"Trump couldn't help mouthing off about GAZA before all the hostages were out."

Yeah. It has nothing to do with Hamas.

Hamas is playing a game. They are seeing how far they can push without turning the world against them. Their goal of extirpating the Jewish state has not changed. They're just seeing what they can get away with.

I think Mr. Carville's point was maybe to focus first and foremost on experience and qualifications, rather than those things that shape the individual's personal life.

"Not only did the report say he got a house, with furnishings, but now he also wants $50k to paint it."

So...most government-provided houses are owned or managed by private management companies. In my mind, any service requests would have gone through the management company, who would then fulfill the request.

It would be really weird for the SECDEF to reuqest that someone other than the housing management company pain the house, although this could be some sort of one-off thing. He is the SECDEF, so he may not be living in normal military housing.

Reading between the lines, this would suggest the possibility that Syria is favoring more western alignment. Syria's traditional enemies under the Assad regime were anti-government fighters, and possibly Israel. It does not appear as though Iran will play a future role in Syria. From my vantage point, the biggest contention will be with regards to the SDF, who control much of the northeastern part of Syria. They have also been the primary western partner in the OPERATION IMMINENT RESOLVE, the fight to destroy ISIS. The Turks regard them as terrorists.

"Many (most?) in the US dislike the United nations because of an apparent lack of the ability of the US in the UN to dictate things."

As one of the five permanent members, the US is already in as favorable position as it could hope to ever be.

Withdrawing from the US would eliminate much of the ability we have to influence foreign affairs.

I don't really understand that "rich people" part of this, but the article nails it.

Tariffs will benefit US-based producers at the expense of all consumers. Basically, producers can increase their prices to match whatever foreign competition would be charging, a cost which would include the import taxes. Put yourself in the shoes of a producer and you'll understand why this is beneficial. You can now up your price point by 15-20% of whatever. The consumer will have no choice but to pay it.

"You really think subscriptions to Politico and NYT were stopping Russia?"

I think limited funding is what was curbing Russian influence operations, especially when compared to the commies. USAID was devised as mechanism to spread influence during the cold war, where military or other influence levers may not have been suitable. The commies couldn't match this directly because they were too poor. Which is why they often chose the military route, providing equipment and expertise.

TBH, I don't know to what extent USAID is still involved in influence operations. But it does behoove the US to have some system that is able to do what USAID was designed to do by JFK when the program was first implimented.

"Trump is buying out whomever and whatever he wants.... and he's using our money."

Oh god, he's become another Bernie.

A) The biggest beneficiary from killing USAID will be China and Russia. USAID isn't about helping poor people...if that were the case the money would just be directed to underachievers in the US. It is about proliferating US influence, particularly in the developing world and spreading goodwill. The commies will now be able to do that at a discount rate.

B) you are not "robbing the poor" by not giving them money. Robbing them would be taking the money they had, by force.