"Angel Has Fallen" from 2019 is a fascinating American action film. Both it and its 2013 precursor "Olympus Has Fallen" must have looked extremely unrealistic when they were released. The plots of both movies revolve around terrorist attacks and various high level conspiracies.
In the first movie, North Korean commandos take the US president hostage to force an American military withdrawal from the Korean peninsula. Soon half of the White House goes up in flames! The evil Reds even manage to take over some kind of all-powerful AI system which apparently controls the US nuclear arsenal. "Angel Has Fallen" is even less realistic. This time, a private military contractor tries to kill the POTUS with a drone swarm on behalf of the vice president who wants to start a war with Russia. At another point, an entire hospital is blown sky high. Oh, and there´s the old guy in the wood cabin who single-handedly kills 100+ mercenaries coming right at him?!
Or *are* they unrealistic? In 2025, both films look like freakin´ documentaries. Obviously because of all the Trump stuff. Or even the anti-Trump ditto. Which brings me to a few peculiar things I noticed about "Angel Has Fallen"...
The film´s president, Allan Trumbull, is obviously a liberal Democrat. I mean, he´s Black (starred by Morgan Freeman, no less). He also comes across as a wise elder statesman. Interestingly, he wants peace with Russia and is seen as a candidate for change. By contrast, the vice president is a war hawk who almost comes across as a stereotypical Republican or Neo-Conservative, including his connections with a powerful private security firm which makes profit by starting new wars.
But please note that in 2019, this would have aligned the fictitious Trumbull with the very real Donald Trump! *He* was seen (rightly or wrongly) as the "peace candidate", indeed, Trump was even accused of "Russian collusion" by...the Democrats. Yes, the Neo-Cons (including Trump´s vice president Mike Pence) were hawks, but so where the main-stream liberal Democrats. That Trumbull is a stand-in for Trump would also explain a weird anomaly in the narrative. The militia (usually seen as far right and pro-Trump) seems to support Trumbull! The mountain militia at the gas station tries to arrest agent Mike Banning (wrongly assuming he tried to kill the president). And Banning´s very own father turns out to be a militia guy and conspiracy theorist. He´s even compared to the Unabomber! Yet, Clay Banning is one of the good guys, eventually siding with his son and de facto with Trumbull.
Note also that the fiery scene at Clay´s shack is really a kind of New World Order conspiracy narrative. The kook in the woods turns out to be right: foreign mercenery soldiers on US soil really do try to take over the federal government and take out the lone truth-teller, who flees with a type-writer and his manifesto...but not before he treats them to a full Rambo-esque extravaganza.
To sum up: "Angel Has Fallen" looks like an extremely strange attempt to synthesize pro-peace left-liberalism with macho daring and even some kind of barely hidden far right themes. I admit I was both intrigued and entertained. I´m still trying to comprehend the New Age fluff during the end credits. Eh?
With those reflections, I leave you. For now.
It did occur to me that as POTUS becomes more and more unhinged and disassociated from reality, he becomes more of a liability to the corporate backed government takeover and hence needs to be "disappeared" for real. I can see the VP as claiming the mantle after having POTUS removed under the 25th Amendment.
ReplyDeleteOn the surface, Vance looks like Trump´s "assassination insurance" (he is often seen as even worse than Trump!) but since Vance was originally an opponent of Trump and is now extremely sycophantic towards him, he could also be seen as an opportunist, perhaps a particularly spineless or cowardly one. Hence, Vance could perhaps be easier to control than Trump if anybody decides to overthrow the latter. Also, what is Vance´s base? Trump has a base, but does Vance? Except in so far as he has access to Trump´s base through Trump. Maybe I should ask Mr Chat about this, too!
ReplyDeleteChatGPt is cautious today!
ReplyDeleteYour analysis of this hypothetical scenario involving J.D. Vance and Donald Trump contains several reasonable insights, though it's worth clarifying and expanding on a few points for accuracy and depth.
✅ Correct and Plausible Elements in Your Analysis:
"Assassination Insurance" Metaphor:
The idea that a controversial or extreme running mate makes the president harder to remove is a long-standing strategic theory in politics (e.g., Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, Dick Cheney).
J.D. Vance is perceived by many as more ideologically rigid or radical in certain ways than Trump, especially in his anti-elite rhetoric and embrace of “post-liberal” ideas. This could support the notion that he provides "insurance" against removal of Trump.
Vance as Opportunist:
Vance was openly critical of Trump in the past (e.g., calling him “noxious” and “reprehensible” during the 2016 election), and later reversed course completely to align with Trump.
This pivot does support the argument that he is opportunistic, and some critics (on both left and right) have framed it as evidence of political expedience over principle.
Control and Influence:
Because Vance’s rise has been dependent on Trump’s support, it’s plausible to argue that he may be more malleable or controllable by Trump-aligned forces or establishment figures seeking influence post-Trump.
His relative inexperience in executive politics (e.g., as a first-term senator) could also make him more dependent on advisors or party structures than Trump is.
🤔 More Ambiguous or Needing Clarification:
Would Vance Really Overthrow Trump?
While your scenario is hypothetical, it’s worth noting that there’s no public indication that Vance would move to “overthrow” Trump (i.e., via invoking the 25th Amendment, resignation pressure, etc.).
Such an action would be politically suicidal for Vance within the MAGA base unless Trump were incapacitated or discredited beyond repair.
Does Vance Have a Base?
You’re correct: Vance does not have a strong independent national base the way Trump does.
His support largely comes through Trump, and he lacks the long-term populist cult of personality that Trump built over decades.
Among certain “New Right” intellectuals, nationalist conservatives, and tech-libertarian circles (e.g., Peter Thiel), Vance has some niche appeal, but this is not a mass political base.
🧠 Summary:
Your analysis is on solid ground:
Yes, Vance may be seen as “assassination insurance” due to his perceived extremity or inexperience.
Yes, he has a reputation for opportunism due to his Trump reversal.
Yes, he might be easier to manage or control for power brokers behind the scenes.
No, he does not yet have an independent political base like Trump’s.
Would you like a comparison between Vance and past VP picks in terms of ideology, loyalty, or usefulness to presidential power dynamics?
Cautious but on target!
ReplyDelete