There are other factors that make me lean towards Pompeo being a bad guy though, such as
This is what I like. You're offering an argument, with a list of reasons, and then framing it as a "leaning towards". Fundamentally, arguments by frogs that go: "Look! He's dirty! See? This, this this! he should be destroyed and buried!!!!"I find really only push me in the other direction. kek.
If I reflect internally, I can recognize that I have a bias that Pompeo is good. Primarily grounded in the numerous "Trust Pompeo" statements by Q. Then, I try to look at all the things that say to me that Pompeo is a good guy. Then, I try to consider counter-arguments to all the things that some people say "show/proove" that Pompeo is dirty rotten scum.
ie.e With the things that say to me Pompeo is good fundamentally, these are the length of his stay and accomplishments of his working with DJT in Admin #1. I try to reason if it makes sense that this could have been the situation if he was a "dirty, rotten traitorous scumbag secretly serving the Cabal and DS". So far, they don't.
Anyway, I look at the various arguments others present, such as your list above, and then try to see if there are other possible alternative reasonable or rational explanations (other than Mike is dirty DS scum). I do often find them.
For example, removal of Pompeo's security. Some frogs things this is hard and fast proof that Pompeo is dirty as. Which I think is a ridiculous standpoint. It's not proof. Circumstantial evidence, possibly, yes, but might there be other reasons why Pompeo's security was terminated at this time? Threat no longer existing? Part of cutting off unnecessary government expenses? I think its possible to come up with such counter-arguments to most of the points you have raised.
Not to say that counter-arguments prove one way or the other. I'm just trying to maintain a balanced and reasoned evaluation of the factors. In a situation where we simply cannot KNOW, I think its important to consider the plethora of factors and considerations, and try to weigh up the balance to see which one makes the most sense, and why.
For example, the timing in the security thing, however, DOES seem .... interesting, it is perhaps noteworthy, it is perhaps not. But I cannot see it as 'proof' that Pompeo is bad, or indeed proof of anything other than DJT did in fact remove the security detail. It just isn't, and frogs pretending it is are engaged in self-delusion, imo.
However, through some of the discussions with frogs here, I'm naturally examining more and more info around Pompeo, and that is leading me to consider alternatives to my basic preliminary belief that Pompeo was anything other than a patriotic asset to Trump.
Currently, I'm contemplating that "Trust Kansas" was part of the Q drops because, during DJT #1, Kansas was an important part of the team accomplishing certain goals, specifically related to TERM ONE, and in the time and era of the Q drops, this was a necessary statement to reinforce to anons that there IS a plan in place and that things are proceeding as per what we want. i.e. It instilled faith.
But along with this idea, I'm contemplating that Pompeo is flawed, a flawed instrument useful for the purposes of TERM ONE but not useful or appropriate to the purposes of TERM TWO, aka where are now, hammer drops and actual flushing of the swamp. I.e. he's partially a hawk, who doesn't really jive with the real spirit of Maga, which is not actually Pompeo's rather fundamentalist religious outlook.
I guess that's the view I'm now considering, which still resists the idea that he's literally "a bad guy". Compare and contrast with Bolton, who its obvious is scum. Compare and contrast with Fauci, likewise. Consider anything Trump or Flynn, for example, have said about Pompeo. The most we have is Tucker, and I don't think Tucker is free of his own biases. Yet.
In other words, Pompeo was perhaps a decent enough instrument for the objectives of Term One, but simply not up to scratch for Term Two. And so, naturally put aside.
That's kind of what I'm toying with now. But reviewing the actual data, (eg the clip you linked and I'm assuming will be worth viewing) - and there is a massive amount of it out there - and processing it via reasoning and taking into account for prejudices, limitations of knowing etc, well, these are reasons I just cannot jump on the bandwagon of some frogs who seem to think THEY KNOW! that Pompeo is dirty.
I think I wrote elsewhere, I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons, than right for the wrong reasons. If there is one thing the last 7 years, and especially the last 4 years has impressed upon me, is that I'm swimming in an ocean where the power of narratives and beliefs and psychological pushes (internal and external) are a virtual storm, and making my way through all the mental and narrative and psychological chaos requires the hardest application of reasoning, counter-arguments and self-evaluation I can muster.
This is why when frogs come out with hard-line absolute and emotionally driven (imo) conviction in their belief that X is dirty, Y is great, I generally ignore that out of hand.
I feel like I've kept my head afloat. But (full disclosure) I get hotly irritated by frogs who I think simply hoist up their sail and catch the wind that they think must be right and then invest their own beliefs with the podium status of 'fact' without observably applying what I consider to be reasoning, recognition of limitations on knowing.
Honestly acknowledging one's beliefs and being responsible for them means (to me) something one might describe as both intellectual and moral honesty. I don't rally care if Pompeo is dirty. What I care about is, am I honestly, reasonably, reviewing my own opinions and beliefs around him.
I look forward to learning more about the reality of Pompeo as time goes on. Maybe. Either way, we're back with DJT where he should be, and the stage being set, the hammer of justice and restoration is swinging. Big time.
Cause for celebration and gratitude, whichever way you cut it.
What a thoughtful reply - thank you! Like you, I tend to look at data points and weigh them out, seeing which way the evidence or ‘data points’ stack up the strongest.
But even with that, we are limited as to which ‘data points’ we’re able to see/access. Much is still hidden from even the best diggers, IMO.
When evaluating a situation from a hypothesis-based standpoint, it gets muddy whenever one sees conflicting data points. For example, if I were to make a hypothesis that “Trump got rid of all the bad guys who were in his first administration” then one would conclude that people like Pence, Comey, Fauci, and Birx were good.
Therefore, lumping Pompeo into a group of people who Trump left in place through the end of his first term, to me, does not equate to “Pompeo was good,” simply because there’s plenty of contradicting evidence of other established baddies who meet that same criteria. In my mind, that ‘data point’ (someone is a good guy because Trump didn’t get him of them while in office the first time) becomes negated when too many contradictions challenge or negate that hypothesis. Make sense? :-)
“Trump got rid of all the bad guys who were in his first administration”
I think that's a rather broad hypothesis to take. I'd prefer to look at each one, case by case.
For example, Fauci and Birx were both establishment figures, put in place a long time before Trump came on the seen. It make sense to keep them around as part of the exposure operation, the pushing to the spotlight, etc, where removing them might simply have made rooting out the corrupt foundations a more difficult or elongated process.
There is plenty to convict Fauci and Birx, and I don't think serious researchers should have any doubts about them.
Pence, Pompeo were put in place by Trump. They were not establishment figures in the sense of being part of that deep state bureaucracy that Fauci and Birx were, so on that point, there's an immediate distinction.
I still find the arguments against Pence wholly unconvincing, recent policy positions by Pence notwithstanding. That's a different discussion.
Comey is an interesting case. Some folks over at Badlands, specifically (formerly) Just Human, Burning Bright have raised some very interesting takes on Comey. They put Comey in place as one of the Original Gang including Trump, Guiliani, Mueller, etc, that took down the East Coast Mafia in the 80's and 90's.
Comey has certainly played (if that is what it is) the part of a great HEEL (cf: Kayfabe; face vs heel) that all of Maga loved to despise, with Trump himself playing the part of FACE. Was Comey an underground operator, an undercover agent that led Obama Admin to put him in place at the FBI?
We have to remember, a lot of the truth is in fact deep, deep, spy vs spy stuff going back decades and decades. It's all been covert warfare, with the general population ignorant of the reality. That's the reality that Q exposed big time, triggering the Great Awakening. The spy-vs-spy stuff is in fact intergral to that.
Comey re-opening the Hillary emails file just weeks prior to the election was a BIG thing. Sure, sure, "nothing here that a normal prosecutor would persue" is a great heel line, perfect for getting the hate from Maga and (maybe) love from the Leftists. In that sense, on one level, it preserved his position (if such it was) as a no-good DS scumbag, BUT the fact is, the damage was done. his re-opening the Hillary Case could have been completely avoided, and as I understand it, Team Killary essentially blames Comey for scuttling their 2016 election.
Surface level is FULL of narrative warfare. One has to dig a bit deeper to get to closer to reality. So in my case, Comey? For me, jury out, but leaning towards white hat in disguise. And to re-emphasize this point: the HEEL vs FACE dynamic in Kayfabe seems to have been absolutely RIFE during 2016 - 2024.
There's an excellent podcast on this specific dimension or lens through which one can consider the Trump Operation - I highly recommend it as food for thought.
The kayfabe lens is one that I think illuminates the idea of narrative warfare (a key part of 5G warfare) in ways that nothing else quite does, and it aligns very powerfully with Q drops, the idea of "learn our comms" and "playbook known", and the history of Donald Trump.
lumping Pompeo into a group of people who Trump left in place through the end of his first term, to me, does not equate to “Pompeo was good,”
No definitively not. Nothing as crude as that is even worthy considering, imo.
(someone is a good guy because Trump didn’t get rid of them while in office the first time)
Well, we're probably in agreement, because that's never an argument or position I would take. To me, it's way too superficial.
With regards to Pompeo, some salient factors for me are:
Trump appointed him; first to CIA and then to SoS. He was head at CIA when the Q operation began, and its tempting to think that somehow, he was 'rigging' the situation at the CIA in preparation for the current time, but that's really just speculation. Would it make sense for Trump and Q team to put a closet Cabalist as chief of the CIA at the start of Trump Admin #1? I don't know.
His long stint as Sec of State (again, appointed by Trump) and the accomplishments the Admin #1 achieved in terms of the Abraham Accords.
In other words, merely 'not being gotten rid of during Admin #1' is not an argument I think one could ever seriously use. Rather, the How the person got where they were, what happened under them, etc, these are far more important. An undercover black hat might play along as a good guy, but it would be very rare for them to cooperate in something that so seriously destroys or undermines the black hat agenda, which the Abraham Accords absolutely do.
And, if Pompeo was a black hat, so then what was he waiting for? Did he actually hamstring Trump while playing along as a good guy? So far, I've not seen evidence to that effect, but then, I haven't seriously dug into it, either.
In my mind, that ‘data point’ (someone is a good guy because Trump didn’t get him of them while in office the first time) becomes negated when too many contradictions challenge or negate that hypothesis. Make sense? :-)
Sure. makes sense, although I stress again that "someone is good because....first time" is not something I'd consider a data point. It's not a fact. It's an evaluation or opinion, AND it's not one that I myself would use, personally.
To emphasize this point: Steve Bannon's stint in the White House was notably short - 8 months. Now, narrative layer, all the Marxist propaganda tried to make it look like he was out of favor and blah, blah blah. Here's even a wikipedia entry:
In 2016, Bannon became the chief executive officer of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and was appointed chief strategist and senior counselor to the president following Trump's election. He left the position eight months later and rejoined Breitbart. In January 2018, after his criticism of Trump's children was reported in Michael Wolff's book Fire and Fury, he was disavowed by Trump and subsequently left Breitbart.
'Criticizing Trump's children' is an easy way to be 'disavowed' and create distance from the central Trump Team, providing great cover if indeed Bannon is/was an operation in alignment with MAGA agenda.
My evaluation of Bannon is that he very strategically, and in complete coordination with Team Trump (by Team Trump, I don't mean those externally with Trump, but rather the team of real white hats and movers who Donald Trump is front man for and representative of) moved out of the 'Trump inner circle' at a designed time, in order to set up and establish the Warroom operation as a key, 'conservative yet alternative' mobilization - not Conservative Inc (Controlled oppo) but also not outer alternative, like the Q operation.
Warroom bridged the middle ground, by reaching out to 'normie' conservative and tea party-type thinkers and people, while being decidedly NOT establishment con (i.e. Fox, etc) but also distancing himself from Q very clearly, (Kek, "there are no conspiracies but there are no coincidences" - I mean, that's like saying, hey "Q/qanon is garbage" out loud, and whispering "but q is actually right!")
If Bannon was not part of the less than ten, then I think he was still very close to the plan and was a deliberate deployment to reach out to a segment of the population that the White Hats knew would not be able to attach to Q.
So, in this case, "early leaving the white house = bad guy/dodgy guy" makes zero sense to me. Doesn't work. Rather, Bannon's early departure is another data point that supports or aligns with the idea that he's a good guy operator, specifically and strategically deployed. And remember, Bannon was CEO of the Trump 2016 campaign and Chief Strategist at the DJT White House up until a few months before the Q operation was deployed. Coincidentally?
One last point: I think of data points as either verifiable or recognized facts - and as something quite different from evaluations, opinions, hypotheses, etc. But I'm not certain if this is how someone trained in maths or computational work sees it.
"A data point is a discrete unit of information. In a general sense, any single fact is a data point. The term data point is roughly equivalent to datum, the singular form of data"
I guess if I was to model how I think about stuff, its this:
Data points (discrete units of 'fact' - putting aside whether they are 'real' or simply told to us (lies/distortions))
Narratives (the stories that actors/agents are telling about data points)
Lenses (the perspective or context through which one looks at data points and narratives)
So far, that's the three core elements I think one has to consider when formulating "beliefs", if we define a belief as "things one accepts as true".
Anyway.... Thanks for the stimulating discussing. It's interesting to learn how other frens approach their thinking and working through the stuff we do.
I like how you think, fren! Just for clarification, I was in no way suggesting that someone staying in or leaving (voluntarily or otherwise) in Trump's 1st admin equates to a 'good guy' or 'bad guy' status - quite the contrary. I was actually emphasizing that someone staying or going during Trump's 1st admin was NOT a relevant data point to weigh into the equation/evaluation.
What I DO find relevant in the data point scope is whether or not Trump brought the person BACK for his admin #2 (i.e., Dan Scavino, Stephen Miller, Peter Navarro) vs. if Trump chose to publicly announce that person would NOT be re-joining him (i.e., Bolton, Comey, Pompeo, Pence). IMO, the latter is a far more telling indication (e.g., dumping Pence as his VP running mate, announcing Pompeo would not be invited back in any capacity, announcing Matt Gaetz >> Pam Bondi would be taking over as FBI Director - aka firing Comey, etc.). And beyond that, Trump taking off someone's security detail and/or revoking their security clearances takes Trump's "I don't want you back in my admin" to a whole nother level, in my view.
As you pointed out too, some objective 'baddies' like Fauci & Birx were well-established figures, and we have no idea if they were 'untouchables' somehow or impossible to get rid of for some reason. But Trump has repeatedly said that he kept Fauci around so whatever was recommended by him, Trump would do the opposite" (paraphrasing).
And I completely agree with you about Bannon too, by the way. I saw their supposed 'falling out' and the nickname "Sloppy Steve" that Trump then gave him as pure theater. Meanwhile Bannon left the White House and went to work on his brilliant "Trump @ War" movie, which is the best documentary on Trump I've ever seen. :-)
Overall, there are precious few people in Trump's orbit that I deeply trust and the only 'politician' I have unbreakable trust in is Pres. Trump himself. My 2nd most trusted after Trump is Dan Scavino and my 3rd most trusted is Stephen Miller (I prayed my heart out that he would have been tapped as Trump's VP this time, actually).
There's lots of people in the 'cast of characters' that I'm undecided on and I keep the window cracked on them possibly being good guys or bad guys, despite their perceived 'role' in all this (at least what's been portrayed/revealed thus far). I'd bet we would get some surprises on that front (White Hat vs. Black Hat) - if we ever really find out 'the real truth' about them. But I suspect we'll never find out for sure on a bunch of them.
For now, I assign various players in the mix kind of a 'trustworthiness percentage' based on the evidence I've accumulated thus far. But there's so much that possibly hasn't been revealed, and we can't even assume that what is revealed is even valid sometimes. That's why I try to remain open to new information and factor that into a person's 'trustworthy percentage' and either raise or lower their rating based on new data points. Overall, 'the jury is out' on sooooooo many people, IMO. I just pray that whichever ones that are truly sharks who are swimming around Trump's inner circle are NOT able to hurt Trump in any way.
Hey, thank you Redpill!!! I'll check it out.
This is what I like. You're offering an argument, with a list of reasons, and then framing it as a "leaning towards". Fundamentally, arguments by frogs that go: "Look! He's dirty! See? This, this this! he should be destroyed and buried!!!!"I find really only push me in the other direction. kek.
If I reflect internally, I can recognize that I have a bias that Pompeo is good. Primarily grounded in the numerous "Trust Pompeo" statements by Q. Then, I try to look at all the things that say to me that Pompeo is a good guy. Then, I try to consider counter-arguments to all the things that some people say "show/proove" that Pompeo is dirty rotten scum.
ie.e With the things that say to me Pompeo is good fundamentally, these are the length of his stay and accomplishments of his working with DJT in Admin #1. I try to reason if it makes sense that this could have been the situation if he was a "dirty, rotten traitorous scumbag secretly serving the Cabal and DS". So far, they don't.
Anyway, I look at the various arguments others present, such as your list above, and then try to see if there are other possible alternative reasonable or rational explanations (other than Mike is dirty DS scum). I do often find them.
For example, removal of Pompeo's security. Some frogs things this is hard and fast proof that Pompeo is dirty as. Which I think is a ridiculous standpoint. It's not proof. Circumstantial evidence, possibly, yes, but might there be other reasons why Pompeo's security was terminated at this time? Threat no longer existing? Part of cutting off unnecessary government expenses? I think its possible to come up with such counter-arguments to most of the points you have raised.
Not to say that counter-arguments prove one way or the other. I'm just trying to maintain a balanced and reasoned evaluation of the factors. In a situation where we simply cannot KNOW, I think its important to consider the plethora of factors and considerations, and try to weigh up the balance to see which one makes the most sense, and why.
For example, the timing in the security thing, however, DOES seem .... interesting, it is perhaps noteworthy, it is perhaps not. But I cannot see it as 'proof' that Pompeo is bad, or indeed proof of anything other than DJT did in fact remove the security detail. It just isn't, and frogs pretending it is are engaged in self-delusion, imo.
However, through some of the discussions with frogs here, I'm naturally examining more and more info around Pompeo, and that is leading me to consider alternatives to my basic preliminary belief that Pompeo was anything other than a patriotic asset to Trump.
Currently, I'm contemplating that "Trust Kansas" was part of the Q drops because, during DJT #1, Kansas was an important part of the team accomplishing certain goals, specifically related to TERM ONE, and in the time and era of the Q drops, this was a necessary statement to reinforce to anons that there IS a plan in place and that things are proceeding as per what we want. i.e. It instilled faith.
But along with this idea, I'm contemplating that Pompeo is flawed, a flawed instrument useful for the purposes of TERM ONE but not useful or appropriate to the purposes of TERM TWO, aka where are now, hammer drops and actual flushing of the swamp. I.e. he's partially a hawk, who doesn't really jive with the real spirit of Maga, which is not actually Pompeo's rather fundamentalist religious outlook.
I guess that's the view I'm now considering, which still resists the idea that he's literally "a bad guy". Compare and contrast with Bolton, who its obvious is scum. Compare and contrast with Fauci, likewise. Consider anything Trump or Flynn, for example, have said about Pompeo. The most we have is Tucker, and I don't think Tucker is free of his own biases. Yet.
In other words, Pompeo was perhaps a decent enough instrument for the objectives of Term One, but simply not up to scratch for Term Two. And so, naturally put aside.
That's kind of what I'm toying with now. But reviewing the actual data, (eg the clip you linked and I'm assuming will be worth viewing) - and there is a massive amount of it out there - and processing it via reasoning and taking into account for prejudices, limitations of knowing etc, well, these are reasons I just cannot jump on the bandwagon of some frogs who seem to think THEY KNOW! that Pompeo is dirty.
I think I wrote elsewhere, I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons, than right for the wrong reasons. If there is one thing the last 7 years, and especially the last 4 years has impressed upon me, is that I'm swimming in an ocean where the power of narratives and beliefs and psychological pushes (internal and external) are a virtual storm, and making my way through all the mental and narrative and psychological chaos requires the hardest application of reasoning, counter-arguments and self-evaluation I can muster.
This is why when frogs come out with hard-line absolute and emotionally driven (imo) conviction in their belief that X is dirty, Y is great, I generally ignore that out of hand.
I feel like I've kept my head afloat. But (full disclosure) I get hotly irritated by frogs who I think simply hoist up their sail and catch the wind that they think must be right and then invest their own beliefs with the podium status of 'fact' without observably applying what I consider to be reasoning, recognition of limitations on knowing.
Honestly acknowledging one's beliefs and being responsible for them means (to me) something one might describe as both intellectual and moral honesty. I don't rally care if Pompeo is dirty. What I care about is, am I honestly, reasonably, reviewing my own opinions and beliefs around him.
I look forward to learning more about the reality of Pompeo as time goes on. Maybe. Either way, we're back with DJT where he should be, and the stage being set, the hammer of justice and restoration is swinging. Big time.
Cause for celebration and gratitude, whichever way you cut it.
What a thoughtful reply - thank you! Like you, I tend to look at data points and weigh them out, seeing which way the evidence or ‘data points’ stack up the strongest.
But even with that, we are limited as to which ‘data points’ we’re able to see/access. Much is still hidden from even the best diggers, IMO.
When evaluating a situation from a hypothesis-based standpoint, it gets muddy whenever one sees conflicting data points. For example, if I were to make a hypothesis that “Trump got rid of all the bad guys who were in his first administration” then one would conclude that people like Pence, Comey, Fauci, and Birx were good.
Therefore, lumping Pompeo into a group of people who Trump left in place through the end of his first term, to me, does not equate to “Pompeo was good,” simply because there’s plenty of contradicting evidence of other established baddies who meet that same criteria. In my mind, that ‘data point’ (someone is a good guy because Trump didn’t get him of them while in office the first time) becomes negated when too many contradictions challenge or negate that hypothesis. Make sense? :-)
I think that's a rather broad hypothesis to take. I'd prefer to look at each one, case by case.
For example, Fauci and Birx were both establishment figures, put in place a long time before Trump came on the seen. It make sense to keep them around as part of the exposure operation, the pushing to the spotlight, etc, where removing them might simply have made rooting out the corrupt foundations a more difficult or elongated process.
There is plenty to convict Fauci and Birx, and I don't think serious researchers should have any doubts about them.
Pence, Pompeo were put in place by Trump. They were not establishment figures in the sense of being part of that deep state bureaucracy that Fauci and Birx were, so on that point, there's an immediate distinction.
I still find the arguments against Pence wholly unconvincing, recent policy positions by Pence notwithstanding. That's a different discussion.
Comey is an interesting case. Some folks over at Badlands, specifically (formerly) Just Human, Burning Bright have raised some very interesting takes on Comey. They put Comey in place as one of the Original Gang including Trump, Guiliani, Mueller, etc, that took down the East Coast Mafia in the 80's and 90's.
Comey has certainly played (if that is what it is) the part of a great HEEL (cf: Kayfabe; face vs heel) that all of Maga loved to despise, with Trump himself playing the part of FACE. Was Comey an underground operator, an undercover agent that led Obama Admin to put him in place at the FBI?
We have to remember, a lot of the truth is in fact deep, deep, spy vs spy stuff going back decades and decades. It's all been covert warfare, with the general population ignorant of the reality. That's the reality that Q exposed big time, triggering the Great Awakening. The spy-vs-spy stuff is in fact intergral to that.
Comey re-opening the Hillary emails file just weeks prior to the election was a BIG thing. Sure, sure, "nothing here that a normal prosecutor would persue" is a great heel line, perfect for getting the hate from Maga and (maybe) love from the Leftists. In that sense, on one level, it preserved his position (if such it was) as a no-good DS scumbag, BUT the fact is, the damage was done. his re-opening the Hillary Case could have been completely avoided, and as I understand it, Team Killary essentially blames Comey for scuttling their 2016 election.
Surface level is FULL of narrative warfare. One has to dig a bit deeper to get to closer to reality. So in my case, Comey? For me, jury out, but leaning towards white hat in disguise. And to re-emphasize this point: the HEEL vs FACE dynamic in Kayfabe seems to have been absolutely RIFE during 2016 - 2024.
There's an excellent podcast on this specific dimension or lens through which one can consider the Trump Operation - I highly recommend it as food for thought.
The Book of Trump: Chapter 1 Kayfabe (90 minutes)
https://rumble.com/v66brfv-the-book-of-trump-debut-episode-730-pm-et-.html
The kayfabe lens is one that I think illuminates the idea of narrative warfare (a key part of 5G warfare) in ways that nothing else quite does, and it aligns very powerfully with Q drops, the idea of "learn our comms" and "playbook known", and the history of Donald Trump.
No definitively not. Nothing as crude as that is even worthy considering, imo.
Well, we're probably in agreement, because that's never an argument or position I would take. To me, it's way too superficial.
With regards to Pompeo, some salient factors for me are:
Trump appointed him; first to CIA and then to SoS. He was head at CIA when the Q operation began, and its tempting to think that somehow, he was 'rigging' the situation at the CIA in preparation for the current time, but that's really just speculation. Would it make sense for Trump and Q team to put a closet Cabalist as chief of the CIA at the start of Trump Admin #1? I don't know.
His long stint as Sec of State (again, appointed by Trump) and the accomplishments the Admin #1 achieved in terms of the Abraham Accords.
In other words, merely 'not being gotten rid of during Admin #1' is not an argument I think one could ever seriously use. Rather, the How the person got where they were, what happened under them, etc, these are far more important. An undercover black hat might play along as a good guy, but it would be very rare for them to cooperate in something that so seriously destroys or undermines the black hat agenda, which the Abraham Accords absolutely do.
And, if Pompeo was a black hat, so then what was he waiting for? Did he actually hamstring Trump while playing along as a good guy? So far, I've not seen evidence to that effect, but then, I haven't seriously dug into it, either.
Sure. makes sense, although I stress again that "someone is good because....first time" is not something I'd consider a data point. It's not a fact. It's an evaluation or opinion, AND it's not one that I myself would use, personally.
To emphasize this point: Steve Bannon's stint in the White House was notably short - 8 months. Now, narrative layer, all the Marxist propaganda tried to make it look like he was out of favor and blah, blah blah. Here's even a wikipedia entry:
'Criticizing Trump's children' is an easy way to be 'disavowed' and create distance from the central Trump Team, providing great cover if indeed Bannon is/was an operation in alignment with MAGA agenda.
My evaluation of Bannon is that he very strategically, and in complete coordination with Team Trump (by Team Trump, I don't mean those externally with Trump, but rather the team of real white hats and movers who Donald Trump is front man for and representative of) moved out of the 'Trump inner circle' at a designed time, in order to set up and establish the Warroom operation as a key, 'conservative yet alternative' mobilization - not Conservative Inc (Controlled oppo) but also not outer alternative, like the Q operation.
Warroom bridged the middle ground, by reaching out to 'normie' conservative and tea party-type thinkers and people, while being decidedly NOT establishment con (i.e. Fox, etc) but also distancing himself from Q very clearly, (Kek, "there are no conspiracies but there are no coincidences" - I mean, that's like saying, hey "Q/qanon is garbage" out loud, and whispering "but q is actually right!")
If Bannon was not part of the less than ten, then I think he was still very close to the plan and was a deliberate deployment to reach out to a segment of the population that the White Hats knew would not be able to attach to Q.
So, in this case, "early leaving the white house = bad guy/dodgy guy" makes zero sense to me. Doesn't work. Rather, Bannon's early departure is another data point that supports or aligns with the idea that he's a good guy operator, specifically and strategically deployed. And remember, Bannon was CEO of the Trump 2016 campaign and Chief Strategist at the DJT White House up until a few months before the Q operation was deployed. Coincidentally?
One last point: I think of data points as either verifiable or recognized facts - and as something quite different from evaluations, opinions, hypotheses, etc. But I'm not certain if this is how someone trained in maths or computational work sees it.
"A data point is a discrete unit of information. In a general sense, any single fact is a data point. The term data point is roughly equivalent to datum, the singular form of data"
I guess if I was to model how I think about stuff, its this:
Data points (discrete units of 'fact' - putting aside whether they are 'real' or simply told to us (lies/distortions))
Narratives (the stories that actors/agents are telling about data points)
Lenses (the perspective or context through which one looks at data points and narratives)
So far, that's the three core elements I think one has to consider when formulating "beliefs", if we define a belief as "things one accepts as true".
Anyway.... Thanks for the stimulating discussing. It's interesting to learn how other frens approach their thinking and working through the stuff we do.
I like how you think, fren! Just for clarification, I was in no way suggesting that someone staying in or leaving (voluntarily or otherwise) in Trump's 1st admin equates to a 'good guy' or 'bad guy' status - quite the contrary. I was actually emphasizing that someone staying or going during Trump's 1st admin was NOT a relevant data point to weigh into the equation/evaluation.
What I DO find relevant in the data point scope is whether or not Trump brought the person BACK for his admin #2 (i.e., Dan Scavino, Stephen Miller, Peter Navarro) vs. if Trump chose to publicly announce that person would NOT be re-joining him (i.e., Bolton, Comey, Pompeo, Pence). IMO, the latter is a far more telling indication (e.g., dumping Pence as his VP running mate, announcing Pompeo would not be invited back in any capacity, announcing Matt Gaetz >> Pam Bondi would be taking over as FBI Director - aka firing Comey, etc.). And beyond that, Trump taking off someone's security detail and/or revoking their security clearances takes Trump's "I don't want you back in my admin" to a whole nother level, in my view.
As you pointed out too, some objective 'baddies' like Fauci & Birx were well-established figures, and we have no idea if they were 'untouchables' somehow or impossible to get rid of for some reason. But Trump has repeatedly said that he kept Fauci around so whatever was recommended by him, Trump would do the opposite" (paraphrasing).
And I completely agree with you about Bannon too, by the way. I saw their supposed 'falling out' and the nickname "Sloppy Steve" that Trump then gave him as pure theater. Meanwhile Bannon left the White House and went to work on his brilliant "Trump @ War" movie, which is the best documentary on Trump I've ever seen. :-)
Overall, there are precious few people in Trump's orbit that I deeply trust and the only 'politician' I have unbreakable trust in is Pres. Trump himself. My 2nd most trusted after Trump is Dan Scavino and my 3rd most trusted is Stephen Miller (I prayed my heart out that he would have been tapped as Trump's VP this time, actually).
There's lots of people in the 'cast of characters' that I'm undecided on and I keep the window cracked on them possibly being good guys or bad guys, despite their perceived 'role' in all this (at least what's been portrayed/revealed thus far). I'd bet we would get some surprises on that front (White Hat vs. Black Hat) - if we ever really find out 'the real truth' about them. But I suspect we'll never find out for sure on a bunch of them.
For now, I assign various players in the mix kind of a 'trustworthiness percentage' based on the evidence I've accumulated thus far. But there's so much that possibly hasn't been revealed, and we can't even assume that what is revealed is even valid sometimes. That's why I try to remain open to new information and factor that into a person's 'trustworthy percentage' and either raise or lower their rating based on new data points. Overall, 'the jury is out' on sooooooo many people, IMO. I just pray that whichever ones that are truly sharks who are swimming around Trump's inner circle are NOT able to hurt Trump in any way.