TakeYouToTasker

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

It's always been blatantly obvious. It's the entire purpose of the two party system. The system is designed to marginalize anyone outside of the existing power structure, and to protect monied interests. This is true of both the Republican and Democratic Parties. Look at what's been happening in regards to the delegate count between Sanders and Clinton. This is a feature, not a flaw.

Of course they're more interested in maintaining their status quo. That's the purpose of a political party.

Yeah, did you see where Trump mentioned how jobs were leaving New Jersey and headed elsewhere, and Christie very animatedly shook his head and mouthed "no"? That was hilarious.

You've missed the entire point, and have simply restated when you believe someone should have unrestricted access to unlimited care. Please, answer the question I'm very directly asking you: what philosophy are you appealing to when you say something is a right?

So, you're going to engage in attempting to redefine what rights are, while advocating for the nullification of natural rights, and then try to make a hasty escape claiming I'm getting hung up on sementics? !@#$ you. Appeal to Tyranny? You're a !@#$ing dope. Again, what philosophy are you appealing to when you claim something is a right?

The natural state of man unequivocally includes the right to free speech. The right to an attorney is a statement that government is beholden to a mans natural right to liberty. The franchise is a privilege rather than a right. The whole of your above post is a tacit admission that you don't know what rights are, and I'll prove it to you: what philosophy are you appealing to when you assert that something is a right?

1. It can never be a right, and will always be a privilege, regardless of how you choose to nullify or re-assign the basic meaning of words in the English language. Rights have to do with the natural state of man, and the natural state of man does not include guaranteed health care. 2. You cannot be said to have the right to the fruits of another's labor without first nullifying his rights. Take note that with the action of nullifying his rights, you have declared that no such thing as rights exist, and have named all rights to be privlieges. 3. Further, healthcare is a commodity, and will always be a commodity because it is a resource subject to scarcity. You cannot guarantee people a fundamental right to something that may not exist, because of limited supply.

Trump should get good marks for appealing to the unwashed, emotion driven electorate with a problem focused mentality? Problem focus, even for someone working at McDonald's, is an undesirable, and completely unpromotable trait. There is no value in it. The value is in solutions, or as we call them as relates to Presidential candidates: policy positions. Trump offers no policy positions, and has a history of assuming leftist positions and off supporting others who embrace leftist policy in the past.

Trump will set Republicans back about 20 years at the ballot box, if he doesn't destroy the Party completely. At least a Clinton victory forces the Democratic Party to go down with the ship.

I'll say it again: Figuring the ideal amount of guns is exactly the same amount of political parties. The ideal amount of either in any healthy society is zero. Failing that, the ideal amount in infinite.

I share this sentiment. Burn the whole damn thing down. Trump / Volmemort 2016

A member of the Libertarian Party is a left-leaning libertarian. By and large, what they advocate for are libertarian reforms for socialist programs.

OK... I'm willing to listen. "Bush wasn't a bad President" (fair concession, you "think"... Not absolutes) With that qualifier that he was (paraphrased) "better than President Obama". Do you find President Obama to be a strong qualifying baseline? If so, why? If not, why use him as a baseline?

That's not, in any way, a positive thing to say about a President.

Here is what I believe, and what we practice in my home: The first rule in my household is that you have to do at least one thing that's extra-curricular every season, at least two during the summer, and it has to broad based. It can't be all sports, it can't be all arts, etc. While you are young you are going to expose yourself to a wide range of activities, and involve yourself in a creative and or teamwork setting with lots of different types of people, and you are going to learn about these people, and learn from these people. The second rule is that you aren't allowed to quit until that thing has run it's course (a sport is a full season, a play is a full production, etc.), because your enlisting has created a voluntary dependence and justified expectation on and of you, and you aren't going to waste the time and resources of other people. The third rule is that you will always dedicate yourself fully, and give your very best effort to these things that you have chosen to do. How we approach obstacles and challenges is what ultimately defines us as people and becomes our reputation. You only have one name, and you will be recognized by it for the rest of your life, so you'll always want to keep it looking shiny, clean, and new. It is OK to fail. I expect you to fail; but I also expect you to get back up, dust yourself off, and try again. Just as your work ethic and effort define your reputation, your resilience will build your character. Hopefully, by the time you are done with high school, this experience will have made you: interested in the world around you, hard working, competitive, collaborative, accepting of others and sensitive to who they are people, dependable, and will help you have a keen eye for the things that will and won't interest you as you move forward in to college and adulthood.

It's absolutely amazing to me that people capitulate to this sort of nonsense rather than laughing at them and telling them to grow up.

It also ignores the fact that the indigenous peoples of South and Central America were, in fact, enslaved by the Spanish, and had their cultures appropriated. American Latinos have a partially shared history with black Americans. It also ignores Asia's own long history of slavery.

The Asian and Latino experiences are often cited to discredit CRT be legal experts and judges, as if they needed additional reasons for doing so.

The left preaches meritless diversity. They don't value merited diversity of ideas at all.

Fixed

There's the broken window fallacy emerging again. If war was truly good for an economy, the wisest and most sound national economic strategy would be for the United States and England to build enormous Navies, move them out into the middle of the Atlantic, and sink them.

Then advocate for not paying for their social programs.

No, you are doing exactly that. The entire defense budget of the United States is only roughly three times the size of the annual earnings of a single tech company.

You just compared the earnings of a single company to the entire comprehensive defense budget of the United States. You are both litterally and figuratively comparing Apples to airplanes here.