I said that overprescribing was addressed in the worse possible way, not that it shouldn't have been addressed. There were a few issues that absolutely needed changes: prescribing opiates for minor conditions, criminal pill mills, and not having a tracking system to prevent doctor shopping. It is wrong to refuse to treat pain, to cap dosages, to force people down or off (and then onto suicide or street drugs). You could have addressed the problems without doing by creating those others. Nothing about those problems had to be addressed by forcing people onto street drugs causing an OD spike and leaving people in severe pain to suffer, OD, or kill themselves.
Opiates, especially the common ones, actually have a good therapeutic index (LD50/ED50 (ED=Effective Dose)); like for oxycodone, ED is 5-10mg in an opiate naive patient, it's not lethal until 80-100mg. You have to be deliberately abusing it, taking a lot more than directed usually in combination with contraindicated drugs, to overdose. This is something abusers have to worry about, not pain patients, and abusers are *more* at risk of an overdose when they use street drugs, which they're absolutely going to get.
And that's happened as opiate prescriptions have plummeted.
Overprescribing was addressed in the worst possible way. Forcing people off their prescriptions of a standardized product led to seeking black market alternatives. This is yet another example of how prohibition takes something dangerous and makes it massively more so, since we keep falling for the same old idea that people won't take/can't get drugs if you simply ban them.
Make no mistake, this massive spike in ODs wasn't some unforeseen surprise, everyone familiar with opiate abuse predicted this. The policy makers were no doubt informed of this, and then actively chose massively increasing overdose deaths over people continuing to use a less fatal alternative under some medical supervision. Not only that, our new crisis of severely undertreated pain has come roaring back, and legitimate pain patients are ODing and killing themselves too. Another totally foreseen consequence. Once again, the government looked at a drug problem and said 'Lots of people are dying, how can we make even more people suffer and die?'. It's sadomoralism, they desire only to punish drug users (not just abusers), not to actually reduce the harm drugs cause.
You act as if the police are some perfect force that effect only the lives of criminals. That's not true. They violate the rights of innocent people all the time, from the black kid getting profiled and searched on the corner to the middle class white family that has their door kicked in at 4am with them and their children held on the floor at gunpoint because a snitch made up an address or they simply raided the wrong house. Their tech tools are intercepting all forms of communication from innocent people all the time. And you think this power never gets exploited by others, or police themselves, for non-criminal matters? There's a whole range of private activities that are not illegal (nor should be) that can be used to destroy someones life, and the more of that information the police get, the more it gets abused.
Giving police more power hurts non-criminals just as much as the criminals themselves, and the police state of your fantasy used to be recognized as the nightmare for the people that it is.
They're currently implementing reduced fare Metro cards based on income, https://www.6sqft.com/mta-appr... They already had them for seniors, students, and the disabled.
It's just so stupid for an industry full of ostensibly smart people to test for whether someone has used pot in the last month but not test at all for alcohol, which impairs you a lot more than the weed you smoked last week. Not to mention all the other illegal drugs that are out of your system in a few days.
Middle of the road? That's a laugh. Gorsuch was, and really the best we could have hoped for coming from any Republican these days, and honestly I prefer him over Garland. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, was not even close to middle of the road. He's as extreme right as SCOTUS candidates get on every single issue. And he was nominated to fill a swing-voting Justice's seat, dooming us to a generation of rulings shitting all over the parts of the Constitution not related to guns and god. That, combined with legitimately disqualifying issues like a (single) credible allegation, but more importantly how he lied, conducted himself, and spouted partisan rhetoric after which any claim he'd be politically neutral should be met with laughter, and it's no wonder Democrats were hysterical and tried every trick in the book to block him. But ultimately, once again Republicans showed how absolutely nothing is more important than the Party and getting Party Members into the courts. Just like with all of them bending the knee to Trump, it's Party before country.
I also remember quite a bit of right wing nutters like you crowing about how the Democrats 'derangement' over Trump was supposed to make them fail to retake the House etc. this election. Guess the goalposts have moved and it will be next election that their shenanigans cost them. Though admittedly they do seem to be engaged in a process of finding another nominee somehow also capable of losing to Trump; with Kamala Harris leading the field. As I've explained before, her anti-civil rights past as a tough-on-crime prosecutor and current SJW insanity makes her toxic enough to enough people that Democrats will sit it out again. And if they make a pointless show of impeachment (oh yes please try in vain to get us President Pence!), doubly so.
I know it ruins the jokes but the database is stored as hashes, using something like PhotoDNA that survives basic alterations, they don't keep the actual material.
Well most everyone failed that part of history class, because prohibition still exists and is immensely harmful, and almost everybody loves it. It's just drugs other than alcohol now (and increasingly pot). Support for legalizing all drugs is minuscule, people just can't comprehend how it's taking something dangerous and making it way more dangerous because we can't actually stop anyone who wants it from getting it.
The potential harm should be considered, but so should the harm of not doing it. At a certain point, the benefits outweigh the risks. Wiping out malaria and things like it after thorough studying potential problems clearly meets that.
If the US and EU built a new internet today you can safely assume it would be designed from the ground up to make it much easier to monitor all your activities and impose direct government control and approval over content, and of course YouTube-style copyright tyranny for all. If you think it would look anything like the freer internet of days past, you've missed just how far authoritarian creep has gone.
Internet service is essential to modern life, AT&T has a monopoly or is half of a duopoly in most of its markets. It benefits from extensive government subsidies (that just pad its profits, but that's another issue). Under these circumstances, the "business can do whatever the fuck it wants" rule shouldn't apply, and terminating someones access should require proving they were pirating, not a one-sided allegation from the accuser.
Just how fast do these things go? Google says 15mph top possible speed. You can pedal a bike more than 15mph without a motor (and much quicker down an incline), so unless you think bikes ought to have similar requirements, it seems kinda ridiculous to regulate these like actual motorcycles and cars. You know what bicyclists can also do? Get tickets for biking in a reckless manner. Unless there's some odd legal loophole where they can't ticket these scooter users in a similar manner, enforcement is what's needed, not stomping out an innovative new transportation service. And if there is such a loophole, that can be fixed as well.
Some people ride their bikes like assholes and cause injuries too; it hurts to get slammed into by a biker being reckless, just happened to me a few months ago. Do you want to ban those as well? Have to get a bike license after passing a bike road test? If a motor isn't faster than foot power, it shouldn't be regulated like traditional motorcycles.
So your objection to this story is the the lawyers actually got paid too little, only receiving 2/8ths instead of 4m of the 8m settlement? Plus don't they generally set the legal fees in the settlement then distribute the rest equally among those who file a claim?
I find it very difficult to believe that lawyers won't take class action suits unless they get millions to tens of millions. The 1% suggested above you is generally (but not always) going to be too low, but you really want to argue these lawyers needed $2.12 million to litigate this, especially settling instead of a full trial? And that something more reasonable like $250k-$400k is just so little money lawyers aren't going to bother?
Nobody is saying lawyers should do this for free. The objection is to the obscene greed of taking $2m of an $8m settlement and not infrequently even higher percentages. These suits are like lotteries for lawyers, not fairly compensated hard work.
Your technical understanding far exceeds your legal understanding. What changes were made to achieve that jitter reduction? Tell me that, and I'll tell you whether it was actually a legal issue covered by net neutrality, rather than something else. Like a provider gaming shit while they pretend they're not eventually going to change. Right now you're just asserting that correlation proves causation.
Yup, the owner is going on Alex Jones to talk about how biased everyone is against his platform used pretty much exclusively by awful people. He's totally neutral.
Enough with bullshit lie that net neutrality prohibited QoS. It also had exemptions for special services. You can get away with pushing you false propagranda on non technical sites, but here people know you're blatantly lying and will call you on your bullshit.
You're deeply confused about this. Congress certainly has the power, FCC can regulate if they classify under a Telecom service, but whether the FCC can decline to do reclassify, renounce their authority to regulate because of that, but still enforce a regulation against state action, and even if yes, does the law have a sufficient nexus, is far from a foregone conclusion. Since this applies to governments and corporations, which have superior rights, the little people commerce clause version where literally nothing isn't covered under interstate commerce doesn't apply.
Name one college where that is true. Usually there are polling places ON campus, because they have a lot of buildings with rooms that can be devoted to polling quite easily.
Well the last election I was in college for was 2004, and it was certainly true there. UMiami had plenty of room on campus, and heck we hosted a Presidential Debate there that year (a massive circus like you wouldn't believe), but come election day, there was no polling place on campus. We had to go to a public library that was about a 10-15min drive from campus, was not accessible by public transportation, the university offered no shuttle service, and the wait was around 2 hours.
And here we have another conservative that fails to grasp why liberals oppose voter ID laws. Conservatives frequently implement policies that make those IDs more difficult to obtain for the poor and minorities. I've explained this before:
Maybe if Republicans weren't doing things like placing all the ID places in wealthier areas, poorly reachable by public transport from less wealthy areas, open only during weekday business hours, requiring a not-trivial-to-the-poor fee, disallowing comparble non-state IDs less likely to be possessed by whites, their voter ID whinging wouldn't get shot down as transparently racist.
If you're willing to reform those problems across the country, *then* we can talk about voter ID. [...]
I'm in NJ, the liberal northeast, and even for me to get an ID, it's 90 minutes of walking/PATH to get there round trip, at a cost of $5.50 (add $3.20 for the bus if I don't want to walk 2 miles), and they're only open limited weekday hours. Not all people can take off work for minimum half a day to go do that; what if I had a kid to pick up and no one else to do it? It's a multi hour wait. Then the ID itself is $26, so now I'm out $31.50.
You seriously going to tell me with a straight face none of this has a disparate impact on poor, predominantly black voters?
Since large scale voting fraud has never happened, it's pretty damn clear that voter ID laws are being pushed in a way that, when paired with the policies being implemented to obtain those IDs, is in fact about voter suppression. Cheats like that and extreme partisan gerrymandering result in hugely disproportionate representation compared to the number of votes Republicans actually receive; and they have the gall to further complain about all this mass voter fraud there's never been a shred of evidence found for. They are undoubtedly the party of voter suppression.
Speaking as a White guy, White Privilege is real. Us White Guys are painfully aware of it. We've had decades of preferential treatment in loans, school admissions, job interviews and the like. I'm not going to argue this point, it's a historic fact. Go google a bit and educate yourself.
And by and large, we all decided those things weren't right and everyone should be treated equally. But SJWs decided equality wasn't good enough, and preferential treatment should be kept but the groups who receive it swapped. It's perfectly rational that this gets a lot of pushback, as the underlying principle, that discrimination is ok as long as it's against the right people, is fundamentally flawed and has no place in a just society. Compounding this is the complete and utter refusal to accept any explanation other than 'racism/sexism' for why equality of outcome is not always observed, even when those explanations are clearly documented facts. So while discrimination isn't of the same magnitude currently, it's clearly heading in that direction, and entirely worthwhile to oppose before it's further entrenched--- saying that 'Because your skin color is A, or because you have junk B between your legs, you will be treated differently' is always wrong, regardless of what A or B are.
It bothers me in particular because it's an issue on my general side of the political spectrum. I think Republicans are by far the worse party for civil rights and prosperity of those not already wealthy, and that Trump is the greatest enemy of the people, and would never even consider voting (R). So I see the liberal side violating its principles of advancing civil rights, and refuse to go along. It's especially infuriating to speak out against this and be lumped in with the conservative assholes who complain about it not out of a principled stand for equality, but because they want to retain their preferential treatment. But I oppose it nonetheless.
To be ideologically consistent, you'd also have to support the right to refuse service to blacks. Or whites. Or non-Christians. Can a business refuse service to those other groups? You seem to think number of alternative options matters; how many of a service must be within what radius to count? And pedos aren't a protected group, no matter how much 4chan tries to troll people with LGBTQIAP. Race, sexual orientation, religion... those are protected groups.
Wage growth is 1% account for inflation with the median weekly earnings up only 0.57% per year.
Plunged after the election? Are you blind or lying, that graph shows a nearly perfect linear decrease from 01/10 to 01/18; long before the election.
So GDP increased substantially but wage growth only beat inflation by 1%? And you think this is evidence against corporations reaping the benefits of the tax break without doing much for the rank and file why exactly?
DJIA/NASDAQ are up which is benefiting large investors, you're just making my point for me now.
You really want to argue that manufacturing is going to be anywhere near the levels it based on that growth? At the rate it grew it would take decades to reach where it was before the crash that started in 2000.
So let's see, your argument consisted of ignoring context, then lying, then listing 3 items that you didn't realize supported my complaint about the tax cuts, then made an argument that ignored absolute numbers, and to top it all off, insisted the facts actually supported your fantasy. Yup, that's a conservative argument. If you're already wealthy there's no doubt you're experiencing a great windfall in the Trump economy, but it's not trickling down this time either... shocker.
'AI' assisted "deepfakes" are only going to get better, so one day every actor will be in porn movies whether they like it or not. And of course that's only a stepping stone to the glorious day in the future where I can download my Lucy Liu-bot.
Slashdot Mirror
10 up arrow what? Just call it by its name. Everyone knows their number names right?
Four septenvigintillion.
I said that overprescribing was addressed in the worse possible way, not that it shouldn't have been addressed. There were a few issues that absolutely needed changes: prescribing opiates for minor conditions, criminal pill mills, and not having a tracking system to prevent doctor shopping. It is wrong to refuse to treat pain, to cap dosages, to force people down or off (and then onto suicide or street drugs). You could have addressed the problems without doing by creating those others. Nothing about those problems had to be addressed by forcing people onto street drugs causing an OD spike and leaving people in severe pain to suffer, OD, or kill themselves.
Opiates, especially the common ones, actually have a good therapeutic index (LD50/ED50 (ED=Effective Dose)); like for oxycodone, ED is 5-10mg in an opiate naive patient, it's not lethal until 80-100mg. You have to be deliberately abusing it, taking a lot more than directed usually in combination with contraindicated drugs, to overdose. This is something abusers have to worry about, not pain patients, and abusers are *more* at risk of an overdose when they use street drugs, which they're absolutely going to get.
And that's happened as opiate prescriptions have plummeted.
Overprescribing was addressed in the worst possible way. Forcing people off their prescriptions of a standardized product led to seeking black market alternatives. This is yet another example of how prohibition takes something dangerous and makes it massively more so, since we keep falling for the same old idea that people won't take/can't get drugs if you simply ban them.
Make no mistake, this massive spike in ODs wasn't some unforeseen surprise, everyone familiar with opiate abuse predicted this. The policy makers were no doubt informed of this, and then actively chose massively increasing overdose deaths over people continuing to use a less fatal alternative under some medical supervision. Not only that, our new crisis of severely undertreated pain has come roaring back, and legitimate pain patients are ODing and killing themselves too. Another totally foreseen consequence. Once again, the government looked at a drug problem and said 'Lots of people are dying, how can we make even more people suffer and die?'. It's sadomoralism, they desire only to punish drug users (not just abusers), not to actually reduce the harm drugs cause.
You act as if the police are some perfect force that effect only the lives of criminals. That's not true. They violate the rights of innocent people all the time, from the black kid getting profiled and searched on the corner to the middle class white family that has their door kicked in at 4am with them and their children held on the floor at gunpoint because a snitch made up an address or they simply raided the wrong house. Their tech tools are intercepting all forms of communication from innocent people all the time. And you think this power never gets exploited by others, or police themselves, for non-criminal matters? There's a whole range of private activities that are not illegal (nor should be) that can be used to destroy someones life, and the more of that information the police get, the more it gets abused.
Giving police more power hurts non-criminals just as much as the criminals themselves, and the police state of your fantasy used to be recognized as the nightmare for the people that it is.
They're currently implementing reduced fare Metro cards based on income, https://www.6sqft.com/mta-appr...
They already had them for seniors, students, and the disabled.
It's just so stupid for an industry full of ostensibly smart people to test for whether someone has used pot in the last month but not test at all for alcohol, which impairs you a lot more than the weed you smoked last week. Not to mention all the other illegal drugs that are out of your system in a few days.
Middle of the road? That's a laugh. Gorsuch was, and really the best we could have hoped for coming from any Republican these days, and honestly I prefer him over Garland. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, was not even close to middle of the road. He's as extreme right as SCOTUS candidates get on every single issue. And he was nominated to fill a swing-voting Justice's seat, dooming us to a generation of rulings shitting all over the parts of the Constitution not related to guns and god. That, combined with legitimately disqualifying issues like a (single) credible allegation, but more importantly how he lied, conducted himself, and spouted partisan rhetoric after which any claim he'd be politically neutral should be met with laughter, and it's no wonder Democrats were hysterical and tried every trick in the book to block him. But ultimately, once again Republicans showed how absolutely nothing is more important than the Party and getting Party Members into the courts. Just like with all of them bending the knee to Trump, it's Party before country.
I also remember quite a bit of right wing nutters like you crowing about how the Democrats 'derangement' over Trump was supposed to make them fail to retake the House etc. this election. Guess the goalposts have moved and it will be next election that their shenanigans cost them. Though admittedly they do seem to be engaged in a process of finding another nominee somehow also capable of losing to Trump; with Kamala Harris leading the field. As I've explained before, her anti-civil rights past as a tough-on-crime prosecutor and current SJW insanity makes her toxic enough to enough people that Democrats will sit it out again. And if they make a pointless show of impeachment (oh yes please try in vain to get us President Pence!), doubly so.
I know it ruins the jokes but the database is stored as hashes, using something like PhotoDNA that survives basic alterations, they don't keep the actual material.
Well most everyone failed that part of history class, because prohibition still exists and is immensely harmful, and almost everybody loves it. It's just drugs other than alcohol now (and increasingly pot). Support for legalizing all drugs is minuscule, people just can't comprehend how it's taking something dangerous and making it way more dangerous because we can't actually stop anyone who wants it from getting it.
The potential harm should be considered, but so should the harm of not doing it. At a certain point, the benefits outweigh the risks. Wiping out malaria and things like it after thorough studying potential problems clearly meets that.
If the US and EU built a new internet today you can safely assume it would be designed from the ground up to make it much easier to monitor all your activities and impose direct government control and approval over content, and of course YouTube-style copyright tyranny for all. If you think it would look anything like the freer internet of days past, you've missed just how far authoritarian creep has gone.
Internet service is essential to modern life, AT&T has a monopoly or is half of a duopoly in most of its markets. It benefits from extensive government subsidies (that just pad its profits, but that's another issue). Under these circumstances, the "business can do whatever the fuck it wants" rule shouldn't apply, and terminating someones access should require proving they were pirating, not a one-sided allegation from the accuser.
Just how fast do these things go? Google says 15mph top possible speed. You can pedal a bike more than 15mph without a motor (and much quicker down an incline), so unless you think bikes ought to have similar requirements, it seems kinda ridiculous to regulate these like actual motorcycles and cars. You know what bicyclists can also do? Get tickets for biking in a reckless manner. Unless there's some odd legal loophole where they can't ticket these scooter users in a similar manner, enforcement is what's needed, not stomping out an innovative new transportation service. And if there is such a loophole, that can be fixed as well.
Some people ride their bikes like assholes and cause injuries too; it hurts to get slammed into by a biker being reckless, just happened to me a few months ago. Do you want to ban those as well? Have to get a bike license after passing a bike road test? If a motor isn't faster than foot power, it shouldn't be regulated like traditional motorcycles.
So your objection to this story is the the lawyers actually got paid too little, only receiving 2/8ths instead of 4m of the 8m settlement? Plus don't they generally set the legal fees in the settlement then distribute the rest equally among those who file a claim?
I find it very difficult to believe that lawyers won't take class action suits unless they get millions to tens of millions. The 1% suggested above you is generally (but not always) going to be too low, but you really want to argue these lawyers needed $2.12 million to litigate this, especially settling instead of a full trial? And that something more reasonable like $250k-$400k is just so little money lawyers aren't going to bother?
Nobody is saying lawyers should do this for free. The objection is to the obscene greed of taking $2m of an $8m settlement and not infrequently even higher percentages. These suits are like lotteries for lawyers, not fairly compensated hard work.
Your technical understanding far exceeds your legal understanding. What changes were made to achieve that jitter reduction? Tell me that, and I'll tell you whether it was actually a legal issue covered by net neutrality, rather than something else. Like a provider gaming shit while they pretend they're not eventually going to change. Right now you're just asserting that correlation proves causation.
Yup, the owner is going on Alex Jones to talk about how biased everyone is against his platform used pretty much exclusively by awful people. He's totally neutral.
Enough with bullshit lie that net neutrality prohibited QoS. It also had exemptions for special services. You can get away with pushing you false propagranda on non technical sites, but here people know you're blatantly lying and will call you on your bullshit.
You're deeply confused about this. Congress certainly has the power, FCC can regulate if they classify under a Telecom service, but whether the FCC can decline to do reclassify, renounce their authority to regulate because of that, but still enforce a regulation against state action, and even if yes, does the law have a sufficient nexus, is far from a foregone conclusion. Since this applies to governments and corporations, which have superior rights, the little people commerce clause version where literally nothing isn't covered under interstate commerce doesn't apply.
Name one college where that is true. Usually there are polling places ON campus, because they have a lot of buildings with rooms that can be devoted to polling quite easily.
Well the last election I was in college for was 2004, and it was certainly true there. UMiami had plenty of room on campus, and heck we hosted a Presidential Debate there that year (a massive circus like you wouldn't believe), but come election day, there was no polling place on campus. We had to go to a public library that was about a 10-15min drive from campus, was not accessible by public transportation, the university offered no shuttle service, and the wait was around 2 hours.
Maybe if Republicans weren't doing things like placing all the ID places in wealthier areas, poorly reachable by public transport from less wealthy areas, open only during weekday business hours, requiring a not-trivial-to-the-poor fee, disallowing comparble non-state IDs less likely to be possessed by whites, their voter ID whinging wouldn't get shot down as transparently racist. If you're willing to reform those problems across the country, *then* we can talk about voter ID. [...]
I'm in NJ, the liberal northeast, and even for me to get an ID, it's 90 minutes of walking/PATH to get there round trip, at a cost of $5.50 (add $3.20 for the bus if I don't want to walk 2 miles), and they're only open limited weekday hours. Not all people can take off work for minimum half a day to go do that; what if I had a kid to pick up and no one else to do it? It's a multi hour wait. Then the ID itself is $26, so now I'm out $31.50. You seriously going to tell me with a straight face none of this has a disparate impact on poor, predominantly black voters?
Since large scale voting fraud has never happened, it's pretty damn clear that voter ID laws are being pushed in a way that, when paired with the policies being implemented to obtain those IDs, is in fact about voter suppression. Cheats like that and extreme partisan gerrymandering result in hugely disproportionate representation compared to the number of votes Republicans actually receive; and they have the gall to further complain about all this mass voter fraud there's never been a shred of evidence found for. They are undoubtedly the party of voter suppression.
Speaking as a White guy, White Privilege is real. Us White Guys are painfully aware of it. We've had decades of preferential treatment in loans, school admissions, job interviews and the like. I'm not going to argue this point, it's a historic fact. Go google a bit and educate yourself.
And by and large, we all decided those things weren't right and everyone should be treated equally. But SJWs decided equality wasn't good enough, and preferential treatment should be kept but the groups who receive it swapped. It's perfectly rational that this gets a lot of pushback, as the underlying principle, that discrimination is ok as long as it's against the right people, is fundamentally flawed and has no place in a just society. Compounding this is the complete and utter refusal to accept any explanation other than 'racism/sexism' for why equality of outcome is not always observed, even when those explanations are clearly documented facts. So while discrimination isn't of the same magnitude currently, it's clearly heading in that direction, and entirely worthwhile to oppose before it's further entrenched--- saying that 'Because your skin color is A, or because you have junk B between your legs, you will be treated differently' is always wrong, regardless of what A or B are.
It bothers me in particular because it's an issue on my general side of the political spectrum. I think Republicans are by far the worse party for civil rights and prosperity of those not already wealthy, and that Trump is the greatest enemy of the people, and would never even consider voting (R). So I see the liberal side violating its principles of advancing civil rights, and refuse to go along. It's especially infuriating to speak out against this and be lumped in with the conservative assholes who complain about it not out of a principled stand for equality, but because they want to retain their preferential treatment. But I oppose it nonetheless.
To be ideologically consistent, you'd also have to support the right to refuse service to blacks. Or whites. Or non-Christians. Can a business refuse service to those other groups? You seem to think number of alternative options matters; how many of a service must be within what radius to count? And pedos aren't a protected group, no matter how much 4chan tries to troll people with LGBTQIAP. Race, sexual orientation, religion... those are protected groups.
Wage growth is 1% account for inflation with the median weekly earnings up only 0.57% per year.
Plunged after the election? Are you blind or lying, that graph shows a nearly perfect linear decrease from 01/10 to 01/18; long before the election.
So GDP increased substantially but wage growth only beat inflation by 1%? And you think this is evidence against corporations reaping the benefits of the tax break without doing much for the rank and file why exactly?
DJIA/NASDAQ are up which is benefiting large investors, you're just making my point for me now.
You really want to argue that manufacturing is going to be anywhere near the levels it based on that growth? At the rate it grew it would take decades to reach where it was before the crash that started in 2000.
So let's see, your argument consisted of ignoring context, then lying, then listing 3 items that you didn't realize supported my complaint about the tax cuts, then made an argument that ignored absolute numbers, and to top it all off, insisted the facts actually supported your fantasy. Yup, that's a conservative argument. If you're already wealthy there's no doubt you're experiencing a great windfall in the Trump economy, but it's not trickling down this time either... shocker.
'AI' assisted "deepfakes" are only going to get better, so one day every actor will be in porn movies whether they like it or not. And of course that's only a stepping stone to the glorious day in the future where I can download my Lucy Liu-bot.