Yep, the answer to any problem from you, cut taxes. Military underfunded, cut taxes. Can't afford universal health care, cut taxes. Debt and deficit are bigger than GDP, cut taxes. Infrastructure crumbling, cut taxes. Daddy Trump's businesses are struggling, cut taxes, especially theirs.

How many trillions more do they need? How much of that goes directly into Trump's families pockets? They already took dozens, up to hundreds of millions last round despite being specifically banned from the program.

Democrats want higher taxes because we like America being a sovereign nation, and bankrupting us into third world status could change that. When the final numbers for 2020 come out, I bet you that dinner you still owe me it will be double the deficit of any other year in history or worse, $6 trillion+ in spending and another trillion+ in lost taxes from lost production thanks to not shutting down in March-May....on top of the trillion+ deficit built into the budget.....and we're heading into a global depression with this deep debt, making borrowing money near impossible.

2021 is going to be a disaster too, no matter who's elected. Trump has ensured it. Any company that can afford to leave is leaving already, bud. They took the handouts from Trump and in pure Trump fashion took the cash and ignored what it was for, many using that money for expansions outside America, companies like Harley Davidson.

We're gonna need a bigger boat.

Not really falling that far and he has one hand in contact all the time. If it was a bigger dog I'd agree but they're fairly light and given the training involved he may have done it a few hundred times at ground level before ever raising the height.

I've been to this church in the Normandy countryside. It's remote, removed from the beaches, and from all outward appearances unremarkable. It's not until you walk in and realize how small it is inside, unlike the grandiosity of Notre Dame in Paris or Cathédrale Notre Dame in Reims: it's narrow and confined. How so many wounded soldiers fit in the little space is beyond me. I can't imagine the stone floor slicked with blood, the moans of pain, the smells of wounds. Even the pews seem too narrow to accommodate a human body laid lengthwise.

Even with all that said, if you stand inside that little church it's impossible not to feel the touch of history. Of everything I saw in Normandy, nothing made a bigger impression on my than the little church in Angoville-au-Plain.

The bigger price you paid is the education you took to get this setup working. Time to reap the rewards, mate!

Fuck all the billionaires.

Not one of them would be in any real way worse-off if you took half their money and just gave it away. In fact they'd be better off because they'd be living in a better world.

Billionaires fuck the planet up, they artificially induce poverty by sucking so much wealth away from workers, and worst of all, they're the biggest criminals of all!

Of all financial crimes in America, theft, fraud, etc. If you stacked all the 'crimes' people think of on one side and wage theft by these billionaires against poor and middle income families you'd see that wage theft is bigger than all other types of crime in terms of dollar figures put together.

I was thinking about car safety and how the biggest variable is likely the driver...how specific cars are driven on average, and it struck me that the best way to promote public safety would be to make your maximum speed limit variable based on gvw (gross vehicle weight). This is already done for vehicles with more than two axles or those towing trailers because it's obvious they take longer to stop. The same logic should apply to every car. It's a no brainer that a Humvee takes longer to stop than a Miata, and is far less controllable under emergency braking. For the safety of both those in such larger vehicles and the general public, they should not be allowed to go as fast as cars weighing 1/4 their weight with better brakes.
A side benefit of such a system would be greater average fuel economy, because bigger cars have greater wind resistance (on average) so become less efficient at higher speeds.
Of course, I wouldn't expect that kind of reason to ever fly in America where the most popular car is a heavy truck that's never used for hauling and could be replaced with a Honda Civic with no loss of functionality for >75% of owners....but everyone wants to drive a tank so they're safer, with no thought about what that means for the other cars on the road.

*quality explanation of why crash testing is only a tiny part of real life safety in cars
*promote

No surprise these morons think a few thousand anti choice extremists are a bigger crowd than the millions in the pro women's march, just as there's no surprise Bobski would label this minuscule march against women's rights "California thanking trump". Women at this rally held signs saying "My husband is going to force me to vote for Trump again in 2020"
Keep dreaming buddy.
Trump will be lucky to get 15% in California. He is universally despised here, and his constant attacks, smears, frivolous lawsuits, threats, and lies about California haven't gained him any votes. Better toughen up buttercups. https://videosift.com/video/If-Youre-Gonna-Be-Dumb-You-Gotta-Be-Tough
Sad that there are some people this delusional who aren't institutionalized.

Oops.
Ok @bobknight33, time for you to gloat. I was totally wrong about it costing us $50 billion per year....

....but I was dead on with the $87.5 billion per year figure according to the federal reserve's report....not including the tens of billions of taxpayer's money handed out to factory farms in Trump's enormous (bigger than Obama's) socialist handout program (but not to smaller privately owned farms who lost more). It also doesn't count the thousands of good jobs, factories, and farms permanently lost.
For all that money we still have no trade agreements and are in a worse position to negotiate one than when he started. No country trusts Trump's administration to fulfill it's obligations, so most negotiations are grinding to a halt.
All told, it's costing the U.S. well over $100 billion per year for just this one facet of Trump's total failures at negotiation and his utter ignorance of international trade and finance.

Winning!?! Only if you're Russia or Iran.

Scams are bigger. Ponzi got his start in Wichita Falls too.

Nice. I remember back in late 1984 that I had a major surgery to remove a bone from my right hip into my mouth to make a bigger jaw (born with a tiny one). I had to relearn how to stand and walk. I came back to the hospital and saw my nurse again. She saw me standing and walking slowly. It wasn't loud, happy, and crazy as this video, but still rad. However, I found out my recovery room mate died even though I didn't know him (don't even remember chatting with him too). :~(

Yes, they have lower rates. But the point isn't that the rates are the same (they're not), the point is that the rates are low enough to not have an immediate fear of them. An immediate fear would be unwarranted and irrational.

E.g. you probably don't fear dying every time you hop into a vehicle because it has a relatively low risk of killing you (even though the risk is much higher than that of being killed in a homicide by firearm). Having an immediate fear of it would be irrational.

You probably don't fear dying in a general accident (i.e. including all work place and public accidents together). Even though it represents about 170,000 deaths a year (an number so large it makes the topic of firearms deaths look like a joke), it is still a relatively low risk. Having an immediate fear of it would be irrational.

This is not to suggest that these things are not to be respected. We must try and reduce all mortality and morbidity. But you need to be effective at it. This is public health. You choose the method that will have the largest effect.

For example, you will have a bigger effect restricting sugar intake to reduce diabetes deaths, which outnumber homicide by firearm deaths by about an order of magnitude.

The majority of the 40k firearm deaths consist of suicides. There is an important distinction between homicide (the topic) and suicide. Don't mix them up if the topic is homicide by firearm.

Go look at what is actually killing people:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_06-508.pdf

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.