Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Deep State
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Deep State (Read 5197 times)
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5177
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: The Deep State
Reply #100 - Nov 14th, 2017 at 3:10pm
Print Post  
Tom Palven wrote on Nov 14th, 2017 at 2:25pm:
I'm not disagreeing with you, either.[


I know but I think we might have reached the point of a bit of disagreement, as follows.

Quote:
Brennan was quoted in the press as saying last Sunday that "I think Mr.Trump (Note, not President Trump.) is, for whatever reason, either intimidated by Mr. Putin or afraid of what he can do, or what might come out as a result of these investigations."


Yes, it's worth pointing out the difference in him using 'Mr.' and not 'President'. That reinforces my opinion of it being the deep state vs. Trump. I have a real and lasting suspicion that Trump has something to hide and thusly has been taken hostage by Putin. I just can't see anything in Trump's makeup that would indicate an antiwar stance, and especially now that it would be Trump risking so much to maintain that. I think Trump wants out of the whole Russia thing very badly but he doesn't have a way out. Be it all just as innocent as has been with other presidents. Obama certainly colluded more with Russia/Putin in my opinion. Not meant in a derogatory way of course.

Quote:
1.  The NSA, CIA, and the rest of the secret police must ALREADY HAVE ALL THE INFO THAT CAN  "come out of these investigations and yet they have provided no evidence implicating the Trump team in collaborating with Russians to manipulate the election.


Is that true? Is the new evidence of junior colluding during the campaign not valid? I'm not entirely sure but it's going to be ascertained by which side has the momentum to make their story work best. Trump has few friends and I would guess that half of those he has will desert him to favour the deep state's story of treason, collusion, or whatever they make it. And the clincher is that the Republican party will be with the deep state's version. The timing is the critical point. It's premature now but it likely won't be when the 2020 election for pres is the most important consideration.

Quote:
2.  Both Brennan and Clapper have been involved with secret police for so long, manipulating information and creating disinformation,  that they are probably incapable of telling the truth;  probably no longer even knowing the meaning of the word "truth."


I think a more correct analysis would be to say that they know what they have to do for what they believe is the good of the nation. Truths or lies, both are completely acceptable if they can see it as 'the good of the nation'. A more explicit argument would be to say that they would assassinate a president (Kennedy) for what they understand is necessary.

Quote:
Of course I could be totally wrong.  Putin may be blackmailing Trump with information that he holds, but it will take some very strong  unimpeachable evidence to convince me of this.


I think they will produce what it takes to convince the people that Trump must go. But I think that it will be concentrated in doing that by the democratic process. If Trump had the Republican party staying with him in the 2020 election then he would have a chance of surviving. He doesn't and so he has both the Dems and the R's against him. The R's for the reason they need to preserve the party. And the deep state because they must be totally convinced that Trump represents the wrecking of the country.

Big mistake in taking down Comey! Why did he think he needed to do that? I think that Comey was the 'good cop' that Trump couldn't own. I would suggest that it's likely the deep state could have entertained the idea, or could be actively entertaining the idea, of whacking Trump.

None of this is what I am wishing will be Tom. It's all that which I think is.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5177
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: The Deep State
Reply #101 - Nov 14th, 2017 at 3:15pm
Print Post  
I would like to ask you Tom, and others too if they want to answer: Does anybody think that Trump is the exception to the rule for presidents and that he truly wants peaceful relations with Russia?

To answer that would be to answer all questions in my opinion. If it were true then it would be a reason for the anti-establishment faction to get to work and support Trump. It just seems to me that it's not. Raimondo at antiwar.com has switched positions on this question at least a half dozen times.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tom Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1629
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: The Deep State
Reply #102 - Nov 14th, 2017 at 3:49pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Nov 14th, 2017 at 3:15pm:
I would like to ask you Tom, and others too if they want to answer: Does anybody think that Trump is the exception to the rule for presidents and that he truly wants peaceful relations with Russia?


Yes, I do think that Trump wants detente with Russia, and also China.

It just make good sense from the point of view of a businessman, but for the neoconservative MIC it spells disaster.

Trump even said earlier that he wanted to talk peace with Kim Jung-un but the mainstream US press took their talking points from the Pentagon and went berserk.

I think that it's possible (and I hope) that Trump's blustering about North Korea is just to throw a bone to those who want to immediately "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran," and to also confront Russia in Syria, doing the bidding of the MIC and Bibi Netanyahu
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5177
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: The Deep State
Reply #103 - Nov 14th, 2017 at 6:39pm
Print Post  
Tom Palven wrote on Nov 14th, 2017 at 3:49pm:
Yes, I do think that Trump wants detente with Russia, and also China.

It just make good sense from the point of view of a businessman, but for the neoconservative MIC it spells disaster.


I think you're asking me to accept that Trump is motivated by his need to do business with Russia. Would that be, in comparison to other presidents who didn't want to do that? I think that the deep state, as well as past presidents during the cold war knew that the Soviets challenged US hegemony and so didn't want to do business with the S.U. And I think that starting in the Bush1 years and right through the Bush2 years, Russia was starting to become a threat. Now, Russia is a threat to US hegemony and that's what all the fuss is about. Everybody but Trump understands that Russia is the enemy of the US. That is, in economic terms.

So Trump stands alone and I think we agree on that. I say he doesn't want to stand alone but he has to because he's been up to no good with Russia/Putin. I fully understand that you don't agree that's what motivates him.

Quote:
Trump even said earlier that he wanted to talk peace with Kim Jung-un but the mainstream US press took their talking points from the Pentagon and went berserk.


Compared to all the rest he's said about Kim and N.Korea, I think that's pretty weak. Is it not Trump himself who is being condemned for the military intervention rhetoric that seems to be so threatening to US congress that they are entertaining the idea of limiting Trump's ability to start a nuclear war.

However, as an aside I will say that Trump's prowar rhetoric whcih is pretty undeniable, is only rhetoric with the intent of bluffing and/or building support for the US against N.K. I think the real game is playing out behind the scenes and it's being very carefully controlled by China. I'm saying that N.K. won't dare make a move without China's permission. And China won't give them that permission.

Quote:
I think that it's possible (and I hope) that Trump's blustering about North Korea is just to throw a bone to those who want to immediately "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran,"


That's pretty well what I've said before I read this comment.

Quote:
................ and to also confront Russia in Syria,[/quote\

I've seen no indication that Trump is interested in confronting Russia in Syria. But the establishment sees is as a top priority.

[quote].................... doing the bidding of the MIC and Bibi Netanyahu


The MIC? I don't know. Doing the bidding of Bibi? I would say that Trump is onside with the establishment on that, except that I don't think he understands why, except that it's the right thing to do from a religious POV.

Everything I've said is based on my very firm understanding that the US was intent on taking control over the entire ME  after the fall of the S.U. and right up to the present. The only factor that matter with Russia is that Russia/Putin are demonized because Russia is a world power that's back to assert it's influence and power, in conjunction with China.

I mention that because everything I say pertaining to Trump's position is directly related to that.

Russia's position in Syria, the Ukraine, and the Crimea are very closely related because they are all challenges to the US and it's outstanding PNAC agenda.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tom Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1629
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: The Deep State
Reply #104 - Nov 15th, 2017 at 3:37am
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Nov 14th, 2017 at 6:39pm:
However, as an aside I will say that Trump's prowar rhetoric whcih is pretty undeniable, is only rhetoric with the intent of bluffing and/or building support for the US against N.K. I think the real game is playing out behind the scenes and it's being very carefully controlled by China. I'm saying that N.K. won't dare make a move without China's permission. And China won't give them that permission.


Russia's position in Syria, the Ukraine, and the Crimea are very closely related because they are all challenges to the US and it's outstanding PNAC agenda.


I generally agree with you.

The only things  I would add are:

1.  With regard to North Korea, I don't think that Kim needs to be reined in by China, that he is not crazy enough to initiate aggression against other countries.

NK has stated for years that they would love to have peace talks without preconditions toward the denuclearization of the whole Korean peninsula.  The US demands that before talks begin the North Koreans must first destroy all their nuclear weapons, and without nuclear deterrence, leaving themselves open to invasion.

2. I think that Russia's position in Crimea and Syria are defensive in nature as the PNAC/NATO tries to completely surround Russia with new bases in Poland, Norway, etc., and to try to oust Russia from Syria which has its only military port in the Mid-East with which to defend its oil interests.

If the PNAC wants the US to continue it's world domination it has to either destroy Russia to avoid a Russian/Chinese/BRICS alliance or to ally with Russia against China.

Personally I think that either option is crazy, and that the US should seek peace and good will with all nations as George Washington once proposed, but I really don't see that happening until the US goes virtually bankrupt.  (The US can't go totally bankrupt since it can print money like Zimbabwe.)




  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5177
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: The Deep State
Reply #105 - Nov 15th, 2017 at 11:46am
Print Post  
Tom Palven wrote on Nov 15th, 2017 at 3:37am:
I generally agree with you.

The only things  I would add are:

1.  With regard to North Korea, I don't think that Kim needs to be reined in by China, that he is not crazy enough to initiate aggression against other countries.


That's essentially what I was saying Tom. He's not crazy enough. But I was making the point that N.K. is worked very closely in concert with China in the interest of pursuing China's agenda. I would say that everybody on both sides are fully aware of that but that's not for public consumption. Make sense to you?

Quote:
NK has stated for years that they would love to have peace talks without preconditions toward the denuclearization of the whole Korean peninsula.  The US demands that before talks begin the North Koreans must first destroy all their nuclear weapons, and without nuclear deterrence, leaving themselves open to invasion.


exactly, but let's not forget that N. Korea and China want peace on their terms and not on US/S.K. terms.

Quote:
2. I think that Russia's position in Crimea and Syria are defensive in nature as the PNAC/NATO tries to completely surround Russia with new bases in Poland, Norway, etc., and to try to oust Russia from Syria which has its only military port in the Mid-East with which to defend its oil interests.


I was totally there on that understanding before you reitterated it. The status quo on Crimea was working fine and Russia was forced into something else, or lose the Crimea. I believe that Obama let his guard down and allowed Russia be become an equal partner in the Syria conflict. There is also a possibility that he was forced into that position. More from you on this issue would be interesting. I don't have all the answers but I do feel a precendence was set in Syria and there's no turning back. I also believe that Iran is now invulnerable because of the nuclear deal which includes Russia and China.

Quote:
If the PNAC wants the US to continue it's world domination it has to either destroy Russia to avoid a Russian/Chinese/BRICS alliance or to ally with Russia against China.


The latter is always a possibility, as is allying with Russia. Do you see any greater possibility one way and not the other?

Quote:
Personally I think that either option is crazy, and that the US should seek peace and good will with all nations as George Washington once proposed, but I really don't see that happening until the US goes virtually bankrupt.  (The US can't go totally bankrupt since it can print money like Zimbabwe.)


No large and powerful nation, be it the US, China, or in the future Russia, has ever sat back and peacefully coexisted. The struggle to hold power will always go on.

In this 21st. century, a world power simply ignoring other powers uniting can't be tolerated. Regardless of which of the three is the odd man out. Power comes from access to and control of the world's resources.

Our saviour is MAD. It's the reason in my opinion that we have gone so long without a world war. Maybe it will save us for another 75 years? I can't imagine it not.




[/quote]
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tom Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1629
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: The Deep State
Reply #106 - Nov 15th, 2017 at 2:40pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Nov 15th, 2017 at 11:46am:
That's essentially what I was saying Tom. He's not crazy enough. But I was making the point that N.K. has worked very closely in concert with China in the interest of pursuing China's agenda. I would say that everybody on both sides are fully aware of that but that's not for public consumption. Make sense to you?



Yes, that makes sense.

China wants North Korea as a buffer against having US nukes right on the Chinese border, and NK wants Chinese aid and trade, and the rest of your post makes sense, too.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 22223
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Deep State
Reply #107 - Nov 15th, 2017 at 3:55pm
Print Post  
Tom Palven wrote on Nov 15th, 2017 at 2:40pm:
Yes, that makes sense.

China wants North Korea as a buffer against having US nukes right on the Chinese border, and NK wants Chinese aid and trade, and the rest of your post makes sense, too.
What is the agenda of China?
You guys are talking about it as if you know, and I'd like to know... But don't.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5177
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: The Deep State
Reply #108 - Nov 15th, 2017 at 7:46pm
Print Post  
Tom Palven wrote on Nov 15th, 2017 at 2:40pm:
Yes, that makes sense.

China wants North Korea as a buffer against having US nukes right on the Chinese border, and NK wants Chinese aid and trade, and the rest of your post makes sense, too.


Thank you. I don't think anything has changed, other than Trump has expressed it in a different way than previous presidents. Is his a better tact? I really don't know.

I don't think there's really much at stake in the long run. Neither side is going to budge much. Perhaps China can claim tit for tat in the near future by installing a missile system in Central or South America? Cuba?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5177
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: The Deep State
Reply #109 - Nov 15th, 2017 at 7:49pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Nov 15th, 2017 at 3:55pm:
What is the agenda of China?
You guys are talking about it as if you know, and I'd like to know... But don't.

I don't mind including you in the conversation if you behave yourself appropriately. And I would even answer your questions if I knew that I wasn't going to be sucked into more of your drunken shit.

Anyway, not now until you can demonstrate better behaviour.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Deep State
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy