You have a very thorough view, I agree in parts and not others. I think the public mandate in 1.0 was there, and also could have easily strengthened, had proper people been put in charge that actually prosecuted the corruption. I disagree that you need to put corrupt people in charge to expose corruption. The corrupt people were already in charge for a long time and certainly evidence against them is abundant. Trumps 1.0 time was thwarted by adding more corrupt people to the mix and the deep state ended up kicking his ass because of it. It was a mistake of garguantuan proportion, not part of a larger plan. IMHO. Truth be told I hope you are right about it because it would show that the good guys have been in charge the whole time, but I have no hope that is true.
I think the public mandate in 1.0 was there, and also could have easily strengthened, had proper people been put in charge that actually prosecuted the corruption.
I agree, those of us who have been following the details for years were all for a mandate in Trump1.0, but normies were generally oblivious to the state of corruption and easily manipulated through trusting fake news and the mass formation psychosis they had over them. The (((DS))) controlled too much at that time, blocks were in place to prevent prosecution of the corruption. Most of We The People still believed (((MSM))), Trump was being attacked head on as it was to hobble his Presidency. The likelyhood that the (((DS))) and (((MSM))) would create narratives and FFs that devolve us into civil war were too great. You can't just tell someone something and they will believe you, you have to show them. The (((DS))) would have made Trump out to be a tin pot dictator, Congress/Senate would get onboard to impreach and remove him and nothing productive would be accomplished in his administration.
When attacking an enemy with greater force, do you march in to meet him head on? No.
(post is archived)