This is why we so desperately need the voting rights act back. It used to be that changes like this required pre clearance before taking effect, and any challenges be worked out before hand.

Another terrible supreme court decision courtesy conservatives/Republicans who don’t respect the right to vote.

So the model image you posted above there says it’s more likely that Trump wins the election than it is flipping two heads in a row while flipping a coin. This is saying it’s less likely for Trump to win than Hillary to win, but something that could fairly easily happen still. These aren’t poll numbers, where 70-30 would be a massive blow out. This is a 30% chance of winning for Trump, closer to a coin flip than a sure thing.

A lot of other models were saying something ridiculous like Clinton had 95% chance to win or something. Nate Silver’s model seems better than others based on this, if anything.

Unfortunately the interest rate is specifically set by law and tied to 10 year treasury bill rates. This cannot be altered with an executive action, would need congress to change the law.

https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/loans/interest-rates#who-sets

That’s why the executive orders are focused on things like minimum payments, how long it takes to get forgiveness, who qualifies, etc, because the laws give the department of education more latitude to adjust those things (or are supposed to at least, weird rulings from republican judges notwithstanding).

It wasn’t the same thing, all three of them were different plans using different justifications based on different laws. One was a blanket forgiveness based on laws allowing for adjustments of student loans in emergencies. One is need based or other circumstance based forgiveness based on a much earlier law giving the department of education wide latitude to make adjustments. And one was adjustments to the income based repayment plans based on the laws establishing those (this has happened many times in the past, such as the establishment of the PAYE and REPAYE plans).

It’s especially egregious that judges are blocking the SAVE plan, as many similar adjustments have been made to income based repayment plans previously with no one taking any issue.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-issues-new-batch-of-sanctions-targeting-west-bank-settlers-amid-rampant-violence/

You can say it’s not enough if you want, but you can’t say it’s nothing. Certainly gets Netanyahu upset at least.

It also includes restoration of the child tax credit, just like we had during the pandemic when monthly checks were sent out to all parents and the child poverty rate was cut in half overnight. This is just an even bigger payment for the year they are a newborn.

Trying to decipher his words is like dementia astrology, who knows. If he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, we surely can’t either.

Yes this is the direct quote the article refers to. He rambles nonsense, often self contradicting, and then people in the media try to fashion it into coherent points for him, leading to a fake impression of competency, misleading the public and voters. This is the man who had to have his national security briefings summarized into a few brief bullet points with pictures, and he was apparently still unable to read them.

If he was ever going to follow through with it at all (doubtful), it was a hollow pledge that wouldn’t have affected most of the tipped income or helped most tipped workers in the country anyways:

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/25/trump-eliminate-taxes-tips-restaurant-workers-wages

Now things that Harris proposes like re expanding the child tax credit (refundable meaning paid out even if the person doesn’t pay taxes) could provide a huge boost to workers with kids, for just one example. Or for another, Trump’s proposed tarrifs costing each family $1700 a year on average. Or another, Harris continuing to appoint labor friendly individuals to the NLRB, helping to fight employers engaging in union busting activities. Easy choice.

“Google, nobody called from Google. One of the things like doing a show like yours, your show, you know, you see it on Fox, but when you really see it is all over the place, they take clips of your show that you’re doing right now with me and if I do a good job, they’re gonna vote for me, they’re gonna vote for me because it’s not just on Fox, it’s on Fox is a smaller part of it. You’re on all over this, those little beautiful cell phones you’re on, you’re all over the place. You have a product, you have a great product. You have a great brand. So you have to get out, you have to get out, you have to do things like your show and other shows and Google has been very bad. They’ve been very irresponsible and I have a feeling that Google is gonna be close to shut down”

Can anyone help? I don’t have a senile narcissist to English translator!

Michael Steele is commenting and was a former RNC head, so he probably has some kind of idea of the scale of this being impressive. Would have been better to have some sort of past numbers published for comparison though as you say.

*Making more oil than Saudi Arabia since 2018:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545

🙄

Alright, then you strongly implied Biden doesn’t speak out about that. There’s been many people on abortion related threads who falsely say or imply that, and I don’t know any other way someone could reasonably read your comment. It’s still there to place an edit afterwards if you’d like to clarify what you meant exactly.

I know you’re a troll, but just in case someone well meaning stumbles across this, Biden has called for this so many times.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/01/22/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-51st-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade/

https://apnews.com/article/biden-speech-transcript-campaign-withdrawal-432dc25a5af4ddebf75d73bfcc0fa72a

https://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2024/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-biden-delivers-remarks-on-abortion-rights-during-campaign-event-in-tampa-fl

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-06-27/trump-biden-abortion-presidential-debate

This took about three minutes to find, all from 2024.

He is also literally speaking on it this very moment, as I type this, in a speech marking the anniversary of the civil rights movement.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/vice-presidential-pool-reports-april-14-2021

Here you go. Press pool for the meeting that started this whole thing. About as primary of a source as is possible. It’s very clear she’s being asked to help address root causes of immigration, specifically political unrest and economic instability in central America. She quickly corrects the interviewer when they ask if this is about the border. If anyone was the border czar (a term the admin itself did not use for anyone to the best of my knowledge), it would be the secretary of homeland security.

And of course, Trump convinced Republicans to kill their immigration wish list law because he was so upset that he wouldn’t get credit for it.

Q: Madam Vice President, will you visit the Southern Border? Do you have a trip planned or will you plan a trip in the future if the situation with migration doesn’t resolve itself?

A: So, as I mentioned to the experts, the President has asked Sec. Mayorkas to address what is going on at the border, and he has been working very hard and is showing some progress because of his hard work. I have been asked to lead the issue of addressing the root causes, similar to what the then-vice president did many years ago, but I will tell you that these are not issues that are going to be addressed overnight in terms of the root causes issue. A large part of our focus is diplomatic in terms of what we can do in a way that is about working with these countries.

So when Republicans are like, omg she was the border czar and didn’t even visit the border. Uh no, she was helping with diplomacy and economic development in central America so was of course visiting those countries. The whole republican border czar thing is misinformation.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/what-kamala-harriss-record-in-central-america-and-the-caribbean-reveals-about-her-foreign-policy-approach/

Citation needed

No but seriously if you have more info I would be legitimately interested in it. But for starters what you say would be blatantly illegal under campaign finance law. Even as shoddy as it currently is. I attempted but couldn’t find anything like you describe.

Also I saw half of one party not even show up for that appalling address. What party was that again?

They can try, but an update to the law has since been passed to make totally clear the vice presidential role is purely ceremonial and that they have no power to challenge or alter the proceedings in any way.

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1139951463/electoral-count-act-reform-passes

I expect like you say they’ll still make a big public stink and file some frivolous suits about it though like it’s a real issue when it’s not to rile people up though. And totally ignoring the other times this has happened before, like Reagan to George HW Bush.

On July 23, 2016, ahead of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, the 2016 DNC Rules Committee voted overwhelmingly (158–6) to adopt a superdelegate reform package. The new rules were the result of a compromise between the Hillary Clinton and the Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns

Ultimately, the DNC decided to prevent superdelegates from voting on the first ballot, instead of reducing their numbers

People keep seeming to forget about the super delegate reform Bernie fought for. They are still there now, 15% of all the delegates (a lot of the super delegates being democratic elected officials like members of congress since that automatically gives the status). But they can’t vote in the first ballot any longer. They could only vote in a contested election in subsequent ballots, after all the other pledged delegates are unbound as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

Even before those reforms, they never really made a difference in any convention, except possibly 1984 when they helped push Mondale from a plurality to a majority by voting for him on the first ballot.

I’m not personally in favor of them at all, but it’s not nearly as bad as it’s made out to be sometimes. If we go to an open convention though, unless there’s a majority choice on the first ballot, they may play a role on subsequent ballots.

It’s already happening