Election 2020 More than 70 Republican former national security officials come out in support of Biden

Lord Invictus said:
There have been conservatives whose conservatism was more due to habit or a genuine belief in Bush era nostrums-something either held due to money or lack of self examination.

These sorts of conservatives would likely find Trump infuriating and confusing.
Click to expand...
They are dinosaurs before the meteor, search your feelings.......
 
Which means, that 700 or more remained as fake supporters to backstab Trump during election.
Maybe those 70 was sacrifised, so we would think,that everybody else is OK?
 
Cherico said:
The fact that they could only bribe up 70 officials kind of tells you something.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's no bribe.

The National Security community HATES Donald Trump.

In fact, there is no group, not even the SJWs and the fucking Commies, who hate Trump with a greater passion than the National Security Community. If you handed them a gun and his back, they'd empty the clip. That may seem like it's coming from nowhere, but you have to realize that these people's history effectively begins after WWII, entered into the Cold War, and they've been playing grand strategy for most of their lives in some form or another. The very culture of our Intelligence communities and the National Security community is globalist in nature. Trump's very presence in office threatens their existence.

People like Bolton and Mattis never wanted a nationalist agenda as we define it. They always viewed the US as remaining engaged as the world police. The only difference was that in regards to restraint. Which is to say, they wanted little or no restraint. Mattis wanted to blow the crap out of ISIS because he wanted to re-establish American control in the Middle East. Bolton wanted a full-scale war with Iran, because he views Iran as a threat to American pre-eminence in the Middle East. Bolton also wanted a war to remove the North Korean regime, because doing so would give the US full command of the Korean Peninsula and provide a land bridge to invading China.

Re-Engage the first Island Chain around China and couple it with trade wars to bring China to heel.

That was their idea.

They thought Trump was either a puppet to be danced about at whim (Bolton) or someone whose nationalist urges were ill-informed and could be shaped into something more tolerable (Mattis).

That's not to demonize either of those two people or even the ones who came out against Trump. Rather, it is a matter of how they think and were trained to think; as the world as a Grand Chess game that the US must continue to advance upon and win. In the past 4 years, Trump has effectively killed NATO, distanced relations with Saudi Arabia, surrendered hard-won territory to the Turks, allowed the Turks to slip into Russian influence (mind you, something started by the Obama Administration), alienate Germany and France, and effectively ignore South Korea without a large pay check.

Neither Mattis or Bolton have any respect for what the American public wants, because it does not believe that the American public is qualified to know what they want. The problem is that without a security threat like the USSR or a resource need such as oil from the Gulf, the American public has little interest in managing an empire. An empire in which, instead of extracting resources from colonies through military might, we instead subsidize their markets at the cost of our own, then protect said markets with our military.

The system I reckon broke after 9/11. It showed America that no one in the Middle East has our back and no one in Europe has our back. The discussion then was how to get off the dependency of oil. And how the US shouldn't police the world. And how we hate being in the Middle east. Part of Obama's appeal was that he was going to pull us out of the Middle East in his campaign run in 2008.

The discussion is no longer "should the US be in the Middle East" among the American public. That was actually settled some time ago with Obama. Nor is the question "should we engage in Trade wars", as that was settled with Trump in 2016. The US isn't even really interested in the rest of the world at this point or in engaging with it. The US is wrestling with its own internal issues. Right now, the issue of black and white racial relations is more important in the US political sphere than the entirety of the Middle East itself. It looms even larger than the Chinese Menace.

The people who aren't on board with that are the National Security and the Business folks. The former wants to maintain US National power across the world as we have for the past 70 years and the latter wants to continue to export manufacturing to the cheapest third world shit hole they can get their hands on.

The DNC is literally morphing into the party of the Neo-Cons/Neo-Libs, with a splash of social justice. The marxists and socialists are going to be purged. Razor has made several strong points that this is what the DNC is positioning to do. And I rather agree that this is the most likely course (because they have all the money), but right now, I think it's a three-way battle for the party. The Neo-Libs, the SJWs, and the Commies.
 
The Original Sixth said:
Oh, it's no bribe.

The National Security community HATES Donald Trump.

In fact, there is no group, not even the SJWs and the fucking Commies, who hate Trump with a greater passion than the National Security Community. If you handed them a gun and his back, they'd empty the clip. That may seem like it's coming from nowhere, but you have to realize that these people's history effectively begins after WWII, entered into the Cold War, and they've been playing grand strategy for most of their lives in some form or another. The very culture of our Intelligence communities and the National Security community is globalist in nature. Trump's very presence in office threatens their existence.

People like Bolton and Mattis never wanted a nationalist agenda as we define it. They always viewed the US as remaining engaged as the world police. The only difference was that in regards to restraint. Which is to say, they wanted little or no restraint. Mattis wanted to blow the crap out of ISIS because he wanted to re-establish American control in the Middle East. Bolton wanted a full-scale war with Iran, because he views Iran as a threat to American pre-eminence in the Middle East. Bolton also wanted a war to remove the North Korean regime, because doing so would give the US full command of the Korean Peninsula and provide a land bridge to invading China.

Re-Engage the first Island Chain around China and couple it with trade wars to bring China to heel.

That was their idea.

They thought Trump was either a puppet to be danced about at whim (Bolton) or someone whose nationalist urges were ill-informed and could be shaped into something more tolerable (Mattis).

That's not to demonize either of those two people or even the ones who came out against Trump. Rather, it is a matter of how they think and were trained to think; as the world as a Grand Chess game that the US must continue to advance upon and win. In the past 4 years, Trump has effectively killed NATO, distanced relations with Saudi Arabia, surrendered hard-won territory to the Turks, allowed the Turks to slip into Russian influence (mind you, something started by the Obama Administration), alienate Germany and France, and effectively ignore South Korea without a large pay check.

Neither Mattis or Bolton have any respect for what the American public wants, because it does not believe that the American public is qualified to know what they want. The problem is that without a security threat like the USSR or a resource need such as oil from the Gulf, the American public has little interest in managing an empire. An empire in which, instead of extracting resources from colonies through military might, we instead subsidize their markets at the cost of our own, then protect said markets with our military.

The system I reckon broke after 9/11. It showed America that no one in the Middle East has our back and no one in Europe has our back. The discussion then was how to get off the dependency of oil. And how the US shouldn't police the world. And how we hate being in the Middle east. Part of Obama's appeal was that he was going to pull us out of the Middle East in his campaign run in 2008.

The discussion is no longer "should the US be in the Middle East" among the American public. That was actually settled some time ago with Obama. Nor is the question "should we engage in Trade wars", as that was settled with Trump in 2016. The US isn't even really interested in the rest of the world at this point or in engaging with it. The US is wrestling with its own internal issues. Right now, the issue of black and white racial relations is more important in the US political sphere than the entirety of the Middle East itself. It looms even larger than the Chinese Menace.

The people who aren't on board with that are the National Security and the Business folks. The former wants to maintain US National power across the world as we have for the past 70 years and the latter wants to continue to export manufacturing to the cheapest third world shit hole they can get their hands on.

The DNC is literally morphing into the party of the Neo-Cons/Neo-Libs, with a splash of social justice. The marxists and socialists are going to be purged. Razor has made several strong points that this is what the DNC is positioning to do. And I rather agree that this is the most likely course (because they have all the money), but right now, I think it's a three-way battle for the party. The Neo-Libs, the SJWs, and the Commies.
Click to expand...

Can I be honest? If the Commies got purged that would still be an improvement.

I
 
The SJWs view themselves as Jedi, when they are really the Seps.

They will face the same end, even in the unlikely event Biden us able to force his way into office via deep state BS.
 
Bacle said:
The SJWs view themselves as Jedi, when they are really the Seps.

They will face the same end, even in the unlikely event Biden us able to force his way into office via deep state BS.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a fair comparison at all.

The seperatist's actually had reasonable goals, the galatic republic had been ignoring their needs for a long time and this included security needs, it was also had issues with too much buracracy, corruption and a host of other issues. The seperatists had legitiment grivences that had been bubbling up for generations.

Meanwhile for SJWs legal discrimination based on religion, sex and race has been illegal for two generations now, gay marrage is a thing, we had a black president. Really they have more in common with Japan pre world war 2 paniced and filled with victory disease.
 
The SJWS/Leftists serve the Cathedral-which includes both the whole media-entertainment-academia-education-Democratic party complex but also the stuff Sixth talked about above.

They’ll critique American foreign policy but genuine anti imperialist leftists have no real power in these movements.

And that was the attitude of Zbigniew Brzezinki as well. The American public is stupid and doesn’t have the heart or the interest to maintain an empire. So it must manipulated into supporting the empire and ignored otherwise.

Trump is by no means some sort of Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn, he’s a Jacksonian nationalist whose attitude towards foreign enemies is “beat the shit out of them and go home”.

Which is not acceptable to the current imperial functionaries.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is this supposed to actually be a real and tangible challenge to Trump, or is this all for show?

Because what all I see is a collective of RINOs grandstanding greatly going for goodboy points.

So again, why does this even matter? Given all of the other similar things that haven't hurt teflon Trump yet? Why should a...hmm...what is a good collective noun for RINOs, it should be illterative and amusing...I got it, a a ram ranch! So why should a ram ranch of RINOs going "orange man bad" matter?
 
The Original Sixth said:
Oh, it's no bribe.

The National Security community HATES Donald Trump.

In fact, there is no group, not even the SJWs and the fucking Commies, who hate Trump with a greater passion than the National Security Community. If you handed them a gun and his back, they'd empty the clip. That may seem like it's coming from nowhere, but you have to realize that these people's history effectively begins after WWII, entered into the Cold War, and they've been playing grand strategy for most of their lives in some form or another. The very culture of our Intelligence communities and the National Security community is globalist in nature. Trump's very presence in office threatens their existence.

People like Bolton and Mattis never wanted a nationalist agenda as we define it. They always viewed the US as remaining engaged as the world police. The only difference was that in regards to restraint. Which is to say, they wanted little or no restraint. Mattis wanted to blow the crap out of ISIS because he wanted to re-establish American control in the Middle East. Bolton wanted a full-scale war with Iran, because he views Iran as a threat to American pre-eminence in the Middle East. Bolton also wanted a war to remove the North Korean regime, because doing so would give the US full command of the Korean Peninsula and provide a land bridge to invading China.

Re-Engage the first Island Chain around China and couple it with trade wars to bring China to heel.

That was their idea.

They thought Trump was either a puppet to be danced about at whim (Bolton) or someone whose nationalist urges were ill-informed and could be shaped into something more tolerable (Mattis).

That's not to demonize either of those two people or even the ones who came out against Trump. Rather, it is a matter of how they think and were trained to think; as the world as a Grand Chess game that the US must continue to advance upon and win. In the past 4 years, Trump has effectively killed NATO, distanced relations with Saudi Arabia, surrendered hard-won territory to the Turks, allowed the Turks to slip into Russian influence (mind you, something started by the Obama Administration), alienate Germany and France, and effectively ignore South Korea without a large pay check.

Neither Mattis or Bolton have any respect for what the American public wants, because it does not believe that the American public is qualified to know what they want. The problem is that without a security threat like the USSR or a resource need such as oil from the Gulf, the American public has little interest in managing an empire. An empire in which, instead of extracting resources from colonies through military might, we instead subsidize their markets at the cost of our own, then protect said markets with our military.

The system I reckon broke after 9/11. It showed America that no one in the Middle East has our back and no one in Europe has our back. The discussion then was how to get off the dependency of oil. And how the US shouldn't police the world. And how we hate being in the Middle east. Part of Obama's appeal was that he was going to pull us out of the Middle East in his campaign run in 2008.

The discussion is no longer "should the US be in the Middle East" among the American public. That was actually settled some time ago with Obama. Nor is the question "should we engage in Trade wars", as that was settled with Trump in 2016. The US isn't even really interested in the rest of the world at this point or in engaging with it. The US is wrestling with its own internal issues. Right now, the issue of black and white racial relations is more important in the US political sphere than the entirety of the Middle East itself. It looms even larger than the Chinese Menace.

The people who aren't on board with that are the National Security and the Business folks. The former wants to maintain US National power across the world as we have for the past 70 years and the latter wants to continue to export manufacturing to the cheapest third world shit hole they can get their hands on.

The DNC is literally morphing into the party of the Neo-Cons/Neo-Libs, with a splash of social justice. The marxists and socialists are going to be purged. Razor has made several strong points that this is what the DNC is positioning to do. And I rather agree that this is the most likely course (because they have all the money), but right now, I think it's a three-way battle for the party. The Neo-Libs, the SJWs, and the Commies.
Click to expand...
The business community is clear enough, but the position of the national security crowd is a bit odd. All of the nations that they consider enemies rely on the current global system, if the US kicks the system over, then all of our rivals collapse. No global trade means China can’t feed itself, or power itself. Iran becomes the new playground for the Saudis, Russia is already in terminal demographic collapse, as is the EU etc. what point is there in playing chess, when you can simply win by destroying the game.
 
Floridaman said:
The business community is clear enough, but the position of the national security crowd is a bit odd. All of the nations that they consider enemies rely on the current global system, if the US kicks the system over, then all of our rivals collapse. No global trade means China can’t feed itself, or power itself. Iran becomes the new playground for the Saudis, Russia is already in terminal demographic collapse, as is the EU etc. what point is there in playing chess, when you can simply win by destroying the game.
Click to expand...

But then all those guys would be out of work!

Take ABM defense as an example. What if neither Russia nor China nor any others could afford to have ICBMs? With nobody to threaten CONUS with missile-delivered nukes... what about all those contracts, all that business? If Trump makes the USA's rivals collapse, that will cost the military-industrial complex billions!
And there have to be terrorists, or else there'd be no need to have American counter-insurgency operations all over the world, and no need for all the supporting industries and contractors.
Why do you hate capitalism?
 
Scottty said:
But then all those guys would be out of work!

Take ABM defense as an example. What if neither Russia nor China nor any others could afford to have ICBMs? With nobody to threaten CONUS with missile-delivered nukes... what about all those contracts, all that business? If Trump makes the USA's rivals collapse, that will cost the military-industrial complex billions!
And there have to be terrorists, or else there'd be no need to have American counter-insurgency operations all over the world, and no need for all the supporting industries and contractors.
Why do you hate capitalism?
Click to expand...
The gravy train has to end someday.
 
Cherico said:
I don't think that's a fair comparison at all.

The seperatist's actually had reasonable goals, the galatic republic had been ignoring their needs for a long time and this included security needs, it was also had issues with too much buracracy, corruption and a host of other issues. The seperatists had legitiment grivences that had been bubbling up for generations.

Meanwhile for SJWs legal discrimination based on religion, sex and race has been illegal for two generations now, gay marrage is a thing, we had a black president. Really they have more in common with Japan pre world war 2 paniced and filled with victory disease.
Click to expand...
I meant that they are pawns in the same way the Seps were, and Biden even looks like a lame Dooku.

Also, do not discount that the Left have a few legit beefs (environmental issues, CSA symbols on gov/public property, the Religious Auth-Right being authoritarians of another stripe, red states being tax burdens most of the time) as well, even if their elite have cynically twisted those issues for their own gain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top