I had a feeling, based on the comment Zelensky made the other day about "tough choices" wasn't a coincidence and that it was related to the US wanting to shutdown the Ukraine front to focus on Venezuela. I just assumed it was for supply chain reasons, and not that the US wanted to negotiate Russia staying out of Venezuela.
Honestly, if Putin takes this deal, how do any of Russia's alliest every trust them again, short of having them by the balls.
Just to be clear, I think Jeffries should be primaried. If Dems start having to spend more money and go into more debt over campaigns that should have been safe because they aren't aligned with the base on stuff like Israel or healthcare, they may adjust (or the may not). I just don't think it's realistic to expect Zohran to be the one to lead that charge.
On the one hand, I think anyone who expected that he was going to launch a people's insurgency from Gracey Manor were a bit delusional. He's mayor in what is possibly the most dead-end political office in the county (no NYC mayor has ever really gone on to hold a more a meaningful office after serving, at least not in a long time) and is facing probably one of the most hostile bureaucracies in the US at either the city or state level.
On the other hand, I think anyone who is criticizing him for not launching a people's insurgency from Gracey Manor are also a bit delusional, for the same reasons. As far as I can tell, the goal seems to be to show the public that he/NYC DSA can deliver on the frankly mild socdem agenda that he ran on, and picking a fight with every single politician who has the ability to fuck that up probably isn't the best idea if it can be avoided. Jeffries is also very popular in his district and burning a bunch of political capital and NYC DSA resources on a race that is even more longshot than his own mayoral race is a questionable tactic.
The US won't attack Venezuela until the Ukraine war has been effectively wound down, because the MIC can't sustain Ukraine plus another war along the lines of what the US intends to do in Venezeula. Hence the push to make Ukraine take a deal.
Thoughts?
Well, that's what I get for not reading the article, I guess.
The signs, driven into the sand near where the Rio Grande empties into the Gulf of Mexico, caused a stir when witnesses said men in a boat arrived at the local beach known as Playa Bagdad and erected them.
This is right over the border, like ~10 miles South of the Rip Grande. It's possible the US government did this, but it's also entirely possible that some militant yahoos with a boat did it.
I haven't had time to flesh this out, although I have been thinking of making a post, but I think the US, at least the current admin, does intend to compete with China on manufacturing, just not on the "cheap stuff".
I have been trying to square the circle on how the current immigration enforcement strategy benefits any of the GOP's monied interests, given that the US economy, at least at the lower levels of service and agriculture, essentially runs on cheap labor, and these policies will interrupt that supply. I was talking with someone who works at a large agricultural co-packer, and they mentioned that the CEO started a project that they spin off into a new company based around a robotic/fully automated harvester. This is a machine that is too expensive relative to migrant labor to be profitable for farmers or agricultural corporations. But if that pool of migrant labor dries up, if the ICE polices essentially act as a tarriff or import ban on cheap labor, then all of these robotic, AI driven machines being built by the tech/VC people that have made an alliance with Trump became much more economically competitive. I suspect the goal, other than to create a new bastardized SA for the American right, is to make cheap labor scarce, and thus not cheap, in the process bolstering American production of new advanced machines that previously were too costly to make sense for most business.
Brace Belden always jokes "the dragon rises" in regards to China, but in terms of foreign policy, "the jellyfish floats" seems more applicable.
I have a hypothesis floating around in my head about the US seeking to control/neuter China not by outcompeting it in production but by taking control of enough of its customers that the US has essentially monopsony power over Chinese production, but not enough to put into an effort post.
Did China ever offer Assad AA batteries?
Honestly surprised that their aren't more assassinations of conscription officers.
This mega was much better when people weren't giving themselves wedgies arguing about what met their classification of news.
I actually see SCOTUS overruling this, because otherwise it will call into question the validity of electronic signatures, which would grind the economy to a halt.