Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Fox News" channel.

  1. The Trump admin CHOSE 100 % criminal prosecution - it was/is called "zero tolerance" - BEFORE (Obama, Bush): they usually held them in DETENTION (unless they were suspected to be criminals).
    1
  2. In detention centers the kids and the parents CAN stay together until a decision is made (allowed to stay or deportation - but then at least all of them together).By law they cannot hold innocent minors for longer than 20 days in jail (Supreme court ruling from the Obama era). Former admins WISELY tried to stay away from that minefield (regarding minors) AND I think jail is more expensive anyway even for adults only. So you are factually incorrect: the former admins treated the border crossing not as "crime" but as misdemeanor (at least for first offenders) - that spared them a lot of trouble and red tape. The outcome was not different. Migrants/Asylum seekers were held for some time and then they could either stay in the U.S. or had to leave the country. Same outcome with detention centers OR jail. But JAIL had a LOT of disadvantages.
    1
  3. You know that the Republicans have the presidency, Congress and Senate ? What ELSE do they need to govern ? They btw did not even TRY to draft a bill, despite immigration being a prominent issue among Trump voters. - they were so busy trying to take healthcare away from people. No fan of ACA - but they had nothing ready to replace it, they never INTENDED to come up with good healthcare for the people. Believe me: if they had - they would have had the Sanders crowd on their side, it would have passed. (the donation chasing Dems would have found themselves between a rock and a hard place) - But THAT was never the plan of the Republicans. Or Trump. And tax cuts where 80 % go to very rich people. Undoing the already weak Wallstreet regulation. (Again: there could be much better regulations which are straightforward, the kind of which prevented any (major) crashes between 1933 and 1980. (only minor events). But the Big Donors which finance BOTH parties do not like that. And increasing military spending from 600 to 680 billion USD. The increase is what Russia has as yearly budget. Fixing immigration was not a priority. That is an issue to rally the people behind Trump. it would not be easy, it would take longer - and there is no profit to be made. The issue of immigration brings votes. That is what it is good for.
    1
  4. The new policies had no PRACTICAL or LEGAL advantages, and they certainly were not meant to FIX anything (look at the clusterfuck !!). It was all to make political points and for optics - and to brag before the voters. ZERO TOLERANCE, looking !! TOUGH. It had all sorts of disadvantages, hazards, and costs - which were gladly and/or complacently accepted - for the political gains they hoped to make from it.
    1
  5. The incident of last year was not resolved. There is ONE technician (self taught !) who thinks that he has evidence that something was dropped from the air. Theodore Postol of MIT thinks otherwise (and he frankly has more expertise). But Postol's story does not align with the agenda so outlets like the New York Times chose to cite the other guy instead of Postol.
    1
  6.  @davidphilippi4429  Yep, and the stents cured the condition. Did a vigorous campaign while he was not feeling well, the artery was already clogging up, he was tired and did not sleep well. - after the stent surgery (a few days in hospital) he toned it down for 1 week.
    1
  7.  @davidphilippi4429  Since he had his fuel rods cleaned Sanders is on fire again, he has an intense schedule (very much unlike Biden). Sanders might be a little older in years than Trump, but he is in better shape (mentally and physically) and I think both Trump and Biden are in some cognitive decline.
    1
  8.  @davidphilippi4429  Trump was never very well informed, but watch the interviews 20 or 15 years ago. - Sanders on the other hand is sharp as ever. That came across in the last debates especially the one in December.
    1
  9. 4:40 Sanders will not break the "party" in half. He would take the party BACK to its roots . He would brake up the funding for the party appartus and the cozy scheme for the servants of the big donors. That involves BIG NAMES or small fish (like the D.C. consultant class that hopes for contracts. And they get them, whether the Corporate Democrats win or lose elections). Under president Sanders a (New Deal) style Democratic party would need small donations, and that means policies that are good for The People, they would be useless for the Big Donors, who would only fund the Republicans). It also means the donors will not provide the golden parachutes for ex politicians, or the insane campaign financing. Active powerful politicians will not get the investment tips and lucrative real estate deals (around 3 corners so that they cannot be legally prosecuted), the jobs for family members. A Senator has 174,000 before taxes plus good healthcare. But they need residency in their home state and a place to live in D.C. (expensive, actually Paul Ryan and others slept in their office for that reason). That money puts you into the upper middle class. But many politicians have become rich while holding office (in both parties. That's the covert perks, they can promote their business activities - even if their partner of another family member runs it). Or think thanks that buy up their books by the truckloads. (some politicians have their audience, but EVERYONE and their dog writes a book when they are or were in politics, who buys or reads them all ? I am sure that is often a covert bribe that is possible even for active politicians. Now Hillary Clinton or even GWB or Obama have their fanbase. But mayor pete also wrote his obligatory book when he planned to run. Klobuchar has 2 and participated in another one). Sanders might have an impact on WHAT candidates are elected into Congress or Senate. Grassroots candidates beholden to the constituents. As opposed to Corporate Democrats beholden to the bid donors and to the power brokers in the party (if they are still around). They have the access to Corporate donors.
    1
  10. Facts matter, the question has been removed much longer - you could look it up (I am not holding my breath !).
    1
  11. The founders wanted the people counted (then including the slaves), to allocate the number of seats for representatives. It was never about CITIZENS.
    1
  12. Taxing the very rich means there will be only positive influences on the economy (if tax evasion can be prevented - that is a case of legislation, under JFK and Eisenhower or FDR only investing in your biz could reduce taxes. Else they had to be paid. That encouraged investment, R & D, long term thinking, ethical business practices). Higher tax revenue (thanks to taxes on the rich) will fund public services for regular people (good, that means the normal people have more disposable income, they do not have to pay out of pocket for private schools, social housing helps them to save up for their own, or they can spend more on consumer goods, etc.). Low and middle income people SPEND most of their income. If THEY have more (because public services help them cut other expense or because THEY get a tax cut) - the money will go right back into circulation. Low taxes for the rich: tax burden will be shifted on the middle class, increasing debt and deficits (the deficit and debt has massively risen because of the Trump tax cuts.
    1
  13. It is not about "fairness" - the viewpoints naturally differ ;) - If you want to built wealth on a broad base - the recipe of the Economic Miracle * must be applied. She refered to taxation policy under Eisenhower or later JFK. 90 / 80 % top tax rate for every dollar over 2,7 million USD (in todays ! purchasing power). - Nixon and JFK discussed 72 % effective top marginal income tax in 1960 in a presidential debate. JFK wanted to spend the extra tax revenue provided by the rich on education. Considering how much productivity has risen taxes posssibly COULD be lower, but even under Reagan taxes for the rich were higher than they are today (even before the Trump tax cuts). * also known as the Golden Era / Building of the American Middle Class
    1
  14. Has everyone notices the SHIFTING of the GOAL POSTS. (They did the same with Irak *.) Just in case the annoying voters want EVIDENCE and ask logical questions (like how can we be sure so quickly, and if the higher ups start the talk of war so prematurely then maybe they have an agenda ??). So now it is US soldiers could come accross chemicals weapons (solution: do not have them in Syria). Or we want Syria to be stable - in that case an Assad government would be the best bet of the U.S. and the West. After all the terrorist have been defeated. So if the West could abstain from arming, and financing the terrorists further .... Of course Syria gave up their Chemical weapons. And chlorine cannot be banned it is a usual and very basic chemical. With Iraq it was: Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11. No he wasn't, didn't stick. Then: the hase WMDs. allegedly nuclear. They changed that to mean chemical weapons. Well he did have them, and the West knew exactely which, after all they had sold them to Iraq. When that could not be maintained anymore - well since we are already there in Iraq ... and he was such a bad guy. Didn't disturb anyone that he was a bad guy all the decades (including the time when he started the war against Iran on behest of the U.S.).Or when he used chemical weapons (supplied by the West) on the Kurds.
    1
  15. If they had tried to get the gospel out there like that - she is on TV not in person ! (online !, facebook, zoom, youtube, good old snail mail, email ) they would not have had any problems to begin with. But fundraising works better if people attend church service in person. Or he could have held services online, could ahve organized people to help those who may not be tech savvy enough to have a zoom call. Send them letters of solace, call them on the phone. Show up at home and have a discussion outside (with enough distance).
    1
  16. I am pleasantly suprised, this was a fact based discussion. They even did not "forget" Sanders. Until very recently the "liberal" outlets always very much avoided mentioning him. (some questions when they interviewed Sanders, but never when they compared candidates).
    1
  17. Israel is well known to treat terrorists from Syria - and then sends them back. Israel had never an ISIS attack - and I do not think that is because of their security (which after all cannot prevent all Palestinian terrorism). - no the "moderate" terrorists will not attack their financiers - and the influental little country that pulls the string of the U.S. - so if Israel can make the U.S. help them. The White Helmets are likely a cover for arms supplies and funding - and I would be astonished if Israel was not in the middle of it.
    1
  18. At 12 weeks old the fetus is NOT a human, that is the legal and the medical standpoint. There is no way it could survive outside the womb. And it does not have the abilities that are characteristic for a human (even as helpless as a viable human infant = baby). The outer form starts resembling the form of a human, yes. Having a brain or a heart is no sign ob higher development, it does not constitute a human, many beings have that. There is the POTENTIAL to become a human. The fetus has no consciousness, the brain and nervous system is of course only in the very early stages of development.
    1
  19. For all those who call Warren "Pocahontas" a) it is childish and b) is seriously gives the impression that you do not know how to debate her ON THE ISSUES ! And when she is met with the usual right wing and think tank talking points she is good in countering them. Meaning she comes accross as convincing to enough people of the audience. (she does not need to convince anyone, and that has nothing to do with the strength of her argument, but she must incease TURNOUT and convince ENOUGH). Pretty much what Trump did. He had a loose and creative relationship to facts - but since enough people found that convincing - it got him into the White House. (and spare me the fake outrage about whether or not she or the university used heritage to gain any advantage. - Fact check Potus ONE day, do your homework on his bankrupcies the settlements for shady deals - and then come back. Warren was an accomplished law professor, very well graded also by her students and she put the fear in the financial industry with the Consumer protection agency. (I can see her in such a role again under a president Sanders). When the then Republican majority hindered her confirmation as head of the agency she so successfully set up - she turned around and won the Senate seat. - Well done, Ma'am. Needless to say: that agency and many other things that protect citizens and consumers were dismantled by this admin. Well, the blue print is there ....
    1
  20. Does a rally, challenges another politician, talks about a million USD for a chariy. - it is all "hypothetical". So why did he even waste time on that (talking about her DNA in the first place, and THEN about that someone someplace under certain conditions in theory could make a major donation). But to be sure the "wording" was so that he could weasel out. And he said "Indian" which could also mean the country in Asia - so he is on the safe side.
    1
  21. But then he also tried to weasel out of the donation for the veterans, so ... Not that I think that Elizabeth Warren "won" the bet. - btw: children were kidnapped and raised by the first nation - in most cases white children, or they took in slaves. So they would be culturally First Nation - but it would not show in the DNA.
    1