Deep state. MSM. Trump ...
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, March 14, 2025 17:04
VIEWED: 33741
PAGE 19 of 33
The Deep State was behind Hillary all the way. Comey was a non-swimmer in over his head.
So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How did I miss this???
Quote:It's complicated. Syria (you may not know) actually elected Assad. Yes, they have elections there. Now, people have been complaining of "strongman" tactics by the Assad government, and there WAS a genuine 'human rights' movement in Syria, but it was taken over by the Saudis, Qataris, Turks, and the USA CIA in an effort to oust Assad by any means possible. The Saudis, etc. chose to support (Sunni, takfiri) jihadists who are just like head-lopping/ burning-alive/ drowning jihadists everywhere. They came from everywhere: Tunisia, Iraq, Chechnya, Indonesia etc to take Syria apart and build the first real jihadist state. However, the future for non-Sunni, non-takfiri minorities in Syria - the Shias, Alawites, Druze, Orthodox and "regular" Christians, Yazidis, ethnic Armenians and Turkmen etc ... anyone not a takfiri Sunni Arab - was extremely bleak and meant either "convert or die" or "provide sex or die" or sometimes just "die".
I'm going to go ahead and answer some of this. Feel free to tell me if I'm way off base Sigs.- SIXQuote:
So what you are stating is that chaos and unrest DOES NOT benefit Russia or China. They prefer stable governments, ones that they could take advantage of. They would prefer a certain type of confusion and unrest, and not full out war. Such as in Syria. Then why back Syria and the genocide that takes place there? And isn't that "certain type of unrest" still part and parcel of the Deep State, as you put it?
They prefer their own governments to be relatively stable. Syria and the people who live there don't mean shit to them. Kinda like how the people running the show here don't give two shits about all the brown people we've been at war with for most of my life.
There are reports that the jihadist fighters in Raqqa- which was the unofficial capital of ISIS in Syria before Syria, Iran and Russia turned things sour for them - were paid in Saudi riyals and pumped up with Captagon (amphetamine) supplied by Saudi Arabia.
SO, altho the "movement" may have started out authentic, it rapidly evolved into a proxy war, where the CIA (and USA media) constantly called the head-lopping jihadists "rebels" and supplied them with weapons, intel, and training.
RUSSIA, IRAN, AND HEZBOLLAH WERE INVITED IN BY THE OFFICIALLY-RECOGNIZED GOVERNMENT OF SYRIA, WHICH THE USA, GULF STATES, AND TURKEY WERE INTENT ON DESTROYING VIA THEIR JIHADIST PROXIES. So THERE'S the source of your instability, just like the western-sourced instability in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Sudan.
Quote:
Being at "war" with Syria is as beneficial to the Russian government as being at "war" with the Middle East in general is to our own government.-
It has its political uses "at home", and Russia gets to test its different weapons systems and conduct training under real-live battle conditions, and I'm sure that the military gets a boost, but Russia's economy is much smaller and they don't have a world reserve currency to pump out, so this represents a real cost to their economy. The other advantage is that it opens the way for an Iranian-Iraqi-Syrian gas pipeline to the EU; but that advantage goes to Iran, Iraq, and Syria, not Russia.
Quote:Agreed.Quote:The deep state was around a long time before Obama even got into politics. I won't go so far as to say he was an useful idiot, because he is demonstrably intelligent, but let's just say that he was Deep State friendly.- SIX
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you place Obama and his Administration as the head of the Deep State? Does it exist here in the US? I'm curious because I've often heard that name bandied about in regards to Obama, Lynch and Holder. Am I way off base here?- SGG
Quote:Quote:
1. The militaNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
2 Questions Keeks:
1) Who exactly is the deep State here in the U.S.? Sigs said that there are both national and international Deep State and that their agendas differ greatly. To make it easier: Who are they here in the U.S.? I believe that they are who you're referring to.
2) What is their ultimate goal? Why back Hillary? Why did they fail? Was it the international Deep State at work here?
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The Deep State was behind Hillary all the way. Comey was a non-swimmer in over his head.
So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sigs, you're right.....it is complicated. It's an enormous game of chess and we're the pawns in all of this.
All I know is that Putin is making a lot of moves to keep his seat at the chess board. The more I think about it, the more I feel that this is a 3-D game of chess.
Although I'm not quite sure who the other players are, I believe that there is a struggle between the international and national Deep State. What the end game is, I don't know. But one thing's certain, Putin is in the middle pulling strings. He has his man in the White House; his man in Syria.
It's a lot like watching a train wreck, there's nothing we can do about it. I know I'm simplifying things, but I could only see but so much on the chess board.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
How did I miss this???Quote:It's complicated. Syria (you may not know) actually elected Assad. Yes, they have elections there. Now, people have been complaining of "strongman" tactics by the Assad government, and there WAS a genuine 'human rights' movement in Syria, but it was taken over by the Saudis, Qataris, Turks, and the USA CIA in an effort to oust Assad by any means possible. The Saudis, etc. chose to support (Sunni, takfiri) jihadists who are just like head-lopping/ burning-alive/ drowning jihadists everywhere. They came from everywhere: Tunisia, Iraq, Chechnya, Indonesia etc to take Syria apart and build the first real jihadist state. However, the future for non-Sunni, non-takfiri minorities in Syria - the Shias, Alawites, Druze, Orthodox and "regular" Christians, Yazidis, ethnic Armenians and Turkmen etc ... anyone not a takfiri Sunni Arab - was extremely bleak and meant either "convert or die" or "provide sex or die" or sometimes just "die".
I'm going to go ahead and answer some of this. Feel free to tell me if I'm way off base Sigs.- SIXQuote:
So what you are stating is that chaos and unrest DOES NOT benefit Russia or China. They prefer stable governments, ones that they could take advantage of. They would prefer a certain type of confusion and unrest, and not full out war. Such as in Syria. Then why back Syria and the genocide that takes place there? And isn't that "certain type of unrest" still part and parcel of the Deep State, as you put it?
They prefer their own governments to be relatively stable. Syria and the people who live there don't mean shit to them. Kinda like how the people running the show here don't give two shits about all the brown people we've been at war with for most of my life.
There are reports that the jihadist fighters in Raqqa- which was the unofficial capital of ISIS in Syria before Syria, Iran and Russia turned things sour for them - were paid in Saudi riyals and pumped up with Captagon (amphetamine) supplied by Saudi Arabia.
SO, altho the "movement" may have started out authentic, it rapidly evolved into a proxy war, where the CIA (and USA media) constantly called the head-lopping jihadists "rebels" and supplied them with weapons, intel, and training.
RUSSIA, IRAN, AND HEZBOLLAH WERE INVITED IN BY THE OFFICIALLY-RECOGNIZED GOVERNMENT OF SYRIA, WHICH THE USA, GULF STATES, AND TURKEY WERE INTENT ON DESTROYING VIA THEIR JIHADIST PROXIES. So THERE'S the source of your instability, just like the western-sourced instability in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Sudan.Quote:
Being at "war" with Syria is as beneficial to the Russian government as being at "war" with the Middle East in general is to our own government.-
It has its political uses "at home", and Russia gets to test its different weapons systems and conduct training under real-live battle conditions, and I'm sure that the military gets a boost, but Russia's economy is much smaller and they don't have a world reserNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're right, SGG ... it's extremely complicated. It's very hard to figure out what's going to happen next, because it's almost impossible to even know who the players are since the REAL "powers that be" mostly remain well-hidden.
Sigs, you're right.....it is complicated. It's an enormous game of chess and we're the pawns in all of this.
All I know is that Putin is making a lot of moves to keep his seat at the chess board. The more I think about it, the more I feel that this is a 3-D game of chess.
Although I'm not quite sure who the other players are, I believe that there is a struggle between the international and national Deep State. What the end game is, I don't know. But one thing's certain, Putin is in the middle pulling strings. He has his man in the White House; his man in Syria.
It's a lot like watching a train wreck, there's nothing we can do about it. I know I'm simplifying things, but I could only see but so much on the chess board.
However, here's my take on your post: I think you're giving Putin and the FSB far too much credit for influencing world events.
The USA's GDP is about 14X that of Russia (approx 17.9 trillion v 1.3 trillion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_count
ries_by_GDP_(nominal)
The USA's government revenues are about 6X that of Russia's
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Russia/United-States/
Economy
But the USA's military spending is about 10X that of Russia's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditur
es and we have been vastly predominant for decades and decades; we have spent more than most other nations COMBINED since WWII. To put this in perspective, Trump's military budget INCREASE is about on-par with Russia's total military budget.
All to say that Russia's application of force is necessarily limited. Where the USA has failed, it's due to self-inflicted wounds/ bad policy/ the MIC parasitizing the military for its own purposes. The only reason why the focus is on Russia is because they have has SOME success in Chechnya, Crimea, and Syria .... but compare that to the roughly 1000 military installations that the USA has all over the world.
One clique of players that I have been able to ID over the years is the backers of the petrodollar. That destruction of Iraq? Not about WMD at all. The problem was that Hans Blix looked like he was getting closer and closer to certifying that Saddam had substantially met the UN mandate for WMD destruction, and there were oil contracts with France and Russia about the be signed, payment in Euros and gold. The closer that got, the more frantic Bush's propaganda; don't forget that it was OUR BOMBING that chased out the UN inspections team (UNMOVIC), not Saddam. The petrodollar determines nearly ALL of our mideast policy, and Israel determines the rest.
So if shit doesn't make sense, look first to petrodollar/ reserve currency/ international bank considerations to see what THEIR interests are.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When it comes to Trump and Putin specifically, the Steele dossier opens up with these sentences, written in 2016: "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." Basically, it attributes to Putin political espionage involving Trump since at least 2011, or even earlier.
Forget the general election for the moment.
Trump announced his candidacy Tuesday, June 16, 2015. There were 16 other candidates in the primary race. They were: John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Jim Gilmore, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, George Pataki, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, and Rick Perry.
With the exception of Jim Gilmore, all of them were well known, with bona fides as populist (eg Christie, Perry), pro-business (eg Fiorina) and/ or Tea Party (eg Walker) candidates.
Trump's win of the primary race against a full field of well-known politicians was unforeseen, as was his win of the presidency.
The question is, how could Putin know to target Trump in 2011 or earlier to "create splits and divisions in the western alliance", because Trump would become a politician in 2015, would win the primary July 2016, and would win the presidency November 2016? The answer of course is that Putin couldn't know.
I believe Russia is in the habit of collecting information on important people who go to Russia, as a matter of course. But that means they ALSO have information on Hillary (and others). Hillary could be just as compromised, but we'll never know, since no one seems to care.
And only focusing on Trump and assuming everyone else is clean makes about just as much sense as only drug-testing the winners in a sport, and not testing all the losers as well. The thinking being that the losers couldn't have been doping because they lost. Which is pretty silly as a presumption.
If we REALLY want to get foreign influence out of our politicians, we need to scrutinize them all, at least at the national level.
So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Russia Russia Russia, Trump Trump Trump. I love it.
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, indeed....how could Putin know about Trump. So the FSB and Putin are just ordinary players in the grand scheme of things. It's really the USA that has the upper hand over Putin and Russia, they're just defending themselves from the big bad wolf.
I heard that Trump has been in play since 1987, and that Trump has been keenly interested since the Miss Universe contest in 2013. Compromot.....now there's a word that used quite a bit in Russia. I wonder what it means? Anyway, so what you are saying is that Putin had no way of knowing that Trump would pull it off, the candidacy that is, and if that's the case then he and his cronies couldn't possibly hijack the presidency.
Interesting!
Quote:
The question is, how could Putin know to target Trump in 2011 or earlier to "create splits and divisions in the western alliance", because Trump would become a politician in 2015, would win the primary July 2016, and would win the presidency November 2016? The answer of course is that Putin couldn't know.
Well, here's your answer:
Quote:
I believe Russia is in the habit of collecting information on important people who go to Russia, as a matter of course. But that means they ALSO have information on Hillary (and others). Hillary could be just as compromised, but we'll never know, since no one seems to care.
So, let's set aside the general election.....that means that our comrade Putin has dirt on every important figure that visits Russia. Granted. Then why hasn't he put his "dossier" on Hillary out there for the world to see? Is he saving it for a rainy day? If he hates Hillary so much he could explode, then why not share his dark little secrets with the world? Why not have RT spread the news? Release the Hounds! Really, he could do it. Even if the American media is too chicken or in love with Hillary; he could release the documents. Do you know why he would hold back from exposing Hillary?
Interesting!
So again, let me ask this: Why is it that the Deep State cares more for Hillary than Trump? Why, if the Deep State was backing Hillary, did they lose? Was the International Deep State backing Trump? the National Deep State are a bunch of pussies if they can't beat a bunch of Euro-Trash Deep State(rs). But you and Sigs say that I give the FSB or the International Deep State far too much credit. Okay, so which is it? Are the national Deep State incompetent or are the international Deep State not that good? I'm confused. Which is it? Trump was not supposed to win, right!? And Hillary lost, badly. Yes, you say how did the Dems fuck up so badly, or some such.
It can't be both. Someone fucked up royally and someone did a great job. But both suck....I'm having trouble believing that both sucked at it (being Deep State) and that somehow Trump became president because he really, really wanted to and the Fairy Godmother sprinkled gold dust on his hair, and magically he was handed the Keys to the Kingdom.
So the story is the Deep State here, in the USA, fucked up....but, the international Deep State was not that good, so their contributions meant nothing.
Or did they contribute? Or was it that he won, Fair and Square! Nothing was rigged, as he stated several times. Or was it that it was rigged, but somehow, as if by magic, he won. What a miracle! Imagine, an election that wasn't tampered with, or gerrymandered, and was won because the people's vote actually mattered.
What a concept!
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
When it comes to Trump and Putin specifically, the Steele dossier opens up with these sentences, written in 2016: "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." Basically, it attributes to Putin political espionage involving Trump since at least 2011, or even earlier.
Forget the general election for the moment.
Trump announced his caNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The Deep State was behind Hillary all the way. Comey was a non-swimmer in over his head.
If the Deep State was backing Hillary, then why did she lose? You see, the way it works is: You rig the system in favor of your candidate, it's customary that the person being backed.....WINS!
So, that would mean that the Deep State is incompetent.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:Quote:
The Deep State was behind Hillary all the way. Comey was a non-swimmer in over his head.
If the Deep State was backing Hillary, then why did she lose? You see, the way it works is: You rig the system in favor of your candidate, it's customary that the person being backed.....WINS!
So, that would mean that the Deep State is incompetent.
SGG
Or, they allowed Trump to win.
The last time we had a president this divisive, according to our MSM, was GWB. I said years ago on this very forum, before Obama was even running, that GWB was such a bad president that we might never see an old, white, conservative, supposedly religious President again.
Then Obama won in a virtual landslide against McCain. Nothing got any better. The wars didn't stop. More illegal wars were started. The keys to the internet were given to the UN. Quantitative Easing destroyed the future of the US Dollar. All without the media even talking about it.
There is more negative coverage about Trump in any given week than the bad press that Obama got in 8 years for all of the terrible things his administration did to this country.
I fear what our next Deep State friendly President will bring with them after 4 or 8 years of Trump.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME