Caitlin Johnstone, JFK and the Insurrection

[Benjamin Cole]

Trump's follies just do not match the horrors of LBJ-Nixon, or even Bush Jr. 

There was nothing pleasant or admirable in Trump's personality. Good riddance.

But consider this one toe, on the body that was Vietnam:

"The newly tabulated figures indicate that at least 260 million U.S. cluster bomblets were released over Laos during the war — eighty-six bomblets for every person living in the country (the population was approximately 3 million in 1970)."

That's just a toe on the body. The carnage was everywhere.

James DiEugenio has correctly pointed out there was holocaust in SE Asia, with perhaps six million killed after US involvement there. And for what?

I disagree with the identity-politics driven narratives, so popular---indeed an obsession---in mainstream media today. 

What is happening to Americans today is a corporatist-elite agenda, an undeclared economic assault on the nation's middle class, whatever your race or sex.  Smedley Butler's take on foreign policy only needs updating, not revision.

There is a terrific book out, "Trade Wars are Clas Wars," by Michael Pettis. Talk about required reading, this is it. 

It is not the "US vs. China." It is the multinationals and the CCP, and US leadership, against the employee classes of both nations.

BTW--I loath, detest and revile the CCP for their horrid human rights abuses. Yes, the CCP is worse than US leadership. 

But note how little attention US media is paying to the jailing of Jimmy Lai, the Hong Kong publisher. 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Benjamin Cole

[Cliff Varnell]

14 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Trump's follies just do not match the horrors of LBJ-Nixon, or even Bush Jr. 

He isn’t done yet, is he?

[Benjamin Cole]

Just now, Cliff Varnell said:

He isn’t done yet, is he?

Who knows? Not me. But unless Trump becomes President again, and undertakes a few major wars for nothing, he strikes me as small potatoes. 

Corporate America wanted Trump out. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, the multinationals, the CCP wanted him out. 

Why? That is the important question about the Trump Presidency. 

The identity-politics narrative, so obviously facile, is a diversion. And it worked. 

BTW--I loathe, detest and revile identity politics of any kind, in any direction. Back when Wallace did it, or now when it nearly defines the Biden Presidency (for public consumption). 

 

[S.T. Patrick]

Maybe we are too modernist when we think of "worst ever," which shows America's lack of historical knowledge (NOT this board). "Worst" usually belongs to James Buchanan and Warren Harding. That seems to be the consensus with historians across the political spectrum. I've been a longtime follower of presidential performance surveys, their methodologies, and their results. It's a fascinating little corner of the historical field. You can also see the rise and fall of certain figures also. U.S. Grant long held a position directly above Buchanan and Harding. He is "on the rise." Nixon has risen, as well. Eisenhower is still rising slightly, which is baffling to me since he is rising within the top ten. When looking at them, do remember that we are talking only about time in the White House. These aren't "people performance surveys." They are "presidential." So, no, Carter doesn't get points for a post-presidency ad Taft doesn't get points for getting nominated to the Supreme Court. But still, there are ebbs and flows. Like Jim, I also don't think Trump is the worst in history, not more so than Buchanan and Harding. Do I think Trump ends up in last place in the next major survey done (probably another C-SPAN survey)? Yes. I think the world is hyper-emotional now and can't get a grip on itself. Everyone wants to make a point and everything is about "how I feel right now." That's okay, but it lacks historical perspective. But I think in 20-30 years, Trump will have risen from the cellar and will float up slightly to what is called the "below average" range (below "average" and above "failure"). It's almost a mistake, I believe, for a president to be eligible for these polls for 10-20 years until history has played out. I wouldn't even include Obama yet. Again, this is what historians have said since Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. did the first poll in 1948, I believe it was. There is a good book about Buchanan called "Worst. President. Ever." which is largely about his perpetual position at the bottom of these surveys. My overall point is that when we only talk about the past 40 years as "failures" and we aren't even talking about the antebellum run of presidents, I'm not sure the starting line is even a good one.   

Edited January 31, 2021 by S.T. Patrick

[S.T. Patrick]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

 I might be wrong, but I have never seen her say anything about JFK, RFK, MLK or the Malcolm X assassinations.

As someone who likes Caitlin very much personally and professionally, having corresponded with her some for garrison, my guess is that she hasn't said much about JFK, RFK, King, or X because she would - admittedly - tell you that she doesn't feel equipped to do so. She is very "right now" in her analysis. I think she's even a bit uncomfortable with topics as "old" (huge quotation marks) as 9/11 or Iran-Contra. What she does is what she does well. She takes something that happened today and she analyzes it right now from her perspective in the moment. I'm not even sure that she's a fan, per se, of history. I'm not saying she isn't, but she rarely discusses history beyond ten years or so. When I believe she's wrong, and I sometimes do, she still causes me to think about what she says. I think that's a good thing. But , as I said, I like her and she's always been kind to me and to garrison, so yes, I'm biased.  

[Cliff Varnell]

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Who knows? Not me. But unless Trump becomes President again, and undertakes a few major wars for nothing, he strikes me as small potatoes. 

My point is that what he unleashed in the last 4 years hasn’t played out yet. 

It’s too early to tally up the consequences of his disastrous reign, whether it’s the covid here Stateside, the bloodlust of his followers, or the ultimate impact of pulling out of the Iran nuke accord.

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Corporate America wanted Trump out.

And in 2016 they wanted him in, which is why the last 11 days of the campaign was a 24-hour hate-Hillary-fest.

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 

Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, the multinationals, the CCP wanted him out. 

Why? That is the important question about the Trump Presidency. 

Because he was a sociopathic wanna-be dictator whose narcissism was only matched by his incompetence.

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The identity-politics narrative, so obviously facile, is a diversion. And it worked. 

BTW--I loathe, detest and revile identity politics of any kind, in any direction. Back when Wallace did it, or now when it nearly defines the Biden Presidency (for public consumption). 

 

It nearly defines the Biden Presidency?

[Cliff Varnell]

31 minutes ago, S.T. Patrick said:

Maybe we are too modernist when we think of "worst ever," which shows America's lack of historical knowledge (NOT this board). "Worst" usually belongs to James Buchanan and Warren Harding. That seems to be the consensus with historians across the political spectrum. I've been a longtime follower of presidential performance surveys, their methodologies, and their results. It's a fascinating little corner of the historical field. You can also see the rise and fall of certain figures also. U.S. Grant long held a position directly above Buchanan and Harding. He is "on the rise." Nixon has risen, as well. Eisenhower is still rising slightly, which is baffling to me since he is rising within the top ten. When looking at them, do remember that we are talking only about time in the White House. these aren't "people performance surveys." They are "presidential." So, no, Carter doesn't get points for a post-presidency ad Taft doesn't get points for getting nominated to the Supreme Court. But still, there are ebbs and flows. Like Jim, I also don't think Trump is the worst in history, not more so than Buchanan and Harding. Do I think Trump ends up in last place in the next major survey done (probably another C-SPAN survey)? Yes. I think the world is hyper-emotional now and can't get a grip on itself. Everyone wants to make a point and everything is about "how I feel right now." That's okay, but it lacks historical perspective. But I think in 20-30 years, Trump will have risen from the cellar and will float up slightly to what is called the "below average" range (below "average" and above "failure"). It's almost a mistake, I believe, for a president to be eligible for these polls for 10-20 years until history has played out. I wouldn't even include Obama yet. Again, this is what historians have said since Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. did the first poll in 1948, I believe it was. There is a good book about Buchanan called "Worst. President. Ever." which is largely about his perpetual position at the bottom of these surveys. My overall point is that when we only talk about the past 40 years as "failures" and we aren't even talking about the antebellum run of presidents, I'm not sure the starting line is even a good one.   

Until I see an account which corrects my impression, I’d figure Presidents Buchanan/Harding/LBJ/Nixon were fully formed adults.

The same cannot be said of Donald Trump.

The consequences a President with the emotional maturity of a spoiled 7 year old will likely resonate for years.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[Benjamin Cole]

5 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

My point is that what he unleashed in the last 4 years hasn’t played out yet. 

It’s too early to tally up the consequences of his disastrous reign, whether it’s the covid here Stateside, the bloodlust of his followers, or the ultimate impact of pulling out of the Iran nuke accord.

And in 2016 they wanted him in, which is why the last 11 days of the campaign was a 24-hour hate-Hillary-fest.

Because he was a sociopathic wanna-be dictator whose narcissism was only matched by his incompetence.

It nearly defines the Biden Presidency?

"It nearly defines the Biden Presidency?"

Oh, egads, yes (for public consumption).

Synopsis:

Q from reporter: "Janet Yellen, Treasury Secretary has taken $7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street, in three years. Is she biased?'

A: She is first female Treasury Secretary and was paid for extreme competence.

(Dog whistle: You are sexist to suggest otherwise.)

--------

Listen, Corporate America would install Attila the Hun if he favored their interests, or AOC. Personality has nothing to do with it, no matter how warped. 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Benjamin: 

"The newly tabulated figures indicate that at least 260 million U.S. cluster bomblets were released over Laos during the war — eighty-six bomblets for every person living in the country (the population was approximately 3 million in 1970)."

That's just a toe on the body. The carnage was everywhere.

Most people, even intelligent people, do not fully understand what happened in Indochina.  That is why John Newman begins the new version of  JFK and Vietnam with Laos. Its why David Kaiser included about 60 pages on Laos in his book American Tragedy. One of the things LBJ had altered in NSAM 273 were restrictions on operations into Laos and justifications for excursions into Cambodia. (Newman, 1992 version, pp 447-48). These were widened as time went on until, under LBJ there was bombing in those countries.  In Laos in late 1964 and Cambodia in 1965.  This was greatly expanded under Nixon.  From 1965 to 1973, the US dropped nearly 2.8 million tons of bombs over Cambodia. There is little doubt that this indiscriminate bombing created the conditions for the fall of SIhanouk, the rise of Lon Nol, and the coming to power of Pol Pot. Same thing in Laos.  LBJ started that even earlier than Cambodia. In that case is was 2.5 million tons. In fact, the USA dropped more bombs on those two countries individually, than the USAF dropped on both Japan and Germany combined. Many of these were cluster bombs which did not detonate.  So they acted like land mines later.

https://gsp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/walrus_cambodiabombing_oct06.pdf

The bombing of Laos was just nutty. I mean if there was nothing to really bomb in Vietnam, there was that much less to bomb in Laos. As Clark Clifford figured out, if the idea was to cut off the Ho Chi MInh Trail, it was not succeeding.  I think Nixon expanded it to play his madman act thing with Hanoi.  That did not work either. What the USA ended up doing in Indochina was simply an all out epic bloody debacle.  And I don't know who was worse, LBJ or Nixon.

Edited January 31, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

"It nearly defines the Biden Presidency?"

Oh, egads, yes (for public consumption).

Synopsis:

Q from reporter: "Janet Yellen, Treasury Secretary has taken $7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street, in three years. Is she biased?'

A: She is first female Treasury Secretary and was paid for extreme competence.

(Dog whistle: You are sexist to suggest otherwise.)

I dunno, I’m not sexist so I don’t get worked up over getting accused of such.

Compared to Allen Greenspan’s post-Fed career, Yellen was a piker.

Greenspan talks, people pay

At $100,000 per, former Fed chairman reported getting more from two speeches than his 2005 salary at central bank.

https://money.cnn.com/2007/03/20/news/newsmakers/greenspan/

Ditto Bernanke:

Ben Bernanke's Post-Fed Speaking Fees Send A Scary Economic Message

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2014/05/25/ben-bernankes-post-fed-speaking-fees-send-a-scary-economic-message/?sh=632c40fa661e

Quote

--------

Listen, Corporate America would install Attila the Hun if he favored their interests, or AOC. Personality has nothing to do with it, no matter how warped.

Cable news shows gave Trump several billion dollars in free advertising ‘15-‘16.  They ran every speech he gave.  Most of the time they didn’t contradict his lie that he opposed the Iraq War in ‘03.  The Steele Dossier could have been broadcast far and wide before the election but it never made cable news until after.

CBS Chief Les Moonves Says Trump’s ‘Damn Good’ For Business

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_56d52ce8e4b03260bf780275

What interests did Trump serve for the globalist star chambers to favor him over Clinton?

It wouldn’t surprise me if eugenicist types figured a pandemic under Trump would cull the human herd a lot more than under Hillary.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[Kirk Gallaway]

I like your stream of lines, Benjamin and I'm largely in agreement, but that could be deceiving..

Benjamin:Trump's follies just do not match the horrors of LBJ-Nixon, or even Bush Jr. 

So if Trump continues polarizing the nation in public office exile, and it foments a U.S. Civil War, would that be enough to get him out of the "small potatoes" category? Or would you argue that that was going to happen anyway? That same argument could probably be made for LBJ and Nixon as you could argue they were just part of a grand bureaucratic locomotive that was inevitably heading toward a SE Asia War, and they had little choice about it, because JFK wasn't going for it and look what  happened to him? 

So the unnecessary loss of life and destruction is a chief criterion in determining a poor, in this case Presidency? I'd agree it's important. We have such a existential clash going on right now between people who have determined that saving as many lives as possible is desirable in a pandemic, by strongly scaling  down an economy, even given the obvious trade offs of unemployment, stagnant lives and all the accompanying exacerbated problems, and then on the other side, those who say that the major priority is economic well being for a greater number of people at some considerable expense of lives.

 

Benjamin said: What is happening to Americans today is a corporatist-elite agenda, an undeclared economic assault on the nation's middle class, whatever your race or sex.  Smedley Butler's take on foreign policy only needs updating, not revision.

OK, I'd agree.

Benjamin said:

Quote

Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, the multinationals, the CCP wanted him out. 

Why? That is the important question about the Trump Presidency. 

Cliff said:Because he was a sociopathic wanna-be dictator whose narcissism was only matched by his incompetence.

I agree with Cliff here, there is no mystery why the financials elites wanted him out, and it's for the reasons Cliff said. I think a big myth about Trump that sustains to this day was that Trump was an anti elitist. Yes he wouldn't be asked for dinner by the Rothschilds, but that  ultimately means nothing. Though it's never a monolithic consensus, and some had their doubts, many of which were largely to come true,   the U.S. and international markets loved Trump! They loved the lower taxes and his regulatory regime. They loved his anti government stance, and how he fueled it with anti government "deep state" conspiracies, and pulled in the very people they have been plotting successfully the last 40 years to dispossess. Because they really want to shut down the "administrative state' , make the government much smaller and run largely by private interests.

In a time where confidence in government and institutions is at an all time low, Trump made the government even more ineffectual. To his followers , he's dismantling the "Deep State", but in reality he's purged the government of many very able career civil servants.  Trump exposed a certain myth about the government deep state. Most of that is sort of steeped in the JFK era, when the U.S.controlled half the world's resources after World War ll and Government was expanding beyond itself with greater and greater budgets and it attracted very capable people who competed with each other and were able to amass a great deal of power.

Things are much more bureaucratic now. Government jobs aren't near as desirable. There will always be skepticism about the DOD, the intelligence agencies, the DOJ, Homeland Security and government overreach into citizen's lives. But dismantling the SEC, regulatory agencies, the EPA, the Department of the interior,Labor,  Commerce, Health and Human Services, Transportation and Veterans Affairs that Trump has done was really like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. and the overall effects of that could last a long time.

Any thoughts, anyone?

P.S. Oh S.T., you know what they say about U.S.  J.B. presidents always preceding a Civil War, right?

Edited January 31, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway

[Paul Brancato]

I’m only faintly amused by the arguments passing back and forth about who was the worst president. It is instructive to read all the comments, because they clearly show how difficult it is for the ‘left’, a word concept I increasingly dislike, to agree on anything. Honestly I don’t see a lot of disagreement, but I do see a lack of definitions. Kirk makes a good point - things have changed internationally. It’s no longer the world of the Dulles Brothers. Benjamin makes the point that global elites have an agenda we need to pay attention to. It’s like ships passing in the night. Both are true, but it looks like they cannot see each other. Jim makes the point very clearly, one we cannot ever dismiss, that the wars of LBJ, Nixon, and W were catastrophic both in lives lost and in their effects on our own body politic. But that in no way contradicts Cliff, who outlines clearly the crimes of Trump, who actually tried to stage a coup in the name of white hegemony. As Jim says, at least he didn’t start another Middle East war. Someday we will find out the back story on how we escaped another such tragedy. 
Can we not agree that we live in a world in which, concurrently, the billionaire class is growing in power exponentially and monopolizing wealth, while multiculturalism is on the rise accompanied by antithetical White Power movements globally? Benjamin would say, and I hope he doesn't mind if I extrapolate a bit, that the rise in the US of a multicultural Democratic Party is of little use in combatting the agendas, both open and hidden, of the global elites. Can we all agree? But can we add to that the possibility that past may not be prologue in these extraordinary changing times. The Billionaire class is not monolithic. The Great Reset doesn’t have to be the horror that the far right and far left claim it to be. Oil companies funding environmental movements, preparing to profit from the move towards renewables, doesn’t have to be proof of some grand conspiracy. It might just be a sign that times are a changing.
There are so many reasons to be hopeful in these radical times. The ability of the Democrats to counter the cynical attempts by the Republican Party to disenfranchise non white voters is impressive. Now it’s up to the party to become a multicultural force for social change, and finish the job Lincoln started. Are they/we up to the task? Can we stop trashing the Democrats for their ineffectual past and join them in their/our fight for a better, safer, more egalitarian, less warlike future? Can we stop eating our own? Let the Fox clan do that. 

[W. Niederhut]

Great thread here.   I want to comment on the "worst President in history" issue.

I read Phillip Shriver Klein's biography of James Buchanan a few years ago, and my impression is that Buchanan, like Franklin Pierce, has been somewhat unfairly vilified for refusing to betray the Southern bloc of his party's coalition.  He was the last of the Presidential representatives of the national Jacksonian Democratic coalition established by Martin Van Buren-- which consisted of both Northern and Southern (slave-owning) Jacksonians.

The Jacksonian Democrats (Jackson, Van Buren, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, et.al.) consistently supported the demands of their Southern bloc for fugitive slave laws and slave-owners' rights, in order to prevent the fracturing of the Union that, ultimately, occurred in 1860.  It was a hopeless cause.  The rift was too great to bridge.  In fact, our society is still fractured along those same cultural fault lines 170 years later, as we have clearly seen during the Obama and Trump years.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, (and even during the war, in Buchanan's case) Buchanan and Franklin Pierce were anathematized, shunned, and angrily blamed for not having embraced Abolitionism in the 1850s.  Of course, even Lincoln had been very cautious about endorsing "radical" Republican Abolitionism in the 1850s, while privately opposing slavery.  (Lincoln's public and private views about slavery are well documented in Eric Foner's book, The Fiery Trial.)

Compared to Trump, James Buchanan was relatively erudite and astute.  He was also a skilled diplomat.  But no President could have preserved the Union in the 1850s without enraging the Abolitionists.  The rift between North and South was irreversibly augmented by the acquisition of the Western territories after the Mexican American War, and Southern demands for slave owners' rights in the Western territories.

As for defining the "worst President," I doubt that anyone here would deny that Trump has been the worst administrator in Presidential history.  His frequently hired and departed appointees rank among the worst in history, and we have witnesses unprecedented turnover in his administration.  Most were grossly unqualified for their offices, and inimical to the mission of their departments-- e.g., Betsy DeVos, Scott Pruitt, Rick Perry, Louis DeJoy, Larry Kudlow, Peter Navarro, et.al.  Trump consistently hired people on the basis of their financial patronage or physical appearance and experience in television, rather than on their qualifications for the job.

Secondly, his policy decisions were never informed by any ethical commitment to the interests of the state or the public.  They were consistently based on financial patronage and a focus on optimizing the interests of Donald Trump and his cronies.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

14 hours ago, S.T. Patrick said:

Maybe we are too modernist when we think of "worst ever," which shows America's lack of historical knowledge (NOT this board). "Worst" usually belongs to James Buchanan and Warren Harding. That seems to be the consensus with historians across the political spectrum. I've been a longtime follower of presidential performance surveys, their methodologies, and their results. It's a fascinating little corner of the historical field. You can also see the rise and fall of certain figures also. U.S. Grant long held a position directly above Buchanan and Harding. He is "on the rise." Nixon has risen, as well. Eisenhower is still rising slightly, which is baffling to me since he is rising within the top ten. When looking at them, do remember that we are talking only about time in the White House. These aren't "people performance surveys." They are "presidential." So, no, Carter doesn't get points for a post-presidency ad Taft doesn't get points for getting nominated to the Supreme Court. But still, there are ebbs and flows. Like Jim, I also don't think Trump is the worst in history, not more so than Buchanan and Harding. Do I think Trump ends up in last place in the next major survey done (probably another C-SPAN survey)? Yes. I think the world is hyper-emotional now and can't get a grip on itself. Everyone wants to make a point and everything is about "how I feel right now." That's okay, but it lacks historical perspective. But I think in 20-30 years, Trump will have risen from the cellar and will float up slightly to what is called the "below average" range (below "average" and above "failure"). It's almost a mistake, I believe, for a president to be eligible for these polls for 10-20 years until history has played out. I wouldn't even include Obama yet. Again, this is what historians have said since Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. did the first poll in 1948, I believe it was. There is a good book about Buchanan called "Worst. President. Ever." which is largely about his perpetual position at the bottom of these surveys. My overall point is that when we only talk about the past 40 years as "failures" and we aren't even talking about the antebellum run of presidents, I'm not sure the starting line is even a good one.   

Good Post W!

I agree S.T.,  you do need time to consider how good a President was, and the historians generally agree with you. This topic has been discussed here and even though I'm not as well versed in it to look into their methodology, I find it interesting.

 

When I was in High School the 2 Presidential failures were Grant and Harding and Buchanan was in the the near failing category. At the time Truman was the more recent President rising in esteem, and James Polk was historic Dark horse who made good and was in the near great category with Andrew Jackson. The consensus among historians at the time was that expansion and annexation  was part of the U.S. "manifest destiny" and they pretty much didn't care how many of the native peoples or black slaves they had to squash or subjugate  to achieve it. That's no longer  much in vogue now.

 

S.T. I am curious as to what you think will bolster the consensus about  Trump in the future?  I think Trump's most significant contribution will be that he was the first President to recognize the China economic threat, which will only get greater and if you have kids, does threaten future generations IMO. It's hard for me to imagine anything else.

 

If we are eventually able to have Universal Health Care in some form. Obama's Presidency will be hailed as the President who got the ball rolling, as well as successfully guiding us out of the Great Recession. I'm not that keen about that, because that could be all out the window, if another economic disaster of that magnitude happens this decade. But if not, I think the prevailing attitude would be "All's well that ends well", which seems to be the Historian recurring theme.

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway

[Dennis Berube]

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

The Great Reset doesn’t have to be the horror that the far right and far left claim it to be. Oil companies funding environmental movements, preparing to profit from the move towards renewables, doesn’t have to be proof of some grand conspiracy. It might just be a sign that times are a changing.

The great reset is about much more than big international corporations profiting from various policy changes. They have mentioned several times how we will have to have a central bank controlled digital currency. Mastercard has already been testing a "digital certification" payment system that will basically equal modern day slavery if achieved (if you don't get a vaccine, you can't spend your money, etc...). The "times" are trending this way because too many people are content being told what to think and are not being educated about larger issues at play, like the future of the dollar and how that might affect geopolitics. But far and away the most censored, most propaganda driven narrative of the past year is the BigPharma story. It is anathema to even talk about the PCR story or the death certificate changes, or the criminal suppression (and firing of doctors who don't agree) of 60+ year old treatments that have been used on thousands with high efficacy, and even when you do, people have no clue of the gravity of what those stories mean. They are completely unable to realize that what they are constantly pounded with is actually not their own thoughts and rather a result of the largest lobbying and propaganda campaign in modern history.

In my opinion, those who are compelled to relate everything to Trump, emotionally dismiss anything that may shift any possible blame away from the "Trump killed x number of people!" belief. As a result of this emotionally tendency on the left, very few are able to objectively analyze the "covid" operation. On the other hand, right wingers tend to over emphasize the relation covid has to Trump as some kind of mechanism solely designed to remove him from power. That may have been how it was partly used, but again, its bigger than Trump. The only way any type of unity between these two extremes we have today may occur is to rally around the Constitution. Particularly in regards to control of credit and freedom of speech. I do not think we can sustain whats left of America without addressing those two issues at least. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Biden is too concerned with those issues, the never-Trumpers won't care.

 

As far as January 6th, why did Twitter remove Trumps tweet telling the rioters to go home and support the capitol police? It seems to me that it may have helped the situation if people noticed their leader was not backing any violence at the capitol. Also, there are videos of police waving "protesters" through areas they should not have and several security people who said they were told to stay home and not work the shifts they anticipated. I am not saying that Trump didn't mismanage the whole situation, I believe he did. But there is a huge gap between thinking that everyone who supported Trump is a domestic terrorist who is threatening America and 75 million law abiding Americans who voted for the guy.