I'm pretty sure that the women paid twenty cents on the dollar comment is highly debatable. My understanding was that when you actually compared apples to apples it was around six or seven percent. Still not zero where it should be but also not twenty as was stated. (edit) John says 4-8% https://videosift.com/video/Is-the-Gender-Pay-Gap-Real

And just for fun i wanted to check the prices myself for the items in the video.

The CVS Menstrual pain medication they compared are NOT the same.
The menstrual product has Acetaminophen AND two additional ingredients
- https://www.cvs.com/shop/cvs-health-menstrual-complete-menstrual-relief-caplets-prodid-456231?skuid=456231
- https://www.cvs.com/shop/cvs-health-extra-strength-pain-relief-acetaminophen-caplets-500mg-24-ct-prodid-686584?skuid=686584

The razors are not on CVS website but are on BICS website. Comparing prices of the two products shown in the video, the "womens" one was actually cheaper by fifty cents. Also can't be sure that the razors they are comparing are exactly the same. Probably close enough though.
Womens Soleil Twilight https://razor.shopbic.com/womens/products?blades=3-4+blades&sortBy=price-asc
Mens Flex 3
https://razor.shopbic.com/mens/products?blades=3-4+blades&sortBy=rating

The same kids snorkel i found on Amazon. The one shop who actually has it in pink and also has two other colors are selling them for the same price.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B01NC315ML/ref=olp_twister_child?ie=UTF8&mv_color_name=1

The baby walker i found on Wallmarts site, and the pink one cost more. The other has been discounted from its original price.
pink https://www.walmart.com/ip/Delta-Children-Lil-Fun-Walker-Choose-Your-Color/50862055?selected=true
blue/green https://www.walmart.com/ip/Delta-Children-Lil-Fun-Walker-Choose-Your-Color/50862051?selected=true

The Underwear were as stated in the video. Different quantity at the same price.
https://www.cvs.com/shop/cvs-health-women-s-underwear-maximum-absorbency-xl-lavender-24-ct-prodid-830474
https://www.cvs.com/shop/cvs-health-men-s-underwear-maximum-absorbency-l-xl-32ct-prodid-842939

Well that was a fun little project

Load of rubbish. If a crowd forms at the entry to an escalator typically people start standing on both sides. 30 percent of efectivity (percentage points fly around a lot in this video) are not worth the loss of personal freedom. Some people insist on forcing their social engineering on everyone for small apparent economic advantages for who? Escalator makers? Their own personal ego warming? Look ma, my escalator is 30 percent more efficient than Bobs! Yes but half of your escalated people are unhappy because they cant walk and the other half dont care either way! So lets all be nice to each other if possible and let walkers walk and standers stand, OK? Which is BTW the result of the mentioned experiments.

You might have missed my original statement where the entire tax code was abolished. Income taxes go away. There are no loopholes, breaks, tax credits or deductions, etc. Rich people/businesses purchase more goods and services than poorer so they would pay more taxes proportionally (in sum not percent). I am not looking for wealth equality I am looking for taxation equality. Look at Amazon's taxes again this year.

The veracity of the statement has no bearing on the fact that you dismissed/questioned it first, and now agree. Your position changed....and so has your argument now from 'staggering wealth inequality isn't a bad thing" to ' wealth inequality isn't staggering'.
Forgive us if we take the words of economists, historians, reality, and our own senses over a random person's opinion.

Wiki- in 2014 the top wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nation's wealth; the bottom 80% own 7%; similarly, but later, the media reported, the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent".[8] The gap between the top 10% and the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1,000% for the top 1%. The average employee "needs to work more than a month to earn what the CEO earns in one hour"
If that's not excessive, I have to wonder what could be in your opinion. My wife, head of her department for 10 years, working 45-50 hour weeks, makes $30k a year working like a dog (at a job that is life and death for her customers, platelet donation, her department keeps our only local blood bank open as the only money making department, she doesn't make fries.)...Warren Buffet makes >10000 times that much doing absolutely nothing...not excessive?! Also, because he only pays taxes on what he spends, he pays less in taxes than we do.
Thpp!....Ack!

If 90% of MSM stories are negative and FOX is 50% negative Which news outlet would you watch as POTUS?

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/09/12/liberal-medias-summer-pummeling-trump


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/09/12/study-91-percent-of-recent-network-trump-coverage-has-been-negative/?noredirect=on&utm_
term=.1eb3c8389b87

the "good cop v. bad cop" argument is always a red herring. the problem with police isn't what percent is good or what percent is bad. the management and oversight is broken from the top down and nothing is going to change without policy, management, and motivational changes first. the system is set up so good cops are incentivized to be bad cops and bad cops largely thrive. bigotry, violence, corruption, etc, is built into the whole methodology of policing in the US.

So you don't understand math or statistics? Stop spouting them then. I've explained your mistake repeatedly, you are not repeating what they said, you are twisting and exaggerating it to support your hypothesis.
(Unscrupulous) People can come up with statistics to prove anything....forfty percent of all people know that.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7tzfl1wTemM

Stress is a major cause of heart disease. That is no joke.

People die from a lot of things. We are talking about a possible rise of up to one percent over the lifetime average. That is statistically irrelevant.

The propaganda is that this doctor is the founder of a radical vegan organization that uses any statistic to promote a vegan lifestyle. No different than Fox News using vague facts to promote it's agenda.

The cancer arm of the World Health Organization has some serious concerns about some of Americans’ favorite foods. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies processed meat as a carcinogen, something that causes cancer. And it classifies red meat as a probable carcinogen, something that probably causes cancer.

Processed meat includes hot dogs, ham, bacon, sausage, and some deli meats. It refers to meat that has been treated in some way to preserve or flavor it. Processes include salting, curing, fermenting, and smoking. Red meat includes beef, pork, lamb, and goat.

Twenty-two experts from 10 countries reviewed more than 800 studies to reach their conclusions. They found that eating 50 grams of processed meat every day increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That’s the equivalent of about 4 strips of bacon or 1 hot dog. For red meat, there was evidence of increased risk of colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancer.

Overall, the lifetime risk of someone developing colon cancer is 5%. To put the numbers into perspective, the increased risk from eating the amount of processed meat in the study would raise average lifetime risk to almost 6%.

----------------------------

Read the study. The average raises almost 1 percent. This was copied straight from https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/hot-dogs-hamburgers-bacon.html.

Lol. Good point.....dirty hippies. ;-)

Um....what? Vegans should want to avoid them almost as much as the hunter's helper and slaughterhouse sucker brand lozenges, not flock to the brand marketed at meat harvesters.

Um...really? You think non vegans fear a vegan culinary takeover or something enough to falsify studies/polls? That's hilarious.
As to the 7% number, even vegan organizations in Britain disagree, as does Wiki....
According to a 2018 survey by Comparethemarket.com, the number of people who identify as vegans in the United Kingdom has risen to over 3.5 million, which is approximately seven percent of the population, and environmental concerns were a major factor in this development.[140] However, doubt was cast on this inflated figure by the UK-based Vegan Society, who perform their own regular survey: the Vegan Society themselves found in 2018 that there were 600,000 vegans in Great Britain (1.16%), which is a dramatic increase on previous figures.[141][142]
United States: Estimates of vegans in the U.S. vary from 2% (Gallup, 2012)[143] to 0.5% (Faunalytics, 2014). According to the latter, 70% of those who adopted a vegan diet abandoned it.

It doesn't work because there is an intrinsic group think personality in the Nordic region. Most people in that region that were born and raised there are very sensitive to profit making and ostentatious displays.

Which means that people are glad to simply 'get by'. There is not a mass drive to be better than your neighbor or own more toys than them. Of course there are outliers, but the bulk of Scandinavians are very used to the accepted norm. They are more willing to accept massive tax rates because they know they will be taken care of by the government. They aren't necessarily concerned about 'getting rich'.

Contrast that to other areas, especially the USA, and you will find out that it would never work here because we are an individualistic nation. Even the bluest liberal wants to be rich here. It's more cutthroat, more selfish, than you will find in a Scandi nation.

Another huge reason it would never work is that they do not spend anywhere near the percentage of their budget on defense that we do. Denmark spends about 20 billion per year on defense. Norway, an oil rich Scandi nation that is considered one of our most important NATO allies, spends about 6 billion. Less than 1.2% of their GDP. This is one thing that Trump was actually right about. We spend around 700 Billion, roughly 3.5% of our current GDP.

"Half the alliance — 16 of the 29 countries — don’t even spend 1.5 percent (of gross domestic product) let alone 2 percent that we all agreed on four years ago (at a NATO summit) in Wales,” Michael Fallon, who served as secretary of state for defense from 2014 to 2017, said. In 2017, only the U.K., Greece, Poland and Estonia reached the 2 percent target.

Whether that level of spending is needed is another argument altogether. I personally think we overspend way too much on defense, but regardless it is a huge factor as to why we can't offer the same level of 'socialism' that the Nordic nations do. If we spent the same percentage as Norway, we would be saving close to 460 billion dollars a year that could be applied to other programs. Such as paying for college for qualified students or trade school for ones that are not college minded. Or providing benefits to new mothers that we currently don't.

I have two boys, 9 and 14. If they treated people the way Trump, and most of the right, treats people, I'd be ashamed and reprimand them, especially if they did it publicly the way Trump has mocked a disabled reporter, Ford, the parents of fallen soldier... we could go on and on about how he mocks people on a regular basis. Every major religion has some variation of the Golden Rule, treat others as you'd have others treat you, especially Christianity, and yet the entire right ignores this rule, especially when it's somebody they oppose. Be it LGBTQIA+ people, political opponents, economic opponents, they ignore the Golden Rule. They in fact view it as a sign of strength to openly be hostile and rude to others, and yet, when one of theirs is mocked by late night TV, or when Sarah Sanders is kicked out of a restaurant (days after the fact that the entire right was celebrating the Supreme Court victory that they don't have to serve people they don't like), suddenly it is all "why can't people be civilized"? Plank in your own eye ass holes.

As Bob says politics is mean and ugly, but Republicans, Christians, made it that way and have been doubling down on it, ignoring the commandments to Love on another, the commandment to treat others as you'd have them treat you, not to judge least ye be judged and on and on. And somehow the right views that as a strength, as a good thing. They view McCain's efforts to reach across the isle and find a common center ground that everyone can agree on as a weakness. They don't want or will accept a 50/50 solution, they want a solution that is 80 or even better 90 percent on their side, and anything less than that is the other side being obstructionist.

Anyhow, if my kids acted the way Trump does, our President, whom we should hold to the highest standards, I'd make them apologize and be frank with them that I was appalled at their behavior, to mock a person with a disability or a woman or any other person the way Trump does on a regular basis. Yet the entire right is falling over themselves with pleasure at this rude behavior... I just don't get it. I don't get how that is acceptable behavior now from the President of the United States. It'd be one thing if he was still the piece of shit business man (who's business' constantly fail and need bankruptcy protection, even though he rarely pays contractors), 2nd rate reality TV show star, but this is the highest office in the land, where we should expect a person to act with dignity. I may have found Bush Jr to be an idiot and a horrible President, but at least he treated people with respect and the way one would expect of a President. Now we have a man-child and somehow this is a great thing. Fuck our lives when this is acceptable, when this is in fact praise worthy by far too many on the right (and I know, many Republicans said it was wrong of Trump to mock her the way he did, but they didn't really stand up to him, just a quick line to appease the few who might vote for them that would be appalled at that behavior).

EDIT TO ADD: What's upsetting about the Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination is that they didn't even hold hearings. They had the votes to block him from confirmation, so hold hearings, say "no" and move on, but they wouldn't even do that. And he'd probably have been one of the most moderate justices in the modern era, which would have made explaining the "no" harder perhaps, but at least it would have been fair. But apparently fair is for the weak, one must play the ugly game now... and look at Bob's one reply, they got their eye on Ginsburg, they are hoping she dies so they can replace her with another theocrat like Kavanaugh, and because of that expectation and hope, you can guarantee that all the right will be out in force come November. We really need a miracle turnout to start to change things...

It isn't as rare as you think. There are numerous accounts of false accusations that don't make it as far as court or they do and the accused choose to take a plea versus chancing half their life.

Brent E. Turvey, a criminologist, wrote a 2017 book that dispels this notion. His research, and that of two co-authors, cited statistical studies and police crime reports. One academic study showed that as many as 40 percent of sexual assault charges are false. Mr. Turvey wrote that the FBI in the 1990s pegged the falsity rate at 8 percent for rape or attempted rape complaints.

“There is no shortage of politicians, victims’ advocates and news articles claiming that the nationwide false report for rape and sexual assault is almost nonexistent, presenting a figure of around 2 percent,” writes Mr. Turvey, who directs the Forensic Criminology Institute. “This figure is not only inaccurate, but also it has no basis in reality. Reporting it publicly as a valid frequency rate with any empirical basis is either scientifically negligent or fraudulent.”

A recent study supports this assessment. The Pentagon issues an annual report on sexual assaults in the military. Nearly one-quarter of all cases last year were thrown out for lack of evidence, according to a report released in May.

As far as the rape every 98 seconds, I am unsure where you found that number. There were 95,730 rapes under the revised FBI definitions (which include more categories that previously were not considered rape, like child molestion, under the legacy definitions) in the last year I could find which was 2016. These are the combined rapes of men, women, and children for that year. That means the actual rape of a 'person' is occurring somewhere around every 5-6 minutes. Now if you are going by a different statistic, like the CDC ones that include such a wide definition of what constitutes 'rape' that it isn't funny, you might get the result you quoted. I wouldn't go by those stats, even TIME magazine had to call out the CDC for overstating the numbers.

As far as Trump goes, he is a complete idiot dickhead. He shouldn't have insulted anyone, least of all Dr. Ford. I will point out one thing though, and this is subjective in that your viewpoint will differ from mine, Dr. Ford is an alleged rape survivor. She has made the claim and took a polygraph test, but other than that she can only claim that in her recollection she was at a party where Brett Kavanaugh was also at supposedly. She also claimed to be heavily intoxicated. If you want to believe her Ex, she has lied in her testimony. (https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/christine-ford-boyfriend-ex-letter-blasey/) Heavy leans left, so this isn't a bobknight cherry picking of information.

Now, why would she come forth and deal with all the negatives of making the claim? I guess that is the kicker, normally you would expect a person to really be telling the truth if they are going to be put through hell. I would put forward though that this was one of the most hotly contested confirmations for SCOTUS ever. Even more so than for Bork, and I remember that one clearly. In my opinion, far more than for Thomas. If you were adamantly opposed to a person sitting on the Supreme Court, had went to school with that person, and were willing to fall on your sword for your beliefs, you might do it.

In any case, that is just supposition on my part.

*promote

Kind of depressing. One of those things that deep down everyone knows is unjust, with exactly zero percent chance of changing.

The CIA doesn't have to do much to make him look crazy. He has, at various points said, there are "Humanoids that are 80 percent gorilla, 80 percent pig," Michelle Obama is actually a man and she murdered Joan Rivers, and my personal favourite, in England, "They had tanks, people with gills, and there were little babies, and they were in there just gulping, clawing at the sides. You see a turtle at the zoo that wants out and you feel for it? They got humanoids crossed with fish and stuff. I mean... we are screwed people, you understand that?"

I mean... fish people? Nevermind the math on the gorilla/pig hybrids, but fish people? He's like the Weekly World News. I honestly feel sorry for anyone who believes that stuff. Poor people like @Sagemind and @bobknight33 a lack of proper education, perhaps parents who didn't keep enough books in the house... poor nutrition? I honestly don't know what deprivations a human mind has to go through to become that incapable of discriminating the obvious lies people like AJ tell.