placeholder

It would be no different if the interviewer was an over-the-top fan of said parties.

I'm not going to fall for your deflection in gauging Pupin's popularity. And he was fired by Fox News for knowingly promoting falsehoods. His attorneys' successful defense of him in a court case was based on the fact that, given his history, no one should expect that what Carlson says is truthful. And of course, you fail to address the main point: Carlson falsely claimed that no other western media had attempted to interview Putin. The Kremlin's own spokesperson said that this was false. That's another falsehood to add to his dismal record.

As I pointed out in my post above, even the Kremlin's spokesman said that Carlson's claim was false.

You sure about that? "Under a 2009 Obama-era executive order titled "Classified National Security Information" the vice president does have the power to declassify documents while they're in office. The order states: "The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by: (1) the President and the Vice President [...]," as well as "agency heads and officials designated by the President." https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-documents/

What kind of journalist is it who is actually more pro-Putin than Putin's own people? "Carlson, the conservative former Fox News host with a history of airing bogus “news,” claimed — falsely — that prominent U.S. newspapers and television outlets had refused to interview Putin since his invasion of Ukraine and were ignoring Russia’s perspective... “Mr. Carlson is wrong,” Peskov said during his daily briefing for reporters. “We receive many requests for interviews with the president.” https://archive.ph/EDwVt#selection-1051.0-1051.138 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/07/tucker-carlson-putin-russia-ukraine/ Just to clarify: Dmitry Peskov is the Kremlin's spokesperson.

More like some of you expected that result because you have no regard for reality.

I guess they can try. If they do, it seems like a Hail Mary pass. I can't think of a country where that has worked in recent times. This isn't just an organization of terrorists. These people are the defacto rulers of most of North Yemen and the capital. And they are very tough customers by all accounts. LIke the Afghanis. Seems like a forlorn hope. If anything, their active support of Hamas seems to have given a big boost to their popularity which was fading due to their bad governance. Attacks by foreign forces most likely will serve to sustain that popularity.

They already are doing something. You have been remarkably coy about specifying what more they are likely to do. It looks like the current level of engagement isn't enough. So what's left, but landing troops? And that doesn't seem likely. And even on the off chance it does occur, what would be the prospects of that for success?

Another possible threat? Houthis may sabotage western internet cables in Red Sea, Yemen telecoms firms warn Telecom firms linked to the UN-recognised Yemen government have said they fear Houthi rebels are planning to sabotage a network of submarine cables in the Red Sea critical to the functioning of the western internet and the transmission of financial data. The warning came after a Houthi-linked Telegram channel published a map of the cables running along the bed of the Red Sea. The image was accompanied by a message: “There are maps of international cables connecting all regions of the world through the sea. It seems that Yemen is in a strategic location, as internet lines that connect entire continents – not only countries – pass near it.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/05/houthis-may-sabotage-western-internet-cables-in-red-sea-yemen-telecoms-firms-warn

Another self-appointed spokesperson.

The issue I raised was with this from Sirineou: "Anyone who thinks the US will not react decisively is sadly mistaken." It looks to me like you're number yourself among the "sadly mistaken"? And, that, in fact, we are in agreement about this.

Is there less bombing now? I'm not saying that there isn't. I just haven't been able to find any evidence that this is the case.

I think in this case, decisively means magically. Because I haven't seen any concrete plan for how this would play out.

What does it mean for the US to act "decisively"? I don't think I've found anyone on the internet with deep knowledge of the situation there thinks that the Houthis can be bombed into submission. Is the US going to send ground forces there? That doesn't seem likely. A quagmire, more likely. And now that I've used that word, is it ever used any way but metaphorically?

You mean this John Walsh? Walsh was heard by Congress on February 2, 1983, where he gave an unsourced claim of 50,000 abducted and 1.5 million missing children annually. He testified that the U.S. is "littered with mutilated, decapitated, raped, strangled children,"[40] when in fact, a 1999 Department of Justice study found only 115 incidences of stereotypical kidnappings perpetrated by strangers, about 50 of which resulted in death or the child not being found.[41] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walsh_(television_host) And what part of this didn't you understand? "Major cities, which some commentators have in recent years portrayed as overrun by crime, have seen significant declines in homicides, including double-digit declines in New York (11.42% as of Dec. 24), Los Angeles (15.45% as of Dec. 23) and Chicago (12.7% as of Dec. 27), per the AH Analytics murder dashboard, drawing from local law enforcement data across the country." https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesfarrell/2023/12/29/homicides-see-historic-decline-in-2023-despite-perceptions-that-crime-is-on-the-rise/?sh=ffa5d6dd76e7 This is what real data looks like. Not the right wing rants of some dubious person who profits from peddling alarmism.

And when was that poll taken? According to the article you linked to: Source: Bankrate survey: September 28, 2023 to October 6, 2023 In other words, old news. Since then, as polls cited previously show, there has been a turnaround in Americans' perception of the economy and their own financial situation.

That article you linked to is remarkably free of actual data. Homicides See Historic Decline In 2023 Despite Perceptions That Crime Is On The Rise Murders are down 12.8% over last year across more than 175 cities, according to criminal justice data analyzed by firm AH Analytics, with AH Analytics co-founder and data analyst Jeff Asher recently writing on Substack that the data suggests that U.S. murders are on pace to log “one of the fastest rates of decline ever recorded” this year. Major cities, which some commentators have in recent years portrayed as overrun by crime, have seen significant declines in homicides, including double-digit declines in New York (11.42% as of Dec. 24), Los Angeles (15.45% as of Dec. 23) and Chicago (12.7% as of Dec. 27), per the AH Analytics murder dashboard, drawing from local law enforcement data across the country. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesfarrell/2023/12/29/homicides-see-historic-decline-in-2023-despite-perceptions-that-crime-is-on-the-rise/?sh=ffa5d6dd76e7 And what about rural crime? Which are overwhelmingly conservative in their politics I noticed that the Heritage article didn't address that issue. Hmmm... Gun Violence Rates In Rural Areas Match or Outpace Cities As gun violence continues to fuel violent crime, some conservative politicians are not only refusing to support violence prevention measures but are also rolling back gun laws. Many of these same officials express the narrative that gun violence is only a problem in urban, Democrat-led cities, and media outlets focus on gun violence in cities like Chicago. The truth is that rural communities—particularly in red states—have increasingly faced levels of gun violence that match or outpace urban areas, says the Center for American Progress. https://www.ncja.org/crimeandjusticenews/gun-violence-rates-in-rural-areas-match-or-outpace-cities

Presidential favorability trends tend to follow voters' perception of the economy. That is starting to improve.

Speaking of cherry picking. That 33% you keep on citing for Biden is the lowest of all his unfavourability ratings.

2 currently unpopular candidates. And the elections are 8 months away.

Trump isn't doing much better: TRUMP https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/ BIDEN https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

Thanks for sharing with us your nostalgia.

I've offered you 3 surveys.

What has that got to do with the public's attitude about the ecconomy. Surveys show it's on an upward trend. Let's see where Biden is 6 months from now. Lucky for him his most likely opponent is also very unpopular.

You repeat yourself but offer no rationale for what you claim. When I cited independent voters you claimed I was cherry picking. When I cited Republicans and Democrats as well, you claimed I was cherry picking. Leaves open the question as to what you mean by cherry picking.