Section4Row36Seat8

This isn't entirely true either because there would most likely be a second tier system where rich people could pay to gain medical care quickly and that would be another set of cost, though it could easy the stress on a single payer system. I have no idea how much the second tier system would cost, I guess it depends on how much rich people hate waiting. If medicare for all costs $32 trillions I'd wager you could milk $10-17 trillion out of a private pay system.

I think Trump is the first symptom of a further spreading cancer. There are a crapload of people that want to give a big FU to the media and perceived elite crowd that tells them what to do and when to do it. There are a bunch of joe lunchboxes that think those people are the worst thing alive and Trump is the first one to rise to power and validate their feelings. Trump's problem is he's batshit crazy and too many people were shaking their head going WTF whenever he would send out his 1000 tweets a day. If you get a more eloquent speaker that can put together a coherent sentence and carry on the torch of telling the media, political class to F off with language that speaks to the common person without using the system so blatantly to his advantage (see charging millions to the US tax payer for trips to his country club and hotels) then you could see it rise again. I don't think this is relegated to lower middleclass white dudes either. Trump stirred something in a decent size group of African Americans too, the ones that are fed up with the democrat system that keeps promising and underdelivers for the past 60 years. If that movement garners traction you could definitely see an overtly fascist leader rise up and scare the crap out of the political elite class (see Hitler).

FL NC OH WI AZ MI

This thing is over. Trump doesn’t even need Pennsylvania at this point. He’s at 274 without them.

Its been awesome guys. I'll see you in four years during the next election.

This sounds really good. I'd go for this. The problem is there will be something else inequitable and eventually we are going to have to tell people to f off. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, I'm just say eventually we will have to realize we can't do everything to make everything equitable. But I agree, feeding kids a proper diet is something America should be able to do. Its just when and who gets to decide where to stop will then be the power struggle.

sounds good. I'll email Kamala and see if she agrees

I hope youre right about the equity. Just seems like a dumb thing to say we all end up in the same place. Doesn't seem possible first of all and isn't something I want my president to say. I'd want everyone to get the same opportunities that they want to get and be encouraged to make the most out of them and helped along the way, but if someone isn't capable of being a good doctor or lawyer or plumber or message board moderator, I'd want them to do something else.

I totally agree but define "same chance". 10,000 people graduated from UT with me. I guarantee 20 years later some are more successful than me and others are not. When does the "same chance" stop? If I bitch enough because I'm not successful as some other dude, will she step in and help me get there? At what cost?

No I don't think people from poor areas should get an inferior education. My concern is more about how do you get people to the same outcome and not end up severely holding back the greatest of us? There is no way I catch up to Bolt without some major help and no mater how much running education you give me/training, there is no way we end up running the same speed. I"m sure you could help me improve my time in the 100 meter dash but ultimately you're gonna have to hold him back or do so much for me that it looks like favoritism/nepotism/cheating to get us to the same results.

I still haven't answered immamacs question and think that I can continue posting on his site. I'm sorely mistaken and a complete moron who cannot follow simple instructions.

regardless of your definition, what she is pedaling sounds pretty crappy to me. If I bust my butt I'd hope I get recognized for it. And if I slack off and the other guy busts his butt I'd hope he would get rewarded more than me. I don't want to end up in the same place for unequal work and talent. Whats the incentive to try if we all end up in the same place. I guess in my earlier scenario Usain Bolt has to come back and pick me up and carry me across the finish line because I'm so damn slow? While that sounds all touchy feely and wonderful, all it is ultimately gonna do is make him sit around playing x box and drinking tigerclaw while he waits for me to catch up so we can cross the finish line together.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1322963321994289154 How the heck am I supposed to vote for this? Trump is a disaster but this is the definition of communism. There is no way Usain Bolt and I end up at the finish line at the same time even if we start at the same starting line unless someone chains an anchor to him or gives me a jetpack. And this isn't some right wing rag site. This is her own twitter feed. Stuff like this is scary. This is a no win scenario. We screwed America.

As far as I know the baker didn’t refuse access to his bakery or purchasing his products. He only refused his expert service of making a custom cake that celebrated something against his religious beliefs. How is this protected under public accommodation? I honestly tried to find any law or legal precedent that showed a tradesman cannot refuse his trade under public accommodation laws. If you have an example I would like to read it.

This all ultimately leads back to whether you believe if a person engages in a trade or service to the community and economy, are they required to supply that trade or service to the best of their ability regardless of the circumstances. I think if you do require someone that engages in the economy to provide a service that is a slippery slope. Do you require liberal music performers to perform at Trumps Inauguration if he asks? Do you require Muslim clerics to perform same sex weddings? Do you require surgeons to perform operations even though they believe it is dangerous to the patient even though a patient wants the surgery? Even if the tradesman or servicewoman refuses to fulfill a service or trade for discriminatory or asshole related motives when you make them perform, how do you draw the line between the times to force them to perform verses enslavement to the community? I fear it will degenerate to the entitlement attitude of this jerk that wants someone to crochet a blanket for lest that $2/hr in compensation simple because the person enjoys the craft or worse. https://www.boredpanda.com/customer-complaint-blanket-price-krafty-katt/

Some people may think this Baker is an asshole but if he is a true follower of Jesus and trying to live the sermon on the mount, he couldn’t in good conscience supply his talents to help celebrate something he believes to be a celebration of a transgression against God(sin). Jesus himself says that followers of Him will have to choose between the laws of man and the law of God. The reason that a lot of followers of Jesus see a difference in discrimination between sexual orientation and race or gender can be described like this: Gender or race are endowed by the Creator. You don’t choose to be black, white, brown, red, male or female. Those are sacred and I don’t think a person truly trying to follow the teachings of Jesus could defend discrimination against those sacred qualities that can only be ordained supernaturally. Followers of Jesus see marriage in the same way. It is a sacred institution established by God between a man and woman and the baker could not in good conscience apply his talents to celebrate something that transgresses a sacred gift from God. In this case the baker said the gay couple could buy a cake from his bakery that is already made and use it as they wish. He just couldn’t use his artistic talents to help them celebrate something he disagrees with based on religious belief. You may disagree with everything I wrote and that is fine. We have that freedom in this country. You may disagree with all the beliefs of the baker and that is fine too. I imagine in America today the majority believe sexual orientation isn’t a choice. I think in this baker’s mind he would differentiate sexual orientation with acting on sexual orientation. I would wager to say he would liken the decision to act on sexual preferences the same as the decision to act on a predilection to alcoholism, pedophilia, lying, or any other number of vices that are held to be sins by those trying to follow the teachings of Jesus. If he were a wine maker I doubt he would serve a drunk man a bottle of wine or if he was a taxi driver, drive a pedophile to the local elementary school if he knew the intentions of the person were to have a sex act with a child. They may not be equivalent in the eyes of the law of the land but there is some equivalence between the examples just given and the celebration of sexual sin from the Followers of Jesus perspective. Until we are ready to outlaw beliefs except those established by the government, then we supposedly still have religious freedom in this country and I don’t see how the court could have ruled otherwise that they did.