Lol bro, you obviously don't know shit about plumbing if you think they can't have their shit together. They can make crazy bank.
The timeline gives a general reference point. You're right they could mostly just include 2014 and the final year as well. No big deal in my opinion since they don't try to emphasize the price points at each year (as only a vague idea is given based on the line).
In terms of your second point, what if from '99 to 2003, Mcdonald's had doubled their prices? the graph would be the same? We can keep going back until each business's complete history, but I feel this graph tells enough of a story: Both brands increased their product costs a certain amount from the dates indicated.
Its about convincing people still on the fence with Trump. The most vocal are saying that the jury was a sham. The ones in the middle are less vocal. By not giving vocal Republicans any ammo, it helps make a convincing case to those Republican voters that weren't hardline republicans/MAGAs. They're the ones we need along with the voters that switch from the 2016 to 2020 elections.
I feel you're kinda talking past ChapulinColorado's comment. He's indicating that for many people they would should have a simple tax filing process where they don't receive money outside of what's reported to the IRS already. Many workers only have a W2 and use the standard deduction. They shouldn't have to pay a 3rd party to get their taxes done, and it shouldn't take them almost any time to file a return.
yes you're also right that people would still need to confirm what their income is (especially if its not reported to the IRS), but that doesn't apply to a large section of the US Population.
Yeah, so the fact that he wasn't proves my point. The Judge wasn't showing signs of wanting to get Trump convicted. Compare that to if Trump is required to be in jail throughout the trail, because he was held in contempt. The right would be saying the judge, and this same verdict, were corrupt. That's what they're saying, now but there's less evidence for them to use.
I disagree with that. The judges need to be a bit lenient with him so nobody can say that the judge was biased against him. This was sort of frustrating to those of us who saw the judge as being too nice to Trump, but its now a lot harder to say he was gunning to get him convicted.
You're right but that's not the problem attempting to be addressed with Denmark's system.
Will look into that to see if that's easier that what I currently do now. Thanks!
More or less what I have to do.
Amazing discourse. I'll review your best argument to perhaps reconsider my position.
This article touches on important: what are the Democrats in Congress doing to prepare for another Trump presidency?
He's been pretty vocal about his vindictive he wants to be so you would expect them to say least be trying to push laws to restrict the abuse that he, or any other president could on political enemies.
The article mentions a bipartisan bill that passed the house but couldn't get through the Senate. Why aren't Democrats talking about that bill more publicly to get it passed?