Hopefully they can work something out in the interim to avoid it altogether.
If they are having trouble responding to rescues, I’m not sure why they (govt) are not allowing private drones to fly over the impacted areas to try to find/rescue people?
He did belittle the choice. I would have preferred Tulsi. There is no doubt Vance is sharper than advertised.
JD Vance did well in the debate but was still a bad pick. His favorably ratings is -10 while Walz is a +4. Vance just said Trump won in 2020 (day after debate) which doesn't help in any way. Don't get me wrong Walz was a bad pick too. I believe that both presidential candidates did not want to pick anybody too good less they be overshadowed by a more competent politician.
Knowing a little about aviation, I can tell you the limit on drones is a good thing. I do believe drones are capped at something around a few hundred feet. Anything over 8 pounds can take out an airplane/aircraft. It all boils down to the inability to track the drones, that is, no transponders.
Tulsi is great, but if you put Tulsi on the ticket people like Rill would say there are 2 Democrats on the ticket! And he would be half right since I believe Tulsi is just a reasonable American who is a Democrat on a large number of issues.
Vance was a great pick. At the time, I didn’t know too much about him. But, he flipped that -10 to a +10 for anyone watching the debate. The debate WAS the single opportunity for the country to meet Coach Walz and Vance.
After watching the VP debate, it is very clear that is nothing more than the power of the MSM. One is a goofball and the other one was completely in control with a terrific grip on the issues.
Let's see where his net favorabllity ratings are a week from now. You may be right.
This is purely anecdotal data that goes against the official government information per the incredible disappearing @dtrain79
One problem I still have with Vance is that he was extremely anti-Trump in 2016 and suddenly he became MAGA when it was politically expedient. I don't trust him on what his positions are.
heartlandsignal.com
He handled that question like a champ. He admitted he was wrong and learned from it. He also cited he bought too much into the media fake stories. All very easy to believe. It was refreshing to see a major politician admit to mistakes.
I am confused. What does the tweet have to do with your comments?
Hello Liz cheyney, is that you? How many Americans should we send to die in the Middle East?
We are not going to send anyone to the Middle East. There will not be any additional boots on the ground. Israel does not need any help on the ground; they are more than capable.
I do. I misjudged Trump prior to his first term too. Thought he would be a complete disaster executing the job of POTUS and if I'm intellectually honest, he wasn't. Unlike Vance, I figured out during the primaries that there was a massive misrepresentation of Trump going on in the media, so I can't blame having fallen for the lies. I just misjudged the guy. I also didn't come out of that first term as much a fan of Trump as Vance may have, but he beat my admittedly low expectations. And I give Vance props for admitting he was wrong and not running and ducking from the question.
We already have boots on the ground in the Middle East, 40,000 or so, and they have been under attack several times in the last year, I think from Iranian-backed groups. Whether or not ground forces actively participate in a direct conflict between Israel and Iran remains to be seen, maybe depends on the outcome of the election. Naval/air defense assets already have participated. But if there is an intensified Iran-Israel conflict, US troops will almost certainly come under attack by Iranian proxies. How the US responds is subject to speculation.
