Hanaguma

How about Senator Kelly from Arizona? Seems a balanced and reasonable man. John Tester from Montana? Governors Bullock or Bashear?

I disagree. The Democrats are all about equity, diversity, all that crap. Kamala would be the presumptive nominee until removed by a primary process. If it gets late in the game and Joe can't go, then she is your nominee. There would be hell to pay if the party establishment tried to remove her.

Have to disagree with you there (unsurprisingly). I just get a bit tired of the constant and reflexive "but Trump...." whenever another politician is mentioned or criticized even in the gentlest possible way. You can see almost any discussion get derailed easily by falling down that particular rabbit hole. IMHO there should be a similar rule to Godwin's Law, except with respect to injecting Trump into discussions where he has no need to be. As I said, he had a good first term but after that... the wheels came off. I can only hope that my good cousins to the south come to their collective senses and nominate two different people for their respective parties in 2024.

For me, in 2016 he was the case of the best of two bad options. No way in hell would I have wanted Hillary to be President. At that time, Trump was a breath of fresh air into a stagnant political scene. And he did better than I expected he would to be honest. 2020 seemed more of the same. No way in hell did I want Biden to win. But those days are long past. The GOP has some very good candidates running, many of whom would easily beat Biden in 2024. I have a sneaking suspicion that, if the GOP nominate someone other than Trump, the Democrats would find a way to ease Biden away from the nomination and replace him Ditto Harris, no way would she ever be given the nomination, given her dismal performance as VP. But getting ahead of ourselves here.

Wouldn't call myself a Trump supporter this time around. Liked him in 2016 and liked what he did to the country in his first term. But now, he is old news and there are far better candidates that can carry the conservative message. Note- Brett Baier did an excellent job. He is a good jounalist and manages to keep his own prejudices well concealed when he is interviewing someone. Trump looked bad. Still wants to re-litigate 2020 instead of articulating a positive case as to why voters should choose him again now.

The felony charges were not reduced. They were, as you say, part of the deal. The charge was possessing a gun while on drugs. Given what Hunter himself wrote in his book, plus the numerous photos of him with it, seems a slam dunk to me. Another charge was lying on the federal paperwork needed to purchase the gun in the first place. But that charge was not brought, in favor of the one I wrote about already. I WAS wrong about one thing, I admit. Hunter did not dispose of the gun. It was Hallie, his brothers widow (Hunter was banging her at the time) who threw it away when she found it. He had left it in his car.

Yes, let's just forget the various federal weapons felonies. Especially in a government where, just days ago, the President was calling for stricter gun control. Part of that strictness could be actually enforcing the laws already on the books! I guess Joe Redneck shouldn't worry now. He can lie on a federal weapons acquisition application, illegally purchase a weapon, use illegal narcotics while brandishing said weapon (on film), cavort will human trafficed sex workers, then LOSE the weapon and not notify the police. And not face any penalties. Right?

Pretty sweeet deal. Misdemeanour pleas, no jail time. Can't believe that tax fraud over a million dollars is a misdemeanour, but whatever. On the far more serious weapons related felonies, he can also skate. Can't see that happening to most Americans whose last name is not Biden. Fake gun application, use/display of weapon illegally obtained while consuming illegal drugs, then LOSING the illegally obtained weapon. It's good to be the king. Or at least the son of the king.

Not enough.

Really? The US military sent more than 12000 personnel, 21 ships including a 1000 bed hospital ship, 90 helicopters, 14 cargo planes.... With respect, the UN can <deleted>. How many ships did THEY send?

The CHinese have about 50 equivalent aircraft. The C-130 is ancient. Hell, I rode it when I was in the military more than 30 years ago. It is also not really a strategic lift plane, it has limited range. The French have about 20 Airbus, Germany the same, UK the same. It is limited in range also when carrying max payload.

...and those are all worthy and good organizations. Yet, how do they go to disaster zones? I think after the 2004 tsunami, the US Navy was the first on the scene with substantial aid in Indonesia. In Haiti in 2010 the US Navy was on scene within 48 hours with 600,000 food rations, 35,000 gallons of water etc. 10,000 troops on the ground days later. All a matter of scale.

Of course. All a matter of scale. Apologies for the inaccurat grammer. For example, the USAF has 222 c-17 aircraft. The next country has 11. The UK has 8.

Nice mainstream sources. Now for the left, we have: ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, CNN, MSNBC, HuffPost, Media Matters....

WMD of course. I was thinking in terms of projecting military power. The US is almost unique in being able to send troops anywhere on the planet within 24 hours. They have airlift and sealift capacity that other countries (even China) do not. Ditto force multipliers like air to air refueling capabilities, long range bombers, carrier strike forces, Marine amphibious units, and so on. Even an invasion of a close island like Taiwan is arguably still not possible for the PLAN. This is why, for example when natural disasters happen the US Military is often one of the first and most important organizations to arrive and start helping people.

First, tell me about this "right wing media" because I haven't seen or heard much of them.

Nothing to do with guidance counselors or talking to teachers. THe law only refers to what is part of the curriculum and what is taught. Not what is said. Counselors are not part of the teacher/school realm of responsibility. Plus, there is no reason to teach sex or identity to students in grade 3 or below. None whatsoever.

True,all based on the mistaken and arrogant belief that a rich China would become a more democratic China. So the US and others believed. Now we are stuck up sh!t creek with very few viable options. At least China doesn't have the ability to project power outside of Asia...yet. But they are getting there.

None of the ones you mentioned are running for President (thank God). Check out Vivek, he is a sharp guy. Has a genuine patriotism that sometimes only comes from recent immigrant families. Tim Scott is another genuinely decent man. Raised in poverty but became a US Senator. Impressive.

Not true.

"Learn in school" doesn't require porn in the school library. Perhaps a guidance counsellor or trusted teacher might be the better option.

Doesn't matter because Trump isn't the President. And Biden is. So Biden's obvious failings are far more important and relevant. FWIW I would prefer neither of them to even run for President in 2024, let alone win. But both parties seem determined to have a kind of reverse popularity contest.

No, I mean people like Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Francis Suarez...

I agree. Nothing more frustrating than a beautiful picture of some natural scene, with some idiot's big fat head taking up the bottom half with a stupid grin on his face. Exceptions made for elegant bikini shots with ladies (in full figure) stretched out somewhere in the shot....

Lovely place near Chiang Rai is Doi Tung Royal Villa. It is a Royal Project with beautiful gardens and great coffee. Like all Royal Projects, very well kept and picturesque.