedly asked to join the KKK. He refused as he thought it was not a Christian organization and believed all persons were equal before god. Being a church deacon, successful businessman with "good" family going back generations in the county, he was not ostracized for his stand. He treated all peoples with respect...at least the ones who deserved respect. According to family lore, he convinced some KKK members to leave an African-American man accused of stealing alone. Turned out he was right, the accused did not steal a pig from a farmer. The animal's carcass was found dead from eating something poisonous a week later in a ravine.

[quote author= Mal7]They tend to pick and choose the worst bits to cling to, ignoring the positive signs that the guy might actually be significantly better than Hillary Clinton.

That's the overall spell all machines fall under, not just exclusively for anti-Trump people. Machines always selectivity ignore and choose what favors their ignorance.


[quote author= Mal7]I just watched Trump's recent press conference in Florida, where he answered many questions from the press for 3/4 of an hour. It confirms my own personal opinion that a Trump presidency would be better than a Clinton one
[/quote]

How come, both will never be in charge? They follow orders. And if they intent to do so some good they die. Simply as that. There is no hope under this current system.

Besides, this whole election is like The Joker vs Hannibal Lecter. And it will remain like that forever until the populaces get's together in huge masses and work something out.


I don't get how people listen to those clowns year after year and still vote. They are not trustworthy. I remember that Obama was saying all lot of the right things during his campaign.

No more interventions (Did more interventions than Bush)

Label GMO (GMO monopoly only got stronger)

No more removing of rights or spy on the population (Police State grew vastly more in power)

Closing of torture camp Guantanamo Bay (Guantanamo Bay still exists)

etc...


But you're right, maybe Trump is somewhat trustworthy. Because I am actually afraid that he will fulfill his promise of handling the so called Muslim problem. That alone should scare you for disliking the guy to the core.


If you go vote you only encourage the system that enslaves you.
[/quote]

I couldn't have said it better, Bjorn.