Hodad

Most likely. You can assume they are correct on both counts.

That was the Nobel Peace Prize. You're welcome to debate whether he deserved it or not. However, that is an entirely different beast than a prize in the sciences.

Indeed, one administration changed the trajectory of the economy and the other didn't. But I forgot that your feelings are more compelling than economic data. And apparently more compelling than the analysis of Nobel laureates. You really think highly of your feelings.

Well, you can't say I didn't predict this reaction.

Sure, showing that your "source" misquoted Biden makes reinforces your point. 🙄

Economists typically don't like to get involved in politics, but for experts in the field, the threat Trump poses is simply too great to ignore. “While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we believe that, overall, Harris’s economic agenda will improve our nation’s health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment opportunities, and fairness and be vastly superior to the counterproductive economic agenda of Donald Trump,” they wrote, in the letter obtained first by CNN. **The total count was actually 82 Nobel science laureates, but 23 of them were economists speaking on the economy. The know-nothings will no doubt dismiss the definitive experts in the field (based on their feelings) Instead, rather than taking to heart the warnings of those (almost certainly) smarter and vastly more knowledgeable.

Absolutely it would. If Israel simply killed all the Gazans they would become an overnight pariah nation.

And no more global support for Israel. THEN the Arab nations would get involved.

And that support will likely grow as Bebe continues to validate every fear and suspicion Gazans might harbor toward their VASTLY more powerful oppressors. Life in Gaza wasn't good before the war. Now when most Gazans have lost family members to the indiscriminate Israeli assault of course Gazans will cling to any organized resistance. There are many and complex reasons why Hamas still has significant support, but Netenyahu's callous campaign in Gaza will simply make future peace that much harder.

No surprise. What you're suggesting is simply genocide.

Yep, Hamas is bad. There isn't any debate about that. But it's a weak-ass deflection from your position that people who overwhelmingly did NOT vote for Hamas can be justly killed because a small minority of living Gazans voted for Hamas almost 20 years ago. Instead of admitting that your position is morally untenable, you simply try to deflect. Gross.

You are a shameless liar and libeler. With the endless stream of appalling and absurd things you say, I can't begin to imagine how you got so broken inside. That's some deep farking trauma. You should seek professional help.

That was almost 20 years ago. About half of the Gazan population wasn't even alive at that time. About 3/4 of the population weren't old enough to have voted. What kind of sicko justifies killing children because of a vote their parents or grandparents cast?

^^ you can watch that clip online. Biden DOES NOT say that immigrants should surge to the border. He says that as president "we immediately surge the border." Which frankly doesn't make any sense on it's. So probably a misspoken phrase. But he does go on to explain that there's a backlog of people seeking asylum and they deserve to be heard based on our law and our national character. "Surge the border" is how he's describing our increased response to the migrant pressure. For whatever damn reason. And yes, we've already established several times that more people yield more of everything in a society, including crime. Now, perhaps you can try to make a valid argument instead of repeating a logical fallacy.

This continues to be an very stupid argument--as it was before you added a shocking ignorance of history. If immigrants don't offend at higher rates then the crimes that do occur are no more "enabled" than any other crimes. It's the sort of reason-free argument that says that since blue cars have accidents, we could reduce traffic fatalities by banning blue cars. People--of any--description come with plusses and minuses. They add to productivity, they add to population growth, they add more organ donors, they add to pollution, they add to to traffic congestion, they add to crime. But if they aren't creating disproportionately negative impact then throwing out an example of a crime is misleading vividness. Here, for example, is a story of an undocumented immigrant saving a boy after an accident. It's a vivid and touching story. The boy wouldn't be alive without the fact of illegal immigration. Should this story then be used to argue that undocumented immigration is good? No, of course not. Because that's not how farking logic works. That the problem, you all have a surplus of big feelings but not a speck of logic among you.

Adding humans adds crime. If we didn't have people we could solve crime entirely. 🙄 So, yes, whether immigrants add to crime disproportionately is the relevant question. And we know that they don't. So all of these crime stories that Trump likes to cynically exploit are just busted-ass cases of misleading vividness.

Your posting history strongly suggests the latter.

That seals it. I'm not voting for Joe.

I saw what was there. I'm only disappointed that he didn't go deeper into his repertoire of hateful, racist "jokes," so that more people could hear the wakeup call of what MAGA is all about.

You have no idea what the IMF is or does. 🙄 But keep an eye out for their annual Economic Feelings report. Will be right up your alley.

Not sure you watched the Stewart clip you posted. Funny at a roast ≠ appropriate for politics. A roast is meant to be voluntary vile and awful. Politics is meant to be unifying and inspiring. Not divisive and derisive. It was wrong. It was a mistake. Potentially a very costly mistake.

The Trump campaign bombed. No injuries, but lots of hurt feelings. Puerto Ricans in must-win Pennsylvania say Trump rally joke won’t be forgotten

I don't know how anyone can find the IMF or the Economist credible anymore. They rely entirely on economic data instead of people's taking into account people's feelings about the economy. It's just not fair!

You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of betting oddsmakers. They are not interested AT ALL in predicting who will win any contest. Rather, they make and adjust the odds to ensure that bettors will play (and pay) from both sides. If they need more players for one position than another they sweeten the odds to make the bet more attractive. The"algorithms" you mention are very effective, but they're not trying to predict outcomes. They're trying to equalize betting from both sides, so the losers pay off the winners and the market collects the fees from both sides.

Again, that's simply false. He is not projected to win those votes. If he were, they'd show a Republican lean instead of a toss up. Nor is he predicted to win the election. That's not how polling works or how projections work. This isn't even like someone is at the extreme edge of the margin of error. It's not like a shrug where we say, "Anything is possible!" The polls are simply too close to call. Again, toss ups for a reason. If you want projections, RCP doesn't do projections. Look elsewhere.