Syrian rebels breach the largest city in Syria, Aleppo, in a shocking offensive.

 

Syrian rebels outside of Aleppo. AP. 

Syrian rebels have launched a major offensive in Northern Syria and have managed to enter Aleppo, Syria's largest city. AP. Aleppo has remained peaceful since 2016 when the regime recaptured the city after a brutal fight. But this new attack swept through northern villages and has now entered the city facing limited resistance. Syrian forces did not put up much of a fight and some regime forces melted away under the pressure of the attack. The rebels are mostly from the Hayat Tahir al-Sham, HTS, which used to be known as al-Nusra Front. They are Islamic terrorists. The offensive comes as Syria's two major allies are distracted by wars of their own. Hezbollah and Israel were fighting before a 60 day cease fire was signed earlier this week and Russia has Ukraine to deal with as well. 

My Comment:

Disturbing news out of Syria. This attack comes from HTS, which was the notorious al-Nusra Front before they changed their name. Al-Nusra was one of the worst groups in the Syrian Civil War, only eclipsed by ISIS, and their reemergence as a major force in Syria is not a good thing. They were at one point al-Qaeda's proxy army in Syria, though given al-Qaeda's current irrelevance that's probably no longer the case. 

It's fairly shocking how quickly the Syrians are folding. I'm not sure why either. It's possible that the Syrian forces sent to Aleppo were lower quality and that they had no idea this attack was coming. The area was at peace since 2016 and there hadn't really been all that many indications that an attack was coming. Still, Syria has a hardened and professional army, to see them fold like this is not a good sign for them. 

Syria is in a difficult position too, their allies are distracted. Hezbollah was one of the biggest groups fighting for Syria but they obviously have their own problems. Though a cease-fire has been signed between Hezbollah and Israel, they are certainly not in any condition to help Syria right now given how much of their leadership is dead. I don't see them being much of a help in this current offensive. 

Russia, too, has their own problems as they are currently fighting a massive war in Ukraine. But unlike Hezbollah I think they will be able to spare some forces to help Syria. After all, they have a major navy base in Tartus and that means they have strategic concerns in the country. I do believe they are already launching airstrikes and I wouldn't be surprised if they send a limited deployment of troops and/or mercenaries to help fight HTS. 

Speaking of Russia, I would not be surprised that if this wasn't actually about them. Both the CIA and Turkey have an interest in overthrowing the Syrian regime and they don't particularly care if they have to fund and arm a terror group like HTS to do so. The naval base in Tartus is the CIA's goal as they have never liked the fact that Russia has a base in the Mediterranean. And any pressure they can put on Russia outside if Ukraine will possibly help Ukraine hang on a bit longer. 

What will happen next? Well, either the Syrian troops will gain a backbone (with help from the Russians) or HTS is going to capture Aleppo. If they do I expect it to be very bad for the people there. Al-Nusra was never as brutal as ISIS was but they aren't exactly nice people and I would expect some murders and killings if they take over the city... I do hope that the Syrians find a way to blunt this offensive and sooner rather than later... 

Donald Trump and the President of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, make a deal on illegal immigration.

 

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and President elect Donald Trump. Fox News/Getty.

Donald Trump and the President of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, have made a deal on illegal immigration. Fox News. Trump had threatened to impose a 25% tariff on Mexico on day one of his presidency, but he called Sheinbaum today. Both leaders praised each other in the call and said it was productive. Trump said that Mexico would stop the convoys from Central and South America and also said that they would work with Trump on the issue of illegal drug smuggling. Sheinbaum said that the call was productive and that Mexico had agreed to work with the Trump administration on security issues. 

En nuestra conversación con el presidente Trump, le expuse la estrategia integral que ha seguido México para atender el fenómeno migratorio, respetando los derechos humanos. Gracias a ello se atiende a las personas migrantes y a las caravanas previo a que lleguen a la frontera.…

— Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo (@Claudiashein) November 28, 2024

My Comment:

This outcome was extremely expected. Donald Trump had all the leverage when it came to Mexico. Mexico is far more dependent on us than we are on them and the 25% tariffs would have devastated them. And Trump still had the nuclear option, a tax on remittances. Mexico had little choice but to play ball with Donald Trump. 

The most important step here was ending the convoys coming into the country. There was a large one on its way to the United States composed of people that wanted to get into the country while Biden was still in office. Now those folks won't make it here and will be held in Mexico, where they will either be free to settle or turn back and go home. 

The war on drugs is going to be a longer term issue. Mexico is fairly corrupted by the cartels and that isn't likely to change under Sheinbaum. I don't see her as a strong president when it comes to fighting the cartels. But she can do more than what has been done recently on the issue and hopefully she will do so now. 

This also shows how Biden's immigration policy was a choice. All Biden had to do to end the convoys from Mexico was to make a threat and then a phone call and it would have ended. Millions of illegal immigrants would have never crossed the border and would have stayed in Mexico to be processed. But instead he just let them in and now it's going to be hard to send them out. 

As for Trump's relationship with Sheinbaum, I expect it to be a good one. Despite their differences in political affiliation, Trump is a fairly good diplomat and had a very good relationship with Mexico's former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who is a political ally of Shienbaum. I expect them to be able to work together. 

The next step will be dealing with Canada. Trump and Trudeau get along well enough and we have a lot of leverage over Canada as well. Given that Trump has already gave the 25% tariff threat against Canada and closing the border would be a lot easier for them I expect that Trudeau will bend the knee as well. 

For those that care about illegal immigration, Trump has already justified their vote. Though stopping illegal immigration from Mexico won't solve the problem of the illegals already here it will stop new ones from arriving. That alone is a huge victory for anyone that cares about the issue.   

Russia is taking Ukraine's territory at a rate not seen since the start of the war...

 

Trees on fire in the town of Kurakhove. Reuters. 

Russia has accelerated their rate of advance in Ukraine at a rate not seen since the start of the war. Reuters. Russia took 91 square miles of territory this week alone, which is a record for 2024. In November they have already taken between 232 and 257 square miles. Most of the advances are in the Donbass region, which is a war goal for the Russians. Russia now controls 18% of pre-war, pre-Crimea annexation, including 80% of Donbas and 70% of both Zaporizhzhia and Kherson and 3% of the Kharkov region. Russia is also pushing Ukraine out of the Kursk incursion. Ukraine admits that the situation in eastern Ukraine is the worst it has ever been and blames the losses on a lack of manpower due to a lack of supplies. 

My Comment:

If you have been paying attention to the war at all, none of this is surprising. Russia has been effective in destroying Ukrainian units and has found a few strategies that have worked for them. And it's leading to major advances and a lot of territory being lost. 

What are those strategies? The greatly expanded use of glide bombs, like the KAB series of smart weapons, has worked very well at breaking Ukraine's defensive positions. These bombs are extremely powerful and can take out all but the most formidable fortifications. The bombs, along with artillery and drones, are extremely effective at destroying Ukrainian positions and destroy morale. Often when Russia does advance it's because the Ukrainians have withdrawn. 

The other new tactic is the use of motorcycles for cavalry attacks. Motorcycles are a lot more difficult to target by drones than armored vehicles and if they do hit they only takeout a man or two at most, while an APC hit can take out a whole squad plus the crew of the vehicle. The bikes are also low maintenance and can allow the Russians to get far behind enemy lines to attack the rear areas of the Ukrainians. 

And Russia has continued to use the "cauldron" tactic to their great success. Ukraine has had a "hold onto ground at all cost" view for the entire war and it means that Russia is able to often surround the enemy on three sides and covering the main supply lines with artillery. Ukraine keeps falling for this trap again and again and it has cost them huge numbers of troops. Indeed, the Kursk incursion has turned into a huge cauldron that is chewing up their best units for little reason. 

The other major problem for the Ukrainians is they simply don't have the troops. They have mostly ran out of the older men they have used but they still haven't drafted their young, under 21 year old, men. But even if they do start drafting them, the problem is that they can't really train them anymore. They just send folks to the front line as replacement and from what I understand they are dangerously untrained, to the point they can do little but hold the line.  

The Zelensky government is blaming a lack of supplies, but the problem is that there isn't much left to give, which is a reason why countries have been authorizing the use of longer range weapons, like the ATACMS and Storm Shadow/SCALP, missiles. And even those are being depleted at an alarming rate. But it's not just missiles, it's artillery shells, vehicles, planes and anti-air weapons as well. There just isn't enough weapons to go around, though Russia isn't having the same problems. 

As for the rumors that North Korea is fighting in the Kursk pocket, I have seen zero evidence. You would have thought that Ukraine would have been able to capture a few North Korean solders by now if they were really fighting there. At the very least there would be video or pictures of dead North Koreans, but I have found nothing. 

Finally, the real problem is the high tensions caused by Biden's authorization of using long range missiles on Ukraine. Those weapons have not accomplished much, but lead to a fairly terrifying use of a new weapon by Russia. The fear is that Ukraine will do even more desperate things as they suffer battlefield, leading to a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia... 

Two federal cases against Donald Trump dismissed.

 

President elect Donald Trump and Special Prosecutor Jack Smith. ABC News/AFP/Getty.

Two federal cases against Donald Trump, the "election interference" and the appeal of the "documents" case have been dismissed. ABC News. The cases were dropped by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith due to a long standing DOJ policy to not prosecute sitting Presidents. The prosecutions of two of Trump's co-defendants in the classified documents case will continue through an appeal. The cases were dropped without prejudice meaning that they could be taken up again, but that would be extraordinarily unlikely as the statute of limitations will have passed in both cases by the time leaves office in 2029. 

My Comment:

As expected, these charges were dropped after Trump got elected in a landslide. The cases were never on any sort of accepted legal ground and the classified documents case was especially ridiculous and had elements of the FBI trying to stage photos to make it look way worse than it actually was. Given that both Joe Biden and Mike Pence were "guilty" of the same "crime" and didn't face charges it was clearly a selective prosecution. 

Dropping the cases was always going to happen when Trump got elected. If they hadn't, Trump would have simply pardoned himself once he entered office, and he may do so for the other two co-defendants in the documents case. But the DOJ has a policy, which is backed by the Supreme Court, that you can't prosecute a sitting president. 

Even if Trump had lost it was likely that the cases would have been dropped. The cases were on shaky legal ground due to how the Special Prosecutor was appointed and the cases themselves were weak. Like I said, Trump's lawyers would have had a good case in the documents case for selective prosecution since Biden and Pence were not charged for the exact same thing. And it was very unlikely that a jury would convict a sitting president. 

I do think that these cases and the other two charges against Trump, and the idiotic defamation trial by E. Jean Carroll, were a major factor in Trump getting elected. I get the feeling that most people thought the prosecutions were ridiculous and brought for blatantly political reasons. It was essentially an attack on democracy, no other politician would have been charged with the crimes that Trump was charged with. 

It will also ensure his legacy, no matter what happens with his 2nd term. They through everything they could at Trump and they couldn't stop him. It made him look bad ass and will add to his mystique. The entire force of the federal government couldn't take him down.

The only questions that remain are the "hush money" case that Trump was convicted of. That case too seems very likely to be reversed on appeal and it is extremely unlikely that Trump will ever serve a day in prison for it. That case was always the one that was most ridiculous as Trump was convicted of something that had never been charged with before and there was some pretty obvious reversible error since they used the unique legal theory that there was a conspiracy to further a 2nd crime without ever defining what the 2nd crime was.  

Does this mean that Trump won't face any legal problems in his 2nd term? Who knows? You would think that the Democrats would have learned their lessons and not try this again, but you never know. With Trump winning the electoral college and popular vote by a decent margin it's hard to argue that he doesn't have a mandate (though some on the left are doing just that). Trying to imprison a popular president over nonsense will not play well. 

Israel and Hezbollah may be close to a cease fire deal...

 

Airstrikes in Beirut. Axios/AFP/Getty. 

Israel and Hezbollah may be close to a cease fire deal for the war in Lebanon. Axios. Israel has been at war with Hezbollah for awhile now and a peace deal would not only stop the fighting but allow thousands of people on both sides of the border to return to their homes. The agreement would have Israel withdraw from southern Lebanon and be replaced by troops from the army of Lebanon. Hezbollah would remove their heavy weapons north of the Litani river. The United States would be consulted before Israel made any strikes against Hezbollah in the future, assuming the Lebanese army didn't deal with the problem before hand. An announcement may be made later in this week, but there are still a few issues to work out. 

My Comment:

Some rare positive news out of the Middle East. While the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon has always been the side show to the war against Hamas in Gaza, ending the war there would be positive. A lot of folks on both sides have died and some of the most defining moments of the war have happened on that front. 

How this squares with the massive rocket attack Hezbollah just launched today, along with Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon, is a mystery. It's possible that those attacks will derail this attempt at a cease fire. But it's also very possible that both sides wanted to get a few more attacks in before the war ends in what would be by all accounts a draw. 

It does seem like the war has bogged down and neither side is accomplishing much. Hezbollah has probably taken the worst of it, with much of their leadership dead in the radio/electronic attacks and airstrikes, but both sides have to be hitting war exhaustion. And Lebanon is probably sick of both sides and just wants the war to end. 

Hezbollah probably wants the war to end before Trump takes office as well. Trump is a lot more pro-Israel than Biden has ever been and would likely not give Hezbollah a deal as good as they are getting now. Getting rid of the war would be a good idea for them. And if anything happens in the cease fire period before Trump gets in, Biden isn't likely to authorize Israel to launch strikes. 

Of course the real problem for the region remains Gaza. Hamas has largely been defeated but without giving up their hostages the war is unlikely to end. And that means the war in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden won't end anytime soon either. Ending the war between Hezbollah and Israel is a start but it's absolutely not the end. 

And that, of course, depends on this deal actually being accepted. If the massive tit for tat strikes between Hezbollah and Israel today don't derail it, it's possible something else will, like whatever the couple of sticking points are for Israel. We can't count our chickens before they hatch. 

Finally, I do have to point out that this is both from Axios and from anonymous sources, both of which are red flags for me. I don't really trust Axios, they have been very biased in the past, and I am always suspicious when folks won't go on the record. Still, I kind of want the story to be true, getting rid of one of the worlds many flashpoints would be good. But I'd be remiss to not point out that there could be problems with this story... 

Russia debuts new ballistic missile in strike on Ukraine as a clear warning to the Biden Administration...

 

A burning building in Dnipro. BBC/Ukraine Military photo. 

Russia has fired a new ballistic missile in a strike in Ukraine in the city of Dnipro, sending a clear warning to the Biden Administration. BBC. Though Ukraine initially identified the weapon as an ICBM, it now appears that it is a new hypersonic intermediate range ballistic missile, which are powerful as ICBM's but have considerably less range. The west was informed of the strike via the Nuclear Risk Reduction channels. The new weapon is powerful, and Vladimir Putin said that they are impossible to intercept, but Western officials say they do not exist in numbers that would greatly affect the war. The attack comes after the Biden administration authorized the use of guided missiles including American ATACMS and British and French Storm Shadows/Scalps against targets in Russia, which essentially made NATO an active combatant. 

Russia launched a new experimental ballistic missile with multiple warheads, hitting a major Ukrainian city. Putin said the unprecedented attack was in response to U.S. and British missiles used against its forces. @IanPannell has details. https://t.co/wjzwJcHX65 pic.twitter.com/ayaiHrMwDM

— World News Tonight (@ABCWorldNews) November 22, 2024

My Comment:

This is a pretty textbook definition of blowback. Biden made the baffling decision to allow Ukraine to attack Russia with US weapons, a de facto declaration of war against Russia. This is what happens when you to do that. 

The actual effects of this strike seem to be fairly limited. One missile strike is nothing in a war that has hundreds every day, even if this one was fairly impressive. The actual purpose was a message. Russia has high tech weapons that the United States and NATO aren't going to be able to counter and our current actions are unacceptable to the Putin administration. 

It's important to note that this is a new weapon. It's an intermediate range weapon, not intercontinental, but it is a MIRV, a single missile loaded with multiple warheads. Had this new weapon been loaded with nukes Dnipro wouldn't be there anymore. It's not the first time a ballistic missile has been used in combat but it might be the first time an IRMB has been. And I think for sure it's the first time a MIRV has been used in combat. 

It's also very important to note that the only reason we are still breathing is that Russia used the hotline to warn NATO that a launch was happening. Had they not then that probably would have been it. There would have been no way to tell if the missile had nuclear weapons on it or not. And that could have led to World War III.

It makes me wonder how in control the situation actually is. The optimistic scenario is that both sides view this as a face saving measure for both sides. Biden was losing the war so he allowed these strikes and Russia responded to the escalation with one of his own, but one unlikely to lead to a shooting war. After all the ATACMS and Storm Shadow strikes have been completely ineffective, are largely symbolic in nature, and can only continue for a short period of time due to a extreme lack of supplies. 

The pessimistic scenario is that the Biden administration has no idea what they are doing and that this counter-escalation was unexpected blowback to what they did. They thought there was going to be no meaningful blow back and it was only the restraint of the Putin administration and the fact that Biden is going to be gone in a couple of months that stopped a major war from breaking out. 

I think the 2nd scenario is more likely than the first. Biden does not strike me as someone who is capable of much of anything at this point and his VP is an empty suit who is on vacation in Hawaii. I am guessing some moron in the Pentagon thought up the ATACMS authorization while Biden authorized it without even knowing what he was doing. And this is the blow back from that. 

If there is any good news at all it's that Biden won't be in power much longer. It's about two months before Trump gets sworn in and once that happens, I think he will do what he can to ratchet down tensions. Ending the authorization to strike Russia proper with long range weapons would be the logical first step. 

The fear is that the tit for tat escalation treadmill we are on right now will just continue. Two months is a long time and a lot can go wrong between now and then. I don't think Putin will do anything stupid. But I also don't trust the Biden admin to not screw up. It's even possible they would deliberately start a nuclear war. I have zero faith in them and the sooner they are out of power the better it will be... 

Man arrested by FBI for plot to bomb the New York Stock Exchange.

 

File photo of the New York Stock Exchange. NBC News.

A man has been arrested by the FBI for a plot to bomb the New York Stock Exchange. NBC News. Harun Abdul-Malik Yener, a 30 year old man who lived in Florida, was arrested after stockpiling bomb making materials. The man had links to ISIS but decided not to join them overseas as he did not believe they would accomplish their goals. Yener had schematics and was arrested after he picked up bomb making materials. Yener's plan was foiled when the FBI received a tip and undercover FBI officers began to monitor him. 

My Comment:

Yet another incompetent terrorist foiled by his own incompetence. Thankfully these folks never seem to understand that the one thing you can't do as a terrorist is talk to people about your plot. And anyone that is trying to help you is probably FBI.

It's unclear how serious the threat in this case was. From the article it doesn't seem that serious, the man had schematics and a bit of bomb making materials, so there was some threat at least. But I also don't know if he was capable of building one that would actually explode, if he had a way to get it to the NYSE and if he would have avoided security. 

I noticed that there was very little in the article about Yener's motivation, but it seems pretty obvious. He has an Arab sounding name and was considering joining ISIS but I guess he was doing it because he hated the stock exchange or something? Of course this was radical Islam but you can't count on the news media to mention that. 

I am honestly surprised we haven't seen any major terror attacks from Islamic extremists recently. Like I have said, ISIS has made a bit of a resurgence, especially in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda appears to be a spent force, but ISIS is still out there. They just don't seem to be able to pull anything off in the United States, probably because they just don't have the funding to do so. 

But there is absolutely the threat of lone wolf attackers, as this case proves. Thankfully most of these folks are idiots. Had Mr. Yener been a bit more smart and tried a mass shooting or car ramming attack he might have been able to do something but instead he did a needlessly complicated plot that was never going to accomplish anything. 

As with all cases where the FBI is involved I do wonder if this may have been a bit of entrapment. Yener was a homeless man who was, at the very least, pretty stupid. He may have been mentally ill. I do wonder if he would have done this on his own or if he was pushed there by the FBI. In this case it seems like the former is more likely than the later as he was supposedly making searches on the internet for bomb making materials as far back as 2017, long before the FBI contacted him. 

Sabotage? Two European undersea cables cut.

 

One of the undersea cables being laid down in 2015. BBC/Getty.

Two European undersea internet cables have been cut in what may be an act of sabotage. BBC. One of the cables ran between Finland and Germany while the other one ran between Sweden and Lithuania. It is unclear who cut the cables but the European states affected by the incident were quick to blame Russia, as tensions between Russia and NATO countries are extremely high. The cables were in the Baltic Sea and should be repaired in 5 to 15 days. Undersea cables are occasionally damaged by shipping so it is possible this  was a mundane incident, like the 2023 damage to a gas line between Estonia and Finland. However, there was the Nordstream attack in 2022, which was an act of sabotage. 

My Comment:

It would be pretty hilarious if this was just another example of a ship dragging an anchor chain and accidently severing a couple of cables. That happens fairly often and I wouldn't be surprised if that is indeed what happened here. It's certainly a possibility. 

But there is a reason against that. This was two cables that got severed and not where they intercept either. It's possible an anchor dragging could cut both cables, but it seems more likely that it was enemy action at that point. If it was more than two cables that got severed, it would be even more likely. 

On the other hand though, why bother with just a couple of cables if you are a state actor? The severing of these cables didn't really cause any disruption for internet users in the affected countries. There are many other cables that provide internet in the region and without cutting all of them, it serves little purpose. 

If that's the case could this have been a trial run for an actual effort? Training for the divers that would have to pull this off if an actual conflict broke out? It would have to be divers, the Baltic Sea isn't super deep, so deep sea divers could target internet cables. Those divers would want practice at this kind of thing, so perhaps it was a practice run? 

And who could be responsible? Well who you think did it probably has more to do with your priors than anything else. It's just like the Nordstream attack. Western media said Russia did it while Russia said Ukraine or the US did it and there are arguments for both. At least in this case its plausible Russia would have done it because of high tensions and the fact that unlike Nordstream they wouldn't be shooting themselves in the foot. But it's just as likely that this was some kind of false flag that could be blamed on Russia, which I think the original Nordstream attack was. 

Regardless, this wouldn't even be a story if tensions weren't so high with Russia right now. The ATACMS strike has certainly raised the tensions to levels not seen since the 1983 Able Archer exercise that almost started World War  III. I don't  think this particular incident has anything to do with the ATACMS strike though, you can't pull off a major mission like this, it takes time to plan and execute, assuming this was sabotage as well. 

Donald Trump will use the US Military to assist in deporting illegal immigrants.

 

Soldiers on the US border. BBC/Reuters.

Donald Trump said it was "true" that he would use the US Military to assist in deporting illegal immigrants on his Truth Social account. BBC.  Trump has promised to put into place the largest deportation effort in US history but it was unclear how he would do so, given the major logistical challenges and the relatively small size of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). ICE only has 20,000 members and would have difficulty deporting illegal aliens at the rate that would be needed. Trump would declare a national emergency to allow US troops to be used on US soil. Under his first administration, Trump deported 1.5 million illegals while Biden will probably match that by the end of his term, but millions have arrived during his term. 

My Comment:

This is both expected and welcome. There are a huge number of illegal aliens that have to be deported and it's too big of a job for ICE alone. They will absolutely need help from the US military if they want to actually get rid of them. 

So what would the military do? I doubt they would be conducting raids or rounding up illegals. Instead, they would likely be using the military to do logistical work in transporting illegals and helping with paperwork and things like that. They would also likely be deployed to the border to prevent any new immigrants from coming in. 

Keep in mind that a lot of these illegals are going to self deport. Indeed, I have already heard of that happening. They have no reason to stay if they believe they are going to be kicked out anyways and if they do leave they at least have a chance to come back. But that gets a lot harder if they are deported. 

They are also going to focus on the worst of the worst first as well. Folks with a felony conviction or links to foreign gangs and cartels are going to be the first targeted for deportation. This will be very popular and there isn't going to be any sympathy for these folks. 

Indeed, I do expect this to go fairly smoothly. Trump pretty obviously won a mandate on illegal immigration and I don't really expect the media to pitch a fit like they did in the first Trump term. Getting rid of the folks from the illegal immigrant gangs will be wildly popular. I do think groups like the ACLU will try and derail as much as they can, but this will be a rear guard effort. 

I also worry that Democratic governors won't play ball. There are a few, like Gavin Newsom and basically all of the governors in the Northeast, won't help ICE at all and may even work to undermine them. Doing so would be politically unpopular but they also have to please the folks that donate to their campaign that profit from illegal aliens. 

Cost is going to be an issue as well, deporting people isn't free. But for me the cost is well worth it. Deporting a huge number of illegal aliens will have positive effects on American workers. It should cause wages to rise, not to mention that housing costs should slow, and maybe even reverse. If successful it will be very good thing for America. 

Joe Biden authorizes strikes in Russia with US ATACMS missiles, raising major fears of World War III.

 

File photo of an ATACMS missile launch. BBC/US Military photo. 

Joe Biden has authorized strikes within Russia proper with US ATACMS missiles, raising fears of World War III. BBC. Vladimir Putin has warned that using those missiles, which cannot be operated by anything other than NATO troops, would be direct participation in the Ukraine War. The ATACMS will be used to support the Kursk incursion, which is not going well for Ukraine. The decision has been made due to supposed deployments of North Korean troops in the region. France and the UK have also said they will allow Ukraine to use their Storm Shadow missiles as well. Ukraine has not been doing well in the war and has been blaming the US and NATO for not providing enough aid. 

My Comment:

This is an act of utter insanity from the outgoing Biden administration. This will accomplish nothing but at the same time risks a 3rd world war. Putin has said for a long time that the use of these territories would be a valid casus belli for a war between Russia and NATO. 

Why? Because these missiles cannot be used without NATO support. Ukraine can launch the missiles, but that's it, they can't actually aim them. These weapons use satellite GPS and have to programed by the US (and France/UK for the storm shadows). Doing so is actively participating on an attack on Russian soil, which means that Russia would have every right to declare on NATO if they chose to do so. 

And the reason why they are doing this? Because North Koreans are supposedly fighting in the Kursk incursion. I still haven't seen any evidence that the North Koreans are actually fighting, let alone have been deployed to the area. The only thing I have heard is that North Korean troops are probably firing their missiles that they donated to Russia, but even that hasn't really been confirmed. So this whole thing might not have any justification at all. 

If there is any good news about this it's the fact that these missiles will not have much impact on the battlefield at all. Russia has extremely good air defenses and that was clear when the Storm Shadows and ATACMS debuted to little actual effect. Plus, it's not like there are that many left, the UK Storm Shadows have already been moved up and France doesn't have too many of them to give either. Same with the ATACMS, we just don't have the stockpiles of weapons to actually overcome Russia's air defenses. And Russia has finally been smart and greatly hardened their strategic sites in the region.

Another factor that could lead to cooler heads prevailing is the fact that Ukraine is pretty obviously losing the war. The Kursk incursion, where all this drama is focused on, is not going their way at all, despite sending in their best units and almost all of their remaining reserves. Russia has steadily pushed them back to the point where they don't control much territory anymore. And to accomplish this attack, Ukraine has had to pull back from other fronts, which has left those fronts on the border of collapse, with Russia making major gains. 

The real question is how Russia responds. My hope would be that cooler heads prevail. Though I don't think it is clear who would "win" a nuclear war, Russia has the tech advantage at this point, the fact is that Russia appears to be led by rational actors and I can't see them launching nukes at this point. Nobody wins if everyone dies in nuclear hellfire, even if NATO is directly attacking Russia. And like I said, it's not like Ukraine is winning the war at this point. 

Still, giving Russia a valid casus belli for a nuclear war with NATO is beyond stupid. Why risk it at all for an adventure that has not only failed, it has only made Russia stronger? I don't think the chances of a nuclear war are high, but they are as high as they have been since the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Able Archer exercise that spooked the Soviets. Such a huge risk for basically zero gain. 

But the Democrats and deep state might think it's worth it because I see this as an effort to undermine the incoming Trump administration. This move probably won't start World War III (at least I hope it won't) but it will make it very hard for Trump to negotiate with Putin. Why would Putin negotiate with people launching missiles at US territory? Trump's effort to end the war will now probably fail and Trump will go down as the one that "lost" Ukraine despite the fact that the war wasn't ever winnable in the first place. I have said for awhile that Trump finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine war was probably his biggest challenge and I see this as an effort to set him up for failure. 

Of course nobody really knows what Trump will do on Ukraine. If anyone on earth can pull off a deal in Ukraine it would be Trump given his good relationship with both Zelensky and Putin. And he does have quite a few advisors that are against the war and he's been very skeptical himself. But Trump has been put in a very difficult position and there are still a lot of war hawks in his party. My hope is that he will just cut the Ukrainians loose if it's clear that they are losing, but who knows what kind of info he could be getting. The Deep State is lying about Ukraine to the point it's possible the powers that be actually think Ukraine has a chance to win the war... 

Donald Trump has picked RFK Jr as his Health and Human Services Secretary.

 

RFK Jr. and Donald Trump shake hands at a rally. Fox News/Getty. 

Donald Trump has picked RFK Jr. as his Health and Human Services Secretary. Fox News. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. started the race for President as a candidate for the Democrats, but then went Independent. He then gave Trump a critical endorsement which may have helped Trump win. Kennedy campaigned on "Making America Healthy Again" and railed against the links between pharmaceutical companies and the government, and despaired about the health of Americans. Kennedy is expected to clean house at the FDA and CDC and said they weren't doing their jobs due to all the chemicals in US foods. Kennedy also suggested ending advertisements for drug companies, which are common in the United States but unheard of in other countries. This was not the first time RFK Jr. was considered for a cabinet position, Barack Obama had considered him for the head of the EPA. 

My Comment:

RFK Jr. did a lot to help Trump win the election in 2024 so it is no surprise that he got nominated for this post. RFK Jr. shuttled his supporters to Trump after his endorsement and he was polling around 5% of the electorate. Trump probably would have still won without RFK Jr., but he would not have captured the popular vote and probably would have done worse down ballot. 

Is RFK likely to be confirmed? It doesn't matter. Trump is going to get his cabinet in via recess appointments, and there isn't really anything anyone can do about it. The powers that be are furious with this pick, even more so than they were with Matt Gaetz, which they tried to discredit today, but I don't think they will really be able to stop him. But there is a decent chance he would pass anyways, the Republicans seem a lot more likely to play ball with Trump's picks this time around. 

I've absolutely have disagreements with RFK Jr., most notably on vaccines. RFK Jr. is a vaccine skeptic and though he probably has a point about the Covid vaccines, I have never been swayed by the argument that other vaccines are bad. With that being said, I don't expect him to ban vaccines or anything, but he may allow vaccine makers to be sued for damages, which is something that probably should change regardless. 

I do agree that something is very wrong with the health of Americans. We are not a healthy people and obesity is out of control. Nothing the previous administrations did has fixed this and the problem is even worse. Is RFK Jr. right about what is causing the problem? Seed oils and chemicals in our food? It's very possible but we won't find out unless we try something different and that is what RFK Jr. is going to do. 

Some of what he wants seems like common sense. Getting rid of pharma companies advertisements is reason enough to be happy with this. It never made sense that they should be advertising to the people directly when it should be between the doctor and the patient. It helps that these advertisements are beyond intolerable...

As for the rest of Trump's picks, I have been pleased. The only concern I have is that there are a lot coming from congress and those picks will have to be replaced in special elections. Those seats are mostly safe Republican seats, but I am concerned that the Democrats will be sending millions of dollars to try and flip them. And Gaetz immediately resigning cuts the lead even closer...  

Biden meets with Trump and appears happy to hand over the reins.

 

Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Fox News.

Joe Biden and Donald Trump met today to discuss the handover of power and it appears that Biden seemed happy about it. Fox News. Trump and Biden agreed to have a smooth transition and the men shook hands. Biden was beaming during the meeting to the point where it became a trend on social media. Biden vowed a that Trump would have everything he needed and the men were complimentary to each other. The meeting marked a stark contrast compared to the meeting Trump and Obama had during his first term. It also contrasted a recent White House event which Kamala Harris got a cool reception from Biden and his wife Jill. 

My Comment:

This will absolutely feed into the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden secretly wanted Donald Trump to win. Why on earth would he want that? Largely because Joe Biden was essentially betrayed by his party and removed from the race. He hasn't forgiven the folks that shoved him aside to replace him with one of the worst presidential candidates in American history. 

Is that theory true? I am not sure. But it seems clear that something has happened internally with the Democrats. There are folks that are upset that Biden was replaced, under the theory that he probably would have still lost but might have been better in the downballot races and could have prevented the GOP trifecta. 

And there is the idea that some of the things Biden did during the race after Harris replaced him don't make sense unless you give credence to the idea that Biden was helping Trump. Remember him putting on a MAGA hat? Linking Harris to his more unpopular policies? And the last minute calling of Trump's supporters as garbage? And it sure doesn't seem like he's upset that Trump is going to take over so he can chill out at the beach for the rest of his days. 

Keep in mind that these two men hated each other until very recently. Trump accused Biden of stealing the election, while Biden called Trump a tyrant and then tried to throw him in prison. The fact that they can be civil to each other is pretty remarkable but it turns out they have the same enemies. 

It's also possible that they are being civil with each other for the good of the country. Wild concept right? I don't think either Biden or Trump wants a repeat of what happened in 2020, it wasn't good for the country. And with Trump winning in a landslide there isn't really any reason to contest the election. Biden probably realizes that his legacy will be helped a bit by making the transition smooth. 

What is also clear is that there is next to no love lost between Harris and the Biden family. Harris was absolutely snubbed at the White House event and it's not hard to see why, Harris kind of ruined Biden's legacy. Participating in what was essentially a coup against the sitting president is a good way to make a very powerful  enemy. They aren't even trying to present a united front against the Republicans. 

I think this is a pretty good sign that Trump's 2nd term is going to be more successful than the first. Trump mostly has the GOP on board with his agenda and the Democrats look content at trying to win an internal war over between the various factions, with the Obama/Harris wing fighting the Biden wing and the centrist wing fighting the far left. The opposition is not organized and there seems to be little chance that Trump's term will be as undermined and attacked as it was the first time around. 

As for Biden, I do wonder how Biden's legacy is going to be viewed. I still think he was a terrible president and had major problems with corruption and even tyranny. But he's starting to show some actual positive traits ever since he got pushed out by the Harris/Obama camp. Making nice with Trump is a positive thing and it makes me think a bit more of each men, forgiveness is a virtue of course, even if it is in search of a legacy. If nothing else, he's at least showing a bit more the human side that was absent during most of his term. 

Man enraged about his divorce kills 35 people in China in car ramming massacre.

 

A makeshift memorial at the sight of the crime. AP.

A man upset about his divorce killed 35 people in a car ramming attack in China. AP. The 62 year old man was receiving treatment for self inflicted wounds. The man had driven a car into a crowd outside of a PLA military aviation exhibition at a sports complex in Zhuhai. Dozens of people were wounded in the attack. News about the attack is being censored on Chinese internet but is widely available on X, formally Twitter. The attack happened yesterday but only today has China released casualty figures. China has a long history of mass violence, though those have mostly been mass stabbings, not car attacks. No motive has been released other than police saying the man was upset that he was losing money in his divorce. 

My Comment:

This is another example of how mass violence is not strictly an American problem. China does indeed have a long history of mass violence, though in most cases it's mass stabbings instead of car ramming attacks. China has the strictest gun control in the world but when someone is angry enough that they want to kill a bunch of innocent people, they will find a way. And this is just another example of this.

Indeed, car ramming attacks have become more common. Unfortunately, ISIS showed the world just how effective these attacks could be, with the Nice attack being the most relevant but hardly only example. In a country where even knives are hard to get, it's easy for someone to hop in a car and run down a crowd. 

Censorship is a concern here as well. China is notorious for censoring what their citizens can access in terms of news. This story has largely been erased from Chinese internet and they have gone so far as to rough up a BBC reporter for covering the story. It's sad just how censored the Chinese media environment is. 

To be fair, I have said that we should probably give less coverage to mass killings like this because I have always been convinced that doing so tends to inspire copy cat attacks. You can see that pattern here in the United States. School shooters used to use shotguns and High Point Carbines because that is what the Columbine shooters did but then it switched to handguns and then AR rifles. Following trends is a think even in mass violence and there is an argument that advertising to the world how easy it can be to kill a large group of people is a bad thing. It's one of the reason why I think we rarely hear about the Las Vegas attacks, folks doing the same thing could have even more deadly results... 

Still, there is a difference between downplaying an issue to try and prevent the spread and ignoring it to the point where you rough up journalists that try to cover it. China is in the wrong here, folks do deserve to know if  there is a major attack like this. There has to be freedom of speech. 

As for the motive of the attack, this seems to be pure nihilism. The attacker was upset over a divorce, and for that 35 people had to die (at least, I don't trust the numbers from China). I can understand being upset about a divorce ruining your life, but the solution isn't to kill a bunch of people that had nothing to do with it. China has the death penalty so I am guessing this guy won't be long for the earth and to be honest, if anyone deserves it, it's someone that kills people, not for some greater cause, but just because he's angry about a divorce... 

The United States bombs 9 sites in Syria against Iran-backed militias.

 

A B-52 Stratofortress deployed to the Middle East. Fox News/CENTCOM photo. 

The United States has bombed nine sites in Syria against Iran-backed militias. Fox News. The bombings were in response to several attacks on US forces in the region in the past 24 hours. The bombings are meant to disrupt the Iranian militias and their ability to launch attacks on US forces deployed in Syria to fight ISIS. The incident comes after the United States has deployed B-52 bombers to the region in support of Israel. Tensions with Iran are high after tit-for-tat strikes between Israel and Iran. An Iranian foreign national was also charged with an attempt to assassinate President elect Donald Trump.

My Comment:

There really isn't a lot of information about this incident. We don't know what kind of strikes these were, how effective they were and where exactly this happened. Given that most of our troops in Syria are deployed in the southeast part of the country near the Tanf border area, I am guessing it was in that general region. 

Regardless, it's probably good to remind people that we do indeed still have troops in Syria. What they are doing their is pretty clear. I don't think it has much to do with ISIS anymore, ISIS is hardly even active in Syria anymore. Instead our troops are there to counteract these Iranian militias, largely because they threaten Israel. 

I am slightly concerned that there could be another war in the region before Donald Trump takes office. The article mentioned three things, the strikes, the B-52 deployment and the supposed assassination plot on Trump from Iran. Taken alone it wouldn't mean much, but all three at once? Not good news. 

The B-52 deployment is pretty significant. The heavy bombers would not be particularly useful in a war against Iran due to their old age and limited defensive capabilities, but they would be good bomb trucks against targets in Iraq and Syria. And it's a major warning for Iran given the fact that those bombers are indeed powerful. 

As for the plot against Trump, it seems mostly like a nothingburger. Supposedly there was a plot by an Iranian national to get a murder for hire plot going against Trump, but it never got passed the planning phase and it's unclear how involved Iran was in the plot. The plotter wasn't even in the United States, so I doubt it actually had much going on, but it's still another example of high tensions between the United States and Iran... 

Trump supposedly warns Russia to not escalate in Ukraine. What will Trump's policy on Russia and Ukraine?

 

President Elect Trump. Fox News/Getty.

President elect Donald Trump's team has not confirmed or denied reports that Trump warned Russian President Vladimir Putin to not escalate in Ukraine. Fox News. Trump talked to Vladimir Putin along with many other world leaders after winning the election. A report said that Trump also said that he wanted a resolution to the war in Ukraine and that peace should be the goal in Europe. Trump had also called the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, which also included tech mogul Elon Musk. Trump supposedly said that he would continue to support Zelensky, though he has been very critical of unlimited support Ukraine has received. 

My Comment:

I'm skeptical of both reports on the calls Trump made with Putin and Zelensky. It's possible both reports are true, but I don't know how the reporters had info on what these calls were about. If they are legit it means that either Trump released them on purpose or there is a leaker in Trump's orbit. The 2nd possibility is certainly possible. 

Though Trump resolving the war in Ukraine was a major reason I voted for him, I have always thought that it was going to be an extreme challenge, and one that even Trump might not be able to fix. First of all, Biden absolutely screwed everything up. He angered Putin to the point that he launched the war in the first place and I doubt Putin is going to trust anything Trump does, as it would not be difficult for whoever comes after Trump, be they Republican or Democrat, to undo any deal made with him. 

Indeed, Biden is still trying to screw things up for Trump right now. He's sending Ukraine millions in aid before Trump can take the oath of office. And, lost in all the election news, he's allowing American "contractors" (mercenaries) to fight openly in Ukraine for the first time. In short, he's escalating the war even more. And it's a major problem for Trump as he has always operated on the carrot and stick principle. Biden has left almost nothing for Trump to escalate too, what can he threaten? Nuclear war? That's about the only option left for escalation, so I don't think it will happen. It's why I am skeptical of this report, I think Trump realizes his position isn't great here. 

And I doubt Putin will want to stop the war. He's winning it. Ukraine has not been able to keep up with the recruitment demands and are losing ground across the front. Russia has the advantage in weapons and manpower and have been, supposedly, reinforced by troops from North Korea (a report I am still skeptical of). Indeed, there's a decent chance that things go so bad for Ukraine that there won't be a point in negotiating anymore. Of course in that case, Trump might just be able to cut Ukraine loose, but we will have to wait and see. 

Though this post has been gloomy, there is some hope. After all, Trump is uniquely positioned to make a deal in a way that Joe Biden (or Kamala Harris) never could. Trump has a good working relationship with both Zelensky and Putin, which is a rare thing. And Trump's defining characteristic is that he prides himself on making deals. Unlike Biden, I think that Trump will make an effort to solve the war once and for all. 

Indeed, the solution that I have seen from the Trump campaign seems like a viable one. Russia keeps the land they have captured, Ukraine is forbidden from joining NATO, and Europe would be in charge of maintaining a massive DMZ that would ensure there would be no insurgency campaign against Russia. It's not a bad deal and could end up working. And if anyone can pull it off, it's Donald Trump. 

Some American women are adapting the 4b movement from South Korea in response to Trump winning the election.

 

A Kamala Harris supporter at a rally. Sky News/AP.

Some American women are adapting the 4b movement from South Korea in response to Donald Trump winning the election. Sky News. The movement is from South Korea and advises women to avoid the four B's, dating, sex, pregnancy and marriage, for political purposes. 4b is a reference to the word "no" in Korean, which starts with "Bi". Harris focused her campaign on abortion, but failed when she bled male support. Harris still won the majority of women, but lost the critical White woman vote 53% to 45%. In response to the failure of the campaign, some woman on social media are saying they will follow the 4b movement and some have gone so far as to shave their heads to protest the election results. 

My Comment:

This is as tale as old as time as the Lysistrata gambit has been a thing since Ancient Greece. The idea that men can control women through sex is certainly an old one but it is hilarious that this is happening right now. It's not going to work for what should be obvious reasons. 

The 4b movement in South Korea is something I have heard of before and it appears to have an effect there. The gender war in South Korea is dramatically worse than it is here in the United States and a lot more women are on board with these kind of radical ideas. But I don't think it actually accomplished anything but to make relations between men and women worse. 

But in America? It won't accomplish a thing. Women are a lot more divided here and there are a huge number of women that actually supported Donald Trump and voted for him. Indeed, this will make things easier for men that want to avoid dating liberal women, which are generally seen as low status among men anyways. Having them take themselves out of the dating pool is a plus.

And this will obviously backfire if it does take off because the men it's actually going to hurt? It's liberal men that will be affected by this. Politically most people date people that agree with them. Some folks do make a go at it, but the vast majority of the men that this would affect are already on board with the liberal project in the first place. Indeed, this could end up pushing those men away since I think a decent portion are only involved in liberal politics in the first place so they can date women. 

It's also pretty sexist to assume that the only thing that matters to men is sex. I know for a fact that you could have thrown all the women at me you could and it still wouldn't have changed my vote for Trump. It's a thing called self control and most men have it. 

Though I do think it's funny that some folks are melting down like this, it is sad that the media worked these women up into this frenzy in the first place. Abortion is not going to be banned nationally, Trump has no interest in it. He said he was going to leave it up to the states and would veto an abortion ban. And the states are deciding it themselves. There were several abortion statutes passed in several states, so that's the actual solution to the supposed problem. It's so bizarre to see women in blue states that are losing their minds over this, why on earth do they think anything is going to happen? 

But in the end I think this will probably burn out pretty quickly. The culture is absolutely changing and I think that being seen as a liberal is going to be pretty low status. And it's really only the single issue abortion voters that are even acting this way in the first place. That's not anywhere near the majority of women, and this won't be anywhere near universal among them. Sooner or later folks will get distracted by something else. 

Why Donald Trump won and why Kamala Harris lost...

 

The famous Trump photo that defined the election. AP.

As you are certainly aware, Donald Trump has won the 2024 election in a landslide. To many on the left this news is inconceivable but for me it was obvious from the start. Stopping Trump was always going to be an uphill battle and even if Trump had ran a terrible campaign or if Harris had been perfect, Trump would have probably still won. 

But this post is about the world we live in and I think the Harris campaign and Democrats in general deserve a lot of criticism for the campaign they run. Trump, on the other hand, deserves a lot of  praise for the campaign he won. 

This post will be the post race autopsy on both campaigns, starting with the Trump camp and then ending with Harris. There are absolutely lessons both sides can learn from this campaign but who knows if the right lessons will be learned. Let's start with Trump:

Trump Campaign:

Trump's biggest success has to be his reaction to the 1st attempt on his life in Pennsylvania. See that photo up there? That's the moment Trump won the 2024 race. Almost everything else I am going to write about is a joke compared to what happened that day. 

Why? Trump finally demonstrated a universal virtue. Courage and bravery. Trump got shot in the head and instead of cowering or running away, he got up, fist in the air and said "Fight!". Everyone who saw that moment had to admit that Trump did something beyond brave. Even Mark Zuckerberg had to say that Trump was "bad ass" in that moment and it's pretty impossible to disagree. 

It was a moment that resonated with everyone and not only did it make the Trump base beyond motivated to vote for him, it probably convinced more than a few independents and Democrats to vote for him. People want to follow a leader and Trump displayed true leadership in that moment. Because his concern wasn't with his personal safety, it was his followers. He was showing the world that he was still alive and wouldn't be stopped by an assassins bullet. 

Trump also had a much more disciplined and mature campaign compared to the 2020 and 2016 campaigns. He stuck to issues that were important to the country and was mostly gaffe free. The worst gaffe of the campaign, the dumb joke about Puerto Rico, wasn't even done by him. While it wasn't a good move to bring an insult comic to a campaign rally, it wasn't even a mistake that Trump made directly, which is a huge improvement compared to 2020. 

Barron Trump, Donald's son, deserves credit as well. It was Barron Trump that suggested that Trump should go on the podcast circuit, a move that allowed Trump to connect with younger voters and got him into a position that played to his strengths. Those podcasts also managed to secure the Joe Rogan endorsement and forced Harris to do the same thing, despite interviews being her biggest weakness. I think that going onto podcasts is going to be a standard election ploy from now on (which I'm not happy about because I hate listening to hours long audio). 

Trump also corrected the biggest mistake he made in 2020, which was not focusing on the issues that folks cared about. I couldn't believe in 2020 that Trump didn't make the race a referendum on immigration. It was the issue that let him win in 2016 and it's also the issue that likely won him the White House in 2024. Making people talk about the Biden immigration policy was a coup for Trump. 

Trump also had the advantage of being able to focus on the economy, which wasn't an issue in 2016. Trump was able to hit Biden and Harris hard on their performance. The economy was always going to be a major issue in 2024, despite gaslighting from the Democrats that it was actually good. Unlike Harris, Trump was able to demonstrate what he would actually do to fix the problem.

Trump also had a focus on expanding the GOP coalition. Indeed, Trump basically talked to every single group he could. He spoke at the Libertarian convention, he brought RFK Jr. and Elon Musk on board, he went after the crypto-bros, he went after basically every racial and religious group in the country. He campaigned for the Amish in Pennsylvania, he spoke to black journalists and he even did what he could to get Muslims on board, which may have helped him win Michigan. In short, Trump did everything he could to appeal to as many Americans as possible, including groups that traditionally did not like the Republican Party or Trump himself. Some of these efforts were more successful than others, but he absolutely managed to take some votes from the Democrats with this effort. 

The Trump team also did very good in the debates. Trump's victory in the first debate was so overwhelming that it ended Joe Biden's political career. And JD Vance, who was a great pick by the way, probably did the same thing to Tim Walz, the Harris VP candidate (more on him later). The 2nd debate with Harris was more mixed, but for a three on one ambush, Trump did well. Trump has always been a strong debater but he added a few more scalps to his belt this time around.

In short, Trump ran a pretty good campaign where he focused on the issues and largely avoided gaffes. He built a very large coalition and did everything in his power to win. He worked hard with his rallies and ran the best campaign he has ever done, better than 2016 and much better than 2020. Trump absolutely deserved to win due to his efforts. But he was greatly helped by the Democrats and their massive mistakes...

Biden/Harris campaigns:

The biggest problem that both the Biden and Harris campaigns had was the fact that Biden was a pretty terrible president. Biden had destroyed the economy and caused several major wars for little reason. Though Biden ran as a centrist, he ruled as a far left liberal and destroyed much of the credibility of his party. 

This problem continued even after Biden dropped out and Harris replaced him. Harris was in the bad position of being held accountable for Biden's mistakes and was unable to distance herself from him. How could she? She's Biden's VP and either she had to admit that she was a total non-factor under Biden or stay hooked up to his policies. She ended up being stuck with his policies, and, critically, was unable to say how she would have done anything differently. 

Biden himself was a drain on the Harris campaign, to the point that I suspect he may even been sabotaging it. I mean, how else do you explain the above photo where Biden put on a Trump hat? Biden also made statements that made it clear that Harris was involved with his campaign and said they were essentially joined to the hip. And the last minute statement about how all Trump supporters are "garbage"? That absolutely damaged her campaign. 

It's just another reason why changing the candidate in the middle of the race was such a bad idea. Biden was a deeply flawed candidate that was going to lose to Trump, but switching him out damaged the campaign greatly. It was essentially admitting that the campaign had no chance to win and was down to a Hail Mary play that was extremely unlikely to work. And it generated some rifts and bad feelings among the Democrats that are going to take years to fix. And although it's probably false that Biden was actively sabotaging the campaign, it's absolutely true that there was anger about removing him.

The way they replaced Biden was terrible too. Instead of having a traditionally primary, they dumbed Biden after millions of Democrats voted for him. And after they dropped him, they put Harris in there without any real debate or contest. Harris was just assigned and for a party that was whining about democracy being under threat, it was rank hypocrisy. Had they had some kind of actual debate they might have come up with a better candidate. 

But it was Kamala Harris herself that should take a lot of the blame. Harris was an uniquely bad candidate that almost nobody wanted. When I heard that she was the candidate I said to myself that it was the worst possible person they could have picked, and I had a few other people that day say the same thing to me. She was an awful choice. 

Why? Well for one she's just clearly unlikable. Harris always gave me the vibe of the kind of ubiquitous woman right now that cares more about lecturing people than actually having a conversation. Harris is the HR lady nobody likes and her voice is like sandpaper. She is a charisma black hole and I can't imagine what the Democrats were thinking when they picked her. 

The best thing the Democrats did is when they tried to have Harris do the "bunker" strategy that Biden did where she avoided the media and had no real interviews. She never did do a press conference but eventually she was forced to start doing interviews and she was found wanting. Harris is uniquely bad at interviews and she absolutely showed people that she isn't actually all that intelligent. Both previous Democrat candidates, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, were much better in the interview format, and that was true with Biden even after senility hit. Harris, on the other hand, just isn't very smart and is not a good speaker. 

Policy was a huge problem for the Democrats this year as well. They had very little to  run on as it was clear that the Biden policies had largely failed. When Harris did put out her own economic policies she was laughed at by just about everyone. Absolutely nobody who had even a basic understanding of economics understood that subsidizing housing demand was not the way to reduce prices. Not to mention the absolute insanity that was taxing unrealized gains, a policy so bad that I still can't believe that she proposed it. 

With economic policy a dead end the Harris camp pivoted to woman's rights. Though they were able to turn out a lot of angry cat ladies, this was an absolute disaster for every other demographic group. Men especially were sick of hearing about abortion when they had actual concerns about the direction of the country. And it also gave the Trump campaign an opening to show how extreme Democrats have become on the abortion issue. 

Indeed, the Democrats have a major problem with men. The only men that seem to be on board with the Democrats now are sex predators that want to prey on naïve and misguided leftist young women. That and "men" that think they are women. For normal men, the Harris campaign offered nothing but contempt. The Harris campaign eventually tried to win men but were beyond out of touch, with ads towards men still focused on woman's rights! It was insane. And it rang hollow when the Harris camp was on the wrong side of the woman's rights issue. How can you be for women's rights when you want men competing with women in sports and paying for male prisoners to transition into "women" and being housed with biological women? 

Harris also made a huge mistake with her VP pick, for much of the same reasons. Walz was supposed to be the masculine friendly uncle for the campaign, but he was more like the "funny uncle" you don't let your kids around. The man gave off weird vibes and his national debut, his debate with JD Vance, he failed miserably.

He was obviously a bad candidate and it raises the question why they went with him instead of Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania. Shapiro is a popular governor in a state Democrats could not afford to lose. But they snubbed him because he was Jewish and went with Tim Walz. It's possible that Walz is the reason why Minnesota didn't flip, but at that point, you were screwed no matter what. 

Speaking of Judaism, Harris handled the Israel-Gaza war horribly. She tried to play both the Muslims and Jews at the same time and ended up offending both. Trump on the other hand was able to secure a large amount of support from both groups because he had the credibility of a deal maker. Harris had no credibility on the issue and both sides figured out right away that she was just pandering to them. It was always going to be a hard issue for Democrats to handle given the realities of their coalition, but Harris handled it poorly, to the point it may have cost her both Michigan and Wisconsin and perhaps some house seats as well. 

I knew the campaign was pretty much done when they went back to the "Trump is Hitler" barrel. That had been played out back in 2016 and it hadn't worked. You can't keep telling the same lie again and again when we had Trump's first term as absolute proof that Trump was absolutely not Hitler, not a tyrant and not a bad president. Doing so was a sign of desperation and just motivated Trump voters to vote for him even more. 

Finally, Harris really screwed up by letting Trump get some crucial endorsements. She snubbed RFK Jr, who was able to bring back a lot of vaccine skeptics that would have otherwise abandoned Donald Trump. She and Biden snubbed and disrespected Elon Musk, who bought Twitter in response and turned it into X, and eventually became Trump's most powerful supporter. And her handling of the Joe Rogan situation led to the last minute endorsement of someone who had been pretty critical of Donald Trump. 

It was a terrible campaign by both Biden and Harris and you would think that the Democrats would have drawn some lessons from it. Instead they appear to be making the very questionable decision to blame the race on the voter. Calling everyone that voted against them racist and sexist is a bold strategy and I don't see it working out for them. But it's a good example of the kind of mistakes that Democrats just can't help but to make...