PortaJohn

I believe he turns 18 in October

Barring any undisclosed injury we're not aware of Spencer should cruise to 2 victories over Luke at this stage albeit I think it'll be closer than people expect

Prediction movement. Chat miscalculated the number of letters New Prediction: Because Zahid Valencia fits the same letter count (14) as two wrestlers who beat Kyle Dake narrowly but still beat him, I now predict Kyle Dake will LOSE a close match against Zahid Valencia. Probably something like 8-6 or 7-5 — high effort, but not enough.

What are you basing that on? Show a reference? Not saying you are wrong but everything I've read (from non right wing sources) states that she can be charged for intent to obstruct. ICE showed up and spoke with the bailiff. They agreed to detain him after the court proceedings. This has all been corroborated

For Good Measure Chat GPT has made a prediction Prediction: Since Zahid Valencia’s name is shorter than the others (14 < 15, 16, 23), Kyle Dake will WIN this match, possibly in a close but decisive way. Bonus thought: Based on the letter trend, I'd predict something like a 6-4 or 7-3 type win for Dake.

Lets dissect his last thee losses -(2023 Worlds) Zaurbek Sidakov (14 letters) Loss 10-7 Math: 14-8= 6 - 3 (point differential) = 3 x 1 (wrestled one match) = 3 point Loss -(2024 'Oly) Daichi Takatani (14 Letter) Loss 12-20 Math= 14-8= 6 - 2 (initials KD) = 4 x 8 (Kyle Dake) = 32 (match point total) /4 (2 sets of first/last names) = 8 point match loss @Wrestleknownothing can you run the math to predict tonight?

Lets dissect his last thee losses (2020 'Oly) Magomedkhabib Kadimagomedov (26 Letters) vs Kyle Dake (8 Letters) Loss TF 11-0 Math: 26-8= 18-11 (point differential) = 7 + 4 (surname) = TF

Curious to learn more facts as this unfolds but where are you getting your information stating that an order to the Judge is required for Ice to detain the suspect? From my understanding ICE has free range to execute their arrest. She is in trouble for instructing Flores-Ruiz to leave through a Jury Door after she stopped them from exiting through the common doors. At this time this has been corroborated by several witnesses in the courtroom.

From what I'm reading it doesn't look good for Hannah Dugan and based on what is being reported she should be disbarred

You got it all wrong. He's just sticking it to the "Libs". All those commies. Except Putin. He's a good commie

A) Is this necessary? B) The 3 posters on here (Trip, Uncle B, & RV) seem far from the fox metaphor. They're all open and consistent on their beliefs and far from deceitful.

I believe revoking the tax exemption is very plausible with the precedent set by Bob Jones University vs United States.

Thats not the issue that is being argued. It's that Trump's DOJ circumvented the law and deported him. Keeping track of this conversation I guess myself, @Wrestleknownothing, @VakAttack, and @Le duke are the real Republicans in this conversation because of our shared conservative view that rules should be followed

What will be the impact of the new China-US trade war? It is a mistake to think of this as a US-China trade war. It is much more generalised than that. In the past five or six years, dozens of countries have imposed tariffs or other trade constraints, and we will see a lot more of this until trade imbalances are finally resolved. The current trade conflict has been inevitable for years, and I wrote about this in my 2013 book, The Great Rebalancing. Joan Robinson, one of the best economists on trade, argued way back in the 1930s that in a globalised system, when a group of countries start running large, persistent surpluses, it's just a question of time before their trade partners begin to retaliate, which is when trade conflict becomes generalised. They retaliate because trade surpluses are usually created by policies that increase a country's global competitiveness while repressing domestic demand. By running trade surpluses, these countries force the cost of weak domestic demand onto their trade partners. At some point, however, Robinson argued that the trade partners would no longer be willing or able to bear the cost, which typically comes in the form of either higher unemployment or high household or fiscal debt, so they would retaliate with their own trade policies. At the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, Keynes made the same argument, which is why he proposed a global trading system that penalised countries that ran persistent surpluses. He argued that trade and industrial policies that resulted in persistent trade surpluses put downward pressure on global demand, and this downward pressure would lead to rising unemployment and rising debt. This seems to describe the world of the past four or five decades very well, and in my 2019 book (Trade Wars are Class Wars) I showed how it also was likely to worsen income inequality. The trade conflict we are undergoing, in other words, may represent a major shift in the structure of the global economy - along with a shift in the way we think about economics - a lot like what we saw in the 1970s or in the 1930s. If that is the case, it means that we are in the midst of a major shift in the structure of the global economy. Our previous experiences in the 1930s and the 1970s suggest that we won't be able to predict what kind of world will emerge in the next decade or so, but we can be very sure that it will be very different from the world of the past several decades. The key for the success of most countries is how quickly they can adjust to the change in conditions. If they can adjust sustainably, they will emerge from this process in relatively good shape. If not, they will find it very difficult. Will trade and supply chains become more regionalised? What will the US' role be in globalisation? They probably will, at least in the near term. We live in a world with historically unprecedented levels of trade imbalances, and these are neither normal nor sustainable. In a well-functioning global trading system, countries export to pay for imports, and by specialisation, this increases global output. In our world, many countries export to pass on the costs of weak domestic demand. Trade conflict means that we are returning to a world with smaller imbalances and less subsidising of supply chains, which may mean less trade. One of the key changes will be a change in the global role of the US dollar. There have been many discussions about which currency could replace the US dollar as the global reserve currency if it no longer holds that position, which is a stupid question. At no time in history has any currency played the role of the US dollar - this is a complete anomaly and it's unsustainable. If the US dollar reduces its role in global trade - and I hope that happens relatively quickly - it will not be replaced. It is far more likely that we move to a world of multiple trading currencies. We keep forgetting what we used to know very well - that in a globalised world, every country must choose between more global integration or more control of its domestic economy. A fully integrated global economy can only succeed if all nations retain open trade and capital accounts and refrain from domestic industrial policies that affect the external account. But if several major economies opt for more control of their domestic economies, and implement policies that lead to large, persistent external imbalances, they force their more open trade partners to absorb those imbalances by changing the structure of their own economies. A country like Brazil, for example, wants to expand its manufacturing sector and reduce its dependence on commodity exports, but given its role in the global trading system, it has seen the opposite happen. These problems have been building through the 1990s and 2000s, but as the consequences of these imbalances have got worse, many countries in the world that once supported globalisation have now decided that they want to regain control of their domestic economies. This means less open trade and capital accounts, whether this comes in the form of tariffs or other kinds of policies. The role of the US here is particularly important. Since the 1980s, the US chose to play a role - partly for Cold War geopolitical reasons, and partly for the benefit of Wall Street - where it was going to accommodate the imbalances of the rest of the world by leaving its capital account completely open to the needs of countries to acquire foreign assets to balance their surpluses. The result was half of the excess savings in the world being absorbed by the US for decades, with half of the rest being absorbed by the UK, Canada and Australia, whose financial markets are very similar to that of the US. Of course the flip side of capital inflows is the trade deficit, which is why the US role as global consumer of last resort is simply the flip side of its role of absorber of last resort of excess global savings. If the US (along with the UK, Canada and Australia) now decide that they are unable or unwilling to continue playing this role, the consequences for global trade are enormous. If the countries accounting for most of the global deficits refuse to continue running deficits, either the surpluses of the large surplus countries collapse or the deficits of the rest of the world explode, or both. Either reaction will be terribly painful.

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/money/other/economist-michael-pettis-on-china-s-consumption-paradox-and-the-pitfalls-of-a-trade-war/ar-AA1BvlFh

Let it be known that @red viking believes NPR contributors are non-reliable

Michael Pettis who has contributed to NPR and teaches in China is non-reliable?

Sure. Have got plenty more in the chamber. If you weren't such an extremist we could probably have a constructive conversation https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3303369/economist-michael-pettis-chinas-consumption-paradox-and-pitfalls-trade-war

Once again you are taking a extreme position and overvaluing, overestimating, exaggerating, and over hyping China's power. Just a suggestion, read a non looney article and you'll soon come to the conclusion that China internally has major issues, problems, and an unsustainable long term plan.

@Bigbrog, fun topic. What are we defining as outrageous? I quoted jross above but don't think the run for a 3rd term is an outrageous claim. I have a few I could contribute but think even if they are highly unlikely are still plausible and not outrageous

Thanks. I think it reflects his personality well. Minnie Bun is just refreshing the pages on HR looking at what Corby (west2east) is saying. Which is Iowa has a decent shot.

Minnie Bun

Exactly. He has little to no insider info on wrestlers outside the PA/NJ sphere. He's just hedging his bet

Minnow will say this regardless if he knows or not. He lives for trolling on Iowa fans.