https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/artc-un-confirms-to-i24news-u-s-pier-off-gaza-coast-attacked-during-construction
So, let me get this straight. The pro-Hamas protesters convince everyone that Gazans are starving (reports from non Hamas sources on the ground say the if there is starvation it's because Hamas is hoarding the food supplies and overcharging for food) so Biden decides to support Hamas by building them a seaport (FYI Hamas has tens of billions of dollars and easily could have done this themselves years ago). Now we see reports of "terrorists" attacking the seaport before it is even finished. Who would have thought this could go badly.
9 comments:
And there's really any question about which of the two likely winners of the 2024 election would be better for us? There is no way we will be lacking for more evidence to answer that before November.
There is no question in my mind that Biden would be a bad choice in 2024. I agree that Trump would be "better", and I'm OK voting against Biden. I have some doubts about how much better and whether or not Trump sets things up for a GOP win in 2028, but Biden has a history of lying in his public offices, and keeps doing incredibly stupid things.
See the post below.
I believe that if Trump can restore most of the policies Biden overturned, as well as solidify his 2017 tax policy which expires in 2025, things like this will be noticed by the electorate, particularly if they are...pardon the expression...trumpeted by the GOP. If we can get him elected, as well as increase the number of GOP seats in both Houses of Congress, the table will be set for 2028 and perhaps a DeSantis win.
This is my hope.
It's possible that your beliefs are correct, but who knows.
I can't see a scenario where Trump would intentionally set the table for De Santis or campaign for or endorse him. How could anyone believe that after years of bashing De Santis and his solid conservative record of governing, that Trump will magically do a 180 and anoint De Santis as his successor. It's possible, but who knows.
What Trump does to campaign is wholly distinct from everything else.
What does that even mean? That what he does on the campaign trail is "wholly distinct" from how he'll govern? That his campaign promises are "wholly distinct" from what he'll actually do?
Isn't the point of a campaign to allow voters to see and evaluate a candidate and determine their fitness for office? If a candidate's campaign is "wholly distinct" from everything else about him, isn't that campaigning under false colors?
No. What it means is that his snarky attacks on opponents don't necessarily mean he won't deal with them after winning. Note how his relationship with Ted Cruz changed soon after he was elected.
And since the above comments were posted, I've seen links to articles referencing a meeting between Trump and DeSantis, though I haven't looked at them yet.
So once again, when one looks at Trump objectively, one must accept that he doesn't operate in anything akin to a traditional manner. Most Trump supporters have long recognized this and as such aren't particularly bothered by his seemingly more goofy comments.
You're right that Trump acts strangely, but to think that he can bash opponents with impunity then expect those people to be on his team, seems a bit much. But so much of your optimism is based on things that could happen, no matter how unlikely, you could be right.
The problem is that other than some sort of relationship with Cruz, which doesn't have Cruz making a big push for Trump, I don't see much indication that Trump will show any particular loyalty or expend much energy to set up the next GOP nominee. Especially if the next nominee is anyone other than someone Trump handpicks.
But hey, if Trump governs in a manner "wholly distinct" from how he campaigns, that'll be interesting to see.
"You're right that Trump acts strangely, but to think that he can bash opponents with impunity then expect those people to be on his team, seems a bit much."
It would be totally irrational if the people he's bashing are all as thin skinned as they would have to be for that to be a reasonable concern. It could be that these people are all well aware of who it is firing on them and take it with a grain of salt as a result. That is, how many actually willingly go up against Trump without any expectation that he'll call them mean names? Probably none of them. Thus, they ignore it in the spirit it was given.
"But so much of your optimism is based on things that could happen, no matter how unlikely, you could be right."
My "optimism" is based on facts and track record. Those related to Trump suggest a high probability of improvement. No one has anything better with which to argue that "optimism" is without basis.
"The problem is that other than some sort of relationship with Cruz, which doesn't have Cruz making a big push for Trump, I don't see much indication that Trump will show any particular loyalty or expend much energy to set up the next GOP nominee."
All indications are that his loyalty is to making the nation great again. He's been pushing us toward that goal by mostly conservative policies. If the next GOP nominee can't regard that as a set up, there's something wrong with the GOP nominee. Consider how many think Biden would have a better record if he simply let all of Trump's policies continue (there are two or three he's left alone, but not enough). The next GOP nominee would benefit himself by carrying on with much of what Trump has begun and hopefully improving upon it.
"But hey, if Trump governs in a manner "wholly distinct" from how he campaigns, that'll be interesting to see."
Clearly I was referring to how he deals with primary and general election opponents, not that he intends to promote policies during a campaign he has no intention of promoting as president. But of course, I didn't even refer to how he'll govern in the first place.
Post a Comment