TakeYouToTasker

Well... Roe v Wade has made abortions legal, so it's not that... Paying for someone else's abortion is legal, so it's not that... Paying someone not to talk about having an abortion is legal, so it's not that... So, the FBI having possession of documents related to three perfectly legal things, which only have value in the political arena, and using them as leverage over the sitting President... I think I've found the thing that's legally problematic in what you've presented!

He doesn't think that. He's interested in changes which shift us away from republicanism and push the country towards his Marxist belief system, and this is one such change.

I appreciate the thoughtful discussion as well. We need more of that here.

What I said about President Trump was predictive. I believe there is mounting evidence that our government is being returned to The People as bad actors within our government, and those external of our government who pull the strings are being put down. I am convinced, that as the prosecution of these bad actors occurs, and what they were doing comes to light, that history will view President Trump as a great man. I also believe that his election was, in part, a rebuke of New York and California by "flyover country"; and that the response by people opposed to the President are demonstrating why we should no longer live together.

I believe the division to be understated. The division exists between those who are politically active, which are the only voices that matter. Donald Trump is our President.

Look at the political realities of the day. We're on the doorstep of civil war.

Again, I'm not talking about culture in the way I believe you think I am. I am talking about core belief systems about the way people should live, and how they should be governed. People are people when they are at the bar having a drink, or when they are at the playground with their kids, but when they start talking about how we should live, and the proper role of government, it all falls apart. We are reaching the point of incompatibility of belief systems in ways that cannot be reconciled.

California exiting the United States is a recommendation for Californians who feel that they are under represented in our government. I am of the opinion that America is too large, and too culturally diverse to be represented by a single federal government. Many Californians desire a federal government lacking the constraints our Constitution demands. There is a philisophical impasse in play. As such, Californians may be better served by severing the ties binding them to the United States, and instituting a government more in line with their beliefs. As much as I don't think California should have the authority to dictate to vastly different cultures in other states how they should live; I don't believe California should be dictated to either, and as such, it may be time for them to leave. The Union should not be treated as a death pact. When in no longer serves the interests of the several parties, it should be disolved.

A reminder: this is the sort of thing one can expect from a government that doesn't recognize the natural rights of it's citizens as sacrosanct.

I oppose, in principle, ideas that move us closer to a democracy than a republic, and this is one such move. The purpose of such a move would be to weaken the electoral and legislative power of the middle of the country, leading directly to a situation in which what we currently call red states are dictated to by California and New York. A better solution would be for California to simply exit the United States, and to abolish the 17th Amendment.

Echoing Greg, I emplor you to consider the notion that Assad, corrupt as he may be is a rational actor towards his ends. It it does not serve any discernible interest of Assad, or Russia, for Assad to have done this. This attack runs counter to their interests. Do not urge a rush to war. Do not send young Americans to kill and be killed by young Syrians over a lie. Hold the people who continue to manipulate you with the deaths of others accountable. Live free.

It cures all the cancer it causes!!!

When it's demonstrated over the coming months that most of the things people believe about the world are lies told to them by their government, and that the things that have formed and shaped their opinions have been staged by bad actors working towards their own ends, we'll find out for sure one way of the other.

As I have long said, process is more important than individual outcomes. A bureaucratic regulatory state is more in-line with a monarchy or other form of dictatorship than a free society. Defacto law should never be created by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats; because it justifies the actions of tyrants, and separates the people from the power which rules over them

He has been tasked with returning the organization to the role it was chartered for: clean air and clean water. The President is working to put an end to the unaccountable regulatory state, and to make congress responsible for the creation of law again. This serves multiple purposes, including: a return to the rule of law, making the government directly accountable to the citizens, subjecting Congressmen and Senators to voting records which has the potential to act as a defacto term limit.

I'll just say that I don't think this is a particularly great way to approach the discussion with an individual who is willing to have an honest debate with you over ideas.

I'll point out that Grant's belief that people ignorant of the ideas being discussed should be encouraged to have strong opinions about them and seek out legislation to those ends is a horrible idea. We don't need people legislating things they don't understand, being led around by their noses by people driving agendas. We need an informed citizenry. We need to challenge people to become experts on all sides of subjects which they care about, and only then to voice strong opinions. The situation Grant describes as ideal is a ground made fertile for bad actors, painting themselves as experts, to herd people like lemmings into situations they don't understand because they have been told to do so. Governing by emotional, angry mob who don't understand the issue is a terrible idea, will lead to nothing but violence, and is the antithesis of a free society. Important to note: in the same post Grant celebrates governance via ignorance, and the outsourcing of critical thinking; he also tells you whom the experts are that you need to believe, while summarily dismissing the experts on the other side of the issue as evil. Consider how dangerous this is. He tells you not to bother understanding all sides of the issue, then tells you what to think, and who to believe. And what he's telling you to do is to surrender not only your rights, but the rights of all Americans including those of your children, and the rights of billions of Americans not yet born. But you should trust him. And you should be passionate and unthinking in your devotion.

Which is to say nothing on the fact that the leak itself is felonious.

It's because he's a ****ty person, Azalin. An actual ****ty person who takes enjoyment from treating other people poorly. That's who he is, as that's how he has chosen to be defined through his own actions. It's no one's fault but his own, since it's the badge he elected to pin to his own chest. He'll likely laugh in response to this, or make some snide comment bragging about how he doesn't care about the people here; which is his prerogative, but marks him as having low character.

Anyone making the argument that they prefer to be propagandized by organizations which better confirm to their biases isn't winning anything. They're just displaying how stupid they are. Edit: Gary laughs, but he only dumber position than the one above is the one which finds that particular line of reasoning to be convincing.

... How do you think Facebook makes money?. Seriously? You have no idea how they make money do you? They're a data-mining company. The product they procure for their clients is information.. They sell the information they mine to individuals and entities who find it useful to their own ends. Be that other businesses, political campaigns, governments. Whoever, really.

Yes, he posted about Manafort's legal challenge last week.

I think I wasn't being clear when I spoke of "culture". I was more speaking to political cultures and histories. I, and most others I would imagine, couldn't care less about a person's manner of dress, what holidays they observe, what sorts of wedding ceremonies they prefer/require, etc. What I care deeply about is if, and how, their core belief structures differ from those of traditional America. Are those cultures compatible with ours. I hope that makes more sense.