TakeYouToTasker

This is nothing other than another heavy heaping of leftists "I know what's best for you-ism". Much like the advent of child labor laws (child labor was nearly completely done away with organically when they were passed, and those children who were working were doing so because if they didn't their families would starve), all this serves to do is hurt poor people in the name of making ***** feel better about themselves. Retail box stores are dying, and Black Friday sales are one of their biggest days every year. Retailers need to have events like this in order to keep their doors open. If they don't keep their doors open the jobs that they offer to the unskilled work force will go away.

If it doesn't come, then the government is illegitimate; and it's time to be done with it.

Again, explain how the two instances are in any way similar. Had Hillary Clinton done exactly what Ivanka Trump did no one would be making a big deal out of it. But she didn't. You're doing mental gymnastics to equate two things that are entirely dissimilar, and I'm requiring that you stick the landing.

That's an entirely separate conversation (and an assertion I disagree with, but that's another topic for another thread),

From CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ivanka-trump-emails-used-personal-email-address-for-government-business/ Now, if you would be so kind, please explain how that is in any way remotely similar to a Secretary of State conducting official business on a secret private server held at a private location, with Congress intentionally denied access to the server, and many email records destroyed. for the purpose of circumventing FOIA. I'll wait.

Debt, and leveraging those competing interests against each other, requiring more borrowing, and creating more debt.

When you control the money supply and wealth of a nation, you control that nation.

If a Presidential Administration had placed an incredibly high priority on breaking up and ending a global human trafficking ring run at the highest levels by bad actors in what were considered totalitarian dictatorships, and sought to avoid a full scale world war in the process; would it not make complete sense that he would seek to help them first break loose of chains binding those actors themselves which tied them to those trafficking routines, and then to help them purge out the true bad actors within? Even if it meant forging relationships with individuals/nations whom may still have human rights abuses, so long as it worked on a macro level towards the end goals of eliminating modern slavery? The truth is that if we want to end human trafficking, we have to make strong ties with the leaders of nations who had been the most heavily involved, and give them a way out. We cannot isolate them and find a way forward. We need to bring those nations towards us, even if there are pain points along the way.

I went through both prompts, one with a liberal and one with a conservative. The response to the liberal was to agree with them, the response with the conservative was to try to get them to undermine themselves.

There are no winners in a civil war. Even those who "win" lose almost everything.

Yep.

You're very welcome, and unfortunately I'm not convinced that you're wrong. I'm pretty sure we'll have shooting in our streets within the next 6 years.

My pleasure, you're quite welcome. It's a condensed version of a talk given by former KGB agent and Russian defector, Yuri Bezmenov, in 1983. The full speech is terrific, if you have the time, but I thought the condensed version would work much better for the tl;dr culture of message boards. You can see the full talk here:

Stop being a POS.

This ***** made 100% of the decisions that led her to this place herself.

Political posturing seeking to further delegitimize the President and his government. Some activist court will issue a stay, with the ruling based on the absurd, and will do so after the declass, which the media will then use to spin as illegitimate in the same way they went after those who leaked Clinton's emails, ignoring what was in them. That will be the story. That the SCOTUS eventually overturns the stay will be irrelevant, other than to demonstrate that the Supreme Court is illegitimate.

If she decides to sue them, there's definitely a counter activism group who would be willing to bankroll the suit. I hope she does. Companies need to be punched in the checkbook for kowtowing to this sort of thing. The left is certainly doing so to date, which means at this point companies like Chipotle cave to this sort of stuff because their bottom line is only being impacted in one direction. If the law permits, make them pay as high a price as possible, and maybe, just maybe, they'll start doing the right thing.

I could be wrong, but I think they recently made that illegal?

No, no... That's a lie. Here, I'll help you: "This is the kind of consensus we need in politics." Speak to that.

And you'd be right, but then you got into the idea of consensus, then took it a step further, assigning an implied belief structure to that group, and spoke to it pejoratively. I'm not going to let you run from this. Let's talk about precisely what you were getting at here.

Liberals, please take note: These are not "brown people", as you're so keen to label them. These are individuals with disparate and distinct national identities and histories.

White's make up roughly 63% of the US population, and males make up the overwhelming majority of fans of the NFL. What do you expect? Also, why does it matter?

He thinks so.

It's your job, as the question posed was yours; and it's impossible to answer unless you're specific about who you're talking about. This shouldn't be hard. Define "middle class".