That. This is the laymans most people, which is relatable to our audience. The establishment, these are the rules we created ape its and its been this way a long time. Regular guy, little guy, said times have changed, found a loophole, what you. According to your rules, you cant get mad at us. Its a reflection of whats happening in our larger culture, Larger Society right now as it comes to womens rights and me too and issues of race and equity and equality and all of that. Its like, people who have been there, the establishment whos been there for so long, the entitled, right, the people who, hey, look, were the wealthy, these are the rules, we want to live by and continue, and the underdog is saying no, no, no, we deserve a place as well and now this is the clash. So, hey, the rule thats whats happened. What i find interesting about it is i love that these people came together to prop something up. Now, you can say no, no, no, youre ascribing virtue where theres only value. You saw t
To us about it. Thank you for being with us to kind of give shape to this story, and well be watching it. All right . Thank you for having me. Taking the opportunity was your choice, and thank you. Thank you for watching. The big show, cnn tonight, with d lemon, starts right now. D, i have never seen anything like that before. Well, this is this is the laymans part of it because i just sort of look at, okay, this is what the 401 k is doing and the investment people are doing. But, this is the laymans part of it and i think most which is relatable to our audience. So the establishment has these are the rules we have created and its been this way for a long time. Then, all of a sudden, the little guy, the regular guy, says hey, times have changed. We found there is a loophole or what have you. You cannot get mad at us. So i think it is a reflection of what is happening in our larger culture, and the larger society, right now. As it comes to womens rights, and me too, and and issues of ra
Necessary, i will allow a 62nd rebuttal. Mr. Harrison, we begin with your opening statement. Mr. Harrison thank you for having me. Its good to see you and thank you, south korea. Our motto for this rate state is while i breathe, i hope. That might as well be the theme of my life. I grew up in a mobile home. My parents a fourth grade and eighth grade education. Hard able to because of work go on to yale and georgetown. I went to capitol hill and worked for congressman jim clyburn. I worked in the private sector, and now i am running for the United States senate. That only happens in america. That is why this country is so great. In that time, we had senator Lindsey Graham, who i respected and admired because he could rise above the political fray. The problem is, my friends, senator graham has changed. That is not the senator graham of today. We need a senator who can bring us all together, who can unite this state, regardless if you ,re a democrat, republican progressive or conservativ
This court construed section 5000 day of the Affordable Care even reate a choice, either adjust or pay the tax. In 2017, congress did not change sub a or b, it just reduce the amount of the tax of tax to zero. This still protects presents a choice, buy insurance and do nothing. That does not harm anyone or violate the constitution. Respondents insist that the 20 17th amendment to tear down the entire aca that rests on two untenable arguments, first respondents contend that congress transformed it into a command when it zeroed out the tax. That is contrary to this construction of the same tax, it is at odds at how congress and the president understood the amendments, and it would attribute to congress and intends to do exactly what this court said would be unconstitutional. Seconds, second, respondents argued that if this is unconstitutional, every other provision must also fall. The starting part of any remedial analysis would be the presumption in favor of severability, and here the t
This court construed section 5000 day of the Affordable Care even reate a choice, either adjust or pay the tax. In 2017, congress did not change sub a or b, it just reduce the amount of the tax of tax to zero. This still protects presents a choice, buy insurance and do nothing. That does not harm anyone or violate the constitution. Respondents insist that the 20 17th amendment to tear down the entire aca that rests on two untenable arguments, first respondents contend that congress transformed it into a command when it zeroed out the tax. That is contrary to this construction of the same tax, it is at odds at how congress and the president understood the amendments, and it would attribute to congress and intends to do exactly what this court said would be unconstitutional. Seconds, second, respondents argued that if this is unconstitutional, every other provision must also fall. The starting part of any remedial analysis would be the presumption in favor of severability, and here the t