Donald Trump Is Just Like Everyone Before Him

[Pete7469]

I also approve of how Trump is dealing with the Chi-Coms and the UN.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Pumpkin is probably one of the most honest posters we have (besides me), and her rare threads are well thought out and worthy of real discussion.

Thank you, I appreciate you saying that.

I do wish you made each point a separate thread though.

Here is where I agree and disagree with you though.

Guns: I was disappointed but not surprised. He is a pragmatist and not a conservative.

I don't consider it pragmatism, for a whole host of reasons.

First is on an ethical basis, people have a right to do as they wish with their own property, so long as force is not used against other people. Every single regulation infringes on this.

Second is from a pragmatic perspective. If someone were to consider victimizing someone else, they'd associate significantly higher risk with doing so if arms were common. A good example is Kennesaw Georgia, where individuals are legally required to own guns, it has one of the absolute lowest crime rates in the US.

Now, speaking specifically on the Red Flag Law, the Government choosing who can and can't do or own specific things has never turned out well, in fact, the perfect example of this is the FDA, as the Government uses it to increase the cost of getting medicine on the shelves, and to promote monopolies. If we were to take the Government's complaints about how questioning the official narrative and owning Crypto is a threat to "National Security", I think we can easily conclude who the Government will be targeting.

Video games: I dont accept the conclusions people draw from the studies otherwise there's be no need for advertising.

"A person becomes what they think about all day long" -- Earl Nightingale

The only evidence that has ever been found to support video games causing violence in any way, shape, or form, has been people in very specific competitive games getting angry. Even then, if I recall correctly, this was specific to Call of Duty, and what was happening in those instances was people "SWATting" the other player(s). In those cases, however, the violence was on the part of the Road Pirates, not the people playing the games. It wasn't the kid playing the game that broke into someone's home with a squad of gun-wielding, violent, sociopaths to assault random people over a story that wasn't confirmed beforehand. I'm also pretty sure the SWAT Team didn't play Call of Duty, but don't quote me on that.

Now, while it is anecdotal evidence, I've been playing 'violent' video games since I was 9, possibly younger, and continue to play them today. One good example is Plague INC, where you play a virus that wipes out humanity. Right now, I'm a Voluntaryist/Anarchist, someone who apposes the initiation of force, the least violent people on the planet.

Deep State: There absolutely is. To believe otherwise is to believe in a bizarre conspiracy that Trump is actually a part of.

Well, first, the term 'conspiracy' just means planning something in secret. We have had numerous confirmations that the Government DOES plan things in secret. For example, they had been incinerating cats for fifty years, there's COINTELPRO, Project Mockingbird, Operation Northwoods, MKULTRA, MKNAOMI, and really, that's just the tip of the iceberg. So, really, it's not controversial in any way to suggest that there are indeed conspiracies taking place within the Government, to say otherwise is to say they don't keep anything secret from us.

Second, Trump is in a position in which he has full legal control over the CIA and FBI, the Government literally counts the votes, they're allowed to decide who can and can't run, and they are not opposed to killing dissenters, like they did with JFK after he denied permission to conduct Operation Northwoods. If he was not working with them, he either would have lost the election, or he would be dead. Besides that, because of Operation Mockingbird and COINTELPRO, he would have been able to stop the narratives the Government had been running against him, either by defunding the media or replacing them with other CIA Agents.

Lastly, and this is easily observable, why is he giving the Government, supposedly run by bad actors, not just itself being a bad actor despite literally incinerating cats and dismembering babies, why is Donald Trump giving them more control over us? Wouldn't that go against absolutely everything his supporters claim he stands for?

There is no difference: Absolutely NOT true. This point should be undebatable.

I can get into more detail on each point later when I have more time. Pumpkin's threads deserve better than "drive-by" posts.

Perhaps you'd be willing to explain to me how it's undebatable, because I've seen zero indication that he in any way benefits the people. Literally the only thing he has done that benefits the people is to repeal Net Neutrality, and there are still a whole host of other things he could have done by now. He could abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve, to grant us greater purchasing power and freedom from theft. In fact, if he was truly for the people, he'd be repealing every regulation and abolishing the "Police", so that we'd be free to buy our own private security instead of being assaulted, robbed, and murdered for victimless "crimes".

Everything he has done has been for the benefit of the Government at our expense, and you can see this by analyzing what has been passed under his 'leadership'. He's continuing the work of every President before him.

Guns: I agree 100% with everything you said on the gun issue. I am not defending him on this, but I was not really surprised, More disappointed than anything. Still, I don't think it'll get very far. It would if we had Hillary in office and they controlled the House, and or more. Fortunately they don't, and government moves SLOWLY, and that's a good thing. Our system was designed that way to prevent mob rule.

Video Games: I know what the studies say, but I also know that feeding your mind with a steady diet of violence for "entertainment" isn't healthy for anyone. I'm not saying government should get involved in this, but I have no doubt a daily diet of this stuff is not healthy. Advertisers don't expect everyone to become a buyer because of their ads, but they know their "message" will "trigger" a small percentage. An average person with average mental health will not be influenced to any great degree by violent video games (although it does affect everyone), but a kid who has lost hope, or a kid who goes to school every morning and gets bullied day in and day out, will see an option in living out a video game in real life as the "solution" to his torture.

Deep State: Government employees, mostly appointed, lean heavily LEFT. Many of those, loyal to the Clintons and Obama, CONSPIRE to thwart and discredit everything Trump attempts to do, and works endlessly to discredit him.

Strzok, Comey, Hillary, the Steel dossier, Muller, the media and on, and, on and on. There are tens of thousands in government who work behind the scenes to destroy Trump. Obama, who never left Washington, is a major character in this fight.

Peter Strzok sues over firing for anti-Trump textsPeter Strzok sues over firing for anti-Trump texts

No Difference: Do you honestly think there is NO difference between presidents? I find that hard to believe that you would fall for that.

I think it was George Washington who compared government to a wild beast that needs to be kept on a short leash. Keep feeding the beast and it will become too large and powerful and it will no longer be serving you, but you will serve it.

We don't have dictators or kings. We have presidents. Trump's inability to do everything HIS way is governed by the same forces that THANKFULLY, prevented Obama from TRANSFORMING America like he promised.

The "government" is composed of MILLIONS (far too many) of people working against the interests of others. Each having their own motives, with some being more noble and others, more selfish. Government moves slowly because of this, and no president gets exactly what he wants. And, yes, people in government are just as different as the people who make up this forum. There is a world of difference between the candidates, and of those who have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in 2020, Trump is the best.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I'm not that astute when it comes to economics, it seems like there is more manipulation and control by people beyond the curtains than anyone is aware of. I'm talking about beyond the big banks, wall street traders, federal reserve chairs and the government. Those assholes (assuming they're all assholes, some of them might not be) obviously get what they want, they did it to Andrew Jackson when he got rid of what amounted to the federal reserve in the 1830's and they crushed the economy. We were stagnant for decades. I think Trump's optimism by itself has some effect on how people perceive things. The meat puppet faggot seemed content with stagnation and malaise, it seemed like it was his objective to suppress economic prosperity. He offered no positive outlook.

That manipulation and control by whoever it happens to be, I personally blame the Government as that's why the Federal Reserve was established in the first place, in order to allow them to more freely manipulate people's medium of exchange. If you look closely at their reaction to Crypto, which cannot be manipulated and is non-taxable, as well as secure, you can see that's exactly why they don't like it.

It's possible that his theatrics inspire people, but it won't prevent the dollar from collapsing as other Nations cease exchanging in it, despite the US's threats. I'm sure you noticed that the Russia, China, and Iran narratives all started after they stopped exchanging in the Dollar.

There are a lot of nuances and shit to it economics, so I pretty much concern myself with the 2nd Amendment. As far as I'm concerned that is what sets us as American apart from the rest of the world. In any other country your neighbors can be "disappeared" in the middle of the night and the more frequently it happens, the less people will discuss it. Here, people who are innocent and can make it costly to be dragged out of their homes far outnumber those willing to sign up and play the part of the "magicians". When it came down to the bump stocks I really didn't care, but you're right about people being able to keep their shit. To be honest I oppose the the NFA and the GCA of 1986. I think we should be able to have automatic weapons, including crew served, as well as be trained with anti-armor recoil less munitions, and anti-personnel ordinance in order to graduate high school.

Why limit yourself to the second amendment, when the 2nd amendment is just property rights? You own yourself, and all of your property is an extension of that self-ownership, and nobody should tell you what to do with your own property.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but people do disappear in America, they just disappear far more obviously, and the Government calls it justice.

We're all supposed to be a part of the militia. Which means that in the event of an invasion or war we can be called up and have the basic familiarity with infantry weapons so that we can defend our interests. Had we maintained that standard, we would be able to weed out the malcontents, nut jobs, and non hackers that don't have the sack to share full citizenship in our beloved republic. Not only would it be easier to identify these lone wolf psychopaths before they get AK's and shoot up a school or Wal-Mart, the rest of society would have the fundamental knowledge of close quarters combat so that if one of these creatures fall through a crack, they can be neutralized much faster. Instead we have a nation of sheep, toothless servile and frightened bed wetting sheep who hate the sheepdogs.

Well, I agree that there SHOULD be a Militia, at least in that case the Government wouldn't be abusing military strength to murder random people over oil, or to force people to exchange in the dollar. I also agree that people would be able to defend themselves better. However, I'm sure you're aware that the Government, or really, A Government would never allow their property to hold weapons for long, regardless of whether that makes them victims for others or not, because all that matters is that we're the Government's victims too.

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia

Because they've admitted that their job isn't to protect us.

Trump, who is from the highest of upper class society has no concept of what life in general means for those of us in the pasture. I don't think he is the sinister sort of globalist that hitlery, obozo, soros or the kennedy and bush clans are. I think he does have a better perspective of what it means to be a patriot and does not have nefarious intentions, but he still has to answer to people who can pull the sort of strings where sitting presidents can be shot in broad daylight in front of God and the entire world without facing the consequences, at least not until they shuck the mortal coil.

It's not that he lacks that concept, it's that it doesn't matter. Those in Government work on behalf of Government. If they didn't, they'd either be disappeared or never allowed in to begin with.

The Government dismembers babies and incinerates kittens. As far as I'm considered, they're puppy-kicking evil, regardless of the fact that they're just doing what's in their interests.

Patriotism doesn't mean anything, it's just a tool the Government uses to make people believe in something they otherwise wouldn't. What even is an America? A plot of land? Traditions? The Government? Why does it matter? In the end, people should do what benefits them, independent of any arbitrary rules, sentimentality, patriotism, invisible borders it's all meaningless, because what matters is ethics, and your property, and the Government cares for none of it, and for evidence, I can cite our over 800,000 regulations that tell us what we can and can't do with it, while the President that is supposedly for our freedom sits and watches it happen.

While I did not support him until shortly before the 2016 election, I will eagerly vote for him in 2020. The vitriol of the moonbats alone is enough to inspire me to do so. I wrote in Ted Cruz in 2016, but I'm not sure he would have been able to do as well as Trump has.

I supported him, however briefly, because I failed to connect the dots. As I mentioned in the OP, The Donald has control of the CIA and FBI, and can use them to hide or spread whatever information he wants. He could have defunded the Mainstream Media and never suffered for it, and people would have had a few less sources of false information. Really, though, the biggest piece of evidence that he works on behalf of the Government is his presence in the Government.

I will, however, grant you that watching the 'left' cry is fun.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Guns: I agree 100% with everything you said on the gun issue. I am not defending him on this, but I was not really surprised, More disappointed than anything. Still, I don't think it'll get very far. It would if we had Hillary in office and they controlled the House, and or more. Fortunately they don't, and government moves SLOWLY, and that's a good thing. Our system was designed that way to prevent mob rule.

You shouldn't have been disappointed, because if they intended for you to be free, they wouldn't be ruling over you in the first place. Someone cannot rule over you and simultaneously work for you.

Video Games: I know what the studies say, but I also know that feeding your mind with a steady diet of violence for "entertainment" isn't healthy for anyone. I'm not saying government should get involved in this, but I have no doubt a daily diet of this stuff is not healthy. Advertisers don't expect everyone to become a buyer because of their ads, but they know their "message" will "trigger" a small percentage. An average person with average mental health will not be influenced to any great degree by violent video games (although it does affect everyone), but a kid who has lost hope, or a kid who goes to school every morning and gets bullied day in and day out, will see an option in living out a video game in real life as the "solution" to his torture.

The businesses that try to sell people a message are those that are subsidized, and they really don't get all that many sales in the first place. EA is a good example, heavily subsidized and barely sold any copies of their newest Battlefield game. People don't care about a message, for the most part, they just want an enjoyable product.
Screenshot

You went with the mental health narrative, and with that you shot your argument in the foot. Only about 3-5% of violence are committed by the mentally ill, they're actually LESS likely to commit violent acts and MORE likely to be victims.
Gun Violence and Mental Illness: Myths and Evidence-Based Facts
This narrative is being pushed by the Government because they're expanding mental illness to apply to more people, steadily, while pushing for laws that prevent them from purchasing fire arms, despite the fact that it prevents them from defending themselves.

Mentally ill people are FAR more likely to harm themselves than others.

Deep State: Government employees, mostly appointed, lean heavily LEFT. Many of those, loyal to the Clintons and Obama, CONSPIRE to thwart and discredit everything Trump attempts to do, and works endlessly to discredit him.

Strzok, Comey, Hillary, the Steel dossier, Muller, the media and on, and, on and on. There are tens of thousands in government who work behind the scenes to destroy Trump. Obama, who never left Washington, is a major character in this fight.

Peter Strzok sues over firing for anti-Trump textsPeter Strzok sues over firing for anti-Trump texts

You are correct that this is the narrative being pushed, that everyone wants to stop what Trump is doing. Tell me, which things do they want to stop? His firearm legislation, that the previous president pushed for? The expansion of regulations, which the previous president pushed for? So far, besides SUPPOSEDLY his immigration stances, what has he done that that they disagreed with? Things are almost exactly the same, the Government is being expanded, and our rights are being infringed upon.

Through Operation Mockingbird, the Government controls the media. Donald Trump has to approve of the budget that they operate on. This means he approved of the narrative being run against him. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, given the mainstream media's dropping viewership, that their supposed slander and libel has only earned him more support. You can see that in what Pete said on the previous page; "I will vote for Trump to make them cry again."
Can you deny that it's satisfying to see all of the outrage? It's satisfying to me. That's exactly why it's happening, and exactly how he got elected, assuming voting isn't staged, and that's how he maintains the level of support that he does, despite doing everything we're told the 'left' wants to do.

No Difference: Do you honestly think there is NO difference between presidents? I find that hard to believe that you would fall for that.

Yes, because there is no difference. In fact, what do you mean "Fall for that"? The narrative is and always has been that there are two parties and that they're against each other, but what happens differently from one or the other? Do you not see regulations increasing regardless of who is in office? Do you not see our rights infringed upon regardless of who is in office? Do you not see additional taxes, babies being dismembered, troops staying overseas and fighting over oil, force being applied to foreign nations to make them trade in the dollar? It's all constant, and none of it has changed based on which party is voted for. Do you think it's impossible to just present us with people selected by the Government to run, and then merely sell that they're different, despite the fact that they're all going to work in the same organization? We still end up with Social Security, redistribution of wealth, falling purchasing power, more social programs, more censorship, and then everyone blames each other as if the Government is a tool, rather than an organization that works in its benefit.

Let me ask you, whose interest do you work in? Your own, right? I work for my own interests, so does the old lady next door, and the man down the street. What makes you think that would change just because they sit in a specific chair and call themselves Government? If I called myself Government right now, would I suddenly represent you without your consent and work in your interest?

I think it was George Washington who compared government to a wild beast that needs to be kept on a short leash. Keep feeding the beast and it will become too large and powerful and it will no longer be serving you, but you will serve it.

George Washington took office, then proceeded to tax the people more than the crown ever did. After the revolution, people traded in a dictator for a dictator. You can thank them for Emperor Washington, and every Emperor after him. What makes you think those who claim to rule you could ever work for you? If I claimed authority to tell you what you can eat, when you can sleep, what you could buy, and stole your money, all without your consent, would I be working for you, so long as I named myself Government? What keeps the Government from growing?

When does it stop growing? When does it stop dismembering babies? When does it stop incinerating cats and brainwashing your kids? When did you consent to any of this? When did you tell them they could do any of these things? Where's the leash? You understand this was a Minarchy, right? 800,000+ Regulations deep, and we're supposed to be holding this leash, who is really in charge here? I think it's the people who can tell you what to do, steal your money, and send Road Pirates after you if you disobey.

We don't have dictators or kings. We have presidents. Trump's inability to do everything HIS way is governed by the same forces that THANKFULLY, prevented Obama from TRANSFORMING America like he promised.

He has announced his intentions, and I've showed you his actions. It's not that he doesn't have authority to do as he desires, it's that red flag laws, censorship, and regulations are in his interests. He said so himself, I showed you that.

The "government" is composed of MILLIONS (far too many) of people working against the interests of others. Each having their own motives, with some being more noble and others, more selfish. Government moves slowly because of this, and no president gets exactly what he wants. And, yes, people in government are just as different as the people who make up this forum. There is a world of difference between the candidates, and of those who have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in 2020, Trump is the best.

Do you think an organization can't organize itself? Business seem to do so fine, so why is the Government exempt from this? The business pays you, you want the money and promotions, sure, but everything you do while on the clock is of benefit to that business, or else you get fired.

So, the Government gets to select who runs to be in Government, but you think that some aren't working in the interests of Government. When does a business promote people that they think are working against its interests? Do you think you're really picking if every single one seeks to rule you, and it's a specific small number of people out of the millions who live here?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Guns: I agree 100% with everything you said on the gun issue. I am not defending him on this, but I was not really surprised, More disappointed than anything. Still, I don't think it'll get very far. It would if we had Hillary in office and they controlled the House, and or more. Fortunately they don't, and government moves SLOWLY, and that's a good thing. Our system was designed that way to prevent mob rule.

You shouldn't have been disappointed, because if they intended for you to be free, they wouldn't be ruling over you in the first place. Someone cannot rule over you and simultaneously work for you.

Video Games: I know what the studies say, but I also know that feeding your mind with a steady diet of violence for "entertainment" isn't healthy for anyone. I'm not saying government should get involved in this, but I have no doubt a daily diet of this stuff is not healthy. Advertisers don't expect everyone to become a buyer because of their ads, but they know their "message" will "trigger" a small percentage. An average person with average mental health will not be influenced to any great degree by violent video games (although it does affect everyone), but a kid who has lost hope, or a kid who goes to school every morning and gets bullied day in and day out, will see an option in living out a video game in real life as the "solution" to his torture.

The businesses that try to sell people a message are those that are subsidized, and they really don't get all that many sales in the first place. EA is a good example, heavily subsidized and barely sold any copies of their newest Battlefield game. People don't care about a message, for the most part, they just want an enjoyable product.
Screenshot

You went with the mental health narrative, and with that you shot your argument in the foot. Only about 3-5% of violence are committed by the mentally ill, they're actually LESS likely to commit violent acts and MORE likely to be victims.
Gun Violence and Mental Illness: Myths and Evidence-Based Facts
This narrative is being pushed by the Government because they're expanding mental illness to apply to more people, steadily, while pushing for laws that prevent them from purchasing fire arms, despite the fact that it prevents them from defending themselves.

Mentally ill people are FAR more likely to harm themselves than others.

Deep State: Government employees, mostly appointed, lean heavily LEFT. Many of those, loyal to the Clintons and Obama, CONSPIRE to thwart and discredit everything Trump attempts to do, and works endlessly to discredit him.

Strzok, Comey, Hillary, the Steel dossier, Muller, the media and on, and, on and on. There are tens of thousands in government who work behind the scenes to destroy Trump. Obama, who never left Washington, is a major character in this fight.

Peter Strzok sues over firing for anti-Trump textsPeter Strzok sues over firing for anti-Trump texts

You are correct that this is the narrative being pushed, that everyone wants to stop what Trump is doing. Tell me, which things do they want to stop? His firearm legislation, that the previous president pushed for? The expansion of regulations, which the previous president pushed for? So far, besides SUPPOSEDLY his immigration stances, what has he done that that they disagreed with? Things are almost exactly the same, the Government is being expanded, and our rights are being infringed upon.

Through Operation Mockingbird, the Government controls the media. Donald Trump has to approve of the budget that they operate on. This means he approved of the narrative being run against him. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, given the mainstream media's dropping viewership, that their supposed slander and libel has only earned him more support. You can see that in what Pete said on the previous page; "I will vote for Trump to make them cry again."
Can you deny that it's satisfying to see all of the outrage? It's satisfying to me. That's exactly why it's happening, and exactly how he got elected, assuming voting isn't staged, and that's how he maintains the level of support that he does, despite doing everything we're told the 'left' wants to do.

No Difference: Do you honestly think there is NO difference between presidents? I find that hard to believe that you would fall for that.

Yes, because there is no difference. In fact, what do you mean "Fall for that"? The narrative is and always has been that there are two parties and that they're against each other, but what happens differently from one or the other? Do you not see regulations increasing regardless of who is in office? Do you not see our rights infringed upon regardless of who is in office? Do you not see additional taxes, babies being dismembered, troops staying overseas and fighting over oil, force being applied to foreign nations to make them trade in the dollar? It's all constant, and none of it has changed based on which party is voted for. Do you think it's impossible to just present us with people selected by the Government to run, and then merely sell that they're different, despite the fact that they're all going to work in the same organization? We still end up with Social Security, redistribution of wealth, falling purchasing power, more social programs, more censorship, and then everyone blames each other as if the Government is a tool, rather than an organization that works in its benefit.

Let me ask you, whose interest do you work in? Your own, right? I work for my own interests, so does the old lady next door, and the man down the street. What makes you think that would change just because they sit in a specific chair and call themselves Government? If I called myself Government right now, would I suddenly represent you without your consent and work in your interest?

I think it was George Washington who compared government to a wild beast that needs to be kept on a short leash. Keep feeding the beast and it will become too large and powerful and it will no longer be serving you, but you will serve it.

George Washington took office, then proceeded to tax the people more than the crown ever did. After the revolution, people traded in a dictator for a dictator. You can thank them for Emperor Washington, and every Emperor after him. What makes you think those who claim to rule you could ever work for you? If I claimed authority to tell you what you can eat, when you can sleep, what you could buy, and stole your money, all without your consent, would I be working for you, so long as I named myself Government? What keeps the Government from growing?

When does it stop growing? When does it stop dismembering babies? When does it stop incinerating cats and brainwashing your kids? When did you consent to any of this? When did you tell them they could do any of these things? Where's the leash? You understand this was a Minarchy, right? 800,000+ Regulations deep, and we're supposed to be holding this leash, who is really in charge here? I think it's the people who can tell you what to do, steal your money, and send Road Pirates after you if you disobey.

We don't have dictators or kings. We have presidents. Trump's inability to do everything HIS way is governed by the same forces that THANKFULLY, prevented Obama from TRANSFORMING America like he promised.

He has announced his intentions, and I've showed you his actions. It's not that he doesn't have authority to do as he desires, it's that red flag laws, censorship, and regulations are in his interests. He said so himself, I showed you that.

The "government" is composed of MILLIONS (far too many) of people working against the interests of others. Each having their own motives, with some being more noble and others, more selfish. Government moves slowly because of this, and no president gets exactly what he wants. And, yes, people in government are just as different as the people who make up this forum. There is a world of difference between the candidates, and of those who have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in 2020, Trump is the best.

Do you think an organization can't organize itself? Business seem to do so fine, so why is the Government exempt from this? The business pays you, you want the money and promotions, sure, but everything you do while on the clock is of benefit to that business, or else you get fired.

So, the Government gets to select who runs to be in Government, but you think that some aren't working in the interests of Government. When does a business promote people that they think are working against its interests? Do you think you're really picking if every single one seeks to rule you, and it's a specific small number of people out of the millions who live here?

Do you plan on voting in 2020? Dont want to put words in your mouth, but I'm betting you think it's a pointless exercise.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Guns: I agree 100% with everything you said on the gun issue. I am not defending him on this, but I was not really surprised, More disappointed than anything. Still, I don't think it'll get very far. It would if we had Hillary in office and they controlled the House, and or more. Fortunately they don't, and government moves SLOWLY, and that's a good thing. Our system was designed that way to prevent mob rule.

You shouldn't have been disappointed, because if they intended for you to be free, they wouldn't be ruling over you in the first place. Someone cannot rule over you and simultaneously work for you.

Video Games: I know what the studies say, but I also know that feeding your mind with a steady diet of violence for "entertainment" isn't healthy for anyone. I'm not saying government should get involved in this, but I have no doubt a daily diet of this stuff is not healthy. Advertisers don't expect everyone to become a buyer because of their ads, but they know their "message" will "trigger" a small percentage. An average person with average mental health will not be influenced to any great degree by violent video games (although it does affect everyone), but a kid who has lost hope, or a kid who goes to school every morning and gets bullied day in and day out, will see an option in living out a video game in real life as the "solution" to his torture.

The businesses that try to sell people a message are those that are subsidized, and they really don't get all that many sales in the first place. EA is a good example, heavily subsidized and barely sold any copies of their newest Battlefield game. People don't care about a message, for the most part, they just want an enjoyable product.
Screenshot

You went with the mental health narrative, and with that you shot your argument in the foot. Only about 3-5% of violence are committed by the mentally ill, they're actually LESS likely to commit violent acts and MORE likely to be victims.
Gun Violence and Mental Illness: Myths and Evidence-Based Facts
This narrative is being pushed by the Government because they're expanding mental illness to apply to more people, steadily, while pushing for laws that prevent them from purchasing fire arms, despite the fact that it prevents them from defending themselves.

Mentally ill people are FAR more likely to harm themselves than others.

Deep State: Government employees, mostly appointed, lean heavily LEFT. Many of those, loyal to the Clintons and Obama, CONSPIRE to thwart and discredit everything Trump attempts to do, and works endlessly to discredit him.

Strzok, Comey, Hillary, the Steel dossier, Muller, the media and on, and, on and on. There are tens of thousands in government who work behind the scenes to destroy Trump. Obama, who never left Washington, is a major character in this fight.

Peter Strzok sues over firing for anti-Trump textsPeter Strzok sues over firing for anti-Trump texts

You are correct that this is the narrative being pushed, that everyone wants to stop what Trump is doing. Tell me, which things do they want to stop? His firearm legislation, that the previous president pushed for? The expansion of regulations, which the previous president pushed for? So far, besides SUPPOSEDLY his immigration stances, what has he done that that they disagreed with? Things are almost exactly the same, the Government is being expanded, and our rights are being infringed upon.

Through Operation Mockingbird, the Government controls the media. Donald Trump has to approve of the budget that they operate on. This means he approved of the narrative being run against him. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, given the mainstream media's dropping viewership, that their supposed slander and libel has only earned him more support. You can see that in what Pete said on the previous page; "I will vote for Trump to make them cry again."
Can you deny that it's satisfying to see all of the outrage? It's satisfying to me. That's exactly why it's happening, and exactly how he got elected, assuming voting isn't staged, and that's how he maintains the level of support that he does, despite doing everything we're told the 'left' wants to do.

No Difference: Do you honestly think there is NO difference between presidents? I find that hard to believe that you would fall for that.

Yes, because there is no difference. In fact, what do you mean "Fall for that"? The narrative is and always has been that there are two parties and that they're against each other, but what happens differently from one or the other? Do you not see regulations increasing regardless of who is in office? Do you not see our rights infringed upon regardless of who is in office? Do you not see additional taxes, babies being dismembered, troops staying overseas and fighting over oil, force being applied to foreign nations to make them trade in the dollar? It's all constant, and none of it has changed based on which party is voted for. Do you think it's impossible to just present us with people selected by the Government to run, and then merely sell that they're different, despite the fact that they're all going to work in the same organization? We still end up with Social Security, redistribution of wealth, falling purchasing power, more social programs, more censorship, and then everyone blames each other as if the Government is a tool, rather than an organization that works in its benefit.

Let me ask you, whose interest do you work in? Your own, right? I work for my own interests, so does the old lady next door, and the man down the street. What makes you think that would change just because they sit in a specific chair and call themselves Government? If I called myself Government right now, would I suddenly represent you without your consent and work in your interest?

I think it was George Washington who compared government to a wild beast that needs to be kept on a short leash. Keep feeding the beast and it will become too large and powerful and it will no longer be serving you, but you will serve it.

George Washington took office, then proceeded to tax the people more than the crown ever did. After the revolution, people traded in a dictator for a dictator. You can thank them for Emperor Washington, and every Emperor after him. What makes you think those who claim to rule you could ever work for you? If I claimed authority to tell you what you can eat, when you can sleep, what you could buy, and stole your money, all without your consent, would I be working for you, so long as I named myself Government? What keeps the Government from growing?

When does it stop growing? When does it stop dismembering babies? When does it stop incinerating cats and brainwashing your kids? When did you consent to any of this? When did you tell them they could do any of these things? Where's the leash? You understand this was a Minarchy, right? 800,000+ Regulations deep, and we're supposed to be holding this leash, who is really in charge here? I think it's the people who can tell you what to do, steal your money, and send Road Pirates after you if you disobey.

We don't have dictators or kings. We have presidents. Trump's inability to do everything HIS way is governed by the same forces that THANKFULLY, prevented Obama from TRANSFORMING America like he promised.

He has announced his intentions, and I've showed you his actions. It's not that he doesn't have authority to do as he desires, it's that red flag laws, censorship, and regulations are in his interests. He said so himself, I showed you that.

The "government" is composed of MILLIONS (far too many) of people working against the interests of others. Each having their own motives, with some being more noble and others, more selfish. Government moves slowly because of this, and no president gets exactly what he wants. And, yes, people in government are just as different as the people who make up this forum. There is a world of difference between the candidates, and of those who have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in 2020, Trump is the best.

Do you think an organization can't organize itself? Business seem to do so fine, so why is the Government exempt from this? The business pays you, you want the money and promotions, sure, but everything you do while on the clock is of benefit to that business, or else you get fired.

So, the Government gets to select who runs to be in Government, but you think that some aren't working in the interests of Government. When does a business promote people that they think are working against its interests? Do you think you're really picking if every single one seeks to rule you, and it's a specific small number of people out of the millions who live here?

Do you plan on voting in 2020? Dont want to put words in your mouth, but I'm betting you think it's a pointless exercise.

No. Even if the voting process accomplished anything, and it doesn't, objectively;

You select from people approved by the Government, all of whom will infringe on your rights, each individual vote has near zero chance of mattering, assuming the Government doesn't just outright select the President while pretending to count them.

Regardless of that, voting is unethical, since it's attempting to use force against others, to make them live the way you want them to.

There's also the fact that you're not even represented if you do vote, nobody has your consent to represent you, and even if they did, there's at most 1% alignment between their ideas and yours, and zero alignment between what benefits you and what benefits them.

In short, it's proven that regardless of what rulers you pick, the public has zero influence on the passage of legislation.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf