The Democrats Don’t Stand A Chance In 2020

For a while, I have said that the Democrat chance of winning against President Trump in the 2020 elections is very slim because while they have the population numbers and fundamental demographic shifts to their favor, they will not put forth a candidate for election, let alone one who is coherent and does not act in public like a complete degenerate. This is likely intentional, as I have surmised, in order that 2024 brings about a sure Democrat victory.

But I would like to approach this matter from another viewpoint, and that is of Trump and the current Iran situation, and as to why Trump will likely win.

Right now, Trump’s main issues are over battleground states such as those before, and given demographic shifts, they will likely become more pronounced. However, he still can easily win.

Consider that in December 2000, James Lindsay of the Brookings Institute published a piece in which he said that Americans are apathetic towards world events, and that at the time, they based their views on opportunity as opposed to a fear of something. This dramatically changed after September 2001, when the fear of Islamic terrorism was used and solidified in the public mind by way of the 9/11 attacks to leverage support for US militarism out of a fear of terrorism. Such is not a new observation, for as the infamous National Socialist leader Hermann Goering stated,

The people don’t want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. (source)

This is not a “Nazi” idea in itself. It has worked throughout time and history. The “flight or fight” syndrome can be exploited to push people to accept ideas they normally would never.

The Trump campaign made excellent use of fear in order to rally support for his election. The media reports of terrorism by ISIS (which were backed by the US by way of the CIA-directed Operation Timber Sycamore) and then the manufactured refugee crisis in Europe and the media about “invasion” by “refugees” was leveraged against the presented apathy of Obama and juxtaposed against the nationalist “Build the Wall” and “Lock her up” rhetoric of Trump to propel his victory to the White House in spite of having no political experience.

Trump was given a once-in-history chance to “prove” himself, and he failed. There was no wall and will not be one, Hillary is now chancellor of a university in Northern Ireland, and while terrorism has decreased in the Middle East, the same ISIS-linked terrorism has now spread to the Sahel, Congo, and Mozambique areas, all places which also happen to be where the US along with France, Germany, and the UK are in conflicts with the Chinese and Russians over for access to rare-earth minerals as well as petroleum lines heading to Europe.

While one cannot per se “definitively” prove it, the impression that one gets is that Trump’s claims of “victory” over ISIS were just nominal, involving a shift in current emphases and responsibilities as opposed to any fundamental changes to philosophy. However, what can be proven in that Trump’s refusal to follow through on his promises greatly enervated his base, especially those under 40, and those who continued to follow and support him created a veritable “cult of Trump” in which no matter what the man has said or done- be it fornication with married women and porn whores, his outright disdain of Christianity, or his support of personal or foreign (Israeli) business interests -are ignored just as many on the left gave the same treatment to Obama during the duration of his cult of personality.

Trump has been able to significantly rebuild his base, especially among the boomers as of recent by way of feigning persecution through the claims of being “framed” over the interactions of his campaign with members of the Russian government, and to that while there are some claims that are clearly not legitimate, there are many that are of noted concern but whose measured reason has been drowned out by the screaming of the polarized masses in a contest where the loudest voice is declared the winner. However, this may not be enough.

This is where the Iran conflict comes in.

We really do not know all of the details as to what happened with Iran. What we do know for a fact is that forty years ago, Ronald Reagan had a similar “crisis” with Iran where the US during the public spat between the two nations was secretly conducting business with Iran, selling her weapons illegally and then using the illegally generated proceeds to fund the right-wing Contra rebels in Nicaragua against the Soviet-funded Sandinistas as part of a proxy war between the US and USSR.

What is going to come of the current situation, we do not know. However, as one article points out, Trump was driven to victory by accusing Obama of “endless wars” in the Middle East and even attempting to start a war with Iran in order to win. Now, with the 2020 election approaching, aside from and in addition to the fact that the Israeli lobby, something which has aggressively lobbied for a war with Iran and which Obama refused to concede to them, Trump is now dangerously close to starting a war.

“Donald Trump rode to victory in 2016 on a promise to end the useless wars in the Middle East, but he has now demonstrated very clearly that he is a liar. Instead of seeking detente, one of his first actions was to end the JCPOA nuclear agreement and re-introduce sanctions against Iran. In a sense, Iran has from the beginning been the exception to Trump’s no-new-war pledge, a position that might reasonably be directly attributed to his incestuous relationship with the American Jewish community and in particular derived from his pandering to the expressed needs of Israel’s belligerent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” (source)

There are likely one of two possibilities.

The first is an “October surprise” type scenario that does not bring about a war but is a series of US-Iranian public manipulation in order to boost support for Trump at home by way of showing him to be “tough” on Iran while being “persecuted” by the Democrats.

The second is an actual invasion of Iran, which will boost support for Trump as well as satisfy the long-standing desires of the Israeli lobby to go to war against Iran on their behalf while they reap any benefits from it.

Either way, Trump’s popularity will increase and it will likely help him take the 2020 election, for starting wars seldom causes public dissatisfaction as the people tend to “rally” around their supposed “leader”.

Click Here To Donate To Keep This Website Going