Wake Up, America! Wake Up! PLEASE!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Everything in life is not simplified to a postage stamp. There are some things that are complex and takes time to read.

Yeah except they don't read them. Including the guys who 'write' it. There are maybe two Congress people who actually read the bills- Rand Paul and Justin Amash. And how do the democrats read 400 bills and know what they say or do the impact review?

See you missed the point- there are books that assert there are so many laws the Average America living life break between 3 and 5 misdemeanors and 1 felony daily. Do you know how much money American business spend annually on reg compliance?

So why do we need 400 bills at this time in our history.
 
lets divert more money away from the CDC to build a fucking wall...………………...

Longest-ever border smuggling tunnel found stretching ...
https://www.foxnews.com/us/longest-ever-border...
Tunnel extends 4,309 feet from Tijuana, Mexico to San Diego, California. U.S. authorities discovered the longest smuggling tunnel ever found along the southwest border. The tunnel originates in ...

Yeah except they didn't divert from the CDC. They increased the budget after Obama cut it. To an all time high in 2018 and just under 8 billion in 2019 and Congress kept the budget close to the 8 billion or just above it.

So you are not telling the truth again. You know this because I already showed you this budget numbers and you ran from the questions for you to explain your non truths.
 
Health care debacle results from Republicans believing their own myths

Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans created a political debacle for themselves by believing a set of scare stories about Obamacare that came back to haunt them. It is an object lesson in how false realities ultimately pop like soap bubbles when pricked by plain old truth.

There are five fatal fibs the GOP sold to supporters and to themselves:

Obamacare is socialistic, government-run health care. Actually, the ideas that led to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were developed in conservative think tanks in the 1990s as an alternative to a government run, Canada-like, single-payer scheme. The testing ground for these ideas was Massachusetts under Republican Gov. Mitt Romney. It was a middle-of-the-road idea that kept the private insurance industry at the heart of health care, something many Democrats, such as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, considered a terrible compromise.

--The American people hate Obamacare. While it is true that quite a few Americans came to detest Obamacare, what they did not like was the Republican-created myth that Obamacare is onerous, oppressive and expensive. The very name Obamacare was a GOP marketing tool to make it less attractive to conservative voters. In reality, most people -- especially all those in employer-run plans -- were not affected much one way or another by the ACA. Many others had no idea what it really was. In interviews, some voters famously said they hated Obamacare but loved the ACA.

--Obamacare will be repealed and replaced. Republican made this promise for seven years and Trump made the same pledge throughout his campaign. When it came down to it, though, they discovered there was vast disagreement within their party about how to do it. The priority of the so-called "Freedom Caucus" in the House GOP was to eliminate entitlements and toss the whole health care mess to the states. Meanwhile, Republicans from swing districts recognized that they would put themselves in political peril if they began taking away health care from older people with limited means and serious medical conditions or from pregnant women or from the working poor or from young people on their parents' plans -- all the people who were beneficiaries of the ACA.

--The House GOP health care plan is what Trump promised on the campaign trail. Trump seems to have sold this big fib to himself. Even after the harsh details of House Speaker Paul Ryan's health care bill became clear, Trump continued to say it was a "beautiful plan" that would give everyone access to health care and end the "nightmare" of Obamacare. Talking nonsense might get you to the White House, but it doesn't guarantee you can pass legislation once you get there. Off the record, some Republican members of Congress who met with Trump said they were shocked by how ignorant he was of the bill's provisions.

--Republicans speak for the American people when it comes to health care. Unlike Trump, the public grasped the details of the Republican scheme. In one poll, just 17 percent of voters favored it. That is pretty hard evidence that Republican politicians need to abandon their self-created myths about the ACA.

Here is the truth. Obamacare is far from perfect. Middle income people in rural states have been hit especially hard by the changes that have come about in the health care market since the ACA was passed, but the Republican plan did nothing to help them while it took away care from millions of poor people and threatened to cause a stark erosion in the quality of coverage for many of the older working class whites who are the heart of the Trump constituency.

Unless you are an anti-government, free market absolutist or just a rich guy who hates paying taxes, Obamacare does not need to be repealed or replaced. It needs to be fixed. Republicans, working with Democrats (what a crazy idea that is!), should repair it, improve it, call it by whatever name they want, but stop pretending that most Americans have not already decided that health care is too vital not to be a right guaranteed to everyone.

Of course, that is not what will happen. Instead, insurance companies will continue to exploit the weaknesses of the ACA, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price will do everything possible to undermine the system as it is and Trump will be playing golf at Mar-a-Lago until, to use the president's own term, the country's health care system "explodes."

"Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated," Trump said in a revelatory moment a month ago. It gets even more complicated when self-delusion runs so deep in a president and a political party.

Two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David Horsey is a political commentator for the Los Angeles Times. Go to latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/ to see more of his work.


Continue Readi



Subhub

Answer this
When Obamacare went into effect how many people lost their insurance?
After Obamacare started how much did the premiums for working Americans go up?
After Obamacare how many people lost their doctors?
After Obamacare what happened to prices of care?
After Trump cut mandates, the Democrats said had to be there, what happed to premiums of working and self employed Americans? For the first time in decades?
How many times can you switch and shop your insurance a year?
Mind you in a free country?
 
Last edited:
Yeah except they didn't divert from the CDC. They increased the budget after Obama cut it. To an all time high in 2018 and just under 8 billion in 2019 and Congress kept the budget close to the 8 billion or just above it.

So you are not telling the truth again. You know this because I already showed you this budget numbers and you ran from the questions for you to explain your non truths.
wrong and have posted it for you several times.....not my fault your comprehension lacks....alot


never should have answered you....now it is one complete false and stupid statement after another
 
wrong and have posted it for you several times.....not my fault your comprehension lacks....alot


never should have answered you....now it is one complete false and stupid statement after another

If the funds were 'diverted' or cut. How do you explain that the CDC Budget has been between 7 and 8 billion for 3 of the last 4 years and over 8 billion in 2018? And this is an increase over the previous decade?
 
You rationalized a Klansman and a party of Klansmen as good because they are democrats and they saw the political winds change so they change the party narrative to get "blacks to vote democrat for a generation." The south and most of those Dixiecrats were Democrats until the 90s and even into 2011 when they died as democrat in federal office. Do you really think the rest of the Congressional democrats would have joined the Republicans supporting the Civil Rights bill if their district polls and feedback was against it?
You either can't read or, or are so dishonest, it's a waste talking to you. I did something you would never be capable of doing, an honest and critical assessment of the sins in my party. I went into way further detail than any opposition on here by giving dates and name. When you have the integrity to write out the same, then we can start the dick measuring contest that this has become. Until then, your words come across about as honest as your President's. Not even close.
 
You either can't read or, or are so dishonest, it's a waste talking to you. I did something you would never be capable of doing, an honest and critical assessment of the sins in my party. I went into way further detail than any opposition on here by giving dates and name. When you have the integrity to write out the same, then we can start the dick measuring contest that this has become. Until then, your words come across about as honest as your President's. Not even close.

There it is again. "I am good democrat and you evil trumptard". Granted you do more then most on here. And thank you for that.

I have answered your posts. I have asked you counter logical points and given Socratic return. And your first and sometime your second salvos are good, but when the discussion gets to the underlying philosophical or ideological questions you, and most dems here, respond with insults of my intelligence, hysterical cries of trumptard and/ or a orange man bad/ Republicans evil racist propaganda data dumps.

There an old saying, "may your knowledge be coupled with wisdom." That is the thing most of you Democrats don't get. You mistake dumping tons of questionable data as a logical philosophical or ideological count. I can go out, and have plenty of times, provide data from both sides and you all dismiss it without even reading it.

But again, when we get to the ideology it always jumps back to 'you are a trumptard, you are dumb, and we dems are smarter and good'.

I noticed all of you 'really smart' dems avoided the logical exercise and went right back to the democrat media's orange man bad Republicans bad propaganda dumps.
 
We set up mobile triage in worc ma
Besides the tax payer and church provided shelters, welfare, ******* treatment, public clinic services and hospitals that tax payers pay the bills for. Well here in Democrat controlled Colorado- looking at forsing hotels to house them free of charge. Or move them into private owned event centers, for free of charge. Apparently the Governor's Mansion and grounds and private mansion are not available for some reason.
 
Here is your problem. You see everything through the delusional rose colored glasses of
I'm Democrat
I'm Union
We are good and yes we had some micro sins like Jim Crow, but we are 'fighting' for the little guy now
And everyone who disagrees with me/ 'us; is an evil trumptard or Republican.

So ask yourself-
Why is it most of the dems go into public office poor or middle class and come out very rich? Especially at the fed level.
Why is it Bernie a socialist democrat, and front runner, has three house and many have none?
Why is it the dem elected officials are good with distributing other peoples money and property but exempt themselves from those laws?
Why is it your pension is under funded and will be probably go bankrupt in your retirement, but your union bosses are multi millionaires and get their bonuses?
Why is it the democrat party is the only party to have super majority in Congress and the White House 5 times and you dem supporters are still poor?
Why is it, if democrat's are so good with finances why have they increased the debt for the last 120 years, leveraging you and your kid's labor, just like those 'evil republicans'?
Why does the dem party want mass illegal and mass immigration especially from socialist third world South American and African failed socialist dictatorships? And not from those white 'socialist' Nordic countries they tell you are so great and you want to be like?
Ask yourself, why have I been supporting the democrats and my union bosses for years, they have been in power all this time, why are they multi Millionaires and I still a poor democrat voter 'fighting' for the little guy?

And shove the Republicans did it Bullshit. Many of these could be direct to Republican voters, but you are the democrat so this were direct to you.
Easy.
EVERYONE who goes into public office with modest means, has the ability to generate income off that experience, and most do. Unless they are wealthy when they enter office, like tRump, Bush II, Bush I, Reagan, etc. Most Democrats are not poor or middle class. Most of the political class, come from money.
Bernie is not the front runner. That ******* was short lived. And you will have to talk to the local people that did that. I assume that with all of the conservatives taking ******* for the few, and trickle down failing yet again. However, that socialist dem has been beating Republicans for decades in a rural state.
Democrats are better at governing and the economy. Period. Don't make me pull up SubHub's charts. That's what every government on earth does, distribute resources from the people back to the people. Job of government is to address the needs of the collective.

I'm educated, professional and not poor. I've done/do very well. I did not start off this way over 20 years ago entering the workforce. However, I am still black. And, you are treated on how you look here way too much. Republicans refuse to believe it, even though study after study shows racism is not only going on but on the rise in the last three years. No matter how much money I make (which seems to be important to you) or property taxes I fork over, I will never ever support a political party that makes this country dangerous to my *******. And that's the bottom line. Donald Trump is the clearest and most present danger to that. If you don't understand how, well fuck you.
 
Why Republicans Hate Obamacare So Much

When President Barack Obama was first sworn into office in January 2009, he immediately began the process for passing his key policy issue - reforming the country’s expensive and haphazard health insurance industry. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which would eventually be known as the Affordable Care Act, the ACA, or simply “Obamacare,” was then introduced in the fall of 2009. By November, it passed with a mere five-vote majority in the House, and the following month, it passed the Senate 60 to 39.

In both chambers, not one single Republican voted in favor of the bill.

It didn’t have to be that way. Health-care reform was an issue both parties were in favor of and previous efforts had enjoyed bipartisan support. The most hopeful-looking option was the “Healthy Americans Act,” a reform bill introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, and Sen. Robert Bennett, a Republican from Utah. The 2007 bill had multiple co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle but never managed to make it out of committee.
Still, when it came to the Affordable Care Act, Republican politicians were lockstep in their refusal to so much as consider any sort of common ground - even though many aspects of the plan were quite similar to a 2006 Massachusetts law developed and signed by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney. Their opposition was immediate, total, and relentless, to the point where many find themselves wondering just what do they hate so much about Obamacare?

Based solely on official conservative principles, there are actually a number of issues that the GOP legitimately would have with the ACA. Just like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, they view Obamacare as an entitlement program they would be more than happy to discontinue, believing that the government should never be involved in assuring minimum standards of living are met. “ome conservatives oppose it for the same reason that liberals favor it. Through the Medicaid expansion and the exchanges, it subsidizes insurance coverage for people of modest means by raising taxes on people of less-modest means,” explains Reilhan Salam at Slate, adding, “Conservatives tend not to be enthusiastic about redistribution, and they’re particularly skeptical about redistribution that isn’t transparent.”
The industry regulations that are a part of the Affordable Care Act are also another stumbling block for fiscal conservatives who believe that businesses should always be allowed to govern themselves and are justified in gaining as much profit as they can for shareholders. As part of health-care reform, insurance agencies were ****** to spend 85 percent of all revenues on medical care rather than administration costs or bonuses or perks. They could also no longer cap how much they spend per patient in coverage due to medical conditions or other need for chronic care, either on an annual or lifetime basis. These restrictions on profitability are opposed by Republicans who think free market principles will keep businesses in check.

And of course there were issues with reproductive health care such as abortion and birth control. Anti-abortion groups claimed the Affordable Care Act to be “the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade” due to the inclusion of some insurance plans in the exchange that allowed coverage for elective abortions. They considered plans purchased on state and federal exchanges to be a means of forsing other taxpayers to “subsidize” elective abortion coverage, despite the fact that the government set up additional steps to ensure that federal funding to private insurance plans that cover abortions remain separate, and the president’s additional executive order reaffirming the Hyde Amendment’s federal ban on abortion funding. They also demanded exceptions for all companies - for-profit and nonprofit - who had religious objections to birth control. The birth control mandate declared contraception an essential service for women’s health and required all companies to offer plans that included hormonal birth control, emergency contraception, long-acting birth control methods, and female sterilization procedures. Religious institutions were allowed a conscientious objection to the coverage, but social conservatives wanted the loophole extended to any business or organization whose owners disapproved of any birth control use for moral reasons – regardless of how many of their own employees or other insurees may have different opinions on the issue
Yet while the GOP has strenuously opposed all of these individual aspects of the ACA, it was the individual mandate that appeared to irk them the most - and had the least reason to do so. Republicans, using language that originated with the conservative Heritage Institute, were advocating for a requirement that all people be required some form of health insurance as long ago as the late 1980s and it was championed by GOP Congress members during much of the early 1990s. It was even a key component in the Massachusetts health care law approved by Gov. Romney in 2006. But the individual mandate instead went from being something that Republicans were willing to support in order to bring down the costs of insurance to a policy they claim strips personal liberty and is even tantamount to slavery.

So what flipped the switch? Election Day, 2008. When Obama won his first presidential election, that also put both the House and Senate into Democratic control. The House Democrats outnumbered Republicans 257 to 178, and Democrats and their two independent allies outnumbered the Senate Republicans 59 to 41. According to the Brookings Institute’s Thomas Mann, GOP strategy experts decided that the best way to win back majorities would be to keep their entire conservative block united in rejecting any legislation that could potentially be viewed as a Democratic success if it passed. Congressional Republicans were urged to filibuster any bill that came before the Senate and harshly criticize any law that they couldn’t stop in an attempt to make what did pass as unpopular as possible. That decision doomed any chance for bipartisan health-care reform.
The GOP’s refusal to vote in favor of Obamacare’s passage and their aggressive opposition to every element of the bill - even those they had agreed with in the past - served to help them sweep into power in both Congress and a number of state legislatures when the 2010 midterms came around. And by taking over a number of state legislatures and governors’ mansions, Republicans could then block portions of the ACA from going into effect, further hampering the reforms. Red-state legislatures often refused to expand Medicaid so more people could receive subsidized insurance plans, leaving their residents with far more expensive out-of-pocket costs than blue-state counterparts. They also often opted out of opening their own state exchanges, forsing the uninsured to enroll through the federal exchange instead, which limited their coverage options and put a greater burden on the federal site. By first refusing to support Obamacare and then purposefully trying to make it fail, Republicans believed any consumer dissatisfaction would rest completely on the shoulders of the Democrats, since they were the only ones to vote in favor of the law.


So do Republicans really despise the Affordable Care Act? Despite the fact that they have voted in some way, shape, or form to repeal some or all of the ACA more than 60 times in the six years since it was signed into law, the answer may surprisingly be no. Or at least, not as much of it as they claim. But they do hate the “Obamacare” that was passed solely with Democratic votes and signed by a Democratic president, and they will do anything to tear that down completely. And when they later replace it with a new plan that has a surprising number of policies similar to the law they just undid, well, then we will know the thing they hated most about Obamacare was always Obama.
 
There it is again. "I am good democrat and you evil trumptard". Granted you do more then most on here. And thank you for that.

I have answered your posts. I have asked you counter logical points and given Socratic return. And your first and sometime your second salvos are good, but when the discussion gets to the underlying philosophical or ideological questions you, and most dems here, respond with insults of my intelligence, hysterical cries of trumptard and/ or a orange man bad/ Republicans evil racist propaganda data dumps.

There an old saying, "may your knowledge be coupled with wisdom." That is the thing most of you Democrats don't get. You mistake dumping tons of questionable data as a logical philosophical or ideological count. I can go out, and have plenty of times, provide data from both sides and you all dismiss it without even reading it.

But again, when we get to the ideology it always jumps back to 'you are a trumptard, you are dumb, and we dems are smarter and good'.

I noticed all of you 'really smart' dems avoided the logical exercise and went right back to the democrat media's orange man bad Republicans bad propaganda dumps.

I never used the word evil. But yes, that's the jist of it.
Subhub proves daily that people are noticing that tRump is the worst president, and you followers twist yourself in knots changing definitions (like 'facts', 'logic' and 'lies') to fit his latest delusion. It's has made you pretty damn good at deflection and projection.
Now, I am not one who says 'us' Dems are smarter that the Republicans. I do say "I" am smarter than most- because most do not have my experience in politics. Everyday I see people who were normal Republicans or associates of mine, become part of the tRump culture accepting the lies and classlessness in exchange for a great 401k, or conservative judges, or sticking it to the liberals. Like you, though I don't know if you were ever normal.
So, it's like six of us that follow this topic on here. Who's mind am I trying to change? What is the prize for winning an argument? There is no difference between gutter sniping and presenting a well researched response.
 
Trump spent the past 2 years slashing the government agencies responsible for handling the coronavirus outbreak

  • President Donald Trump insisted on Tuesday that the coronavirus, known as COVID-19 virus, is under control because China is "working very hard" to contain its spread.
  • The president's comments are at odds with reality. The same day, the CDC announced that it expected the virus to spread enough within the US to cause a "disruption to everyday life."
  • The Trump administration has also spent the past several years dismantling the very government programs responsible for combatting a global health crisis.

President Donald Trump spent much of Tuesday reassuring the public that the coronavirus is under control.

"China is working very, very hard," Trump told reporters at a business roundtable at the US embassy in New Delhi. "I have spoken to President Xi, and they are working very hard. If you know anything about him, I think he will be in pretty good shape. They have had a rough patch, but now it looks like they are getting it more and more under control. I think that is a problem that is going to go away."

Trump's comments are at odds with reality.

The coronavirus, or the COVID-19 virus, originated in Wuhan, China, and has killed 2,700 people and spread to 30 countries. There are at least 36 confirmed cases in the US, including repatriated citizens.

On Tuesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that it expected the virus to spread further within the US.

"It's not so much of a question of if this will happen in this country any more but a question of when this will happen," Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a press call on Tuesday. "We are asking the American public to prepare for the expectation that this might be bad."

Messonnier also said the agency was "preparing as if we are going to see community spread in the near term," adding that the outbreak could soon lead to a "disruption to everyday life."

Fears of a pandemic come after the Trump administration spent the past several years gutting the very government programs that are tasked with combatting such a crisis.

In 2018, for instance, the CDC cut 80% of its efforts to prevent global disease outbreaks because it was running out of money. Ultimately, the department went from working in 49 countries to just 10.

Here are some other actions the Trump administration undertook to dismantle government-spending programs related to fighting the spread of global diseases, according to Foreign Policy:

  • Shutting down the entire global-health-security unit of the National Security Council.
  • Eliminating the US government's $30 million Complex Crises Fund.
  • Reducing national health spending by $15 billion.
  • Consistently attacking Mark Green, the director of the US Agency for International Development.
The CDC is working on a new test to screen for the coronavirus, but according to New York magazine, problems with the test's development resulted in only three out of 100 public-health labs being equipped to screen for the virus. Moreover, each test costs as much as $250, and the Health and Human Services Department is already running out of money to finance an adequate response to the outbreak.

The Trump administration recently requested $2.5 billion in emergency funds — $1.25 billion in new funding and $1.25 billion to be diverted from other federal programs — to aid in preparing and responding to coronavirus cases in the US.

But Democratic lawmakers and health experts skewered the administration for not going far enough to combat the crisis.

The economic consequences of an unaddressed outbreak would dwarf US spending on efforts to control it, Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist and the director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told Insider.

"It seems quite inadequate and absurd to divert funds from one serious epidemic to another," Lipsitch said of the emergency-funding package. "Money to control it is a very important investment."






Trump Has Sabotaged America's Response to the Coronavirus ...
Jan 31, 2020 · The global health section of the CDC was so drastically cut in 2018 that much of its staff was laid off and the number of countries it was working in was reduced from 49 to merely 10.


Did Trump Administration Fire the US Pandemic Response Team?
As a new coronavirus spread in 2020, so did concerns about the United States' preparedness for a potential pandemic.

Amid warnings from public health officials that a 2020 outbreak of a new coronavirus could soon become a pandemic involving the U.S., alarmed readers asked Snopes to verify a rumor that U.S. President Donald Trump had “fired the entire pandemic response team two years ago and then didn’t replace them.”

The claim came from a series of tweets posted by Judd Legum, who runs Popular Information, a newsletter he describes as being about “politics and power.” Legum’s commentary was representative of sharp criticism from Democratic legislators (and some Republicans) that the Trump administration had ill-prepared the country for a pandemic even as one was looming on the horizon.

Legum outlined a series of cost-cutting decisions made by the Trump administration in preceding years that had gutted the nation’s infectious disease defense infrastructure. The “pandemic response team” firing claim referred to news accounts from Spring 2018 reporting that White House officials tasked with directing a national response to a pandemic had been ousted.

Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer abruptly departed from his post leading the global health security team on the National Security Council in May 2018 amid a reorganization of the council by then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Ziemer’s team was disbanded. Tom Bossert, whom the Washington Post reported “had called for a comprehensive biodefense strategy against pandemics and biological attacks,” had been fired one month prior.


It’s thus true that the Trump administration axed the executive branch team responsible or coordinating a response to a pandemic and did not replace it, eliminating Ziemer’s position and reassigning others, although Bolton was the executive at the top of the National Security Council chain of command at the time.

Legum stated in a follow-up tweet that “Trump also cut funding for the CDC, forsing the CDC to cancel its efforts to help countries prevent infectious-disease threats from becoming epidemics in 39 of 49 countries in 2018. Among the countries abandoned? China.” That was partly true, according to 2018 news reports stating that funding for the CDC’s global disease outbreak prevention efforts had been reduced by 80%, including funding for the agency’s efforts in China.

But that was the result of the anticipated depletion of previously allotted funding, not a direct cut by the Trump administration. And as the CDC told FactCheck.org, the cuts were ultimately avoided because Congress provided other funding.

On Feb. 24, 2020, the Trump administration requested $2.5 billion to address the coronavirus outbreak, an outlay critics asserted might not have been necessary if the previous program cuts had not taken place. Fortune reported of the issue that:

The cuts could be especially problematic as COVID-19 continues to spread. Health officials are now warning the U.S. is unlikely to be spared, even though cases are minimal here so far.
“It’s not so much of a question of if this will happen in this country any more but a question of when this will happen and how many people in this country will have severe illness,” Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a press call [on Feb. 25].

The coronavirus was first detected in Wuhan, China, in the winter of 2019, and cases spread around the globe. The U.S. had 57 confirmed cases as of this writing, while globally, roughly 80,000 patients had been sickened with the virus and 3,000 had died. As of yet, no vaccine or pharmaceutical treatment for the new coronavirus. Data from China suggests the coronavirus has a higher fatality rate than the seasonal flu, although outcomes depend on factors such as the age and underlying health of the patient.


Readers can find the latest coronavirus information from the CDC here.
 
Typical- Always the sliding scale of what you said/meant.

See this is that cognitive dissonance again.

Funny how I challenged the Dixiecrat Democrats myth and that none of the Elected Dems left. And then pointed out those Dixiecrats were still Democrats after the bill passed and until the 90s or even 2011. And most left the Democrats by either being retired or dead.

So now you come up with it wasn't the actual elected Dixiecrats/ Democrats, who were also klansmen a year or so before, but the voters that switched to the Republican party who also supported the Civil Rights Bill? In fact worked publicly with Kennedy to get it passed before the Democrats. Really you buy this *******?
Southern voters went from voting a majority Democrats, who didn't support legislation addressing equality, That same region, now supports Republicans, who don't support legislation addressing equality.
And it was the South that voted against the Civil Rights legislation. Democrats and Republicans. Do to the time period, there were a shitload more of Democrats elected there than Republicans. Hell, there were a shitload more Democrats in Congress than Republicans.
Civil Rights legislation was initiated by Kennedy and the '64 bill was written and proposed in '63 by Kennedy. Johnson took it on as his mission to get it passed. He got a majority of Democrats in the House, and in the Senate to vote for it. Period. A majority of Democrats in the House and Senate voted for THEIR Civil Rights bill, and allowed the fer republicans there to join in.
However, in 1964, the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater, while they were so piously supporting the civil rights act. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights legislation, and the Voting Rights legislation, and the Martin Luther King jr Holiday.
 
Easy.
EVERYONE who goes into public office with modest means, has the ability to generate income off that experience, and most do. Unless they are wealthy when they enter office, like tRump, Bush II, Bush I, Reagan, etc. Most Democrats are not poor or middle class. Most of the political class, come from money.
Bernie is not the front runner. That ******* was short lived. And you will have to talk to the local people that did that. I assume that with all of the conservatives taking ******* for the few, and trickle down failing yet again. However, that socialist dem has been beating Republicans for decades in a rural state.
Democrats are better at governing and the economy. Period. Don't make me pull up SubHub's charts. That's what every government on earth does, distribute resources from the people back to the people. Job of government is to address the needs of the collective.

I'm educated, professional and not poor. I've done/do very well. I did not start off this way over 20 years ago entering the workforce. However, I am still black. And, you are treated on how you look here way too much. Republicans refuse to believe it, even though study after study shows racism is not only going on but on the rise in the last three years. No matter how much money I make (which seems to be important to you) or property taxes I fork over, I will never ever support a political party that makes this country dangerous to my *******. And that's the bottom line. Donald Trump is the clearest and most present danger to that. If you don't understand how, well fuck you.

You ducked or tried to strawman on all of those questions- In the process:

- You admitted you believe it is ok for elected public servants to enrich themselves while they or their spouses are in public office. I guess you forgot the dems shitting themselves over Citizens United. And the law.

- You Said "That's what every government on earth does, distribute resources from the people back to the people. Job of government is to address the needs of the collective." That is socialism and Not the Legal and Constitutional Role of Federal Gov't in America.

-And in America the Federal government has very few jobs. Now they have, over years, unconstitutional made up more jobs to enrich themselves. But, outside of interstate commerce and national defense they really have very few additional 'rights' per the Constitution.

- AND you just asserted, by mistake, the Democrats are the party of the rich.

-Then tossed in the good ole victim or race card, not sure, I lost track of all the whoa is me, you got it easy cards. How about you explain: So other Black People choose whites over Blacks? What about quotes and affirmative action? What about mandatory education quotes for “minority” students and grade leveling against Asians and white in favor of ‘minority’ students? What about all those millionaire and billionaire Black People? If what you say is true in America and with "evil Republicans" how did that happen?

-Yeah you should take my response on subhub’s horseshit 70 Years Dems are better post and answer my questions. I want to see you in detail defend that load of *******.
 
Southern voters went from voting a majority Democrats, who didn't support legislation addressing equality, That same region, now supports Republicans, who don't support legislation addressing equality.
And it was the South that voted against the Civil Rights legislation. Democrats and Republicans. Do to the time period, there were a shitload more of Democrats elected there than Republicans. Hell, there were a shitload more Democrats in Congress than Republicans.
Civil Rights legislation was initiated by Kennedy and the '64 bill was written and proposed in '63 by Kennedy. Johnson took it on as his mission to get it passed. He got a majority of Democrats in the House, and in the Senate to vote for it. Period. A majority of Democrats in the House and Senate voted for THEIR Civil Rights bill, and allowed the fer republicans there to join in.
However, in 1964, the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater, while they were so piously supporting the civil rights act. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights legislation, and the Voting Rights legislation, and the Martin Luther King jr Holiday.

So again, you keep ducking some key facts. If what your saying is true. How did the Democrats hold most, if not all, of the Local, state and federal elected and appointed positions in the South for the 1960s, 1970s, much of the 1980s and in many areas until 1990s and longer? And the Dems have and still are the main parties in several large urban southern cities.

If all the racist left the Dems over the Civil Rights act and moved to, the other party who also supported the Civil Rights bill, how did the Dems stay in power for 30 + years and in some spots a 'former' grand dragons stayed dems and in power in the Dem Party for up to 50+ years?

Why did Goldwater oppose them? Did he say? For example maybe he thought voting rights were already covered in the Constitution or SCOTUS rulings, which they were and still are. Maybe he thought they were bad bills or had intentions other then what the title said? Maybe he thought MLK didn't do something to warrant a national holiday. I am don't know for sure but the simple act of opposing these does not make you a racist right out of hand. Don't forget the Democrats have a track record of over 180 years of nominating and voting for racist and klanmen.


Again what equality laws are they opposing now, today? In the last 4 years?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top