Next up on the 7-hour podcast is where Tom Cotton will likely land. They expect this neo-con/most pro=war man in DC to possibly be Trump's secretary of defense. Very bad for those who want to stay out of war and stay out of the middle east.
-
ChristIsKing.eu has moved to ChristIsKing.cc - see the announcement for more details. If you don't know your password PM a mod on Element or via a temporary account here to confirm your username and email.
Donald Trump: Criticism & Debate Thread
- Thread starter Caduceus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- public figures zionist
I work from home, on a computer, and listen while I walk around. 7 hours is a lot, I doubt I make it all the way through it. I am two and half hours into it and they have done a deep dive on O'Brien and now Tom Cotton, two rumored to be high up choices for foreign policy cabinet positions. These two are super neo-cons, the type that would make even Dick Cheney say "whoa slow down fellas".
I thought it would be a good discussion point. They also discussed how Miley claimed Trump tried to start a war with Iran on the way out, where Trump claimed Miley was the one trying to start the war, and how they tend to believe Miley because as a military guy he would know what a disaster that would be for our govt. Whereas, and I didn't even realize this, by Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem, this ends the possibility of ever having a two state solution and is the reason Hamas has really dug in now the carrot they dangled in front of them has been removed.
I jumped to a random point, watched them talk about the trade deficit, and then one of the guys said "And Trump is too dumb to do anything about it." There was no explanation of this point, it just ended and they went on riffing about how orange man bad.
Not only is it 7 hours long, it's also 7 hours of pure garbage based on the level of intelligence I saw in one display. Nothing new, nothing unique would be said. Easy pass.
Last edited:
You should start at the beginning. I keep up to date on this stuff, and I am both being reminded of things I had forgotten and they are bringing up things that I was unaware of.
If it is too long, the short of it is Trump is more pro-war in the Middle East than any candidate for president we have seen, if he sticks with these expected cabinet appointees.
Except he avoided additional engagements on multiple occasions with Iran and only struck when delivering decisive blows to an enemy's C2 capacity.
You ever think perhaps you put too much stock into the words and thoughts of internet click harvesters, that perhaps it has too much sway over you? Actual reality would indicate that Trump is not pro war, in fact it's quite the opposite, I don't see why the words of some random internet click baiters should override reality.
Trump deserves criticism for a lot of things but it's quite a reach to criticize him for being pro war when all his actual actions indicate the opposite. It seems as if you are simply looking to hear what you want to hear and running with it. I think what confuses me further is that you put so much into the words of these people but us here who are just random men in a brotherhood who have nothing to gain from our words what we say means nothing to you, you fight us tooth and nail on every point.
Last edited:
No. Take a listen to it. If you can disprove what they have to say about these war hawk neo-cons like O’Brien and Cotton feel free.
The real discussion is.
Will Trump appoint these scumbags and if he does what will this lead to?
I made the prediction that Trump wins. I’ll predict further he will start a war in the Middle East. Probably against Hamas and Hezbollah in a proxy war against Iran.
I get the sense that we're near a historic moment with Israel; larger forces are at play and the US will have to adapt and it doesn't matter who is President or what AIPAC does. But until that happens and until there's a larger growth of an America first grassroots movement things won't change regarding US policy towards Israel.
Trump is more likely to help end the war in Ukraine and protect the border. That's enough reason to vote for him.
Trump is more likely to help end the war in Ukraine and protect the border. That's enough reason to vote for him.
Last edited:
I put very little stock in the words of internet click harvesters, it's their job to specifically tell you things to keep you entertained by them. Whichever way you seek to be entertained you can find someone who will accommodate.
So why do you think that? His actions thus far have indicated that he has done everything can to avoid war and even specifically try to make peace with long time "enemies". What is it that is compelling you to disregard his actual actions?
Last edited:
I have a prediction that in 2026 war breaks out as a foil for his presidency, possibly early 2027. I don't think he'll be the instigator and I don't think he controls as much as others think. What's more, I see the US debt and interest/USD problems catching up with the DC swamp/elite much sooner than most do.
I still don't understand how assassinating an Iranian general via a missile strike can be construed as "making peace with long term enemies."
You can say that you don't believe Trump will be more hawkish than that this time around, but don't play dumb or be willfully ignorant.
As fractitious as America's political climate is right now, I'm amazed we are not in a full blown war right this second. The only question is who is willing to play that card next.
You can say that you don't believe Trump will be more hawkish than that this time around, but don't play dumb or be willfully ignorant.
As fractitious as America's political climate is right now, I'm amazed we are not in a full blown war right this second. The only question is who is willing to play that card next.
That I could see
I was referring to North Korea, the assasination was more intricate I think...that was a game of chess and quite frankly he won that one.
Iran is garbage, a total paper tiger that doesn't even have their own peoples support and how we're letting them prey on Iraq and pick it clean after we destroyed the country is criminal. Iraqi's hate Iranians and vice versa.
Last edited:
NK was a nothing-burger. You think Khamenei would ever come over to the US to do the town with President Trump? It's our constant saber rattling in the Middle East that has been getting us into war after war over there. Trump was no different than any of his predecessors in that regard. He would send you to die for Israel if it came to it. The only thing I can say for him is that he doesn't want a hot war with Russia as much as the mil-ind complex does.
I don't think he was making peace. But he wasn't making war.
My point is that he actively chose not to engage in engagements with boots on the deck when his advisors were trying to guide him in that direction. Solemani(spell check) was a huge blow to the Iranian military... and he had plenty of blood on his hands himself.
That and China has access to all the oil we got into. War over....after US Operators developed many of the wells and fields.
I do not understand why we alienated Iraq and handed it over to our adversaries, it makes no sense whatsoever in any way. I actually personally have experience with how big of a blunder that was, Iraq is incredibly wealthy in multiple faucets and was desperate for help and influence....we let other countries take it handed it to them on a silver platter.
No I don't expect Iran to do anything but say "death to America" as that's all they got.
Honestly you sound like the liberals after he met with Kim, I'll tell you the same thing I told them. Is it better to threaten war or to try and make peace? Whether it amounted to anything does not mean much as we are debating intentions here and trying to predict based on those intentions.
Anyone remember Iran executed an Iranian wrestler, Navid Akfari? Trump and Dana White petitioned and pleaded Iran to not execute the wrestler.