The fact that the Secretary General of NATO feels the need to kiss Trump's ass publicly is cringe-making. It has echoes of the kind of sycophantic stuff that happens under dictatorships.
O what a miserable waste of time and space this loathsome Orange Oaf is.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
O what a miserable waste of time and space this loathsome Orange Oaf is.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
Unfortunately, while Harris might have handled the situation with more grace and professionalism, it's entirely likely she would still have been on Team Bomb Everything.
O what a miserable waste of time and space this loathsome Orange Oaf is.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
Unfortunately, while Harris might have handled the situation with more grace and professionalism, it's entirely likely she would still have been on Team Bomb Everything.
Is it, though? I'd be interested to know what US Shipmates think about this entirely hypothetical question. *Alternative history* is a fascinating rabbit-hole down which to fall...
Having been VP should make him a better candidate, and being the incumbent should also make him a better candidate. ("Should," not necessarily "will.") Maybe Trump anoints JD as his successor; maybe he doesn't. Maybe incumbency turns out to be a bad thing, given how much voters don't like government in general.
Leaving aside the possible advantages of incumbency, one of the ironies of the political process as it exists in the United States today is that the skill set required to be a successful president or vice president is almost completely unrelated to the skill set required to successfully run for president or vice president. In other words, Vance's tenure as vice president will have almost no bearing on his fitness as a presidential candidate in 2028.
O what a miserable waste of time and space this loathsome Orange Oaf is.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
Unfortunately, while Harris might have handled the situation with more grace and professionalism, it's entirely likely she would still have been on Team Bomb Everything.
Is it, though? I'd be interested to know what US Shipmates think about this entirely hypothetical question. *Alternative history* is a fascinating rabbit-hole down which to fall...
My expectation is that hypothetical president Harris would probably have continued the Biden administration's policy of continuing to give Israel whatever material support it wants but would not have used American forces to bomb Iran directly.
O what a miserable waste of time and space this loathsome Orange Oaf is.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
Unfortunately, while Harris might have handled the situation with more grace and professionalism, it's entirely likely she would still have been on Team Bomb Everything.
O what a miserable waste of time and space this loathsome Orange Oaf is.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
Unfortunately, while Harris might have handled the situation with more grace and professionalism, it's entirely likely she would still have been on Team Bomb Everything.
What do you base that opinion on?
The political continuity of centrist Democrats liking to bomb stuff, mostly. But there's also the fact that you don't get Dick Cheney onside by being a peacenik.
O what a miserable waste of time and space this loathsome Orange Oaf is.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
Unfortunately, while Harris might have handled the situation with more grace and professionalism, it's entirely likely she would still have been on Team Bomb Everything.
What do you base that opinion on?
The political continuity of centrist Democrats liking to bomb stuff, mostly. But there's also the fact that you don't get Dick Cheney onside by being a peacenik.
And we should not forget that shortly before trump was elected the first time, Hillary Clinton advocated the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.
Comments
Whereas in reality potential nominees are already jockeying for position.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
Unfortunately, while Harris might have handled the situation with more grace and professionalism, it's entirely likely she would still have been on Team Bomb Everything.
Is it, though? I'd be interested to know what US Shipmates think about this entirely hypothetical question. *Alternative history* is a fascinating rabbit-hole down which to fall...
Leaving aside the possible advantages of incumbency, one of the ironies of the political process as it exists in the United States today is that the skill set required to be a successful president or vice president is almost completely unrelated to the skill set required to successfully run for president or vice president. In other words, Vance's tenure as vice president will have almost no bearing on his fitness as a presidential candidate in 2028.
My expectation is that hypothetical president Harris would probably have continued the Biden administration's policy of continuing to give Israel whatever material support it wants but would not have used American forces to bomb Iran directly.
What do you base that opinion on?
The political continuity of centrist Democrats liking to bomb stuff, mostly. But there's also the fact that you don't get Dick Cheney onside by being a peacenik.
And we should not forget that shortly before trump was elected the first time, Hillary Clinton advocated the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.