Belize

I agree. "Disastrous" is a sensationalist adjective, a long held tradition among U.S. reporters that I always hated. Why are they compelled to use such descriptive adjectives in supposedly factual statements? It's always the least verifiable part of the sentence. edit: When I see reporters using such flashy adjectives, I always think, "this part of the article could be bullshit; it's the least credible part".

During the fallout from the debate, Biden gets a *boost* in his chances of winning the election from 538 due to positive economic data that was released today. Specifically, a second report for the month of May confirming a previous report's number of 0% inflation.

Sure. We believe that a random hedge fund manager from Florida knows what Joe Biden and Barack Obama are doing, right?

You misunderstand today's decision in the Supreme Court. This ruling does *not* give power back to the legislative branch in interpretating regulations. It gives power to the *judicial branch* to do so. If your concern is about unelected bureaucrats, judges seem to be just that. This is a power grab by the judicial branch from the executive branch. The executive agencies are full of experts in their fields and can properly interpret regulations that apply to those fields. Judges are *not* experts in those fields.

I watched highlights of the debate, but what I saw didn't come close to requiring Biden to drop out. He's an old guy, and he looks and acts old. It's not like he got convicted of 30 felonies.

I'm old enough now to have lived through several times when Democrats panicked because they thought something was going to cause them to lose an election. You don't have to go back too far. Remember 2020 when Biden was accused of rape by a woman? We all stopped and considered it for a couple of weeks and determined she was full of it. Her emigrating to Russia years later, in an Edward Snowden kind of way, pretty much confirmed that. But for a couple of weeks, we thought that could be the end of Biden and Trump was going to win again.

About the election in general, I think Trump's ceiling is 47% of the popular vote. I'd be surprised if he got higher and stunned if he got over 50%. The real question is how high Biden can get. He will probably need to get 2 points higher than Trump to win the electoral college. Can I see him getting to 49%? Hillary Clinton got 48% in 2016, so yes, I can see Biden getting to 49.

Trump is such a scary figure to so many Americans, *any* Democratic candidate would be facing scrutiny for their perceived weaknesses which could lead to a second Trump presidency. I don't think it's unique to Biden. If Gavin Newsom was the candidate right now instead of Biden, people would be fretting over something unforeseen that puts his candidacy at risk. Again, because Trump is such a looming presence. What *could* relieve this anxiety is if the Democrat had a commanding lead over Trump in polling or other metrics, but that's not where America is. Elections are always decided by lik 52% to 48%.

Two things can be true. 1. Medical and sociological professionals say the concern over someone being "too old" is false and a total misunderstanding of aging. 2. Half the country thinks the USA is in existential danger from Trump, so they panic about Biden being too old even though it has no basis in reality.

I might argue Trump *was* irrelevant from 2021 to this year, despite how many people paid some kind of attention to him.

Sometimes, the Ukrainians and their war supporters are frustrating, and frankly don't see long term. Luckily this hasn't caused much trouble for them and the coalition of nations supporting them. One prime example of this is the American-donated Abrams tank. Remember, the U.S. did *not* want to send the Abrams to Ukraine, but the Ukrainians insisted and there was plenty of criticism of the U.S. from pro-Ukraine people about it. Now, the Ukrainians are realizing the Abrams is not very effective for them. The U.S. said, "you're unlikely to be able to use the Abrams" but they insisted. And now they complain because they aren't effective. So it's a "we told you so" moment.

Putin wants Ukraine to give up the entire territory of the annexed regions. At the current pace of Russia's offensive, it will take 14 years to capture them Путин хочет, чтобы Украина отдала всю территорию аннексированных областей. При нынешних темпах наступления России понадобится 14 лет, чтобы их захватить Посмотрите на карту, чтобы оценить «реальное мирное предложение» президента — Meduza

Michael Kofman, an analyst who has become very renowned and trusted during this war, says in this video from two days ago the frontline in Ukraine is going to become less important to the outcome of the war going forward. In his words, the war isn't going to be based on who controls 10-20 kilometers to the west or east of the current frontline. He doesn't say it explicitly, but he suspects the frontline is stalemated and isn't going to change much. I agree with him, but I thought the same thing 18 months ago after the last big shift in the front line (Ukraine's retaking of Kherson west of the Dnieper River). At the time I said, ten years in the future we're not going to be talking about whether the frontline settles 100 miles west or east from where it is. It's still a war, but neither side is going to be able to go on the offensive to the extent to dramatically shift the front.

It means Democrats have reversed the past habit of them doing horribly in special elections. In the pre-Trump era, Republicans had an advantage in special elections, but now Democrats do because Trump has motivated them to think the country could be in danger if they don't vote. Trump has done a lot to get rid of apathy among Democrats.

Issue #1 was published in May 1984. Middle Age Mutant Ninja Turtles now.

*opens Twitter for the first time in weeks* *30 tweets of anti-Semitism* Huh.

Trump loses in November. Bitches about it, filing a few lawsuits which go nowhere. And then his political story ends with a whimper instead of bang. And we laugh off the scary tough guy routine both he and his supporters like to do. Maybe I am just optimistic though.

"Piano Man" is disgustingly sentimental and badly written. "And the microphone smells like a beer"?

Point taken. I'm not saying everything is fine and we shouldn't worry about Trump winning. I think it should be taken very seriously. On the other hand, I think 2024 is not 2016. Americans know what Trump is now, and obviously, Trump is a convicted felon awaiting sentencing when he wasn't that in 2016. You could also say in 2016, the opposite dynamic was true: Trump was seen as the new guy outsider while the Democratic candidate, Clinton, was the one under a legal cloud (the email server stuff). Sure, no criminality was found in the Clinton case and criminality has been found in the Trump case now. But it was still a legal cloud for Clinton.

The general rule, "Offense is harder than defense", strikes again here. I have been skeptical about both sides' ability to go on offense throughout the war. That's why the Ukrainians' offensive successes in 2022 were so shocking. Logically, the Ukrainians shouldn't have been able to do all of that. But since the start of 2023, the war has fallen back to conventional wisdom where both sides haven't had anywhere near the offensive success as they had in 2022. And I assume it will continue that way from here on out. I don't think the frontline is going to change that much now.

Call me crazy, but I don't believe a majority of voters are going to support a guy awaiting sentencing on 34 felonies, who attacks the judge, prosecutor, jurors and their families, who threatens any Republicans who don't tow this line, and who promises revenge to his enemies when he gets back into power. I don't think Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin are going to vote for that.

If I ever go down, I hope I don't get the potato judge.