I’ll admit I haven’t paid much attention to the republicans plan, (I’m in California, so it’s not like my reps are voting for it anyways) but simply raising the lowest tax bracket doesn’t mean those people are paying more money. IIRC it also significantly increases the standard deductable and reductions for dependents.

I’m extremely surprised the issue is drivers, and not trucks.

Paid for by the government is still us paying for it, which is the “Universal healthcare” option I mentioned. Government doesn’t just pull money out of the void, it comes from us, the taxpayers. Paid for by the government simply forces everybody (who can) to pay via higher taxes to cover the cost. Some people really…

You’re right, I’m an Android guy.

Davis, meanwhile, faces a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill

Fair enough.

*shrug*

Interesting. I’m mildly allergic to dogs/cats, and have always considered bringing them into the main cabin of a plane with you to be, with the exception of folks who need a service dog, (and I’m not talking emotional support dog) just about the most asinine thing you can do on a plane, since pet allergies aren’t…

I’d have to argue crossing a double yellow goes way beyond “don’t speed”. There are almost always good/obvious reasons why you aren’t supposed to cross a double yellow. (Such as opposite direction traffic w/o enough visibility to make sure passing is safe)

Seems like a reasonable idea to me. May work to deter other kids from pulling a self-destructive stunt like that. If ruining the lives of 7 kids who did something that stupid prevents a few thousand other kids from pulling the same idiocy, I’d argue it’s resources well spent.

So, you’re telling me their weren’t 7 kids on the JV or freshman teams willing to “take one for the team” and put up with being “forced” to be on the Varsity team instead? (or heck random people at the school?)

I was under the impression that every single republican plan had removed that loophole (and IMO that’s what it is) that would (before ACA) render a previously covered condition into a uncovered pre-existing one due to a plan change.

And you know what? Since she had insurance when (and almost certainly prior to being) diagnosed, it’s not a much misunderstood “pre-existing condition”. (Yes, it’s a pet peeve of mine the way the term “pre-existing condition” is commonly misused.)

1. I disagree that it’s a reasonable interpretation, but I do see how you can finagle your way to that interpretation.

Can’t seem to find my post to edit, but

Points 2 and 3 refute you.

Because I can read?

Here’s a question:

Isn’t that precisely what is currently happening? (though from what I remember of the article I read, it’s starting/started off with C17's to get the heavy equipment/vehicles/etc. there)

I think (part) of the problem is people are so used to Trump tweeting about everything, they assume that if he isn’t tweeting about something, nothing’s happening.