Tuesday, November 15, 2022

It's finally official: PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP ANNOUNCES 2024 CANDIDACY FOR THE WHITE HOUSE

 



Patriots and Trolls alike, rumble on! Just play nice, or at least try to (lol!): https://www.rsbnetwork.com/news/breaking-president-donald-j-trump-announces-2024-candidacy-for-the-white-house/

“I ran twice. I WON twice. I did much better the second time. And now, in order to make our country successful and safe and glorious, I will very, very, very probably do it again.” – President Donald J. Trump, November 2022.

President Trump officially declared during a special announcement at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday night that he is running to retake the White House in 2024. A massive crowd erupted in thunderous cheers and applause, celebrating Trump’s inevitable return to the Oval Office.

Refusing to back down from his goal to Make America Great Again, President Trump is sending an unmistakable message to the radical left and D.C. establishment that he will not be shaken by baseless witch hunts, tyrannical raids, or frivolous lawsuits.

The highly-anticipated announcement unexpectedly came the night before Election Day as millions of conservative voters prepare to exert their political will.

Trump has become the “kingmaker” of the new Republican Party with his good-as-gold endorsement guaranteeing wins for America First candidates. Trump spokeswoman Liz Harrington reported to the media earlier this month that the president’s endorsement success rate sits above 98 percent for the last two cycles.

Now is the time for President Trump to return to Washington D.C. as the 47th President of the United States.



X22, And we Know, and more- Nov 15

 



So, what's your theory on what the big announcement will be? Here's tonight's podcasts in the time being:


Cheer Up, Republicans: The Midterms Were Actually a Success

The GOP should disband its circular firing squad, 
get to work, and keep winning.


Earth to Republicans: Flipping one house of Congress is not a defeat, no matter how much the legacy media and the complicit Murdoch press (they of the curiously early calls for Biden on Election Day 2020) try to tell you. Not all of the numbers are in—courtesy of multiple state voting systems that remain suspiciously flawed two years after the 2020 debacle and 22 years after the six-week Bush v. Gore psychodrama—but we already know enough to refute the absurd suggestion that what happened on Tuesday was a Republican rout that should be blamed on former president Donald Trump, who—as GOP opponents argue and Democrats hope—will now be exorcized from national politics.

Let’s start with the House. Counting declared victories and races in which Republican candidates led by at least a point in the ballot counting as of Monday, it appears the GOP will eke out a majority of two seats. Obviously, this is smaller than the 20-30 seat majority pollsters predicted in recent weeks, but if the Democrats have taught us nothing else, a bare majority is still a majority.

Whether that majority materializes or not, the new House GOP caucus will be the most conservative, and the most pro-Trump, ever elected. About 140 of its confirmed members—roughly two-thirds of the total now definitely poised to take office in January—deny the results of the 2020 presidential election. They include 15 newly arriving freshmen members, one of whom, Wisconsin’s Derrick Van Orden, was a J6 protester and who flipped a Democratic seat. Hardly any pro-Trump incumbents lost. The most notable endangered member in that category, gun-toting Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert, is holding a slight lead after having fallen behind in early ballot counting.

It is, rather, the avowedly anti-Trump GOP congressmen who were almost totally eliminated this year. Of the 10 who voted in favor of Trump’s second impeachment, only two will still be in office in January, and their campaigns assiduously avoided discussing their impeachment votes. Of the eight others, four lost their primaries to Trump-endorsed candidates, and another four left politics rather than suffer the same likely fate. No matter how much Washington RINOs point fingers at the former president, the House GOP’s anti-Trump chorus is now a mute duet.

Kevin McCarthy, an establishment Republican who has consistently disappointed his party’s right-wing, is widely presumed to become speaker, but only because, after a period of estrangement, he spent nearly two years sucking up to Trump, who only endorsed him for House leader in June 2022 and for speaker the day after the election. It is far from clear that McCarthy will enjoy substantial authority. The speakership is determined by a majority vote of the full chamber. With all Democrats presumably voting against McCarthy, securing office will require him to gather near-unanimous support from the radicalized GOP caucus. Leading members of that caucus are already reportedly extracting major concessions from him on appointments, policies, priorities, and procedures, including procedures to remove the speaker if he should displease them or their Mar-a-Lago master. Paradoxically, the smaller the GOP House majority turns out to be, the less room McCarthy will have to maneuver, and the more leverage his members, and Trump, will have over him.

Regardless of what happens with the leadership, a Republican House means that Biden’s agenda will falter even as the GOP vents its pent-up rage by pursuing investigations of the current president, his scandal-ridden son, and other officials and associates as 2024 draws nearer. From what we already know of their malign dealings at home and abroad, the results are unlikely to be flattering or helpful as Biden pursues reelection, which the biased media spin on the election results has emboldened him to do. Investigations into matters adverse to Republicans, and to Trump personally, such as that of the heavily broadcast but inconclusive January 6 committee, however, will cease altogether.

The Senate also could yield a tied chamber—the status quo—with Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema remaining as occasional spoilers to whatever Biden can get through a Republican-controlled House. In Georgia’s December 6 runoff election, Herschel Walker will only benefit from libertarian voters, whose candidate failed to reach the second round, which is mandated when no candidate in that state wins over 50 percent of the vote. And, being libertarians, they likely won’t care how many abortions he allegedly paid for.

If those analyses are correct, then three of the five Trump-endorsed candidates in toss-up Senate races will be Senators in January. This is hardly a terrible result for the former president. 

Like the House, the upper chamber will also shift considerably to the right. Of the seven senators who voted to convict Trump in his 2021 impeachment, just three—Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Bill Cassidy (R-La.)—will definitely still be there in January. Three others—Richard Burr (R-Va.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)—have retired or resigned. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the only one of seven who was up for reelection this year, is currently trailing Trump-endorsed Kelly Tshibaka in Alaska’s ranked-choice election. A more right-wing Senate GOP may heed calls to remove Republican leader Mitch McConnell, of whom Trump strongly disapproves, and replace him with a harder-edged colleague like Florida’s Rick Scott, a firm proponent of national conservatism who has already devised a national party agenda in line with Trumpian ideas. 

Notably, in Pennsylvania, Dr. Mehmet Oz’s opponent, John Fetterman—who is cognitively disabled as the result of a mid-campaign stroke—stands as the only candidate approaching star status among Democrats this year. The much-celebrated Beto O’Rourke in Texas and Stacey Abrams in Georgia crashed and burned despite hundreds of millions of dollars lavished on their multiple failed campaigns over the past years.

These are results that should cause the Democrats to do some “soul-searching,” but if Republicans are in the mood, they should first look gratefully at what amounts to much more than a silver lining. They should then contemplate the obstacles they faced in achieving victory this year. Uniquely in this election, the Democrats used their massive media and institutional dominance to frame the national vote as a choice between Our Democracy™ and what they characterize as the “fascism” or “semi-fascism” of any form of disagreement outside the controlled opposition, which is conditioned to lose graciously in exchange for minor policy concessions and blue state social acceptability. 

Just two months before Election Day, the president of the United States stood before a U.S. Marine honor guard and declared that virtually all Americans who oppose him are a threat to the republic. Just a week before the vote took place, a bizarre attack on the soon-to-be-former Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband by a leftist illegal alien was magnified into broad but false moral condemnation of the Republicans as the party of political violence.

Trump spent the entire election cycle banned from virtually all social media platforms except his own, hassled by politically motivated civil and criminal investigations that have gone nowhere, and assailed by a dwindling but powerful band of GOP moderates who have little resonance in the national party and no hope of ever returning to power unless he is destroyed. At the same time, McCarthy and McConnell systematically blocked access to party funds to virtually all Trump-endorsed candidates. In the instructive exception of J. D. Vance, who won Ohio’s Senate race, a last-minute influx of $32 million approved by McConnell turned his campaign from likely defeat to comfortable victory. No other Trump-endorsed candidate was so fortunate, and all of them were dramatically outspent by the Democrats, in some cases by a factor of 10 or more. Nevertheless, many won or may still win.

Beyond the halls of Congress, Republicans can look with great satisfaction to gubernatorial victories in Texas, Arkansas, Ohio, Georgia, and above all Florida, where Ron DeSantis outperformed all polling predictions and cruised to a massive 20-point victory. His success was so dramatic that the real story of the 2022 midterms is not why Republicans lost—they didn’t—but whether they should be led by Trump or DeSantis. 

A brutal primary battle for the 2024 nomination would be a disaster for the party, however. The Democrats are already fanning its flames for their own benefit, while Trump is inadvisably lashing out at the younger man, who shares virtually all of the former president’s ideas but is free of his personal baggage. How, or if, a primary catastrophe can be avoided remains to be seen, but regardless of its ultimate outcome, the GOP indisputably stands stronger now than it did a week ago. It should stop wringing its hands, disband its circular firing squad, get to work—and keep winning.




“Don't Blame Trump” ~ J.D. Vance

Any midterm autopsy ought to focus on how to close the national money gap, and how to turn out less engaged voters.


Something odd happened on Election Day. In the morning, we were confident of my victory in Ohio and cautiously optimistic about the rest of the country. By the time the polls closed, that optimism had turned to jubilance—and lobbying.

Every consultant and personality I encountered during my campaign claimed credit for their own faction. The victory was a testament to Mitch McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), one person told me. Another argued instead that SLF had actually bungled the race, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)—chaired by Rick Scott—deserved the credit. (Full disclosure: both the NRSC and SLF helped my race in Ohio, for which I’m grateful.)

But then the results rolled in, and it was clear the outcome was far more disappointing than hoped. And every person claiming victory on Tuesday morning knew exactly who to blame on Tuesday night: Donald J. Trump.

Of course, no man is above criticism. But the quick turn from gobbling up credit to vomiting blame suggests there is very little analysis at work. So let’s try some of that.

Let’s start with an obvious caveat: there is a lot we don’t know. Precinct level data is still outstanding in most states, and exit polls are notoriously finicky. Votes are still being counted out west. We’re still ignorant about a lot. But any effort to blame Trump—or McConnell for that matter—ignores a major structural advantage for Democrats: money. Money is how candidates fund the all-important advertising that reaches swing voters, and it’s how candidates fund turnout operations. And in every marquee national race, Republicans got crushed financially.

The reason is ActBlue. ActBlue is the Democrats’ national fundraising platform, where 21 million individual donors shovel small donations into every marquee national race. ActBlue is why my opponent ran nonstop ads about how much he “agreed with Trump” during the summer. It is why John Fetterman was able to raise $75 million for his election.

Republican small dollar fundraising efforts are paltry by comparison, and Republican fundraising efforts suffer from high consultant and “list building” fees—where Republicans pay a lot to acquire small-dollar donors. This is why incumbents have such massive advantages: much of the small-dollar fundraising my own campaign did went to fundraising and list-building expenses. If and when I run for reelection, almost all of it will go directly to my campaign. Democrats don’t have this problem. They raise more money from more donors, with lower overhead. 

Outside groups, like SLF, try to close this gap. But it is a losing proposition. Under federal elections law, campaigns pay way less for advertising than outside “Super PACs.” In some states, $10 million from an outside group is less efficient than $2 million spent by a campaign. So long as Republicans lose so badly in the small dollar fundraising game, Democrats will have a massive structural advantage. 

Importantly, because ActBlue diverts resources to competitive races, this structural advantage can be magnified. Let’s look at how this played out specifically. At first blush, Ron DeSantis and Brian Kemp are similar figures: they both won close elections in 2018, and both cruised to reelection in 2022. They are both popular, effective governors from the South. But one won by over 20, and one by 8 (still an impressive margin). What explains this? Money. Look at the fundraising totals: Ron DeSantis outraised Charlie Crist about 7:1. Kemp was actually outraised, albeit barely, by Stacey Abrams. Money, of course, is not dispositive—Kemp won convincingly—but it has a major effect.

In both cases, incumbency provided a major advantage, in part because it’s easier to raise money when you’ve already won. But incumbency is also powerful in and of itself. Just look to Iowa, where incumbent governor Kim Reynolds cruised to reelection by a 20 point-margin, while newcomer Republican A.G. candidate Brenna Bird won by less than one point against twenty-eight-year incumbent Democrat Tom Miller. 

This brings us to the Senate. In competitive states, every non-incumbent candidate was swamped with cash by national Democrats. This is true for Trump-aligned candidates (like me), anti-Trump candidates (like Joe O’Dea in Colorado), and those who straddled both camps. The house tells a similar story. Every person blaming Donald Trump, or bad candidates endorsed by Trump, ought to show a single national marquee race where a non-incumbent beat a well-funded opponent. The few exceptions—New York among them—don’t tell an easy anti-Trump story.

In Ohio, for example, Republican candidates ran against extremely well-funded Democrat opposition. Some of them were MAGA. Some establishment. Almost all of them lost. The only exception was Max Miller in Northeast Ohio, one of Trump’s early endorsements.  

There is a related structural problem, which is that higher propensity voters (suburban whites, especially) are just more and more Democratic. Meanwhile, a lot of the Trump base just doesn’t turn out in midterm elections. Again, this is not unique to Trump: these voters have always had substandard turnout numbers. But 20 years ago, when most of them voted for Democrats, that meant Republicans had a structural advantage in midterms. Now, the shoe is on the other foot. This problem is exacerbated by Democrats’ strong advantages in states that have expanded vote by mail. 

In the short term, as illustrated last week, those advantages serve as a reminder of the need for voting reform in this country, modeled on success in states like Ohio at running clean, fair elections: establishing fair but appropriately narrow windows to return ballots; implementing signature verification; conducting all pre-election work necessary to facilitate rapid tabulation of early votes when polls close; and implementing national photo ID requirements to ensure elections are secure.

In the long term, the way to solve this is to build a turnout machine, not gripe at the former president. But building a turnout machine without organized labor and amid declining church attendance is no small thing. Our party has one major asset, contra conventional wisdom, to rally these voters: President Donald Trump. Now, more than ever, our party needs President Trump’s leadership to turn these voters out and suffers for his absence from the stage. 

The point is not that Trump is perfect. I personally would have preferred an endorsement of Lou Barletta over Mastriano in the Pennsylvania governor’s race, for example. But any effort to pin blame on Trump, and not on money and turnout, isn’t just wrong. It distracts from the actual issues we need to solve as a party over the long term. Indeed, one of the biggest changes I would like to see from Trump’s political organization—whether he runs for president or not—is to use their incredible small dollar fundraising machine for Trump-aligned candidates, which it appears he has begun doing to assist Herschel Walker in his Senate runoff.

Blaming Trump isn’t just wrong on the facts, it is counterproductive. Any autopsy of Republican underperformance ought to focus on how to close the national money gap, and how to turn out less engaged Republicans during midterm elections. These are the problems we have, and rather than blaming everyone else, it’s time for party leaders to admit we have these problems and work to solve them. 




Russian missiles cross into Poland, killing two near Ukraine border

 

Two people died Tuesday afternoon after a projectile struck an area where grain was drying in Przewodów, a Polish village near the border with Ukraine, domestic media reported.

Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has called an emergency meeting of the country's top national security and defence officials, according to government spokesman Piotr Mueller.

Mueller did not immediately confirm the information on the missile strike but said the meeting was held due to a “crisis situation”.

A senior US intelligence official confirmed to AP that Russian missiles crossed into Poland. The eastern European country bordering Ukraine is an EU and NATO member.

Our journalists are working on this story and will update it as soon as more information becomes available.   



https://www.euronews.com/2022/11/15/russian-missiles-cross-into-poland-killing-two-near-ukraine-border  

Trump 2024: The Pros & Cons


Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

Since I haven’t yet gotten sick of the Trump vs. DeSantis feud, I decided I would take a closer look at both potential candidates to ascertain which might be the more favorable candidate to put up against Democrats in 2024. In this piece, I’m starting with the former president.

Trump is expected to announce that he is running on Tuesday, while Gov. DeSantis has not yet indicated whether he intends to throw his hat into the ring. But, there appears to be growing sentiment on the right that the governor might be the better candidate to face Democrats in 2024.

Still, there are many among the conservative base who wishes to stick with Trump. The ones who aren’t busy pushing false narratives about DeSantis being an establishment shill have put forth some compelling arguments for giving the former president another go at the Oval Office.

One of the former president’s greatest strengths is his willingness to get into the mud with the Democrats and their comrades in the activist media. It is one of the things that endeared him to Republican voters in the first place. We know that he will not back down from a fight and will continue making folks on the left wet their pants. It is a trait that has been severely lacking in the pre-Trump GOP.

Also, after having been targeted by the deep state during his presidency, Trump might be more motivated than DeSantis to do what he promised: Drain the swamp. Even the former president indicated he was not aware of how widespread the corruption in Washington has become. But now, he seems fully aware of what the establishment on both sides of the aisle is capable of. To put it simply, the man wants revenge, and there can be no doubt he would move aggressively against these forces.

Additionally, Trump has shown that he can energize the base. Even the people who would prefer DeSantis would have no problem pulling the lever for him in the general election. He still maintains a significant level of favorability and influence on the right and can motivate conservative voters to turn out at the polls.

Lastly, although it might sound counterintuitive, the fact that he is being targeted by the Justice Department and FBI could work in his favor. When agents served a search warrant at his home in Mar a Lago, folks on the right viewed it as a politically-motivated effort to weaponize the federal government against him. It can be expected that these efforts will continue now that the midterm elections have concluded.

Now that we’ve established the pros, it’s time for the cons. Interestingly enough, when it comes to Trump, some of his strengths are also his greatest weaknesses. His penchant for engaging in rhetorical donnybrooks with his enemies has also worked against him. He is often impulsive with the feuds in which he chooses to engage, meaning that he will pick fights that he doesn’t need to.

This behavior has often given Democrats and members of the activist media ammo to use against him. Even now, his attacks on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin have gotten him in trouble with the base. For all of his strengths, Trump remains the human embodiment of a hammer in search of nails – or Paul Pelosi’s head.

Too soon?

Another potential drawback could be his constant focus on the 2020 presidential election. Regardless of what one thinks of the outcome of his battle against Biden, continuing to keep the conversation focused on the past is not going to bode well for his future. With the exception of the most loyal members of his base, people wish to move on and look toward 2024 – especially after the Republicans’ poor performance in the midterm elections.

Right-leaning voters want someone who is going to address the problems they are facing today. They want a presidential nominee who understands their concerns and has a plan to deal with them. Indeed, this is how Trump won in 2016. He listened to what voters were saying and crafted a messaging strategy designed to address their deepest worries. Right now, 2020 is not the issue on everyone’s minds. If Trump wants to occupy the White House again, he will have to focus more on the future than on the past.

Another potential pitfall is the fact that Trump is a polarizing figure. As I stated earlier, he inspires adoration from folks on the right and has shown he can energize the base. But he can also energize the folks who think he is the second coming of Hitler as well.

A Trump candidacy would inspire everyone to come to the polls – both Republicans and Democrats. It is what happened in 2020. There will be many who show up to vote against him – especially after the activist media whips the left into a frenzied hysteria about the Orange Man What Is Bad™. His ability to elicit strong emotions could be a double-edged sword.

Lastly, the FBI investigations that I mentioned previously could easily tank Trump’s candidacy instead of benefiting it. The Bureau has already shown it is functioning as a political weapon against the former president and his associates. For the investigation to help Trump’s chances, the agents who served the warrant would have had to have found nothing in those documents that rises above the level of Hillary’s emails. If they failed to produce evidence that the former president committed a serious crime, their machinations will almost certainly backfire.

On the other hand, if it turns out agents found evidence of a serious crime, it could spell trouble for the former president. The Justice Department is just itching to indict him on something, anything that would tank his chances of running a successful campaign. If the offense is serious enough, it might cause voters to choose a “safer” candidate.

Nevertheless, it is still too early to see how this whole thing will shake out. But these are some of the factors that voters will consider when choosing which leader they believe would fare better in the general election.




China Manhandled American Producer at Biden/Xi Meeting, Biden's Reaction Was Telling


Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

I wrote earlier what an embarrassment Joe Biden was during his meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping for projecting weakness. Xi made Biden walk over to him in their meeting, rather than meeting halfway. Then Biden never even brought up COVID and didn’t hold Xi’s feet to the fire for any of China’s bad actions. Instead, he spoke about “climate changes.” Indeed, it was Xi who spoke about the “challenges,” who seemed to be preaching at the U.S.

Xi warned Biden that the ‘Taiwan question’ was the ‘first red line that should not be crossed’ and that Beijing would not allow anyone to interfere.

Biden told his counterpart that the United States stand besides the ‘One China Policy’ and said later in a press conference that he saw no ‘imminent’ threat of an invasion of Taiwan.

If you read what Xi said as “no imminent threat,” then you aren’t paying attention. But that’s Joe.

However, there was another incident that occurred just before the meeting between the two leaders which told the tale of how the Chinese would figuratively manhandle Biden. They started by physically manhandling an American producer for ABC who was representing the pool.

According to the pool report, as the reporters were being ushered out, the pool producer Molly Nagle called out to Biden, asking if he would be raising human rights during the meeting. In response, a man from the Chinese contingent (who was wearing a COVID mask with a Chinese flag), yanked the Nagle backward by her backpack. The female producer lost her balance but didn’t fall and she was pushed toward the door.

Two White House staff members had to intervene to tell the Chinese to leave the producer alone.

Now, given that happened right before the meeting, you would think that might have earned some chastisement from Biden during his remarks or at least some comment. Yet there was no comment on it during Biden’s officially released remarks, even as Biden said that they would stand for human rights, he didn’t call them out at all. He wasn’t even standing for the “human rights” of the Americans in the room when one was badly treated by the Chinese. Instead, he was all smiling with Xi.

When you let your citizens get manhandled and then don’t even call them out on it, how can the Chinese think you would give a darn about Taiwan? If there was ever any bigger signal to Xi that you don’t give a darn when you just smile right over this, this is it, he has to think that Bide is the weakest goof ever or that he just doesn’t care about his people.




Amazon Planning to Announce Layoff of 10,000 Workers This Week


At a time when/if the economy was functioning as most economic pundits have previously proclaimed, Amazon and other retail giants would normally be beefing up workers in anticipation of the holiday shopping season.  However, with the midterm election in the rearview mirror, exactly the opposite is happening. {Backstory on prior employment announcements}

According to multiple media reports, Amazon is expected to announce layoffs for approximately 10,000 U.S. workers this week.  Yet another indication the economic pretending is coming to an end right after the midterm election is concluded.

(CNBC) – Amazon is planning to lay off approximately 10,000 employees in corporate and technology roles beginning this week, according to a report from The New York Times. Separately, The Wall Street Journal also cited a source saying the company plans to lay off thousands of employees.

Shares of Amazon closed down about 2% on Monday.

The cuts would be the largest in the company’s history and would primarily impact Amazon’s devices organization, retail division and human resources, according to the report. The reported layoffs would represent less than 1% of Amazon’s global workforce and 3% of its corporate employees. (read more)

“Bye”

As previously noted by Yahoo News, a “wave of layoffs” has begun that encompasses dozens of medium and large corporations [SEE HERE].

The layoffs, outlined in Yahoo, cover real estate, tech companies, banking, finance, automakers, EV startups, and brick and mortar stores like 7-11 and GAP.   It should not come as a surprise, but it is sad to see, nonetheless.

Within the economy, a great pretending can only last so long… then reality hits.

The skilled trades should likely end up in the best employment situation, with the tech sector the worst.  Service industries are also one of the first sectors hit when employment becomes an issue.

With rising interest rates, high inflation, excessive inventories, a shrinking production economy, extreme energy costs and diminished disposable income as a result of inflation and gas prices, there was going to come a time when it all starts to congregate.

2023 looks to be the year when economic pretenses collapse under the weight of having to admit a recession exists.

This is shaping up to be a painful holiday season….



Calls to 'Dump Trump' Reach Fever Pitch—but He’s Not Going Anywhere


Bob Hoge reporting for RedState 

After a disastrous midterm election showing, pundits want someone to blame, and for many of them, they have just the guy: former President Donald Trump.

He endorsed bad candidates, they say; he helped fuel rumors that he was going to announce he was running for president the night before the election, he called Florida Governor Ron DeSantis “DeSanctimonious,” he doubled down on that by criticizing Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin with a bizarre claim that his name sounded Chinese.

The internet is flooded these days with posts like these:

(Firebrand Ann Coulter has an even more succinct take, but it’s not language that should be seen in a family newspaper, as they used to say. Click here if you want to see it.)

Trump isn’t going to slink away so easily; in fact, there’s a strong possibility he announces another bid for the presidency Tuesday night.

To me, The Donald is an enigma wrapped in a conundrum who brings exasperation and joy in equal amounts. It’s easy to forget that he revived a depressed and downtrodden Republican base who had all but given up hope, and who had resigned themselves to a probable eight years of Hillary Rule. No way ¡Jeb! was going to beat her.

He was the first powerful Republican who told the wokesters where to put it, fought back against the liberal establishment, and exposed Obama, the Clintons, and the corrupt Washington machine, aka The Swamp.

He also continually got in his own way with his bombastic style and proclivity for insulting people. He very well may have lost the presidency in that first awful debate with eventual winner Sleepy Joe Biden, where Trump came off as nasty, ill-tempered, and mercurial. (To be fair, he apparently had COVID then, which might have contributed to his crankiness.) Now he’s at it again, insulting DeSantis for no apparent reason other than jealousy.

As Kurt Schlichter wrote Monday at our sister site Townhall:

Trump was always a prix fixe menu with no substitutions; you cannot have a Trump owning the libs without him also tweeting about Rosie O’Donnell. He saved our country in 2016.

My better half often makes the same point. I yelled back in back in 2015, “Why did he have to question John McCain’s heroism?! You don’t insult a war hero.”

“You get the good with the bad,” my wife pointed out. “Also, McCain is a political quisling and hates his own base.”

Schlichter makes a good point in his article: Even if Trump disappears tomorrow, the GOP’s problems will not magically go away. There’s plenty of blame to spread around for these midterms. First, you’ve got Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who funneled money to Lisa Murkowski (who was battling another Republican for a Senate seat in Alaska) when he could have helped out Senate Candidate Blake Masters in Arizona. (Masters did indicate during the primaries that Mitch should be replaced as leader, which might explain why McConnell wasn’t exactly a crusader for his campaign.)

Then there’s potential Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, who’s been accused of “mediocrity” and of lacking grit:

There’s the Republicans’ failure to adapt to the new rules on the battlefield, which is that mail-in voting is here to stay whether we like it or not; we need to master the new ground game that Democrats have perfected to get out every last vote well in advance of Election Day.

Whether you love Donald Trump or hate him, the following clip from Newsmax is interesting stuff. The host, Robb Schmitt, first gives an overview of Republicans who are not blaming the former President for Terrible Tuesday. Then he shows how the media—even the allegedly conservative Fox News—is loving the Trump-DeSantis rivalry and is actively pushing the narrative that the old bull is mortally wounded.

At approximately the six-minute mark, Schmitt reminds us of what a game-changer Trump was:

But did you really think that the man who marched into Washington intent on completely dismantling our government, a man intent on gutting the Republican Party and building something effective that actually gets things done for the people? Did we really think that that man would also be completely balanced in every way? Would you ever embark on a suicide mission like that yourself?…

Trump’s a wild man. We knew that since the 2016 primaries, and he’s been right over the target this entire time taking heavy fire for six years.

Trump created this entire brand. Everything that you love about politics now. It’s all him. Without Trump the movement doesn’t exist, none of this exists. And Ron DeSantis is great, he’d probably be a great president, but if Trump had never gutted the Republican party, Ron DeSantis and many others would all look and sound just like John Boehner.

They’d be golfing on the weekend with Mitt Romney.

I know we have many Trump-loving readers, as well as others who can’t stand Orange Man Bad, and that there are now also a sizable number of the former who worry that DJT has gone off the rails. Many of you are Ron DeSantis fans (as am I). His performance as governor of Florida has been off the charts, keeping schools open during the pandemic, fighting off woke corporations, and handling natural disasters expertly. I wrote back in June that the one thing I really, really don’t want to see is a Death Match between DeSantis and Trump, because I think we all lose in that scenario. At the end of the day, however, I believe in American meritocracy, so whoever wants to throw their hat into the presidential primary ring should do so, and may the best man (or woman) win.

Trump is not going anywhere. Despite the intense criticism he’s taking today, he’s taken it before and risen out of the ashes. His support runs deep (just ask Dave Chapelle).

As Mark Levin reminded listeners Monday, Washington D.C. really despises voters. We deserve to make the choice ourselves.




Ukraine crisis: Russian oil and gas turn to Asia

 

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that protecting the country's energy security is vital and there should be no restrictions on energy supply.

India has been buying increasing amounts of cheaper Russian oil, and China's imports of Russian oil have also grown in the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

How much Russian oil is going to Asia?

India and China are currently the largest single buyers of Russian crude oil.

India's imports of Russian oil have rocketed from a very low base at the start of the year reaching a peak in June and July and largely maintaining these levels through to October.  



China's purchases of Russian oil have fluctuated this year, falling in February at the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but then rising significantly in the following months.

Russia has been selling oil at a discounted rate since March this year after the Ukraine invasion.

In March, combined oil imports by China and India from Russia overtook those from the 27 EU member states.

Other countries have also taken advantage of discounted Russian crude like Sri Lanka, which has been grappling with a severe economic crisis.

Cheaper oil is driving the flow to Asia

Following its invasion of Ukraine, Russia had fewer buyers for its Ural crude oil, with some foreign governments and companies deciding to shun its energy exports, and its price started to fall.

At one point Russian Urals crude was more than $30 a barrel cheaper than Brent crude (the global benchmark). By the end of September it was around $20 a barrel cheaper.  


The US government had been critical of these purchases, although it's now made clear that it accepts that India can continue to buy discounted Russian oil.

The G7 countries - the UK, US, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada - have proposed a plan to cap the price of Russian oil to minimise revenue generated from it.

But it's not yet clear what impact it could have on countries like India and China that are already buying Russian oil at a discount.

Moscow has said will stop selling to countries that join this attempt to impose price caps on its crude exports.

Also, in December, the EU is due stop imports of Russian oil by sea completely as part of measures taken against Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.  


What's the impact of sanctions against Russia?

Although the price of Russian crude oil is attractive, India's refineries are facing a challenge trying to finance purchases, because sanctions on Russian banks are affecting payment transactions.

One of the options India is looking at is a system based on local currencies, where Indian exporters to Russia get paid in roubles instead of dollars or euros and imports are paid for in rupees.

China's state-owned oil enterprises are increasingly using the Chinese renminbi rather than the US dollar to finance oil purchases from abroad.

What's happening to gas exports from Russia?

Nearly 50% of India's total gas requirements come from abroad - but mostly from the Gulf States, with very little from Russia.

"Deliveries of Russian LNG (liquefied natural gas) to India are rare" says Antonio Peciccia, a commodity industry expert with Argus media. "We believe five cargoes so far this year, down from seven a year earlier".

China imports most of its gas via pipeline from central Asia. Currently, Turkmenistan is the largest supplier.  



Once a new pipeline, known as Power of Siberia, is completed later this decade, Russia may well take over as China's biggest supplier of gas.

And there's been a noticeable increase this year in liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from Russia, although most of China's LNG still comes from other countries.

China has signed new deals to transport Russian LNG via the Arctic.

In September, Russia's Gazprom and the China National Petroleum Corporation agreed to use Russian roubles and yuan instead of dollars to make payments for Russian gas.  


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-60783874