Would You Vote For Trump If He Promised A New 9/11 Investigation?

[ProBlue33]

So last night at his victory speech somebody near the front held up a small sign that said "TRUMP4TRUTH", this got me thinking if he actually won and found out 9/11 was not as he had been told, by classified information, he would probably be pretty angry.

I know this is a subject that usually goes into hot topics, but I remember many 08 Ron Paul people didn't believe the OS of 9/11.

So my question to those of you in that category is would you vote for him if he promised this?

[69360]

I'm not a truther, in fact I dislike them. I hate Trump.

So no. There is nothing that could be done to get me to vote for Trump.

[RJB]

Politicians promise lots of things.

[lakerssuck92]

If Donald Trump adopted Ron Paul's foreign policy that may be the only thing that might make me consider voting for him.

[nasaal]

Why? What?

[opal]

nope

I think there's only one way to get me to vote for him.. that would be to change the office he's running for from President to dog catcher
no wait.. dogs deserve better

[EBounding]

I'd vote for Trump if he pledged in blood to pardon Snowden. That goes for pretty much everyone else running.

[jbauer]

I'm thinking about voting for Trump just to watch the place burn regardless of 9/11. Either that or I'll write in Ron Paul. I haven't decided yet.

[The Gold Standard]

The only way I would vote for Trump is if he wrote me a 6 or 7 figure check from his personal account in exchange for my ever valuable and important vote. Ok, I would settle for 5 figures.

[juleswin]

The only way I would vote for Trump is if he wrote me a 6 or 7 figure check from his personal account in exchange for my ever valuable and important vote. Ok, I would settle for 5 figures.

Me too, in fact, for 10 million, I would not only vote for him but i'll throw in the names and personal info of all the anti Trump people on this forum. You all deserved to be waterboarded for all the dirt you have thrown that man's way

[A. Havnes]

As a 9/11 Truther, there is still no way I'd vote for Trump.

[hells_unicorn]

At this state of the game, any additional investigation into 9/11 would probably be about as relevant as investigating the Gulf of Tonkin incident of the Pearl Harbor bombings. It's not fresh in peoples' minds anymore, it's all about ISIS, who thus far have not been linked to 9/11, because they don't need to be.

[Peace&Freedom]

At this state of the game, any additional investigation into 9/11 would probably be about as relevant as investigating the Gulf of Tonkin incident of the Pearl Harbor bombings. It's not fresh in peoples' minds anymore, it's all about ISIS, who thus far have not been linked to 9/11, because they don't need to be.

The relevance is that most of the actual perpetrators have not gone to jail, or even been identified. For all we know, ISIS is already linked to 9-11, if the same state operators behind the last covert false flag op are behind the current one. All unresolved murders, and mass murders, lose their freshness with time. The point of a new inquiry with subpoena power would be to expose how we were lied and manipulated into wars, so as to prevent future false flags from manipulating us again.

The Paul campaigns of the last three cycles, by themselves, probably deterred those operators from false flagging us into additional conflicts (out of fear it would generate a surge in Ron or Rand's popularity, as the peace candidate). Perhaps Trump and other candidates should at least promise to release, unredacted, not just the 28 pages, but nearly all classified documents and testimony concerning 9-11 (among other ongoing controversies), in which case the resulting transparency would accomplish nearly the same thing.

[CaptUSA]

[Working Poor]

I would only vote for him if he is running against Hillary. I just don't like her at all. I am hoping Bernie takes her out.

[Umad]

I'm voting for trump because he's slightly better than Hillary and will destroy the republican party.

[69360]

The only way I would vote for Trump is if he wrote me a 6 or 7 figure check from his personal account in exchange for my ever valuable and important vote. Ok, I would settle for 5 figures.

Actually, I think my vote could be bought for 6 figures. 5, he can still go fornicate with himself.

[dannno]

As a 9/11 Truther, there is still no way I'd vote for Trump.

Wanna get together with our 9/11 Truth signs and rally for him anyway?

[CPUd]

I'd vote for Trump if he pledged in blood to pardon Snowden. That goes for pretty much everyone else running.

Trump promised to make Putin turn him over so he can be tortured and killed.

[CPUd]

If Donald Trump adopted Ron Paul's foreign policy that may be the only thing that might make me consider voting for him.

Trump said he wants to bring back waterboarding and much worse. Cause people's getting their heads chopped off.

[economics102]

Trump said he hired investigators who had uncovered "absolutely unbelievable" dirt on Obama's birth certificate in Hawaii. We never saw that and he amazingly gets away with just saying "I don't talk about that anymore" when asked.

I'm not a "truther" but if I was, I sure as hell wouldn't trust a promise from the Donald to investigate something after the whole Obama birth certificate bull$#@!.

[r3volution 3.0]

No, there's nothing Trump could say that would convince me to vote for him.

Anyway, there's 0% chance that a President Trump would do anything about the 9/11 investigation.

[Origanalist]

Vote for Trump....does not compute....

[oyarde]

So last night at his victory speech somebody near the front held up a small sign that said "TRUMP4TRUTH", this got me thinking if he actually won and found out 9/11 was not as he had been told, by classified information, he would probably be pretty angry.

I know this is a subject that usually goes into hot topics, but I remember many 08 Ron Paul people didn't believe the OS of 9/11.

So my question to those of you in that category is would you vote for him if he promised this?

NO .

[hells_unicorn]

The relevance is that most of the actual perpetrators have not gone to jail, or even been identified. For all we know, ISIS is already linked to 9-11, if the same state operators behind the last covert false flag op are behind the current one. All unresolved murders, and mass murders, lose their freshness with time. The point of a new inquiry with subpoena power would be to expose how we were lied and manipulated into wars, so as to prevent future false flags from manipulating us again.

The Paul campaigns of the last three cycles, by themselves, probably deterred those operators from false flagging us into additional conflicts (out of fear it would generate a surge in Ron or Rand's popularity, as the peace candidate). Perhaps Trump and other candidates should at least promise to release, unredacted, not just the 28 pages, but nearly all classified documents and testimony concerning 9-11 (among other ongoing controversies), in which case the resulting transparency would accomplish nearly the same thing.

You missed the fundamental point of my post, which is who cares what any such investigation would potentially uncover? Seriously, if the last 3 election cycles have taught us ANYTHING it is that the truth is not only the radar of most voters. I'm not fully sold that 9/11 was an inside job (I would say that our government "caused it to happen" irregardless of what the truth is), but even if it was, so what? The media isn't going to cover it, Uncle Sam isn't going to do squat, and Trump is probably looking to score some extra votes should he pursue this route, as his sincerity is definitely a matter of debate.

The "actual perpetrators" as you call them, whoever they are, own the whole system. We didn't have another false flag because there didn't need to be one, people are sufficiently dumbed down to the point where a fictional boogieman on television is sufficient to justify multiple attacks on other nations. Nobody cares except for a smattering of "red pill" types, and they clearly don't decide things.

[nikcers]

[Peace&Freedom]

The "actual perpetrators" as you call them, whoever they are, own the whole system. We didn't have another false flag because there didn't need to be one, people are sufficiently dumbed down to the point where a fictional boogieman on television is sufficient to justify multiple attacks on other nations. Nobody cares except for a smattering of "red pill" types, and they clearly don't decide things.

My point was that most people do care about the present, and that the perpetrators do care about having a current figleaf of legitimacy behind conducting new attacks. As the mass public gains more awareness concerning the reality of false flag covert ops (mainly through the new media such as the web), that figleaf is stripped away, and fewer such ops happen, or are believed.

The 2013 Labor Day attempt by the US to start bombing Syria (based on false claims about a chemical attack) was firmly rejected by the public around the world, so serves as one example. Just by being in the GOP race, Ron Paul prevented a false flag from happening to justify attacks on Iran across 2007-8 and 2011-12, during the ideal window in which the war party wanted to launch them.

[EBounding]

Trump promised to make Putin turn him over so he can be tortured and killed.

Yeah, that was basically my creative way of saying "NO WAY".

[sdsubball23]

I've been curious about this and think he may be the only candidate in the two parties where there could be a chance for a new investigation to occur. However, I mainly say that because he appeared on the Alex Jones show.

Not sure if I'd still vote for him though.

[Sam I am]

If Donald Trump adopted Ron Paul's foreign policy that may be the only thing that might make me consider voting for him.

Trump's Foreign policy isn't exactly the same as Ron's but It's closer to Ron's than Hillary's, and the other Republican Candidates who haven't dropped out.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ation-building