Sean Mooney

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.

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.

It's what HT does. He knows he isn't playing with a winning hand so he has to try and add to it and cheat to make it sound worse. Just doesn't work because everything I said is clear and laid out.

At least I'm being honest as opposed to you who slithers into a thread- says something idiotic- gets asked for evidence of it- and then runs and hides

That is not a big venue they held this in and it is lightly attended

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

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.

Yeah...I get it- you'd rather not learn something and remain ignorant. Carry on

Whoever workshopped and went with "Opportunity economy/agenda" should be barred from helping with any future campaigns. It just doesn't accomplish what they think it accomplishes.

Or I can dislike that as well....things are not either/or. Tell me though- when did Biden make jokes about getting shot to a Gold Star family. When did he run down former military or diminish their Purple Hearts?

Not just that but made a joke about getting shot....to parents whose son was killed in battle.

The key phrase HT continues to ignore in what I said..(I mean he probably can't read it) "If that is true-"

You are lying about what I said- while quoting what I said. Clean the drool off your keyboard.

I shared plenty of real information that you can peruse on your own if you want some reality in your life. You can also note I pointed out the Biden role in the tariffs. Or you can keep playing "fake centrist" like you often do here

As I've said a number of times- perception and reality are not in line with things always. There were a lot of studies done on the effect of the Trump tariffs and in aggregate it was found that the tariffs increased costs for average American households by about $830 per year, accounting for direct costs and efficiency losses. And yes I agree that those numbers are most likely higher now and will agree to that until I see something that might argue otherwise. Here is the chart that shows a bunch of the studies. **EDIT** The emojis are the html code copying it here. I didn't do that and they don't represent any feelings for me. I'm too lazy to go back and look up everything to change the code. Here is the article it is from: https://www.cato.org/blog/americans-paid-trump-tariffs-would-do-so-again This article talks about the impact but does note that too many things don't understand the way tariffs work in their studies: https://carnegieendowment.org/china-financial-markets/2021/01/how-trumps-tariffs-really-affected-the-us-job-market?lang=en This article talks about the Trump tariffs (and refers to them by Biden as well since he left on many of the Trump tariffs): https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-biden-tariffs/ Table 1 Numerous studies document how Trump-era tariffs have harmed the US economy Study Tariffs covered Impact measured Estimated impact American Action Forum (2022) Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum Section 301 tariffs on imports from China Tariff costs (i.e., tax burden) $51.1 billion total tariff cost in 2022 Amiti et al., (2021) Tariffs imposed in 2018–19 and Chinese retaliation A) Decline in US stock prices (firm equity value) Decline in aggregate US welfare A) $4.12 trillion cumulative loss in firm equity value 3.0% decline in aggregate welfare Amiti, Redding, and Weinstein (2019) Safeguards on solar panels and washing machines Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports (lists 1–3) Additional tariff costs and economic deadweight (efficiency) losses $106.07 billion total annual tariff cost (averages to $831 annual cost per household) Caldara et al. (2020) Tariffs imposed in 2018 Decline in aggregate US investment as a result of higher trade policy uncertainty 1.5% decline in US investment in 2018 Caliendo and Parro (2022) Tariffs imposed on Chinese imports A) Decline in aggregate US real wages Decline in aggregate US real income C) Decline in aggregate US households' welfare A) 0.16% decline in US real wages 0.14% decline in US real income C) 0.1% decline in US households' welfare Carter and Steinbach (2020) Retaliation from tariffs imposed in 2018 Decline in US agricultural and food exports Over $15.6 billion in trade with retaliatory countries lost Cavallo et al. (2021) Tariffs imposed on Chinese imports since 2018 Tariff pass-through to import and retail prices Tariffs passed "almost fully" through to US import prices, yet only marginally to retail prices, suggesting that retailers are absorbing most of the cost. For instance, a 20% tariff is associated with an 18.9% increase in the price paid for an affected good by US importers, but only a 0.7% increase in the relative retail price for the good. Congressional Budget Office (2020) Tariffs imposed between January 2018 and January 2020 Loss in output and higher consumer prices Per household cost of $1,277 in 2020 (from lower output and higher prices) Fajgelbaum et al. (2021) Safeguards on solar panels and washing machines Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports (lists 1–3) Tariffs on European Union imports A) Increase in import prices (gross costs) Economywide loss in output (net costs) A) $114 billion annual increase in import costs Economy-wide net annual losses of $24.8 billion Flaaen, Hortaçsu, Tintelnot (2020) Safeguards on washing machines A) Tariff pass-through Increase in consumer costs A) Pass-through of 108–225 percent, due to increase in prices of domestic brands and complementary goods (e.g., dryers) $1.5 billion annual cost to consumers Gerarden et al. (2024) Tariffs on solar panels, including: Obama-era antidumping and countervailing duties; and Trump-era Section 201 (safeguard) tariffs and Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports A) Change in welfare from 2010 to 2020 Change in employment (job-years and wages) from 2010 to 2020 A) Loss of $56.6 billion in US welfare (including loss of $65.5 billion in local environmental benefits from solar panel adoption) relative to scenario with no tariffs. Loss of 370,100 job-years and and $15.8 billion in total wages, driven by losses in solar panel installation jobs. Handley, Kamal, and Monarch (2020) Tariffs imposed in 2018–19 A) Additional tariff costs for US firms exposed to import tariffs, per worker Decline in export growth A) $900 tariff cost per worker overall and $1,600 per worker for manufacturing firms Decline in US exports in 2019 is equivalent to a 1.5% tariff on the average export Tariffs Hurt the Heartland (2022) Tariffs imposed from February 2018 to April 2021 Additional tariff costs $94 billion total tariff cost since 2018 Tax Foundation Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports A) Additional tariff costs Loss in economic output (GDP) A) $79 billion annual tariff cost (averages to $625 per household) Decline in long-run GDP of 0.2 percent Trade Partnership (2019) Tariffs imposed or announced as of November 2018, plus foreign retaliation A) Loss in national income (net) Net US job loss A) Annual decline of $62.3 billion in net national income Net loss of 934,700 US jobs US International Trade Commission (2023) Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs A) Tariff pass-through (Sec. 301) Effect on prices (Sec. 232) C) Effect on downstream production (Sec. 232) A) Full pass-through of Section 301 tariffs to prices paid by US importers. Section 232 tariffs led to a weighted-average steel price increase of ~2.4% and a weighted-average aluminum price increase of ~1.6% C) Downstream (i.e., steel- and aluminum-consuming) industries in the US experienced a $3.48 billion decline in production (measured by value) because of the Section 232 tariffs.

Great counter argument. Go get your nurse to change your diaper loser

There were warning signs in late 2018 and into 2019 that the economy was downturning under Trump. COVID exacerbated things.

At the town hall in Oaks last night- More disrespect towards veterans and their families.

They are not manufacturing polls. If anything they are looking at too many polls and just reporting what they are saying which doesn't work because all the polls sample differently which leads to different results. The last sentence you wrote is just ridiculous.

Oh man...Horseman taking a huge loss on this. He might need another burner alias to get back his "life winner" status. What thread was that? I knew he said it but I couldn't remember the context

I'm not asking that as a means of saying "Who you voting for?" It just struck me as odd and I was wondering if those signs are other places as well.

I'm not sure who else lives in battleground states but for those that do- are you seeing billboards and stuff out and about for Trump/Kennedy: Make America Healthy Again? I guess they are trying to drive home that RFK Jr is on Trump's team but it really downplays Vance as he isn't mentioned on the board and it looks like RFK is the VP candidate.

The state support for fracking is kind of split- something like 48-44% in favor as to being opposed. It's also fair to point out that most of the fracking in PA takes place on private land and the president can't ban fracking there. Also this:

Oh I knew..I was reiterating for the laughs

So your argument is that the media should just treat the election as a foregone conclusion and not try to drive content for the next 3 weeks? You ever seen the news before?