Hanaguma

...also interesting that Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina has now endorsed the Bad Orange Man and is with him in New Hampshire. Possible VIP pick? He does have a compelling life story and, unlike the current VP, is an actual descendant of African American slaves.

The only thing keeping Biden in the race now is the fact that he chose Kamala Harris for VP. There is no way that she can be ignored if Joe steps aside. The outcry from the DEI people would be spectacular. It is impossible for someone like Gavin Newsom to be even considered (especially due to his handicaps of melanin and genitalia). It is also something for potential Democrat voters to consider. The odds of Joe not seeing the end of his second term are not insignificant. So, we would be left with President Harris to finish the term.... and nobody wants that. She is polling even lower than Joe. A vote for Joe is a vote for a potential President Harris. And lord help us if that were to occur.

OK. So she was banging a married guy. Threw him a lucrative job contract which he was really not qualified to do. He made more than half a million bucks. Took her on trips etc. Nothing to see here.....

Oh, and for gas prices I used Statista... https://www.statista.com/statistics/204740/retail-price-of-gasoline-in-the-united-states-since-1990/

You can keep trying to parse the data, but the fact is that the US economy under Trump was good. I seem to remember so many 'economists' and hacks in the media losing their minds when he was elected, predicting doom and gloom, etc. It didn't happen. I have no problem in saying that the Obama years were fine in terms of the domestic economy. Unemployment did fall under Barak, but it had a long way to fall. Kept falling under Trump. Deficits under both, now higher deficits under Biden (even considering that the Covid induced spending is gone). Why is it so hard to even spare a faint word of praise for the man with the big hair?

Not a bad plan, but seems like a bit of a pain in the khaziff. Why not just ship them all back to France and let the French deal with them? The vast majority of so-called 'asylium seekers' are actually just shopping around for the best country to land. Not something that actual refugees would do.

Yes, the LAST year. Gee, anything happen in that last year that may have triggered a lot of spending, along with tanking the economy? How about looking a bit longer scale... Inflation in the US was; 2017 2.1% 2018 2.4% 2019 1.8% 2020 1.2% Unemployment was' 2017 4.3% 2018 3.9% 2019 3.6% 2020 8.0% Oh, and the S and P 500 rose by more than 50%. Gas down to $2.20 a gallon. Not bad numbers for the Bad Orange Man

Again, Putin can't do that without the obesiance of the western European nations. Maybe they should shell out a few Euros for a few of their own bang bang sticks, hmmm? They can certainly afford it. Much more so than their impoverished neighbour. If they did that, then Putin would be emasculated. Up to them, not the US.

True. And until Covid blew up the world's economy, those numbers were even better. Unemployment was down, inflation down, cost of fuel down. Plus peace in the Middle East, ISIS removed from the field, the Abraham Accords. ... ya may not like the Bad Orange Man's style or personal life, but he was effective.

Apples and oranges. If the EU could get off their addiction to Uncle Sugar and rouse themselves enough to actually defend their own countries, Russia would be no threat whatsoever. But they won't. They prefer to bitch and moan and look down their noses at their benefactor. They've had a free ride for far too long and it is time they actually defended themselves. No need for the US to help them out. Four of the G7 countries are in Europe, plus myriad others. Up to them to provide for their own collective needs.

Please get real. The combined GDP of the EU is more than 10 times that of Russia. You can't seriously think that they are threatened in any way?

I don't believe I actually said that... Here is what I said; "And the fault for putting the children in danger lies entirely with Hamas. THEY are the ones to use schools to hide weapons and rockets." and "the children are in danger because Hamas started a war they cannot win." Meaning of course during the conflict in general. Not specifically today. We can play the pedant all we like but that is merely obfuscation of the greater truth that Hamas is responsible for what happens. One could argue that weapons storage in schools endangers children whether or not school is in session. Kids could be playing at school on off days, could be housed there temporarily due to the conflict, or simply be close enough to be tragically killed when the IAF drops ordnance. All threats, all current.

Actually, they do. Especially when the incumbent is unpopular. Recent examples- 1992, 1980, 1976... The big problem for the dems is that they have a DEI hire in the VP spot, so it is hard to replace Biden without giving Harris a shot at the nomination.

Yeah sure. Successful governor, governor and UN Ambassador, successful businessman..... tell me the wonderful state of the DEMOCRATIC line-up for THEIR primary campaign. Oh yeah, they aren't having one.

No, the children are in danger because Hamas started a war that they cannot win. Much like German and Japanese children were in danger because THEIR respective governments did the same. Again, the responsibility is on the aggressor. Israel is not an occupying power. The conflict is not over. At that time, if Israel does not allow relief aid, THEN they are wrong. Until then, the war needs to be fought.

Such a large population of children somewhat puts to rest the idea that this is a "genocide" or "open air concentration camp", doesn't it? People in prisons being genocided certainly don't have the time or energy to make so many babies. And the fault for putting the children in danger lies entirely with Hamas. THEY are the ones to use schools to hide weapons and rockets.

Yes, it is. Good thing genocide isn't happening, eh? If Gazans didn't support Hamas, then this whole tragedy could have been avoided. But the cheering crowds in the streets when the oh so brave warriors came back from their slaughter on October 7, the spitting on the corpses of the slain, hiding hostages in their homes, letting their schools and hospitals be used for terrorism activities, all lead me to believe that there are very few innocent civilians in Gaza.

Why allow aid into Gaza? Most Gazans support and succor Hamas. Have been for years. Allowed Hamas to use international aid to build terror tunnels, used smugglers to bring in weapons, even let Hamas use their homes to imprison innocent hostages. I can see no reason for them to receive any aid at all.

Of course. Only natural in a war that the civilians on the side of the party that started the war get aid. Just like the Allies provided aid to German civilians in WW2 when the goal was to wipe out the Nazis. Or aid to Japan to the civilians trapped in Japan by their warmongering government. Oh wait...

Actually I was thinking of DeSantis, Haley, and Ramaswamy. Biden was a nobody as a Senator. A rusty weather vane who took no chances and was very careful to never make any hard decisions. As a younger man, he was glib and friendly, which took him a long way in the 80s and 90s as he served longer and longer. He did nothing in the private sector but instead bellied up to the government trough as fast as he could after stumbling out of Law School. Getting picked as VP was supposed to be his "gold watch", after which he was ticketed to fade away into obscurity. Tragically, it didn't work out that way.

Unfortunately, most of the hate seems directed at other black people. Crime as a whole does not cross racial boundaries very much. The majority of black crime victims are victimized by black criminals. Same with white folks.

Truly an abysmal field? Successful governor, UN ambassador, successful businessman.... Tell me how that compares to the field of candidates for the Democrats.

So, they wanted to have an insurrection and what...install Trump as dictator? What was the ultimate goal here? And this would not provoke an immediate response IF they were not heavily armed? Nah, makes no sense. Nobody has yet described what the end game was, if this were an insurrection designed to overthrow the government of the US. Perhaps the military ignored it BECAUSE it was a simple riot. With the usual few idiots providing the heat and destruction, and the majority going along with it.

Which is why it is even MORE puzzling that they 'forgot' to bring their guns.

Yes, those "who entered the Capitol" fought the police. And they deserve the full punishment of the law. As for the guns, the only gun used on January 6 was a police lieutenant shooting an unarmed protestor. How do you define "stocks of guns" and "nearby"? I read that there were some guns in a hotel across the river, but they were hardly available.