Maybe all of that is so, yet my analogy and your analogy both apparently showed that context determined this. But if not, what did? How was it that my analogy wasn't meaning the same President, but that yours was?
I see your point via the examples in Jeremiah, but I'm still thinking that if the text were meaning Jesus' people, why not use a pronoun instead? Maybe something like this?
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and his people shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Had it said that instead, there wouldn't even be a debate here. The text instead said----and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The prince that shall come can be meaning the prince in verse 25, where we know it is the Messiah in verse 26, or it can be an entirely different prince altogether. The analogy I used demonstrated it could be a different one altogether. The analogy you used demonstrated it could be the same prince. But had that part used a pronoun instead, like I pointed out, nothing would be in question then. It would be undeniable that it was referring to the Messiah then, meaning Jesus. So let's at least both admit either interpretation is possible. That doesn't indicate we are agreeing with one another then. It just means we are both being intellectually honest.