COVID WAS A Great Conspiracy and A Coup D Etat By the Deep State By Jeffrey A. Tucker
Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 1 month ago to Government
Sorry - link may be behind pay wall.
Text of article below and in additional post.
Part one of article:
Commentary
Think back to those grim days of mid-March 2020. Many things did not make sense. There were screams about a new virus but no tests available for anyone to find out if we had the dreaded disease or not. The main question in everyone’s mind was: how can I find out if I have this strange new bug?
Hold on just a moment right there. If there were no tests, how do we know that there was a reason to panic? If there were only a handful of positive tests, how do we know for sure the virus wasn’t here and spreading from months earlier? Maybe what they were calling the coronavirus was here for a year or more.
Was there really any way to know? Sure, we could have done seroprevalence tests on the population but there were none underway. The one that came out earliest in May showed that exposure had already happened by March, a fact which completely undermines the entire cockamamie policy response. The study was brutally attacked.
Why precisely was it mid-March when all official institutions, including media, not just in the United States but all over the world, decided suddenly to freak out? Why not in January? Why at all?
Indeed, it was not even clear what the point of the lockdowns were. Were we trying to make the virus go away through brute force? Early on, Fauci even told the Washington Post that the virus would be defeated by social distancing alone.
What precisely would be the point of delaying infection and spread by two weeks, then another two weeks, and so on? There are endless questions. How did we know how many ventilators were going to be needed and where? And ventilation itself is a strange approach in any case, since it is so deeply damaging and even deadly.
There is zero evidence in mid-March that this virus was potentially fatal for working-age people, and even among healthy elderly people the survival rate was extremely high.
Another strange fact of these days: they kept screaming that there was no treatment. Well, are we sure of that? No one in official channels was looking for treatments. How do we find treatments? By talking to experienced doctors who treat patients. But every time one of them spoke out, they were quickly and brutally shouted down and denounced.
As it turns out, many clinical physicians did in fact discover very effective treatments from Vitamin D to Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. Huge and well-connected private sources of wealth funded deeply flawed studies that were trying to debunk them.
There was a ton of prattle about a vaccine but this never made sense of any history of such products. A coronavirus is fast-mutating. Never before had there been a vaccine for the same virus that fuels half the common colds. There was no reason to expect such a product would ever arrive. Even if it did, it would take 5–10 years to pass safety and efficacy tests. Plus there is always a grave danger of vaccinating your way out of a pandemic: it can drive mutations and wreck immune systems.
Again all of this was known, not even controversial a year earlier. Still in the chaos of those lockdown days, vaccine producers were given billions in tax dollars for development, all the privileges that come with “emergency use,” plus wide indemnification against injury. Why is this not, and very obviously, an extremely bad idea?
Knowing that all of this was happening, alongside the locking down of the country, was enough reason for any discerning individual to cry foul. But there was another problem: we were by-and-large forbidden from gathering in groups. There could be no meetings. The few that took place were denounced by the media. Most were simply illegal.
The world was in chaos, and the professional class that could have put the pieces together were forced into a kind of digital isolation, paid the big bucks to sit around at home. Everyone was told that doing so was saving lives, though there was not a shred of evidence that this was true. But meanwhile, the media was howling in absolute union as if any of this made sense.
As the months went on, there were other crazy things happening, such as the gradual discovery that the PCR tests were good only for discovering the presence of the virus but nearly useless for delineating sick from not-sick. Everything positive was declared a case, even though in the past the word “case” was reserved for people who were actually sick and in need of some treatment.
We were told to test, test, test but there was never an action item of what to do with a positive case. Isolate, fine. That’s for somehow “controlling the spread,” but how long are we going to attempt to do this? If everyone is going to get this thing and develop immunity, what precisely could be the point in all of this disruption and destruction?
Coincident with all this insanity, Congress was authorizing trillions and trillions of spending bills, generating debt that the Federal Reserve would buy with new money that was sure to generate inflation at a later date. Had all fiscal sanity just been thrown out the window?
Also in the midst of all of this, we had an extreme relaxation of ballot rules over voting. This happened right away and prepared a path for an explosion of the mail-in ballots that would decide the election against President Trump.
Then you had the emergence of intense censorship from all main social media accounts. Before Mr. Biden was inaugurated, President Trump was removed by Twitter entirely. Over the following week, the social media site Parler was shut down by Amazon which was hosting its website, just before the app was removed from Apple.
At this point, it should have been obvious what was happening here. Media was being nationalized, bit by bit. All important sectors of it, in any case, that which reaches the 99 percent.
Now, at this point in the narrative, we were invited to believe that all of these weird things were discreet incidents, perhaps various interest groups piling on to take advantage of the chaos.
Some people at the time said there was no way that this was all the unfolding of a giant conspiracy. Governments are not that smart. Consider all that had to come together: media-generated panic with no serious outliers, bad PCR testing, neglect of therapeutics, mass intubation, indemnification of vaccine makers, global lockdowns, media censorship, social media takedowns, cancellation of dissent, relaxation of voting rules, worst inflation and spending in 40 years, and I’m probably missing a few things.
Surely all of this could not have been planned from the top.
Maybe. And yet this week, we’ve been presented with incredible evidence of how government worked very closely with social media companies through third-party institutions that were themselves funded by government. They flagged accounts for takedowns. This so-called switchboarding was deployed to hide censorship.
I knew all of this but the evidence is now all before us. It’s an avalanche of confirmation of our worst suppositions.
Here is what stands out to me.
See rest of article Part 2 posted below
Text of article below and in additional post.
Part one of article:
Commentary
Think back to those grim days of mid-March 2020. Many things did not make sense. There were screams about a new virus but no tests available for anyone to find out if we had the dreaded disease or not. The main question in everyone’s mind was: how can I find out if I have this strange new bug?
Hold on just a moment right there. If there were no tests, how do we know that there was a reason to panic? If there were only a handful of positive tests, how do we know for sure the virus wasn’t here and spreading from months earlier? Maybe what they were calling the coronavirus was here for a year or more.
Was there really any way to know? Sure, we could have done seroprevalence tests on the population but there were none underway. The one that came out earliest in May showed that exposure had already happened by March, a fact which completely undermines the entire cockamamie policy response. The study was brutally attacked.
Why precisely was it mid-March when all official institutions, including media, not just in the United States but all over the world, decided suddenly to freak out? Why not in January? Why at all?
Indeed, it was not even clear what the point of the lockdowns were. Were we trying to make the virus go away through brute force? Early on, Fauci even told the Washington Post that the virus would be defeated by social distancing alone.
What precisely would be the point of delaying infection and spread by two weeks, then another two weeks, and so on? There are endless questions. How did we know how many ventilators were going to be needed and where? And ventilation itself is a strange approach in any case, since it is so deeply damaging and even deadly.
There is zero evidence in mid-March that this virus was potentially fatal for working-age people, and even among healthy elderly people the survival rate was extremely high.
Another strange fact of these days: they kept screaming that there was no treatment. Well, are we sure of that? No one in official channels was looking for treatments. How do we find treatments? By talking to experienced doctors who treat patients. But every time one of them spoke out, they were quickly and brutally shouted down and denounced.
As it turns out, many clinical physicians did in fact discover very effective treatments from Vitamin D to Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. Huge and well-connected private sources of wealth funded deeply flawed studies that were trying to debunk them.
There was a ton of prattle about a vaccine but this never made sense of any history of such products. A coronavirus is fast-mutating. Never before had there been a vaccine for the same virus that fuels half the common colds. There was no reason to expect such a product would ever arrive. Even if it did, it would take 5–10 years to pass safety and efficacy tests. Plus there is always a grave danger of vaccinating your way out of a pandemic: it can drive mutations and wreck immune systems.
Again all of this was known, not even controversial a year earlier. Still in the chaos of those lockdown days, vaccine producers were given billions in tax dollars for development, all the privileges that come with “emergency use,” plus wide indemnification against injury. Why is this not, and very obviously, an extremely bad idea?
Knowing that all of this was happening, alongside the locking down of the country, was enough reason for any discerning individual to cry foul. But there was another problem: we were by-and-large forbidden from gathering in groups. There could be no meetings. The few that took place were denounced by the media. Most were simply illegal.
The world was in chaos, and the professional class that could have put the pieces together were forced into a kind of digital isolation, paid the big bucks to sit around at home. Everyone was told that doing so was saving lives, though there was not a shred of evidence that this was true. But meanwhile, the media was howling in absolute union as if any of this made sense.
As the months went on, there were other crazy things happening, such as the gradual discovery that the PCR tests were good only for discovering the presence of the virus but nearly useless for delineating sick from not-sick. Everything positive was declared a case, even though in the past the word “case” was reserved for people who were actually sick and in need of some treatment.
We were told to test, test, test but there was never an action item of what to do with a positive case. Isolate, fine. That’s for somehow “controlling the spread,” but how long are we going to attempt to do this? If everyone is going to get this thing and develop immunity, what precisely could be the point in all of this disruption and destruction?
Coincident with all this insanity, Congress was authorizing trillions and trillions of spending bills, generating debt that the Federal Reserve would buy with new money that was sure to generate inflation at a later date. Had all fiscal sanity just been thrown out the window?
Also in the midst of all of this, we had an extreme relaxation of ballot rules over voting. This happened right away and prepared a path for an explosion of the mail-in ballots that would decide the election against President Trump.
Then you had the emergence of intense censorship from all main social media accounts. Before Mr. Biden was inaugurated, President Trump was removed by Twitter entirely. Over the following week, the social media site Parler was shut down by Amazon which was hosting its website, just before the app was removed from Apple.
At this point, it should have been obvious what was happening here. Media was being nationalized, bit by bit. All important sectors of it, in any case, that which reaches the 99 percent.
Now, at this point in the narrative, we were invited to believe that all of these weird things were discreet incidents, perhaps various interest groups piling on to take advantage of the chaos.
Some people at the time said there was no way that this was all the unfolding of a giant conspiracy. Governments are not that smart. Consider all that had to come together: media-generated panic with no serious outliers, bad PCR testing, neglect of therapeutics, mass intubation, indemnification of vaccine makers, global lockdowns, media censorship, social media takedowns, cancellation of dissent, relaxation of voting rules, worst inflation and spending in 40 years, and I’m probably missing a few things.
Surely all of this could not have been planned from the top.
Maybe. And yet this week, we’ve been presented with incredible evidence of how government worked very closely with social media companies through third-party institutions that were themselves funded by government. They flagged accounts for takedowns. This so-called switchboarding was deployed to hide censorship.
I knew all of this but the evidence is now all before us. It’s an avalanche of confirmation of our worst suppositions.
Here is what stands out to me.
See rest of article Part 2 posted below
The initial (2004) NIH funding for Corona Virus weaponization went to Peter Daszak. UNC Chapel Hilll/Fort Detrick MD.
By 2014 all that was remained was the fine tuning (too deadly, it will kill too quickly to spread, too weak and it won't spread fast enough)
In 2015 The Kenyan was becoming concerned this was going to be released during his watch and taint his "legacy". He banned Federal funding of Gain of Function (GoF) that year.
Undeterred Fauci takes has bugs along with Daszak to Wuhan (using Federal Funding, no less), and the rest is history.
https://organicconsumers.org/gain-of-...
Bill Cooper spent final years warning us what the government was up to (he was a Naval Intelligence Officer). He had the goods AIDs was a engineered bioweapon. He predicted 911 three months before it happened. Even down to blaming it on ex-cia operative Tim Osman aka Osama Bin Ladin.
Have you heard the scuttlebutt out of the UK about virus "X"?
and to Ukraine, and (via the CCP) to California, and countless other places yet to be exposed.
(Bill Cooper was a hero as great as Paul Revere. I hope history records as much.)
The country, as a whole, failed.
Employed in a academic setting, was one of the few who spoke out loudly against the madness.
I was lambasted for a reward. I was surrounded by vicious sheep. I was called a nazi. It even got to the point HR had to step in.
I was in the Twilight Zone. None of this made any sense.
My colleagues were allegedly educated, intelligent, civilized people.
NOT.
My opinion of enlightened society dropped to new levels of low I never thought possible.
A college education does not make a person smart or intelligent.
They are who they are, regardless of what tests they pass.
Some of the smartest, most intelligent people I've met, never went on to so-called "higher education".
The test this world failed was the "Mass Hysteria Test".
You got to ask yourself, what shiite are they elite going to pull next?
Because, if this last test was of any indicator of future results, we are so screwed.
Here is what stands out to me. We now have emails from April 2020 showing that Twitter officials knew for sure that the Election Integrity Partnership of the Stanford Internet Observatory was being established up by the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) precisely to monitor and control social media.
One can presume that these efforts began a few weeks earlier, roughly fitting the timeline of the censorship efforts together with lockdowns.
In other words, it all happened at once. From what we can see, the turning point was March 13, 2020. That was the date of the coup. It was never announced. It just happened. The lockdowns and public panic were the dry ice deployed by magicians to hide their tricks.
Trump was mostly not in charge of anything after that date, which is why he was so anxious to change the subject as the summer months of 2020 approached. At that point, he could not restrain the immense bureaucracy that had taken charge of the country.
How the heck the rest of the disaster fits in we still need to know. There is so much more to discover. But this one bit of information—that censorship and lockdowns went together—are highly suggestive of an integrated plan.
After all, if you were plotting a coup, with some of the world’s smartest and most powerful people, would you not plan it out in great detail? Indeed you would.
There is so much more to learn about this disaster/scandal for the ages.
What annoys me to no end is where Tucker - and Trump supporters almost everywhere, regrettably even here at GGO as well - bend over backwards trying to make excuses for Trump's utter dereliction of duty on what should have been: shutting that whole fiasco down, like by something like mid-March 2020.
I don't know how many people here were around in the 1980s but (dating myself,) I cast my first vote for President in November of 1980, and as a certifiable politics-geek I was glued to every avenue of news I could find through the next eight years and beyond. So I keep picturing President Reagan sitting on his hands with his mouth shut tight - while tinhorn-tyrants from globalist cabals like WHO and the UN to Congress to Governors' offices to State legislatures to big-city Mayors to City Councils, fed the Bill of Rights into fine-pitch industrial shredders and proceeded to stick guns in our faces; while we were forced to wear the comical placebos on our faces whether sick or not, while we were forced to perform the charade of "social" distancing, while politicians presumed to dictate to us even whether we would be "allowed" to gather as families for Thanksgiving and Christmas, while we were forced to sit at home and wait - presumably for the virus to finally say "Ok folks, you've performed your worship and obeisance and atonement for your existence for a long enough time to satisfy me, I'm just going to go bye-bye now" (?) - while the businesses and savings we'd struggled for decades to build crumbled before our eyes; while government-run "departments of water and power" actually shut off people's utilities if they defied those commands to commit economic suicide; while government aided and abetted the muzzling of dissenting voices; and worst of all, while the neo-Mengeles blithely thumbed their noses at the first clause of the Nuremberg Code and forced experimental drugs into our bodies...
... and I simply cannot do it. President Reagan would've shut that evil down on the very last day of the celebrated "fifteen days to flatten the curve" - IF he would even have allowed that nonsense to commence in the first place.
President Trump... sat on his hands with his mouth shut tight. The man did not do so much as sit down for a televised address to the nation - something he could've done any time he wanted and as many times as he wanted.
Not. A . Peep. Not once.
He let it happen. And that is something which I, as an objectivist and lifelong Republican, will never excuse and never forget. And I'm wondering what species of cultish weirdness is compelling so many who call themselves Republicans - to say nothing of "objectivists" - to make excuses and to evade the fact of that dereliction of duty.
That great gob of contention aside, I'm always wary of anything smacking of a "conspiracy theory" - the standard go-to analysis thereof being objectivist writer Robert Bidinotto's landmark 1995 FEE article "Conspiracy or Consensus?" located here: https://fee.org/articles/conspiracy-o... The Occam's Razor explanation is... the simplest and likely correct one: A massive number of people within government, within random bureaucracies, within academia and media, having spent their formative years having high-concentration collectivist dogma funneled directly and uncritically into their brains, seized upon an Emanuel-esque "crisis" as a gargantuan opportunity to: advance a collectivistic assault on individual rights on a global scale. Which of course they did. If you imagine a reverse scenario, where some opportunity presented itself to dramatically advance the cause of individualism and liberty, wouldn't we take it? So of course they did, and it did not need top-down coordination to accomplish. I have no doubt (though the world will likely never know for certain,) that Wuhan was engineered and manufactured at the CCP's #1 biological weapons lab in the city for which it was (or should have been) named. And given the CCP's tentacles within the UN and the WHO I even suspect (that's: suspect,) that they may have released Wuhan deliberately as a calculated risk, the very least upside of which would be, and in any case clearly became, a large-scale test-run of a "health-emergency"-based confiscation of human rights via massive government power grabs.
Of course none of it made scientific sense - either in the massive exaggeration of the danger or in the breathtakingly-idiotic measures imposed to deal with it. (Example, as alluded above: Was the mere fact of time spent groveling in selfless inertia going to cause the Big Bad Virus to get bored and just leave; IOW once a virus is part of the biological world it is going exactly nowhere, ever. Etc, etc.)
cont'd -
.
In looking at any conspiracy proposition critically, one has to limit any suppositions to what's known to be fact. In this case, the fact that the Chinese Communist Party is, and has been, in bed with the WHO and the UN for years - ties presumably cultivated for strategic leverage in precisely this kind of scenario. Beyond that, rather than some vast, coordinated Deep-State conspiracy, the more logical explanation is simply: Every collectivist mentality within any position of power, from the Federal government down to local city bureaucrat, within America and every other country on Earth, immediately recognized in the Wuhan "pandemic" a massive opportunity to advance, radically, the power-lust and control-fetishism that are central to the collectivist worldview already anyway, and just ran with it for maximum gain. Because nobody from the "Republican" camp (at least in America,) was making so much as a peep in opposition to that gargantuan power grab. And that last, specifically, is the problem.
The ultimate lesson for us is this: We must select leaders who will, in fact, lead. Especially on what should be the no-brainer defense and counterattack against full-scale wars on the foundations of Americanism and of human rights per se. Which is what the entire Wuhan fiasco was. And for which fiasco's near-complete success, the criminal dereliction of responsibility on such defense and counterattack was entirely responsible.
So my question remains: Why-in-hell would anyone of sound mind want to restore to the Presidency the very politician who defaulted on that responsibility, blatantly, when it arrived on his desk in early 2020? We must - must - choose political leaders who will accept the responsibility for defending human rights against all attacks from all quarters, foreign and domestic, immediately and decisively. Trump, to name just one, is not such a leader. And again, the continued evasion and excuse-making for his inaction, or at minimum his utter pin-drop silence on the fiasco through the whole of the 2020 calendar year, remains a shocking thing to witness.
.
jab was worse than simple no-side-effect treatments known by mid-2020.
To me, that is just stupid.
Trump made some big mistakes in (a) trusting the 'experts' during COVID plandemic
when there were many actual experts outside of government exposing the lies of
government 'experts', and (b) trusting the administration bureaucracy to support him.
Trump was foolish in both cases.
Trump allowed the wrong people to guide his actions and he should have recognized
the corrupt financial conflicts of interest of his advisers.
Trump was naive and incompetent in that respect.
He still hasn't apologized for that to the American people. That is an additional failing.
All that said, is there anyone else willing to run for office who is better and electable?
I don't see anyone at all that I would trust to run garbage collection much less
reforming the federal government.
If I was running to be the next president, I'd be preparing evidence in advance so I can
fire everybody in DC and temporarily shut down all the administration departments
except the DOD.
Find a legal reason and shut the looting down. Then assign advisers to restart the
departments that are clearly constitutional. Of course, that is a simplification and
the devil is in the details.
The only way to save the country is to destroy the corrupt forces controlling government
that are killing the country.
he let the media's lying response make him back off from that solution, if I recall correctly.
(Sometimes one must accept short term setbacks.)
Bottom line is he's not perfect. He has made some mistakes and it's remarkable that he
has been as strong against the media onslaught as he has.
I hope that there really is a successful master plan to prosecute and punish the looters.
nor any ridiculous fake news hate campaigns in the media against him.
No comparison to what the media and the bureaucracy did to Trump. No comparison whatsoever.
Reagan had the advantage of coming after Carter, too.
The dislike of Carter favored Reagan, and the media whipped up hate against Trump
and falsely accused him of everything that Hitlery, Obama, and Buydem were actually guilty of.
There wasn't a day that passed without someone in the media calling Trump and his supporters racists and/or right wing terrorists.
Reagan and his supporters were left alone by the media in comparison and his administration and the bureaucracy wasn't filled
with leftist sympathizers who betrayed him every single day. The media criticized Reagan's policies using their biased opinions,
but didn't falsely accuse him of tyranny every day.
Instead his enemies planned and executed an assassination attempt against Reagan, and after that he wasn't a problem.
Reagan also had the military industrial complex on his side because of the billions of dollars he wasted on them.
Trump is easy to dislike because he acts like a pompous jerk, and the media jumps on everything he says even when its the truth.
But nearly every time he speaks he makes more sense than anyone else in either party, including RFK, Jr.
RFK looks good on a couple of issues, but he's still loves big government pretending to solve the problems they create.
Both parties are run by corrupt traitors.
RFK Jr. comes to mind. Not very good (although no worse than Biden) on economic issues, but miles better than Trump on Covid, civil liberties and corporate cronyism.
Another issue I've been thinking about quite a bit lately is temperament and public demeanor on the part of Presidential candidates in context of the dangerous polarization of the American people. I'm at the point where I almost believe - almost - that the effect a Kennedy win as an Independent would have on the raving lunatics of the Talibantifa Democrat-Socialist Party and the raving lunatics of the Trump-can-do-no-wrong personality cult, is more important than whatever damage he might do on specific issues.
The problems caused by bad policy can be fixed. But a divided American populace is a different story, and a far more serious one given that whole "divide and conquer" maxim. Trump's utter inability to back away from his B3 (Bravado, Belligerence and BigTalk) into calm, sober debate, is as potent in its divisiveness as is the Talibantifa brownshirts going all 1871-Communard with a big chunk of central Seattle, or the Marxist / black supremacists of BLM fomenting race riots. The fact that he won't even show up to debate people from his own party is a good indicator of the brick-wall impossibility of him persuading anybody within the Democrat or even Independent camps to realign themselves with the GOP. More deeply, his attitude serves to grant an unjustified air of legitimacy to the frothing radicalism of the collectivists, where virtually any other candidate, particularly Kennedy - because they are not splattering that always-on "B3" in every direction - would leave the frothing radicalism of the Left isolated and exposed for the irrationality that it is. 'Real hard to do that when your own figurehead is just as much of an unreasoning belligerent as they are.
IOW, a win by an Independent candidate with a refreshing maturity of temperament and some undeniable character (regardless of what his specific stands are,) would effect a badly-needed swat across the backsides of both of those packs of spoiled, raving punks of the two "major" parties. It would be a gargantuan wake-up call for both that they need to a.) grow up from the spoiled-punk screaming tantrums and b.) rediscover maturity and reason.
Again, I do not think I could actually vote for Kennedy, but I'm thinking the vast majority of the American people have had it up to their hairy eyebrows with this foaming-at-the-mouth polarized hostility in politics - that's not only divided the country but divided families - and that RFK's calm, sober "heal the divide" attitude may end up resonating in a big, big way. We'll see. Certainly the decades of Zinn as "history" and Gore as "science" play a huge part in the radicalization of the Left too, but there again, Trump did not lift a finger to change American education. Indeed, he apparently didn't even realize it was a problem until something like September of 2020, a month or so before the end of his term, when he came up with some lame, half-hearted concoction he called "patriotic education."
Also I do not share the unreasoning fear that "only Trump can win." Ironically, it's Trump's own conscious choice to keep his candidacy in this bizarre limbo - a publicity stunt to be sure - that's a big part of why no other GOP candidate is able to be seen as a frontrunner, and why the GOP as a whole is getting perceived as weak even versus the pathetic Democrats. His stunt is undermining the Republican cause as a whole. And to what end? Because: It's not about Republicanism and it's not about Americanism, it's about What Donald Wants, a.k.a. narcissism.
As I've said elsewhere, the man needs to put up or shut up. Which means that he either needs to start acting like a candidate - including showing up for debates - or withdraw from the primaries and from politics altogether. The man does not seem to have a clue as to the fact that his attitude and behavior are acting like a wrecking-ball to the Republican cause. 'Going to be a weird election at any rate - hopefully WWIII won't break out in the meantime.
.
A libertarian has just been elected President of Argentina, so anything's possible.
The 2020 US election result is a fraud and electronic voting machines should be banned forever.
The electoral votes of my State (California,) are 90% certain to flop to the Demo-Soc in any case, so I will be free to write in anybody I want with no effect in any direction. But I have zero confidence that Trump, even if he got back in in 2024, would lift a finger to repair the damage done between 2020 and 2022 - a "template" that's now solidified, not only within American politics but within the perceptions of "acceptable government action" in the minds of rank-and-file American citizens. And you absolutely know that the collectivist monsters will use it again at the first opportunity that arises / is manufactured.
.
~ sigh ~
Anyway...
First, on a question I did not address - "Who is more electable" is something that always stops me cold. It immediately begs the question: Of what value is getting someone elected who, once elected, will do nothing and has a track record of doing nothing, on a.) obliterating the avalanche of now-calcified assaults on human rights on the books and/or in the works and b.) advancing a decisive campaign to: restore said human rights, Constitutional governance, and at root the core Renaissance/Enlightenment principles upon which all of them depend? The sole advantage in such a person's "electability" is the warm, fuzzy feeling of satisfaction it might give people for whom the sum total of a Presidential contest win is "Our guy won;That's all I need to know; I take it on faith and faith alone that he'll just set everything right; I can just go back to relaxing now."
On Reagan vs. Trump:
In bulk the media are, have been and always will be a frothing pack of hypercaffeinated puppies, splattering collectivistic rage and contempt in every direction, but particularly at any anti-collectivist who acts as stand-in for the parenting which they never had and who says "no" to their spoiled-tantrum ideology in any way. (Yes that's an instance of armchair psychologizing, but in terms of most political media I think it's a valid one.)
What is key is not the behavior of the media, and it is not the behavior of the respective followers of different political figureheads (and I maintain that the militantly-unreasoning personality-cultists behind Trump are as bad in the specific context of temperament and irrationality as the Talibantifa collectivists.)
What is key is how the politician in question comports himself in the face of that barrage, and just as importantly, what policies he succeeds in implementing to completion and success despite that opposition. And in that respect, comparing Trump to Reagan is like comparing Johnny Rotten to Mozart.
"Reagan also had the military industrial complex on his side because of the billions of dollars he wasted on them." is a flat-out contemptible statement. I urge you to seek out and watch the documentary "In the Face of Evil" ASAP, because you are evidencing obliviousness to the indispensable catalyzing effect that those "wasted" billions had in dissolving the Soviet Union - what had been the single most ominous threat to human civilization to that point in history and which would still be dogging us and the rest of the world to this day, had he not.
It was precisely Reagan's grasp of something Libertologists do not accept and likely never will - the identification in the Declaration that the sole purpose of government is to secure human rights and that the #1 priority in the securing of human rights is to maintain, as a non-negotiable and impregnable absolute, national defense - which made that dissolution happen.
It was precisely Reagan's restoration of the military after the Democrats' criminal dereliction of the responsibility to maintain our "military industrial complex" (and lions and tigers and bears, oh my,) in even adequate - to say nothing of: superior - condition, which forced the Soviet regime to pump money from its inherently-stagnant economy into countering. As that documentary demonstrates, it was that action by Reagan - particularly his aggressive development of his SDI "Star Wars" missile defense infrastructure - which essentially bankrupted the Soviets. At the 1986 Reykjavik summit Gorbachev begged Reagan to abandon SDI, in exchange for which Gorby offered the removal of Soviet missiles from Europe. A lesser politician, more concerned with public posturing than with long-haul results (like guess who,) would've jumped at the offer, and then returned home and bragged about his great "win."
Reagan got up and walked out.
Which forced Gorbachev to pour billions into an attempted counter to SDI, which ultimately collapsed the Soviet empire without a shot fired. THAT is what those "wasted billions of dollars" accomplished. And that is evidence as to why national defense is the overwhelming #1 priority of all government action.
As vital as such action is, the most important difference between Reagan and Trump - him and all of the current GOP candidates - is that Reagan understood the importance of rooting all of his policies on a MORAL base. As economist George Reisman of Pepperdine University (also of the objectivist camp) pointed out in the early '90s, a collapse in the Russian regime's sense of moral legitimacy was the key element in the regime's demise. And it was Reagan's one-two punch of naming the USSR as an "evil empire" and his potent demand "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" which were the mortal wounds he inflicted. His simultaneous defense initiatives were the backbone and the coup de grâce behind those unequivocal statements.
Reagan had some flaws to be sure, but attempts to equate Trump with Reagan are laughable. In terms of principle and in terms of efficacy in governance, Trump isn't fit to shine Reagan's shoes. His record from '16 through '20, and his juvenile-belligerent demeanor, remain dismal proof of the fact. I consider him a rough equivalent to GWB.
.
Everyone is getting COVID at some point, unless they die first.
We should NEVER again consider ANY forced action to limit COVID.
We should arrest Fauci and all his cronies for tampering with evidence, obstructing justice and the worst war crimes ever conducted! Then when he gets off, we grap him, peel his skin off alive, and run it up the flag pole.