purdygood 306 Posted October 15 Just now, The Real timschochet said: Here’s an interesting poll but not a shocker: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/harris-holds-big-advantage-among-early-voters-trump-election-day-voters-poll.amp If you’re voting early chances are you’re voting for Harris…by a wide margin. If you’re voting on Election Day chances are you’re voting for Trump…by a wide margin. The election is rigged! People are already voting for Kamala! Very unfair, many people are saying. Many people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HellToupee 1,254 Posted October 15 36 minutes ago, Fireballer said: Holy sh!t this is laughable Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RaiderHaters Revenge 4,051 Posted October 15 9 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said: Yeah...I get it- you'd rather not learn something and remain ignorant. Carry on You can continue to live in the statistics of those in charge or you can walk into the real world. Go get your phags for walz hat Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sean Mooney 1,815 Posted October 15 1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said: You can continue to live in the statistics of those in charge or you can walk into the real world. Go get your phags for walz hat Or I can do both and see how sometimes my perception isn't in lockstep with reality. See a normal, intelligent person doesn't get locked into one line of thinking and work from there. It's important to read a lot of things and match them up with the reality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,174 Posted October 15 1 hour ago, thegeneral said: Yeah economic growth is typically good. Economy growing is bad! Stock market all time highs bad! Unemployment historically low bad! Sure economic growth is good. The thing is, if you start from a very bad position, it isn't hard to show "growth." A high stock market is generally good, but that doesn't help the average person buy food and gas. Unemployment is not historically low according to this link. In fact it seems to be creeping back up: https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purdygood 306 Posted October 15 Just now, jerryskids said: Sure economic growth is good. The thing is, if you start from a very bad position, it isn't hard to show "growth." A high stock market is generally good, but that doesn't help the average person buy food and gas. Unemployment is not historically low according to this link. In fact it seems to be creeping back up: https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm If you were President, what would you do to lower the price of food and gas? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrailGuy 204 Posted October 15 4 minutes ago, jerryskids said: Sure economic growth is good. The thing is, if you start from a very bad position, it isn't hard to show "growth." A high stock market is generally good, but that doesn't help the average person buy food and gas. Unemployment is not historically low according to this link. In fact it seems to be creeping back up: https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm Inflation is currently at 2.4%. Is that too high? If you are voting for Trump to lower inflation from 2.4% then do we now ignore economists that say he will do the opposite? https://apnews.com/article/trump-inflation-tariffs-taxes-immigration-federal-reserve-a18de763fcc01557258c7f33cab375ed?taid=670e7a623f0f7f000131f02a At what point to we completely ignore facts, data, truth and experts and say "Well whatever the orange guys says I believe"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrahmaBulls 627 Posted October 15 2 hours ago, Sean Mooney said: Great counter argument. Go get your nurse to change your diaper loser This a-hole is supposedly an actual educator of young people. No wonder kids are so ##### stupid these days. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thegeneral 2,500 Posted October 15 8 minutes ago, jerryskids said: Sure economic growth is good. The thing is, if you start from a very bad position, it isn't hard to show "growth." A high stock market is generally good, but that doesn't help the average person buy food and gas. Unemployment is not historically low according to this link. In fact it seems to be creeping back up: https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm GDP is growth is up, up as you can see from this chart: Link I’ll take the good stock market. Unemployment looks really low. When Biden came in the place was a wreck. It’s much, much better off now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 14,164 Posted October 15 53 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said: Yeah...I get it- you'd rather not learn something and remain ignorant. Carry on At least you’re trying to to teach someone today. Be better if you concentrated on your students. Just sayin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 14,164 Posted October 15 18 minutes ago, squistion said: Yes! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sean Mooney 1,815 Posted October 15 18 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said: This a-hole is supposedly an actual educator of young people. No wonder kids are so ##### stupid these days. 2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: At least you’re trying to to teach someone today. Be better if you concentrated on your students. Just sayin. HT- you want to cry now about people being unoriginal on here? Teacher slams...only like the millionth time on here. I know how much unoriginality chaps you. Maybe you'll get to it when The Price is Right is over and you've napped a little Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Engorgeous George 1,785 Posted October 15 13 hours ago, Strike said: Anyone else notice how the Libs here like @The Real timschochet just ignore the issues that come up around Kamalatoe's campaign, like her plagiarism issue, CBS' 60 minutes editing controversy, etc....? They just pretend those things don't exist. I find it amusing but I do notice their silence. And on the second amendment we have this ... https://x.com/i/status/1836841464686424493 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,174 Posted October 15 1 hour ago, purdygood said: If you were President, what would you do to lower the price of food and gas? For inflation in the general sense, macro things would be 1. Not issue multiple trillion dollar money printing boondoggles like the Inflation Increase Act, and 2. not encourage the Fed to reduce rates by 0.5 pts when we are still not at the 2.0% target inflation. For gas specifically, invest more in domestic exploration, extraction, transportation, and refining. For food (and gas), I'd appoint smart people (think top management consultant types) to do a deep dive on the entire supply chains, and identify targeted opportunities for improvement. For instance, I've learned recently that our ports are among the most inefficient in the first world. I'm not sure throwing all that money at the union really helps us to be competitive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,174 Posted October 15 1 hour ago, TrailGuy said: Inflation is currently at 2.4%. Is that too high? If you are voting for Trump to lower inflation from 2.4% then do we now ignore economists that say he will do the opposite? https://apnews.com/article/trump-inflation-tariffs-taxes-immigration-federal-reserve-a18de763fcc01557258c7f33cab375ed?taid=670e7a623f0f7f000131f02a At what point to we completely ignore facts, data, truth and experts and say "Well whatever the orange guys says I believe"? Yes, 2.4% is too high. It's 20% higher than the 2% target. Regarding your Trump whataboutism, I've never supported his tariff "plan." I've stated to @The Real timschochetthat I think it is all blather as part of his "Art of the Deal" approach to negotiation, but I must admit that Trump is doing a good job of convincing me he is serious about it. If he does ignore his advisors and implements it, hopefully it will be on a small scale initially (like, maybe autos only?) and he/we can assess the impacts. That being said, some amount of tariffs are a weapon in the arsenal of striking a balance between affordable goods and domestic employment. In that vein, I would turn the question around and say: do you oppose all tariffs, or just think Trump's proposal goes too far? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,174 Posted October 15 1 hour ago, thegeneral said: GDP is growth is up, up as you can see from this chart: Link I’ll take the good stock market. Unemployment looks really low. When Biden came in the place was a wreck. It’s much, much better off now. That chart is interesting: the second derivative (the direction of the rate of change) appears negative for the first time during the Biden/Harris years. That's a bit concerning, as it points to a possible eventual flattening out or decrease if it continues. Stock market comment is non-responsive. "Looks really low" is not "historically low." And as I pointed out from the graph provided, it is increasing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrailGuy 204 Posted October 15 5 minutes ago, jerryskids said: Yes, 2.4% is too high. It's 20% higher than the 2% target. Regarding your Trump whataboutism, I've never supported his tariff "plan." I've stated to @The Real timschochetthat I think it is all blather as part of his "Art of the Deal" approach to negotiation, but I must admit that Trump is doing a good job of convincing me he is serious about it. If he does ignore his advisors and implements it, hopefully it will be on a small scale initially (like, maybe autos only?) and he/we can assess the impacts. That being said, some amount of tariffs are a weapon in the arsenal of striking a balance between affordable goods and domestic employment. In that vein, I would turn the question around and say: do you oppose all tariffs, or just think Trump's proposal goes too far? I think some tariffs are fine and make sense. I don't think Trump's tariffs during his previous term helped. I don't think Biden should have kept them. I think his second term and his tariffs will be disastrous and send us into recession. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purdygood 306 Posted October 15 11 minutes ago, jerryskids said: For inflation in the general sense, macro things would be 1. Not issue multiple trillion dollar money printing boondoggles like the Inflation Increase Act, and 2. not encourage the Fed to reduce rates by 0.5 pts when we are still not at the 2.0% target inflation. For gas specifically, invest more in domestic exploration, extraction, transportation, and refining. For food (and gas), I'd appoint smart people (think top management consultant types) to do a deep dive on the entire supply chains, and identify targeted opportunities for improvement. For instance, I've learned recently that our ports are among the most inefficient in the first world. I'm not sure throwing all that money at the union really helps us to be competitive. Thank you for your answer! I think I agree with all of these. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,732 Posted October 15 Trump backs out of CNBC interview, his second about-face with mainstream press this month Donald Trump has backed out of an interview with CNBC, marking the second time this month the former president has canceled on a mainstream press interview. Joe Kernen, the “Squawk Box” co-anchor, broke the news of the unannounced interview’s cancellation during Tuesday morning’s broadcast. “Well, Trump canceled, and he was going to come on,” he said. Kernen added that the network had also offered to sit down with Vice President Kamala Harris, but said “she’s not coming on.” Kernen joked that, with Trump’s decision, “she could come on and we could say we offered it to Trump camp, but they’re not.” A Trump campaign official told CNN that the planned CNBC interview was pulled due to a scheduling conflict, noting the former president intends to be in Michigan on Friday. A CNBC spokesperson did not immediately respond to a CNN request for comment. Trump’s decision to back out of the appearance comes less than two weeks after he canceled an interview on CBS News’ “60 Minutes” with Scott Pelley. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thegeneral 2,500 Posted October 15 7 minutes ago, jerryskids said: That chart is interesting: the second derivative (the direction of the rate of change) appears negative for the first time during the Biden/Harris years. That's a bit concerning, as it points to a possible eventual flattening out or decrease if it continues. Stock market comment is non-responsive. "Looks really low" is not "historically low." And as I pointed out from the graph provided, it is increasing. Growth in the last period is higher than Trump’s last year. Not sure how you get around this. I have been pretty clear about stock market, all time highs are good. There are more millionaires than ever before. Unemployment is not an issue. The idea that this is a terrible economy that is the worst we have ever seen, something that is said every day by Donald, is a joke. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,174 Posted October 15 4 minutes ago, thegeneral said: Growth in the last period is higher than Trump’s last year. Not sure how you get around this. I have been pretty clear about stock market, all time highs are good. There are more millionaires than ever before. Unemployment is not an issue. The idea that this is a terrible economy that is the worst we have ever seen, something that is said every day by Donald, is a joke. Trump's last year? Covid? This is a joke statement, right? You've ignored my point about the stock market twice, I'm done on that. Your goalposts on unemployment move with every response. Most importantly, if working class folks were doing well in this economy, Kamala would be running on it. She isn't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thegeneral 2,500 Posted October 15 20 minutes ago, jerryskids said: Trump's last year? Covid? This is a joke statement, right? You've ignored my point about the stock market twice, I'm done on that. Your goalposts on unemployment move with every response. Most importantly, if working class folks were doing well in this economy, Kamala would be running on it. She isn't. 2019. I am not ignoring your stock market claim. I am pointing out that all-time highs are a good thing and generally not a sign that the economy is terrible. Historically low is a generic term. If you look at unemployment throughout Biden’s term it is very low, historically low, in comparison. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,174 Posted October 15 8 minutes ago, thegeneral said: 2019. I am not ignoring your stock market claim. I am pointing out that all-time highs are a good thing and generally not a sign that the economy is terrible. Historically low is a generic term. If you look an unemployment throughout Biden’s term it is very low, historically low, in comparison. Thoughts on my observation that the rate of the rate of change is negative (decreasing) under Biden? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thegeneral 2,500 Posted October 15 1 hour ago, jerryskids said: Thoughts on my observation that the rate of the rate of change is negative (decreasing) under Biden? I didn’t see this.illustrated on that graph. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 4,815 Posted October 15 2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said: As to this part- when you posted the article you did not write “this is why many people support Trump”; you wrote “this is why I support Trump” and that’s why I called you lazy. Of course many in the public who don’t follow politics carefullly will be lazy and think “well things were better then so Trump must be better.” You participate in these political discussions so you should know better. But you don’t, If those people believe they were better off due to Trump's policies, they're making a reasoned decision. That's what is happening. You can disagree that his policies were the reason people were better off but I, and a lot of other people, would not agree with your assessment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 5,232 Posted October 15 5 minutes ago, Strike said: If those people believe they were better off due to Trump's policies, they're making a reasoned decision. That's what is happening. You can disagree that his policies were the reason people were better off but I, and a lot of other people, would not agree with your assessment. Well then you would be wrong. And lazy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 4,815 Posted October 15 Just now, The Real timschochet said: Well then you would be wrong. And lazy. Says the guy who touts every poll that favors Kamala, and then when they turn in Trump's favor or in his momentum just blows them off. Says the guy who was all over the betting markets until the betting markets started favoring Trump. Says the guy who doesn't understand that a Super PAC poll is NOT the same thing as a Trump internal poll. Talk about lazy. You're the laziest poster here. 1 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 5,232 Posted October 15 2 hours ago, TrailGuy said: At what point to we completely ignore facts, data, truth and experts and say "Well whatever the orange guys says I believe"? We crossed that point a long time ago. @jerryskids has developed a near version of this: whatever the orange guy says goes, but if he says something really crazy then he doesn’t really mean it. Or we misunderstood. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 5,232 Posted October 15 2 minutes ago, Strike said: Says the guy who touts every poll that favors Kamala, and then when they turn in Trump's favor or in his momentum just blows them off. Says the guy who was all over the betting markets until the betting markets started favoring Trump. Says the guy who doesn't understand that a Super PAC poll is NOT the same thing as a Trump internal poll. Talk about lazy. You're the laziest poster here. This is also a wrong and lazy analysis. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HellToupee 1,254 Posted October 15 42 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said: Trump backs out of CNBC interview, his second about-face with mainstream press this month Donald Trump has backed out of an interview with CNBC, marking the second time this month the former president has canceled on a mainstream press interview. Joe Kernen, the “Squawk Box” co-anchor, broke the news of the unannounced interview’s cancellation during Tuesday morning’s broadcast. “Well, Trump canceled, and he was going to come on,” he said. Kernen added that the network had also offered to sit down with Vice President Kamala Harris, but said “she’s not coming on.” Kernen joked that, with Trump’s decision, “she could come on and we could say we offered it to Trump camp, but they’re not.” A Trump campaign official told CNN that the planned CNBC interview was pulled due to a scheduling conflict, noting the former president intends to be in Michigan on Friday. A CNBC spokesperson did not immediately respond to a CNN request for comment. Trump’s decision to back out of the appearance comes less than two weeks after he canceled an interview on CBS News’ “60 Minutes” with Scott Pelley. I’m glad he’s finally gotten the word that he doesn’t need the corrupt MSM. I’m personally looking for to his Rogan appearance Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
supermike80 1,600 Posted October 15 9 minutes ago, HellToupee said: I’m glad he’s finally gotten the word that he doesn’t need the corrupt MSM. I’m personally looking for to his Rogan appearance For the same reason it's dumb for Kamala to do Fox news, it's equally as dumb for Trump to CNBC, MSNBC, CNN etc. Zero upside. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 3,928 Posted October 15 9 minutes ago, supermike80 said: For the same reason it's dumb for Kamala to do Fox news, it's equally as dumb for Trump to CNBC, MSNBC, CNN etc. Zero upside. Correct. We all know that most of the media is a friendly landscape for Kamala, Fox news will not be friendly. They will hold her to account. I think Fox is mostly friendly toward Trump, so its easier for him to be on that outlet.....whereas the rest of media wants to end him. With this in mind, imagine the desperation it conveys that Harris is willing to go on Fox news. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
supermike80 1,600 Posted October 15 Just now, RLLD said: Correct. We all know that most of the media is a friendly landscape for Kamala, Fox news will not be friendly. They will hold her to account. I think Fox is mostly friendly toward Trump, so its easier for him to be on that outlet.....whereas the rest of media wants to end him. With this in mind, imagine the desperation it conveys that Harris is willing to go on Fox news. I saw an interesting thought on the whole 60 Minutes debacle as far as editing her answer on Israel. If Trump had dropped that word salad, 60 minutes would not have edited one second of it out. I believe that 100%. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sean Mooney 1,815 Posted October 15 So the candidates should only do pieces that are friendly to them? Got it. Also, CNBC is in the center and Squawk Box is really pretty down the middle. They just present the numbers and will interview people from all sides of the political spectrum. Lastly, Trump only likes certain people on FOX News. He runs the network down a lot and will always fall back on the 3 people there he likes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
supermike80 1,600 Posted October 15 1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said: So the candidates should only do pieces that are friendly to them? Got it. Also, CNBC is in the center and Squawk Box is really pretty down the middle. They just present the numbers and will interview people from all sides of the political spectrum. Lastly, Trump only likes certain people on FOX News. He runs the network down a lot and will always fall back on the 3 people there he likes. They should what they like. This is America. They can agree to whatever interviews they wish. Kinda how it is here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 3,928 Posted October 15 5 minutes ago, supermike80 said: I saw an interesting thought on the whole 60 Minutes debacle as far as editing her answer on Israel. If Trump had dropped that word salad, 60 minutes would not have edited one second of it out. I believe that 100%. Right. I dont think any of us were surprised that Harris avoided Fox, its simple common sense. She would be held to account for the many flaws she has, whereas with the rest of media who are more devoted to political outcomes than truth, they would cover for her (like 60 minutes tried to do) I surmise that Fox would be more helpful to Trump than Harris. If the Harris team was confident in their situation, no way would they risk being on Fox. So that is a tell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 5,232 Posted October 15 Reuters/Ipsos poll: Harris holds steady 3 point lead: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-holds-steady-marginal-46-43-lead-over-trump-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2024-10-15/ Sorry, @Strike still a dead heat, still Harris marginally in the lead. And while the gamblers, at this moment, are going the other way, I’d still rather be in her position. I suspect that the gamblers will come to this same conclusion shortly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sean Mooney 1,815 Posted October 15 29 minutes ago, supermike80 said: They should what they like. This is America. They can agree to whatever interviews they wish. Kinda how it is here. They are Presidents for the whole country. Go everywhere and speak your mind and ideas. Some places you will get some slings and arrows and other places you will get flowers. But saying "I only want to go here if so and so interviews me..." or "I won't do that place cause they are nasty..." is childish garbage. Especially for a guy that so many here want to pretend is an alpha and all that jazz. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 5,232 Posted October 15 Trump’s folks are going to challenge voting in Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta. We can expect violence on Election Day. Make no mistake this is all about racism and scaring black people out of voting. That’s the MAGA folks best chance of winning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
