We don't know some important specifics about the deal but (IMHO) that's on purpose and is telling, meaning you only end up obscure deal details because you have something to hide.

So I don't know what stage the project was at but by withdrawing from the deal or cancelling it, the government is going to have to pay a penalty. Is that penalty $10 million? Is it $500 million? We don't really know.

So it could be that TotalEnergies is still getting paid $1 billion but now they have to spend $600 million on some fossil fuel project. But in doing so the government has essentially paid a $400 million break penalty. You see what I mean?

I don't believe for a second that the government didn't lose money on this political cancellation. The fossil fuel project is just a way to hide that and save face (IMHO).

I'd add that it's also a free opportunity to test IRBM targeting at much longer ranges.

The war of choice is really the US's Teutoburg Forest moment.

First, IL-7 was nothing like it was in 2024. What are you talking about? In 2024, a 14 term incumbent, Danny Davis, was seeking reelection. Now there's some noise here because IL-7 changed in the 2021 redistricting and became more Democratic but still, Davis is a long-time veteran.

Davis was a progressive but has a more mixed record on Israel funding and defence bills. He's concered with what he has called a "humanitarian crisis", which is more than most, but never gone so far as to use terms like "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" AFAIK.

Davis faced challenges in 2024 but won pretty handily. One of his challengers wasa the future 2026 AIPAC chosen candidate, Melissa Conyears-Ervin. AIPAC indirectly (eg through UDP) spent millions [1] in the IL-7 Democratic primary and still came in third.

So, IL-7 in 2026 was a massively funded primary in an open field with no incumbent and 2024 was a 14 term incumbent seeking reelection without massive spending. In what way are they comparable?

Bonus question: if millions are spent to oppose a candidate and they still win, how can you say the results were "identical"?

[1]: https://chicagocrusader.com/la-shawn-ford-wins-7th-district-...

That's a long way of saying "Kat ran a better campaign".

I have criticisms of her campaign, specifically

1. She was a carpet-bagger (as you said). She moved in Illinois in 2024 I believe;

2. She initially ran in a district she didn't live in. I believe she initially lived in IL-7 but ran in IL-9 and moved there at some point;

3. She chose to primary a relatively good candidate, Jan Shakowsky. My working theory is she was trying to fly under AIPAC's radar by primarying a relatively pro-Palestine candidatei; and

4. She essentially advocated for going to war with China over Taiwan for literally no reason. Nobody in her district cares about this. You can blame that in part on having a bad foreign policy advisor but the buck stops with the candidate.

And despite all of that and millions being spent against her by pro-Israel groups she still got ~30% of the vote and came second.

But as for "better candidates", I'm sorry but my advice is "run a better camapign".

You can't talk about what happened in the Illinois primaries without talking about the other PACs who spent big, specifically AIPAC and other dark-money Israel-affiliated PACs that spent to defeat pro-Palestinian candidates (eg Kat Abugazaleh) without ever once mentioning Israel [1].

It's far more accurate to say that pro-Zionist groups spent big in the Illinois primary and got mixed results. Crypto just went along for the ride.

There is a war in the Democratic Party between anti-genocide candidates, who enjoy 90% support in the base, and the establishment who is doing everything to defeat them, up to and including intentionally losing the 2024 presidential election [3].

Nobody cares about crypto.

[1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/18/aipac-israel-illino...

[2]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/702440/israelis-no-longer-ahead...

[3]: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/dnc-autopsy-gaza-...