placeholder

Funny. I thought that the Tories really cared about getting to a trade deal with the United States. Now, if Joe Biden were President that could pose an obstacle if he wasn't pleased with UK policy on Northern Ireland. Fortunately for the UK...oh wait a minute...

Exactly. If unemployment is low, it really makes no sense to call 2 negative quarters a recession. It goes to the question of who is an economy for.

First off you're taking an awkward ad hoc quote and turning into a conspiracy theory. And he says "using the legitimate efforts of our constitution". That hardly sounds like a threat of skullduggery. And, as I also pointed out, this administration gave the US attorney for Delaware, who was appointed by Donald Trump, the final authority to decide whether Hunter Biden should be prosecuted." Come back to us when you have some real evidence. Good luck with that.

Not in the US The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is generally recognized as the authority that defines the starting and ending dates of U.S. recessions. NBER has its own definition of what constitutes a recession, namely “a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.” https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/what-is-a-recession/

Leading candidate for nomination in 2024. So spare us the real estate cliché. Who gave the US among other things 3 extreme rightwing justices and if he gets reelected may get the chance to select more. Also,thanks to him, the clown who attempted to ban the use of mifepristone.

Actually, a recession isn't even necessarily defined by 2 quarters of negative GDP growth. The US recently experienced a negative 2 quarters in a row but unemployment was very low. And job openings were over 10 million.

He used the word "interfere"? Stop making things up.

To quote my previous answer to you: "So elections aren't a constitutional means to stop someone from taking office? Hmm...interesting."

Surface limitations facing the expansion of photovoltaics in Germany have led to a bold vision: installing PV arrays along motorways and creating a vast DC smart grid in the process. In addition to floating PV arrays and agrivoltaic systems, motorways could be an ideal solution for the surface problem of photovoltaics. By 2030, up to 200 TWh of solar power could be annually generated along Germany’s autobahn network. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/04/11/german-highway-pv-could-generate-up-to-200-twh-a-year/

Precisely.

Scrubbers don't capture potential fuel for reuse. And they are far from 100% effective.

That was about 130 million years ago. It's clear you haven't mastered the concept of rate of change.

You have a point. I'm the numpty because I only looked at current completed power plants and not at what was in the pipeline which showed an overwhelming majority of new power will be coming from wind and solar. How could I be so stupid? Oh wait...that was you. And then I decided that there was no such thing as compounding when it come to percentages. How could I be so stupid.? Oh wait...that was you... But the stupidest thing I did was to trust some AI source over hard facts. How could I be so stupid as to treat as infallible as an AI engine when the facts contradict it? It's like I'm a member of a cult and place absolute trust in my leader even when reality contradicts him or it as the case may be. How could I be so stupid? Oh wait, that was you.

The point of BruceH's remark about investing in gold was that it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. There have been one or two posters I've encountered on aseannow.com who confess that some of their investments have taken a bath. But, oddly enough, lots and lots who share with us their past investment perspicacity.

Kari Lake? The election denialist? How did election denialism pan out of candidates in 2022?

Also, covid delayed the move of some financial houses operations to the EU.

Why not go to the start of the thread. The answer will appear soon enough. But as far as the math reasoning goes, you're correct.

I saw it and transcribed the comment in question. I also pointed out the deficiency in your interpretation. For which you had no reply. And I also pointed out that this was an "ad hoc" comment. So awkward on the spot wording is not proof of anything.

Well, they weren't convicted. They pleaded no contest to an administrative charge and had to pay a hefty fine. What happened was this. Some investigative agency sent white couples and black couples to rent units at Trump properties. They had the same financial information re jobs savings etc. The black couples were told no property was available. The white couples...well, I'll leave it to you to make a wild guess about what they were told.

No it doesn't. If I were you, I would examine my assumptions.

Well, authorized dealers aren't the only legal way to buy a gun. A 2012 study published in the journal Injury Prevention found that nearly 80% of all firearms used for criminal purposes are obtained through transfers from unlicensed dealers, which are not required to conduct background checks in a majority of states due to the private sale exemption.[22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_background_check

The fact that he pardoned people who could incriminate him is far stronger proof.

It was claimed on the basis of that 48% figure that the majority think he should run.

He'll claim that the jury really voted to acquit him.

Given the mathematical ineptitude I've seen here from Trump supporters, it's no wonder that they can be suckered into believing that he won the election.