AnnouncementsVideosCensorshipReligionFunnyConspiracyAwwwAnarchoCapitalismCryptoThemesIdeas4MatrixAskMatrixHelpTop Subs
Both are stooges for the contractor industry, which is the same thing as the deep-state. Hillary Clinton would have involved us in every war she could if she could figure our a way to make money off it, and you know she would. Nikki would also get us involved in every war if her defense firm bosses saw a way they could make money from it, and you know they would.
You know if the field narrows to her and Trump that the first thing she is going to do is attack him for failing to take out Assad after the fake gas attacks. Trump made the right call, but I fear her argument is going to resonate with lower information republicans who don't understand the details in Syria, and who don't understand the virtues of staying out of conflicts. And if Fox news turns on Trump and supports Nikki, their viewers are going to interpret that argument however fox news tells them to interpret it. And something tells me Fox is going to take the side of the security apparatus that wants to get involved in everything that isn't a threat to Americans domestically.
Trump has Iowa in the bag. There isn't a single prediction model that doesn't have him winning with a huge margin. Iowa will ultimately decide who is number 2. Regardless of Trump winning the whole primary, which he will, I don't think the debates with Nikki will be as productive for promoting freedom as he could have with any other runner.
Instead of having a debate of one up mans-ship over who can do the most for the defense industry with Nikki, we could have a debate of one up mans-ship over how we can move beyond woke culture with DeSantis (but it will also end up on Israel too), or a debate of one up mans-ship over how to dismantle the deep-state with Vivek. Both of which will be far more productive. Personally the last one sounds most interesting to me.
I would vote for Biden before Nikki. Why? Because you can't do worse than Hillary Clinton, but you can do exactly equal with Nikki Haley.
My preference order would be:
Comment preview
Hillary Clinton had people killed, Nimarata Nikki Haley couldn't kill a fly.
To me it starts with them doing it in their career and it moves to their personal life. Working the interests of the corporate defense sector is killing people. Once that moral calculation exists between money and killing people, then it's even easier to do it to cover your tracks to avoid jail time.
So really the difference is that Nikki has never been a real estate cheat responsible for banking fraud and so her killing has never had to cross into her personal life.
Interesting, but most politicians are actors for intelligence groups. The Clinton's are owned by the Jewish cabal, while the Haley's are shared between British and Indian intelligence.
That is an interesting idea. I agree with the idea that it is primarily foreign intelligence services that have the highest leverage within our political system, rather than the people or even corporations, and that Israel isn't the only one with power.
But it was my view that to get political traction you have to appease all of the special interests (the top ones being foreign intelligence services). So I've always viewed every politician as representing an admixture of these groups.
I am very anti Nikki. If you know more about her British and Indian ties I'm all ears.
It's both foreign and domestic from what I can tell. The thing most people don't factor into this is that it's basically a network of formal governmental intelligence agencies and non-governmental intelligence entities working against the best interests of the populace and have been since the 1860's.
The sad thing it is basically a guarantee of the system we are in because of the concept of concentrated interests. Basically smaller groups that are organized have more power within a republic than large groups. An example is farmers and subsidies. Most people are against paying farmers extra just to waste food instead of just having them earn what they produce for the market. But farmers like having subsidies. They are a smaller group and pay closer attention to which representatives support their subsidies, and therefore the subsidies remain.
So small x organized x impacted by policy = concentrated interest = comparative political control.
Well there is no group smaller, more capacity for organization, and impacted by our policies than the people behind the power in foreign governments. So they are the group that will have the most power. Of course they have to share that power with other interests, but they get the biggest slice and a bigger slice than the general population of the US which actually has one of the smallest.