Trump trolls Joe Biden, who called Trump supporters "garbage", by showing up to Green Bay Rally in a garbage truck.

 

Trump in the Trump branded garbage truck. New York Post/AP.

A day after Joe Biden called supporters of Donald Trump "garbage", Trump showed up at his rally in Green Bay Wisconsin in a Trump branded garbage truck. New York Post. Trump said "how do you like my garbage truck?" and said that the truck was in honor of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Biden had said "the only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters". Biden was referencing a joke during Trump's MSG speech in New York where an insult comic made a joke about Puerto Rico. Biden claims he misspoke but the damage could already be done. Comparisons have been made to Hillary Clinton's ill advised "basket of deplorables" speech she gave in 2016, which may have contributed to her loss. 

BREAKING: Trump taking questions from press while driving a garbage truck!!

"How do you like my garbage truck? This truck is in honor of Kamala and Joe Biden."

HE DID IT !! HE ACTUALLY DID IT ! 😳

What a legend 🤣 pic.twitter.com/OmJJfoSvsZ

— حسن سجواني 🇦🇪 Hassan Sajwani (@HSajwanization) October 30, 2024

My Comment:

This is a major own goal from the Democrats to the point where I wonder if there wasn't some kind of revenge play by Joe Biden. The one rule in politics is that you attack your opponents but never their supporters. The reason why is obvious, you want to win some of those supporters over and you don't want to do anything that increases turnout. 

Biden's comments were probably just a flub, even Trump admits that. But the damage has already been done. That's the problem with having a senile president. He often says things that are damaging to himself or others and this is a very good example of this. 

Indeed, this could be as damaging as Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment. Though the damage that did was probably overstated, but it certainly didn't help Hillary Clinton. Biden calling Trump's supporters garbage could turn people off of Harris, even though Biden isn't officially on the campaign.  

It's also going to get the Madison Square Garden faux controversy out of the news. Though I question the wisdom of bringing an insult comic to a political rally, the fact of the matter it was one harmless joke that the media covered for three days. I don't think the story was doing any actual damage, but it was dominating the headlines. But instead of a supposedly bad story dominating the news against Trump, we now have one that is absolutely negative dominating the news. And the media's attempts to downplay or cover up the gaffe isn't going to work. 

Because this is Trump we are talking about, he made it even more damaging for the Harris campaign. Trump showed up riding a Trump branded garbage truck and trolled the media with it. He held an impromptu press conference in the truck and then did his Green Bay rally wearing a safety vest. Not only did he twist the knife in, he did it in hilarious fashion. And he got another iconic meme image out there to go along with his mug shot, his "fight" photo after the assassination attempt and the McDonalds photo. 

I'm honestly impressed that Trump was able to pull this off. It only took him a day to scrounge up a Trump branded garbage truck. To be fair, I live near Green Bay and I have seen a few garbage trucks around here with Trump stickers, so I think they had a sympathetic company in town, but even then, it's an accomplishment to get it together this quickly. It's just another example of how much better Trump's campaign is being run in 2024 compared to 2020. Indeed, it seems like a lot of the 2016 "meme magic" is back.  

2024 state of the race and endorsement.

 

As you are almost certainly aware, the election is a week away from today. This post will function as my "state of the race", basically how I think the election will play out. I will go through the scenarios that I find most likely. 

But I also want to use this space to put out my 2024 endorsement, which should not come as a surprise to anyone who follows this blog. I am, of course, endorsing Donald Trump for the presidency. Donald Trump was a good president in 2016-2020 and his policies are just getting better. And Kamala Harris is a uniquely bad candidate, it's amazing that in three subsequent elections the Democrats have found someone even worse than they had in the last election cycle. I would absolutely vote for Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton over Kamala Harris, and it's not even close. 

What polcies of Trump do I like? He's good on the economy, which the Biden-Harris camp have damaged massively. He's not going to start any new wars and he's going to at least try to end the two wars started under Biden, Ukraine and Israel. And he's going to at least attempt to solve the massive immigration problem that got dramatically worse under Biden-Harris. Remember, in 2020, border crossings were a solved issue and the only real problem left were visa overstays and folks that made it over the border before Trump. 

But enough about who I want to win, who do I think is going to win? Again, I think it's Donald Trump. Trump has never been this high in the polls and the early voting shows that Republicans are turning out in record numbers. It's to the point where the so-called "sunbelt" swing states, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina aren't really in danger of going blue this year. Indeed, I have seen on social media reports that Harris was pulling out of North Carolina to do ad buys in Virginia, which is a very bad sign. 

This second map is the absolute best case scenario for Harris and the only way she actually wins. I don't think this is a very likely scenario, probably 10 to 15% at best. Trump has the sunbelt swing states locked up, I can't see how he would lose any of those states at this point. But Harris could win if she somehow keeps all three Midwest states. That seems unlikely that at least one of them wouldn't flip, but there's a small possibility that the early voter data and polling is somehow biased in Trump's favor in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The larger possibility is that voter fraud somehow changes the race in these states beyond the margin that it can be made up by Republicans. If this is the scenario and Harris "wins" there will be major questions about the election, given the slight lead Trump has in these states and the major problem she has in Michigan and Pennsylvania. 

However, Harris could run the table in the Midwest and still lose. All it would take is for Trump to win one of the grey-shaded states in the above map. Of these, New Jersey, Minnesota and New Mexico are unlikely to flip, but Trump is leading in a few polls in New Hampshire and that alone would be enough for Trump to win. And Virginia is where Harris is trying to dumb campaign funds at the last minute, which isn't a good sign for her there either. With that being said, I don't see either state deciding the election and this scenario probably has about a 5% chance of happening. 

This map is the one I think is the most likely at around 50%. Trump takes one or more of the Midwest states and most likely is all three. Trump does have a lead in all three states in polling and the early voting looks good in Pennsylvania, which is the most likely state to flip, despite the various voting shenanigans we have heard about today, like people being turned away from the polls. Michigan looks good too given Harris is unpopular among Muslims and the general belief that though Trump is pro-Israel, he will at least try to end the war in Gaza while Harris will do nothing. 

The above map is the one my gut says happens. Though I only think it has a 20 to 25% chance of happening I feel like this map is the most likely. I think there is still polling bias against Donald Trump and that he is close enough to flip New Hampshire and Virginia. Like I said, Trump actually leads in the polls in New Hampshire while Virginia has done a lot to clean up their elections thanks to Governor Youngkin. And if Virginia wasn't in play, I don't see Trump visiting the state and Harris investing money there.

This is the "absurd" case scenario where Trump somehow manages to flip every single state that it's even theoretically possible for him to win. Some of those are more likely than other, after New Hampshire and Virginia, Minnesota, New Mexico, Maine and New Jersey are the most likely to flip. But for anything for New Hampshire and Virginia to flip, I think the polling error would have to be in the 4 to 6 point range, and though I think there's a small chance (5% or so) that Trump could capture one or more of these states as well. 

As for the popular vote, I think there's a better than 50% shot that Trump actually captures it. The early voting in blue states appears to be more red than it usually is and Republicans are extremely motivated. Democrats seem demoralized and split in a way I haven't seen in my lifetime. Trump could certainly lose the popular vote, after all, California has so many votes and is pretty shameless with voter fraud, but I think it's very possible that he will in fact win the popular vote. 

With all that being said, I do worry that election fraud could be a major issue. There are reports out there that there was a major fake voter registration plot that was broken up in Pennsylvania and a few other swing states. And the absolutely critical Midwest states have done the least to try and clean up voter roles and ensure a fair election, compared to the sunbelt swing states. Is this a rational worry? I don't think so, I do feel like we are at the point where election fraud would have to be absurdly obvious, to the point where even the media would have to admit it, for Harris to win with it. Like I said, Harris does have a small chance to win legitimately, I don't think it is at all likely. 

Finally, I have to say that I am watching both campaigns and their followers and it's pretty clear which side is confident and which side thinks they are going to lose. Trump and his campaign appear to be very smug and are trying to expand the map with apperences in New York, Virginia and New Mexico. Harris and her team don't seem confident at all, with Harris herself being caught on an live mic saying that they "need to make inroads with men" which is not what you want to hear at this point if you are a Democrat. 

Kamala and Gretchen Whitmer are caught on a hot mic at their very cringe drinking beer at bar scene:

"We need to move ground among men."

Then realizes they are probably getting recorded...

"Oh we have microphones in here just listening to everything ... Sh**." pic.twitter.com/UeSOAdF30a

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) October 27, 2024

To me, this feels a lot different than 2016 and 2020. I was pretty confident that Trump was going to win in both cases, but this time it seems like a lot more people agree with me on all sides of the political spectrum. Even some of the Trump haters in my life seem resigned to the idea of him winning a 2nd term. That didn't happen in 2020. It just feels different this year, doesn't it? I think Trump will win and when Tuesday next week comes I will be doing my part to make that happen. 

Pentagon threatens Russia with long range missile strikes if North Korea deploys troops to Ukraine...

 

Ukrainian soldiers firing artillery. Reuters.

The Pentagon has threatened to remove all restrictions for Ukraine in terms of weapons and allow long range missile strikes if North Korea deploys troops to the war in Ukraine. Reuters. The Pentagon claims that there are 10,000 North Korean troops in Russia for training. The Pentagon also claims that those troops could be deployed to fight in Ukraine directly or fight in the Kursk incursion. North Korea and Russia have not confirmed that there are North Korean troops in Russia. Russia initially called the claim was "fake news" but now says it is not anyone's concern but Russia. Russia has said that allowing Ukraine to use long range weapons would be an act of war by NATO and the United States as Ukraine does not have the capability to operate those weapons.

My Comment:

I wrote about the possibility of North Korean troops being deployed to the Ukraine fight earlier this month. In that post I was pretty skeptical of reports that North Koreans were involved in the fighting. I hadn't seen any evidence that North Koreans were there but I did think it was possible that they were helping out and observing how their KN-23 missiles were doing in combat. 

Now they are reporting that there are 10,000 troops there? I don't think I believe it. If North Korean troops are in Russia, they certainly aren't deployed in combat as we would have seen killed or captured North Korean soldiers by now. 

But I guess it is possible that North Korean troops are in Russia. Like I said, I figure that the KN-23's that Russia received may have required North Korean engineers to use. But combat troops? They could just be training in Russia. Russia and North Korea signed a security pact and they may be wishing to train up North Korean troops just as part of their alliance. 

By the terms of their agreement North Korea might have to fight in the Kursk Oblast. The area that Ukraine took would activate the mutual defense portion of their agreement and North Korea may be willing to deploy troops there to assist in the fight. Is that even necessary though? Everything I have heard recently shows that Russia is taking back the territory regardless. Indeed, they are making moves across the front, with a few more towns and cities falling to Russia this weekend. 

I also don't know why Russia would really want these troops in the first place, outside of symbolic reasons. Even if the 10,000 troops rumor was true, that's a drop in the bucket and wouldn't dynamically change the outcome of the war, especially considering the troops would not be likely to be good quality. 

North Korea probably does want to deploy these troops. Why? They haven't been in combat for a very long time and would gain quite a bit if they had a core of troops that had seen combat. The battlefields of Ukraine and Russia would probably be a good proxy for the kind of conditions they would see in any war against South Korea and/or the United States.

Of course, all of this is burying the lead. The real problem here is that the United States is threatening World War III over this supposed deployment. Russia has already said that allowing Ukraine to use long range weapons in the war would be a de facto declaration of war. And they would be right, Ukraine can't actually use the long range weapons they have without support of the countries that developed those weapons. They would have to be operated by troops from those countries, either in uniform or as mercenaries. 

Doing that would be a much bigger escalation than having North Korean troops fighting in Russia. Indeed, there is a very good  chance of it starting World War III. A North Korean deployment would not do that but attacking Russian soil with US or NATO weapons operated by NATO crews? That's war and I don't know how that ends in a good way. This is an insane escalation. 

Of course I think there is a good chance none of this happens. Like I said, I haven't seen any evidence that North Korean troops are even in Russia, let alone fighting in Ukraine. And Russia hardly needs the help at this point, Ukraine is falling apart with troops fleeing from the front lines. There is a very good chance that Ukraine will lose the war before the United States has a new President and even if that doesn't happen, I don't see them surviving through 2025. 

The fear is that NATO will do something stupid to prolong the war. They know the situation on the battlefield is so  bad the only way they could succeed is if they had NATO troops backing them in the fighting. They also know which way the election is heading and want to counter any attempt by Trump to end the war. Could that mean starting a wider war with Russia over phantom North Korean troops? It's sad to say that it's very possible. 

Donald Trump says he's open to pardoning Hunter Biden...

 

Donald Trump. New York Post/AP.

Donald Trump has said that he is open to granting a pardon to Hunter Biden, President Biden's son. New York Post. Trump said that the Biden family had treated him terribly and that Hunter Biden was a "bad boy". But he also said that it was "bad for the country" to prosecute him. Trump also cited the fact that he did not prosecute Hillary Clinton for the same reason after he won in 2016, despite thinking that she would have easily been convicted for her email scandal. Hunter Biden has been convicted on three federal gun crimes and is also facing charges for tax evasion. Joe Biden has said he would not pardon his son but it is widely believed that he will do so, or commute his sentence, before his term ends.

My Comment:

There are going to be some on the right that are going to be upset about this as the Hunter Biden conviction was a rare win for the right when it comes to criminal justice. Biden's crime was undeniable and he absolutely doesn't deserve a pardon.

So why is Trump open to doing this? I think there are a couple of reasons. I take him at his word that he thinks it would be bad for the country to go after his political rivals. He didn't do so when it came to Hillary Clinton and her case was about as solid as the Hunter Biden case. 

I also think that it's a play for moderate voters that are taking the insane Democrat rhetoric about Trump being a Nazi that's going to go after his political rivals. If he says he's going to pardon Hunter Biden that should reassure those people that have bought into the noise. Trump has every reason to go after the Biden family and to not go after him is an act of grace and forgiveness, which is something that folks look for in a president. 

It's also a signal to the Democrats that Trump won't hold a grudge against the Democrats when he takes power. How much power the Democrats will have after the election is an open question, but Trump probably wants to avoid the constant investigations and nonsense that partially derailed his first time. By pardoning Hunter Biden, Trump is saying to Democrats that he's willing to work with them despite the bad blood. 

The pardon is also a nod to the gun rights community, which is actively challenging Hunter Biden's conviction. Gun rights supporters think that the drug question on the background check is obviously unconstitutional and want to get rid of it. That's where I am at, Hunter Biden is a scumbag and absolutely is guilty of what he was charged with, but it absolutely shouldn't be a crime in the first place. We also don't want to see these prosecutions get more common, right now despite pot being legal in many states, gun owners simply can't indulge because of the question on the ATF form 4473. Pardoning Hunter Biden is a way to stop that momentum before the Supreme Court rules on the case. 

This may even be a reach out for Joe Biden personally. Biden could pardon Hunter Biden himself personally but it would be a bad look for him. By allowing Trump to do it, he would keep his legacy, such as it is. Plus I think that Biden is holding a grudge against Kamala Harris for kicking him out of the race and could be willing to work with Trump. Perhaps they made a deal? It would explain some of Biden's behavior, like putting on the MAGA hat or making sure that Kamala Harris is linked to Biden's more unpopular policies. 

Regardless, I think there is a decent chance that it won't even be relevant. I have always said that Joe Biden was lying about giving Hunter Biden a pardon, though I figured it would probably be a commutation for his gun crime and a full pardon for his tax crime. I'd be very surprised if that doesn't happen. 

Turkey strikes PKK targets in Iraq and Syria after terror attack hits factory.

 

Police and military near the scene of the attack. AP. 

Turkey has sent airstrikes against PKK targets in Iraq and Syria after a terror attack hit a factory near Ankara. AP. The attack involved two terrorists, one male and one female. The attackers set off bombs and fired shots at the factory, killing five people and wounding 22 more before being eliminated. The target was a state-owned weapons factory, TUSAS. Though no group has taken credit for the attack, Turkey believes it was done by PKK, the Kurdistan Worker's Party, a far left independence movement responsible for many terror attacks. In response Turkey launched airstrikes and destroyed 30 targets, claiming they worked to avoid civilian casualties. 

My Comment:

Fairly major terror attack in Ankara. And I do consider this at terror attack. You could argue that a weapons factory is a legitimate military target but these attackers also murdered an entirely innocent taxi driver. The terrorists could have tried to reduce civilian casualties but they did not. So even though  I am critical of Turkey and their government, I do feel that this was a terrorist attack and I have no problem with the Turks bombing PKK bases in response. 

The PKK are far left terrorists and despite being communists they often engage in terror attacks that are pretty indistinguishable from Islamic terrorism. They use bombings, mass shootings and even suicide bombings to kill folks that don't deserve it. They are terrorists regardless of their ideology. 

It is also not surprising that one of the terrorists was a woman. As far leftists the PKK often employs women as fighters, and the Kurds generally use women as combatants in their wars. They generally believe in equal rights so it's not really surprising that they would be using a woman as a suicide attacker.

The conflict between the Kurds and the Turks is a long running one and one where both sides have done terrible things. Turkey certainly has some portion of the blame. They don't exactly treat the Kurds well and Turkey has gone all in on ethnic nationalism. But the Kurds have been just as bad, launching multiple terror attacks like this one. I don't particularly like either side given that the Turks are racist and the Kurds are full of communists. 

As for the airstrikes, I doubt they did much. Airstrikes have a lot of uses but they aren't enough to destroy a terror group as embedded as the PKK. The Kurds have proven extremely resilient and in order to root them out you would need a large number of boots on the ground. And Turkey has had that in Northern Syria for a long time and it hasn't helped that much either. 

The article mentioned that there was an effort to try and end the PKK with the leader being offered parole if he renounces the organization and disbands it. It's very possible that this attack was planned by someone that didn't want that to happen. There is a real possibility that offer has now been rescinded so the war can continue... 

Trump campaign files FEC complaint alleging foreign interference from the UK Labor party.

 

Donald Trump. The Telegraph/AP.

The Trump campaign has filed an Federal Election Commission complain against the UK's Labor party alleging foreign interference. The Telegraph.  The accusation is based on an effort from Sofia Patel, the head of operations for the Labor Party, to organize UK citizens to campaign for Harris in the US "swing states" of Nevada, North Carolina, Virginia and Pennsylvania. 100 Labor volunteers were supposedly used in this effort. The FEC is unlikely to act on the accusation before the election but they could levy fines. The incident could damage the "special relationship" between the United States and United Kingdom. 

My Comment:

This is a pretty major diplomatic incident and is not something that the United States should tolerate. Having Labor Party staff going door to door to help the Kamala Harris campaign is election interference, no doubt. It's also not something America can tolerate.

After all, Russia bought a few hundred thousands of dollars in advertisements on Facebook in 2016 and it Trump's first term was dominated by the news for years. And those advertisements were just that, ads, the UK's Labor Party is actively campaigning for Harris now. If Russia was a big deal, then certainly this is as well? 

So is this illegal? There isn't a law saying that foreign citizens can't volunteer with a political campaign, even though there probably should be. What the problem is that the Labor Party itself appears to be coordinating with the Harris campaign, which is illegal. The problem is in the Sofia Patel post, which has since been deleted, where she said "we will sort your housing". How do you do that without spending money? That's the kill shot for this scandal, if they, either Labor or the Harris campaign, are paying for the housing for these folks as they knock on doors then it's illegal. The FEC will have to investigate this and I hope that they levy fines against both parties. 

It would be a major diplomatic incident regardless. It seems clear that Trump is going to win the election, which I will probably detail in an upcoming post, and if that happens, then he is going to remember that this happened. He's going to hold a grudge against Kier Starmer, the Prime Minster of the UK, because of this, and why wouldn't he? Labor would certainly be upset if the Republican Party had sent people to the United Kingdom to campaign on the behalf of the Tories, so it's little wonder why the reverse is also going to infuriate people. 

It's especially infuriating due to the historical context. America fought not one but two wars against the United Kingdom for this very reason, we don't want them to have a say on who we vote for. The idea that there are folks on the payroll of the Labor Party knocking on doors in swing states is pretty deeply disturbing to me in a way it wouldn't be if it was some other country, like France or Mexico. 

As an aside, I have to note that Labor was sending these volunteers to swing states... and Virginia. Virginia hasn't really been considered a swing state, and the polling hasn't been close there recently, but the fact that they are sending volunteers there shows that it probably is in play. I am guessing the internal polls are not doing well, and given what I have heard about early voting, Trump might have a chance to pick up the state. That is pretty terrible news for the Harris campaign... 

Joe Biden is concerned about US intelligence leak about Israel striking Iran.

 

Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Joe Biden. AP.

Joe Biden has expressed concern about an US intelligence leak that showed Israel's plans to strike Iran. AP. The administration is not sure if the documents were hacked or leaked deliberately. The documents were originated from the National Security Agency and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and were posted on pro-Iran Telegram channels. An anonymous user on the site said they had access to the material and had sold it to Iran along with leaking it. 

The BBC has an article detailing the Israeli plans. The strike would use Israelis ballistic missile systems, the Rocks and Golden Horizon systems. The attacks would be similar to Israel's last retaliatory strikes on Iran but on a long scale. The  documents said that nuclear weapons would not be used, which caused embarrassment to Washington DC because they do not officially acknowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons. The documents do not reveal which targets Israel will hit and the timing of the attack, with most believing that it will not come until after the US Presidential election. 

My Comment:

Though the contents of this leak aren't especially surprising it is a fairly shocking one given the the fact that it was given to an US enemy in Iran. Having this kind of intelligence released is not only a major embarrassment it is going to hurt relations with Israel. 

It's no surprise that Israel is going to strike Iran at some point. They are locked in a tit for tat cycle of revenge and it's going to be awhile before one side decides to walk away. Especially since the cost of the war has been small in terms of lives. Neither side is in a position to actually destroy each other so I expect this to continue. 

We did not know what the shape of this attack was going to be. Assuming the intel is correct, it's just going to be a larger version of the last strike that Israel pulled off against Iran. That strike was fairly minor in the big scheme of things but it does seem like this one will be larger and will strike more targets. 

The good news is that Israel isn't going to use nukes. That wasn't likely regardless, but it is significant that a US intel document legitimately identified the fact that Israel does indeed have nuclear weapons. That isn't a surprise but it's a polite fiction that nobody in the government acknowledges it. Having this leak out is a huge embarrassment and one that Israel is likely to be furious about, as it might lead to the rest of the world simply acknowledging that Israel has nukes. That might even cause Iran to step up their own nuclear weapons program and could induce a arms race in the Middle East. 

Of course the documents aren't as important as the fact that they are out there now. The real question is if this was a hack or an act of treason. Neither is good of course but the fact that we don't know is even more concerning as in either case more documents could be released.

I think the hack is the least likely explanation. Iran has hacked people before, most notably the Trump campaign this year. However, their hacking of the Trump campaign was very simple, somebody clicked on a phishing e-mail. To get these documents I think Iran would have to do a lot more than send phishing e-mails to the NSA, they would have to defeat the NSA's formidable fortifications. If they were hacked though, I would be very concerned  as that would be a major increase in their capability. 

Much more likely is a deliberate leak. We have certainly seen leaks from US sources before. There were the Ukraine leaks and the nonsense Reality Winner pulled back in the day. And of course there was Edward Snowden. And a leaker would have a much easier time accessing the documents than some Iranian or other foreign hacker. I think a leaker is the easiest and most likely explanation and I would be surprised if it is anything else. 

So why would they leak this? I think ideology is the most likely explanation. There are a lot of people in the Biden Administration that are very upset about their Israel policy. There are probably a lot of people that would want to warn Iran about an Israeli attack just to hurt Israel in revenge for Gaza and Lebanon. It could also be someone who cares more about Iran and wants to protect them, perhaps an Iranian sleeper agent? 

Ideology might not be the explanation though. The guy that leaked the Ukraine documents did it for internet clout and we can't discount the idea that they did it for money as well. Indeed, supposedly the account that posted this material said they were paid for it. It's possible the motive is all three, ideology, clout and money. 

Either way, the main focus now is finding whoever this is and prosecuting them. They could be even charged with treason since they gave it to an enemy country. There are only so many people that have access to these files, assuming it is indeed a leak, and I am sure every single one of them is going to have a hard time as this investigation continues... 

Donald Trump works the fryolator at McDonalds in Pennsylvania campaign stop.

 

Donald Trump at the McDonalds in Feasterville-Trevose Pennsylvania. New York Post/AP.

Donald Trump worked the fryolator at a Pennsylvania McDonalds campaign stop. New York Post. Trump is famous for his love of the fast food chain and recently criticized Kamala Harris and her claims that she worked at McDonalds in college. Trump has questioned Harris and her employment history after she said working at the restaurant helped her related to votes. Trump had fun at the event, cooking fries and handing out meals to Trump supporters. 1000 Trump supporters showed up for the event, though only a few were able to get food from the former President. 

My Comment:

The Democrats are calling this a campaign stunt and, to be frank, it absolutely is. Given the security concerns with Donald Trump and the two previous attempts on his life, there is no way the Secret Service would allow random people to pull up to that McDonalds. I am guessing every single person working in that restaurant and in the line there was seriously vetted by the Secret Service. 

With that being said, it was a good move for him. Not only was he able to bring more attention to the fact that Harris is probably lying about working at McDonalds, (she has not been able to prove it), it also shows a more human and humble side to him. It should play well for voters in the area and if nothing else it's pretty funny. 

Indeed, that's probably a bigger factor for Trump than the "Harris not working at McDonalds" story. That is hardly something that matters and if someone actually decides to not vote for Harris because of that instead of the dozens of valid reasons not to, I'd like to meet them. 

But the stunt does humanize him and makes him look  little more humble. Obviously a photo op isn't the same as actually working at McDonalds, but given the hysterical reaction we are seeing from the media over this story, I think it does indeed help Trump. The media orders have gone out and the left leaning outlets are all calling this "bizarre". 

I think it shows that Trump is actually comfortable with his lead. There is a reason why he can afford to pull stunts like this while Kamala Harris absolutely cannot. Most polling shows Trump in the lead now, both in the electoral college and the popular vote. And he's doing events in New York and New Hampshire, showing that he's trying to pad the lead in the electoral college. 

Either way, I continue to struggle with the idea that people don't like Donald Trump. Other presidential candidates have pulled stunts like this, but only Trump made it work and made it funny. I can understand not liking his policies or not liking the worst aspects of his personality, but when he pulls things like this, you kind of have to laugh along with him. 

Justice Department charges Indian official for murder for hire plot.

 

File photo of the Justice Department. NPR/Getty.

The Justice Department has charged an Indian official for a murder for hire plot as India has been alienating North American countries. NPR. Vikash Yadav, a former Indian Intelligence official, has been charged in a plot to kill a Sikh separatist named Gurpatwant Singh Pannun. Pannun has advocated the creation of an independent Sikh state in Northern India. Yadav's partner in the scheme, an Indian gun runner and drug smuggler Nikhil Gupta, who was arrested and extradited last year from Chechia. The indictment of Yadav shows a direct link to the Indian government in an assassination scheme on US soil. The indictment came on the heels of a major diplomatic incident between Canada and India over a successful assassination of an associate of Pannun named Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was gunned down in Canada. Both India and Canada have expelled diplomats in response to the crisis. 

My Comment:

This is a new development in an old news story, but one that has major implications for US-India relations. The attempted murder of an US citizen conducted by an actual government official is always going to be a major diplomatic incident. Especially since India has done this more than once now. 

The damage was worse in Canada where the Indian plot to kill these separatist leaders actually succeeded. They are to the point where they are expelling each others diplomats. That shows how serious things are, that's not an action you take lightly. Obviously the two countries aren't going to go to war but still, it's a major problem. 

So why does India want these men dead so badly? Sikh nationalism has been a major problem for India since its inception. They have conducted terror attacks and even independence campaigns in the past. It doesn't seem like the  men that were targeted in these plots were violent, though the news articles I have read haven't mentioned it either way. Regardless, India does not want the Sikh independence movement to gain any steam and they think that killing these men would accomplish that. 

That doesn't seem to have happened, and indeed, they have made Nijar into a martyr and also angered both Canada and the United States. Indeed, this is going to be a major problem for India and it will take a lot for them to reduce tensions with the United States and Canada. Both countries are about to get new governments soon, but even then the damage is done. 

I have had mixed feelings about the government of India for awhile now. This is not something that legit governments do and I have to point out that both North Korea and Russia got a lot of criticism for doing the same kind of things. But India has largely been forgiven outside of Canada and haven't got anywhere the criticism that Russia and North Korea have gotten for similar murder plots. 

I do generally support India as a good counter-balance to China. China and India do not get along very well either. But is it worth it when they try to murder our citizens? And President Modi has gone a bit authoritarian and tends to put Hindu citizens in front of everyone else. I'm not sure if our relationship with them is going to be a productive one... 

Kamala Harris sits down with Fox News and Bret Baier and it does not go well for her.

Kamala Harris at a recent speech. New York Post/AP.

Kamala Harris sat down with Bret Baier of Fox News in her first challenging interview. New York Post. The 26 minute interview was widely viewed as a failure with Baier asking tough questions on immigration, Iran and the fitness of Joe Biden. Baier confronted Harris on her stance on immigration and told her about several victims of illegal aliens. Harris mostly responded with campaign talking points and though she expressed empathy for the deaths of folks killed by illegal immigrants, she did not take responsibility. Baier also showed Harris an ad from the Trump campaign that said Harris supports tax payer paid gender surgery, which Harris supports. Harris said that Trump had allowed the same surgeries to happen, while Baier said that it hadn't happened during his term at federal prisons. Baier was also critical of the Biden/Harris Iran policy, charging that Harris loosened sanctions, with Harris fired back that Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. Harris was also confronted on the apparent senility of Joe Biden, but Harris refused to answer the question and again redirected to Donald Trump. 

 The full Fox News interview can be found at the end of this post.

 

My Comment:

This interview has been highly criticized on social media with only hardcore Harris supporters saying that she did well. I've been watching it myself, despite the fact that I can't stand her voice, and I think the critics are right. This was not a good interview for Harris. 

Why? Largely because Harris did not have good answers. She also talked over Bret Baier and came off as rude. When she did have answers they were mostly talking points. Those were her best moments as at least she was trying to sell herself. They were few and far between and sounded more like canned responses than a genuine discussion. 

Much worse is the fact that she kept trying to dodge questions and trying to switch things back to Donald Trump. To the credit with Bret Baier, he didn't let her get away with it, he kept asking the tough questions. When she still refused to answer the questions, most notably when he was confronting her over Joe Biden's senility, she kept dodging. This was terrible as it made her look like she couldn't even answer the question. I can remember her saying so many times "Let's go back to Donald Trump" which was just a joke. 

Her answers on immigration were not much better. Harris was confronted, probably for the first time, the name of three women, Jocelyn Nungaray, Rachel Morin, and Laken Riley, killed by illegal immigrants. Though Harris expressed sympathy for the dead, she did not take any responsibility for the deaths, which clearly could have been prevented with a sane immigration policy. Instead she tried to refocus on the bill that was unable to be passed in congress that would not have done much to stop illegal immigration and was DOA in the first place. Voters know Biden could have taken executive action to stop the invasion at the border and failed, so this non-answer is not going to be good for her. 

How should she have answered instead? The cowardly move would be to throw Biden under the bus. People may or may not buy it but it would at least been an answer. Another choice would be to accept at least some responsibility and say that they are going to do better. But she choose neither of these and it's going to hurt her. 

I also thought that Harris came off as argumentative and bossy. I am sure that some folks will appreciate her talking over the questions Baier was asking but I am not so sure that's a good idea. Harris has serious likability issues and can't get away with being rude like Trump is because Trump has the major advantage of being funny. Harris just came off as mean. Note that Baier also came off as fairly hostile and bossy, but the fact remains he's not running for President, he's just asking the kind of tough questions a presidential candidate should be able to handle without losing her temper. And Harris clearly lost her temper a few times during the interview. 

But the real problem is that Harris just didn't seem very smart. She's had weeks to prepare for this kind of interview and should have absolutely known what kind of questions a tough interviewer was going to ask. She should have had some kind of statement prepared for each question or at least have the wherewithal to come up with something. Instead she went into talking points and the already debated to death attacks on Donald Trump. Trump would have been better. So would JD Vance and Tim Walz. Hillary Clinton would have argued circles around Harris. But Harris? She seemed caught off guard and unprepared and had to go back to the Donald Trump well.  

Will this interview hurt Harris? It depends. I don't know how many Fox News viewers were even considering voting for her in the first place. But there could be a few "never Trump" Republicans that saw this interview and may decide that Trump isn't so bad after all. 

Regardless, the fact that Harris had to go into a hostile interview when interviews are pretty clearly a major weakness for her is a sign that her campaign is getting desperate. The summer of "vibes" is over and Harris has taken a major hit in the polls, to the point where if the polling has zero error whatsoever than Trump wins in an electoral college landslide (capturing all swing states). And if there is an error? Then Trump could win the popular vote as well  and perhaps take a couple of blue states like Minnesota, New Mexico and especially Virginia. 

This is why Harris has abandoned the Biden-style "campaigning from a basement" campaign effort. It wasn't working so she's been going to interviews everywhere and has even gone on some podcasts. She was even rumored to be going on Joe Rogan, but it would be insane to do that now. She absolutely needed to reset her campaign and try and get herself out there and win people over. But it does not seem to be having a good effect on her and may even be hurting her. Indeed, the more folks see of Kamala the less they like her. 

With all that being said, I do think that the social media folks are a bit too harsh on this interview. This was a bad day for Harris but it wasn't the end of her campaign. I don't think too many of her supporters are going to see it. And the folks that watch Fox News aren't going to be voting for Harris anyways. People aren't going to decide who they vote for because of one bad interview. It's going to be domestic issues like the economy and Trump's own good performance that will decide the 2024 election. 

Russia has taken back a large part of the Kursk incursion, pushing Ukraine out of Russian territory.

 

A M-28m "Havoc" helicopter near Kursk. The Telegraph/Russian Military photo.

Russia has taken back a large part of the Kursk incursion, pushing Ukraine out of Russian territory. The Telegraph. Russian sources say that half of the territory taken by Ukraine during their incursion has been retaken with Ukrainian troops retreating. The exact amount of territory retaken is disputed but even the pro-Ukraine Institute of the Study of War says at least 46% of the territory has been retaken, with other sources saying it was a 1/4 or 1/3rd. Ukraine is hampered by several factors in the incursion. Russia is more prepared for Ukraine's "rasputitsa", mud season, as they use more wheeled vehicles than tracked. Ukraine also has little option to defend the area as it is mostly open fields and there are little in the way of natural or constructed defenses. The full amount of territory that Ukraine had occupied is also disputed but 450 square miles is a common number. The attack boosted morale for Ukraine but has not had the effects that Ukraine desired as Russia has largely been able to keep up their offensives in other parts of Ukraine while defending and retaking the incursion. 

My Comment:

It's surprising to see such a Russia positive report in a British news outlet. Much of the reporting I have seen from British news sources are insanely pro-Ukraine and take the out and out propaganda from the UK's Ministry of Defense. Does this mean the media is finally cracking and are having to tell the truth? Perhaps. 

Ukraine was never going to be able to hold onto the Kursk incursion. Like the article said, there are little in the way of natural defenses in the area. There aren't any big cities and it's mostly just open fields. And Ukraine hardly had time to construct any trenches or bunkers. That means troops have little more than tree lines to take cover in, which is obviously a bad situation. 

Of course, Russia has the advantage of troops and technology. Ukraine didn't have that much left in terms of armor and troops and they lost a lot of them. And Russia was able to use their conscripts to fight these Ukrainians in the incursion, which is not something they were able to do legally in Ukraine. 

The worst part for Ukraine is the fact that they weren't able to actually accomplish much. Russia did not have to shift their forces around at all to deal with the incursion and they have remained on a steady offensive. Indeed, they seem to be advancing on all fronts, so this did not work as a distraction. And the supposed objective, the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant, remains in Russian hands and was not destroyed. 

I really think that the Kursk offensive by Ukraine is going to go down as one of the biggest blunders in the war. It's the Ukrainian equivalent to the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, a last desperate offensive that had no real chance of victory. Or even perhaps the World War II battle of Kursk, which was widely thought of as the beginning of the end of Nazi Germany. The troops, vehicles and weapons that were, and are being, wasted for little purpose. 

I also think that the mud season is not really going to slow things down too much for Russia. I do think that it will probably stall out a major breakthrough until the ground freezes, but Russia hasn't really been using the kind of tactics that would be slowed down by the mud. Russia has been using small units of infantry to probe the lines and also using lightning motorcycle attacks. Neither of those things are really affected by mud too much. 

This winter is  going to be very bad for Ukraine. They are continuing to lose villages and cities and they are getting close to the last lines of constructed defenses. And if that isn't bad enough, Ukraine is likely to lose power over the winter, Russia will probably not hold back from striking Ukraine's nuclear power plants. Even if the winter is mild like last year's, things will not go well for Ukraine without power... 

Boots on the ground in Israel. Biden deploys THAAD system to Israel.

 

File photo of the THAAD launcher. BBC/AFP.

The Biden administration is deploying 100 troops to Israel to operate a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery. BBC. Joe Biden said the move is to defend Israel which recently came under attack from Iran. Israel is rumored to be targeting Iran in another tit-for-tat strike in response to Iran's attack, which was in response to several attacks on Hezbollah by Israel. It is unclear why the THAAD battery is being deployed, Israel has a well developed air defense system including their own anti-ballistic missile systems, the Arrow-2 and Arrow-3's. However, several of Iran's ballistic missiles appeared to pass through these systems and Israel's Iron Dome system, raising questions about the effectiveness of the system and fears Israel is running out of weapons. The US has assisted Israel in shooting down missiles before, mostly using their ships posted in the Red Sea, but this is the first time US forces would be deployed in Israel. The THAAD battery consists of six trucks armed with 48 missiles and costs a billion dollars and requires 100 troops to operate them. 

My Comment:

Though most Americans support Israel, I get the feeling that this deployment will be unpopular. The most recent polling I have seen on this issue says 56% of Americans are opposed to sending troops to Israel if they are attacked by Iran. That poll was from August so it's possible things have changed since then.  

The small scale of the deployment could change things. There are only 100 troops in this deployment and it's unlikely they will be targeted directly. The Russians have become effective at targeting anti-air systems in Ukraine but I don't think Iran is on that level. It's unlikely that these troops will be attacked and if they are it's unlikely anyone will be injured or killed. 

Will one battery make much of a difference? I guess it could. The last attack Iran pulled was 180 ballistic missiles so 48 missiles wouldn't be enough to intercept them all. But with the fleet in the Red Sea and Israel's own formidable defenses it should help. But it's going to be a one shot deployment unless we are going to send replacement missiles. And these weapons aren't cheap, it's a $1 billion for the whole system. Some of that is the vehicles and computers but the missiles themselves aren't cheap at $12.6 per missiles. This could get pretty costly for the United States quickly. 

I also think that this deployment is a pretty big hint that Israel is going to respond to Iran's missile attack. They have been pretty cagey and are obviously distracted by their invasion in Lebanon, which appears to have been fairly low key so far. But a response looks like it is going to happen. And when it does, depending on what form it is, Iran is likely to launch another attack, especially if Israel targets their nuclear and energy production. 

There's a real fear that there is going to be a large scale war. But I also fear that this will just be the status quo in the Middle East. Neither Israel or Iran are really powerful enough to destroy each other unless they use nuclear weapons, and maybe not even then. Cooler heads have to prevail but right now they are stuck in a cycle of revenge, both sides have to respond or lose a lot of face. 

Which is why I am mostly opposed to this deployment. Though I am more sympathetic to Israel than their enemies, I do not support sending troops there. We don't really need to get involved in a cycle of revenge that could just go on forever now. If Israel wants our THAAD batteries they should buy it from us, not have them given to them. 

I am also worried about how much of our weapons we are expending for questionable purposes. We already have deployed so many of our best weapons to Ukraine that it will take years, maybe even decades, to build up our weapons. And now we are sending our best anti-ballistic missiles to Israel? How are we ever going to rebuild our weapons if we are burning through them this fast? 

Armed man arrested at Trump's California campaign event at Coachella.

 

The Trump rally at Coachella California. New York Post/USA Today.

An armed man was arrested at Donald Trump's campaign event at Coachella California, raising fears of another assassination attempt. New York Post. The 49 year old suspect is named Vem Miller and was arrested after presenting a phony press pass. He was discovered with a handgun, shotgun and California illegal magazine, along with additional phony documents. The local sheriff, Chad Bianco, said that the incident was a third assassination attempt on Donald Trump. However, both the Secret Service and the FBI do not believe this was one and the suspect says the idea that he was an attempted assassination was "complete bullshit". Miller was able to talk to the press because he was released on a $5000 bond. Miller is a member of the Sovereign Citizens movement, which does not recognize federal authority over citizens. Ironically, the FBI says that Miller was not attempting to assassinate Trump and said that he had the weapons for personal protection only. 

EDIT: Fox News has put up an interview with Miller who denies he is a Sovereign Citizen, says his documents are legit and says he would never harm Trump because he supports him. 

My Comment:

Strange story out of California and one that is fairly confusing. There is a pretty dramatic disagreement between this local sheriff and the federal government as to what this guy was trying to do. Was he trying to attack Donald Trump? Did he have some other plan? Or was he just an idiot that decided to go to a Trump rally with guns in his vehicle and fake documents? 

Miller is a Sovereign Citizen and admittedly that group is fairly dangerous. However they don't seem to be the kind of folks that would assassinate a presidential candidate. They don't recognize federal or state authority so the folks most at risk from Sovereign Citizens are people that enforce that authority, like local police or federal agents. 

I have actually met a few Sovereign Citizens and, hilariously enough, despite the stereotype of them being angry White guys, in both cases they were black men. I never got the idea that they were really dangerous, just very misguided and with little actual understanding of the law. Indeed, one of them sued the company they were working for because they took money out for federal taxes. I never heard how that case played out but I can't imagine it did well.  

I don't know why a Sovereign Citizen would want to harm Donald Trump. I don't think they would like him since he's trying to be in charge of the federal government, but to attack him? It doesn't make sense to me. There are people on the "right" that don't like Trump, but they are either neocons that have largely been kicked out of the Republican Party or out and out white nationalists like Nick Fuentes that hate Trump because he isn't racist. 

The only thing that makes me think that this could be legit is the fact that he had fake documents to try and get into the media area. It's very possible that was just him being an idiot, trying to scam his way to better seats, but it's also possible that he wanted to get close enough to get a shot at Trump. It was a terrible plan regardless, he wasn't going to fool the people working security and even if he did it would have been very hard to get a gun that close to a former President. 

I actually think that the FBI and Secret Service is right, this was not an assassination attempt. The fact that this guy is out on bail is a big hint that nobody really thinks this was a real attempt. I am guessing that the local sheriff is trying to hype up what his guys did, which, to be fair, was good police work. I don't see Miller getting charged with anything other than the gun crimes he committed. 

What do  I think actually happened? Well, Miller is the kind of person that thinks that the rules don't apply to him so he printed out fake documents because he wanted to see the Trump rally up close. He had guns in his car because of course he did, he's a Sovereign Citizen and they generally don't recognize any gun laws, especially the ones in California. Security caught him with his fake documents and the sheriff is hyping the story for local political reasons. 

Still, under the current political climate, can anyone be blamed for being nervous about this situation? There is no question in my mind that Miller is absolutely the kind of guy you don't want anywhere near a presidential candidate that has already undergone two assassination attempts, one of which injured him. I am certainly glad that they were able to catch this guy even though I think it is unlikely that this was an actual attempt on Donald Trump's life... 

Are North Korean soldiers fighting in Ukraine for Russia?

 

Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin. The Guardian/AFP/KNS.

Ukraine and South Korea claim that North Korean troops are actively fighting in the Ukraine conflict for Russia. The Guardian. They claim there are dozens of North Korean troops operating North Korean KN-23 missiles. Supposedly North Korean engineers were killed in a strike behind enemy lines. Foreign fighters are common on both sides of the conflict but if North Korea were sending troops to participate in the fighting it would be first time a country has done so. North Korea has provided a large number of weapons to Russia and would stand to gain from sending troops as they could gain experience and evaluate the effectiveness of weapons. The KN-23 missiles are short range ballistic missiles developed by North Korea and have proven effective in strikes against Ukraine. 

Russia, for its part, says the reports of North Koreans fighting in Ukraine are "fake news". 

My Comment:

It's hilarious to see the hand wringing over this story. The elephant in the room is that NATO troops have been unofficially participating in the war for years. Many of the more advanced weapons we have given Ukraine, like our Patriot missile batteries and various long range missiles, are being manned by "volunteers" (ie active duty troops put on leave and fighting as mercenaries) from various NATO countries. To whine about Russia doing the same thing is a joke. 

But is it even true? It's possible. The KN-23 is a North Korean developed weapon and it's very possible that Russia cannot operate these weapons themselves. Just like NATO weapons it might require specialists trained in the operation of these weapons. Indeed, it's probably more likely than not, it's literally rocket science. 

There are other reasons as well. The KH-23 had never been used in combat before it showed up in Ukraine and I am guessing they needed to evaluate the effectiveness. These weapons do appear to be effective and I think the North Koreans are pleased. It's win-win for both parties as well, as Russia obviously gets some much needed fire support. These weapons are extremely powerful and can do a lot of damage to Ukranian positions. I do wonder how accurate these weapons are, but that's what the North Koreans want to find out. 

It's possible that the story is fake news. Russia certainly has a lot of experience with ballistic missiles and perhaps the weapon is easier to operate than we think. Given the support Russia has given North Korea it's even possible they helped a bit with development. And it's also possible that the North Korean troops were only there for a very short time for training Russians and evaluating the missiles. I think that this possibility is probably less likely than North Koreans actually being in the country. Though if they are there I have zero idea if some of those troops were killed, it's obviously very possible but I don't trust either side to tell the truth. 

I actually think that North Korea would probably gain from sending some actual ground troops to Ukraine as well. North Korea hasn't been involved in a war in a very long time and it would do them well to form a cadre of troops that have at least some experience in combat. And the fighting they could see in Ukraine would be similar to what they could see in a major conflict with South Korea (and possibly the United States). 

Regardless, the real story continues to be the steady rate of advance that Russia is seeing in Ukraine now. These North Korean missiles are a small part of this, but the real problem for Ukraine is that Russia's attritional warfare is working. Ukraine just doesn't have the soldiers left to continue the fight and keep losing a ton of troops. They are running out of weapons and troops and probably time as well... 

Democrats are getting nervous about the election...

 

Kamala Harris official portrait. 

The Democrats are getting nervous about the state of the race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. The Hill. Democrats have real concerns about her candidate, from her performance with men, poll numbers and the messaging that has been coming from Harris. The 2024 election is in many ways unique, with the Trump assassination attempts, the removal of Joe Biden as a candidate, to the racial and gender background of Kamala Harris being unprecedented and Trump running for a 2nd non-consecutive term. Democrats say they have some advantages as national polling has been better for Harris than in the swing states and Harris luckily avoided a major crisis as America's longshoremen called off a strike at the last minute. Harris has also tried to refocus her campaign moving from doing almost no media appearances to an absolute blitz that was focused on drawing in Hispanic and Black voters. However, Democrats have been critical of her media appearances with strategists saying it is too late to be fine tuning her messages. 

My Comment:

I think Democrats are right to be nervous. There are a lot of signs that show that Trump is actually doing very well. Indeed, the betting markets and some of the polling averages show him leading in almost all the swing states, with only Nevada seeming to be in the Harris column. There are also some polling showing surprisingly close races in Virginia, New Hampshire and Minnesota.  And that is the public polling, from what I understand the internal polling for both the Democrats and Republicans, which tends to be much more accurate, are a lot worse for Harris. 

The news for Harris has been almost universally bad. The fact that the article cited the national polling, which isn't super relevant with the electoral college, is not a good sign. The end of the longshoreman strike was indeed good news for Harris and bad news for Trump, but that's about the only thing that has broke her way. Hilariously they have been trying to tout "good" economic news when everyone is still suffering from the absolutely devastating impact of inflation. 

Indeed, the past few weeks have been terrible for Harris. Hurricane Helene, and now Milton, are causing withering criticism for Harris and the Biden administration. Some of that criticism is silly, like the weather control nonsense that keeps popping up for some reason, but FEMA's response has been terrible and both Harris and Biden acted like they didn't care at all. It is not hard to show up in a less affected area and hand out water bottles, but Harris was busy fundraising in California. Indeed, she still hasn't really convinced me that she cares about the folks affected by these hurricanes and it's telling that the media is focusing on "fake news" instead of touting the government response. 

Speaking of Joe Biden, it sure seems like he is trying to undermine Kamala Harris out of revenge for being replaced. Biden scheduled two press conferences, which he essentially never does, during appearances that Kamala Harris was doing, once during a speech and once during a media appearance on The View. He's also made statements tying Harris to every unpopular thing he has done and it's even rumored that her team and his came to actual blows, though who knows if that is true? 

And these media appearances? They appear to be out of desperation. Harris had hoped to replicate the Biden strategy of not appearing in the media and just relying on people not liking Trump that much, but that obviously wasn't working. But the media appearances have backfired. Harris is not a good speaker and even with friendly interviewers she still had several major gaffes, mostly dealing with her actual plans and how she's different than Joe Biden. Those were layup questions and she still botched it and I think it is hurting her. 

Of course it's not all on Kamala Harris, the Trump campaign has stepped up their game as well. Trump has been more disciplined and more on message since the 2nd Debate and has toned down the kind of rhetoric that the normies dislike. His response to Hurricane Helene was a lot better too, he showed up and acted presidential, which is more than can be said for Harris or Biden. And JD Vance showed that he's a worthy VP and possible President in his own right during an excellent debate and may have ended Tim Walz's political career. 

Still much of this is just opinion on my part, but I would say that I think the writing is on the wall. Trump is certainly acting like he's in the lead. Not only is he barn burning in the swing state, he's also making appearances in blue states as well. I went in depth with his visit to California this weekend, but that's not all. He's also visiting Aurora Colorado to bring more attention to immigration problems and is going to Madison Square Garden, presumably just because he can. That, combined with a slate of swing state polls showing Trump ahead in most of them (though frustratingly not in the same polls, what was up with Quinnipiac showing Trump ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin but not Pennsylvania?), and the general unlikability of Kamala Harris makes me think that Trump has this in the bag. 

Something could still happen, but it would really have to be the black swans of all black swans, like a successful assassination attempt against Trump, as horrible as it is to mention it. The only other ways I can see Harris possibly winning is either a massive polling error in her favor, which would be unprecedented considering the fact that national polling errors tend to go the other, or an absolutely massive amount of voter fraud. Both things are possible, and not mutually exclusive, but I would seriously doubt it.

FBI arrests Afghan man for election day terror plot...

 

FBI Headquarters in Washington DC.BBC/Getty.

The FBI has arrested an Afghan man for an election day terror plot. BBC. The suspect is a 27 year old man from Afghanistan named Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi. He was an ISIS supporter and had sent money to an ISIS front charity and had also evacuated his family in preparation for his attack. Tawhedi was seeking to purchase multiple AK-style rifles but ended up trying to purchase them from the FBI and was arrested. His plan was to attack a large group of people on election day and was researching targets in Washington DC. Tawhedi was on a special immigrant visa after the fall of Kabul. 

My Comment:

Once again, a stupid terrorist got caught. I think this guy would have been able to purchase firearms legally since he was a legal resident and living in Oklahoma. Instead of purchasing weapons from a gun dealer which he probably would have been able to do, he tried to get AK's from someone he should have obviously suspected was an FBI agent. 

Still, this was a serious threat. Had this man gotten rifles he would have been able to carry out this plot. It looked like he just wanted to do a mass shooting in the name of ISIS and that isn't particularly hard to pull off. Getting in the country was the hardest part and he was already here. If he had gotten those weapons and found a crowded place in DC he could have killed a lot of people. And given the long lines on election day... 

Indeed, this could have actually affected the course of the election. A lot of people vote on election day itself and if someone shot up a polling place it could scare a lot of people away from the polls, which could lead to unpredictable results. It's something that hasn't actually happened yet but it is something I have thought about a lot. 

It is also concerning that this guy was plotting in favor of ISIS. Far from being destroyed, ISIS is having a bit of a comeback. They no longer control much in the way of territory but they still exist and are still pulling off terror attacks. Indeed, the most powerful ISIS group left is in Afghanistan. Though they are a shadow of what they once were, they are still inspiring people to commit terror attacks. 

This also seems like an obvious consequence to letting thousands of Afghans into the country in the wake of the fall of Kabul. Some of those folks we owed it to because they worked for us and would have been killed by the Taliban. But there wasn't much in the way of vetting when these people were brought in and I would not be surprised if this was the only terrorist that managed to get into the country. I know that Haitians and Venezuelans have gotten most of the bad press, it's not like the Afghans we have brought in aren't causing problems of their own, and this is a good example of that.