Interestingly, Edward Snowden defines the deep state as people in government bureaus that aren't really affected by politics
The president might change, but they remain virtually untouched
This one has been resisted by it every step of the way. The establishment hates Trump, that's a part of why we support him. Just look at how so many RINOs went from "Bush-backed racist war-criminal" or "Actual Nazi" to Democrat darlings.
▼
deleted
· 4 years ago
So you're supporting a guy partly because you hate the people who hate him. And criticize people for supporting former enemies who disagree with their current enemy. Given how extreme right you have to be to use a term like RINO in the first place, that makes sense in a sick way.
What are you but a RINO or a DINO if you can only be counted on to fold when your constituents want you to make a stand?
Bush-era warmongers are pissed Trump is ending their foreign entanglements, Romney is trying to court a party that attacked his faith and family while calling him an actual Nazi.
Obama military appointees are upset that the forever wars are being concluded.
But of course dems love them, their VP is certainly glad to serve under a man she believes to be a racist and a rapist.
deleted
· 4 years ago
You're confusing Harris with Pence which I reckon must be hard to do. You ok?
Well, yes. But also no. The CIA has done bad things since before there was a CIA. That’s a fact. But the CIA doing bad things, and some random person guessing that some current bad thing is the work of the CIA are two different things. Was the CIA involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s death? Well... maybe. There’s no evidence that says the CIA wasn’t right? And it’s something they COULD do- they have the ability (in theory) and theoretical motive. But could it have been one of the other intelligence agencies operating on US soil- including foreign agencies? They also theoretically COULD, and theoretically could have motive no?
So that’s sort of the crux right there. What makes a person think the CIA is involved- beyond “we don’t have concrete proof who did it, and the CIA does secret stuff...”? What is the CIA being accused of doing? Are they helping Bernie Sanders run a sex trafficking ring out of a dry cleaners now? Perhaps thy are feverishly searching every lap top repair shop in America hoping to find and destroy the emails that prove 9/11 was an inside job before those are accidentally found with coincidental timing?
When foreign intelligence agencies, domestic agencies, independent analysts, and most of the media tell us: “here’s proof that Russia is meddling in elections to get this guy elected...” almost or more than half of America Rolls their eyes and says it’s crazy talk, or says: “so what? Russia picked the same guy as me. Big deal...”
The truth doesn’t particularly matter as it will be politicized. Investigating one guy for links to Russia that turn up non conclusive but compelling evidence of wrong doing? A witch hunt. Investigating another guy for debunked accusations in the Ukraine that turn up no evidence of wrong doing? Totally valid use of resources. It’s been almost 60 years since JFK was assassinated and not a single conclusive piece of evidence not a compelling body of evidence has disproven that the story is as told- yet everyone from the CIA to Cuban American anti Castro groups and the mob have been blamed.
The news usually, at least so far, has kept at least one shred of journalistic integrity in that they don’t tend to accuse government agencies of conspiracy because they “totally could have done it...” Traditionally they wait until they have concrete proof or compelling evidence- and then the reporter coincidentally ends up committing suicide shortly after....
But simply put- while it is often the case that someone, somewhere, guesses or puzzles out some CIA plot long before actual proof is delivered- the number of times someone accusing the CIA of some shadow conspiracy and the number of times it is ever proven are far fewer than the number of times an accusation is made and either never proven, or patently disproven to reasonable doubt.
If you want unvetted and questionably accurate but entertaining topical discussion- watch Steven Colbert. Listen to crazy talk radio DJ’s and Fox News corespondents. But the news media should be for news, not gossip.
Reply
deleted
· 4 years ago
The "logic" of this statement appears to be: "As there have been many proven illegal actions by persons and structures within the government, why not believe Hillary Clinton has killed Epstein and is literally farming children to feed their blood to "the elite" after some jolly, sexual abuse of said children by said elite, of course."
.
And if that wasn't believable enough by itself, of course the CURRENT government is fighting all this in a secret, Marvel-like end-battle, and - even better! - the president hasn't once been bragging about it.
.
What's that smell? Desperation? Delusion? Doo doo?
So, I can’t back the “alt right goblin” talk and all that- but I’m gonna agree with darkness_within on the logic. Absence of proof and presence of possibility do not form a solid basis for anything but a loose hypothesis. Especially in the presence of multiple plausible, and often far simpler explanations to a mystery. Until you can disprove or discredit competing possibilities, or you have proof to confirm a possibility or make it most credible- choosing one over the others is is just whatever your bias is. If a man is murdered with 5 people in the room, and all you know is what they look like and they were all present- if you choose one as the murderer without any other evidence the choice is based on cognitive bias and not logic or deduction.
You’d need more such as a blood stain on a persons shoe, or some other information that could narrow the possibilities- but that said- let us say that we know nothing but what they look like for 4 of them- but for 1 of them we also know they were released from prison for a violent assault, and have blood on their shoe. Case closed? No. Their previous history CAN be evidence or not- and the blood, assuming it even belongs to the victim- could have gotten on their shoe from proximity to the murder and not by any participation in it- or afterwards while trying to save the victim etc. so evidence suggesting one suspect is still not sufficient to rule out the other 4 as suspects.
The president might change, but they remain virtually untouched
Was that said or implied?
Bush-era warmongers are pissed Trump is ending their foreign entanglements, Romney is trying to court a party that attacked his faith and family while calling him an actual Nazi.
Obama military appointees are upset that the forever wars are being concluded.
But of course dems love them, their VP is certainly glad to serve under a man she believes to be a racist and a rapist.
.
And if that wasn't believable enough by itself, of course the CURRENT government is fighting all this in a secret, Marvel-like end-battle, and - even better! - the president hasn't once been bragging about it.
.
What's that smell? Desperation? Delusion? Doo doo?