I've seen discussions on here about Biden winning this year because he works in the ruling class's interest.
If the CIA really did just push a button at Langley and decide the next president, why not Hilary?
She's a corporate ghoul like the rest of them, loves war, everyone expected her to win, and the election was close enough to be plausible either way. She would have been a more reliable, or at least knowable, asset to the deep state than Trump.
She would have been the same mid president as Trump, but it would have been more of a banality of evil approach. Everyone's material conditions would have gotten worse in the same way but there wouldn't have been the media circus around everything she did.
So why do you think the 'most qualified' person for the job didn't win last time? And what could that say about this year?
Their priority in 2016 was taking down Sanders. Part of the runaway effect of taking down Sanders was Trump got platformed as the alternate "anti-establishment" candidate.
They underestimated how much of a mess Trump would make. I think they just assumed Trump would just sit on his ass all day browsing Twitter, playing golf like Bush Sr, and taking afternoon naps like Reagan when Trump had the energy of an incompetent micromanaging boss.
If you look at US presidents post-FDR, pretty much all the presidents who toe the national security state line serve two terms while the ones who are outsiders either serve just one term or get ignobly removed from office.
Truman: Company man who did as he was told. More or less let the Dulles bros completely dictate foreign policy and for that, he was rewarded 2 terms. I think there was also some weird political maneuvering where FDR's vice president Wallace got replaced with Truman, further supporting the assessment of him being a company man.
Eisenhower: Cold War warrior who more or less 100% agreed with the Dulles bros on foreign policy. Not a company man on par with Truman, but being a WWII hero and not rocking the boat with the national security states means he also was able to serve 2 terms. I think it would've been a completely different story if he gave that military-industrial complex at the beginning of his first term than at his farewell speech right when's able to leave the White House.
Kennedy: He fired Allen Dulles and we all know what happened next. Didn't even finish his 1 term.
Johnson: Most sources paint him as an incredibly corrupt politician who committed voter fraud at key moments in his political career. And it's incredibly sus how he benefited so much from JFK's head exploding. Almost like he had a hunch feeling JFK's head would do that. LBJ would wind up serving 1.25 terms, and he probably would've served another term if it wasn't for massive demonstrations and the Tet Offensive tanking US's morale in Vietnam.
Nixon: Tricky Dick was an outsider of the political establishment, and so he was treated like an outsider. He served 2 terms, but his second term ended abruptly with Watergate, so he didn't make it halfway through his second term. Some JFK-pilled people say that Watergate was itself a coup fashioned by the national security state to off Nixon because he was too rebellious.
Ford: A lame duck president who served a term without ever being elected, basically a Kamala Harris if Biden dropped dead in 2021. Finished Nixon's second term.
Carter: Another self-styled maverick who came from outside from the political establishment. Served one term.
Reagan: A company man who, after a floundering career as some mediocre actor, began being a shameless sycophantic spokeman for corporate America before moving on to being a shameless sycophantic politician acting on behalf of corporate America. Rewarded with 2 terms.
Bush Sr: The CIA director who doesn't remember where he was when JFK got owned becomes president. Honestly, the fact that he only served 1 term is very surprising, but the 1992 election is pretty weird in general.
Clinton: While he didn't come from a political dynasty, he quickly integrated himself within it and was rewarded with 2 terms. I suppose you could argue that the national security state sees value in an ostentatiously left-leaning president further enacting neoliberal policies. Clintonites have been great damage to American progressivism, to say nothing of socialism in general.
Bush Jr: Poppy's incompetent failson served 2 terms in what would be the more mask-off moments of the national security state picking who they want to be president. The 2000 election was a sham election. Like Dubya's brother Jeb! basically handed the electoral vote and election to his brother and the Supreme Court went, "Stop the count, this country has to move on" right when a bunch of ballots that were like 80% Gore was found. And I know Parenti has eluded to the 2004 election also being subject to voter fraud in Dubya's favor.
Obama: Obama's mom was almost certainly a CIA asset, and his fathers, both his biological and step-, have extremely sus backgrounds as well. He played his part in US domestic COIN extremely well, and we still are living within his COIN shadow. Rewarded with 2 terms.
Trump: A maverick who disagreed with the blob mostly for petty self-aggrandizing reasons. Served 1 term and hit with multiple impeachments.
Biden: He seems to just be another company man who does as he's told. His senility is a liability, but it's not like Trump isn't also a genocidal senile geezer, so it's not as much of a liability as it would be.
The only real counter to my hypothesis is Bush Sr.'s single term presidency. For almost every other presidency, people who toe the national security state line serve 2 full terms while people who don't don't get to serve 2 full terms. LBJ not serving 2 full terms is probably the only real instance when American popular opinion actually forced their hand, and I don't see people rioting in the streets for a Trump presidency. If anything, there will probably be celebrations among certain crowds that Trump ate shit.
Wasn't the source of the leaks the Deputy Director of the FBI or something?
Woodward was a staffer for the head of the joint chiefs of staff a couple years before.
Yes, he was.
You don't have to be JFK-pilled to see Watergate and its consequence as Nixon being an outsider:
They say Watergate happened because Nixon was paranoid. The question is: who was Nixon paranoid of? On a basic level, I don't think Nixon would be paranoid if he was part of the inner circle of national security ghouls.
If Nixon was an insider and wanted Watergate to happen anyways for some stupid reason, he would've just gotten the FBI to break in for him instead of getting his personal staff to do so. And if the FBI got caught, all they would have to do is investigate themselves and find themselves of no wrongdoing.
The media would've been told by various means and through various channels to stfu about the break-in, and it wouldn't have been the media spectacle it was.
Deepthroat wouldn't have been a thing because like you said, he was deputy director of the FBI. In this alternative timeline, Felt would've probably blamed the break-in on the Soviets or something.
I'd say 3rd term as he was dementia
Reagan's VP.
This was basically a coup, especially considering FDRs health st the time. I need to brush up on it. It was a huge deal at the time though and Wallace has been erased from mainstream history.
Truman was more or less a simpleton who could be easily manipulated into doing whatever his handlers wanted.