This is what we get when the people choose a senile, lifelong political crime family boss over a man who said offensive words.

When you see politicians getting rich during their "public service," and hard working Americans are being forced to pay more and more for federal, state and local taxes, it's easy to start wondering why you're working so hard and stressing out over living expenses while the people taking your money are living the life of luxury.

At $1 trillion, Biden-Harris the most
wasteful administration ever

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently announced that the
2024 fiscal-year federal budget deficit — the amount the government
spent over and above what it received in total revenue — was $1.8 trillion.
That makes the Biden-Harris administration by far the biggest deficit
spenders in modern history. Worse yet, Biden-Harris also wasted more
money than any other administration, roughly $1 trillion, according to the
Government Accountability Office (GAO). 

The Biden-Harris four-year deficit total was $7.65 trillion — roughly 50
percent more than Donald Trump’s four-year deficit total of $5.56 trillion,
and that figure included $3.13 trillion spent in FY2020, the first year of the
pandemic. Had Trump’s fourth year deficit been in the general range of
his first three years, his total deficit spending would have been about $3.25
trillion, less than half of Biden-Harris’s actual four-year deficit. 

To be sure, some of the Biden-Harris deficit spending was also because
of the pandemic, but then Biden used the pandemic as a catch-all excuse
to ladle out money he was eager to spend anyway. 

But with great spending should come increased efforts to minimize fraud
and waste. And that’s where Biden-Harris really failed. Last April the GAO
released its “improper payments” assessment, and Team Biden has the
dubious distinction of wasting more taxpayer money than any previous
administration.

“Improper payments” aren’t all fraud, though fraud makes up a significant
portion. The GAO defines improper payments as “those [payments] that
should not have been made or were made in the incorrect amount.” So, for
example, if Medicare overpaid a hospital for its services, that would be an
improper overpayment. But there is also a lot of outright fraud in health care
and several other federal programs, areas where payments “should not have
been made.”

The GAO says that in FY2023, Medicare and Medicaid together accounted
for more than $100 billion in improper payments. Another $43.6 billion in
improper payments went to Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, $21.9 billion
was for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and $18.7 billion was for the Paycheck
Protection loan forgiveness program. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/4933701-biden-harris-deficit-spending/

Vague question?  Then don't respond, your highness.

It is an interesting question, you just need to narrow it down a bit. If you don't want to take a friendly suggestion I certainly can't  and wont force you to do so.

What we are experiencing is the political parties asserting control over the population for power. Americans are void of critical thinking anymore and because of ubiquitous social media we react on feelings. It's the easy button. Call someone a "Nazi" and peoples' heads explode. Rage. No stepping back when that is released. All critical thought is washed away. Problem is that political elites have been hitting that button every time they need to rally support or don't have an answer.
We lost our minds and principles.

I hesitate to think human behavior has evolved that quickly that we lose critical thought. I wonder if the speed and breadth at which we receive information (cell phones, social media, etc) is what causes what we are seeing. A small population or ideology can seem so much bigger and scarier these days.

I hesitate to think human behavior has evolved that quickly that we lose critical thought.

Hahahahhaa.

It is an interesting question, you just need to narrow it down a bit. If you don't want to take a friendly suggestion I certainly can't  and wont force you to do so.

I didn't think your suggestion was friendly.  Maybe it's just me.

I didn't think your suggestion was friendly.  Maybe it's just me.

I nearly always approach a fresh conversation from a positive or neutral angle. I do not bring any baggage from previous debates/disagreements/discussions.


To answer your original general question I would so no, we are not losing our humanity, generally speaking.

I nearly always approach a fresh conversation from a positive or neutral angle. I do not bring any baggage from previous debates/disagreements/discussions.


To answer your original general question I would so no, we are not losing our humanity, generally speaking.

Wow.  i think we're seeing the real problem now:

So many different ways to approach that question. In some ways definitely, in other ways not at all.

in neither post did you bother to offer any discussion whatsoever -- only your answers. 

Your conclusions appear inconsistent, if not contradictory.  You started out with "yes and no," but now you are answering "no."

Without context, it would appear none of us knows what your answer is -- including yourself!

 

Wow.  i think we're seeing the real problem now:
in neither post did you bother to offer any discussion whatsoever -- only your answers. 

Your conclusions appear inconsistent, if not contradictory.  You started out with "yes and no," but now you are answering "no."

Without context, it would appear none of us knows what your answer is -- including yourself!

 

I see, you want me to post a longer discussion so you can find something more to argue with. It's not like you seriously care about whatever reasoning I may come up with.

If the OP wants more meat to my answer he can certainly ask me to elaborate.

If my answers appear inconsistent to you that is your shortcoming, I clearly qualified my answers to indicate one was a general answer and the other could be answered in the affirmative or the negative depending on the specific situation. If you want a contextual answer, ask a contextual question.

I see, you want me to post a longer discussion so you can find something more to argue with. It's not like you seriously care about whatever reasoning I may come up with.

If the OP wants more meat to my answer he can certainly ask me to elaborate.

If my answers appear inconsistent to you that is your shortcoming, I clearly qualified my answers to indicate one was a general answer and the other could be answered in the affirmative or the negative depending on the specific situation. If you want a contextual answer, ask a contextual question.

Deflection.  All those words, and they add nothing to the topic.

I see, you want me to post a longer discussion so you can find something more to argue with. It's not like you seriously care about whatever reasoning I may come up with.

Paraphrasing here - “Know yourself and know your enemy: In a thousand battles no danger.”

Chinese Patton of the 6th century BC 

Perhaps you’ve already read this book …  - I highly recommend the Roger T. Ames translation, it’s perhaps the best out there!

Paraphrasing here - “Know yourself and know your enemy: In a thousand battles no danger.”

Chinese Patton of the 6th century BC 

Perhaps you’ve already read this book …  - I highly recommend the Roger T. Ames translation, it’s perhaps the best out there!

Are you suggesting Flapp is trying to get to know his me better?

Are you suggesting Flapp is trying to get to know his me better?

No, I’m just saying the comment of yours I highlighted characterizes a strategic assessment, and strategy is  e v e r y t h i n g.

No, I’m just saying the comment of yours I highlighted characterizes a strategic assessment, and strategy is  e v e r y t h i n g.

Oh, haha. Not sure if that is a compliment or not so I will take it as a complement!

Are you suggesting Flapp is trying to get to know his me better?

What an imagination today.