Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://mastodon.social/users/HistoPol/statuses/112740851968440518">HistoPol (#HP) 🥥 🌴 (histopol@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 07-Jul-2024 03:01:23 JST</a><a href="https://mastodon.social/@HistoPol" title="histopol@mastodon.social"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/44595-48-20221221005726.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="HistoPol (#HP) 🥥 🌴" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">HistoPol (#HP) 🥥 🌴</a><div><a href="https://sfba.social/@goodreedAJ/112740661655896495" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a><ul><li><li><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/user/159157" title="randy@social.coop">Randy Hall</a></li></ul></div></section><article><p><a href="https://sfba.social/@goodreedAJ">@goodreedAJ</a> </p><p><a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Elections" rel="tag">#Elections</a> </p><p>(1/2)</p><p>I can agree with most of what HCR says. In fact, her short analysis of this term's SCOTUS decisions pretty much coincides with TheEconomist's from yesterday. 1)<br>However, I dare say that even though I love to look at history a lot (LOL,), people from the stockmarket in particular know that the past is a poor truthsayer for the future.<br>Following her argument that LBJ's replacement lost in 1968, I..</p><p>1)<br><a href="https://www.economist.com/audio/podcasts/checks-and-balance" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.economist.com/audio/podcasts/checks-and-balance</a> </p><p><a href="https://social.coop/@randy">@randy</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/3338862#notice-6575679">In conversation</a><time datetime="2024-07-07T03:01:23+09:00" title="Sunday, 07-Jul-2024 03:01:23 JST">about 5 months ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://mastodon.social/@HistoPol/112740851968440518" rel="external" title="Sent from mastodon.social via ActivityPub">mastodon.social</a></span></span><a href="https://mastodon.social/@HistoPol/112740851968440518">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><article><header><div>Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: cdn.design-system.economist.com</div><h5><a href="https://www.economist.com/audio/podcasts/checks-and-balance">Checks and Balance</a></h5><div></div></header><div>Stay ahead on American politics with an in-depth discussion from our correspondents.</div><footer></footer></article></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
HistoPol (#HP) 🥥 🌴 (histopol@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 07-Jul-2024 03:01:23 JSTHistoPol (#HP) 🥥 🌴
in reply to
- Ande Jacobson
- Randy Hall
@goodreedAJ
#Elections
(1/2)
I can agree with most of what HCR says. In fact, her short analysis of this term's SCOTUS decisions pretty much coincides with TheEconomist's from yesterday. 1)
However, I dare say that even though I love to look at history a lot (LOL,), people from the stockmarket in particular know that the past is a poor truthsayer for the future.
Following her argument that LBJ's replacement lost in 1968, I..
1)
https://www.economist.com/audio/podcasts/checks-and-balance
@randy
In conversationabout 5 months ago from mastodon.socialpermalink
Attachments
1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: cdn.design-system.economist.com
  Checks and Balance
  Stay ahead on American politics with an in-depth discussion from our correspondents.

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice