Search Results: is she a risk

I have been preparing my 37 foot Class A RV to evacuate if things appear to get bad. I have replaced all batteries, both house and chassis, and I have remodeled it. I ensured the generator is functional. I can accommodate 5-6 people in it if needed. I am still working on it these final days before the election.

I have also purchased gallons of water and top-notch medical supplies, also including IV supplies and needles/syringes. I am a former Advanced EMT, so I have some of the BLS supplies and know what to get.

My family has a plan in place if threats strike.

I also have access to weapons if I need it for self defense. I just hope it does not get that bad.

I voted for Trump, but I feel regardless of which side wins, there is a likelihood of civil unrest. To what magnitude? I don't know. I am just hoping society doesn't completely unravel. I am also considering a risk of attack from our adversaries if we reach a weak point.

God Bless and may the Lord be with us!

I've seen a ton of talk about false accusations, and even saw one post today on the topic. One possible solution would be to give the accuser an option to drop all accusations prior to the case going to trial. It could be the accuser going alone into a room with a form that says "do you want to continue with the case" and if they decline, no questions will be asked, and they would also be exempted from charges for false reporting. Does this seem like a good solution?

One reasonable risk I see would be with legitimate victims being intimidated into dropping charges. But it also offers a good ''out" for false accusers to stand down and save the actual victim from having their lives destroyed.

I'm not sure if Americans know the truth about agri-business.

Ethanol manufacturers use about 40 percent of the U. S. corn crop for ethanol and related co-products, with the majority of the ethanol being consumed in the domestic transportation fuel market.

Since the creation of the domestic market for corn ethanol after the energy crisis of the 1970s, the federal government has given away a steady stream of subsidies. Originally sold as a way to achieve energy independence and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, ethanol has been a favorite of policymakers from the Corn Belt. Ethanol producers have received favorable treatment under the tax code, tariff protection from foreign competition, a government mandate for its use, infrastructure subsidies, and more.

As a result, taxpayers have spent tens of billions of dollars over the last 40 years subsidizing the mature biofuel. Decades of subsidies have failed, however, to reduce climate risks and serve as a bridge to next-generation, non-food-based biofuels, while spurring several unintended consequences, wasting taxpayer dollars, and distorting markets.

As concerns, food, American farm subsidies have negative environmental effects. By encouraging the overproduction of certain crops, subsidies can lead to the use of more pesticides and fertilizers. Additionally, heavily subsidized corn is used to produce unhealthy processed foods which are cheaper and less nutritious which has a multiplier effect that further contribute to the obesity epidemic.

Another way in which corn subsidies raise prices is by setting minimum prices for certain crops. The government often sets a minimum price for corn that is higher than what would be considered the market price.

In effect USA Americans are subsidizing corn conglomerates AND raising the prices of corn derived products - hitting themselves in the wallet twice so huge agri-business conglomerates can rake in yet more profits.

🌽 is also a substitute for porn (duh)!