Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[dckingsfan]

You guys are just snowflakes, man.

I take issue with snowflake. Please, use yellow-belly namby-pamby candy-ass sissy please.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I definitely think it’s a both parties issue. Although I usually vote R I have to hold my nose when I do so most of the time. D’s are worse in most ways but R’s deserve plenty of severe criticism for the Iraq war and out of control spending to name just two of the most recent mistakes.

Let's put it this way, I don't think the Ds are wrong on most issues but I think that's entirely beside the point because it's subjective and the differences aren't nearly so pronounced. There are, of course, a few exceptions, like the abortion warriors who aren't at all interested in preventing abortions but are very interested in criminalizing it and blaming those women that ever consider it. But those are far closer to single issue voters who then frequently allow their views to be colored by that one single issue that they clearly see as a yes/no question.

The reality is that regardless of whether a person sees the Rs or Ds as better or worse on any particular issue, because again, that's the subjective part and where the parties balance things out a bit. The bigger issue is where the Rs go waaaaaaaaaay wrong - so far that it isn't even close. Those upper class tax cuts were utterly ridiculous, reckless and dangerous. And it's not even about the Ds being right on issues, for example. The Ds aren't particularly good on the environment in general. The Rs have gone so far off the rails on the environment that it's confounding. There are no winners in climate change. It's not a zero sum game and even the idea of one can't be forced on the topic. Winning in the climate change race is going to be like winning the southeast division in the NBA. Getting involved in wars unnecessarily is so far out of line it's ridiculous, and it isn't like the Democrats are always in the right there, either, it's just that the Ds have decided that not only are they not going to bother even trying to check the Ds weak spots, but they're going to counter and go the other way so far that it's a major problem. That's the problem and the difference that goes beyond both sides. I know it probably feels to you that I'm a Democrat at this point. I'm really not. Objectively, though, there is a major difference.

[closg00]

Trump very very likely DID rape a 13 year old girl. Her press conference on the eve of the election was cancelled due to death threats. White America is so racist and sexist they elected someone who would at the very least garner probable cause for being a child rapist. Think on that.

I recall this, I wonder if this victim will have the courage to come-forward now that there is an opportunity to step-out from the shadows.

[daoneandonly]

I definitely think it’s a both parties issue. Although I usually vote R I have to hold my nose when I do so most of the time. D’s are worse in most ways but R’s deserve plenty of severe criticism for the Iraq war and out of control spending to name just two of the most recent mistakes.

Let's put it this way, I don't think the Ds are wrong on most issues but I think that's entirely beside the point because it's subjective and the differences aren't nearly so pronounced. There are, of course, a few exceptions, like the abortion warriors who aren't at all interested in preventing abortions but are very interested in criminalizing it and blaming those women that ever consider it. But those are far closer to single issue voters who then frequently allow their views to be colored by that one single issue that they clearly see as a yes/no question.

The reality is that regardless of whether a person sees the Rs or Ds as better or worse on any particular issue, because again, that's the subjective part and where the parties balance things out a bit. The bigger issue is where the Rs go waaaaaaaaaay wrong - so far that it isn't even close. Those upper class tax cuts were utterly ridiculous, reckless and dangerous. And it's not even about the Ds being right on issues, for example. The Ds aren't particularly good on the environment in general. The Rs have gone so far off the rails on the environment that it's confounding. There are no winners in climate change. It's not a zero sum game and even the idea of one can't be forced on the topic. Winning in the climate change race is going to be like winning the southeast division in the NBA. Getting involved in wars unnecessarily is so far out of line it's ridiculous, and it isn't like the Democrats are always in the right there, either, it's just that the Ds have decided that not only are they not going to bother even trying to check the Ds weak spots, but they're going to counter and go the other way so far that it's a major problem. That's the problem and the difference that goes beyond both sides. I know it probably feels to you that I'm a Democrat at this point. I'm really not. Objectively, though, there is a major difference.

Once again never fails, any opportunity you get to paint a person having an abortion as a victim, you run with it.

So what about Dems who want to punish people for simply being successful via taxes? Because apparently success and wealth is now a crime and those who fall in that category should be forced to give up some of theirs for others via some outlandish progressive tax system.

The fix to the tax problem is easy, a fixed tax rate across the board, everyone is treated equally and fairly, much more simplistic, and much more compliance.

[gtn130]

So what about Dems who want to punish people for simply being successful via taxes?

This is a very poor attempt at understanding the motivations behind Dem policy positions.

[pancakes3]

Our system of government is unworkable because of several major SC decisions (thanks to D appointments) that allowed congress to spend money in areas previously reserved to the states and to buy votes of their favored constituents. The government was intended to have limited and enumerated powers but SC changed all that and now there is no going back. If you want to identify the single most influential cause of our government disfunction that was it IMO.

There's no going back from... 1819? McCollough v Maryland was decided in 1819, the seminal case re: limits on enumerated powers.

Or are you talking about social safety nets like food stamps (1931), social security (1935), Medicare/Medicaid (1965); e.g. programs have been around for decades and the government seemed to be perfectly workable in spite of it?

Maybe you're referencing Sebelius, the Obamacare case, where the Court ruled that Congress did NOT have the power to mandate that people purchase health insurance. It did however, have the power to tax people who did not have insurance, and the power to tax is an enumerated power.

In any event, between the enumerated power to tax, the power to spend, and the power to regulate interstate commerce, that pretty much gives Congress to do just about everything. Unless you're calling for a world that has no federal prison system, since the enumerated powers only allow for the federal punishment of pirates and counterfeiters.

So what about Dems who want to punish people for simply being successful via taxes? Because apparently success and wealth is now a crime and those who fall in that category should be forced to give up some of theirs for others via some outlandish progressive tax system.

The fix to the tax problem is easy, a fixed tax rate across the board, everyone is treated equally and fairly, much more simplistic, and much more compliance.

Making money is an inaccurate measure of "success." We need successful teachers, plumbers, and artists, the same as we need successful wall street brokers. The fact that someone decided to go into finance, rather than teaching doesn't intrinsically make that person more successful. In fact, if you look at the amounts of some of the golden parachutes handed out to objectively unsuccessful CEOs, the idea that wealth is a proxy to success becomes even more ill-fitting.

Plus, progressive tax system isn't outlandish, and tracks fairly straight forward with the classical economics notion of diminishing returns.

[closg00]

Who will Jeff Epstein give-up to avoid spending the rest of his life in jail?

[popper]

Our system of government is unworkable because of several major SC decisions (thanks to D appointments) that allowed congress to spend money in areas previously reserved to the states and to buy votes of their favored constituents. The government was intended to have limited and enumerated powers but SC changed all that and now there is no going back. If you want to identify the single most influential cause of our government disfunction that was it IMO.

There's no going back from... 1819? McCollough v Maryland was decided in 1819, the seminal case re: limits on enumerated powers.

Or are you talking about social safety nets like food stamps (1931), social security (1935), Medicare/Medicaid (1965); e.g. programs have been around for decades and the government seemed to be perfectly workable in spite of it?

Maybe you're referencing Sebelius, the Obamacare case, where the Court ruled that Congress did NOT have the power to mandate that people purchase health insurance. It did however, have the power to tax people who did not have insurance, and the power to tax is an enumerated power.

In any event, between the enumerated power to tax, the power to spend, and the power to regulate interstate commerce, that pretty much gives Congress to do just about everything. Unless you're calling for a world that has no federal prison system, since the enumerated powers only allow for the federal punishment of pirates and counterfeiters.

So what about Dems who want to punish people for simply being successful via taxes? Because apparently success and wealth is now a crime and those who fall in that category should be forced to give up some of theirs for others via some outlandish progressive tax system.

The fix to the tax problem is easy, a fixed tax rate across the board, everyone is treated equally and fairly, much more simplistic, and much more compliance.

Making money is an inaccurate measure of "success." We need successful teachers, plumbers, and artists, the same as we need successful wall street brokers. The fact that someone decided to go into finance, rather than teaching doesn't intrinsically make that person more successful. In fact, if you look at the amounts of some of the golden parachutes handed out to objectively unsuccessful CEOs, the idea that wealth is a proxy to success becomes even more ill-fitting.

Plus, progressive tax system isn't outlandish, and tracks fairly straight forward with the classical economics notion of diminishing returns.

Helvering v. Davis was the beginning of the end for fiscal responsibility. Because of this decision we are destined to spend our way into oblivion. I see no other path. I’m sure you can see it too if you try.

$21 Trillion in debt
Trillion dollar deficits
Medicare and Social Security facing significant shortfalls
Many other unfunded govt promises
Indenturing of future generations so we can live better today

We’ll never go back so I simply advise my children of the inevitable fiscal calamities ahead and try to help them develop a financial strategy to survive and endure when the bills come due.

[pancakes3]

Helvering v. Davis was the beginning of the end for fiscal responsibility. Because of this decision we are destined to spend our way into oblivion. I see no other path. I’m sure you can see it too if you try.

$21 Trillion in debt
Trillion dollar deficits
Medicare and Social Security facing significant shortfalls
Many other unfunded govt promises
Indenturing of future generations so we can live better today

We’ll never go back so I simply advise my children of the inevitable fiscal calamities ahead and try to help them develop a financial strategy to survive and endure when the bills come due.

So you are talking about social security.

We can have a conversation about social security, and spending in general but:

1) don't blame that decision (or spending in general) on partisan judicial activism
2) don't characterize social safety nets as buying votes
3) don't characterize unchecked spending as a systemic flaw of the government that makes it "unworkable"

there are many feasible ways to increase SS funding like getting rid of the earnings cap, raising the age, privatization, means-test eligibility, etc.

but yeah, "we'll never go back" but i think it's weird for you to characterize it as "back" seeing as how you never lived in the time when it "was." like, these social programs were put in place because old people and poor people were dying en masse during the great depression. it was an international emergency. not some liberal conspiracy to get their fingers into your pockets.

but to reiterate, i am a conservative and i believe in fiscal responsibility but i also live in the real world and recognize that not everything was done to screw over rich people. there are sensible ways to achieve fiscal responsibility on a federal level, and it has nothing to do with curbing the liberal agenda, and we can accomplish it without f*cking over poor people. and i think it's a bad look for conservatives pretend that they're the only financially literate people in the room when it comes to spending, especially since the recent track record shows R's as being more reckless with the budget (military).

[daoneandonly]

Helvering v. Davis was the beginning of the end for fiscal responsibility. Because of this decision we are destined to spend our way into oblivion. I see no other path. I’m sure you can see it too if you try.

$21 Trillion in debt
Trillion dollar deficits
Medicare and Social Security facing significant shortfalls
Many other unfunded govt promises
Indenturing of future generations so we can live better today

We’ll never go back so I simply advise my children of the inevitable fiscal calamities ahead and try to help them develop a financial strategy to survive and endure when the bills come due.

So you are talking about social security.

We can have a conversation about social security, and spending in general but:

1) don't blame that decision (or spending in general) on partisan judicial activism
2) don't characterize social safety nets as buying votes
3) don't characterize unchecked spending as a systemic flaw of the government that makes it "unworkable"

there are many feasible ways to increase SS funding like getting rid of the earnings cap, raising the age, privatization, means-test eligibility, etc.

but yeah, "we'll never go back" but i think it's weird for you to characterize it as "back" seeing as how you never lived in the time when it "was." like, these social programs were put in place because old people and poor people were dying en masse during the great depression. it was an international emergency. not some liberal conspiracy to get their fingers into your pockets.

but to reiterate, i am a conservative and i believe in fiscal responsibility but i also live in the real world and recognize that not everything was done to screw over rich people. there are sensible ways to achieve fiscal responsibility on a federal level, and it has nothing to do with curbing the liberal agenda, and we can accomplish it without f*cking over poor people. and i think it's a bad look for conservatives pretend that they're the only financially literate people in the room when it comes to spending, especially since the recent track record shows R's as being more reckless with the budget (military).

How would a flat tax screw over poor ppl? They pay the same percentage everyone else does, but still less in total since its a % of their income.

And to your other point, okay success may not have been the best choice of words, but there is an obvious agenda by the likes of sanders, warren, kamala, and aoc to punish those who have more for no reason whatsoever

[pancakes3]

Helvering v. Davis was the beginning of the end for fiscal responsibility. Because of this decision we are destined to spend our way into oblivion. I see no other path. I’m sure you can see it too if you try.

$21 Trillion in debt
Trillion dollar deficits
Medicare and Social Security facing significant shortfalls
Many other unfunded govt promises
Indenturing of future generations so we can live better today

We’ll never go back so I simply advise my children of the inevitable fiscal calamities ahead and try to help them develop a financial strategy to survive and endure when the bills come due.

So you are talking about social security.

We can have a conversation about social security, and spending in general but:

1) don't blame that decision (or spending in general) on partisan judicial activism
2) don't characterize social safety nets as buying votes
3) don't characterize unchecked spending as a systemic flaw of the government that makes it "unworkable"

there are many feasible ways to increase SS funding like getting rid of the earnings cap, raising the age, privatization, means-test eligibility, etc.

but yeah, "we'll never go back" but i think it's weird for you to characterize it as "back" seeing as how you never lived in the time when it "was." like, these social programs were put in place because old people and poor people were dying en masse during the great depression. it was an international emergency. not some liberal conspiracy to get their fingers into your pockets.

but to reiterate, i am a conservative and i believe in fiscal responsibility but i also live in the real world and recognize that not everything was done to screw over rich people. there are sensible ways to achieve fiscal responsibility on a federal level, and it has nothing to do with curbing the liberal agenda, and we can accomplish it without f*cking over poor people. and i think it's a bad look for conservatives pretend that they're the only financially literate people in the room when it comes to spending, especially since the recent track record shows R's as being more reckless with the budget (military).

How would a flat tax screw over poor ppl? They pay the same percentage everyone else does, but still less in total since its a % of their income.

And to your other point, okay success may not have been the best choice of words, but there is an obvious agenda by the likes of sanders, warren, kamala, and aoc to punish those who have more for no reason whatsoever

you want to have a conversation about taxes but you're quoting a discussion about spending. tax policy is different than spending policy. there are overlaps but there are also factors that are unique to each.

but yes, there is an agenda in having a progressive tax system, but it's not to punish rich people. when someone slips on something, and grabs your arm for support, they're not punishing you for not slipping. they just need help.

and it's fine for you to individually disagree and say "i don't want to help people that slip." but it's stupid to say "people that want to help people that slip clearly have an agenda to punish people who don't slip for no reason."

but also recognize the argument re: diminishing returns, and the concept that we're trying to target taxation on disposable income rather than money needed to cover necessities, etc. before further engaging.

a lot of smart people have thought about stuff like this, and this stuff is really complex.

i understand the desire and affinity to simple, elegant solutions but often, there are no easy answers. a flat tax may sound good, and sound fair, but there are many reasons why it's not.

[doclinkin]

How would a flat tax screw over poor ppl? They pay the same percentage everyone else does, but still less in total since its a % of their income.

A flat tax is regressive because the less income you have the greater % of it you spend on necessities.

If you’re making 10 bucks an hour and a gallon of milk cost four bucks, then basic food needs are a huge chunk of what your work day pays for. The same is not true as you go up in income levels. Now If milk cost proportionately expensive for rich people, well sure then a flat tax would be fair. But it doesn’t. So a flat tax means the people who have the least feel the hit the hardest.

If a rich person loses 30% of a billion dollars it sounds like a lot of money. And it is. But they literally can afford it. Their light bill is not in danger of going unpaid just so they can buy gas for their car and get to work. Choices like that are made every day by everyday working folks.

The point of society is what? The point of civilization. Of government. To me I think the founding documents state it pretty clearly. Government exists to promote the general welfare. Meaning to make sure in general people aren’t fighting a losing battle just to make it thru day to day.

Rich people have tax loopholes and largesse and pork and benefits and lawyers and politicians bought and sold who protect their interests. Poor people are too stressed and busy to pay attention to all that. They can’t pay someone to pay attention to it for them. By accident of birth or bad luck or opportunities they were not gifted with the advantages that let them turn hard work into generational wealth. Like Trump inherited. The ability to go bankrupt multiple times and be rescued by his daddy’s money. Society has already looked out for wealthy folk and they have benefited. It’s not wrong for there to be a guiding hand that says: good, yes, America has given you wealth and reward for your work, but in doing so we ask you to give back a portion in thanks. To support the country that disproportionately rewarded you. No child should starve to death. No family should have to choose between food and electricity.

So. The bargain between governance and capitalism is the idea that ambition is the horse that pulls. To whom much is given much is expected. Wealthy people literally can afford to give more. Without it harming them. The point is not to make sure all people have the same stuff. But to make sure there is a baseline level below which people do not fall. So that hard times do not mean mass death and unrest and revolt. Violent redistribution of wealth. That we agree instead to be civilized and look out for people. Even sometimes people who have hit hard times or made mistakes. In America we sell the redemption story. People can learn and improve and make better choices. If they’re only given a little bit of hope. A chance. And so we try to create institutions that help give people that second chance. Or as many chances as us needed to keep striving. Or for their kids to at least.

Otherwise, what is a country for? Why have roads and police and schools and libraries. And not revolution and revolt and anarchy and private armies and strongmen and all the bullshxt you’d see from those ”shxthole countries” who have not been able to look out for the least among them. From whose streets you get people with the drive to travel thousands of miles overseas from India. Mexico. Salvador. Haiti. To show up here and work menial jobs just so that their children can get free education and hospital care and all of the advantages this country has earned and been able to share with the least of us. To institutionalize the concept that sees a man struggling and says “there, but for the grace of God, go I”, and understands you have to tax selfishness sometimes, even if it complains about it, in order to form that more perfect union. Establish justice. And all those high ideals upon which our country was founded.

[Zonkerbl]

I think someone who uses "totalitarian" to describe the views described on this board needs to have his head examined.

C'mon man. Where's the civility?

[dckingsfan]

[Zonkerbl]

I saw this video with the sound turned down on the metro and was like, aw man this guy's a douche. Then it turns out he's flipping out because women on dating apps are being dismissive of him because he's short. I can imagine being bullied all your young life about being short and having a complex about it. So I was a little sympathetic at first. But dude, you clearly have anger issues. Deal with those first maybe. Anyway you should be thankful women who are super shallow and not worth being in a relationship with are being honest with you.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ywy7vw/man-yells-in-bagel-shop-because-women-on-dating-sites-dont-like-short-guys

[Zonkerbl]

OMG liberal thought police run amok on our campuses censoring our free speech!!!!!!!!!!1111

https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/books/ct-books-tj-martinson-onu-0709-20190710-azax7bxkhjgehcesusq4s7y5vq-story.html

"Martinson said he was notified on June 28 that ONU was rescinding its job offer, citing complaints that his novel contained profanity and other elements that conflict with the school’s religious doctrine"

[Pointgod]

Mitch f'ing McConnell



https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mcconnell-likens-himself-obama-we-both-are-descendants-slave-owners-n1027921

I wonder if posters on here still think the problem is both parties and not solely the Republican Party.

I think everyone who disagrees with you pointgod is already gone from the thread (except for me, and I’m in read-only mode so as not to interfere with the progressive narrative). I continue to enjoy reading though because it’s a great study into the totalitarian aspects of human nature. Blue man good, orange man bad.

He used unironically. *makes wanking motion*

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

It’s one thing for the idiot mouth breathers like STD to believe this but a lot of the Fauxgressives believe this too. I wonder if it’s a coincidence that the same people claiming Russia interference in the election is a hoax are the same people that pushed this bull Seth Rich claim? (It’s not)

[TGW]

How would a flat tax screw over poor ppl? They pay the same percentage everyone else does, but still less in total since its a % of their income.

A fiat tax is regressive because the less income you have the greater % of it you spend on necessities.

If you’re making 10 bucks an hour and a gallon of milk cost four bucks, then basic food needs are a huge chunk of what your work day pays for. The same is not true as you go up in income levels. Now If milk cost proportionately expensive for rich people, well sure then a flat tax would be fair. But it doesn’t. So a flat tax means the people who have the least feel the hit the hardest.

If a rich person loses 30% of a billion dollars it sounds like a lot of money. And it is. But they literally can afford it. Their light bill is not in danger of going unpaid just so they can buy gas for their car and get to work. Choices like that are made every day by everyday working folks.

The point of society is what? The point of civilization. Of government. To me I think the founding documents state it pretty clearly. Government exists to promote the general welfare. Meaning to make sure in general people aren’t fighting a losing battle just to make it thru day to day.

Rich people have tax loopholes and largesse and pork and benefits and lawyers and politicians bought and sold who protect their interests. Poor people are too stressed and busy to pay attention to all that. They can’t pay someone to pay attention to it for them. By accident of birth or bad luck or opportunities they were not gifted with the advantages that let them turn hard work into generational wealth. Like Trump inherited. The ability to go bankrupt multiple times and be rescued by his daddy’s money. Society has already looked out for wealthy folk and they have benefited. It’s not wrong for there to be a guiding hand that says: good, yes, America has given you wealth and reward for your work, but in doing so we ask you to give back a portion in thanks. To support the country that disproportionately rewarded you. No child should starve to death. No family should have to choose between food and electricity.

So. The bargain between governance and capitalism is the idea that ambition is the horse that pulls. To whom much is given much is expected. Wealthy people literally can afford to give more. Without it harming them. The point is not to make sure all people have the same stuff. But to make sure there is a baseline level below which people do not fall. So that hard times do not mean mass death and unrest and revolt. Violent redistribution of wealth. That we agree instead to be civilized and look out for people. Even sometimes people who have hit hard times or made mistakes. In America we sell the redemption story. People can learn and improve and make better choices. If they’re only given a little bit of hope. A chance. And so we try to create institutions that help give people that second chance. Or as many chances as us needed to keep striving. Or for their kids to at least.

Otherwise, what is a country for? Why have roads and police and schools and libraries. And not revolution and revolt and anarchy and private armies and strongmen and all the bullshxt you’d see from those ”shxthole countries” who have not been able to look out for the least among them. From whose streets you get people with the drive to travel thousands of miles overseas from India. Mexico. Salvador. Haiti. To show up here and work menial jobs just so that their children can get free education and hospital care and all of the advantages this country has earned and been able to share with the least of us. To institutionalize the concept that sees a man struggling and says “there, but for the grace of God, go I”, and understands you have to tax selfishness sometimes, even if it complains about it, in order to form that more perfect union. Establish justice. And all those high ideals upon which our country was founded.

HOF post.

[Zonkerbl]

How would a flat tax screw over poor ppl? They pay the same percentage everyone else does, but still less in total since its a % of their income.

A fiat tax is regressive because the less income you have the greater % of it you spend on necessities.

If you’re making 10 bucks an hour and a gallon of milk cost four bucks, then basic food needs are a huge chunk of what your work day pays for. The same is not true as you go up in income levels. Now If milk cost proportionately expensive for rich people, well sure then a flat tax would be fair. But it doesn’t. So a flat tax means the people who have the least feel the hit the hardest.

If a rich person loses 30% of a billion dollars it sounds like a lot of money. And it is. But they literally can afford it. Their light bill is not in danger of going unpaid just so they can buy gas for their car and get to work. Choices like that are made every day by everyday working folks.

The point of society is what? The point of civilization. Of government. To me I think the founding documents state it pretty clearly. Government exists to promote the general welfare. Meaning to make sure in general people aren’t fighting a losing battle just to make it thru day to day.

Rich people have tax loopholes and largesse and pork and benefits and lawyers and politicians bought and sold who protect their interests. Poor people are too stressed and busy to pay attention to all that. They can’t pay someone to pay attention to it for them. By accident of birth or bad luck or opportunities they were not gifted with the advantages that let them turn hard work into generational wealth. Like Trump inherited. The ability to go bankrupt multiple times and be rescued by his daddy’s money. Society has already looked out for wealthy folk and they have benefited. It’s not wrong for there to be a guiding hand that says: good, yes, America has given you wealth and reward for your work, but in doing so we ask you to give back a portion in thanks. To support the country that disproportionately rewarded you. No child should starve to death. No family should have to choose between food and electricity.

So. The bargain between governance and capitalism is the idea that ambition is the horse that pulls. To whom much is given much is expected. Wealthy people literally can afford to give more. Without it harming them. The point is not to make sure all people have the same stuff. But to make sure there is a baseline level below which people do not fall. So that hard times do not mean mass death and unrest and revolt. Violent redistribution of wealth. That we agree instead to be civilized and look out for people. Even sometimes people who have hit hard times or made mistakes. In America we sell the redemption story. People can learn and improve and make better choices. If they’re only given a little bit of hope. A chance. And so we try to create institutions that help give people that second chance. Or as many chances as us needed to keep striving. Or for their kids to at least.

Otherwise, what is a country for? Why have roads and police and schools and libraries. And not revolution and revolt and anarchy and private armies and strongmen and all the bullshxt you’d see from those ”shxthole countries” who have not been able to look out for the least among them. From whose streets you get people with the drive to travel thousands of miles overseas from India. Mexico. Salvador. Haiti. To show up here and work menial jobs just so that their children can get free education and hospital care and all of the advantages this country has earned and been able to share with the least of us. To institutionalize the concept that sees a man struggling and says “there, but for the grace of God, go I”, and understands you have to tax selfishness sometimes, even if it complains about it, in order to form that more perfect union. Establish justice. And all those high ideals upon which our country was founded.

Watch on YouTube