TakeYouToTasker

No, it does not. This is an assertion that correlation is causation. In order to prove institutional racism, you need to demonstrate that racism is a motivator of the policy. When examining the case of North Carolina's voting laws, you must prove that the desire to eliminate electoral fraud was not the motivator. All requirements and prohibitions imposed by the law in question can far more linearly be squared with the desire to protect the integrity of the vote than it can with seeking to disenfranchise minorities. Because statitcs have always borne out that men commit a largely disproportionate amount of crimes compared to women.

In order to view Sessions statements as anything approaching perjury, you would have to believe that he wasn't answering the question within the framework which it was asked. For that to be the case, you'd have be viewing the back and forth through a very partisan lens.

Disparate impact is not evidence of institutional racism. Just because a law has a greater impact on members of a certain race does not make it racist. An argument that more cases of negative impact is a firm indicator of racism must start with the base assumption that members of a given race are more prone to negative impacts because they are members of that race, which to me, in and of itself, seems to be a racist argument. I'll give you a borrowed example: According to the Bureau of Justice, in 2013 across local, state and federal prisons, 213,700 women were incarcerated, while 2,092,400 men were incarcerated. Making an argument based on disparate impact, the American penal system is amongst the most sexist institutions in history, given the population is greater than 50% female, while approximately 90% of the prison population is male. That, however, is a poor argument, and I think you know why.

I'm not "giving him the benefit of the doubt". I'm reading the transcript to his confirmation, and telling you that given the question he was asked, which framed his discussions as working within the Trump campaign, he clearly did not perjure himself. He could have spoken more clearly, and in a way that he didn't expose himself to political hackery, but he absolutely did not perjure himself.

Christmas, it's like talking to a rock. Either that or someone approaching gatorman's level of intellectual dishonesty. I'll note that you quoted me out of context. Had you not done so, it would read like this: "I'd be interested in having a conversation with Morgan Freeman about his experiences as Morgan Freeman. I have zero interest in having a conversation with a black man about his experiences as a black man." Which communicates an entirely different idea than the one you're trying to pin on me. Given that, and the fact that you can't/won't answer my very direct questions about defining the "black experience", I think you're just about done making a fool of yourself here. Per your request.

At your request, Larry: Please list the institution you believe to be racist, and in what ways they are racist.

Here's the rub: Sessions wasn't caught "with his hand in the cookie jar", and he didn't lie under oath. He could have been more clear in his answer, but he didn't perjure himself. Sessions, acting in his capacity as chair of the Armed Services Committee, met with dozens of ambassadors and other leaders and envoys on a regular basis as do all other Senators. It's part of their job. I believe it very reasonable to assume that when Sessions was being questioned in his confirmation hearing that he presumed the questions being asked were in relationship to his involvement in the Trump campaign, rather than in his acting role as a Senator, given the questions were being asked be other Senators who clearly understand that meeting with ambassadors is a regular part of the job.

This is good stuff. Thanks for posting. I'll repose my questions with more specifics after I've finished reading primary sources.

A fraud who can't read, apparently. I've been stating from the beginning that I love hearing about the experiences of individuals.

No, you're a hack and an intellectual coward for throwing around claims about other posters, without being bothered to defend them. Only total !@#$s make fiat declarations, birthing them into the air as special truths, with attempting to back them up when asked. You clearly know nothing about a myriad of positions that I hold, and assuming I'm a blind Trump supporter, which is laughable, as my posting history indicates. I call balls and strikes with both major parties, as I identify with neither. My major plank in this is, and has always been, the incredible overreach of unelected and largely unaccountable bureaucrats in our intelligence (and other parts of the Executive) who presume to run the government, and don't like being threatened or challenged. Love him or hate him, President Trump represents a very clear end to the current power structure if he is successful, and they will do every thing they can to topple him and maintain the current order. The entire purpose of the CIA is to disseminate disinformation, and overthrow governments. Their central involvement here is very telling. These are terrifying times, as we are currently witnessing an ongoing attempted coup d'état being staged by the deep state against a democratically elected President. This isn't about Trump vs. Democrats vs. Republicans. It's about the very foundation our nation rests on, and the reality that our "Great Experiment" is in very grave danger of being over.

You're right. You don't owe me anything. You owe it to yourself not to be an intellectual coward, and to defend the words you use. I'll also note that you weren't able to dispute a single thing I presented in my fourth bullet point: - Seth Rich was murdered in the timeline of the Wikileaks release. - His murder was presumed to be a robbery gone wrong, though nothing was missing from his body. - Wikileaks has made claims through two different individuals that the DNC information did not come from the Russians, but rather came from Rich. Stop being a hack and a coward.

No, you made an accusation. I'll now ask you to either defend it, or retract it.

Anything having to do with the expansion or contraction of Medicare/caid would be considered to have serious budgetary impacts though, no?

Who are "my guys"? Who are "the guys I will never accept facts from"?

The law itself was passed through reconciliation, so I can see no reason it couldn't be replaced through reconciliation. It's not something I recommend, as it subverts Constitutional processes; I'm just speaking to "could" as opposed to "should".

1) I'm asking you because you responded to my post. 2) I presented fact. Seth Rich was murdered in what was described as a robbery, though nothing was removed from his body. Wikileaks has said that Rich was the individual who provided them with the emails.

They can do it through reconciliation. Thanks again, Harry Reid.

I'll ask you four questions: - What evidence has been provided that the Russians supplied Wikileaks with the DNC emails? - What reason(s) do you have for not believing Wikileaks account of their obtaining the information in question? - What has the Intelligence Community, whose primary job it is to disseminate disinformation (lie), and overthrow democratically elected governments, done to earn your trust? - Why was the murder of a DNC staffer quickly swept under the rug as a robbery when nothing was missing from the corpse?

There has never been any proof offered that the DNC's email was hacked, much less that it was hacked by the Russians. Wikileaks has stated, through to different sources, that they did not receive the emails from the Russians. The DNC wasn't hacked, it was leaked by a high level DNC staffer who was fed up with the corruption, and was then assassinated.

You're more obtuse than a 140 degree angle, and given your second paragraph, you're a complete fraud as well given that you can't pin down what makes the "black experience" so unique that it would be worth discussing. Name the racist institutions, and then explain how and why they are racist.

If being held in contempt of congress wasn't enough for Holder to resign, this certainly isn't enough to force Sessions hand.

I'm in

Welcome back bud.

Speaker Ryan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3NHt_07UrI

Not a chance. Eric Holder was held in contempt of congress for Pete's sake and he didn't resign. I don't even believe that he should have recused himself.