Revolver: Statistical Model Indicates Trump Actually Won Majorities in Five Disputed States and 49.68 Pecent of the Vote in a Sixth
Unherd: Don’t dismiss the Trump brigade
SkyNews.com.au: Just Leaked: List of 1.95 million Chinese Communist Party members, many embedded in Western corporations and Government Agencies
National File: HOW TRUMP CAN WIN: SCOTUS, State Supreme Courts, Legislatures, And The 12th Amendment
National File: Sidney Powell Confirms She’s Filed Two Cases Tonight, Is Filing Two More Tomorrow
Zero Hedge: TRUMP FLIES OVER DC 'MILLION MAGA MARCH' AS SUPPORTERS RAGE AGAINST ELECTION RESULTS
National Post: Conrad Black: The Trump haters cackle too soon
...The Biden administration, if it takes office at all, will be a clangorous “Gong Show.” Either Trump, or a Republican approved by him and continuing his policies, will be the Republican candidate in four years. Then we will have the final round in this battle for the political soul of America. What we are hearing now is the Trump-hating goose cackling too loudly and too soon.
Investment Watch: This is 100% proof to me that Trump has a plan. He will not let this stand. Most shocking vid I have seen today
The Conrad Black article is quite good, though I think it exaggerates the Trump Administration's accomplishments (there were some accomplishment, and it seems to have had a positive effect on working class income).
ReplyDeletePeople have argued that Trump spent too much effort trying to please the GOP establishment, instead of trying to build a broader reform coalition that could have included dissident Democrats and independents. I wargamed out that approach, and the answer I got is that he would have been impeached and removed from office in 2017. Either Mike Pence then would have run a standard GOP establishment administration, or Pence would have been removed as well and Paul Ryan would have run a standard GOP establishment administration as acting president. Trump would have run as an independent candidate in 2020 and, well, lost due to the election fraud we have seen int his election. So we pretty much would have gotten to where we are now, just a little quicker and with less noise.
Black and Trump are old business associates and allies going back many years, a relationship reinforced I would think by a similarity in background and mentality. Both inherited great wealth, both sought to take things to the next level, and both have succeeded in that ambition to a considerable degree. Neither of them has been too scrupulous in the pursuit of fame and fortune but by chance each has been in a position to give public support to the other. Black as an author and publisher, Trump as US President. Thus Black wrote a flattering biography of Trump, and Trump gave Black a full pardon over his conviction for fraud and obstruction of justice. Black's favorable assessment of the Trump Administration's accomplishments is thus in keeping with a longstanding relationship of mutual respect and support.
DeleteI disagree with Black's conclusions. The Democratic administration (I avoid using the term "Biden Administration" because, given his age, I'm not sure how long or even whether Biden himself will be part of it) will either be a puppet government for China, or some sort of one party kleptocracy, or both. Either way, they will just keep rigging elections to stay in power. On their own terms, they will succeed.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like a fair analysis.
DeleteAnd in their subservience to China, American liberals are I would guess mostly in favor of a CPC style of government in America, whereby the people are subject to a techno-tyranny, while the titans of capitalism continue to fly private, and otherwise enjoy their billions, just as do China's most successful entrepreneurs. It is Communism with Plutocratic Characteristics.
Such convergence is what I assume is intended by those calling for "alignment with China." What I don't see is how America's liberal elite expect to resolve differences with the CPC, as are sure to arise. It reminds me of the technical and military collaboration between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, until the very moment they set about the greatest military conflict in human history.
It may very well be true the real reason Trump was hated by the CIA and the globalist elite has been he has broken with them on the matter of China. He certainly has done that.
ReplyDeleteI've not been able to discern any other reason for it. I mean it, too. You just cannot see any major cause for their upset. He has been playing their game, quite well, too. He's given them what they wanted, without serious hindrance in other areas.
The concessions to the so-called fringe conservatives have been highly intelligent moves by Trump, and he's handled them most adroitly. They don't really hurt the global elite. Surely the global elite sees a value in having those elements of opposition to their plans placated.
I have always viewed Trump as an outsider, though. He wasn't the anointed one, which could have been either Jeb or Hillary. He wouldn't have strings attached by China. I still think Trump has Russian strings attached, just not the ones the Dems ever focused on. (That they chose the wrong strings indicates to me Tucker Carson is correct to see the whole Russia-Gate garbage as one big distraction from the main event.)
Did you remember George Herbert Walker Bush was once the US Ambassador to China? (Chief Liason Officer but actually de facto ambassador). This during the crucial period in the 70's when the Nixon Administration had succeeded in "warming" US-China relations. This was probably one of the most important political positions in the entire world at that time, at least in terms of what China was to become... Courtesy of the US. And there's old GHWB, literally laying the foundations for it. Then he goes and heads the CIA. No one notices it much. Then he runs for President but settles for VP APPOINTMENT. (Reagan probably didn't have a choice.)
Later we see GHWB give China favored trading partner status. We see him minimizing Tiananmen Square. (You have to wonder what would have happened if the US had broken trade relations with China over this. Not continuing those is not the same as military or covert intervention or jingoistic rhetoric or any what I see as idiocy.) It was really the trade relations Bush wanted unharmed and unharmed AT ANY COST.
We'll see if there are special prosecutors, Congressional Hearings and impeachment proceedings into Biden's obvious corruption relating to China. I just plain doubt it. That would only serve the interests of the citizens and be in the interests of truth and justice.
My guess, without much evidence, is that Trump represents the military, whereas the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama presidents were all with the security services. The military must have a healthy hatred for the CIA, which has repeatedly got them into stupid wars, or tried to, e.g., the Bay of Pigs, without allowing the military opportunity to deploy their power effectively, and thus win: for example, almost two decades of humiliating and morale destroying stultification in Afghanistan, where total victory could have been achieved with a few small nukes in a matter of days or weeks.
DeleteIn general, the military have a more realistic understanding of power than the political class that treats them as "dumb animals" to be used and abused as the political leadership thinks fit. In particular, they know that to get into bed with totalitarians is an invitation to rape.
The Biden liberals are presumably sincere in believing that alignment with China means progress toward global governance, population control, and carbon emissions reduction, but those not brainwashed by the media and educational system know that convergence with China means assimilation and the end of the Free World.
That reminds me of the Jim Willie thesis you posted earlier. One of the things I was bothered by were his references to 500 generals no longer in service. He thought these were the people behind Trump's rise to the Presidency. I doubt it, but maybe. What I don't understand is how generals who are no longer in the chain of command expect to command anything. Did Jim Willie think the current occupiers of those positions would happily vacate them or could be coaxed to go along with the old generals? I don't know about that, either...It just seems unlikely.
DeleteThere haven't been further reports of a mini civil war breaking out between elements of the CIA and the military. There haven't been further confirmations of the one reputed incident Willie mentioned. I also don't think the CIA Director Gina Haspel was assassinated over there, either. There were a number of outlandish claims Willie made. It on the face of it undermined his credibility, but I did briefly give him some benefit of the doubt. Now, much much less so.
The CIA has people all over the place in nearly every walk of life. They've infiltrated everything important. They must have infiltrated the military.
Both the CIA and some of the best generals in the military opposed the invasion of Iraq. Eric Shinseki was the army's chief of staff at the time. His career ended in 2003. I feel he was forced out due to the clashes with the Bush administration, although I realize this view is contested. But look at that situation: Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitless knew better how many troops were going to be needed? The Chiefs of Staff can speak their peace, but if the civilians choose to ignore it, there's little they can do. Usually they do resign. We've never had a military coup d'etat in the US and hope we don't have one now.
This stuff sure is riveting. It's epic.
Re: Jim Willie: "I did briefly give him some benefit of the doubt. Now, much much less so." Yes, my view evolved in the same way. The guy seems to be selling gold or silver and is presumably adept at spinning a tale to make the sale.
Delete"Both the CIA and some of the best generals in the military opposed the invasion of Iraq." What's the use of an intelligence agency that is complicit in a war justified by bogus intelligence: Saddam's nukes, his drones of death, his death by anthrax in the bottle waved at the UN by Colin Powell? There could at least have been some resignations at Langley.
"We've never had a military coup d'etat in the US and hope we don't have one now."
What if there has been a coup by ballot theft with judicial complicity? Would a military counter-coup be necessarily bad?
"What's the use of an intelligence agency that is complicit in a war justified by bogus intelligence: Saddam's nukes, his drones of death, his death by anthrax in the bottle waved at the UN by Colin Powell? There could at least have been some resignations at Langley."
DeleteIt is of no use at all to you or me, but to whoever cooked up that mess, and wanted that mess, it was indispensable.
From time to time I have wondered if those people wanted the mess because they wanted to further mess us up, both domestically and in foreign affairs. The mess was so damaging to American prestige and credibility, and a costly failure such as that destroys economies, too. (But it is difficult to separate this factor from the other debilitating economic factors acting simultaneously.)
I still believe Colin Powell was "the adult in the room" at the White House, and did his best to prevent the rash military incursions. Yet I also know nobody rises to that position of power if they aren't playing the game, and when they told Powell to go to the UN to give his terrible performance he'll never live down, they knew he'd do it.
George Tenet, in the top position at the CIA, did resign. I saw that as a good soldier falling on his sword. Tenet took responsibility and he didn't take responsibility. Bush said he was surprised and probably wasn't surprised. I think it was all planned. Everyone knew what was going on and why. Tenet was the same as Colin Powell. He played the game to the end.
There's no way to be certain what was going on beneath the surface. GWB's father was a former director of the CIA and it is hard for me to believe GWB wasn't being influenced (or more)by him. Under Bush, Sr. the US bothered to form a coalition before attacking, had plans, and mobilized very carefully and sufficiently. His son was just a hotheaded young buck who thought all that unnecessary? I don't believe it. Under Bush, Sr. the US left Saddam Hussein and his Red Guard intact. One of the very best explanations I ever heard for why that was a good idea came from Dick Cheney, in 1995, during the Clinton years. One by one Cheney listed what would have gone wrong if Bush, Sr. had done otherwise. It turned out Cheney was also describing in detail everything which did go wrong when Cheney was acting as co-President.
Bush I and Bush II were, in my view, war criminals who would have been hanged if judged by the Nuremberg standard.
DeleteSaddam was a threat to ME peace but his position could have been effectively undercut with an oil export embargo -- something that the US imposed, anyway, following the first Gulf War.
Bush II is a particularly nasty psychopath. As a kid he is said to have enjoyed tossing frogs in the air and shooting them. That seemed pretty much his approach to Iraq also. As Baghdad was subject to "shock and awe", i.e., as the civilian population was placed under a rain of cruise missiles, Bush declared "I feel good." Abu Ghraib and the official adoption of torture by the US was precisely what one could have expected of a shit like Bush. Through the rise of such feckless bastards is the wreck of great nations assured. From Nixon's "pitiful helpless giant" American became, under the Bushes, the Great Satan, a decadent nation ruled by maniacs and fools. No wonder Trump's slogan, Make America Great Again, resonated with so many.
Oh well, we can resonate with Making America Great Again by incorporating more of what the Chinese do:
Deletehttps://nypost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/nypost.com/2020/10/10/us-cracks-down-on-chinese-companies-exporting-human-hair/amp/
Not for long does the US crack down... We need to open up and accept diversity and know selling the human hair of prisoners for profit is a superior way to show humanism, liberty, fraternity, egality, love, compassion, sustainability, environmental friendliness, green new deal, or anything-- Anything at all. It is all good!
With Trump's enthusiasm for executions, will we see America adopt the Chinese practice of selling organs of executed prisoners -- some of them executed in order to harvest their organs, so Forbes reports.
Delete