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

[Ca.]

I think Trump just "speaks to much and openly", in a childish, compulsive and narcissistic fashion, which simply exposes way to much for the PTB.

I somehow think that the PTB prefer Killary just because of that fact. Then again, maybe the wishfull thinking has reached such proportions there, that they actually think they could handle somebody like Trump as the Nr. 1 spokesperson for the US, even though somebody like that is likely to "reveal the man behind the curtain" inadvertently, with his improvident childish actions and statements.

I think Trump will make it a lot easier for the sane people in the world to see and expose the psychopathic US system, not because he is good, but because he is way to impulsive and childish for such a position. Killary is just a pure evil snake and trump a narcissistic child that speaks to much.

I think it is a big sign of the times that the US has reached a point where there is such a "choice" for president.

It would appear that Tim Kaine is also cast from same template of pathological servitude to the beast system.

From the archive: Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, offers his views on military intervention (Chemical Weapons)
Published on Jul 23, 2016
IISS

http://<iframe width="560" height="...xc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In a candid address to the IISS Manama Dialogue in 2013, Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, identified four key elements that must be addressed if policymakers are to convince a sceptical public of the need for military engagement. The speech offers a fascinating insight into his personal views on military intervention, and how he would seek to win over his public if elected to office.

TRUMP TOWERS ASSASSINATION PLOT – MEDIA COVER UP!
_https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/trump-towers-assassination-plot-media-cover-up/
August 5, 2016 Dianne Marshall

Larry Nichols, a former Clinton insider, speaks up about the gunman at Trump Tower and the facts that America must hear! No one knows for sure if the target was Trump or a Trump family member. The fact is – the media covered up the real story and replaced it with a phony news report. Please watch the video.

ABC News gave a false report (not surprised). They did not report that the armed gunman was actually Barry Bush, a supposedly deceased FBI agent that was reported dead in April of 2007. Instead they reported the gun man to be Anthony Shark, a retired NYPD cop who worked at a Jewelry store across the street from Trump Towers. They stated he was legally carrying a gun for his security guard job.He said he was drunk and wandered into the Trump Towers and got confused when he tried to push pass the wall of secret service agents. He had no intention of harming anyone. A judge released him and allowed him to keep his gun for his job which he supposedly had a concealed carry permit for. The fake article stated that the Judge blamed Trump for almost ruining another person’s life.

The real fact is -the gunman was Barry Bush and he was taken into custody by the secret service and had an unstamped glock with a silencer and no serial number on it. That means the gun had to come from the manufacturer and he had to have help in getting it.

Barry Bush (photo above) was reported dead with a confusing and lengthy explanation in 2007 which can be read here. Barry Bush FBI Killed He did not die, and has been arrested. The media is silent on this story.
Nichols Live: Former Clinton Insider TALKS ON GUNMAN AT TRUMP TOWER! (August 5th, 2016)
_https://youtu.be/Yrhd3Rm7k4g

The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial
Rank: Special Agent
Panel: 28-W: 26
Department: Federal Bureau of Investigations
End of Watch: April 5, 2007
Cause: Gunfire
Age: 52
Years of Service: 27

Description: Special Agent Bush was shot and killed by friendly fire as he and fellow agents attempted to arrest three bank robbery suspects just off Route 22 East in Readington Township, New Jersey. Special Agent Bush was assigned to the FBI Newark Division's SOG at the time. Special Agent Bush had served more than 25 years in law enforcement, including 20 years as a FBI agent.
http://www.nleomf.org/officers/search/search-results/barry-lee-bush.html

 

[axj]

I don't think that Trump is overtly fascist. Just because the globalist controlled media portray him as the next Hitler, doesn't make him one.

In my book someone who've demanded "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States", and wants to build a wall in the south border against mexicans, is overtly fascist.

That sounds more like emotional reasoning than actual examples of overt fascism. There is nothing particularly nefarious about building a wall to stop illegal border-crossings. A temporary refusal to let any non-citizen Muslims enter the country is indeed a harsh measure and much more questionable. However, in itself it has nothing to do with overt fascism, other than the fear that other policies might follow to prosecute Muslims based on their religion. And so far, there is no indication for anything like this.

I wouldn't put false hope on Trump, even if there's some "positive" outcomes compared to Killary, which may or may not manifest if he's elected.

If the positive outcomes may manifest, as you say, then those are not false hopes.

What i mean by overt fascism, is that Trump's pathological thinking is shining bright through his politically incorrect rambling, where as Hillary is wolf in sheep's clothing, saying things people expect, but in her actions does totally opposite. Whether Trump qualifies literally as a fascist is not the point, if that's what you meant. All these infamous "ism's" like fascism are just different manifestations of ponerogenic process. I don't think there's any question that Trump has serious pathological personality traits, though as said he's probably narcissist where as Hillary is full blown psychopath. There's plenty of articles in SOTT that shows Trump's pathology and how he's taking advance and channeling the anti-muslim and anti-immigration hysteria for his own advantage. That's why i think it's not wise to align oneself in any way with this kind of person, even if Hillary is even worse.

https://www.sott.net/article/306799-Taking-a-page-from-Hitlers-notebook-Trump-hints-at-surveillance-special-IDs-for-Muslims
https://www.sott.net/article/307379-Trumps-immigration-deportation-force-and-the-police-state
https://www.sott.net/article/302304-Donald-Trump-and-the-onslaught-of-American-totalitarianism
https://www.sott.net/article/314542-Radicalization-Hatred-and-violence-among-Trump-supporters

I don't think it's wise to call someone "overtly fascist" and then say "I don't really mean actual fascism by that". That's not really different than the hysterization that the globalist media have been using to try to stop Trump.

Just because a lot of people illegally crossed the border over the years does not make this acceptable. Pointing this out and doing something about it is actually quite commonsense. Many legal Hispanics also support Trump's stance on illegal immigration.

And radical Islam also clearly poses a risk and danger, as can be seen in the rise of Islamist attacks in Europe, for example. Trying to find a solution for that instead of pretending that this problem doesn't really exist is also commonsense, in my opinion. And yes, Trump's currently proposed solutions to radical Islamism may go too far in that they would curtail the freedom of too many law-abiding Muslims.

 

[realitybugll]

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmIBR9gTHb4
Johnson / Weld on Chris Matthews political emission. Says sitting politicians (congress members? )interest in endorse. It's not impossible. Some republican already endorsed clinton. retiring repub, though. This is One way to make distance from Trump and get maximum media coverage in doing so. It's about re-election in november. Would be very bad news for Trump if goes through. Still seems rather risky play. At the end of the day I think they would have to be counting on a strong performance by Weld/johnson that brings extra people to polls, which is in no way a probable thing. But clearly here Weld demonstrates strong media skills, much enhanced from Johnson. He may be deciding factor.

 

[Hindsight Man]

I don't think that Trump is overtly fascist. Just because the globalist controlled media portray him as the next Hitler, doesn't make him one.

In my book someone who've demanded "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States", and wants to build a wall in the south border against mexicans, is overtly fascist.

That sounds more like emotional reasoning than actual examples of overt fascism. There is nothing particularly nefarious about building a wall to stop illegal border-crossings. A temporary refusal to let any non-citizen Muslims enter the country is indeed a harsh measure and much more questionable. However, in itself it has nothing to do with overt fascism, other than the fear that other policies might follow to prosecute Muslims based on their religion. And so far, there is no indication for anything like this.

I wouldn't put false hope on Trump, even if there's some "positive" outcomes compared to Killary, which may or may not manifest if he's elected.

If the positive outcomes may manifest, as you say, then those are not false hopes.

What i mean by overt fascism, is that Trump's pathological thinking is shining bright through his politically incorrect rambling, where as Hillary is wolf in sheep's clothing, saying things people expect, but in her actions does totally opposite. Whether Trump qualifies literally as a fascist is not the point, if that's what you meant. All these infamous "ism's" like fascism are just different manifestations of ponerogenic process. I don't think there's any question that Trump has serious pathological personality traits, though as said he's probably narcissist where as Hillary is full blown psychopath. There's plenty of articles in SOTT that shows Trump's pathology and how he's taking advance and channeling the anti-muslim and anti-immigration hysteria for his own advantage. That's why i think it's not wise to align oneself in any way with this kind of person, even if Hillary is even worse.

https://www.sott.net/article/306799-Taking-a-page-from-Hitlers--Trump-hints-at-surveillance-special-IDs-for-Muslims
https://www.sott.net/article/307379-Trumps-immigration-deportation-force-and-the-police-state
https://www.sott.net/article/302304-Donald-Trump-and-the-onslaught-of-American-totalitarianism
https://www.sott.net/article/314542-Radicalization-Hatred-and-violence-among-Trump-supporters

I don't think it's wise to call someone "overtly fascist" and then say "I don't really mean actual fascism by that". That's not really different than the hysterization that the globalist media have been using to try to stop Trump.

Just because a lot of people illegally crossed the border over the years does not make this acceptable. Pointing this out and doing something about it is actually quite commonsense. Many legal Hispanics also support Trump's stance on illegal immigration.

And radical Islam also clearly poses a risk and danger, as can be seen in the rise of Islamist attacks in Europe, for example. Trying to find a solution for that instead of pretending that this problem doesn't really exist is also commonsense, in my opinion. And yes, Trump's currently proposed solutions to radical Islamism may go too far in that they would curtail the freedom of too many law-abiding Muslims.

Okay firstly,being on this forum you ought to know better than ''radical islam'' considering that it's a ponerogenic union under a false label as they always are.Who are supported by western powers,mossad etc.The whole ''terrorist'' situation has been specifically created and the mind of the masses molded to be afraid and accept totalitarian control.

Secondly,you appear to have an enormous emotional investment in trump,as you've done nothing but defend him in your last few posts.It's okay man,we all have buttons that get pushed (and mine have been on other issues),this forum exists for the purpose of working through it. But saying : '' A temporary refusal to let any non-citizen Muslims enter the country is indeed a harsh measure and much more questionable'' you then proceed to defend this very measure.Have you been paying attention mate?Neo nazis are more popular than they have been in a while and race/religion based attacks have risen over the last year,and will continue to rise.Meanwhile trump hardly condemns them.

Also,trump doesn't ''speak from the heart'' he speaks from his salesmanship.He's an excellent marketer and he's selling you ''Donald Trump'' the One True Chosen Hero.It's a facade,watch his speeches and look at the way he uses the emotional reasoning of his subjects during said speeches.A large portion of it is calculated.Not all,he's a blabbermouth,but he's no where near as open and earnest as you appear to think he is.

 

[axj]

Okay firstly,being on this forum you ought to know better than ''radical islam'' considering that it's a ponerogenic union under a false label as they always are.Who are supported by western powers,mossad etc.The whole ''terrorist'' situation has been specifically created and the mind of the masses molded to be afraid and accept totalitarian control.

You cannot possibly know that all islamic terrorist attacks are false flags. Some certainly are and some are carried out by radical islamists who may or may not have been supported by Western powers. It's also possible that no direct support is necessary and the PTB just let enough radical islamists into Western countries to create chaos, which then can be used as a pretext for more control.

Secondly,you appear to have an enormous emotional investment in trump,as you've done nothing but defend him in your last few posts.It's okay man,we all have buttons that get pushed (and mine have been on other issues),this forum exists for the purpose of working through it.

It seems that you are projecting your own buttons on me. I simply stated my view that calling Trump a "fascist" is not justified and I explained why. I do see him as a better choice than the psychopath Clinton, but that is not an "enormous emotional investment."

Also,trump doesn't ''speak from the heart'' he speaks from his salesmanship.He's an excellent marketer and he's selling you ''Donald Trump'' the One True Chosen Hero.It's a facade,watch his speeches and look at the way he uses the emotional reasoning of his subjects during said speeches.A large portion of it is calculated.Not all,he's a blabbermouth,but he's no where near as open and earnest as you appear to think he is.

I don't see Trump as some sort of saint and I don't know why you would assume that I do. What I said is that Trump is clearly more authentic than the robot-like Clinton who never says what's truly on her mind.

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

I don't think it's wise to call someone "overtly fascist" and then say "I don't really mean actual fascism by that". That's not really different than the hysterization that the globalist media have been using to try to stop Trump.

That's not what i said. I was pointing out that fascism in a literal term is placed on a certain time and place, i.e after WWI till end of WWII mostly in Europe. Today using that word doesn't imply everything it once did, for example anti-marxism, since it's not anymore topical issue. There is no single agreement how to exactly define term fascism, no doubt because historians don't understand ponerology. Core features of the ideology still apply today; radical nationalism and authoritarianism for example (there shouldn't be no doubt that Trump fits this profile). Just like today we call a group as pirates if they're committing crimes and robbery on sea, but don't excpect them to wear eye-patches and wooden legs. The point was about pathology and ponerization behind all these individual "ism's". Have you read the book Political Ponerology?

Just because a lot of people illegally crossed the border over the years does not make this acceptable. Pointing this out and doing something about it is actually quite commonsense. Many legal Hispanics also support Trump's stance on illegal immigration.

Of course Trump and his ilk are pointing into real issues in their rhetorics, anyone can do that. The far right nationalistic movements in Europe all use refugee crisis as an example why people should vote for them. It's not enought to point a self-evident problem, it's more important what kind of solutions one offers to these; building walls and fences is the only thing they have. And as far as i know Trump hasn't exposed the US involvement destabilizing countries economically and militarilly. Instead he says "We will spend what we need to rebuild our military," and "Our military dominance must be unquestioned by anybody and everybody."

And radical Islam also clearly poses a risk and danger, as can be seen in the rise of Islamist attacks in Europe, for example. Trying to find a solution for that instead of pretending that this problem doesn't really exist is also commonsense, in my opinion. And yes, Trump's currently proposed solutions to radical Islamism may go too far in that they would curtail the freedom of too many law-abiding Muslims.

There's obviously quite simple solution to this; West needs to stop bombing Middle-East countries to smithereens and funding different radical groups for their own greedy geopolitical needs. Any politician who doesn't include this simple fact when addressing the issue of "radical Islam", is not going to solve anything and only adds fuel to the anti-Islam hysteria.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= axj]And radical Islam also clearly poses a risk and danger, as can be seen in the rise of Islamist attacks in Europe, for example. Trying to find a solution for that instead of pretending that this problem doesn't really exist is also commonsense, in my opinion. And yes, Trump's currently proposed solutions to radical Islamism may go too far in that they would curtail the freedom of too many law-abiding Muslims.[/quote]

Radical Islam was never a problem until the West made it possible. The West either uses False Flags, or helps them carry it out. 99.9% this is what happens, The West is you real terrorist.


[quote author= axj]Just because a lot of people illegally crossed the border over the years does not make this acceptable. Pointing this out and doing something about it is actually quite commonsense. Many legal Hispanics also support Trump's stance on illegal immigration.[/quote]

He talks about that Wall of his like it is the freaking Wall of Game of Thrones. Meant to keep the Undeath, Demons and Devils at bay. When in truth most are just people trying to provide for their families.

His supporters cheer it on like it is going to fix all their problems. Funny thing is that more Mexicans are leaving the US than entering these days. Bit dump to talk about a Wall when the people you are trying to forbid from entering are leaving in greater numbers.

Largest immigration wave in modern history may be ending: More Mexicans are leaving the US than entering
https://www.sott.net/article/306916-Largest-immigration-wave-in-modern-history-may-be-ending-More-Mexicans-are-leaving-the-US-than-entering


[quote author= axj]I simply stated my view that calling Trump a "fascist" is not justified and I explained why.[/quote]

When should we consider segregation for all our sakes? That's what he selling about handling the Muslim problem. That's fascists. I am sure AIPAC was dancing in joy when they heard him say it.

 

[axj]

I don't think it's wise to call someone "overtly fascist" and then say "I don't really mean actual fascism by that". That's not really different than the hysterization that the globalist media have been using to try to stop Trump.

That's not what i said. I was pointing out that fascism in a literal term is placed on a certain time and age, i.e after WWI till end of WWII. Today using that word doesn't imply everything it once did, for example anti-marxism, since it's not anymore topical issue. There is no single agreement how to exactly define term fascism, no doubt because historians don't understand ponerology. Core features of the ideology still apply today; radical nationalism and authoritarianism for example (there shouldn't be no doubt that Trump fits this profile).

It's always dangerous when there is "no doubt" about something as it points to an unquestioned belief. I doubt that Trump fits that profile. What is "radical" nationalism and how is it different from "normal" nationalism? Is nationalism bad as such? Considering that the international political structures like the EU are so far removed from people's control and accountability, they are much easier to co-opt. Isn't it actually preferrable to have most decisions made on a regional or country-wide level?

As to authoritarianism, where do you see it in Trump? I know that the media claim he is authoritarian, just like they claim the same about Putin. Is the enforcement of laws regarding illegal immigration authoritarian in your view? You said before that building a wall to stop that is a very bad sign, while I think that there is nothing wrong with enforcing existing laws and border control.

Just because a lot of people illegally crossed the border over the years does not make this acceptable. Pointing this out and doing something about it is actually quite commonsense. Many legal Hispanics also support Trump's stance on illegal immigration.

Of course Trump and his ilk are pointing into real issues in their rhetorics, anyone can do that. The far right nationalistic movements in Europe all use refugee crisis as an example why people should vote for them. It's not enought to point a self-evident problem, it's more important what kind of solutions one offers to these; building walls and fences is the only thing they have. And as far as i know Trump hasn't exposed the US involvement destabilizing countries economically and militarilly. Instead he says "We will spend what we need to rebuild our military," and "Our military dominance must be unquestioned by anybody and everybody."

I think you should better inform yourself on what he actually says on destabilization and interventionism. This is from one of his speeches:

In 2009, before Hillary Clinton was sworn in, it was a different world.

Libya was cooperating.

Iraq was seeing a reduction in violence.

Syria was under control.

Iran was being choked by sanctions.

Egypt was governed by a friendly regime that honored its peace treaty with Israel.

ISIS wasn’t even on the map.

Fast forward to 2013: In just four years, Secretary Clinton managed to almost single-handedly destabilize the entire Middle East.

Her invasion of Libya handed the country over to the ISIS barbarians.

Thanks to Hillary Clinton, Iran is now the dominant Islamic power in the Middle East, and on the road to nuclear weapons.

Hillary Clinton’s support for violent regime change in Syria has thrown the country into one of the bloodiest civil wars anyone has ever seen – while giving ISIS a launching pad for terrorism against the West.

_http://heavy.com/news/2016/06/read-full-transcript-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-anti-speech-new-york-june-22/

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

It's always dangerous when there is "no doubt" about something as it points to an unquestioned belief. I doubt that Trump fits that profile. What is "radical" nationalism and how is it different from "normal" nationalism? Is nationalism bad as such? Considering that the international political structures like the EU are so far removed from people's control and accountability, they are much easier to co-opt. Isn't it actually preferrable to have most decisions made on a regional or country-wide level?

Normal and radical nationalism is differentiated through the ponerogenic process; what is described as normal nationalism doesn't have pathological elements, i.e it's not hijacked by psychopaths and characteropaths for their own agenda. Have you read the book Political Ponerology?

As to authoritarianism, where do you see it in Trump? I know that the media claim he is authoritarian, just like they claim the same about Putin.

Just take a look any of his rallys and what kind of dynamics can be seen there between Trump and his supporters.

Is the enforcement of laws regarding illegal immigration authoritarian in your view? You said before that building a wall to stop that is a very bad sign, while I think that there is nothing wrong with enforcing existing laws and border control.

It always depends what kind of laws and what is the overall agenda. At least i'm seeing a strategy of tension playing out through the refugee crisis, with goal to increase draconian laws limiting rights of Western citizens.

I think you should better inform yourself on what he actually says on destabilization and interventionism. This is from one of his speeches:

Yes, in this specific context when Trump is pointing Hillary's failure, he is indeed telling the truth about the sitution. This doesn't necessarily negate Trump's opinion that "Our military dominance must be unquestioned by anybody and everybody."

 

[axj]

Normal and radical nationalism is differentiated through the ponerogenic process; what is described as normal nationalism doesn't have pathological elements, i.e it's not hijacked by psychopaths and characteropaths for their own agenda.

So in your view Trump hijacks nationalism for his own agenda? In what ways?

Have you read the book Political Ponerology?

I am familiar with it.

As to authoritarianism, where do you see it in Trump? I know that the media claim he is authoritarian, just like they claim the same about Putin.

Just take a look any of his rallys and what kind of dynamics can be seen there between Trump and his supporters.

What kind of dynamics are you referring to? How is a Trump rally different from a Putin rally, such as this one here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2bjMHw3uLo

Is the enforcement of laws regarding illegal immigration authoritarian in your view? You said before that building a wall to stop that is a very bad sign, while I think that there is nothing wrong with enforcing existing laws and border control.

It always depends what kind of laws and what is the overall agenda. At least i'm seeing a strategy of tension playing out through the refugee crisis, with goal to increase dragonian laws limiting rights of Western citizens.

I think it's more plausible that Trump may not be "in the loop" regarding the engineered character of the refugee crisis and the goals behind it. Therefore he may be genuinely trying to find solutions that will keep his country secure.

I think you should better inform yourself on what he actually says on destabilization and interventionism. This is from one of his speeches:

Yes, in this specific context when Trump is pointing Hillary's failure, he is indeed telling the truth about the sitution. This doesn't necessarily negate Trump's opinion that "Our military dominance must be unquestioned by anybody and everybody."

I doubt that he actually said that, just as you were uninformed about his views on non-interventionism. He did state that he wants a modern and strong military, but that is not the same as "Our military dominance must be unquestioned by anybody and everybody."

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= axj]What kind of dynamics are you referring to? How is a Trump rally different from a Putin rally, such as this one here:[/quote]

Putin doesn't shout to his crowd to pay legal fees for whoever beats up people who protests him ;)


I think the difference is that Trump his rallies consists mainly of him talking about the supposed enemies of the nation. Putin speeches about love and sacrifice for the motherland is about building a strong caring community. OSIT.

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

So in your view Trump hijacks nationalism for his own agenda? In what ways?

He's capitalizing the "muslim terrorism" hysteria that's been present since 9/11 by using anti-muslim rhetorics in order to become president of United States. He's offering false security for his voters (from a phenomenom that's been mostly self-created by West) by appealing to their unconscious needs and desires instead of reason and logic.

What kind of dynamics are you referring to?

Something like this for example:
https://www.sott.net/article/314703-Selective-memory-Trump-denies-saying-he-would-pay-legal-fees-of-supporter-who-punched-protester
https://www.sott.net/article/314542-Radicalization-Hatred-and-violence-among-Trump-supporters

I doubt that he actually said that, just as you were uninformed about his views on non-interventionism. He did state that he wants a modern and strong military, but that is not the same as "Our military dominance must be unquestioned by anybody and everybody."

It's a direct quote from his speech:

_http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/politics/transcript-trump-foreign-policy.html

 

[axj]

I think the difference is that Trump his rallies consists mainly of him talking about the supposed enemies of the nation. Putin speeches about love and sacrifice for the motherland is about building a strong caring community. OSIT.

I'm not sure if that's a fair assessment.

A few examples from Putin's speech that contradict what you are saying:

"The battle for Russia is raging on. We will be victorious!"

"We are not only ready to work, we are ready to defend our motherland. To defend it at all times and forever. We won't allow anyone to meddle in our internal affairs. We won't allow anyone to impose their will upon us, because we have our own will! It always helped us win! We are a victorious nation! It is in our genes. It is in our genetic code. It has been passed down to us generation to generation. We still win! And I want to ask you: Will we win? (Crowd: Yes!)."

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= axj]It would help to actually research that comment. It was not about "anyone who protests him", but about tomato throwers. [/quote]

Oh, tomato throwers, well than it's OK. Beat them to pulp.

But to be honest, why even make distinction when it's OK and not to beat people up? I mean that's kind of what you are doing when going in detail trying to proof some point.

It's never OK to encourage your're crowd to go witchhunting.


[quote author= axj]I'm not sure if that's a fair assessment.

A few examples from Putin's speech that contradict what you are saying:

"The battle for Russia is raging on. We will be victorious!"

"We are not only ready to work, we are ready to defend our motherland. To defend it at all times and forever. We won't allow anyone to meddle in our internal affairs. We won't allow anyone to impose their will upon us, because we have our own will! It always helped us win! We are a victorious nation! It is in our genes. It is in our genetic code. It has been passed down to us generation to generation. We still win! And I want to ask you: Will we win? (Crowd: Yes!)."[/quote]

That's about sacrifice for the motherland what I was talking about it. It's fitting because Russia has real enemies.

Trump has make believe enemies like immigrants and Muslims. You think they are destroying the USA? I surely hope not.

 

[axj]

Oh, tomato throwers, well than it's OK. Beat them to pulp.

Throwing a tomato during a speech is an attack in itself. You understand that, don't you? Besides, it was one comment in a specific context at one event. It's not like he is encouraging people to beat up protesters all the time, like you suggest.

[quote author= axj]I'm not sure if that's a fair assessment.

A few examples from Putin's speech that contradict what you are saying:

"The battle for Russia is raging on. We will be victorious!"

"We are not only ready to work, we are ready to defend our motherland. To defend it at all times and forever. We won't allow anyone to meddle in our internal affairs. We won't allow anyone to impose their will upon us, because we have our own will! It always helped us win! We are a victorious nation! It is in our genes. It is in our genetic code. It has been passed down to us generation to generation. We still win! And I want to ask you: Will we win? (Crowd: Yes!)."

That's about sacrifice for the motherland what I was talking about it. It's fitting because Russia has real enemies.

Trump has make believe enemies like immigrants and Muslims. You think they are destroying the USA? I surely hope not.
[/quote]

Again, you are generalizing and making incorrect statements. It's not about "immigrants and Muslims", but about illegal immigrants and radical islamists - there is a big difference. It's also inaccurate to say that he portrays illegal immigrants as "enemies".

What you forget to mention is that he wants to remove corruption from politics, for example - and whether he can do it or not, at least he is openly talking about it and making millions of people aware of that problem. But I guess you just decided that anything Trump does or says is wrong or bad and just ignore the rest. That is not the way to arrive at an objective view of reality.