By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The war with Iran, initiated by President Trump in coordination with Israel, is characterized by erratic decision-making driven by a single individual’s impulses, according to political analyst David Rothkopf. Rothkopf warns that a lack of dissenting voices and broken governmental guardrails have led to a war plan devoid of foresight or consideration for consequences. This unpredictable approach has already resulted in casualties and significant global economic disruption, with no clear metrics for success.
Read the original article here
The notion that Donald Trump’s perceived “psychosis” has insiders in a state of terror is a recurring theme, suggesting a deep-seated concern about his stability and decision-making, particularly given the immense power he wields. This anxiety stems from the belief that an “insane person” in possession of nuclear launch codes represents an exceptionally dangerous proposition, especially during times of global conflict. The concern isn’t just theoretical; it’s a tangible fear that his erratic behavior could have catastrophic consequences.
The panic among insiders is often framed by the belief that Trump is driven by a desperate need to avoid accountability for his actions. This desperation, coupled with a perceived lack of any moral or ethical boundaries, leads to the terrifying prospect that he might resort to extreme measures to protect himself from consequences, both past and present. This fear is amplified by the idea that he could potentially “burn the whole world” to escape repercussions.
A significant part of the terror originates from the political stakes involved, particularly the upcoming midterms. The fear is that a Republican loss would cripple their ability to block investigations into Trump’s inner circle. This implies that his family, heavily invested in companies receiving government contracts, could face congressional scrutiny due to potential conflicts of interest, adding another layer of personal jeopardy to the political anxieties.
This situation highlights a stark contrast between those within the immediate orbit of power and those observing from the outside. While insiders may be reacting with fear to new developments, many outside observers feel they have seen this coming for a long time and are less surprised by each perceived low point. This perspective suggests a sense of vindication for those who warned of such dangers, while simultaneously expressing frustration with the perceived inaction of those in positions to effect change.
The core of the problem, from this viewpoint, lies in the complicity or inaction of the Republican party. It’s repeatedly stated that just ten Republicans hold the power to halt many of these concerning developments. The frustration is palpable, with the suggestion that these “insiders” should be actively preventing Trump from causing widespread harm, rather than merely expressing fear.
The conversation also touches on the perceived motivations of those around Trump. There’s skepticism about whether the “insiders” are truly terrified or if they are simply concerned about their own future or financial well-being. The idea that they might be “making money off him” suggests that personal gain could be overriding any genuine concern for the country’s stability or Trump’s mental state. This leads to a cynical view that their fear is self-serving, perhaps stemming from a fear that he might fail to pardon them or that their “insurance policy” is at risk.
The critique extends to the media, with some sources being dismissed as “clickbait trash” for reporting on these fears, especially when no direct quotes or involvement from “insiders” are readily apparent. This highlights a distrust in how these narratives are presented and a suspicion that they are being manufactured for sensationalism.
The potential remedies, such as impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment, are frequently discussed. There’s a strong sentiment that these measures should be implemented immediately, rather than waiting for incremental political shifts. The feeling is that the situation is so dire that any opposition to removing Trump from office, even if it involves him leaving “shitting and screaming,” would be preferable to the current state of affairs.
The role of religious extremism is also raised as a potential influence, with the idea that some individuals have influenced Trump to believe that initiating “Armageddon” is a path to heaven. This adds a layer of apocalyptic fear to the already existing concerns about his mental state and decision-making.
A pervasive sense of disillusionment is evident, particularly with those who supported Trump. The sentiment is that these supporters, having made their choices, must now live with the consequences. There’s a strong feeling that these individuals “made their bed” and should “lay in it,” and that their continued support or the support of those who campaigned for him is a betrayal of common sense.
The concept of “insiders” is further questioned. If individuals are truly privy to the inner workings and Trump’s alleged mental state, why haven’t they taken more decisive action, such as supporting the invocation of the 25th Amendment or impeachment investigations? This suggests a belief that those closest to the situation are either actively supporting it or are paralyzed by fear and self-interest, failing to act as a meaningful check on his power.
The sheer persistence of these concerns, often framed with similar headlines appearing repeatedly, leads to a feeling of exhaustion and resignation for some. The question is repeatedly asked: “What, are they afraid that he will forget to pardon them at the end of his term?” This again points to a self-serving interpretation of the insiders’ alleged terror.
Ultimately, the prevailing sentiment is that the fear among insiders, if genuine, is a symptom of a larger systemic failure. It points to a political system where individuals with immense power and awareness of potential danger are unwilling or unable to act decisively. The frustration is directed not only at Trump himself but also at the Republican party, who are seen as the gatekeepers of any potential resolution. The question of why his family members remain silent is also posed, further fueling speculation about their motivations and fears. The repeated calls for the 25th Amendment highlight a belief that it is the most immediate and appropriate tool to address a leader whose behavior is perceived as a threat to national and global security.