J.C.MacSwell

If he has enough pressure on him and bad enough ratings, he might possibly serve out the current term rather than lose, and thus open things up for Republican primaries. Of course he would declare himself the best President ever having accomplished more in one term than anyone else in two... This I think would be the best scenario for the Republicans.

It's a good list. I wasn't trying to throw any shade on it. I was thinking that if you told my story 5 years ago most would say "yah, right Trump elected President... Seriously I would like to see this (by the right challenger of course): I see this as more likely (I see INow has already said the same):

An invading caravan enters the US, Trump declares a state of emergency but to no avail, as members of the caravan take over the US Government. Trump feels vindicated as he was of course right all along, and the Democrats accept full responsibility. Trump escapes to Russia where they grant him asylum. He is last seen off on a wild boar hunt with Putin.

The drag is much lower as you get significantly below the surface, as wave making drag disappears, leaving essentially the form drag and skin friction. On the surface you have that extra energy loss from the pressure differential creating gravity waves, a surface effect that disappears with depth, without which much of that energy would be recovered. In fact all of it would be recovered if not for surface effects (wave making), and viscous effects which is drag in itself but also triggers separation. Furthermore depending on the length of the hull, the wave making drag starts increasing substantially as "hull speed" is approached unless enough lift is created to allow the hull to plane and skim across the water. This of course does not happen with submarines due to there weight and hull shape.

Thanks. I wonder who all has to file a list of assets. Businesses have book values and accepted depreciation practices. It will be interesting to see how they might try to regulate it. I wouldn't want to pay 2% on all my stuff, but if someone had to value it and I got to give up the 2% of my choice, I might be more than happy to have them come and get it, LOL.

Odd. I keep reading that it is a wealth tax on Americans with more than 30 million in assets. I don't doubt you should be correct, but I don't see your wording once never mind several times.

So a person with 50 million in assets pays 1 miilion, and a wife and husband with 49 million each avoid the tax? I didn't see the answer to that, but thank you for the rates.

My first thoughts on Warren's wealth tax are: At what rate? How much revenue becomes available? Do you just pay based on the excess over 50 million? Can a wife and husband with 100 million in assets avoid the tax? How do you do the accounting? What are the costs involved of doing the accounting for everyone and policing by the Government? What will the costs be to the economy if it is necessary to liquify business assets to pay for doing the accounting, and to make payments if the 50 million threshold is reached? How long before it's 1 million? (Then you get questions like "what is the value of a tenured position at a University, a commercial fishing license, the real vs book value of a small business etc. which could contribute to the totals) In principle, I'm not against it. It is a matter of doing it efficiently and fairly (There won't be much agreement on that, but that is true of taxes in general.) Hard conservatives will of course see it as "stealing" even more of their money.

Trumpty Dumpty had a great fall!

...biggest since the midterms? Seriously, I don't know what they might have on him that's concrete enough...but time will tell. If you're right, the timing will be interesting. The closer it gets to November 2020, the less time the GOP will have to get someone else on the ticket.... to get a wall or fence. (my weak pretence as to staying on topic)

...and give it away? (actually hadn't heard of a sarcasm font)

No doubt. I also wasn't suggesting you meant political reasons alone. Anyway, I think we can all agree this is Trump's biggest victory since the midterms...

Is it correct to assume workers pays would get all caught up by then? It lead to Trump caving after he read it...

I guess we have at least one exception in Ten oz. So for political reasons you do not want to let Trump off the hook, and you have additional points with regard to negotiating a complete end. I can't completely say I disagree, but I would find it hard not to vote for getting the workers paid immediately. I do think it is risky though, as the Democrats could end up wearing this more than they otherwise might.

Agree. To all of this. And with regard to the bold, who here has not advocated for this, never mind merely conceded it? However, in the scenario that this does not happen immediately (let's say it is all Trumps fault, as everyone I think has conceded at least a large part of the blame is on him), do you want the workers paid in the interim? Assuming the answer is yes, why can that not get done quickly? The short answer is politics.

Which is exactly why he questioned it? There is a current reality where they are not getting paid, and he asked why that one thing could not be changed. Any insinuations he made are pretty innocuous relative to what has been directed at him lately. Please don't ask for examples.

The first two lines weren't directed at you. You thought they were? It's also still there, I just clicked it. I think the second time might be the from the exact same misunderstanding. You click to reply to what was directed to you, but then reread what is in front of you. It then reads like it is all addressed to you...but it is not.

I'm not sure which post you are talking about. Is it the one you quoted him on that had 4 lines, 2 of which were a reply to I think Ten oz and the second 2 a separate reply to you...but as quoted it looked like it was all directed at one person? Are you sure you didn't click to reply, then read the part directed at Ten oz as directed at you? I actually wondered that at the time, and questioned you on your reply It was edited but not since you quoted it...it's identical.

Trump is saying "hold the hostages" until he can get his money. (or is he willing to flex on that?) Would you agree with, or not agree with, "hold the hostages" until you get public health and safety back? There are a number of ways this can be framed. It's kind of like the "Wisdom of Solomon" thing...except in this case Solomon turns out to be a bit of an ass if no one cares enough about the baby.

He didn't even question your point. Your point didn't answer his question. He questioned why the paychecks should be held up. If both issues are of equal concern and you can solve one independent of the other, why not at least get that done?

That's actually very amusing, and well stated. +1 I was with you right up to the bold...not that there is no truth to it as well...but nothing Trump has said or done, from the time he was born, absolves the Democrats of their responsibility to seek an end to the shutdown. (and no, that is not a suggestion they aren't trying to do just that, for anyone who feels compelled to jump to conclusions...)

Not based on the assumption I included.

I will of course take that as a no. So you would ask them to limit their fight for equality? (you can take that as rhetorical)

Can you not choose to support them where you feel it is appropriate and oppose them where you feel it is not? Is everything that could conceivably advance women's rights something that should be implemented in the name of progress?

We've covered this before. If someone makes an insinuation against someone, whether it is on topic or not, we all have a right to reply to it. You certainly do. Stop being hypocritical.