It's not really a matter of "should." I'm just observing the establishment's absolute and undisguised desperation to keep Trump out of power, and wondering what might be the reasons behind it.
War propaganda, 'Realists' and neocons, and the denigration of the war sceptics
- Thread starter RD2003
- Start date
It's not really a matter of "should." I'm just observing the establishment's absolute and undisguised desperation to keep Trump out of power, and wondering what might be the reasons behind it.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Rory Stewart is probably another example, like Corbyn, of a largely non-strategically minded politician, one who tries to build from principles. Such types rarely win power, though.
Because Trump is clearly a dangerous narcissist who actively tries to dismantle democratic institutions?
Imho Biden is much more dangerous than Trump, on account of he provoked a war with a nuclear power.
Again, both bad, difference of scale.
As for the reasons why the US establishment can't live with Trump, I think it's because he kept the neocons out of power. When he did appoint them, he didn't let them do what they wanted--which was have a war with Russia. Hillary had been all ready to go, and they couldn't handle being deprived of their lovely war.
Combustible
Well-Known Member
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Let's trace your logic here.
It isn't a fact that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election (despite overwhelming evidence and guilty pleas by co-conspirators) because the Democrats tried to overturn the 2016 election by investigating Russian interference in that election and moaning that the electoral college is unfair by allowing Trump to win with fewer votes, and Russian interference and ties with the Trump campaign which did objectively exist shouldn't have been investigated because it was bad faith, because they are trying to keep Trump out of power because he is a threat to the neocons and Biden provoked Russia to invade Ukraine therefore he is a nuclear threat to the world.
Deranged.
Last edited:
What makes you so certain the 2020 election was not stolen? The American security state is not exactly known for quietly accepting the election of their enemies. They overthrow, or at least attempt to overthrow, any government they find unacceptable. They've done it all over the world, since Guatemala and Iran in the early '50s. It's what they do. And yet you're certain they didn't do it to Trump?
A) Because there is no evidence whatsoever
B) Because the results are in line with extensive polling which had Biden consistently ahead for months before the election with only a few outliers for Trump Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election - Wikipedia
C) Because even in 2016 Trump got fewer votes than Clinton and his popularity declined since then (and opposition to him became more energised)
D) There is extensive evidence of Trump trying to steal the election despite having insufficient votes
JimW
支那暗杀团
You can see how cunning the Deep State is, they make it all seem so plausible!
The precedents form the evidence. The US security state has overthrown at least 50 (depends how you count) democratically-elected governments since WW2. They hated Trump worse than poison, because he wouldn't give them their war. Why wouldn't they move against him?
Precedent isn't evidence. "It's exactly the sort of thing they would do" would not hold up in any court. Besides not all of the security state hates him.
Many within the FBI are Trump supporters and clashed with the judiciary over the decision to raid Trump's residence.
Precedent isn't evidence. "It's exactly the sort of thing they would do" would not hold up in any court. Besides not all of the security state hates him.
Many within the FBI are Trump supporters and clashed with the judiciary over the decision to raid Trump's residence.
That's true, the FBI is definitely split and the lower ranks in particular contain a lot of Trumpies. The anti-Trumpers are in the ascendant atm, but there's a struggle going on for sure.
The CIA by contrast is vehemently anti-Trump, at least if you believe the likes of Ritter and MacGregor, which I take it you don't?
editor
hiraethified
Remind me: how did Biden 'provoke' the illegal invasion of Ukraine again?
Maidan coup, Abrogation of Minsk accords, shelling of Donbass:
Why the US and Nato have long wanted Russia to attack Ukraine
Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine has come at a substantial cost for Russia, with the country so far failing to achieve its military objectives and the Russian economy suffering under unp…
blogs.lse.ac.uk
nogojones
spelling is overrated
Please remind me, because I might not have being paying attention at the time... Prior to the Russian invasion last year, what did Biden do as president to provoke this war?
nogojones
spelling is overrated
So a quick skim read through that and Biden is mentioned only after the Russian invasion took place. What did he do as president to provoke it?Maidan coup, Abrogation of Minsk accords, shelling of Donbass:
Why the US and Nato have long wanted Russia to attack Ukraine
Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine has come at a substantial cost for Russia, with the country so far failing to achieve its military objectives and the Russian economy suffering under unp…
Biden can't do anything, he's senile. But in 2014 the USA staged a coup in Kiev and installed its proxies, who promptly attacked the separatists in eastern Ukraine.
nogojones
spelling is overrated
When I say "Biden" I refer to the current US government. Synecdoche innit.
editor
hiraethified
He has a time machine, silly.
editor
hiraethified
So there was absolutely zero provocation going on until the day Biden took office, yes?
nogojones
spelling is overrated
So what did the current US government do to provoke this war then please?
There was plenty. Here's Biden's current Deputy Secretary of State doing provocation in 2014:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That's your reading of the events of 2014 - a US-staged coup? Nothing to do with the mass protests, then?
The coup undoubtedly had considerable public support. But it was still a coup. That's not the way we're supposed to do things.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Why do you think the American security state is against Trump? We keep being told of their outright hostility to him but he served a full term, is running again now and has at least so far not been assassinated. It is also very difficult to find anything he did that would actually have prompted them to be against him - he boosted military production and funding, put a right wing super-majority on the Supreme Court, reduced their taxes and helped embed more effective propaganda networks across the country.
All true, and he appointed plenty of neocons to his government too. Wasn't enough. They'd planned for Hillary to start the war with Russia over Syria, and they freaked when that wasn't possible. I get this partly from whistleblowers like Ritter (yes I know) and MacGregor, and partly from the attitude of the US mainstream media. After the Taibbi revelations we know how profoundly they're influenced by the security state, and they are fanatically anti-Trump--to the degree that it's just weird, there's not even the hint of a pretense at the objectivity that outlets like the NY Times used to pride themselves on.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yanukovych was a vile, corrupt piece of shit. Overthrowing him opened up at least the possibility that Ukraine might move away from Russia-style kleptocracy. Maybe that's why it had considerable public support. It didn't just have considerable public support, though, did it? It was instigated through mass public protests.
Similar threads
- Poll
