placeholder

Did you base your conclusion on the RCP average. RCP doesn't weight its averages to account for pollster reliability. Fiver-thirty-eight does. It has Harris at 47.1 % vs Trump at 43.6% As for Harris' alleged lack of convention bump... The first aggregate polling average is from Aug 18, the day before the convention The second is from Aug 23, the day after the convention

You need to make a detailed and specific replies to Chomper's objections rather than just make unbacked assertions.

Trump's exit strategy ultimately was to hightail it out of there before his term ended. Trump ordered rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan after election loss President Donald Trump ordered a rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Somalia in the wake of his 2020 election loss, but senior officials never followed through on the plan, according to testimony released by the congressional January 6 committee on Thursday. “The order was for an immediate withdrawal, and it would have been catastrophic,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., one of two Republican members of the special panel. “And yet President Trump signed the order.” https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/10/13/trump-ordered-rapid-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-after-election-loss/

I decided to listen to the interview, and, not surprisingly, it isn't at all clear what Trump's intentions are. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/trump-says-hell-accept-election-if-results-are-fair-and-free/ When first asked about whether he plans to enforce the Comstock act he said " We will be discussing specifics of it but generally speaking no". Then he went on to say he wouldn't enforce it. So who knows? He's obviously left himself some wiggle room [Start at about 5:50 into the recording to hear this.] Though even an ironclad promise wouldn't deter him from reversing himself. He also got the Supreme Court decision about using Mifepristone. Contrary to what Trump claims in the interview, the court didn't decide whether the FDA had the authority to authorize it to be remotely prescribed for and sent by mail. The court simply ruled that the plaintiffs had no standing. So, in the future it could be an issue. And given the extremism of the right wing members of this court, it's not at all unlikely that they would vote to bar such use. He also managed to share with us his delusional side when he repeatedly claimed that most people, Republicans and Democrats wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade. "Democrats and Republicans, everybody wanted to do this for 52 years." [Start at about 5:00 to hear this claim for the first time in the interview.]

You apparently missed the explanation of what constitutes a view. It doesn't take much. And there's always the train wreck factor to consider, too.

It should also be noted that it's not a study of the ICE's performance before 2019.

It's more nuanced than that. Still, overall, the US is regarded far more favorably than is China. And that's in the wake of the Gaza war, which has clearly lessened the world's favorable regard of America. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/07/09/views-of-china-and-xi-jinping/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u-s/

Well, since the data in question runs from 2019 to 2023, it isn't only the Biden Administration that's implicated, is it? "Between 2019 and 2023, more than 32,000 unaccompanied minors failed to show up for their immigration court hearings, and ICE was “not able to account” for all of their locations, according to a report from the ICE inspector general’s office. During that period, more than 448,000 unaccompanied children overall immigrated to the US and were transferred from ICE custody to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency responsible for placing them with a sponsor or in foster care. Once they were handed off to HHS for settlement, ICE couldn’t determine all of these children’s locations, and more than 291,000 of the kids were not placed into removal proceedings because ICE had never served them notices to appear or scheduled a court date for them" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ice-report-lost-unaccompanied-child-migrants-b2599184.html There are other factors mentioned in the article as well.

China has only one? Only if you accept that China's definition of who owns the South China Sea. And of course, China does have bases in places like Cambodia and Sri Lanka. It just denies that they're for military use. And just because China has fewer bases, that doesn't mean China isn't an aggressive nation. It has repeatedly launched attacks on Indian territory. And is settling on disputed land with Bhutan. And then, of course, there's Tibet. The vast majority of Philippine nationals would fight to defend their country, according to a poll conducted as China's territorial challenge to the U.S. defense treaty ally reached a new crescendo. Overall, 77 percent of respondents answered "Yes" when asked if they were ready to fight in a hypothetical "conflict between the Philippines and a foreign enemy," according to pollsters from independent consulting firm OCTA Research. https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-8-10-philippines-would-fight-over-china-claimed-territory-1878589 You think they would rather go it alone?

That includes reaching profitability. At this point, it's just a vanity project for Musk. Elon musk's financial problems at X have financial experts fearing he will liquidate more stock https://archive.ph/fcvF7

Actually, the minority portion of X/Twitter that Musk doesn't own, is owned by other wealthy rightwing or Saudi friends who won't much miss the total loss of their investment.

Really? It's about China's security? And not about the natural resources that it lays claim to? And as for new bases? The Phillipines has just granted the US access to 4? It's a response to Chinese aggression; not a trigger of it.

Now you're just dabbling in semantics. I noted that in real terms the amount is $150. Your claim of $200 is false. And you've still offered no explanation for it.

Good point. That too, definitely. Lots of members of aseannow.com seem to have a perpetual chip on their shoulder. As though Thai people aren't also afflicted by various branches of their government.

More nothing. Whether it helps me or not, the fact is that you can't explain it.

Actually, what's sad, is that in this example in nominal terms the increase was 300%. In real terms the increase was 150%. Apparently, you can't even do arithmetic correctly.

I have to read the graph for you? You don't see the digit "2" besides the line on the right side of the graph? Now look to the left side of the graph. Do you see how all those bars fail to reach the 2% line?

You're the party that originally posted about the purchasing power of the dollar. Not me. What did you think you were proving by doing that?

Here are a couple of graphs that give the lie to both your claims: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi#:~:text=Inflation Rate in the United States averaged 3.30 percent from,percent in June of 1921. If you extend the time span beyond 10 years. you'll find lots more quarters where inflation was below 2% https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate#:~:text=Unemployment Rate in the United States increased to 4.30 percent,percent in May of 1953. If you visit the web page and do a count, you'll find that under Trump unemployment only descended to 3.5% for 1 quarter. Under Biden it reached got down to 3.5% 3 times and to 3.4% twice.

More empty denigration. I'll explain to you in terms that require only a basic mastery of arithmetic. If someone earns let's say $100 per week and then 10 years later earns $300 per week but the purchasing power of a dollar has fallen by 50%, has their total purchasing power decreased, remained the same, or increased?

Thanks for dispelling any doubts about your mastery of economics. Or rather lack of it. Lots of evidence of ignorance here, but let's just stick to the main one: namely that somehow you correlate the purchasing power of a dollar with prosperity. The purchasing power of a dollar is irrelevant to how prosperous someone is. What matters is the total purchasing power of the dollars they earn and save. By your cockeyed reasoning, Americans in the midst of the Great Depression when there was actual deflation and the purchasing power of an individual dollar increased, were better off than Americans after WW2 when the purchasing power of the individual dollar declined due to high inflation during the War and afterwards. This is laughable. You really need to review your Economics 101 textbook or maybe just read it for the first time.

In other words, in reply to the facts I marshalled, all you can do is offer a personal question. You've got nothing.

Exactly how am I trying to attack Fetterman? I pointed out that the policies he supports are pro-worker. For me that's a good thing. Apparently, for you it's not. I guess you would rather he come from a working class family and oppose policies that are pro worker? And no matter what you'd rather, the fact is, as Fetterman himself acknowledged, he had a privileged childhood. Given that he has no problem acknowledging that, why do you?

You might want to look closer to home when it comes to deciding who is ignorant. I don't know if you are unable or unwilling to read a graph but you'll note that from 1941 to 2017 the corporate tax rate was higher than the 28% tax rate which Yellowtail claimed would come out of consumers' pockets. Please share with us why the corporate tax rate which was always higher than 28% for 66 years over this time is implicated in bursts of inflation in the 70's and 80's? Where's the correlation? And why such a rapid growth in the average Americans' income when taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals was higher?

But non-morons know differently Look at the corporate tax rates when Americans real income was rapidly on the rise: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/corporate-tax-rate According to you, from 1941 to 2017, Americans were suffering from the high taxes on corporations.