Posted On: Wednesday - April 12th 2017 6:02PM MST
In Topics:   Trump
To address the 2nd concern from the post two days back, "What is wrong with Trump?", we ask "Does this flake-out of Trump's cover everything?" Whether it's just temporary or not, this neocon action by Trump is in definite contradiction to his campaign statements. It's good to hold out hope, but I don't see how this is some type of "3-D chess", as people term the idea that this guy is just some genius, and everything he does is in a part of his strategy to implement policies we elected him to.
It is true that no matter what trouble the warmongering talk causes up to all-out warfare, if Trump were to keep his promises to turn around the out-of-control foreign invasion, it is still a win for us in the long run. In other words, if the situation isn't turned around soon, all other problems just won't be important, as patriotic Americans wouldn't care anymore what happened to our country. The immigration problem is existential as the goateed kids say.
The problem is, since Trump flaked out on this promise, and more so on his whole stance on "America first", will he flake out on the rest? It's not like he's got any other branch of the Feral Gov't on his side. It's Trump, the leader, and many, many loyal Americans that can change things - who's the next leader in the wings if this guy has flaked out completely?
Another thing to be concerned about is that these wars that are supported by the neocons and globalists seem to be one half of the "Invade-the-World, Invite-the-World" strategy, first explained by Steve Sailer (the article in the link is not even close to the time when Sailer came up with that - it's probably been a decade and a half). It used to be "let's fight them over there, so we don't have to over here", but now it's, "well, we better let some of them come here, as it's only fair since we bombed the shit out of 'em over there". "Oh, BTW, now they are fighting us over here, so we need to fight them over there even more!".
If Trump is supporting one half of this, what should be called "Burn down the world, but replace the Americans first to make our hidey-hole safe"* strategy, why would he not stop on the other half? Has he already been convinced to abandon immigration control? It doesn't look like it so far. Let's hope he's not playing games like the rest of the politicians have been doing on this for 30 years, since they duped Ronnie Reagan into a bad deal back in '86.
It's definitely not time to give up on the president, but he needs to know to shape the hell up and trust his instincts that led him to victory in 2016. Who knows, once the ball gets rolling for border control, maybe it can keep rolling even without this guy, but the job must be done by Americans without the politicians - they are 100% against us.
* OK, that doesn't come off the tongue easier - I can work on it.