Trump as the “disposable President” for the Neocons?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
An excerpt from an article regarding Iran and Anglo/Zionist attack options against Iran ... As I have indicated a few times in some postings made here, I think there may actually be a war against the current president going on in the USA; the author of the article apparently seems to think along the same lines ...
Trump as the “disposable President” for the Neocons?
The Neocons hate Trump, but they also own him. The best example of this kind of “ownership” is the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem which was an incredibly stupid act, but one which the Israel Lobby demanded. The same goes for the US reneging on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or, for that matter, the current stream of threats against Iran. It appears that the Neocons have a basic strategy which goes like this: “we hate Trump and everything he represents, but we also control him; let’s use him to do all the crazy stuff no sane US President would ever do, and then let’s use the fallout of these crazy decisions and blame it all on Trump; this way we get all that we want and we get to destroy Trump in the process only to replace him with one of “our guys” when the time is right“. Again, the real goal of an attack on Iran would be to bomb Iran back into a pre-revolutionary era and to punish the Iranian people for supporting the “wrong” regime thus daring to defy the AngloZionist Empire. The Neocons could use Trump as a “disposable President” who could be blamed for the ensuing chaos and political disaster while accomplishing one of the most important political objectives of Israel: laying waste to Iran. For the Neocons, this is a win-win situation: if things go well (however unlikely that is), they can take all the credit and still control Trump like a puppet, and if things don’t go well, Iran is in ruins, Trump is blamed for a stupid and crazy war, and the Clinton gang will be poised to come back to power.
The biggest loser in such a scenario would, of course, be the people of Iran. But the US military will not fare well either. For one thing, a plan to just “lay waste” to Iran has no viable exit strategy, especially not a short-term one, while the US military has no stomach for long conflicts (Afghanistan and Iraq are bad enough). Furthermore, once the USA destroys most of what can be destroyed the initiative will be in the Iranians’ hands and time will be on their side. In 2006 the Israelis had to fold after 33 days only, how much time will the US need before having to declare victory and leave? If the war spreads to, say, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria, then will the US even have the option to just leave? What about the Israelis – what options will they have once missiles start hitting them (not only Iranian missiles but probably also Hezbollah missiles from Lebanon!)?
Former Mossad head Meir Dagan was fully correct when he stated that a military attack on Iran was “the stupidest thing I have ever heard”. Alas, the Neocons have never been too bright, and stupid stuff is what they mostly do. All we can hope for is that somebody in the USA will find a way to stop them and avert another immoral, bloody, useless and potentially very dangerous war.
Source: https://thesaker.is/anglozionist-attack-options-against-iran/
Comments
-
Nah. Elected and loved by Americans (At least 50% approval today, 10% higher than Obama at this time), he is doing great and God is in control, not neocons.
Yet what you say makes me think. The liberals of our nation (some call themselves Christians) may be your "neocons." Sort of. James Dobson recently said, "...I learned how the Nazis managed to enslave the German people and then molded them into a force that devastated and conquered almost every country in Europe."
“We are not experiencing Nazi-like tyranny yet, but we are steadily being expected to think, speak, write, and act in a prescribed manner in conformity with what is now called ‘political correctness.’ The mainstream media has become a tool to influence elections and spread this belief system. Sadly, the rights handed down to us by our forefathers more than 200 years ago are gradually being overridden, ignored, contradicted, or disregarded by the courts and legislatures. Alas, we are less free now than we were even five years ago.”
With Trump in power (thank you, Lord!), we see the liberals' hatred, godlessness, panic and general character vomited everywhere, even on Christian forums.
Forgive me or not, either way is fine, but I am pleased to offer this political insensitivity (yes, it describes a person(s) here) and to say that I find it awfully funny:
Post edited by GaoLu on -
@GaoLu said:
Nah. Elected and loved by Americans (At least 50% approval today, 10% higher than Obama at this time), he is doing great and God is in control, not neocons.As of today, even in the Rasmussen Poll, as you will discover in the Real Clear Politics poll of polls, the president is under water (Approve:48; Disapprove:50).
Trump is not above water in ANY of the ten polls included in the RCP average, which today reports a nearly 10 ten point gap between the president's average approval and disapproval ratings (Approve:43.1; Disapprove:52.9).
For those reasons, I don't see the factual basis for your claim that the president's approval rating is "at least 50% today."
And as for your claim that Trump's current approval rating is "10% higher than Obama at this time," please note that according to the Real Clear Politics average Obama's approval ratings on August 3, 2010 - EXACTLY the same day in his first term as we are today in Trump's first term - Obama was underwater, as well, but by 4.8 points (APPROVE:44.9; Disapprove:49.7) not 9.8 points, as is the case for President Trump's ratings averages. So according to the average of several polls, at this point in his term Obama was AHEAD of where Trump is today by five points, not behind by ten.
And if you're not content with comparing the two presidents' respective RCP average of approval ratings, and want to focus solely on the conservative-leaning Rasmussen Poll, a trip to THIS ARCHIVE of that poll's Obama results will show that on August 3, 2010, Obama was underwater 46-53, or by seven points. Today in Rasmussen, Trump is underwater by two points, so, AT BEST - using ONLY the most sympathetic poll available - Trump is five points better than Obama, not ten.
For that reason, I don't see the factual basis for your claim about Trump's current rating compared to Obama's either.
I will of course welcome any links you can provide to demonstrate the accuracy of your claims.
-
You sound frantic Bill, trying to make a case out of a few dubious points. Grasping, clutching for hope to bolster your hatred, to justify your inexplicable anger, as self-therapy for your Trump Anxiety Disorder, all that from internet links to fact-twisting sites. Bill, get your hope from Jesus. That will change everything.
I am rethinking the term Trumpster. It is taking on a positive connotation. I am starting to like the term--as God is blessing America through President Trump's great leadership.
-
@GaoLu said:
You sound frantic Bill, trying to make a case out of a few dubious points. Grasping, clutching for hope to bolster your hatred, to justify your inexplicable anger, as self-therapy for your Trump Anxiety Disorder, all that from internet links to fact-twisting sites. Bill, get your hope from Jesus. That will change everything.I am rethinking the term Trumpster. It is taking on a positive connotation. I am starting to like the term--as God is blessing America through President Trump's great leadership.
I don't feel frantic, Gao Lu. I feel factual.
As for the "Trumpster" moniker's "taking on a positive connotation," good for you. Just remember to temper your praise for the man and his "great leadership," if you don't want to risk confusion over your view of the president, given your recent declaration that you "don't care" for him "and never did."
-
I don't care for him and I especially do not like his personality. I also recognize clearly that he is Gods chosen man to lead America and I celebrate the good he is doing. I shall be pleased if you call me a Trumpster because I support the man God chose and blesses.
I bet that will totally confuse your one-track, anger-ridden, Trump-Anxiety, fevered brain.
I also bet you do feel factual. Just give Bill a mouse, the internet and Google and he will believe anything is a fact--if it feeds his fever.
-
@GaoLu said:
I don't care for him and I especially do not like his personality. I also recognize clearly that he is Gods chosen man to lead America and I celebrate the good he is doing. I shall be pleased if you call me a Trumpster because I support the man God chose and blesses.
I bet that will totally confuse your one-track, anger-ridden, Trump-Anxiety, fevered brain.It's kind of awkward, and certainly unexpected, but we've found common ground in referring to you as a "Trumpster."
As to the status of my brain, however, common ground between us is not so common.... It happens.
I also bet you do feel factual. Just give Bill a mouse, the internet and Google and he will believe anything is a fact--if it feeds his fever.
The thing is, Gao Lu, had you used a mouse, the Internet, and Google as I did, you would have known that Trump's favorables are NOT "at least 50%...today," and he's NOT "10% higher than Obama at this time." You may well have chosen to post those claims even knowing they were false (!) but at least you would have known.
And chances would have been at least a small bit better that in your response to my offered corrections, you wouldn't have had the misfortune of labeling the Rasmussen Poll - the most conservative-friendly major poll in business today, and the only one that has Trump within a couple points of 50% - as one of the "fact-twisting" sites to which I linked.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
It's kind of awkward, and certainly unexpected, but we've found common ground in referring to you as a "Trumpster."
I am honored.
Yes, I realize that your being a bug on the windshield of truth is often awkward for you.
As to the status of my [one-track, anger-ridden, Trump-Anxiety, fevered] brain, however, common ground between us is not so common.... It happens.
Absolutely right.
I also bet you do feel factual. Just give Bill a mouse, the internet and Google and he will believe anything is a fact--if it feeds his fever.
The thing is, Gao Lu, had you used a mouse, the Internet, and Google as I did, you would have known that Trump's favorables are NOT "at least 50%...today," and he's NOT "10% higher than Obama at this time."
I bet you can prove all that nonsense with an internet link, can't you? Wiley Bill and his great internet facts!
By the way, you may be right. Trump may well be 51+% by now and 11-12% higher than Obama.
The real rating is so high that even AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka (sure sounds like Trump) is open to endorsing Trump next round. Dude, you better get with your own program.
On top of that, your guru Acosta has made an utter fool of himself and the people he represents. I actually pity you for that.
-
Let me re-emphasize this, which Bill is trying to smoke out:
Yet what you say makes me think. The liberals of our nation (some call themselves Christians) may be your "neocons." Sort of. James Dobson recently said, "...I learned how the Nazis managed to enslave the German people and then molded them into a force that devastated and conquered almost every country in Europe."
“We are not experiencing Nazi-like tyranny yet, but we are steadily being expected to think, speak, write, and act in a prescribed manner in conformity with what is now called ‘political correctness.’ The mainstream media has become a tool to influence elections and spread this belief system. Sadly, the rights handed down to us by our forefathers more than 200 years ago are gradually being overridden, ignored, contradicted, or disregarded by the courts and legislatures. Alas, we are less free now than we were even five years ago.”
With Trump in power (thank you, Lord!), we see the liberals' hatred, godlessness, panic and general character vomited everywhere, even on Christian forums.
Forgive me or not, either way is fine, but I am pleased to offer this political insensitivity (yes, it describes a person(s) here) and to say that I find it awfully funny:
-
@GaoLu said:
Yes, I realize that your being a bug on the windshield of truth is often awkward for you.It is indeed. As President Trump proves daily, truth is hard... for him to tell. So of course, being a bug on the windshield of truth is awkward.
I bet you can prove all that nonsense with an internet link, can't you? Wiley Bill and his great internet facts!
Today's vocabulary word is "fact." By definition, facts are objectively, "indisputably" true. Only in Trump Nation are there "alternative facts" and, from your posts, "Internet facts" and "imaginary facts." Only among Trumpsters United is truth "relative," can each of us have our own "version of the truth."
For example, in his campaign-style rally the other night in Pennsylvania, the president said "U.S. Steel just announced that they are building six new steel mills." That's a fact... but only in Trump Nation, where everyone - and every president - may have his or her own "version of the truth." But outside of Trump Nation, the president's statement was false. U.S. Steel is re-opening TWO plants, NOT building SIX new ones.
The president's falsehood reminds me a bit of your falsehood about Trump's poll numbers. Six new steel mills surely sounds more impressive than two re-opened ones, so the president, assuming he or his staff took the time to find out the truth (and neither may have!) chose the falsehood over the truth. Similarly, that Trump's favorability rating is "at least at 50%" and is "ten points" ahead of where Obama was at this point in his first term sounds much more impressive than that in a collection of ten polls, Trump is at 50% in none of them, and in their average results, almost ten points under water personally and five points back of where Obama was at this time. So, self-identified Trumpster that you are - assuming you took the time to find out the truth - you chose the more attractive, but factually false, poll results.
By the way, you may be right. Trump may well be 51+% by now and 11-12% higher than Obama.
In Trump Nation, Trump not only "may well be" higher in the polls than he was the last time anyone checked, he is ALWAYS higher in the polls than he was the last time anyone checked. By the end of the year, Trump Nation projects that his favorability rating will rise to 104%, with the help of those three million illegals who voted for Clinton, but by the end of the year will be SO impressed by Trump's leadership that they will abandon the Democrats and support the president.
Outside Trump Nation, however, where truth is not "relative" and there are no "alternative facts," Trump is not at 51% or 50% or 49%, even in the most conservative-friendly poll.
The real rating is so high that even AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka (sure sounds like Trump) is open to endorsing Trump next round. Dude, you better get with your own program.
According to The Washington Examiner - the conservative-leaning paper/"fact-twister" in the D.C. area - Trumka said "an endorsement for President Trump in the 2020 election (is) unlikely, but (he) didn't rule it out." "Will he be considered? Will he be looked at? Every candidate will be looked at," doesn't sound like much of an opening to an eventual endorsement to me.
On top of that, your guru Acosta has made an utter fool of himself and the people he represents. I actually pity you for that.
He asked the press secretary of the president of the United States to reassure the American people that she and the president both know the news media are not "the enemy of the people." Ms. Sanders refused to make that acknowledgement.
Were the president of the United States calling Christians "the enemy of the people," I bet you'd be calling "religious persecution," and a lot of other things - and I think you'd be right to do so. And I bet you wouldn't accept the president's allies' asserting that in so calling the president out, you had made an "utter fool" of yourself. And I think you'd be right in that, too.
