Why was it advertised as a 'historical event ?' Trumps announcement and overall optics last night was complete opposite of what Trump has been posting and re-truthing on Truth Social. Something seems out of place Thats all, just an observation
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (12)
sorted by:
Maybe listen to the last 20 minutes or so ..... I am seeing quite a lot of confirmation with the Q posts.
And historical it is .... He playes the weak one, subject to the dems cheating. Right, how are you going to win, mr Trump with all our cheating going on, because, so far, there is not a damn thing you can do about it. Draining the swamp. You will NEVER be President!
Optics are incredible. The opponent feels secure. And the seem to have all the advantages.
Ask yourself: why is the UMCA still standing? The Abraham-accords? I am sure you can think of some other things Trump has instituted that remains standing. ....
And the movies are still playing.
As far as historical ... two perspectives:
In a way, it can be likened to the 1941/2 East front.Things were going well, the Germans, the "bad guys", were around Moskow,
https://i.insider.com/5a1f0fd7f914c350018b6cfe?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp
Then Stalingrad happened. Many people say that the war turned at that point. I do not see it that way. IT was a loss of enormous magnitude, but it did not break the camels back. Instead, the tank battle at Kursk was the deciding factor. Another year.
Since Kurks, the "bad guys" were on the retreat. However, the "good guys", Soviet advance was slow. Very slow. https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/wq-bagration-map-4c-sum10.jpg
Notice then how quick the passe was after June of 1944 till May 1945.
With this in mind, Kursk was historical. A watershed moment.
Also note, Trump spoke of a pause. And the pause is now over.