This is total BS. Rafael "Ted" Cruz is a snowback from Canada. "Cubo-Canadian" they call his geneology. Canada exports fentanyl to American junkies, but Canadian fent is now tariffed so American junkies may need a new connect at some point. Rafael Cruz's father, Rafael Sr., was involved in the murder of President Kennedy at the grassy knoll in Dallas, TX. Rafael Sr. is a Cuban and he alleges that he is Evangelical Protestant having renounced Catholicism as many American adults do.
Amen Runkin...
Ted Cruz is one of the most beloved lawmakers in the history of this republic. Wherever he goes he gets a hero's welcome and they lay down the palm branches. His popularity among other lawmakers is astronomical in historical perspectives. The man oozes charisma out of every one of his pores.
His name is Rafael. He uses Ted just to try and fit it with Americans. He graduated from Harvard Law School magna c@m laude, so he is no slouch on legalism. Very bright, very informed. You don't just graduate from Harvard Law as magna c@m laude having an IQ of 76. The man is very high level IQ. His wife is ugly. He called Trump a "pathological liar." Until very recently, he was a staunch advocate of free trade unencumbered by government and taxes.
Do we have any success stories for the US when we have regime change in the Middle East as our goal?
Not sure why it seems that just about everyone talking about this goes straight to regime change and a military and geopolitical catastrophe? Why do so many think that the following is so very unlikely?
1) We, in a quite limited way, help finish Israel's attempt to substantially delay Iran's ability to get a nuclear weapon (presumably by now bombing a single site?).
2) That's ALL we do.
What happens then? Is that enough to spark/enable an overthrow? Wouldn't think so. But sure, IF it happened, regime change could be ugly. But more ugly than Iran have a nuke? I don't think so.
Now, do I want Trump and Hegseth to be running this show? Of course not. None of above suggests that. It's just not clear to me that helping to - presumably - finish off Iran's nuclear ambitions for a long time would necessarily lead us down an ugly trail. Or any "new" trail at all.
Do we have any success stories for the US when we have regime change in the Middle East as our goal?
Not sure why it seems that just about everyone talking about this goes straight to regime change and a military and geopolitical catastrophe? Why do so many think that the following is so very unlikely?
1) We, in a quite limited way, help finish Israel's attempt to substantially delay Iran's ability to get a nuclear weapon (presumably by now bombing a single site?).
2) That's ALL we do.
What happens then? Is that enough to spark/enable an overthrow? Wouldn't think so. But sure, IF it happened, regime change could be ugly. But more ugly than Iran have a nuke? I don't think so.
Now, do I want Trump and Hegseth to be running this show? Of course not. None of above suggests that. It's just not clear to me that helping to - presumably - finish off Iran's nuclear ambitions for a long time would necessarily lead us down an ugly trail. Or any "new" trail at all.
Irresponsible, embarrassing, testosterone-inspired Neanderthal add-on to above: If we're going to have something as huge and impressive and scary as a "MOP" (Google a picture), wouldn't it be kind of a shame if we passed on an arguably quite good reason to use it ????
OK, now I'll go back to being a responsible citizen.....
Do we have any success stories for the US when we have regime change in the Middle East as our goal?
Not sure why it seems that just about everyone talking about this goes straight to regime change and a military and geopolitical catastrophe? Why do so many think that the following is so very unlikely?
1) We, in a quite limited way, help finish Israel's attempt to substantially delay Iran's ability to get a nuclear weapon (presumably by now bombing a single site?).
2) That's ALL we do.
What happens then? Is that enough to spark/enable an overthrow? Wouldn't think so. But sure, IF it happened, regime change could be ugly. But more ugly than Iran have a nuke? I don't think so.
Now, do I want Trump and Hegseth to be running this show? Of course not. None of above suggests that. It's just not clear to me that helping to - presumably - finish off Iran's nuclear ambitions for a long time would necessarily lead us down an ugly trail. Or any "new" trail at all.
Nukes is BS. Just like WMDs and Iraq 20+ years ago.
Biden Derangement Syndrome runs deep due to his 3:0 record against Donald J Trump.
Trump Didn't Start (TDS) therefore his Zeroes don't count.
Biden won the 2020 popular vote, electoral college, and general election, so he is 3:0 against Trump. There is nothing you can do to change the fact. The score would be even more one sided if you count Trump’s 80+ losses in the litigation process.
Trump just announced that he should be appointed FED chairman and make all the calls on our fiscal policy...
The Fed makes the calls on monetary policy. The gummint makes the calls on fiscal policy.
Thanks for that important correction. Nations can have very bad fiscal policy and things go okay. When crackpot dictatorships decide they want to make monetary policy based on political goals that’s a precursor for hyperinflation and banana republic.
Until Trump, the US dollar is the currency of choice primarily because the world believes it is stable enough because monetary policy is walled of from politics of the day. Trump running monetary policy ends that.
Do we have any success stories for the US when we have regime change in the Middle East as our goal?
Not sure why it seems that just about everyone talking about this goes straight to regime change and a military and geopolitical catastrophe? Why do so many think that the following is so very unlikely?
1) We, in a quite limited way, help finish Israel's attempt to substantially delay Iran's ability to get a nuclear weapon (presumably by now bombing a single site?).
2) That's ALL we do.
What happens then? Is that enough to spark/enable an overthrow? Wouldn't think so. But sure, IF it happened, regime change could be ugly. But more ugly than Iran have a nuke? I don't think so.
Now, do I want Trump and Hegseth to be running this show? Of course not. None of above suggests that. It's just not clear to me that helping to - presumably - finish off Iran's nuclear ambitions for a long time would necessarily lead us down an ugly trail. Or any "new" trail at all.
^^^^^
This.
The amount of stupid stuff being said on this, led, of course, by Trump ("unconditional surrender!" "immediately evacuate Tehran" and "we now have complete and total control of the skies"), is much more than usual. And all the idiots either calling for regime change or living in terrible fear that regime change is the goal ("no more forever war!" etc.). WTF? It's not even an actual issue. The US, even under its current confused leadership, can figure out that it is either going to (1) assist Israel in trying to bomb Iran's nuclear weapon sites, or (2) negotiate some "deal" (i.e., do nothing). I don't understand the hesitancy to do (1) at all. Who is going to do anything about it?
