He had 8.5 minutes to name key names and failed to do so (with one exception, thanks to "RealityIsBroken"). That denotes a complete lack of sincere seriousness. I'm not interested in rabbit holes. Honest communication gets to the point and does not demand elaborate, time-consuming research.
I will confess not understanding his point. On the one hand, these voices are anti-Israel, which he approves. But they are anti-Trump, which he disapproves. But Trump is pro-Israel...so, what in hell is he really approving? You don't see this?
The "very important point of dual US/Israel citizens" can be brought out in a few sentences, or even one sentence. He didn't bother to make the point. Nor did you.
Did you bother to visit the website: https://stopworldcontrol.com/? There are about 18 videos on that site - lots of names are named. For you to conclude there is a "complete lack of sincere seriousness" on his part is ludicrous!
You want "honest communication"? Go listen to his videos.....they might save you from having to do "time-consuming research".
What is the difference? I am a communicator as a professional byproduct in science and engineering. I know how to put it down on paper with references. Listening to anything takes 5x more time than reading, and it is much more difficult to check sources. I am not impressed by videos. They make me believe that literacy has dropped off the map of the intelligentsia (talk and wave arms at the cave pictures).
No thanks. There are plenty of anti-Semites around here that can give me all kinds of reasons for being concerned about a world of Zionists.
I think it is far too ambiguous to interpret. "Saving" can be taken in two ways. In one way, it is related to salvation, or the rescue of someone from a threat. Which would suggest that Israel's future is to be saved. For someone that embarked on the Abraham Accords, that would seem to be an expectable goal. In another way, it can be related to deprioritization, or the leaving of some task to the last. Which would suggest that whatever problems are to be solved for Israel, it may require that the other problems be solved first. Considering that the politics of Israel may be entwined with the politics of the U.S., that may be the case. It could well mean both interpretations.
I have never understood what that phrase is supposed to mean, and I think many on this page read into it their own prejudices. I think it is clear that Trump regards Israel with the deepest religious respect, and I have no problem with that.
He had 8.5 minutes to name key names and failed to do so (with one exception, thanks to "RealityIsBroken"). That denotes a complete lack of sincere seriousness. I'm not interested in rabbit holes. Honest communication gets to the point and does not demand elaborate, time-consuming research.
I will confess not understanding his point. On the one hand, these voices are anti-Israel, which he approves. But they are anti-Trump, which he disapproves. But Trump is pro-Israel...so, what in hell is he really approving? You don't see this?
The "very important point of dual US/Israel citizens" can be brought out in a few sentences, or even one sentence. He didn't bother to make the point. Nor did you.
Did you bother to visit the website: https://stopworldcontrol.com/? There are about 18 videos on that site - lots of names are named. For you to conclude there is a "complete lack of sincere seriousness" on his part is ludicrous!
You want "honest communication"? Go listen to his videos.....they might save you from having to do "time-consuming research".
What is the difference? I am a communicator as a professional byproduct in science and engineering. I know how to put it down on paper with references. Listening to anything takes 5x more time than reading, and it is much more difficult to check sources. I am not impressed by videos. They make me believe that literacy has dropped off the map of the intelligentsia (talk and wave arms at the cave pictures).
No thanks. There are plenty of anti-Semites around here that can give me all kinds of reasons for being concerned about a world of Zionists.
Oh OK! Glad you are a communicator. So what's your take on "we are saving Israel for last"? I'd love to hear/read your thoughts on this subject.
I think it is far too ambiguous to interpret. "Saving" can be taken in two ways. In one way, it is related to salvation, or the rescue of someone from a threat. Which would suggest that Israel's future is to be saved. For someone that embarked on the Abraham Accords, that would seem to be an expectable goal. In another way, it can be related to deprioritization, or the leaving of some task to the last. Which would suggest that whatever problems are to be solved for Israel, it may require that the other problems be solved first. Considering that the politics of Israel may be entwined with the politics of the U.S., that may be the case. It could well mean both interpretations.
I have never understood what that phrase is supposed to mean, and I think many on this page read into it their own prejudices. I think it is clear that Trump regards Israel with the deepest religious respect, and I have no problem with that.