Mark Davis

I think it's worse than that. I think it lacks moral clarity because I feel like he hates Jewish people so he has no morals. In your example, ask yourself if you'd give such benefit of the doubt to someone who wouldn't condemn someone for using the "N" word. I don't think you'd vote for someone like that or lay any cover fire for them. But at the end of the day, this guy is likely going to win. We are going to see what happens. But I believe much like Lori Lightfoot failing in Chicago brought about Brandon Johnson who has failed even worse, the left will only find another elite, capitalist (gasp), white person, wealthy person, oligarch, or someone to blame when this guy fails too. It's what happens as their society and city falls apart around them because the ideology doesn't work, it can only find another oppressor to blame. And usually that blame is shifted to the very system that has made Western Civilization so great that people want to escape other cultures and societies to move here.

The amount of money we are wasting on this one guy is incredible. Which of course is ultimately the goal. The goal is to make the time and money to one by one go through everyone that crossed illegally during Biden's term essentially infinite.

I actually don't want him deported for that. I want him deported because he is here illegally. Nothing else needs to be shown for a deportation unless I'm missing something. I personally think he's a piece of garbage who beats women. I don't need a judge to give me permission to that belief and don't care if we charge/convict him of that since he can just be deported anyway. The whole case of this guy is bizarro world to me because he's not a sympathetic figure in any regard. My uncle used to beat the hell out of my aunt on the regular, he wasn't charged. I still think he's a waste of oxygen.

Well, his wife was asked in a nationwide interview where she was trying to get sympathy for him and she couldn't bring herself to say "no, he didn't hit me" when asked about it. That was the biggest softball interview and she didn't even offer even a token defense for him. But you guys know this. You can play stooges for him if you want, but it makes you look silly and unserious. You defend him because your political side has chosen his cause. The guy is a dirtbag.

I'm all for leaving those ideas dead and buried in the scrap heap of failures in history but Mamdani and the far left are the ones trying to resurrect them. To promote the idea that government dependency is desirable is a dangerous thing.

You're ascribing a worry of leaving family to a man who clearly punched his wife. But if I were him I'd run if given the chance.

I'll answer. Because he's the "anti Trump" cause of the moment. We literally had someone leak classified national security information to spin a story from an early damage assessment in Iran in an attempt to make Trump look bad. Someone is risking their career and their freedom to do that over something as serious as national security. Are we to believe that nobody out there on the left would attempt to help hide this guy or flee from justice? That seems like a very likely scenario to me.

Exactly. He never made pretense that he was going to pick the person with the best qualifications. He may have within the construct of only looking at black females. Maybe one day we can just hire people based on merit. I feel the same about immigration. We can make it merit based. That doesn't mean we don't need some percentage of folks willing to do "those jobs that others aren't". But we need to revamp that whole system.

I honestly don't think the party will be able to do that again. Every passing day the left fringe is gaining more power and forcing the old guard out.

Well, true. But those that have been hesitant to embrace him such as Jeffries are going to be forced into it. They're going to have to cave to the fringe left as they seize more control of the party. There will be more of these type candidates too. I don't see how Chuck Schumer can even run for re-election at this point.

Well, I realize you said you wouldn't be gambling. But I'll put this out there. You are right on 2, I'd bet on that. I'd also bet on the D's retaking the House in '26 because it's near impossible for a party in control of Presidency/House/Senate to not lose seats in a midterm. Granted, stuff like occurred in NYC and the LA ICE stuff is definitely helping the R's and could limit losses if it continues. But I'd bet on the D's retaking the House unless they keep going left even faster, and they might. The other thing that would stop it is if, heaven forbid, we do have a terror attack where it's shown someone who is here illegally was behind it. However, I'd wager as much as you want on '28. Especially since we both believe it's a leftist vs Vance. There's no reason to think the left isn't going to lurch the D's further left. We also saw that while many swing voters don't like Trump's rhetoric, they will vote for him when they view the alternative as too extreme. There's no reason to think Vance's tone and the actions of the Dems in the interim won't at least keep those feelings the same. If what the Dems are doing is a reaction to Trump, then it's at their own detriment for the future. We will see how it goes but in NYC look at the exit polling by race. Most black and Hispanic voters aren't for the kooky left stuff. I wouldn't be celebrating this "because of Trump" narrative. These kinds of candidates and narratives are the best way to hand things over to Vance down the line.

The military can run a specific subset of things well, but I don't want them in charge of our economy either.

I'd say in response, let me know how Brandon Johnson is working. Maybe you think he's doing fine though so you can speak to that. But if New York wants it, they can have it. The left may well be lurching further as a reaction to their hatred for Trump, but they are pulling out all the stops to help save the House for the Republicans in '26. This guy is going to be gold for the commercial reels. It's nights like this where I realize what two different futures and worlds people want to live in going forward. All I can do is laugh and shake my head. This should help expedite some population shifts though.

I generally find people who believe communist type ideals will work to be for other horrible policies.

This guy is for city government owned groceries. This is gonna go great!

If they were deceived then that's on them. When you watch what he said, he states it that two weeks is the maximum and it was up to two weeks. I've seen all the upset tweets about he promised two weeks etc which was just never factually the case. Some of the same folks did take the Iranian politicians at their word that they had closed the Straits of Hormuz.

Chicago hated leftist Lori Lightfoot so they replaced her with off the reservation, even further left, Brandon Johnson. You can see how well that's working out for them.

There won't be boots on the ground,, well maybe Israeli in a limited raid type capacity. I do think they, or we, are capable of just killing the leaders and letting them fight it out for power after that. I've heard people speculate the Israeli's have a regime plan in mind, but I have no reason to think it would succeed any better than our previous efforts in that region have. If you're gonna kill the regime, best to let their people hash it out after.

Agreed, when this broke this morning that was my thought. If it's no more than this, those they lobbed get swatted away and we move on. We always knew they'd have to make a show to save face.

Glad we got this guy on the loose again https://x.com/gunthereagleman/status/1936929158522601960?s=46&t=QA56vEicq_0uiHVUVTt_Hg

Unfortunately we can't stop them from making a wrong decision that hurts us and likely ends their regime. But the fact that we are even contemplating they could take that action now, gives support to why you can't allow them to have nuclear weapons. They are zealots and don't always act rationally.

That's true and I got in many arguments with friends at the time. And while I'm always skeptical of bombing anyone, just because that was the wrong decision then doesn't mean bombing that site is the wrong decision now. There are a lot of differences in the evidence, objectives, and regional outlook. The dumbest part of the Iraq situation was we removed the counterweight and took out the natural predator of Iran by killing Saddam's regime. I admit to being for America First, and embrace being to some degree isolationist. But that doesn't mean you just close your eyes and ignore what's going on around you. Iran with nukes is a threat to America and if you put yourself first, taking the means out of a regime's hands to kill you who has declared they want to kill you might be worth doing. I hope the Israeli's can do it, I hope there is an uprising to overthrow the regime, but time is running short for those chances. Let me add that I voted for Bill Clinton and the time with him as President and Gingrich as Speaker was in my opinion good for the country. However, his biggest failure was failing to kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance. He let the moment pass, and it cost us a lot more to deal with him later. Sometimes you have to take advantage of situations of vulnerability amongst your enemies.

They do have all the pieces to make it so though. It's like having an unassembled desk in your house that's still in the box. You don't have a desk until you put it together. Their uranium enrichment is getting right at the cusp. This isn't an Iraq situation where we are taking the words of Saddam or worried about some mustard gas that he is dropping in his own country. I hope we don't have to bomb them, I don't think there is a good outcome to that. But the worst possible outcome is letting them have nukes.

No matter how this turns out I wish we had all this skepticism before the Iraq War started.

We do want a democratic and peaceful Iran. The problem is we don't get to make that decision. We tried that in Afghanistan and Iraq. We at the very least aided such an effort in Libya. We have zero track record for successfully achieving that and in my mind make it even worse when we try to stipulate who leads those nations. Nobody wants terrorists striking around the globe or the Strait of Hormuz closed, but if we capitulate to the possibility that Iran may do this, then where does that leave us when it comes to North Korea, China, any other foe? There's a difference between being peaceful and trying to avoid foreign entanglements and cowering from those who threaten you. I prefer we don't strike, as that would leave the unintended consequences out of the equation. I'm glad Trump is giving this a chance to play out and hope they either give up the program or the regime is toppled from within. I don't think either is the likely outcome, but we need to give it a chance. But if all else fails, I agree we should not let them have nukes. At least with the North Korean regime they are self interested and use them as a threat to stay in power. In Iran, you are dealing with religious zealots who don't care if they die as long as they take us with them.