"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

Can Trump even be defeated? I mean do we win even if he loses to Hillary?

My reasoning is this:

1) If he lost to Hillary, then he won't be there for years to blame for any possible problems that arise. Yet we would continue to grow stronger, and any problems could be blamed on the Hillary.

2) Even if they killed Trump, it would only turn people against our opponents, and we would still continue to grow.

It almost seems like the only real negative outcome is if he wins, does badly, and we are blamed for it.

...

It's not bait. It is well reasoned.

Setting aside your, "If you kill your enemy, they win" line of thinking, this isn't a job managing a grocery, you cuck shill

He's going to close the border, kick out the illegals, keep the muslims out, and thus preserve the white majority. "How well he does" is judged purely on how much those objectives cost us, and worrying about blame pointless because (((people like you))) blame whites for everything anyway.

If you wanted us to be worried about our accountability to history, (((user))), you shouldn't have framed us for every crime in history and made "guilt" into a toothless concept.

You know we have IDs, right?

Know it's summer but wew lad

First off, I'm not saying he will do badly. I offered it only as a possible outcome.


Yes, it is a POSSIBILITY. I never suggested that it wasn't, as I was only suggesting the one way we might lose.

How so? It is suggesting many ways in which we can win. We win almost every outcome, even if he wins and does well. The only negative is if he wins, and does badly. Like decides not to put up a wall, causes certain problems, etc.

Like I said, "if you kill your enemy, they win."
We are familiar with the Canadian style of cuckold. This is not some new, clever twist.

You mean Trump? Trump is not our enemy. So you are not making any point at all.


Actually, you're just an idiot. What I posted in the OP is very rational.

No, we also lose by losing. Defeatism dressed as cheerleading.

yes, you. This is incredibly transparent.

And now you twist words as your attempt at a clever new spin has been torn up in…. less than 10 posts.

With a little salt for flavor.

Why don't you try this tactic on r/TheDonald? They're more at your level.

I'm suggesting we cannot lose, or at least it is unlikely we can lose. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get him elected, only that we don't needn't pretend to lose if he doesn't win.

It's not defeatism, it's simply understanding our situation.

Nope, you just said something stupid. That's all.

Yes, because if we defeat the enemy, they might "judge us harshly", but if we lose, we have "opportunities to grow".
Ugly is beautiful, wrong is right, defeat is victory. Classic leftist thinking.

The whole reason you're shilling is you and your masters' terror that it is beyond the point of "trying". It is unstoppable now.
There will be no softening of resolve or effort on some limp-wristed leftist basis of, "Just think guise! We benefit even in humiliating defeat!"

Thanks but no thanks, we'll just end them now.

Why not address what I'm actually saying? Then you won't look so stupid. I'm suggesting the terms of winning and losing.


I said none of that. Only that there isn't much of a chance we will lose. Even if he wins, it doesn't mean we will lose. I am only suggesting that we will do badly, if he wins AND does badly.


I never said that. You really need to learn how to read.

Really though, is this too complex for people to understand? It seems rather simple if people don't try to read too much into it.

Sorry, but I'm not gonna ignore the memes attached to what you're saying, not matter how much you would like me to.

If you're too dim-witted to realize that your entire argument is a defeatist meme, then lurk more, you putz. Either way, your entire attitude of "willingness to settle" is something that you need to be cleansed of before you can actually contribute here.

It isn't. I'm not suggesting if he wins, that we automatically lose. I made it clear that we lose somewhat if he does BADLY. I'm not saying that he will do badly. There is a difference.


No, it's just presenting the likely outcomes as I see them, and not holding back simply because of "feelings".

Of course. There's nothing wrong with what you said if we're just stupid goyim rather than the heart of the internet's meme forge.

Oops. Be careful there, chaim. You're slipping and letting your memes become more obvious, dropping a "muh feels" so blatantly.

There is nothing wrong with what I said, you just don't understand it very well. It may be my fault, as I suppose this a sort of inside baseball.


Again, you aren't able to argue with anything that I actually said. I didn't speak of memes, I spoke of your feelings. If you would like me to give a little, I suppose I should have made things clearer in my OP, that I was not suggesting that he would do badly.

I saged this post, because I can see now that this thread of mine doesn't really need to be fully understood, as the wheels will keep spinning without it ever being spoken of. I simply want everything to continue as it has, as I think everything will work out remarkable well in the end. My reasoning in the OP may be sound, but this might actually be harmful for certain people to know, and our enemies certainly don't need to be aware of it.

If he loses we will have no choice. Milhouse will have to be released,

We have a new style of idiot, brought to us by the internet.

These morons have their heads filled with internet memes. It's all they post. Every argument or rebuttal is, "I have a meme for this so there."

That trudeau quote doesn't even apply here.