Theocrat
Member

Why? And do you mean people in general, or us in particular? Like you said, these things aren't news to us (in particular), they're receipts. We (in particular) are way ahead of the curve. Why shouldn't people who are way ahead of the curve be already inquiring about whether any heads will roll? If something is to really be done about this, we have to strike while the iron's hot. Unlike most people, we already know how hot this iron is. Why shouldn't we have an adult conversation about whether Trump's going to fix it, and if not, what we can use on him as a political cattle prod? Some people treat him as a god. Well, if you want him to be godlike, somebody has to challenge him to do something besides posture and bathe in their adulation. You have to set goals for him. You have to arrange it so him idolators lose faith if he doesn't measure up. If you really want Trump to be Great Again (or for the first time really, his first term wasn't so hot) help us hold his feet to the fire. Otherwise he'll make his second term as mediocre as his first.

He's a lap dog, yapping in frustration at cats because he's not big enough to chase us up a tree somewhere. He thinks joining the MAGA Cult gives him the Authority of the Crowd, and he's trying to exercise that authoritay. That's what makes him think he's entitled (like a Karen) to have his wild flights of illogic slide by without challenge (like a Karen). Remember when Obamamessiah Cultists did the exact same thing? They didn't impress us either.

If the queeer cult wins this battle, what they have planned to normalize next will absolutely make your skin crawl.

100 percent.

Not unless we get more than a study, and not unless we get more than some Soros-funded professional whiner giving us the pleasure of seeing their head explode on air. I, for one, am not that cheap, sailor. I'm not that easy. I said I'm keeping that at my leisure. Now that Trump whacked the USAID head, what other heads are going to pop out of the CIA Whack-A-Mole machine? Will any of the bad apples in the CIA take the buyout, or is this just a way for them to purge their ranks of good apples? Which of these departments is actually going to close? Which of these criminals is going to get snatched out of their golden parachutes and indicted? How much money will really be saved, and how much of that will escape this fate?

That's your problem, not mine. I can be patient. I'm keeping score at my leisure. And I'm not moving anything into the win column unless and until we get something more than another six million dollar, three year government study about it.

Good case in point. He commissioned a study? We've already done our homework. There's not a one of us who wouldn't be out to demolish the ATF. A government study is not my idea of substance.

Al Qaeda is the CIA, and everyone else here is well informed enough to know it. Al Qaeda is the CIA's way to throw a tantrum when we won't use up enough missiles to necessitate us buying more. You're saying brats should be rewarded for throwing deadly tantrums, whether you know it or not. The DS, which regularly kills Muslims by the thousands, because they want to spend our money on missiles, because some of them have petroleum, because many of us don't much like Arabs anyway so it's an easier sell than (f'rinstance) massacring cute little Thais, is on the same side as the Muslims they seem to be trying to genocide? Now there's some twisted "logic". Are you a man or a pretzel, cultist?

Heads are exploding and some find that entirely satisfactory. This is what someone who cares only about style looks like. And here is someone who knows substance when he sees it, and won't settle for less. See the difference, kiddies?

Let's assume absolute proof comes out that the CIA was behind 9/11. Using your logic the war in Iraq was justified because....reasons. You really didn't think that one through.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Snowball again.

And this is just scratching the surface, and the system is losing it's everfucking mind right now because of it. Wait until the DOGE crew starts making the connection between the "legit" money that is appropriated for things like USAID being used for these nefarious purposes and the "black" money from running drugs and sex and "snuff" trafficking of children and arms dealing and what that money sponsors around the world.

By any objective observation, a great deal has already been done. No government action or cessation of action, in and of itself, is going to cure the rot in the soul of our people or heal this land. That is in God's hands. But it can clear the air, root out the corruption, shut down the Fifth Columnists and remove the invaders. As far as the Small Hat Club goes, we're still another generation or two away from addressing that logically.

Aged like milk left behind the stove.

https://x.com/NatCon2022/status/1887685742085669021 1887685742085669021

DEI says what?

https://x.com/AntiFeder1776/status/1887982052353654929 1887982052353654929

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1886988219226419711 1886988219226419711

Why would I want that hushed up? It's all gotta go, including that. USAID has been funding the NGOs that are replacing Americans and have been since the 1965 Hart Celler Act. I've been ranting and raving about that for decades now...when 25,000 Somalians show up in lower middle class White town in Maine, when 5000 Haitians show up in a small town in Ohio, when invaders get free housing in Brunswick, it's these NGOs that are responsible. No one, other than lone voices like the Paul's or O'Donnell or Massie or Birchers have ever touched this program.

It's obvious they would have never had time to plan for that many agents to be there, unless the entire event had been planed in advance.

:rolleyes: You're just going to keep blithely ignoring the fact that Hamas is Netanyahu's false flag army aren't you? ^This.

This is where my two problems lie. I know that my interpretation of the Founders' vision for America is different from your, according to our exchanges in other threads, anyway, but I'd like to toss my two cents into the pile for whatever it's worth. My first problem is that I don't believe a foreign government should be taking it upon itself to dictate the lives of others. I mean, we as libertarians don't want the government forcibly moving us, temporary or permanently, so why be okay with them doing it to others? The United States shouldn't be sticking its nose into that mess at all, as far as I'm concerned, but relocating people to foreign lands (and why are we going to hoist this problem onto other people? We shouldn't be forcing other governments or their citizens to put up with this) isn't something we have the power to do. I know, I know, Trump makes his money in real estate and development, but this still isn't something he should have the power to do, and I say that as someone who voted for Trump and like a lot of what he's done since taking office. The second thing I have a problem with is that 'temporary' usually becomes 'permanent' when it comes to government things. Like all those bases that were just going to be temporary and all we've done since WWII is expand them. A lot of temporary policies, structures, or other decisions quickly fall into the quagmire of permanency, often with the citizens of other countries being left to deal with what we've dropped into their laps. I think this is the reason Trump doesn't suggest they temporarily relocate to America: they very quickly could become a longterm problem of ours. That being said, I'm hopeful that this is just posturing on Trump's part, kind of like the tariffs seem to be. That's not to say he doesn't have any teeth behind what he says, but I think Trump is good at making big plans just to bring people to the negotiating table. If that's all this is, I'm a little more optimistic. If not, I think we could have a major problem.