|
New Comment Rating: 11 Similar topics: 1.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 4.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF,, ANY STUFF III 5.NEW MONGO STUFF, OLD MONGO STUFF, ANY MONGO STUFF III Comments: |
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
It is worth a try if you have some ground coffee. I was reading some of the 1200 plus comments and a number of them said that “used” coffee grounds could be used after they were completely dry. I was actually trying to find anything that supported “why” an aluminum foil bowl was needed. I did read a post where someone said they used a plate but my best GUESS is like a candle, having more wax/wick below the flame will ensure a longer burning time.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
They just need to eat a lot, to stay 'in shape'.
If they actually want to show off a dress for very large sizes, they need her.
Big women are very much annoyed if a brand only uses those skinny models.
If they still want to sell clothes, to more than 10% of women, get with the times.
That doesn't mean to only use models like her, that means to diversify.
only registered users can see external links
Apparently, it works on guys too.
Hakeem Jeffries
Chuck Schumer
Gavin Newsom
Mandammuslem mayor of New York
I don’t hear a word out of them anymore or did they get put in there place by big daddy trump
Sure Phart, I believe you.
Lower mass shootings
Less over doses
Less drugs on the streets
Just to name a few
So yeah we are much better off now
Can you imagine what it would be like if Kamala had won
She would have gave Iran billions to keep enriching uranium
While she was out drinking and driving
“ The latest preliminary 2025 data from the FBI Crime Data Explorer shows an estimated 9.3% decrease in violent crime compared to 2024, alongside an 18.1% drop in murders and a 12.4% drop in property crimes. This follows steady, year-over-year declines since the spike observed during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
of all gun violence in America.
60% of gun deaths are suicide and 37% are homicide — including the 1% of mass shootings. The remaining 3% of gun deaths include law enforcement involved shootings, unintentional shootings, and those that were undetermined.
How about getting rid of guns?
Go right ahead. Hahaha.
The house is built by laying the first brick, driving the first nail. When Trump got in the second time, the house was 4 foot out of square.
The crime decline began before Trump returned to office in January 2025. The large drop in murders started after the COVID-era spike:
2020–2021: major increase in homicides.
2022: homicide began falling.
2023: large declines continued.
2024: another major decline.
So the 2024 improvement was already underway before any Trump administration policies could have had a national effect
MASS SHOOTINGS
Yes, some measures show mass shootings were lower in 2024 than in the peak years around 2021–2023. But that decline began before Trump took office, so it cannot reasonably be credited to Trump policies.
OVERDOSE DEATHS
The same applies. The decline started before 2025:
Overdose deaths peaked around 2022.
Declines accelerated through late 2023 and 2024.
The CDC specifically noted that deaths had been declining since late 2023.
Possible contributors researchers point to include:
- wider naloxone availability,
- expanded treatment access,
- changes in the illicit drug supply,
- public health interventions,
- changes in fentanyl patterns.
What did Trump do to cause it? Essentially NOTHING, because most of the data period occurred before his second administration began.
DRUGS ON THE STREETS
That is not something the data clearly shows. Overdose deaths are down, but that does not automatically mean fewer drugs are available. The decline in overdose deaths began before Trump took office and is likely due to multiple factors: more naloxone access, changes in the illicit drug supply, treatment efforts, and public health interventions. Trump did not cause the overdose decline that began in 2023–2024.
His administration has emphasized border enforcement and drug interdiction, but there is not yet evidence that those policies produced a measurable reduction in
drug availability.
Here's some negative data that he ACTUALLY CAUSED:
• National debt increased by about $7.8 trillion during Trump’s first term.
Trump signed the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced federal revenue, while spending continued to rise. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the tax cuts would add about $1.5 trillion to deficits over 10 years (before accounting for interest).
• Federal deficits increased before COVID.
The deficit rose from about $585 billion in 2016 to about $984 billion in 2019. This happened before pandemic spending and was driven partly by the Trump tax cuts and increased spending.
• Tariffs increased costs for American businesses and consumers.
Trump imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of imports, especially from China. Economic studies found that the cost was largely paid by U.S. importers and passed on through higher prices rather than being absorbed by China.
• Farmers lost export markets because of Trump’s trade war.
After Trump imposed tariffs, China and other countries retaliated against U.S. agricultural exports. The administration responded with about $28 billion in taxpayer-funded aid to farmers to compensate for losses caused by the trade dispute.
• Emergency preparedness funding was reduced or targeted for cuts.
The Trump administration proposed reducing FEMA preparedness grants by about $646 million and eliminated the BRIC disaster mitigation program, which had funded billions of dollars in pre-disaster projects. These were direct administration policy decisions.
• Public health preparedness was targeted for major cuts.
The Trump administration proposed large reductions to CDC programs, including about $3.6 billion (around 44%) in discretionary funding. These cuts would affect disease surveillance, outbreak response, and emergency preparedness.
Two people may have different opinions about whether it is raining, but whether water droplets are actually falling from the sky is not decided by opinion.
only registered users can see external links
I will post the “after” as soon as she does!
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I THINK she said she hasn’t done crack in 5 years but I think she might be tellin’ a story!
If those foul trees are gone anyway, maybe they can replace them with fruitwoods
like Apple or Cherry, or nut-bearing trees like Pecan, for a mild smoke.
Actually, you might prefer the classic BBQ flavor, so they could please you by
replanting Hickory or Oak.
--------------------------------------- added after 9 hours
I got to thinking,maybe if Canada spent more money on fire suppression than free health care, maybe these fires would get put out sooner
It's impossible to keep wildfires under control, for a country like Canada, with ~347 million hectares of forest and hardly any road access to most of it. They spend about the same as the US, with 8.3 times less people. The US has ~310 million hectares of forest and about 10 times the number of wildfires.
Canada has roughly 9 times more forest per person than the U.S.
The area that is burned yearly is on average the same too. The only difference is that Canada has more large wildfires, occasionally. A single Canadian wildfire can burn hundreds of thousands of hectares. That's because they cannot get to it soon enough to put it out. Often, they chose to not even try. Why?
Imagine a lightning strike starts a fire 300 km from the nearest town. Sending dozens of aircraft and hundreds of firefighters may:
- cost millions of dollars
- put crews at risk
- have little chance of success if winds are strong
Instead, agencies prioritize fires threatening:
- communities
- infrastructure
- Indigenous communities
- power lines
- highways
- valuable timber
Canada is the second-largest country on Earth. About 90% of Canadians live within roughly 160 km (100 miles) of the U.S. border, while most of the country's forests lie far to the north. They simply cannot station enough firefighters and aircraft to immediately attack every remote ignition.
That doesn't mean additional investments in prevention, prescribed burns, aircraft, or staffing couldn't help, they likely would in some situations. But the idea that Canada's fires persist simply because it spends money on universal health care instead of firefighting doesn't match how wildfire management actually works. Weather, fuel conditions, terrain, and the sheer scale of Canada's wilderness are often the dominant factors.
It's not like the US is over-funding emergency services.
FEMA Non-Disaster Grant Programs: -$646 million, Proposed
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, (BRIC) Program eliminated (billions in future grants canceled)
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) ≈ -$491 million, Proposed
CDC Discretionary Funding ≈ -$3.6 billion (44%), Proposed
NOAA (overall) ≈ -26% Proposed cut
NOAA Office of Oceanic & Atmospheric Research ≈ -74%, Proposed
FEMA workforce ~200 positions eliminated, broader workforce reductions followed
If you implemented single payer, Americans would be able to afford more for wildfire
and other disaster prevention, response and relief.
New Comment Go to top