jerryskids

I believe it has been said, but lowering rates generally encourages spending (which raises prices) and discourages savings. I wouldn't say I'm an expert, but I have an MBA and understand the basic macroeconomics.

Color me shocked that the Fed lowered interest rates with the election looming, despite inflation being about 50% higher than they target for such reductions.

These recent attacks on Hezbullah are probably the two most targeted, civilian-avoiding military efforts in the history of urban warfare. The ratio of civilian to terrorist casualties is staggeringly low. This is why the Left hates what happened, btw -- it interferes with their terrorist-supporting misinformation that Israel is indiscriminately killing civilians.

Umm... not if they were wearing one of those pagers.

https://www.axios.com/2024/09/18/israel-detonates-hezbollah-walkie-talkies-second-wave-after-pager-attack

Multiple things can be true at once.

Small children had Hezbullah terrorist pagers?

MSM devouring guppy, certainly. Maybe others.

Interesting. I'm 57 and my oldest (son) is 28. When he turns 29 in April, he will be more than half my age for the first time. I'm getting younger!

We talk about "terror," but man, Israel is doing some serious mind focks lately. Between this and offing that dood in the middle of Iran, the bad guys are probably afraid to take a dump these days for fear of exploding toilets.

Do you have a link to the polls which add in a "hidden Trump voter" factor? I absolutely believe it is a factor, but I'd like to know how they add it to their polls. Many social circles, and social media circles, would ostracize you if you openly supported Trump. Young men in particular are not going to tell their GFs that they are voting for Trump. This clearly impacts the polls, which while they claim to be anonymous, many people choose not to risk it. Supporting Trump is like Fight Club. Rule 1: you don't talk about voting for Trump. The amount of such hidden voters, well, that is the question.

I think this is where our resident liberals come in and tell us that nobody wants socialism, even though every college kid (presumably voting age) in this video initially said they prefer socialism.

If he wanted me to respond to the rest of his content, he shouldn't have led with that. But since you asked... The specific topic at hand is that the moderators admitted that they came loaded for Trump bear. That makes them not moderators. They clearly had specific rebukes planned for specific statements. Of Trump only, of course. One can debate what exactly the role of the moderators is. I would argue little to no fact checking. But if you are going to get involved in fact checking, do it on both candidates. They not only did zero fact checks on Harris, they let her set up that "very fine people" bit for what seemed like a solid minute. And the points they checked were questionable. As @zsaszpointed out, Trump's response to the eating pets rebuke was poor (I saw it on TV? Cmon, man). What he should have said was, "my running mate, JD Vance, is a senator from Ohio, and he has received numerous reports of this happening." But the point is, this is a contested enough topic with info still being collected that it doesn't warrant a "fact check." Similarly on abortion, there absolutely are states that abort up to term, and the former governor of Virginia said what Trump said. It was a bad look to jump in, but the moderators seemed intent on Harris getting a big win on the abortion topic. A second are of bias is push back, or lack thereof. I think that a moderator should push for an answer if they ask a specific question. They did zero of this with Harris. They specifically asked her if she thought people were better off today, she word saladed for a few minutes, but never answered. A third, and more insidious, area of bias is in the way the moderators asked questions. For instance, after Harris babbled about Afghanistan, Muir turned to Trump and said, "President Trump, your response to the allegation about your negotiation with the Taliban." What? A moderator shouldn't do that. A moderator should say, "President Trump, your response," or "President Trump, you have two minutes to respond." If Trump were a seasoned debater her would have put Muir in his place, but the moderators knew that Trump would chase whatever shiny object they put in front of him. Speaking of time, was there even a clock? I don't recall any time limits. It was an interesting fact that Sean mentioned that Trump spoke for over 5 minutes longer. Not surprising, having watched it. This hurts Trump IMO, because he gets into rambling Trump mode. Whether this was by design or not, I can't say.

Like, when you came into the end of my moral relativism thread which had a lot of good discussions with various posters, said you stopped reading the OP, drew your own simple conclusions, and proceeded to insult me for a few pages?

Because they think the MSM is honest in telling them that Trump is going to be a dictator, despite his 4 years as president which proved otherwise. HTH

He was asked it by Hannity because low-intelligence people had accused him of it. Is this a trick question?

This is disappointing for a centrist like yourself.

It's entirely clear what he is saying here, which is he'll do some executive orders. For a person who claims to research stuff, I'm surprised you don't know this. Feel free to apologize, there really isn't another intelligent response.

Still debunked, centrist.

Really? Dictator on day one? I usually consider people who say this to be special needs. It has been thoroughly debunked by "fact checkers" which would rather not have to do it.

I like that prayer as well.

Very centrist straw men. Thoughts on what I actually asked?

Thanks. Wondering what our resident centrists think, like @Sean Mooney, @zsasz, @TimHauck?

Where are we here, it isn't happening?