Jump to content
genie

American President Donald Trump Has Taken Power Your Thoughts?

Recommended Posts

so now that its officially president trump in america.

What do you think he will be like as a president, what policies he will inact and what does the future hold for us as minorities and rest of humanity?

His opening speech began with quite a nationalistic tone, so in my view he is going to be protectionist for american interests instead of being an internationalist/globalist as the past few presidents have been.

He made it clear in his many speeches and tweets he is quite anti-china and anti-iran, but russia friendly and pro-israel. So in in terms of Geo-politics it seems there might be a war with either china in south china sea's or Iran over its nuclear program on Israel's behalf. What would be interesting to see is if Russia is going to come to the aid of its allies china or Iran should there be war or if Russia will just sit it out in the sidelines and see its global respect influence and alliances diminish.

In terms of american society I think there is going to be alot more hate crimes and violence. On a positive note the homosexual and feminist agenda lobby's will have less influence and power in inacting their crazy left lunatic fringe policies

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is easy to sway crowds with words. However when it comes to physically delivering to the people your promises,  few are capable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More of the same, I think, but he just seems to be coming from a different direction. Yet, the way he's ruffling Republican and Democrat feathers so visibly makes me suspect he could easily be an unknown quantity. The media has decided he's another Hitler, lol, so I guess he can't be that bad if he's being attacked from all quarters in such a manner. 

All in all, I think some pretty unprecedented events will be seen during his term in office. Whether he'll win a second term is anyone's guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2

Ron Paul would be a better choice by a lot. Trump doesn't really have a history of political positions that have stayed the same throughout his life, so he could be a completely different guy than what he ran as. (As a side note Obama has deported more people than any president has, so it's unlikely Trump would go higher than that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

already it has been announced he has authorised for the building of defense shield against Iranian and northern korean missiles which shows one or both of those countries will be attacked in the future and they moving the chess pieces into place.

To me the game plan is quite simple take out the last non-rothschild central bank countries... then take out Russia in the end and complete western military hegomany and dominance over the globe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, genie said:

already it has been announced he has authorised for the building of defense shield against Iranian and northern korean missiles which shows one or both of those countries will be attacked in the future and they moving the chess pieces into place.

To me the game plan is quite simple take out the last non-rothschild central bank countries... then take out Russia in the end and complete western military hegomany and dominance over the globe.

He might mess up though. If America sends ground troops anywhere, and they have a high body count, the public will lose their stomach like Vietnam. Also, in this media day and age, if the US soldiers act sadistically (and it's captured on film and distributed), a lot of people will be disgusted (though a lot of right wing goray wouldn't care a toss or would actually be happy about it). And given what we know about the nature of many of those soldiers - some are VERY likely to do some warped ish. 

Also, his policies might cause serious disruption on American soil itself with minorities and others protesting and rioting. 

I do think he'll be more openly ruthless with people he initiates wars against though. I mean he's already said he's okay with torture and going for people's families.  

I'm wondering if he'll be sending ground troops to fight ISIS. I'm also wondering if England will do its traditional poodle chumcha thing with the yanks too, or have they learnt their lessons from the Bush/Blair bumchumerry? I think the recent failures of the British army in Afghanistan and Iraq has made the Brits lose their appetite for such things. If Brits get involved in US initiated wars and start losing soldiers, it will definitely make this place even more depressed. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite interesting in that I was listening to the inauguration speech and that some of the political commentators depending on their biases saw it completely different.

Some people saw that he was consistent in what he says what he was going to do, others say he was not being specific and vague and others have compared his speech to a Mussoloni speech, others say that he only spoke to the people who voted for him.

He is not career politician but being a billionaire businessman he will understand how politics work since he has had to persuade/influence politicians in his business dealings. So in that way he is an insider.

He is not dumb or stupid. This guy has been around politicians for over 40 years, if you Google him (particular in the early 80s) you will realise that he is a lot more articulate and far more intelligent than people realise.

Time will only tell what kind of president he will be but I imagine that the establishment will try to scupper any plans that he has.

One of things he has said in his speech, "America first". All US Presidents have always put the interests of their country first, the only difference is that he openly said it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about his age too? He's older than any other president and if he has a hard time in office, it might accelerate his aging (like Obama). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

What about his age too? He's older than any other president and if he has a hard time in office, it might accelerate his aging (like Obama). 

We'll have to see. If he wanted to he could have enjoyed his golden years but he clearly feels he has a higher purpose.

He is not beholden to lobbyists like previous presidents. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
3 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

One of things he has said in his speech, "America first". All US Presidents have always put the interests of their country first, the only difference is that he openly said it.

No, the didn't put the interests of America first, but rather their own interests, if they cared about America's interest they our president would have been Ron Paul not Obama, and McCain/Romney in 2008 and 2012. Let's just hope Trump isn't all talk, and actually does something.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jacfsing2 said:

No, the didn't put the interests of America first, but rather their own interests, if they cared about America's interest they our president would have been Ron Paul not Obama, and McCain/Romney in 2008 and 2012. Let's just hope Trump isn't all talk, and actually does something.

 

intersting how anti-propaganda bills were introduced under radar in december by Obama, giving any govt total powers to shut down press outfits outside their propaganda peddling circleof control , expect to see non-conformist, independent journalism to go out the window . If there is action anti Iran then it confirms a rotchschild shill is in office . I only hope that he keeps concentrated on domestic affairs rather than further empire building .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No post-war American president has put the American people first. They may say they do in their rhetoric filled speeches which they spew during electioneering, but the only people that matter to America PLC are the private interest groups, sponsors, and corporations. The people aren't a genuine consideration at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jacfsing2 said:

No, the didn't put the interests of America first, but rather their own interests, if they cared about America's interest they our president would have been Ron Paul not Obama, and McCain/Romney in 2008 and 2012. Let's just hope Trump isn't all talk, and actually does something.

 

I am speaking from a Non-US perspective. Whether it is US corporations or other US institutions or US aam janta,  US interests come first.

Just my perspective 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the secret service agents are strong enough to take away trumps hand away from posting something crazy on twitter that could start world war 3. Or grab his hand away from the nuke button.

Trump has a very thin skin, and is unpredictable and he also holds a grudge much like the powerful elites of the world they always hold a grudge and try to get even eventually. He fights very dirty to ensure he wins as we can see in his personal and business life and the elections.

So if he goes to war he will not care about the lives of innocent civilians or their families he has already made it clear he would attack the families of islamic terrorists who attack america, which is a great deterrent but would be morally abhorrent and could mean further chaos across the world.

The biggest danger for america is not external right now but internal with such polarised camps in the country. If they cant work together democratically there could be armed movements to break away from the USA and form their own nation states or seek autonomy. And a dis united USA is bad news for all of us not just in terms of trade and security but also international cooperation to natural disasters. Bigger nations are more able to cope and help others during times of humanitarian need than smaller ones with little resources. Which is one reason argument people can make for Kashmiris, Sikhs and others to remain in the Indian union rather than seceded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/01/2017 at 1:26 PM, Jacfsing2 said:

No, the didn't put the interests of America first, but rather their own interests, if they cared about America's interest they our president would have been Ron Paul not Obama, and McCain/Romney in 2008 and 2012. Let's just hope Trump isn't all talk, and actually does something

 

Edited by Hammertime007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Another point I would like to mention for fellow history lovers like is that generally if we look at all non Sikh sources mentioning Sihs and their practises we get a clearer picture than reading our Granths. The Granths were written from a certain mindset, schooling, 'sect' influence and sometimes even vested interests. While non Sikh authors usually wrote after observing Sikhs from several places and often even contrasting, comparing the behaviours of Sikhs across India. While narrow minded non Sikh narratives exist, a dozen sources can be found which clearly imply that Sikhi of the 18th century was more devoid of anti-Gurmat influences than that of the 19th century or Sikh literature (written mostly by Nirmalas who did not represent a majority of the Sikh dharam). Lots of non Sikh sources clearly mention that Sikhs generally did not observe casteist practises.
        “When a person is once admitted into that (Sikh) fraternity, they make no scruple of associating with him, of whatever tribe, clan or race he may have been hitherto; nor do they betray any of those scruples and prejudices so deeply rooted in the Hindu mind.”
      – Mir Ghulam Hussain Khan (Siyar ul mutakherin, 1783)
    • Chibber's narrative should be read in a context. He was born in a family which was held in great respect and esteem by the Sikh community; several prominent members of this family being treasurers, constant companions or martyrs of the Guru's house. The last notable Chibber in the community was Chaupa Singh who was executed in the 1720s. It seems that the Chibber influence within the community diminished in the coming decades, bolstering envy and rage amongt the Chibbers who had seen their parivaars influence wane over the decades. Hence there were several attempts in Chibber literature of the mid 18th century to infer a preferential ranking of Chibber Brahmins and introduce casteist practises once again (see Rehatnama Chaupa Singh for example). This a theory I have developed myself so can not quote scholars who advocated this theory but all the facts can be double checked. We always have to read into an authors background and motives for writing a certain text. The sect that manipulated Guru Nanak Dev's Janamsakhis saying the Guru married a Muslim woman did so to cover the defect of their own leader who had married a Muslim lady (and was thus viewed as an outcaste by the larger society). Similarly several writers have tried to link Mani Singh to their own lineage or caste (Gyani Gian Singh 'Dullat' made Bhai Mani Singh a Dullat as well despite the lack of proof in 18th century literature of any such claim).

      Therefore I do not believe the Sakhi posted by the OP to be true, Chibber had a vested agenda to promote casteism and more specifically the preferential ranking of the (Chibber) Brahmins. Ever noticed how the Chibber literature cleverly says a Chibber put Patasey in the first Khandi Di Pahul ceremony, were the first to take amrit and so on? (historically contradicted by all existing written sources) [Bansawlinama Chapter 10 I believe]. Similarly the Rehatnama (oldest copy 1765, written by Kesar Singh Chibbers father Gurbaksh Singh Chibber) asks Sikhs to give preferential treatment to Chibber Brahmins.
    •     I know why he got arrested.  And I am not saying they targeted him because they thought "oh he is a mona so it makes him an easy target."   I am saying that because he is a mona, and because he is used to being able to identify as a Sikh when it suits him and fly under the radar when it is inconvenient, he was not as vigilant as he should have been.  Someone who goes through their entire life being identifiable as a Sikh every minute of every day, and experiences all of the baggage that that entails, is not going to have any illusions about what would await him in India if he was behind a website like neverforget84.
×