nwtk2007 wrote:
As clear as it is to ANY honest person who can read, there will still be those, even on this forum who, like the current democrat candidates, who will continue to make the claim that the president said all immigrants are animals. I just heard Beto this morning say that Trump now calls the immigrants an infestation, a term now made popular by the comment he made about Baltimore being "rat infested," which it is.
I am continually astounded at how people in the 21st century, knowing we can read and watch and listen to these issues over and over again, still make the false claims about his statements.
As clear as it is to ANY honest person who can rea... (
show quote)
Interesting observation (which I happen to agree with).
Some other observations have been made that NWO elites like to publish what they are doing somewhere in the open, perhaps in code or symbols or worked into the dialog of a movie or something. Maybe it's a Freudian-slip type phenomenon or has a name I'm not aware of.
One observation I’ve made personally (while researching the development of the extra-biblical Trinity doctrine) is the phenomenon that sometimes people are more candid about lies with people they believe agree with them, than with people they think will challenge them. (For example, Athanasius, one of the architects of the Trinity, in speaking with polytheists, would argue, and I'm paraphrasing from memory here, you can't have more than one God, because if you did, you would have gods who were superior or inferior to each other and if they needed anything from one another, none of them would be "all-mighty". On the other hand, writing to Arius, who was a "Subordinationist Trinitarian" (meaning he believed Jesus was made of a similar nature to God, and made in process of time), Athanasius would say that you can't have a God, like Arius' view of Jesus, who is not coequal and coeternal with the Father and still claim you are talking about God. Athanasius would also say, contrary to this, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had to eternally love each other in order to be the definition of love. Well, in doing so, Athanasius justified for his doctrine what he condemned polytheists of doing: making gods who needed other gods and thereby showed a lack in their self, thus less than almighty. And the Platonism-educated masses ate up what Athanasius wrote because his "reasoning" appealed to their secular/pagan educations.)
My point is this observation: double-minded people who can't keep their stories or the facts straight between two different groups of people (within reason, that is, not that we aren't all human) shouldn't be the ones we look to for leadership. This is what Jesus called the blind leading the blind.
In Beto's case, he can't even discern the depth of r****m inherent historically and systemically within his own party (so he's blind), AND he can't keep his facts straight (can't discern) between condemning the known, observable animalistic acts and intentions of one group like MS-13 without thinking a whole race is meant.
I'd say, it was the same faulty reasoning on his part to come to his false conclusions as was his thinking he would make a legitimate and worthy politician in the first place!
Scary to think how often, and easily, the masses are suckered into believing such false thinking, self-deceiving, wannabes. But, that is what makes "some-bodies" out of "wannabes."
And then we wonder why politicians are always such narcissists!
In earlier America, people had to be nominated based on their historic, proven character by third parties. Maybe they understood something we've forgotten?