Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show includes a pulse-pounding preview of tonight's first Republican presidential debate. True, DJT is taking a pass, but I still say the stakes are high, because at some point the race for the nomination will resolve itself into a battle between Trump and an anti-Trump, and, depending on the breaks, the non-Trump candidate could have a legitimate chance to win. Then again, if he (or she) is a dud, Trump will cruise to his rematch with Biden. For Ron DeSantis, the stakes are especially high, because he's trying to reclaim the status of Trump's nemesis. I'll be watching. Will you?
In addition to the debate, Brian and I discuss RFK, Jr.'s role in the presidential race, the outrageousness of the latest charges against Trump (and 18 others, guilty of nothing more than engaging in politics), the state of the Russia-Ukraine War, and so much more!
It'll be the most edifying 20-25 minutes of your day -- OR YOUR MONEY BACK!!!
https://wlea.net/newsmaker-august-23-2023-dr-nick-waddy/
***
In other news, the Wagner boss who briefly mounted a coup against the Putin regime in Russia appears to have died in a plane crash, which in turn may or may not have been caused by a most unfortunate collision between the plane and an anti-aircraft missile. What were the chances??? Pretty high, actually. I must say, old Yevgeny lived longer than I expected after crossing everyone's favorite dictator, Vlad the Prevailer.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I dunno. When are the Rus people ever going to get a break? The more things change the more they stay the same. Thugs still rule.
ReplyDeleteRAY TO JACK
DeleteNot a matter of "thugs" ruling anything, anywhere. The thing to remember is that "Russian Nationalism" is far stronger than any ideology. Even Stalin (who was not a Russian) became a Russian Nationalist, realizing that acquisition of real estate is far more important than Communism. In any event, Russia is unlikely to become an American like republic, so authoritarian governments are the norm there. Maybe the "Rus people" don't want or need a break.
Ray et al from Jack: I fear you are right. Their history supports it. I think they MIGHT have had a chance for true progress in the early 20th century. Hapless Nicholas II did allow some relaxation of absolutism. Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin presciently hounded marxists and did initiate land reforms but he was assassinated. WWI then eventually opened the door of hell itself and Lenin and Co. slithered in. Radical evil in its fully incalculable malevolencemwas loosed on that tormented people from within and without. And the apparent respite they had in the '90s was cynically betrayed. Russians have terrible trouble enough just dealing with their oppressive winter.They always look so very weary.
ReplyDeleteJack, Ray makes a lot of sense. It's hard to put ourselves in the shoes of the Russian people. They may have loathed Prigozhin, and they may still adore Putin. What's more, I wouldn't automatically assume that Putin was responsible for what happened. It may have been someone Putin-friendly trying to ingratiate themselves.with the Big Kahuna. It may have been the Ukrainians trying to make Putin look bad. But probably it was Putin delivering the same justice that almost any self-respecting country would visit on an ACTUAL "insurrectionist".
ReplyDeleteTrue, Jack, authoritarianism comes in many flavors and gradations. Up until, oh, January 2022, most outside observers might have said that Putin had been a fairly benign autocrat, who conveyed many benefits on his people and generally upheld international stability. Even more would have said so before 2016, when Putin was demonized (unfairly) as the Bringer-of-Trump. As you point out, there are reasons why Putin went off the rails, from the Western perspective, and our own stupidity tops the list.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: DeSantis equals substance; he's going mano a mano with the haughty and vindictive woke mob in his state and he's doing it without apology - our man! Nikki walks the walk too, though during her term the antiamerican left onslaught was not quite as intense. As a black conservative Scott supports his conservative convictions in an especially courageous manner considering the especially vicious condemnation he faces for his "apostasy". I would rejoice to see any one of them run with Trump.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: The dem compromised Jan. 6 Committee considered DJT an "insurrectionist" because they saw him as having given aid and comfort to our country's enemies ehh.? What about the '60s peaceniks ( by the way, there is a good reason why that epithet was Sovietized back then), many of whom no doubt eventually sat on the dem side in the House when that infamous condemnation of DJT was pronounced? They hadn't done a thing to promote peace during Vietnam; with bad will aplenty they supported the war effort of our murderous commie enemy.Yeah and what about Slick Willy and his draft dodging and his enacted loathing for the military in time of war. What was he doing in Moscow back then, that is when his mind was above his middle?Why ,he should have been disqualified from the Presidency; the 14th Amendment was there for all to see even then. Isn't that where today's earnest dem thinking would have led back then? Jeepers!
ReplyDeleteIt's official: Jack's reaction to the Republican debate is that all (or most) of the candidates get four stars! I notice that you didn't mention Pence. What's the Fox News line on him these days? More importantly, what's YOUR line?
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right, Jack: the prohibition against giving "aid and comfort" to the "enemies" of the country/Constitution could be used to disqualify virtually anyone from running for office. Of course, it never has been, but leftist lawyers, prosecutors, and Attorneys General are getting increasingly desperate/impertinent when it comes to subverting the essence of democracy. The 14th Amendment gambit probably won't fly this time around, but the future looks bright for aspiring Stalinists, I would say.
Dr.Waddy from Jack: Any of them would be a vast improvement over any dem except, maybe Manchin. I don' t know enough about Pence's actions on Jan. 6 to be able to consider him in an informed manner in that light. Before that I thought he was a loyal, dutiful VP, both to DJT and America. I think he is a true conservative and would make a fine President.
ReplyDeleteJack, based on Pence's actions on January 6th, you would certainly have to question his loyalty to Trump and Trumpism, but you might also have to ask whether his ultimate loyalty is to the deep state, whose interests he served beautifully by aiding in the ouster of Trump. I don't question his view that he didn't have the power to reject the electoral votes for Biden. I do question whether he was constitutionally or legally or morally obligated to participate in a "rigged" process. Any Senator or Cabinet official could have stepped in for Pence, and it would not have altered the outcome.
ReplyDelete