Damn good thing he sped up otherwise he would have crashed into those signs.

I like Bernie, but his answer to "how do we pay for your plans?" seems to always be "We tax the rich more." That seems naive imo.
I agree, the extremely rich should pay way more, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that higher tax rates for the top 5% can pay to revamp our entire society. We are too deep in debt, and too shallow in our commitments towards the public, whether those commitments come in the form of investments in education, health, infrastructure, the legal system, prison reforms, ecology, climate change, .....the list of things we put on the back burner and ignore is long and fraught with perils far more pressing than, let's say a fence, or golf outings, trade wars, or another aircraft carrier.

As to the Castro ridiculousness, get a grip people. I can give you an example of something Hitler did that everyone, including holocaust survivors, can agree was a great thing he did.....he killed Hitler. If your ideological blinders and hatred are so thick you can't admit bad people/systems might also do some good things sometimes, you have a serious problem accepting reality and you need therapy.

Maybe for average cars, but that's not true when it comes to old Broncos or Jeeps. In the early 70's, they built them like tanks (heavy and slow), especially with the roll bar option properly installed, Broncos even had a thick full tube frame, not just a C channel, not unibody, and definitely no plastic.

Granted, the safety systems were lap belts and nothing more and the steering column would spear through your chest in a head on crash while the bare metal dash cracks your passenger's head, even stock they tend to roll, the fuel economy is non existent, and top speed is well under 2/3 what modern cars can produce (good thing since the brakes are sub par), but the cars themselves are nearly indestructible (I have one of each). I've dropped my jeep frame 3+ ft onto solid rock, it chipped the rock (and maybe my spine). ;-)
Late 70's early 80's that all changed, mostly for the worst.

Good thing he had more than one wheel on that side. Seems like he noticed pretty quickly though.

Wow, good thing they used human instincts and not Hollywood instincts to try and outrun it.

Damnit, I literally just finished a bottle of wine before sitting down to watch this.

Good thing it works with whiskey too. It does look really cool.

There is still the danger of getting caught staring intently at a glass of whiskey for minutes on end though. I don't think "but it's for science!" would cut it.

Good thing he got them before they ruined his lawn.

Maybe next time don't blow your dog up too?

*quality stupidity

Good thing he was stopped in time. Maybe saving one life will lead to saving many.

Good thing we have a POTUS that believes in the rule of law. This guy is going down.

Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out. Those that dumb it down enough to be understood invariably underrepresent or outright misrepresent the problems. With so many unscientific voices out there trying to out shout the real data for their own purposes, real scientists fudging the data is near criminal because it's only more ammunition for deniers.

Yes, if you or I heard them lecture, we would likely hear that and even more, but the average, unscientific American would hear "taking in more energy than is leaving" as a good thing, free energy. If they explained the mechanisms involved, their eyes would glaze over as they just wished someone would tell them it's all lies so they could ignore what they can't understand fully. These people are, imo, the majority in the U.S.. They are why we need emotional delivery of simplified science from a charismatic young woman who knows her stuff.
Edit: For example, I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise, or that we only had 8 years of current emission levels to have a 66% chance, still bad odds. I understood they were also using horrendous models for ice melt and other factors to reach those optimistic numbers, and didn't take feedback loops we already see in action into account, nor did they make allowances for feedbacks we don't know about yet. The average reader only got 12 years to conserve before we are locked into 1.5 degree. They don't even know that's when known feedback loops are expected to outpace human inputs, making it exponentially harder if not impossible to turn around, or that 1.5 degree rise by 2050 likely means closer to 3 degree by 2100, and higher afterwards.

Mating habits for European swallows?! How did we get from the relationship of climatology and sociology to discussing the red light district?

I believe your typical American, no matter their political persuasion, cares about his fellow American. I'm sure you agree that trying to paint either side as demons who don't care is nonsense.

People shouldn't care about what type of guns or the number of guns - there seems to be no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates in the USA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#/media/File:Gun_Ownership_Related_to_Gun_Violence_by_State_(United_States).sv
g

(the line of best fit would have a positive slope if there was a correlation)

There is a correlation between weapon type and firearm murder - pistols (of all sorts) account for approximately 89% of all firearm murders (where a firearm type is specified in the police report). Rifles (of all sorts) are about 5%. Shotguns (of all sorts) are about 3%.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

This wiki has better data than you presented - you can isolate gun violence from other violence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

"Odd, you seem to be saying you're afraid of the violent, gun toting democrats who are 99% more ready and better armed for violent political civil war than Republicans....but you also claim Republicans have all the guns and are better shots and ready to go.....which is it?"

The data says that Republican voters (or those that lean that way) have a firearm ownership rate of double that of Democrats.

If the majority of terrorist attacks in the USA are by right wing terrorists as you suggest, then it seems odd you'd say in the same breath that the left are ready for violent political civil war. If they have less arms and less willingness to engage in violence (which I actually believe is a good thing) then they are hardly "99% more ready and better armed".

The military voted Republican at about twice the rate of voting Democrat at the last election. So the left doesn't have that going for them either.

Because its marketing?
Like every ad ever?
Only say good things from a positive angle and if you have nothing to say, sing it?
If you want to be disgusted, you are invited, dear SJW!

We are supposed to be "disgusted" but instead I had to tank twice yesterday just because of work.

Not at Shell BTW because they are expensive. Maybe they are expensive because they are trying to look green, but my take is that its all just marketing. Marketing is there to be ignored or sneered at by the customer.

If we abruptly drop out of this vicious cycle of internet banking, meat eating and fossil fuel burning, will half of us not die for various reasons? Starting with me and my family, of hunger? Or more probably, just me, of blunt instrument to the head, held by wife?

And this video is also just marketing, for an ideology.

Car is freedom. Bus is a jail.

Reading that last sentence.... so it's a good thing right?

Good thing they're singing the censored version and not the original "cluck you". It is a kid-friendly film after all.

Good thing being an idiot isn't a valid legal defense lol.