RedDenver

That's some mind-boggling logic. Trump might be the only person more corrupt than the Clintons. Many years ago I didn't think global warming was happening or was man-made. But the beautiful thing about science is that you can test it yourself, so I went out and analyzed the data, and sure enough, those professional scientists are actually good at what they do and are correct that humankind is causing global warming. You don't have to trust me, do the analysis yourself. Here's some links to get you started: https://www.climate.gov/maps-data https://www.climatedata.eu/continent.php?cid=150&lang=en http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=CLINO&f=ElementCode%3a01

That's the usual thinking, but I'm not sure it holds. CEO's are far more interested in happy stockholders than workers, which can mean more hiring or more firing. And a lot of short-term instead of long-term planning.

??? Maybe whoever started the company, but not necessarily the CEO.

Mark Blyth on this podcast has a great analysis and analogies for how the economy got to where it is:

Now THAT is a bold prediction.

Talk about some cherry-picked numbers. Obama took over the worst economy since the Great Depression, of course his numbers will be dragged down by that. So let's take a look at how Trump compares to Presidents who took over strong economies: Trump lags behind his predecessors on economic growth

THIRD BASE!

Ok, imagine this scenario: Gebbia and Martinez are performing equally but Martinez has more upside. Then Martinez is going to start, so there's no tie for the starting job. Now imagine this scenario: Gebbia is performing slightly ahead but Martinez has more upside. Who starts is still undecided because Martinez's greater upside means he could still catch up to and surpass Gebbia. (And of course, the usually caveats that we're reading WAY too much into the little that we've heard.)

JJ's back!!

You're looking at it as if the QB's are tied because the coaches don't know Martinez has more upside, and then one day the coaches wake up and realize, "Hey, they aren't really tied because AM has more upside!" Either the QB's are tied, which includes all factors, or they aren't tied.

So if they are equal in performance and Martinez has more upside, then why is the race tied and Martinez hasn't been named? That's the other side of the argument you're making. You might be right that Martinez's higher ceiling wins him the job. But since we don't have any indication that the job has been won and I agree that Martinez appears to have more upside on paper, then that suggests Gebbia is outplaying Martinez or in some way leading in other areas such that Martinez hasn't secured the job yet. Of course, the coaches may have already selected the starter and we just don't know yet. It's all just idle speculation until we get more concrete evidence/statements.

What you're suggesting is that coaches don't take into account intangibles until some later date. Why? The tangibles and intangibles always exist, so if Martinez = Gebbia for winning the spot (aka Martinex tangibles + intangibles = Gebbia tangibles + intangibles) and Martinez intangibles > Gebbia intangibles, then it must be true that Gebbia tangibles > Martinez tangibles. That's what @brophog is arguing (I'm pretty sure).

You're making good choices.

Herbie Husker

That made me laugh. Also, the US Senate passed this resolution. Unanimously. Are you saying they are all suffering from this TDS?

Go to https://amazingribs.com/ Everything I've tried from there was good. Also, I quite like this Carolina BBQ sauce: https://www.thespruceeats.com/big-daddy-carolina-style-barbecue-sauce-333684

No, it's long 'o' sound, like Lord Scoh Froh. Although I think Lord Frost is better

The tweet is a bit misleading. The article shows that progressives are winning roughly 41% of the time. That's actually much higher than I thought it would be. And even new groups like the Justice Democrats (whom I back) are winning 32% of the time, which is again MUCH higher than I thought they be.

I think the bigger story is the Omarosa revelations.

Your biggest fear should be high-rise windows. Trust me.

Here's the post with your linked article: The entire article is a hit-piece which tries to equate Schumer threatening to shutdown the government to his history on immigration but never actually addresses the DACA promise that the Dems were threatening a shutdown over, which you can find out if you follow the link in that article to the Politico story they're referencing. Instead it attempts to paint such figures as Tom Cotton and Stephen Miller as immigration heroes of some sort and tries to blame all the immigration woes on the Democrats. Stephen. Miller. The weird thing is that they show Schumer has supported merit-based over family-based immigration as if that's some sort of gotcha. But none of that shows that Schumer or many Democrats want an insecure border. In fact the article has a video where Schumer talks about enforcing immigration laws and that illegal immigrants shouldn't be treated the same as American citizens, which directly refutes your contention.

You've posted an opinion piece and a massive collection of quotes that may or may not support your argument. Try again.