Here is another example of the contempt Progressive-Democrats have for American citizens.
What do we know about 18 to 24 year olds? They are really stupid…
Remember this in November.
Contempt
Reply
Tag Archives: political parties
Zuckerberg’s Facebook
…lies again. In a video presenting President Donald Trump saying on Fox News‘ Fox & Friends
My view is that schools should be open. If you look at children, children are almost—and I would almost say definitely—but almost immune from this disease.
The video was posted on Facebook—and then removed entirely. Liz Bourgeois, Facebook’s Communications Director, Strategic Response:
This video includes false claims that a group of people is immune from COVID-19 which is a violation of our policies around harmful COVID misinformation[.]
Therein sits the lie. Almost immune is not immune; saying a group of people is almost immune from this disease is not at all saying that they are immune.
Facebook’s Bourgeois is lying with her allegation. Mark Zuckerberg is lying through his employee—as the controlling shareholder of Facebook, Bourgeois is only saying what he tells her to say/authorizes her to say. Zuckerberg’s Facebook is engaging in cynical—wholly dishonest—censorship.
Waiting for Biden
Even as Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden hides out in his Delaware basement—will he give his Convention acceptance speech from there, too, or will he head for a nearby rec center?—while insisting that he’s anxious to debate President Donald Trump, he’s busily declining to press the matter. His acolytes are increasingly urging him to duck the already agreed three debates, too.
However.
The Commission on Presidential Debates declined the Trump campaign’s request for a fourth debate, one that would occur next month, before early voting starts in so many States. Such a debate, timed as it’s suggested, would let voters assess the two candidates as they address each other and each other’s positions face to face before they vote.
It’s not actually a rejection, though.
[The Commission] added that it would “consider” adding an additional encounter between Trump and Biden to the three that are already scheduled if both candidates agree.
If both candidates agree. Trump already has, as demonstrated by his campaign’s request for a fourth debate.
Ball’s in your court, Mr Biden. What’s your answer?
Pen and Phone
The editors at The Wall Street Journal expressed worry about President Donald Trump’s use of his “pen and phone” over the weekend to render the Congressional Progressive-Democrats’ obstructionism regarding Wuhan Virus relief for Americans irrelevant. They think he’s aping too closely ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) pen and phone.
It’s true that Trump is using his pen and phone. The differences between his actions and Obama’s, though, are two: Trump is undoing Obama’s pen and phone actions, not creating new things—with this exception, which is the other critical difference: Obama’s actions were largely illegal, struck down on legal challenge; Trump’s have proven legal, in the main, upheld on legal challenge.
The editors are worried about this use in particular:
Mr Trump’s FEMA order is a bad legal precedent that a President Kamala Harris could cite if a GOP Congress blocked her agenda on, say, climate change.
This is mistaken. For one thing, not doing a useful thing because a bad person (of either party) might misuse it later is simply foolish. If the thing is useful, it’s usefully done. Full stop.
For another thing, Obama already set the general precedent—Congress not performing to his satisfaction was his rationale for his own pen and phone use.
Finally, the question of precedent enabling a President Harris to use FEMA funds on her global warming agenda—to take a particular example—is plain wrong. Harris needs no precedent to use FEMA funds for her agenda; she’d do that anyway. And set her own precedent, without a care.
RTWT, though. Aside from this last item, it’s a generally soundly reasoned piece.
“We’re Losing Taxpayers When We Need Them Most”
That’s what Congressman Tom Suozzi (D, NY) said on the House floor, with an absolutely straight face, as he was attempting to add the Progressive-Democrats’ current move to protect their rich constituents: repeal of the $10,000 SALT cap, which limits the State and Local Taxes that can be deducted from Federal income taxes.
The SALT limit only hits the rich, and it only hits those in Progressive-Democrat-run jurisdictions.
We’re losing taxpayers when we need them most.
They’re not human beings, citizens who pay taxes. They’re taxpayers. In particular, they’re rich taxpayers who happen to be human beings, citizens. Progressive-Democrats don’t care a fig about their citizen-constituents, and they’re especially not really protective of their wealthiest citizen-constituents.
They just want their money.
There’s this bit of cynicism, too, from Suozzi:
The people who can’t afford to move or just don’t want to move are the ones left behind holding the bag.
But the bag they’re left holding is the Progressive-Democrats’ spendthrift ways and usurious tax schemes.
It’s inconceivable that these folks should adjust their tax rates and their spending so as to not send citizens packing.