jerryskids

I dunno, to me, "way too many" implies a strong majority. I've adjusted my definition to "more than zero is too many for me subjectively, but I don't have a range in mind."

Nothing I guess. With your new definition of "way too many", I stand by my previous post as well. But more to your concern, I would in general prefer that people get their moral guidance from the Bible than from Tik Tok and Tumblr.

I think you and Tim are caught up on the semantics of the word "favorable." Perhaps I should have described it as "not polling as well as her team had hoped." To be clear, Watson (maker of the video) is not some second coming of Walter Cronkite. He's a popular YouTuber with conservatives. But the video does capture what I think are a lot of the problems with her campaign. One topic is the campaign's apparent lack of empathy with men: (real) white men, black men, young men.

In the same post you say "way too many" and "extreme conservatives." By definition, the "extreme" of anything is at the far end of the spectrum. But apparently you've drunk the MSDNC koolaid that most anyone right of Mao is an "extreme MAGA conservative$#@!" This can be a fun game, let me try. Liberals support Hamas terrorists. There are way too many people that are actually described by that though. They are extreme Leftists. ... transing kids. ... men competing in women's sports. ... wide open borders.

Again with the "need." Last time you said "have to," I told you to fock off, and you thought I was the problem. Watch it or don't, ignorance is bliss.

I'm shocked that neither of you two want to learn why Kamala is so unpopular, and instead post this pablum.

Yeah, that's what we do.

Any Lefties perplexed as to how Kamala isn't more popular might learn something from this.

Like, NABJ? You may recall, Kamala wouldn't go on there initially. Of course, she eventually did, and it was a love fest.

Thoughts on my observation that the rate of the rate of change is negative (decreasing) under Biden?

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.

I am epically bad at pretend football this year, in all my leagues. In this one in particular, it seems I'm favored most weeks, and then my team shiots the bed on game day. I did take the high risk/reward approach of going big on Cardinals assets -- their offense was supposed to be very good, and their defense fairly bad, so shootouts were predicted. Oops.

Sorry we couldn't connect as well! Yeah, I know. He's been an even bigger PITA than usual recently, thinking he has some big "gotcha" about what a "conservative" is. Idiots like weepaws in the Republican party got Kari Lake chosen as our Senate nominee. She supported the 1864 law prohibiting all abortions at one point. Guess what? She's going to get her ass kicked in the general by Ruben Gallego, a very liberal/progressive Democrat. He continues to support that 1864 ban. If that were still in place, Prop 139 would win in a landslide, which adds to our Constitution the right to abortion until birth. Instead we got the newer, 15 week ban, and with it a decent chance of blocking Prop 139 for going too far. To weepaws simple mind, he is doing right by his surfer dood God by this position. I think if he truly listened to God, he'd hear the message to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

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.

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?

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.

Somebody with the balls to make a difficult choice for Trump in this election, as the lesser of two evils. You aren't one. HTH

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

On a different note: I was reading back thru the bullet points above, and saw something about "protecting crypto investments." Wut? Is this the start of a power grab the the US govt on crypto markets? At a minimum, if the government agrees to provide downside protection on crypto investments... what could go wrong?

He knows nothing of the religions he disparages. He only knows that his surfer dood cult is the one and only true way. Because they told him that, probably with his eyelids sewn open.

Point of order: if you give someone $20K and they don't have to pay it back, is it really a "loan"?

I'll have to do no such thing. Answer my question.

So you agree that he shouldn't be on a woman's team, but went out of your way to bump this thread... why exactly? You feel the outrage over this specific player is overblown so... what exactly? What do you hope to accomplish here? It makes no sense.

That's not clear. What does that second quote mean?

I don't understand why you bumped this thread with an apparent justification for this guy competing, apparently because he isn't that good. Feel free to clearly state your position and why you bumped this thread.