TakeYouToTasker

It is standard operating procedure for sitting members of the Armed Services Committee to speak with ambassadors of other nations. Sessions spoke with ambassadors of 25 different nations last year, and the contacts he had with the Russians were not as surrogates for the Trump administration. There was no Trump administration at that point. The first contact was in January 2016, and the second in September 2016. Is your assertion that Sessions should have been clairvoyant and stopped doing the job he was elected to do in anticipation that a) Donald Trump would be elected President, and b) that President Trump would then name him AG?

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you just not know the difference between individual racists and institutional racism? Institutional racism, which no longer exists, would impact the group that was being systematically discriminated against. Individual racists impacts are very limited, and impact only individuals; and given that there are individuals of all races who are racist, these experiences are not unique to the blacks. And again, I'll note you haven't responded to this: "Map out "the black experience" for me. Be sure to include specific details about how the experiences of Colon Powell's children are more similar to those of a black inner city child than to those of James Mattis, and how the experiences of a black child of a single mother living in a trailer park in Alabama are vastly different from those of a white child of a single mother living in a trailer park in Louisiana."

And ignoring, of course, that it's part of the role of a Senator sitting on the Armed Services Committee, to meet with ambassadors of other nations.

In the era of institutional racism, there was merit to the discussion of life experiences with those who shared systemic oppression. However, now that the yoke of systemic oppression has ended, and has been dead for decades, the differences among us are related to socio-economic causes rather than racial ones. No one circumstances, in today's America, are because of the color of their skin. The color of a persons skin is superficial and meaningless, when viewed in context with a persons upbringing and choices. So, unless you are saying that being black biologically causes a difference in an individuals choices, and the choices of their parents (and I'll ask you to defend that argument) then it's a socio-economic issue entirely. I'll also note that you chose not to respond to this: "Map out "the black experience" for me. Be sure to include specific details about how the experiences of Colon Powell's children are more similar to those of a black inner city child than to those of James Mattis, and how the experiences of a black child of a single mother living in a trailer park in Alabama are vastly different from those of a white child of a single mother living in a trailer park in Louisiana." I'll ask you to do so now.

OK, wise ass. Map out "the black experience" for me. Be sure to include specific details about how the experiences of Colon Powell's children are more similar to those of a black inner city child than to those of James Mattis, and how the experiences of a black child of a single mother living in a trailer park in Alabama are vastly different from those of a white child of a single mother living in a trailer park in Louisiana. The life experiences are so much more closely tied to socio-economics, that racial threads become superficial. Any argument against is one that insists one race is inferior in it's ability to succeed. Again, I'm interested in individuals, not groups. Your argument seems to be much more ugly.

It's wiki, so proceed with caution.

Warren Buffett and Steve Forbes are free to be wrong as much as they'd like, though I'd still caution you against making fallacious appeal to authority arguments. I'll also remind you that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

No, it's because unlike racists, I'm not interested in the color of anyone's skin, nor do I package people into neat little boxes. I'm interested in individuals, not groups. Skin color doesn't matter.

Again, I'll point out that the top 1% pay 50% of the federal burden. They are currently being taxed far beyond their ability to consume services. That is inequitable.

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.

The tax code is not biased towards the wealthy. The top 1% of earners pay nearly 50% of the entire federal burden. Even more hilarious, the top 40% of earners pay 106% of the federal burden while the bottom 40% of earners pay -9%. Negative nine percent. The tax code is structured in a way that it is used to incentivize certain types of behavior, and disincentivize other behaviors. If one considers it wise to seek to incentivize large scale private investment in the economy, then it makes sense to have lower taxes on investments.

Race doesn't matter. It has zero value. I don't care where you come from. I care if you have acceptable social skills, a good work ethic, a strong moral foundation, a belief in community. That's it. Nothing else matters. To paraphrase Morgan Freeman: "I want you to stop calling me a black man, and I'm going to stop calling you a white man. Call me Morgan."

My view on paying taxes is that if you don't pay your taxes you can't spend your money, so make sure you stay on the right said of the laws in place. With that said, taxation is immoral when it is compulsory. The only sort of taxation which even approaches justice is a consumption tax, which allows to citizen to control his tax burden through buying habits. a) You shouldn't be being taxed for those services. Those services shouldn't exist. b) Why would you want to use those services? They are drastically inferior to market based products available to consumers. Social Security, for example, forcibly takes earning from you, and pays you out a much lower rate of return than you may have experienced in the market. It also does great harm to the creation of intergenerational wealth, as unlike many private sector investment vehicles, cannot be passed along to beneficiaries. Stick with this argument. But since we do, we should make it as ****ty as possible for as many people as possible? That's horrible logic. Individuals have a huge say in their own health, health care, and health insurance through the choices they make. Those who make worse choices trend towards worse outcomes. And the games aren't political. Health care is a commodity. It is owned by individual actors who create the product. By nationalizing it you make slaves of men. It is immoral. No, you don't. You're a revisionist who enjoys grandstanding, and cannot refute a single thing posted in opposition. This is par for the course with you. Do better.

Please explain to me how using the force of armed government agents to remove my justly earned property and handing it over to someone they deem to be more deserving is moral. Then explain how forcing more individuals into this system of state dependency is more moral.

Yes. Immoral. As I said upthread: Because it both a) redistributes resources from those who have earned them to those who have not presuming to steal from them, and b) because it reduces the quality of care and access to doctors for all Americans.

No, the problem is seeing race. Race is not something to be proud of, as an individual does absolutely nothing to earn their race. Race is not an achievement. When race is not ignored, all it becomes is a way to separate and divide. A way to make us more different, and less the same. A wedge to drive between us, and a reason not to have a shared culture. Race clings to a bitter and divided past, and provides no way forward.

The massive rise of deductibles was a direct result of moving from a true insurance model to a non-insurance model which demands pre-paying for all care for every condition. It was inevitable. Imagine what would happen to home insurance costs if it was required to cover "pre-existing conditions" on homes that had already burned down, or what the costs of life insurance might be driven to if insurers were required to newly insure individuals with stage four pancreatic cancer. The rest of this paragraph is pure bunk, as it ignores supply and demand as well as human motivation: health care is a commodity relying on finite resources. Increasing the demand for health care while putting pressures on health care providers which chases them from the industry reducing supply leads to cost increases and rationing. Medicare reimbursement rates many times don't cover the costs of administering care which leads to dwindling compensation for care providers, which drives doctors out of the industry, and discourages new would-be doctors from entering the field. Because it both a) redistributes resources from those who have earned them to those who have not, and b) because it reduces the quality of care and access to doctors for all Americans. This is both revisionist, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the American system of government. President Obama did not try to involve Republicans. He did the opposite. This was a bill which was passed purely on party lines, and did not require or receive a single Republican vote to pass; while at the same time there was bi-partisan rejection of the effort, with 39 House Democrats voting against. This is because Americans had rejected the idea, as evidenced by Massachusetts, a liberal strong hold, electing a Republican to the late Senator Ted Kennedy's former seat simply because he campaigned on being the deciding vote to block the law in the Senate. It wasn't about Republicans blocking the implementation of single payer, it was about America rejecting the idea. Further, it's not about "getting things done", it's about the Constitutional process, checks and balances, and the proper role of government. The system is specifically designed to thwart "strong men" who wish to impose their will on the country. Explain to me in great detail how Republicans, who didn't have a say in the process, sabotaged a bill entirely designed and passed by Democrats, without any Republican input or votes. And now Republicans own it? How? Republicans did what they were elected to do by the people who represent them. Your assertions that Republicans were required to buy into a socialist platform of they were morally bankrupt is equally absurd as your notion that Republicans own a bill that they never touched.

Not only is Medicare for all a drastic reduction in quality of care, and a massive expansion of the state, it's also immoral.

Nah, your post was a largely objective post. You would have spoiled it by opining that deeply.

The Democratic Party has no bench. The over the last 6 years they have hemorrhaged seats in local and state governments, and have lost both the Senate and House. They have no fresh faces, and can't exactly trot out Nancy Pelosi.

What the hell was he thinking?!?!?

Whenever I use a fast food drive through, I just tell them to give me whatever they want. When they ask why I tell them it's because that's exactly what they're going to do anyway, and that by asking for it, I'll be less disappointed.

We did not "lurch right" after 9/11. We lurched left. Big Government statism is left. George W. Bush was a liberal Republican.

I'm not talking about educating public sector employees. I'm talking about mandating basic finance and household budgeting classes at every grade level post-arithmetic.

It's not legal anywhere in the United States. It's prohibited at the Federal level.