Obama Wanted Trump To Win

Clinton lost Because Obama wanted it, deep down inside. Machiavel On The Potomac!

Some recent extracts from Obama (link below):“You can’t say it, but you know it’s true!… The end of the Republic has never looked better!… I am going to use it at Goldman Sachs next year!”

Did Obama want Trump to win consciously, or unconsciously? That brings the question of what is conscious, and what is not. The subconscious is neurological circuitry which exists already, but have not been visited officially by consciousness.

At That Point, Obama Told Everybody That He was Going To Be Dropped, Just As A Used Microphone. However, He had A Secret Plan, A Second Foundation: Beat Clinton, And Thus Stay The Head Of the Opposition and the Core Of Hope

At That Point, Obama Told Everybody That He was Going To Be Dropped, Just As A Used Microphone (he dropped the mike next, see link below). However, Obama had A Secret Plan, A Second Foundation: Beat Clinton, And Thus Stay The Head Of the Opposition and the Core Of Hope. Hope That Will Work Better Next T

Obama just said (January 8) that “if you can find a plan that is demonstrably better than Obamacare, I will be the first to publicly support repealing Obamacare. Eight years ago, I asked if there was something better, and got no answer”.

Of course Obama knows very well that more than three dozen countries have better plans than Obamacare, and they are all variations of what would be of Medicare For All”. Namely you make basic health care a government program out of the clutches of plutocrats like Warren Buffet. (Warren Buffet being one saintly plutocrats of the “Democratic” Party.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdVVJibX5FA

Full version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxFkEj7KPC0

Anyway, the initial proposition is best as a question: Why would Obama have sincerely wanted for Clinton to win?

***

Would Obama have sincerely wanted for Clinton to win so that he could become insignificant, replaced, eclipsed?

Of course not.

Obama wanted Hillary to win, because he wanted to save his legacy, bleats the clueless sheep. Sheep is not smart: sheep thinks as one, as the group: know the mind of one sheep, know the mind of all. Actually the shepherd think for the sheep.

Obama’s legacy, as a legislative body, is shot, there is nothing to save It’s so shot through, it amounts so much to nothing, Obama knows it all too well… He may want to correct history and finally make his mark.

***

Why was Obama’s “legacy” so much ado about nothing?

Because Obama let himself be manipulated, feeling that was good “navigation” (a selfish concept central to his worldview). Not that he had a choice. He was not just financed by these people. He was programmed by them.

Ten years ago, Obama used to crow that he had been reading the Financial Times for so long, he actually had started before the Financial Times became required reading among “Democratic” leaders.

Obama has a good reason to be resentful about how his  “legacy” got mangled. Vengeance is a powerful motivation. Who did the mangling? Was that Trump? Trump has nothing to do with it. Far from it: it turns out that Trump was right, all along, on some very important points.

Obama failed, from all the way back, including from the admiration for Reagan, which perverted the Democratic establishment, the Clintons, and even Obama himself. Trump, on the other hand, opposed the globalocracy promoted by Reagan and Paul Krugman. As early as 1987, for all to see.

Obama’s legacy is a plane which gathered speed for take-off, yet, not enough speed to clear the trees. It has crashed. One can drive 3,000 miles across the US, and never leave a state thoroughly controlled by Republicans. Everything indicates that Trump, if he plays his cards well, will have a supermajority in 2018.

The Financial Times has some good articles, occasionally. However, it’s like saying that Pravda (the Soviet equivalent of the New York Times) had good article. Fundamentally, the Financial Times is a fundamentalist Thatcherian-Reaganian newspaper: “There Is No Alternative!” … to the fundamental principle is that greed is the best motivation of human beings, including for building a morality.    

As I have said for eight years, there was never much of a Obama government installed to instill hope. First Hank Paulson (Goldman Sachs and Bush Treasury Secretary) told Obama what to do, even before Obama got elected. Worst: Obama agreed to it. Of course, Obama’s economic adviser was Lawrence Summers (re-Goldman Sachs, Harvard). Obama was completely controlled by the Democratic machine, with the Goldman Sachs government, in place since before Bill Clinton’s election. Nancy Pelosi, head of the Democratic majority in Congress, also agreed to Paulson’s plan, after Paulson went down to one knee in front of her.

What happened? Obama was too young, too inexperienced, too naive strategically (street-smart is not world-smart). He was also a tool of the establishment, and he trusted those who trusted him. And it all turned out, into eight years wasted.

Now Obama, at last, is free of all these financial goons and their obsequious servants.

Whereas, if Clinton had won, they would have won. Instead, they were destroyed. Let me repeat slowly: the tormentors of Obama, those who lead Obama astray, those who made Obama’s legacy, mostly the color of a skin, this waste of hope, have been vanquished. Vanquished by Trump, yes, but vanquished. Why would Obama want it otherwise?

Now Obama is the core of hope, the future. Maybe he can make Michelle run, get another eight years that way. This time, with the correct mindset, not as a puppet.

We will see.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Tags: , ,

3 Responses to “Obama Wanted Trump To Win”

  1. Gmax Says:

    Leaves me speechless. So that’s why he let her do an incompetent campaign? Makes sense. Serves the Clinton partisans well.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, I think I forgot to list all the glaring ineptness in Clinton’s campaign which I am sure Obama spotted… He let them happen, and, actually ENCOURAGED them…

  2. Hormones Rule Reason | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] in at the first occasion,) and with the advantage of getting in the interventionist mindset (which I advocated). Also wrong in several ways: first Trump said it was not “anti-Muslim” (there too, the […]

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: