Wouldn't we also consider the Federal Reserve completely corrupt and in need of dismantling? How is he "siding with the cabal" in wanting to dismantle the Argentinian financial system?
All of this is way over my head, but I'm happy to share what I'm thinking. We have lots of people with advanced international finance knowledge here in our pond, so hopefully they'll chime in and correct me if I'm wrong.
Argentina, and all other countries for that matter, are forced to do business with the cabal if they stay tied to the US dollar because the Federal Reserve is a tool of the cabal. He had the chance to join with BRICS instead, and he chose not to. So in my mind, he's either part of the cabal or he's betting that Trump will finish what he started and crush the cabal and create a better option. There's only 2 players to side with.
I could be over simplifying, but this is how it looks to me.
Okay, thanks for that important feedback. I appreciate it.
I am going to go with option two, but mainly because I don't see the world existing in any positive way if Trump is not elected next year. It's a make-or-break moment for civilization in my humble opinion.
We need Trump in and the world banks destroyed. We will see what happens.
Wouldn't we also consider the Federal Reserve completely corrupt and in need of dismantling? How is he "siding with the cabal" in wanting to dismantle the Argentinian financial system?
Just looking for clarity. Thank you.
All of this is way over my head, but I'm happy to share what I'm thinking. We have lots of people with advanced international finance knowledge here in our pond, so hopefully they'll chime in and correct me if I'm wrong.
Argentina, and all other countries for that matter, are forced to do business with the cabal if they stay tied to the US dollar because the Federal Reserve is a tool of the cabal. He had the chance to join with BRICS instead, and he chose not to. So in my mind, he's either part of the cabal or he's betting that Trump will finish what he started and crush the cabal and create a better option. There's only 2 players to side with.
I could be over simplifying, but this is how it looks to me.
Okay, thanks for that important feedback. I appreciate it.
I am going to go with option two, but mainly because I don't see the world existing in any positive way if Trump is not elected next year. It's a make-or-break moment for civilization in my humble opinion.
We need Trump in and the world banks destroyed. We will see what happens.
I 100% agree with you. I'm still hoping one our frogs that is more knowledgeable on the subject will jump in the conversation though.
I would love to hear more as well, fren. Let's go frogs. 🐸