this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
42 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22766 readers
443 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net
quartz242@hexbear.net
replaceable@hexbear.net
VILenin@hexbear.net
EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net
SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net
ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net
InsidiousTrackers@hexbear.net
42
If the CIA just decides who wins an election based on the interests of the ruling class, why didn't Hilary win 2016? (hexbear.net)
submitted 10 months ago by tombruzzo@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Maoo@hexbear.net 31 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The CIA is less like a puppet master pulling the strings and more like a fixer behind the scenes that does a bunch of shady things, often incompetently, but has enough resources and tries enough times that it often works in their favor.

They have the most success against opponents with no strategy aor power gainst them. Like poor foreign governments under the misapprehension that the US might be friendly to them. Or spying on US citizens. Or just straight-up running terrorism campaigns like Gladio.

They can't like, make Hillary likeable.

[โ€“] CTHlurker@hexbear.net 9 points 10 months ago

The CIA (and Mossad and other intelligence agencies with a long history of wetwork) are not dangerous because they are puppet-masters secretly controlling everything, but because they are allowed to do whatever they want and with almost an infinite budget. I think in general people on the left tend to overestimate the intelligence community's skillset, which leads to them making the wrong conclusions. Obviously I'm not saying that these freaks aren't extremely dangerous, but they aren't omnipotent.