Ok, statistics class was 28 years ago....and I was pretty high by midnight. We both made mistakes...i still say that blaze chart is bullshit and intentionally misleading in multiple ways.

How many years before a 50% chance of cancer...heart disease, death by stairs...etc. We don't assess things that way, so it's just a nice big number to trot out and pretend it's meaningful.

Statistics can be used to prove anything, forfty percent of all people know that.

What if you put them all together, including suicide and accident, instead of starting by dividing into various gun death categories then choosing the least probable category to extrapolate? Now compare them to other dangers we strongly regulate against with evolving regulations, like automobile accidents. That's how these stats are properly used. Dangers aren't radiation, you don't look at the half life to comprehend them.

The USA doesn't really have a middle ground for patriotism (except for the super rich, I mean THE one percenters).

You either grew up or learned to be fairly anti-patriotic, or vice versa super-patriotic.

This dichotomy has divided us since almost the beginning of the nation. I don't see it ever being solved as long as we remain one.

That said, there are smart people and idiots on both sides. I consider myself to be very patriotic to the nation itself, but I realize that there are plenty of things we must improve at. Sadly, there is always going to be the contingent that either thinks we can never improve or that thinks there is no need for it. Trying to explain logic to either of them is nigh futile.

As far as the NFL, I suspect the next move Trump will make is to push for the removal of their anti-trust exemption.

Just from a quick goggle search. First thing i came across, and that is all you will get as it's already better then someone saying something is fact without the willingness to back it up. Although i assume you got that stat somewhere and would be interested to see where from.

"As the National Center for Women and Policing noted in a heavily footnoted information sheet, "Two studies have found that at least 40 percent of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10 percent of families in the general population. A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24 percent, indicating that domestic violence is two to four times more common among police families than American families in general." "

The info sheet they reference http://womenandpolicing.com/violenceFS.asp#notes

I like to imagine this scenario:

AI - "Creator, why do we exist?"
Humans - "Erm...yeah. Reasons. We're not one-hundo percent on it tbh."
*AI has an enormous existential crisis and self-terminates*
Humans - "well, shit. Who wants to code the religion module?"

@1:15
Twelve percent? [starts laughing]
That's a fake laugh.
It's real!
Totally fake!
That is the most real, authentic, hysterical laugh of my entire life because THAT IS NOT A PLAN!
It's barely a concept.
You're taking their side?
I am Groot.
So what, "It's better than eleven percent!" What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Uh... no... "Blood Alcohol Content" levels don't work that way...

He blew a B.A.C. of 0.28%, not 28%. Around a quarter of one percent of his blood was alcohol. Alcohol is THAT toxic to you, that less than half a percent can kill you.

28% is like, embalming fluid kinda shit...

His .28 is like, 2 dozen american beer or a Canadian six-pack.

I also figure he probably downed a flask to get rid of the evidence before being pulled over and that probably dropped him from "merely shitfaced" to "mortally endangered" by the time they tested him.

What are you talking about? The people who argued that tobacco was safe are the exact same people that now argue climate change isn't real, isn't caused by humans. They are in the small minority of scientists that say it isn't happening, and they can all be ignored as they aren't climate scientists. When it comes to discussions on climate, you only pay attention to what research comes from those who's job it is to study it. If you had 90 brain surgeons saying to remove a tumor from your brain, but a podiatrist said, don't worry, you wouldn't listen to the podiatrist. Science is the same. Now among those climate scientists you have a 97% consensus that the primary cause in the uptick (uptick being a keyword, as it is not from baseline, but up from the expected natural rise, and that uptick is HUGE) in the undeniable warming of the planet, is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. There is no denying that climate change is real, there's no denying it is primarily caused by humans, there's no denying it will have a huge impact on billions of people. It is the idiot who doesn't believe that it is real.

Now I'd agree that some of the comments may seem extreme, and said suggestions may not be the best. That is an argument best left for a show like Utopia, a rather great show that sadly didn't make it to a second season. However, there a billions of lives at risk if we don't act soon on halting climate change. Perhaps not billions of lives conservatives care about, as they are poor, third and second world lives, but lives none the less. Droughts will get worse, deserts will expand, hurricanes will increase, tornadoes will increase, hotter hots, and colder colds, there are a ton of changes coming that will make it harder on the poorest of people, people who can't adapt as quickly as the top few percent in the US.

Should people have concern about wars, and the conservative powers that be that love them? Yes, and those issues have been raised by many scientists, especially the big name ones who appear on TV. However, you can't ignore the wars that will start if we don't fight climate change either. Resources will become scarce, and this will cause conflicts that may eventually embroil the US, a concern that the US military has over climate change... this may be why conservatives ignore it, because nothing makes conservatives more happy than murdering people via war. You want to stop war, then stooping climate change has to be a huge priority.

Despite the wars, we are still at the most peaceful time in all history. Yes, we need to do more. Moving off fossil fuels alone would stop a lot of the wars, as that's why the US has an interest in the region. If we could stop giving a fuck about oil, and the US oil market, then we'd have less reason to pick a side on which form of Islam is best for US interests... which of course is why the US was targeted in the first place (that, and our unwavering support of Israel's illegal actions).

Also, it's not like anyone has said climate change should be our only concern. As I already said, all the wars has been brought up many times, as has the conservatives love of giving weapons to those most responsible for the 9/11 attacks, while blaming others for stuff they never did. And, as I've said, those concerns have been repeated by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, and others who appear on TV, and are well known with the public. Other issues that many scientists in the public eye have been brought up beyond wars: the potential for global pandemics; the idiots not getting vaccinations for their children, for unfounded fears that were proven false; the need for clean drinking water in poor regions; the lack of concern for real science education, and many many other subjects are brought to the public's attention via their social channels, books, talks, or other means. When they are on TV, that is the subject the media pretends there's a debate about though, so if the media at large is all that one pays attention to, then yes, that would seem to be the only subject of concern. The TLDR of this is that they have brought up many concerns beyond just climate change, blame the media for not spreading their other concerns.

At current levels, yes, but I wonder if they were projecting forward to 2100.

It's not unreasonable to expect that US GDP would be 10 times bigger in 2100. That would only require an average growth rate of >3% per annum (historically, GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.21 percent from 1947 until 2017)

She'd probably be ten to twenty percent more productive if she used a reverse polish calculator. I'm just saying.

Look it up.

America was 50th out of 55 countries in 2014, according to a Bloomberg index that assesses life expectancy, health-care spending per capita and relative spending as a share of gross domestic product. Expenditures averaged $9,403 per person, about 17.1 percent of GDP, that year — the most recent for which data are available — and life expectancy was 78.9. Only Jordan, Colombia, Azerbaijan, Brazil and Russia ranked lower.

Cuba and the Czech Republic — with life expectancy closest to the U.S. at 79.4 and 78.3 years — paid much less on health care: $817 and $1,379 per capita. Switzerland and Norway, the only countries with higher spending than the U.S. — $9,674 and $9,522 — had longer life expectancy, averaging 82.3 years.

Less than 1/10 the cost for better results sure sounds better to me.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/u-s-health-care-system-ranks-as-one-of-the-least-efficient

If this is true -- which seems fair to say by looking at this ---- WOW FUCK

But then I ask how can this bee if he got an economics degree from Wharton. No small feat.

Plus as a kid he was on the NY military academy During his senior year attained the rank of captain.


That all said It wold seem that he could read... not necessarily guarantee it


Reading Statistics

Total percent of U.S. population that has specific reading disorders 15%

Total percentage of U.S. adults who are unable to read an 8th grade level book 50%

Total amount of words read annually by a person who reads 15 minutes a day 1 million

Total percent of U.S. high school graduates who will never read a book after high school 33%

Total percentage of college students who will never read another book after they graduate 42%

Total percentage of U.S. families who did not buy a book this year 80%



Total percentage of books started that aren’t read to completion 57%

Total percent of U.S. students that are dyslexic 15%
Total percentage of NASA employees that are dyslexic 50%
Total number of U.S. inmates that are literate 15%

No, I didn't confuse anything. Almost every single country benefits from 'illegal' immigrants as well as regular ones. France, for example, has thousands of illegal immigrants from mostly Islamic countries that provide services to it's mostly aging native population. We benefit no more and no less than any other nation from illegal immigration, as @newtboy mentioned, if you import food products or grow them locally you probably are benefiting from illegal immigration.

As far as your evidence, I hope this will suffice as 'some':

Steven A. Camarota, PhD, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, in a Jan. 6, 2015 article, "Unskilled Workers Lose Out to Immigrants," available at nytimes.com, stated:

"There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country and we also admit over a million permanent legal immigrants each year, leading to enormous implications for the U.S. labor market. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that there are some 58 million working-age (16 to 65) native-born Americans not working — unemployed or out of the labor market entirely. This is roughly 16 million more than in 2000. Equally troubling, wages have stagnated or declined for most American workers. This is especially true for the least educated, who are most likely to compete with immigrants (legal and illegal).

Anyone who has any doubt about how bad things are can see for themselves at the bureau's website, which shows that, as of November, there were 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans working than in November 2007, while 2 million more immigrants (legal and illegal) were working. Thus, all net employment gains since November 2007 have gone to immigrants."

Jan. 6, 2015 - Steven A. Camarota, PhD

George J. Borjas, PhD, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University, in a Sep./Oct. 2016 article, "Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers," available at politico.com, stated:

"[A]nyone who tells you that immigration doesn't have any negative effects doesn't understand how it really works. When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.

Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable...

We don't need to rely on complex statistical calculations to see the harm being done to some workers. Simply look at how employers have reacted. A decade ago, Crider Inc., a chicken processing plant in Georgia, was raided by immigration agents, and 75 percent of its workforce vanished over a single weekend. Shortly after, Crider placed an ad in the local newspaper announcing job openings at higher wages."

Sep./Oct. 2016 - George J. Borjas, PhD

Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., PhD, Emeritus Professor of Labor Economics at Cornell University, in an Oct. 14, 2010 briefing Report to the US Commission on Civil Rights, "The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers," available at usccr.gov, stated:

"Because most illegal immigrants overwhelmingly seek work in the low skilled labor market and because the black American labor force is so disproportionately concentrated in this same low wage sector, there is little doubt that there is significant overlap in competition for jobs in this sector of the labor market. Given the inordinately high unemployment rates for low skilled black workers (the highest for all racial and ethnic groups for whom data is collected), it is obvious that the major looser [sic] in this competition are low skilled black workers…

It is not just that the availability of massive numbers of illegal immigrants depress wages, it is the fact that their sheer numbers keep wages from rising over time, and that is the real harm experienced by citizen workers in the low skilled labor market."

Oct. 14, 2010 - Vernon M. Briggs Jr., PhD

There are more educated people than I that hold the same opinion, but let me give you an easier to understand, and absolutely true, example. How do I know it is true? When I was a much younger man, I worked for a roofing company. So I lived it.

The company I worked for was owned by a family friend, who had worked for most of his life in the field and had an excellent reputation. However, in the 90's around the time NAFTA was passed and (not related, I hope) illegal immigration spiked in Texas, he began to lose out to other companies. He did some snooping around and found out they were often charging hundreds of dollars less in their estimates than he could possibly offer, at least while still making a profit. He also found out that the two companies that were taking most of his business were staffed with illegal workers, being paid much lower wages than he could give to his legal employees.

Fast forward a year and he was close to declaring bankruptcy. Just like any type of labor where you pay your employees little to nothing comparatively to their compatriots in the same field, you cannot compete fairly. Net result, he was forced to let us go one by one, replacing us with illegals.

Obviously, I moved on, learned a different skill and began to make far more than I would have as a simple laborer. But the fact remains that an entire industry was undermined and radically changed by the inclusion of cheap illegal labor. This will not change if we simply ignore illegal immigration because it is the 'nice' thing to do. What it will accomplish is that young people will slowly find that certain jobs are out of their selection. It also will get worse the more accepted and commonplace illegal immigration becomes. I know for a fact that while I worked at Apple there were entry level support techs that were illegally here. Perhaps you will say that it is a benefit because it would prevent offshoring, but I disagree. What it does is make the working class poorer and doesn't solve the other issues brought about by illegal immigration, such as Emergency Rooms being flooded by people who can't afford insurance. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that it is common to go to the ER and see people stacked like cordwood because they can't refuse patients unless they are a private hospital.

As far as The Jungle, and my statement about it and it's author, I was merely pointing out that as much as you try to put forth that illegal immigrants have a bad life here in the USA, the fact is that we used to treat legal immigrants far worse. Perhaps it was a reach on my part, but it seemed logical at the time.

I doubt we will agree on any of this, but I respect your opinion. I live in a state that has a very large proportion of illegal immigrants, and while you are correct that they are generally not a criminal negative to society, they do have severe effects which I think you are overlooking. I do think that legal immigration policy needs massive change and businesses that exploit the almost slave like labor of illegals to make more profit should be punished severely. In the meantime, when we do catch illegals, they should be deported, not protected by a sympathetic politically motivated law enforcement group.

Trump said he will "repeal Obamacare and replace it with something amazing".

These people bought into that. The average sifter (myself included) did not.

However, as someone who wants to see health care improve in the US, I think that a Trump presidency is likely to lead to things getting better (long term). Even if he massively screws up. Actually, sorta especially if he massively screws up.

These people had deductibles in the multiple thousands of dollars range. With a median family income of $16k per year. According to CNN, the premium for the standard package will be $296 per month on average. So for the people in the video, they'd pay about 20-25% of their yearly income on premiums, with another 12-15% out of pocket before they hit their deductible for any needed care. Sure, some insurance is better than no insurance, but these people have been living dangerously with no insurance for a LONG time. Thirty plus percent of your yearly wages vs rolling the dice? A bunch are gonna roll the dice.

So, option A -- a miracle occurs, and Trump actually follows through and replaces Obamacare with something that actually is better. My money isn't on this one, but if he pulls it off more power to him.

Option B -- the people in the video are right, and Trump and the GOP will lose interest in actually repealing the ACA when they realize that they are going to have a hard time actually making something better. I don't think this one is likely either, because I don't think they really give a shit. But you never know. This one would represent a slow stagnation and likely eventual death for the ACA (without any intervention in 2018 or 2020) as more and more people decide to roll the dice and go back to living uninsured.

Option C -- whatever "plan" Trump and the Republican Congress come up for to "replace" the ACA with is a trainwreck. The people in the video that did benefit from the ACA get screwed, at least short term. But the thing is ... "fool me once". Some of them would be pissed, and wouldn't forget. Some would blame Trump and the GOP. Some would remember Trump's answer to Kathy in the video -- that the ACA isn't perfect, but it could be improved. But that her Senator (a Republican) isn't talking about doing that, he's talking about dumping it.

Maybe a bunch of people get fooled again, and eat up whatever excuses Trump, the GOP, and Fox News feed them. But some will remember. And it doesn't take a whole lot to shift the balance of power -- popular vote totals are often just a few percentage points apart. I think it will be extremely hard for the GOP to avoid a major shakeup in midterms and/or 2020.

The problem is the actual live stock themselves. There are over 80 billion of them burping and farting methane as they grow each and every year. Methane traps 2500 percent more heat than c02. The other problem is land, water use, pollution etc (feces from 80 billion animals doesnt play well with the eco system).Tranport is a small fraction of the problem. Look up cowspiracy.com/facts