Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Fox News"
channel.
-
Other functions of taxation: It can help to prevent a "New Aristocray" (see recent article of The Atlantic. They say the U.S. already has it, it is the 9,99 %, not the 1 % that got the main share of the pie - and that has societal consequences).Taxing the ultra rich also restricts some of the political and societal power connected to huge fortunes.
It improves the situation of regular people making them less vulnerable, it gives them peace of mind.
Let's say you lose your job.
In social housing with modest rent (or able to finance your own real estate with long term low interest loans), public non-profit healthcare, good public education.
You might need to live modestly if you lose your job or the hours are cut BUT the essentials are covered. Which changes the dynamic between workforce, employers, landlords and renters.
The future prospects of the citizens. Their independence from outside forces.
(Before or shortly after WW2 workers were encouraged to get their own homes. people that pay back loans do not go on strike, .... Meaning people who have their home and the basics covered enjoy a lot of economic freedom. That may include starting a biz, an education, cutting hours because you want to spend more time with your little children, bid farewell to your impossible boss or the groping co-workers, take a sabbatical, to the world tour, ....).
1
-
Give to Cesar what is Cesar's and to God what is God's. That grifter did NOT want to switch to SAFE ONLINE services to spread the gospel and offer support to the congregation (likely it would result in less money donated). Paulus would not have endangered the congregation. Or risked to potentially harm people that do not belong to the congregation.
One major breakout was in a church in South Korea last year, if people SING indoors they will spread the virus more (in case they are spreaders) because they exhale more. There was a choire practice in Seattle. Unfortunately a LOT of the 60 members go infected and a few died. Singing, a smaller room, they stayed there for a while, and the choire members were older on average.
The church goers in SK did not deserve that, and it spread of course to outsiders as well, that is how authorities found out about the irresponsible actions of church "leaders".
And the rule of Paul and Peter was to not give the authorities or the non faithful reason to speak badly about the faithful if that could be avoided. To not be oppositional and stubborn.
There are ways to offer services while conforming to the rules of government (which in this case are even reasonable, at least the intention is benign). Spring is coming, people can meet outside, vaccines are rolled out. it is getting better.
Maybe he saw the last chance to make a spectacle of himself and fundraise, before the chance to get "martyr status" oppose the public health rules "just because" was gone.
The first Christians were supposed to give a good example.
I am not using the words grifter lightly ! - I assume he will fundraise off his "martyr status" now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roswellsatterwhite3906 Sanders was more to the left in the 1970s, and he knew they would find the footage. The Republicans will call any political opponent to the left of Attila the Hun a socialist (they do not understand the term) - so he did some political jiu jitsu in 2015.
Sanders embraces the word and defines it on his terms.
Democrats are supposed to hastily defend themselves and fold with a whimper when being labelled with the scary S word.
in terms of political science: Sanders is a New Deal politician or a Social Democrat 60s and 70s style (in Europe before they sold out, they did good back in the day, they set up and consolidated the non-profit healthcare systems and a strong welfare system. Lots of public housing as well. It still benefits citizens despite the neoliberal assault).
But neither Corporate media (millionaires doing propaganda for bilionaire owners) nor his political enemies (incl. many of the Democratic establishment) or the voters are into the details and correct use of terms according to political science.
Sanders CAN beat Trump, I still hope he can eliminate Joe who is clearly in cognitive decline, never mind the baggage. The harder thing will be to beat the Democratic establishment. He needs a few good lines regarding scary socialism, it will come up in the next debate with Biden and certainly in the general.
And some good lines for immigration. (Trump will claim that Sanders will invite the cartels to come to the U.S. to get free healthcare, something like that - so Sanders better have a catchy and assertive response to shut Trump up).
Else he will mop the floor with Trump, if they prepare him well for the debates. He - unlike Biden or Trump - CAN still learn new things (concise ways to hit back at b.s arguments, and Trump will try to take it even farther than the lamestream media).
Biden cannot attack Trump on trade (NAFTA 2.0 is window dressing it includes even TPP sequences). Or corruption or war (Iran, attempted regime change in Venezuela on behalf of the Koch Brothers).
But Sanders can forcefully go against Trump, on MANY issues. Like his neglect to even bring drug prices down. Biden has no leg to stand on: the Obama admin did nothing, they did not even try. (Sanders cannot mention that in the primary debates, he needs the support of Obama and the voters who still love Obama - which is undeserved, but that's the way it is.
As mayor from 1981 - 1988 he was pragmatic and worked with the Republican aldermen and the local businesses. he had ousted a long term mayor that was a big name in the Vermont party machine. The local Dems (especially the aldermen, most were buddies of the ousted mayor) did not like the Independent new mayor. To put it mildly.
I think he can gloss over the Cuba and Soviet visit nonsense. The people complaining about it would not vote D anyway. A few dismissive words and back to The Issues.
And the affluent D voter will have to make up their midn if they really want Trump gone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
See the 11th commandment: if it aint broke don't fix it. - Handling MOST (the non-criminal !) of the migrants via detention centers where they waited for the decisions (WITH children if they had them) worked reasonably well. ADVANTAGE: less stress (migrants, minors, and staff too), less costs because the parents watched the children, and if they were deported no hunt for the TRAUMATIZED children was necessary.
But a policy that is reasonable, as humane and cost efficient as possible and does not produce red tape while casually traumatizing little children and stressing out their parents without any PRACTICAL necessity......
Such a policy does not support political grandstanding.
It must not really function. It must look / sound impressive.
Zero Tolerance !
may sound great to the Trump supporter unaware of the details, but it did not change the outcomes compared to the way it was done under Bush and Obama
Like time of processing, people were either deported or not, it did not matter WHERE they were held until the decision - in detention centers or jail).
But mandatory jail for the adults (new policy since April 2018) meant that the children had to be separated (after 20 days, Supreme Court decision, the Trump admin took them right away - of course else they would have needed to adapt the jail for children for a relatively short time, likely not enough to handle the case).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump wants to ESCALATE. The polls are really bad, he has nothing to lose, provoquing citizens to have a reason for brutalizing them would make him look "tough" for his base. And maybe he finds even a pretext to implement martial law, that would help with voter suppression.
The Republicans (Senate) cannot even get their act together to pass a bailout for The People (but the have showered big biz, Wallstreet. With TRILLIONS in the last bailouts). So that could mean mass protests soon, this time over evictions and economic despair. Do they really think they have enough wanna be brownshirts for that. do they think the army will side with Trump ? The veterans ?
Federal overreach. Violating the constitution.
IF they are even federal employees and not mercenaries They can ONLY protect federal property and only act in close proximity to that property.
OR in normal times investigate individual matters, but thent they need to have plausible cause (think the FBI doing an investigation).
The unidentified "agents" in Portland wandered off to other areas, so obviusly NOT to protect federal property - there wasn't any. They have no business outside federal property, this is city and local police authority. As per the constitution.
The "agents" obviously and deliberately (= they had time to think, they were standing there, the protesters were standing there) attacked peaceful protesters. Several times several locastions. So this is not one mistake, it is a pattern.
The Trump admin sends them in to CREATE trouble. In Portland there are more protesters now. Of course the locals are pissed.
1
-
1
-
@slywolfd.9558 FACTS matter, you can see that from the John Hopkins website, the testing in the U.S. might be underwhelming, but in European countries it is rolled out, Germany or Austria for instance are close to 2 % dead (0.02), that is 2 in hundred, you claim 0.21 in 100 or 21 in 10,000 - that is completely false, you do not have 100 undetected cases for 1 that is found (tested positive).
The first world countries have the same range of deaths per "tested positive" between 1 and 3 %, whatever their testing might be. I know that in Germany the citizens have paid sick leave and can't be fired for calling in sick (not for any sick leave and certainly not now.
So only if they have almost no symptoms or none a person could overlook their infection and NOT get tested.
If in doubt they will get a test (meanwhile they can also be bought in a pharmacy for a low price, but that is for travellers, persons that think they could be infected get one for free.
And a repetition a few days after if there is good reason to believe the first test failed it was too soon (I know of a case, first test negative, but relatives had gotten sick and tested positive and that patient also had fever for a day. It just needed some time 5 days after the first suspicion, the second test confirmed the infection.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1