I'm curious. What policies do you think Trump had, that were good.

@Krunoslav I'll give you 3 off the top of my head. If you want to rebutt, go ahead, but I'll be speaking from my experience and probably not engage further.

1} Energy
2} Immigration (The Wall}
3) Taxes
Bonus*
Developing a foreign policy that would minimize U.S. military adventurism {"Endless War).
Double Bonus***
Appointing Justices on the basis of competency.

@Terence57 Sounds good on paper. But just of the top my head, lets take a closer look.

1. Energy.

I haven't followed everything his administration has done on this topic, but I remember he pulled out of Paris Climate accord which is more of a media optics thing than actual energy policy, since Paris is just that... for optics. They all agree on climate hoax nonsense, than go to their countries and do stuff in their own way. Getting out of it, is a plus. I agree.

The America First Energy Plan

As part of Donald Trump’s agenda that sent him to the White House in early 2017, the so-called America First Energy Plan aimed to attain energy independence by leveraging the country’s resources, especially fossil fuels. The core of Donald Trump’s energy policy was to expand domestic production of fossil fuels - oil, gas, and coal - and curtail regulations that were considered constraints on economic growth and job creation.

To reach this target, the Trump administration implemented several plans promoting energy development on federal lands, including oil and gas drilling in national parks and protected areas, and approving key infrastructure investments such as the Keystone XL Pipeline that encountered administrative hurdles during President Obama’s terms.

One of Donald Trump’s campaign promises was to revive the US coal industry by removing policies adopted by the previous administration. In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) replaced Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which aimed at reducing carbon emissions from power generation, with the Affordable Clean Energy rule that has no national emissions reduction objective, instead introducing guidelines to increase power plant efficiency.

Where climate is concerned, President Trump announced early on 2017 that the United States (US) would exit from the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). The US’s withdrawal officially took effect on 4 November 2020, while the US contribution to the Green Climate Fund had already fell from US$3bn committed by Obama’s administration to US$1bn in 2017 and even to none since 2019. Likewise, Donald Trump reversed numerous Obama era environmental rules and regulations, including several EPA's pollution-control policies, rolled back auto emissions standards to provide cheaper cars for consumers and even attacked the California-Quebec cap-and-trade carbon emissions scheme to impede its implementation.

Trump’s energy dominance plan boosted the domestic energy supply.

To summarise, the trend towards a clean power mix overcame resistance from the Trump administration. This was driven by the States and local authorities, who maintained the ambition of the Paris Agreement by deploying compliant policies, as well as by the involvement of utilities, who responded to pressure by NGOs and financial institutions to phase out coal and establish carbon neutrality plans.

[enerdata.net]

On other hand Trump was promoting American illegal occupation and stealing of oil and other resources in Syria. where US is still doing that.

President Trump has been pushing for U.S. control of Syrian oil, which experts say belongs to the Syrian government. However, the idea of controlling the oil fields may provide a pretext for a continued U.S. military presence in Syria, reversing the president's promise of a full withdrawal. Experts warned that seizing and profiting from Syrian oil fields could constitute a war crime, but Trump celebrated his strategy. Syria has accused Trump of stealing the country's oil, after U.S. officials confirmed that a U.S. company has been allowed to operate there in fields under the control of a Pentagon-backed militia. Trump has approved an expanded military mission to secure an expanse of oil fields across eastern Syria, raising legal questions about whether U.S. troops can launch strikes against Syrian, Russian or other forces if they threaten the oil.

This brings into question many of his other "deals" and how much under the table backscratching there was and does it really benefit the American people or pockets of some powerful people.

@Terence57 2} Immigration (The Wall}

I don't think he ever finished it, most of the policies he implimented or rather his administartion implimented wer not efficient enough to stop illegal immigration , but it was not a complete invasion like under the Biden Administration.

US election 2020: Trump's impact on immigration - in seven charts

Published 22 October 2020

By Ed Lowther
Data journalist, BBC News

Donald Trump campaigned for the presidency in 2016 with a pledge to bring down illegal immigration, famously blaming undocumented migrants from Mexico for a host of problems, including drugs and crime. In the four years since, how has this rhetoric translated into a wider immigration policy?

The number of foreign-born people living in the US has risen by about 3% from 43.7 million the year before Mr Trump's election to about 45 million last year.

But this rise conceals a big shift in the largest group by far within this population - those who have moved to the US from Mexico. Having remained at nearly the same level for years, the number of people living in the US who were born in Mexico has fallen steadily since Mr Trump's election.

While this dip was more than offset by an increase in the number of people who have moved to the US from elsewhere in Latin America and the Caribbean, demographers at the US Census Bureau have estimated that net migration - the number of people moving to the US minus those moving out of the US - has fallen to its lowest level for a decade.

This is partly due to lower levels of immigration, but also because more people who were born outside the US are moving back overseas, according to Anthony Knapp of the US Census Bureau.

Beneath this trend there are some important changes to the visa system.
More people are getting temporary visas, and fewer are getting permanent ones

Mr Trump has allowed more people to come to the US temporarily for work, but made it harder for people to settle permanently in the US. The reduction in permanent visas, from about 1.2 million in 2016 to about 1 million in 2019, has primarily affected family members of US citizens and residents hoping to join their relatives, with the number of permanent visas sponsored by employers largely unchanged.

Although more people are affected by this, in percentage terms his most significant change to immigration policy has been to lower the number of refugees admitted to the US.
Refugee admissions have fallen to new lows

The number of people admitted to the US as refugees each year is determined by a system of quotas, the size of which are ultimately defined by the president. People seeking to move to the US as refugees must make their applications from outside the country, and need to convince US officials that they are vulnerable to persecution at home.

Mr Trump's hostility to any immigration from Muslim-majority countries is well known - he once pledged to enact a "complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" - and a reduction in refugee quotas proved easier to implement than an outright ban, which became mired in legal challenges.

As a result, the number of refugees admitted from a number of majority-Muslim countries, including Iraq, Somalia, Iran and Syria, fell almost to zero soon after he took office.

The proportion of Muslim refugees has fallen further still

Curbing visas and refugee admissions is not the only way to reduce the number of people entering the country, and Mr Trump has also sought to make it harder to move to, or remain in, the US without any relevant documentation.

However, this is more difficult than it might seem. To understand what has happened during President Trump's tenure, we first need to get to grips with what the official statistics on deportation mean, and they are broken down into two categories.

People are said to be "removed" if they are taken out of the country under the authority of a court order, and people are "returned" if they are refused admission while trying to cross the border, or asked to leave the country without a court order.

Being removed has a lasting legal consequence, making it much harder to gain re-entry to the country. But many people who have been returned across the US-Mexico border simply tried to enter the US again at a later date. President Obama escalated a policy enacted by his predecessor, President George W Bush, to step up removals - particularly of those who had been accused or convicted of criminal offences.
No immediate shift in number of deportations

President Trump has not brought about any significant changes to the number of people in either deportation category compared with his predecessor.

The US Immigration, Customs and Enforcement agency, which handles most deportations, has described the current rate of removals as "extremely low", blaming a lack of resources and "judicial and legislative constraints", among other things.

The agency is also under pressure at the Mexican border, where the administration's changes to asylum policy have resulted a long backlog of cases, sometimes with families separated and children held in detention centres, and asylum seekers being returned to Mexico to await the processing of their claims.

Despite widespread media coverage of the border crisis, the data for 2019 suggests that would-be migrants have not been deterred - the number of detentions at the border was more than double the number for the previous year, driven largely by a large rise in the number of families attempting to get across.

But more recent data shows large rise in number of detentions at border

This shift is likely to translate into a significant rise in the returns numbers for 2019, which are due to be released in the next few months.

[bbc.com]

...........................

Trump's Immigration Record
Mexico hasn’t paid for a wall, but there has been progress
By Mark Krikorian on October 1, 2020

National Review, October 1, 2020

It’s beginning to look like Mexico isn’t going to be paying for the wall after all.

But it turns out that our neighbor to the south did something far more important: The Trump administration persuaded Mexico to work with us to reduce the number of bogus asylum claims by Central Americans, claims that were threatening to make the border fence irrelevant.

And that's just one of the immigration accomplishments the administration can point to. There have been plenty of stumbles, of course, and it won't be clear for some time whether the Trump presidency will represent a net plus or minus in the long run for the cause of controlling immigration. But a look back at the past four years shows quite a few salutary changes, usually made in the face of implacable, even maniacal, opposition.

First, the minus side of the ledger. Many of the administration's immigration mistakes have been a result of the president's own weaknesses: impulsiveness, lack of attention to detail, holding a grudge. For instance, the first major initiative, the ban on travelers from seven terror-prone nations (Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea, and Venezuela), was perfectly defensible. But the failure to prepare properly, by laying out a detailed legal defense and by coordinating with all those who'd be involved, resulted in a PR and administrative mess.

Likewise with the "zero tolerance" policy at the southern border, where illegal aliens bringing children with them as a stratagem to gain release into the U.S. were instead prosecuted for the federal crime of infiltrating the border. The resulting child-separation fiasco was amplified and distorted by a hostile media, but the original disarray could have been avoided with less haste and more planning.

Personnel mistakes have similarly been shaped by the president's temperament. As he left office, Harry Truman said of his successor, "He'll sit right here and he'll say, Do this, do that! And nothing will happen. Poor Ike — it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating." Truman was wrong about the 34th president but not the 45th. Staffing would have been a problem for any outsider administration lacking a government-in-waiting of think-tankers, lobbyists, and consultants, but Trump's penchant for Apprentice-style management has created a situation where the top personnel in charge of immigration at the Department of Homeland Security, including the secretary himself, are all "acting" managers, not having been confirmed by the Senate.

And finally, some of the administration's shortcomings have been the result of bad choices: the president's firing of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the only high official with a clear vision for dealing with immigration; the nine-month delay in rescinding Obama's illegal DACA work-permit program, which telegraphed hesitancy and weakness; the president's curious ambivalence about E-Verify; and the decision to continue the made-up Optional Practical Training program, wherein some 200,000 foreign white-collar workers masquerade as students and are therefore not counted as participating in numerically capped, legitimate guest-worker programs, and are exempted (along with their employers) from paying payroll taxes. (The Optional Practical Training program has no basis in statute and is being challenged in court.)

But there is much on the plus side of the Trump administration's immigration policy. Whoever is paying for the wall, it is, in fact, getting built. The criticisms of some on the right that the Border Patrol is merely replacing existing barriers is misplaced: A 30-foot bollard fence where there used to be a four-foot vehicle barrier that your grandma could duck under (something I've done numerous times) is new construction. The importance of the new walls was underlined by the sight of busloads of Central Americans of all ages clambering over and under the low vehicle barriers, after having been delivered to their Mexican side by smugglers, and then turning themselves in to lodge meritless asylum claims.

As mentioned above, getting Mexico's help in regaining a modicum of control over asylum has been another big win for the administration — one that I did not think possible. Central Americans who sneak across the border, or walk up to a border crossing, and regurgitate the asylum verbiage their smugglers taught them are no longer released into the U.S. or even necessarily detained. Instead, Mexico has agreed to let us return them across the border to await their hearing dates in Mexican border towns, eliminating much of the incentive to file such claims in the first place.

Refugee resettlement is another Trump win. Resettlement, which began as a cause in the wake of the communist takeover of Indochina, has turned into a racket, with State Department contractors such as World Relief and Catholic Charities being paid by the head to find apartments for refugees, sign them up for welfare, and move on to the next batch to resettle. The administration has broken the rice bowl of the refugee industry by cutting the overall number admitted while at the same time increasing the share of those who genuinely warrant resettlement and giving state and local governments more say-so in the process, reflecting the intent of the 1980 Refugee Act.

Immigrant self-sufficiency is another area where the Trump administration has brought practice into line with legislative intent. The oldest principle of American immigration policy, dating to colonial times, is that only newcomers who can support themselves should be admitted. This was incorporated into federal law nearly a century and a half ago, when the U.S. barred the admission of any foreigner likely at any time to become a "public charge." The requirement was subsequently reiterated and tightened, most recently and notably in 1996, with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.

But the Clinton administration, in writing the regulations based on those 1996 laws, deliberately subverted their intent by counting only cash benefits when calculating how much the U.S. provided to new immigrants. So, for the past 20 years, a prospective immigrant (while here in some nonimmigrant status) could have received, or could have been likely to receive in the future, food stamps, housing subsidies, Medicaid, and free school lunch and still be considered self-sufficient. The Trump administration has helped to rectify this absurd situation by issuing a new detailed rule expanding the kinds of welfare programs, and the amount of their use, that would lead to a prospective immigrant's rejection as a likely public charge.

American workers have also benefited from the administration's immigration moves, though not nearly as much as one might have expected, given the amount of pro-worker rhetoric during the 2016 campaign. We've seen an increase in worksite enforcement against illegal workers as well as their employers, though since enforcement had dropped to zero under Obama, there was nowhere to go but up. Most encouraging were the indictments earlier this year of managers at some of the chicken plants raided last year in Mississippi; they were charged with a variety of crimes, including wire fraud, identity theft, and harboring illegal aliens. More of that is vital.

White-collar workers have also made some gains thanks to Trump-administration actions. In 2016, Disney's former IT staffers who had been replaced by foreign-visa workers (and been required to train them before leaving) campaigned with Trump in Florida on the strength of his commitment to protect American workers. Once in office, the administration took a variety of steps to tighten up the lax issuance and oversight of, especially, H-1B visas, used mainly by tech firms. Most dramatically, earlier this year, the plight of the IT staff at the Tennessee Valley Authority came to the president's attention. Like those at Disney and literally hundreds of other firms, the TVA's computer staff was being fired and replaced by foreign workers with H-1Bs. The president called in TVA worker representatives, fired the chairman of the board (TVA is a government corporation), and told the board to roll back the staff firings. Only if Trump is reelected will we know whether this was a one-off campaign stunt or a genuine long-term commitment.

We've seen other positive moves as well under Trump: steps to limit birth tourism (pregnant foreigners' traveling to the U.S. to give birth here and thereby obtain American citizenship for the child); visa sanctions against so-called recalcitrant countries that refuse to accept their own citizens back when we try to deport them; and the refusal to sign two U.N. "global compacts" designed to gradually wrest control over immigration and refugee policy away from national governments.

It's not quite that we're tired of winning on immigration and begging the president, "Please, it's too much winning!" There's much left to do, and even the initiatives already underway have been fought at every step by a lawless "resistance" judiciary that, especially at the district-court level, has dispensed with all pretense of judicial impartiality.

But even when the Trump administration has overcome the obstruction of the courts, all these positive moves come with an asterisk. You'll notice that one important word has yet to appear in this article: "Congress." All the changes undertaken by this administration, as with the prior two, are the result of executive actions of various kinds. Such measures are much easier for a subsequent administration to reverse than are changes in the underlying laws. Unfortunately, our national legislature seems to have given up on legislating, becoming, in Gibbon's words about Rome's impotent senate, "a venerable but useless monument of antiquity on the Capitoline hill." Until that changes, immigration policy is likely to oscillate every four or eight years.
Topics: Border Wall

[cis.org]

@Terence57 3) Taxes

He lowered the taxes for some, but also increased taxes for everyone who holds dolars or other fiat currencies. He was pushing for low interest rates and QE. meaing inflation, resulting in doubleing the amount of dollars than previous guy. But this has been steady normaly among both parties. As Biden has done twice as much as Trump and Trump as done twice as much as Obama, who has done twice as much as the prvious guy. Its clearly a bipartiasn thing.

So when Trump says best economy ever, in reality is biggest bubble ever and highest debt up until that time. Fail on texes. Also despite printing twice as much as the last guy he didn't wisely spend it either.

Bonus: Developing a foreign policy that would minimize U.S. military adventurism {"Endless War).

This is a moot point. He hired the biggest neocons he could find and they run the war for him. When he tried to do something, they simply ignored him. So while his intentions might have been good, his policy was terrible in exicution. His murder of Iranian general and moving embassy to Jerusalem and 2017 recognition by the United States of Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel was also terrible and conquances of that are going to be felt by America for generations to come. Trump also was full on board sending weapons to Ukraine. And there are other geopolitical mistakes he made, but at least in those it was more because of inexperiance and incompetance than mallace.

Double Bonus*** Appointing Justices on the basis of competency.

I don't know to what extent that is true, since most Trump Justices could only be appointed if they were career politicians first. Certainly as everyone knew Amy Coney Barrett was doen for optics of appointing a woman and she was a more a disaster than an asset as expected. Many of his other appointees as far as I can recall were largely hit and miss, depending on cases I heard them being involved. Mostly, it was a moot point since most of them are there under political rules, not legal rules. As we have seen when it came to even examining the election fraud allegations, the whole of supreme court washed their hands from it claiming its not their responsibility. That should be a clear indication whom they serve. The system, not the justice. They take cases that are politically beneficial or not risky. As we have seen in cases of lock downs, mandated jabs, and many others. Including Roe v wade.

@Krunoslav I see you disagree, which is fine. Your info is incomplete and one sided. Now, I'm very curious who you would like to see elected president. PLEASE don't throw reams of paragraphs at me. It's possible to keep it simple, cogent, pithy. Thanks, T

BTW, my first choice has been DeSantis for some time. However, observing the chaos of the DOJ, the FBI and the deep state, I might vote for Trump in the primary just so he can take heads. People ought to be in jail.
Durham's report is NOT a "nothingburger." It's damning.

@Terence57 To put it simply I think choosing a president in America today is like raising or not the debt ceiling. Its Kabuki theater. We all know that debt ceiling will be raised and that any so called negotiations are not about principles of financial systems, but done as political leverage and show for others. Once the show is over they will flood the markets with over a trillion dollars and we are back to QE.

Same I think is the case with presidents. Trump was a sitting president when the was de platformed from all big tech social media platforms and he was raided as ex president, impeachment process was raised with no merit, and now they are trying to stop him by this kangaroo trial for sexual assault. So how much does electing a president matter? Not the mention last time they had color revolution to rig the election and they did the same in mid terms and will do it again. Plus Trump has to be the worse judge of character in human history since all the people he chose to be in his administration or run his campaign have backstab him. And this time around it seems he is doing it again.

DeSantis seems to be more a man of substance of actually getting things done in regards to stuff about culture wars, trans stuff, grooming, covid etc. But he is not a billionaire like Trump so he actually went to Israel so they can tell him to come back to Florida and sign hate speech law to protect Jews. Otherwise his donners won't fund his campaign. So he made that compromise. Also if you look at his background he was trained by the neocons. Yale, and Harvard Ivy League. Gitmo post etc. So he in turn supported all the wars and lately as he gotten into spotlight about being culture war warrior in Florida, he kept his mouth shut on forign policy. He finally dared to say maybe Ukraine should be about peace talks, and about week later he was back on Anti putin train. So clearly neocons gave him a call to put him back in his place. He also supported stuff against Cuba and Venezuela, clearly not his idea, but neocons want him to do it, so he does it.

Between the two it seems to me that regime is in charge either way, but Trump seems to be more of a maverick so they hate that because he is loose cannon. DeSantis is more predictable and complaint with the neocons even if they let him do his culture stuff in Florida. As president I think he would be just as docile as he was about forign policy. Trump on the other hand sadly because of flaws of his own, need neocon approval for his sense of acceptance, so he keep on supporting them even when they keep on stabbing him in the back. Its a sado mazo relationship.

Kennedy is a no starter since he went with the democratic party that will never nominate him, so he is just never going to be president and if he did, we would have a third dead Kennedy in America.

So to put it in another way: "The legions of reporters who cover politics don't want to quit the clash and thunder of electoral combat for the dry duty of analyzing the federal budget. As a consequence, we have created the perpetual presidential campaign." -- Hugh Sidey

For the rest of the world they are moving on they don't care anymore who is president, because whoever it is, neocons and deep state makes the policy. Politicians are at this stage paid actors. Politics has become show business for ugly people. There is no real vision anymore. There are no statesmen. The closest statement with a vision you can find is in Hungary and Russia. The rest is just bad actors dancing to a tune of the donners and real power brokers. And as southern district of NYC courts have shown America is a banana republic with no rule of law and weaponized FBI, DOJ, CIA, MSM and courts. In other words in a banana republic that actually has to import bananas. Pathetic.

The fact that official policy and religion is degeneracy. Both domestically and in forign policy. Actual forign policy is to spread degeneracy of rainbow flags across the world. I kid you not. official policy. To think casting a vote and getting a fresh puppet in the oval office will make a difference is simple unrealistic.

@Terence57 We can't vote on Bilderberg Meetings and what happens there, and that is where power is. Presidential election in America is largely Kabuki Theater, barely any different than coronation of King in UK.

Max Blumenthal Breaks Down What Elites DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW About Secretive Bilderberg Meetings

@Krunoslav Now that's a reply. Now I know where you're coming from---which is that in any case and whomever is elected, you don't see much of a "way out."

While I disagree w/ some of the particulars, I have to agree with the sentiments at this moment.

The bureaucratic deep state, the Military/Industrial Complex, are real things. As I say, whether or not Trump could, having experienced the dark side of the bureaucratic nightmare, "fix things," is almost no longer the point. Same for DeSantis, who has 1st class executive chops. RFK Jr. is the only "moral" choice the dems could run and they won't.

But to get to that point of a Trump or DeSantis win, the R's have to get a clue about elections, and they still don't have one.

@Terence57 Yes. We have seen some changes in domestic culture war stuff when presidents change, but forign policy remains more or less the same no matter who is at the oval office. Biden as it is clear to everyone is not running anything, he manages to screw up basic stuff even with all the handlers and scripts and teleprompters. Do we really expect something to be different with new guy. I don't think it will be. There will be a lot of press coverage, lot of twitter wars etc. But policy itself and structure of power is beyond what presidents can do at this point. So most of the stuff will continue.

Much like Spanish kings who because of inbreeding ended up so retarded they could not be kings anymore. I feel the American empire is similar now and by extension European. Its mental rather than biological incest but its the same problem. Imagine Biden and Harris was the best they could do on democrat side. At this point its juts about holding on to power by pretense that president matters. That is clear from the DNC side.

Is GOP better. Well they don't call many of them RINOS for nothing. And those outsiders like Trump has to make a lot of compromises to just be let in. Despite all that, I feel that most people are beginning to realize that its a uniparty not two parties. Left or right wing, same bird. Maybe rethroci changes a bit but most of the fundamental policies remain.

10 years ago Obama was against Gay marriage. and now you can't find a single GOP or mainstream so called conservative to go against it. 10 more years and they will say pedophilia is normal. Democrats already are leading the charge and GOP is barely putting up a word against it.

Also who ever inherent the mess, will no doubt house to "print money" double as much as Biden, because no one will cut the size of the goverment or spending in any meaningful way. Pretty soon when debt reaches about 40 Trillion, just interest per year are going to be over 1 trillion. That is more than the nominal budget of the military which is about 900 billion. And that budget is twice the size of Russia and china military budget combined. Its simply not sustainable and neither is culture war for all the reason I know you are aware off. Neither Stalin nor Hitler with all their brutality could change that if they were elected tomorrow. so what can constitutionally conscientious compromise politician like DeSantis or Trump do, beyond make a lot of mean tweets. Nothing. This is one way train to hell. Only when America hits rock bottom , will there be strong enough foundation to start building something new. Because you can't go lower than rock bottom. Until than, most of it will be business as usual behind the scene, and Kabuki theater for people to keep thinking there will be change.

The only way this thing stops if the dollar dies. And they have to go back to gold standard. Other than that, every problem they create will be attempted to be solved by throwing more fake fiat dollars at it, which is a lot like oil on fire. Real change or rather opportunity for change is death of dollar fiat system. That is where we should keep our eye on. The presidential race thing is just for show.

@Krunoslav RE: Fiat Currency

Somebody along the line made the point that if the feds can just print money, what do they need our tax dollars for?

It's not a joke.

@Terence57 Yes. Good point. I suppose, greed has no bounds. At this point taxes are mainly for control rather than funding. Like masks during scamdamic. It was not for protection, but for compliance. I imagine tax is pretty much the same at this point.

@Krunoslav Yep. Like controlling the water supply.

@Terence57 Someone posted this. Looks about right to me.

@Krunoslav They're going to have to figure it out.

His ego is too big for that. I now know why Trump does not use teleprompter for his speeches. His main topic is always about himself and how great he is. I imagine he uses mirror for rehearsal. Need no stinking teleprompter. In the end he will do nuffin of any real change and hire bunch of neocons to help him do it. the same neocons that are not sending Boris "I sabotaged the peace talks" Johnson to US to try to court republicans to send more weapons to ukraine. Off courses they are paying him to do it. Its a roundabout way to do what they normally do. Lets see how Trump will stop the war in one day. As he put it. lol