daz28

I think the reasoning there is the people working the concession stands will eventually get a $.10 trickle down raise. WOOOPEEEEE Guess what, we still have to pay back the taxes.

I'm sure the stadiums already got their huge tax breaks. The point is I don't think Trump understands how taxes work even a little bit. Suppose everyone writes of $500 next year on football game expenses. Well, that's $500 of revenue the government won't see, but the NFL will just throw in their already overflowing coffers. The ignorant people will be happy they got to write off the expense, BUTTTT eventually the government will have to account for that. How will that happen, well by raising taxes. Guess who will pay those higher taxes? I know he's been writing off taxes his whole life, but someday someone has to pay the piper. If only life were really just tax cuts, lawsuits, and tying everything up in court for all eternity. Wouldn't life be grand. I have a much better idea. Use market economy. If you can't fill the stadium maybe lower the beer prices from $20 to $10 until it does fill up. I'm voting for Joe the Plumber next election, because he'd probably think my idea makes the best sense.

Trump also raised idea of the leagues working together to lobby for tax credits that once existed to deduct the purchase of tickets and concessions????? I know this is the dumbest place in the world to go against this, and I risk life and limb, BUT seriously?? Lobby for tax breaks for going to a football game? Subsidizing a $20 billion industry built around a ball game? I think if they only made $19 billion next year that's a hit they should be able to absorb on their own no problem.

This looks like some promising numbers. Finally some good news: New York also reported fewer hospitalizations on Saturday than it had in days prior, with 574 new admissions reported on April 4. As Cuomo reviewed at the start of Sunday's address, there were 1,095 new hospitalizations on Friday and 1,427 on Thursday. https://www.newsweek.com/governor-cuomo-suggests-number-new-yorks-covid-19-deaths-dropping-over-past-few-days-1496201

I agree. For every person saying Cuomo should have got the ventilators in 2015, there's another saying Trump said it was unprecedented and there's no way you could have seen this coming. You can't have it both ways.

Him saying it was a hoax was misconstrued, but he DID say he thought that the media and the Democrats were happy this was happening. That was incredibly dumb. Sure, both sides will use this politically. He'll try to say he did the most tremendous job of any president ever, and that we were lucky to have him. They will try to say he mishandled it, but NO ONE is happy about this. That's absurd.

He was either looking off the safety or he saw a squirrel, either way he's a dawg. lol

I think people have been pushing narratives since the beginning of time, and people have been falling for it for just as long. While I may not agree with some of your ideas, I do agree with your general gist. For every CNN viewer there's a Fox viewer, and for every Trump supporter, there's and Obama hater. The polarization is very real. Keep in mind, the media doesn't have a responsibility to truth, it has a responsibility to be profitable. I know you and I understand that, but most people don't.

My grandfathers grandfather was alive and well when slavery was legal, and I hold a lot of the things that he taught my grandfather dear, so it's not as long ago as you might want to believe. If you want to go back to a time when many people on this board were alive, we can discuss the civil rights battles of the 60's. These are facts that have no right/left leanings, so maybe you ought to slow your roll. If you don't like the facts I post, you can use your ignore feature. I don't come here to argue my opinion, because it's not worth any more than anyone elses.

Your trying to say that if it's raining outside that people will still believe the weather man who said it was sunny and beautiful. I disagree with that. As for the other things you mentioned, they are called differences of opinion, and some could argue that America is more about being allowed to have a difference of opinion than what you feel America really is or should be. Don't forget not that long ago people were "conditioned" to believe slavery was ok. I hope they didn't blame their ignorance on what the local newspaper was telling them, and fully accepted it themselves.

The only reason that is would be that everyone has their heels dug into their own 'sides' rhetoric. Admitting you are wrong is now a sign of weakness, rather than a sign of intelligence. I will also admit that the media does do a really good job of spinning things so that black is white and little boy blue's a big girl now.

It used to be that we relied on our president to pull the country together in a crisis. In fact it's what we considered to be his job. I'm not sure that's possible anymore, but blaming the media is a scapegoat, which assumes that us as citizens are too dumb to know what's good for us or to know what the truth is. I'm pretty sure that 90% of us watch the news that we feel is being honest, and would quickly change the channel if we felt is was misleading us. After all, it's pretty much our own fault if we let ourselves be misinformed in this day and age.

Does anyone think that all states should always be completely prepared for any and all possible medical emergencies/situations(ie have all necessary hospitals/equipment/medicines/personnel on hand), OR do you feel we should have a federal stockpile that can be diverted to the areas as needed when necessary? I'm pretty sure most of us expect the latter as we do with natural disasters. I also do not feel there should be any need for anyone to be gracious to ask for OUR(yes our not your-looks at Jared) desperately needed supplies. I also don't feel there is anyone out there who is glad to see this happening, whether they be the fake news media or the yet another hoax Democrats. I don't think that saying that the 15 cases would magically disappear was very good advice to help people realize the gravity of the situation, and keep them at home for the sake of the "looking good" stock market. I could go on and on, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make. Ok, you can now tell me about all the people who WEREN'T the POTUS who also blundered.

Bruce Dickinson 'Son of a Gun' lyrics: He loaded bullets as he smiled.Congregation sat and wondered.Would they live or would they die.Just an ordinary man, with his orders and his plans. Just too appropriate

Now we pray that if this ball comes in hotter, he still snares it.

I'm thinking he's Star lite. Same kinda guy with same limitations. Maybe a little better penetration, but it will be nice having them both playing alongside Ed. They're built for that.

Which position do you feel is so weak that it deserves a splashy upgrade? I don't see any glaring holes. Keep in mind these depth guys will be seeing the field.

If they wanna dump him after this year, they can save a boatload of real cash, and a penalty of only $4m. They did ok with Zo with his age, so I'm guessing they feel MA has plenty in the tank. They know this guy well.

The NFL is cutting back a lot on padded practices. Maximum number in TC goes from 28 to 16. During the season it's 14 max. This will be a factor in the development of rookie WR's as their development sometimes takes a few seasons. Add in the fact that SD is only 26, and there's not a good chance that a WR picked at #22 may not even have his ceiling it makes it seem like a pretty good deal. If the contract was bad I'd be concerned, but before his contract ends, he will likely be well outside the top 30 WR's. My concern is that Josh won't be able to get him the ball. I'm not as big on his speed separation as most, and Josh will have to trust just popping it in there. The guy runs full speed with his head on a swivel like no other, so Josh will just have to trust him and his adjustments to the ball.

Phrasing it as certain precincts certainly makes it more believable than saying cities, but it's still sort of a moot point as they are Dem strongholds. A few less votes probably wouldn't turn the state's to red anyways. I'm curious as to why Republicans aren't/wouldn't be doing the same thing? If the premise is Republicans are too honest of people to do it, then that wouldn't be sincere. If that is the case, then maybe they shouldn't be. The registration and voting procedures are exactly the same for both parties.

He specifically said cities, and even listed each of them. Again, the data is elusive, so I'm not going to argue something that can't be proven, but when 20% of voting age people are voting I can't see what crazy math it would take to say that 100% of registered voters voted.

I found this to be very interesting though, and it seems to show what little faith people have in the process itself. Look at the chart above the article: Even in the last presidential election, just 56 percent of could-be voters showed up to the polls. In fact, in hundreds of counties around the U.S., the number of eligible individuals who did not vote far outweighed the number of ballots actually cast for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in 2016. If those millions of no-shows had picked “nobody” on the ballot—the effective choice of their abstention—“nobody” would have won in a landslide. https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/11/voter-turnout-midterm-election-statistics-map/574939/

The article goes deeper than just 2016. Here's a quote: "Lack of voter turnout is a problem in nearly every city, not just every four years, but every year in local elections. According to an analysis from Portland State University, turnout in the nation’s largest 30 cities is a dismal 20 percent of the voting age population." I couldn't find much hard data, but most articles and data seemed to be of this general consensus

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is what I found: Cities lead the nation in many ways, but not in voter turnout https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/309190-cities-lead-the-nation-in-many-ways-but-not-in-voter-turnout

Poll: Majority say Trump should be removed by Senate https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/479427-poll-majority-say-trump-should-be-removed-by-senate