2024 Republican Primary

[Psy-Fi]

RFK JR SURGES to 21% in National Poll; Trump Expected to TROUNCE Nikki Haley in NH

[Nimbly9]

Some people have speculated Tucker Carlson, but I don't buy that.

I'd say the most likely at this point are Kristi Noem or Elise Stefanik. I could see picking one over the other for different reasons. As shallow as it is, Noem is more physically attractive and that's a factor in how people vote. But Trump seems to have more of a personal relationship with Stefanik, so he might trust her more. I think his VP pick is definitely going to be a woman.

Wildcard pick: Tulsi Gabbard.

I think he'll pick Tim Scott.  He's got a similar profile to Mike Pence, just without all the gay conversion therapy baggage.  Plus he's black and that's gonna be a huge plus in the general election.

[SGR]

I think he'll pick Tim Scott.  He's got a similar profile to Mike Pence, just without all the gay conversion therapy baggage.  Plus he's black and that's gonna be a huge plus in the general election.

Hmm...that might be an interesting choice. Tim Scott is not very exciting, but maybe that's what would make him a good counter-balance to Trump (much like Pence).

[DJChameleon]

Some people have speculated Tucker Carlson, but I don't buy that.

I'd say the most likely at this point are Kristi Noem or Elise Stefanik. I could see picking one over the other for different reasons. As shallow as it is, Noem is more physically attractive and that's a factor in how people vote. But Trump seems to have more of a personal relationship with Stefanik, so he might trust her more. I think his VP pick is definitely going to be a woman.

Wildcard pick: Tulsi Gabbard.

So I have only been hearing about Tim Scott and Elise Stefanik.

I don't know who Kristi Noem is.

Wouldn't it be funny if he picked MTG?

[SGR]

So I have only been hearing about Tim Scott and Elise Stefanik.

I don't know who Kristi Noem is.

Wouldn't it be funny if he picked MTG?

He'd have to be utterly insane to pick MTG as VP.

Kristie Noem is the governor of North Dakota.

[SGR]

Trump beats Haley in New Hampshire primary

[DJChameleon]

He'd have to be utterly insane to pick MTG as VP.

Kristie Noem is the governor of North Dakota.

Ooooh that's the one in the cheating scandal right?

Idk if he would pick her. He thrives off of drama type situations but this cheating scandal stuff should deter him from picking her unless he just says fuck it and goes all in.

[Psy-Fi]

He'd have to be utterly insane to pick MTG as VP.

Kristie Noem is the governor of North Dakota.

She's the governor of South Dakota.

The governor of North Dakota is Doug Burgum.


And as long as I'm here, I wonder if Nikki Haley will drop out of the race before the South Carolina primary, in her home state, which she will almost certainly lose to Trump.

[SGR]

Ooooh that's the one in the cheating scandal right?

Idk if he would pick her. He thrives off of drama type situations but this cheating scandal stuff should deter him from picking her unless he just says fuck it and goes all in.

Yeah, that's the one - as Psy pointed out, I flubbed - she's the South Dakota governor, not the North Dakota governor.

The interesting thing with those allegations, as I understand them, is that it sounds like she was cheating in the sense that she and her husband were still legally married and but were separated. Still, a bad look.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/15/kristi-noem-corey-lewandowski-affair-shakes-up-trump-running-mate-stakes/

The guy she was cheating with, Corey Lewandowski was also supposedly cheating on his spouse, not just with Noem, but also with White House Communications Director, Hope Hicks. Guy was a dog, I guess. But he must have had game.

[Jwb]

She's definitely a neocon. I don't think there'd be much difference between her and Biden in terms of foreign policy, at least.

there's really not much daylight between Trump and Biden on crucial foreign policy questions either. Besides the fact that it's questionable how supportive Trump would have been of Ukraine. When it comes to the Middle East, Bidens 2 massive optical failures (the pull out of Afghanistan and the attempted normalization deal between the gulf states and Israel).  , both of these were holdovers from Trump era policy and were touted as a success for his administration prior to them backfiring.

[jadis]

Wonder if a Michelle Obama run is indeed on the cards. Hope not. I hate her. The only upside would be Trump's riffs. You know exactly where he'll take it. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

She's definitely a neocon. I don't think there'd be much difference between her and Biden in terms of foreign policy, at least.

There is some: Iran. I doubt she has any interest in continuing the dem policy of something-that-looks-a-bit-like-appeasement vis-à-vis Tehran. On Iran I think Blinken is more of an Obama democrat than anything else.

there's really not much daylight between Trump and Biden on crucial foreign policy questions either. Besides the fact that it's questionable how supportive Trump would have been of Ukraine. When it comes to the Middle East, Bidens 2 massive optical failures (the pull out of Afghanistan and the attempted normalization deal between the gulf states and Israel).  , both of these were holdovers from Trump era policy and were touted as a success for his administration prior to them backfiring.

You mean the attempted Saudi deal backfired on Oct 7? I'm looking at it from Israel's perspective, not in terms of domestic US politics, but it seems the response from the Gulf states (Qatar aside obv) has been relatively muted, which is amazing. Neither UAE nor Bahrain (nor Egypt nor Jordan for that matter) cut the ties with Israel and there are reports the Saudi normalization isn't even dead. It's obvious they all hate Hamas and see Islamist terror as a threat.

[Jwb]

You mean the attempted Saudi deal backfired on Oct 7? I'm looking at it from Israel's perspective, not in terms of domestic US politics, but it seems the response from the Gulf states (Qatar aside obv) has been relatively muted, which is amazing. Neither UAE nor Bahrain (nor Egypt nor Jordan for that matter) cut the ties with Israel and there are reports the Saudi normalization isn't even dead. It's obvious they all hate Hamas and see Islamist terror as a threat.

First, I would point out I did say optical failure. As in I think the results of us pulling out of Afghanistan in the way we did looked particularly bad for the administration, even if the actual policy they were pursuing might have been theoretically sound.

I would say the in the same way, the mere fact that Oct 7 happened on his watch is regarded as a sort of optical failure for Biden, even if those optics are somewhat detached from the pragmatic questions the administration is actually tasked with addressing. It's similar to how we give presidents credit for the economy and hold them responsible for the economy even though their role in actually shaping the economy is much more diminished than I'm sure most of us would assume. Like I guarantee you when most people say Biden is bad on foreign policy what they actually mean is that several wars started in other parts of the world that he somehow failed to stop.

Also keep in mind that when Trump fans were going around trying to promote Trump's foreign policy record, they touted the Abraham accords as "bringing peace to the Middle East." If that was indeed the goal, then I would argue Oct 7 effectively renders the Abraham accords a distinct and utter failure.

Now you can try to argue that if the normalization process between these states continues despite Oct 7 and the war in Gaza/ whatever may follow, then that shows it might just be a minor set  back and not a final sign of failure, but that's only if you admit that the goal wasn't necessarily to bring the Middle East any closer to peace. Because by that metric there's little to suggest even any realistic future prospect for peace.

So once you analyze what is the actual goal here, to me the answer is quite simple. I don't even expect you will disagree with this tbh: the goal is simply to form an alliance against Iran. That has been the impetus from the get go, and it started soon after Obama began negotiations with Tehran.

The Saudis and Israel have been covertly cooperating on at least a security basis since then. And the latest normalization deal would have just brought that defacto alliance into the light. The fact the gulf   States still haven't backed out isn't that surprising. The initial impetus for them to enter into said agreement is only more apparent than it was before, with Iranian proxies throughout the region being activated by the current conflict.

It's also not surprising that out of all the partners, the Saudis are the most reluctant. They do have a current ceasefire with the Houthis, after a decade of waging a brutal and endless war in Yemen. I'm sure they're not at all excited about the prospect of reanimating that conflict. They also have notoriously religious population that is among the most anti-Israel in sentiment in the entire world. They have a long history of contending with religious radicals in their own country which pose an internal  threat to the monarchy's rule.

It's a common trend in the Middle East for the regimes of the various Muslim countries to use anti Israel sentiment to try to placate their populations, which are largely virulently anti semitic, let alone anti Israel. As such, the Saudis did have conditions they were pursuing vis a vis the Israel normalization deal. Most of them benefited the regime directly, e.g. having the US assist them with developing nuclear energy. But they also had the vague idea they needed some sort of concession for the Palestinians, and  that wasn't out of genuine warm feelings toward their downtrodden Muslim brothers. It's so they can at least latch onto the idea they got something for the Palestinians and didn't just sell out to the Jews, as a narrative to sell to their own people.

That seems exceedingly unlikely in the aftermath of this war, to me. That any sort of concessions could be even nominally be secured for the Palestinians even in the West Bank, at this point seems next to impossible. Though  it's certainly not necessarily impossible the Saudis will just forget that angle and go for the deal anyway, which intrinsically the regime probably wants to do. But again, if they do they will almost certainly reignite the conflict with the Houthis, and they will be facing a potentially dangerous sentiment among their domestic population. So it remains to be seen.

Also, giving nuclear technology to the Saudis seems like a pretty dangerous precedent. MBS straight up said if Iran gets a nuke , the Saudis have to get one. So we are going to risk creating/exasperating a nuclear arms race in the  Middle East by giving nuclear technology to a regime that can't guarantee it won't pursue nuclear weapons and also spends its spare time mass executing its citizens via beheading and upholding  shariah law. Not to mention being the number one exporter of the same militant islamist thought you say they are against.

Another aspect to consider is what America was supposed to get out of the equation, not just Israel and Saudi Arabia. Supposedly, the goal for us was broader disengagement from the Middle East. It was meant to be a way to contain Iran via proxies but without direct involvement. And one of the prices for doing so was a mutual defense pact with both Israel and Saudi Arabia. So considering that, does it seem to you like we are further away from another potential Middle East war with American troops on the ground? If anything I'd say we're getting closer.

Lastly, I'll just mention that while there's no proof, one of the more prominent theories floating out there about the motivations for the attack was that Iran specifically incited it in response to said normalization talks. If that's true, then not only did the normalization efforts not bring us closer to peace, they motivated the act of war that brought us where we are.

But even if it's not true, we're clearly much closer to an all out war in the Middle East than we have been in some time, and Iran is more activated than ever. So again, if the goal is peace I would say they probably failed, if the goal is preparation for war with Iran, then mission accomplished.

[jadis]

There's an excellent podcast ep from one of Israel's best journalists, Haviv Rettig Gur, on many of the issues you bring up: what is the goal behind the Abraham Accords for the Gulf states, what is the metric by which the Accords will be judged, what is the nature of Iran's anti-Israel obsession (you'll like this bit).

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/call-me-back-with-dan-senor/id1539292794?i=1000641662133

Lastly, I'll just mention that while there's no proof, one of the more prominent theories floating out there about the motivations for the attack was that Iran specifically incited it in response to said normalization talks. If that's true, then not only did the normalization efforts not bring us closer to peace, they motivated the act of war that brought us where we are.

If you follow through on this, then Israel should never seek to establish relations with any Arab states because it would piss Iran off, no?   

[Jwb]

There's an excellent podcast ep from one of Israel's best journalists, Haviv Rettig Gur, on many of the issues you bring up: what is the goal behind the Abraham Accords for the Gulf states, what is the metric by which the Accords will be judged, what is the nature of Iran's anti-Israel obsession (you'll like this bit).

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/call-me-back-with-dan-senor/id1539292794?i=1000641662133

I genuinely appreciate the suggestion. I'm always looking for shit to listen to at work. I'll probably check this out tomorrow.

If you follow through on this, then Israel should never seek to establish relations with any Arab states because it would piss Iran off, no?   

1) I didn't necessarily say what Israel should or shouldn't have done regarding the Abraham accords and the subsequent Biden attempts at normalization. I just cited that from an American pov, the expressed goal was peace, along with a general disengagement from the region on our part. On that front it was quite clearly a failure.

2) it's disingenuous to frame it as a sorta deal between the gulf states and Israel that inadvertently ended up pissing off Iran. Iran are the direct target of said alliance, as I mentioned previously:

3) if we're gonna talk about what they "should do," this last statement in that video about  "not granting Palestinians a veto " illustrates another problem with this arrangement. They are basically trying to move forward with their own goals in a way that doesn't even remotely consider the question of the people who are actually suffering under the current arrangement.

[jadis]

Basically I think Rettig Gur answers most of this. The normalization with the Gulf states is not just a strategic alliance against Iran, which it obviously is. It is also and more crucially a statement by the Gulf elites that the Muslim world doesn't have to be stuck in its retarded resentment against Israel. That they are better than that.

I too used to think that the campaign to subsume the Palestinian issue under Iran was disingenuous (and to the extent it's coming from Netanyahu it kinda is*). But as I see it today, Palestinians are merely the tip of the spear of Arab/Muslim resentment against the existence of a Jewish state: once the Palestinians decide that their main goal is acquiring a state for themselves, as opposed to annihilating the Jewish one, resolving the territorial issue shouldn't be too difficult. On these points I recommend the work of Shany Mor and Hussein Mansour Aboubakr. Specifically, this is the best and most lucid thing I've ever read on this conflict. If you don't have the energy to read it, he lays out his argument here. I like this essay so much I also listened to him discussing it with Rettig Gur and Mansour Aboubakr on this podcast. Obviously one doesn't have to agree with everything or anything they say but that's what makes sense to me today.

*What I mean here is that this man doesn't have Israel's best interest at heart. The thing with Obama over the Iran deal for example: if he cared about Israel as opposed to appearing big dicked to his base, he would've gotten something tangible from the Americans once it was clear that the deal is going to be signed. For example, to get Iran out of Syria, something along these lines. He could've gotten some concessions. Instead he went for optics and severely compromised Israel's standing with Democrats.