greg1647545532

I don't believe stuff without evidence.

Rigged is your word, Kerry explicitly said interfere and "tip the scales," which is the conclusion of the US intelligence community based, as far as the public knows, on intercepts of conversations between Russian intelligence agents who said that's what they were doing, among other things. Not to mention the email Don Jr released, which implies that they knew about it: The proof you seek is most likely classified, so if you're not one to believe the reports of any US intelligence agencies then I don't have much to offer you. eta: Here's the declassified report. It is not subtle. Start on page 11 of the PDF.

Well I'll give you one thing, Priebus seems to be on the chopping block today, although I'm not sure you can call firing people you appointed as "draining the swamp," unless you also take credit for filling it... Also, this whole thing is fucking hilarious, with Scaramucci accusing Priebus of leaking a publicly available document, and then trying to delete the accusation from the internet. It's total amateur hour in the White House.

Well, is it happening? It's the 27th, isn't today the day the winning starts?

Should the military not pay for any medical treatments for conditions that affect .2% of the population? The current DoD policy is quite limited in its scope, especially when viewed in the greater social battle for transgender acceptance. This is a solved issue, and has been in place for over a year. Honestly I have no clue. The important thing, to me at least, is to understand the current policy treats this like any other medical issue.

It's not just us, Brietbart is the Awan channel right now. It's crazy.

I didn't read the whole thing. Here's the relevant bits. Democrats are so scared they're letting him testify tomorrow.

I'm not a doctor and they didn't cover that in our transgender policy briefing.

The military will only pay for someone's gender reassignment if a military doctor deems it medically necessary. This is not considered an elective or a cosmetic treatment.

What other medical treatments should the military stop paying for?

It's a liberal article in a liberal magazine written by a liberal journalist who interviewed a bunch of liberal scientists and Obama political appointees. Read it anyway.

Did you mean to post a story from March?

I point you to this terrifying article that just dropped from Vanity Fair. It's a long article, but it should be mandatory reading. It's about what happens when you elect someone who's arrogantly ignorant of the workings of the federal government, and specifically the dramatic effects it had on the federal agency tasked with building, maintaining, and safeguarding our nuclear arsenal. Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, wouldn't be fucking things up this badly. And, I would argue, everyone knows it. But hey, Solyndra, or something, and anything to make the libtards angry.

I know a lot. My unit had our mandatory transgender policy briefing a few weeks ago and it was a goddamn shitshow. This is a wedge issue if there ever was one, it affects a very small % of people but everyone has a strong opinion about it. The "discussion," which our CC tried to avoid but inevitably happened, was entirely predictable, anxiety/cringe-inducing, and served only to divide our unit along obvious political lines. It sucked. But we ripped the band-aid off and moved on. Point is, regardless of your stance, it should be clear that this is a delicate issue that needs to be dealt with professionally and with a great deal of empathy. I'm sure at this point everyone's already seen this tweet of his dredged up from way back in June 2016, ironically the same month that transgendered individuals were first allowed to serve in the military:

Depends on the car. I think when you get up to the 7 figure range, a lot of cars are probably unique examples of automotive history and probably should be treated like museum pieces, only trotted out for Pebble Beach, Goodwood, or the occasional late night run to Taco Bell. Buying a brand new Huayra and never driving it, that I don't understand. But it's so far from anything I can relate to that, meh, why would anyone care what I think?

I imagine it will make lots of people very happy and lots of people very unhappy, thus satisfying Trump's campaign promise to end the divisiveness of the Obama era and bring America together in unity.

I don't know, but it seems you would agree that there's some point where ROI matters. That is, you don't seem to want to pay more to catch tax cheats than it'd cost to just let them cheat. That seems reasonable. Would? We don't really have to wonder. Some states, such as Arizona and (I think) Utah, have used targeted testing to better effect than the general/random testing that other states implemented, but as far as I've read, the ROI just isn't there, or it's there but not to the degree that proponents thought or hoped it would be. Lest you think I linked you to a biased, liberal source, I'll point out that the National Review is a conservative publication, and I'll quote the last paragraph of that article to save you the trouble of reading to the end:

How much would you spend in taxpayer dollars to collect $1 million in evaded taxes?

Anonymous sources are fake news! <checks an anonymous website> Check out this real news! Always dd MMM yyyy in the military, not dd/mm/yyyy like a bunch of snobby Eurotrash.

I gotta say, I saw one at the UA parade and it looked much better in person than it did in pictures. Kinda made me want one. When it comes time to finally ditch my van, I've thought about replacing it with a hot hatch, something that can do dual duty as a track car and a kid schlepper. FWD would actually be preferable to AWD for that purpose, but the fact that this is only a 4 seater is probably a deal breaker.

That's what I've heard as well. Frankly, I could do without them, too many kids and drunk idiots running around on those things. I understand that it's a UA tradition but, ugh.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y7Q6r1lPRYQ/U9-6Us6AFPI/AAAAAAAADB0/foBI2ybezwE/s1600/2014Poster31.png

Why? I asked you two plays devil's advocate for 2 groups, the Bernie supporters you know and me. Instead, you went rogue, found some pro-flat-tax authors and told me their concerns with a flat tax. We're talking about taxes, not handouts. And isn't that how taxes work? Reducing taxes on businesses encourages business. Reducing taxes on mortgage interest encourages home ownership. Reducing gas taxes encourages fuel consumption. Reducing taxes on cigarettes encourages smoking. Reducing sales taxes encourages purchasing. Reducing income taxes on low income earners encourages work. That's the whole argument against raising taxes on the rich, right?! "Why would anyone work hard past a certain point if it's just going to get taken away!" That's actually true to an extent, and it's a valid argument against soaking the rich. Why wouldn't the inverse apply to reducing taxes on the poor?! High sales taxes discourages spending, which is bad for businesses and therefore bad for the economy. Taxes are a necessary evil, the game is how to feed the beast without borking the economy. I'm not necessarily opposed to a federal sales tax, hell I'm not even opposed to a flat tax at some hypothetical point in the future. The point is that there are pros and cons to any revenue structure, so you should be able to answer the question, "What are the negatives of a federal sales tax" and not expect your opponents to have to. There's really no simple answer, and these sound bite tax plans are something of a distraction. What good would a flat tax do for government complexity when there's probably a 16 page section of an import tax code defining what "pants" are, and therefore what rate this crate of jorts from Indonesia should be taxed at? Again, that was kind of the point.

OK, I tried really hard to answer your question in post #894, and then I posted a list of articles that directly answered your question in post #899, but now you're saying that "nobody" answer will your question. Fuck me, guess I'm nobody. Furthermore, I question how much effort you put into answering mine. Is this list of negatives what you think your Bernie bro friends would say? Or is that your attempt at summarizing my argument? It's not clear which you were attempting, and I asked for both. So you're saying that high taxes encourages people to work harder? Sounds like the exact opposite of what you would normally say. But yes, a flat tax does put more of a burden on low income earners, so that's a negative. Do you remember where you admitted that a flat tax and a graduated tax are both "simple"? I thought we already established that the complexity of an income tax was in defining "income," and that a flat tax would have no effect on the staffing required for the IRS. Did you not really believe that when you said it? One of the things the left and right butt heads about is what constitutes equality. For instance, if I implement a rule that says everyone named Greg gets a free taco on Tuesday, the left might say that's unfair because there are lots of people with other names who don't get free tacos, and the right might say that the rule applies equally to all Greg's, and you're free to name your children Greg after all. But this is another discussion. Did you read any of the articles I posted?

Answer your own question, then, play devil's advocate. "What are the negatives of a flat tax?" First, answer your own question from the perspective of these "Bernie supporters" you know. Surely they have a problem with a flat tax, how would they respond? Start with, "The negatives of a flat tax are..." Then, answer your own question pretending to be me, based on what I've said already and the links I posted above. Put yourself in my shows and see if you can understand where I'm coming from.