New York City

[Belinda]

For all I know you could be correct. You are certainly correct that I don't know you and I should not have implied you were uncharitable. I apologise.

I'm not hurt. And it's a fair enough assumption, since many people are not particularly charitable.

I understand that you are using the plight of unfortunates for political leverage and I do not think that is right.

You're hilarious.

"Political leverage"? I have no such thing. But look at what the Dems want for themselves: control of the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth. And do you note that they hesitate to use "the plight of unfortunates" to leverage their way to power? You know very well they don't.

If the Dems are as bad as you say they are then don't you need to vote for some other political party?

I'm not American. I don't have to take a side.

If all politicians are as bad as you say are then you need to vote for the least bad.

No, that's not logical. You really don't need to vote at all, if all the candidates are corrupt. Or maybe you need to run for office yourself. But you don't need to join yourself with evil, merely because they don't offer you an alternative.

I remember now---you are Australian. However what I said still holds, that if all political parties are bad then you and I should vote for the least bad. Not voting is not a moral option in a democratic country.

[accelafine]

For all I know you could be correct. You are certainly correct that I don't know you and I should not have implied you were uncharitable. I apologise.

I'm not hurt. And it's a fair enough assumption, since many people are not particularly charitable.

I understand that you are using the plight of unfortunates for political leverage and I do not think that is right.

You're hilarious.

"Political leverage"? I have no such thing. But look at what the Dems want for themselves: control of the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth. And do you note that they hesitate to use "the plight of unfortunates" to leverage their way to power? You know very well they don't.

If the Dems are as bad as you say they are then don't you need to vote for some other political party?

I'm not American. I don't have to take a side.

If all politicians are as bad as you say are then you need to vote for the least bad.

No, that's not logical. You really don't need to vote at all, if all the candidates are corrupt. Or maybe you need to run for office yourself. But you don't need to join yourself with evil, merely because they don't offer you an alternative.

I remember now---you are Australian. However what I said still holds, that if all political parties are bad then you and I should vote for the least bad. Not voting is not a moral option in a democratic country.

Australian? Well that explains a lot.

[Immanuel Can]

For all I know you could be correct. You are certainly correct that I don't know you and I should not have implied you were uncharitable. I apologise.

I'm not hurt. And it's a fair enough assumption, since many people are not particularly charitable.

I understand that you are using the plight of unfortunates for political leverage and I do not think that is right.

You're hilarious.

"Political leverage"? I have no such thing. But look at what the Dems want for themselves: control of the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth. And do you note that they hesitate to use "the plight of unfortunates" to leverage their way to power? You know very well they don't.

If the Dems are as bad as you say they are then don't you need to vote for some other political party?

I'm not American. I don't have to take a side.

If all politicians are as bad as you say are then you need to vote for the least bad.

No, that's not logical. You really don't need to vote at all, if all the candidates are corrupt. Or maybe you need to run for office yourself. But you don't need to join yourself with evil, merely because they don't offer you an alternative.

I remember now---you are Australian. However what I said still holds, that if all political parties are bad then you and I should vote for the least bad. Not voting is not a moral option in a democratic country.

Yeah, it is. Where is it written, "Thou shalt always vote in an election?" You have perfect freedom to do whatever you wish with your vote: give it one way, give it the other, or give it to nobody.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not hurt. And it's a fair enough assumption, since many people are not particularly charitable.

You're hilarious.

"Political leverage"? I have no such thing. But look at what the Dems want for themselves: control of the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth. And do you note that they hesitate to use "the plight of unfortunates" to leverage their way to power? You know very well they don't.


I'm not American. I don't have to take a side.


No, that's not logical. You really don't need to vote at all, if all the candidates are corrupt. Or maybe you need to run for office yourself. But you don't need to join yourself with evil, merely because they don't offer you an alternative.

I remember now---you are Australian. However what I said still holds, that if all political parties are bad then you and I should vote for the least bad. Not voting is not a moral option in a democratic country.

Australian? Well that explains a lot.

You hate everybody equally, it seems. Very democratic of you.

[Age]

For all I know you could be correct. You are certainly correct that I don't know you and I should not have implied you were uncharitable. I apologise.

I'm not hurt. And it's a fair enough assumption, since many people are not particularly charitable.

I understand that you are using the plight of unfortunates for political leverage and I do not think that is right.

You're hilarious.

"Political leverage"? I have no such thing. But look at what the Dems want for themselves: control of the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth. And do you note that they hesitate to use "the plight of unfortunates" to leverage their way to power? You know very well they don't.

If the Dems are as bad as you say they are then don't you need to vote for some other political party?

I'm not American. I don't have to take a side.

If all politicians are as bad as you say are then you need to vote for the least bad.

No, that's not logical. You really don't need to vote at all, if all the candidates are corrupt. Or maybe you need to run for office yourself. But you don't need to join yourself with evil, merely because they don't offer you an alternative.

I remember now---you are Australian. However what I said still holds, that if all political parties are bad then you and I should vote for the least bad. Not voting is not a moral option in a democratic country.

Are you sure you are remembering Correctly?

Have you ever considered just seeking out and obtaining and gaining actual clarification, first, before you even begin to start assuming some thing?

Why do you own personal and individual 'morals' tell 'you' that not voting is not a 'moral option' in a so-called 'democratic country'?

Could it be that the some people have just 'taught' you to believe 'this', but which, in Reality, has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'morals', nor 'morality', itself?

[Walker]

Who twisted the legend of Robinhood?
Probably a Leftist, based on past performance.

They say that Robinhood robbed from the rich, and gave to the poor.
Wrong. That’s the strategy of The Left.

That’s also the (ostensible) fiscal plan of Mamdani.
Mamdani’s plan will quickly become robbing the middle class, if there are any of those left in the city.

Robin Hood was actually on the political Right.

Robin Hood robbed from the government, and gave to the poor.
What Robin robbed from the government, was what the government had robbed from the people.

Mamdani is more like The Sheriff of Nottingham, out there taking the money from the people.

Who is the modern day Robin Hood who wants to take money from the government, money that the government took from the people, and give it back to the people, by not taking it in the future through excessive taxation to pay for things outside the purview of the government?

You know who. Donald J. Trump, POTUS, aka Robinhood.

[Walker]

He thinks 'affordable healthcare' is a euphemism for Communism. He's too cowardly to say it outright of course, so he says it in gibberish and cutesie riddles instead.

Absolutely not.

[Walker]

Have you ever considered just seeking out and obtaining and gaining actual clarification, first, before you even begin to start assuming some thing?

If you fail to get the recursive clarifications that you seek, do you sometimes find yourself imagining unhinged, illogical, or perhaps even uncharitable possibilities to fill in the gaps of your knowledge? Tell the truth ...

If so, as a general rule one might want to check that need for clarity upon clarity before considering oneself to be marriage material for either sex, as Socrates no doubt learned, or when dialoguing to elicit meaning. This is because when you ask for the same meaning to be presented in a different way, you get a different meaning due to the form-is-content rule of situational meaning.

[Age]

Have you ever considered just seeking out and obtaining and gaining actual clarification, first, before you even begin to start assuming some thing?

If you fail to get the recursive clarifications that you seek, do you sometimes find yourself imagining unhinged, illogical, or perhaps even uncharitable possibilities to fill in the gaps of your knowledge?

No. I do not imagine any thing. I just wait, patiently. Again, for 'those' who are Truly open, honest, and who are also curios.

Tell the truth ...

Have I not?

If so, as a general rule one might want to check that need for clarity upon clarity before considering oneself to be marriage material for either sex, as Socrates no doubt learned, or when dialoguing to elicit meaning. This is because when you ask for the same meaning to be presented in a different way, you get a different meaning due to the form-is-content rule of situational meaning.

My answer, and thus clarification, obviously did not align with your presumption, and assumption, here, at all. So, what you just said and wrote, here, is completely moot.

[Gary Childress]

Paid for by whom?

Maybe some of those who are paying billions to fund the military or police departments or to pay for juicy government contracts for Elon Musk's companies could pay for health care? Is there something wrong with everyone having health care?

Is that what you see happening? Under the Democrats, did Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, or George Soros, or Fink, or the elites of Hollywood, or any of the Dems get poor? Did you see them redistribute their personal earnings in order to create equality, or to fund the healthcare system? Why didn't that happen, if the Dems are advocates for it?

Answer: because they're not. They're elitists, "limousine liberals," who want to keep their own millions while telling the poor of America what to do. They don't risk their own money; they just take yours.

I'm not sure I see that happening under Trump either. So what is accomplished by redirecting anger toward Trump back to the Democrats? As Belinda seems to indicate, if it's the lesser of two evils, then perhaps it's better not to put them on an equal footing with the greater of the two evils? In other words, Democrats are bad and Trump seems to be worse. Granted, Trump has his heart in the right place as far as world peace is concerned. But he's unhinged in other respects.

To be fair, however, sometimes it takes a jolt to get things moving in the right direction. The Democrats have become inept at accomplishing anything they profess to stand for. Like most, Biden talked a good game but in the end, he let corporations and people with evil intent get what they wanted to get. I'm mostly thinking of the world conference on curbing plastic production as an example. I hear it was a mockery of its original intent. Corporations jumped on the bandwagon and ended up not doing what they were supposed to do and I recall the Biden administration being frustrated that no progress was being made but couldn't understand why or what to do in response. I heard interviews with Corporate representatives from the convention on NPR. They sounded like "yes" men who had no idea they were supposed to go through with what they were saying "yes" to. Corporate representatives who were completely inept and simply told the administration what they wanted to hear while in the background, they were beholden to the almighty god of profit.

That's why many believe that profit driven enterprise needs to be curbed in favor of public social programs. Corporations are beholden to near term profit and if they do not uphold near term profit, then they go out of business. It's self defeating. They cannot get outside of the box to do what needs to be done when the pursuit of short term profit is driving us all off a cliff. Socialism is not a great evil. It's the only thing that can potentially turn us around (if done right). But it needs to be democratic socialism, socialism that has the well being off all of society's members in consideration, not just the short term profit of a business.

[Age]

Maybe some of those who are paying billions to fund the military or police departments or to pay for juicy government contracts for Elon Musk's companies could pay for health care? Is there something wrong with everyone having health care?

Is that what you see happening? Under the Democrats, did Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, or George Soros, or Fink, or the elites of Hollywood, or any of the Dems get poor? Did you see them redistribute their personal earnings in order to create equality, or to fund the healthcare system? Why didn't that happen, if the Dems are advocates for it?

Answer: because they're not. They're elitists, "limousine liberals," who want to keep their own millions while telling the poor of America what to do. They don't risk their own money; they just take yours.

I'm not sure I see that happening under Trump either. So what is accomplished by redirecting anger toward Trump back to the Democrats? As Belinda seems to indicate, if it's the lesser of two evils, then perhaps it's better not to put them on an equal footing with the greater of the two evils? In other words, Democrats are bad and Trump seems to be worse. Granted, Trump has his heart in the right place as far as world peace is concerned.

Is it possible that 'that one' is just appearing to be in the so-called 'right place', when actually it could be being very manipulative, for its own greedy and selfish purposes, instead, and/or only?

In other words, is it possible that 'that one' could be lying, and being deceitful, in order to just get what it greedily wants and desires?

Is it possible for people to pretend that they want 'world peace', but really are just doing what they think will get them what they personally truly want, for "themselves" and a few others only?

Are you human beings capable of being tricked and deceived?

But he's unhinged in other respects.

Why do you say and claim in other areas?

How could one be not unhinged in respects to claiming that they want 'world peace', itself, while at the same time ordering the dropping of bombs on human bodies, children and babies included?

To some of 'us' anyway, 'that one' is totally absolutely unhinged in respects to 'world peace'. Killing and murdering human beings does not create 'world peace', and in fact leads to, causes, and creates the exact opposite.

To be fair, however, sometimes it takes a jolt to get things moving in the right direction. The Democrats have become inept at accomplishing anything they profess to stand for. Like most, Biden talked a good game but in the end, he let corporations and people with evil intent get what they wanted to get.

LOL The people of the "united states of america" voted in the very person who is 'hell bent', with absolute evil intent, to get what it wants to get.

I'm mostly thinking of the world conference on curbing plastic production as an example. I hear it was a mockery of its original intent. Corporations jumped on the bandwagon and ended up not doing what they were supposed to do and I recall the Biden administration being frustrated that no progress was being made but couldn't understand why or what to do in response. I heard interviews with Corporate representatives from the convention on NPR. They sounded like "yes" men who had no idea they were supposed to go through with what they were saying "yes" to. Corporate representatives who were completely inept and simply told the administration what they wanted to hear while in the background, they were beholden to the almighty god of profit.

That's why many believe that profit driven enterprise needs to be curbed in favor of public social programs.

Then there are others, like "immanuel can", who believe the exact opposite.

Corporations are beholden to near term profit and if they do not uphold near term profit, then they go out of business. It's self defeating. They cannot get outside of the box to do what needs to be done when the pursuit of short term profit is driving us all off a cliff. Socialism is not a great evil. It's the only thing that can potentially turn us around (if done right). But it needs to be democratic socialism, socialism that has the well being off all of society's members in consideration, not just the short term profit of a business.

Here, is another example of how 'these people', back when this was being written, just did not 'look at' things anew, and would just focus on things already known, or in the past, only.

Again, proving how the Mind and the brain actually work, and, how and why it took 'them' so, so long to 'catch up'.

[Belinda]

I'm not hurt. And it's a fair enough assumption, since many people are not particularly charitable.

You're hilarious.

"Political leverage"? I have no such thing. But look at what the Dems want for themselves: control of the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth. And do you note that they hesitate to use "the plight of unfortunates" to leverage their way to power? You know very well they don't.


I'm not American. I don't have to take a side.


No, that's not logical. You really don't need to vote at all, if all the candidates are corrupt. Or maybe you need to run for office yourself. But you don't need to join yourself with evil, merely because they don't offer you an alternative.

I remember now---you are Australian. However what I said still holds, that if all political parties are bad then you and I should vote for the least bad. Not voting is not a moral option in a democratic country.

Yeah, it is. Where is it written, "Thou shalt always vote in an election?" You have perfect freedom to do whatever you wish with your vote: give it one way, give it the other, or give it to nobody.

Democracy depends on the active and well informed participation of the electorate.

[Walker]

Then, because you never lie to yourself which is entirely possible even at this time in the history of the world, without my further input from me you should have no trouble exactly understanding the following content relevance, although you may need to ponder and independently verify, which you should do as a functioning adult about things anyway, in order to be fed understanding from the source within, which is different than trying to make the unknown fit into what you already know and broadcasting ignorance when it does not.

Entrepreneurs prefer the philosophy of Zero-based budgeting. Before he was POTUS, Trump was a successful brick and mortar entrepreneur specializing in luxury. Today, Robin-hoods everywhere know their The Sheriff of Nottingham’s rules, so they hire experts who know some more about those rules, they play by the rules, they use the rules to the advantage of their objective, and they produce. This is reflected in Trump's current career as the most powerful politician on the face of the earth, which was the second political office he won, after learning the ropes as 45.

This was proven by the close examination of Trump’s record with the intent to destroy him, his businesses, and his family. All that resulted from that was the Legal Mickey Mouse show.

In contrast to Zero-based budgeting, the philosophy of baseline budgeting is preferred by politicians because numbers become dependent upon political influence.

- Before he was a politician … the current Senate minority leader had no job experience.
- Before he was a politician …the current mayor-elect of NYC had no job experience.

Such politicians have no accountability other than “the vote.” Because of this and the greed for power over the benefit of the people, US career politicians have turned the government into a deep-state jobs program, much like the government teacher’s unions that are a reliable Democrat voting-block, and that have turned the education of the little children into first and foremost a jobs program for adults, hiring as many education employees (not necessarily front-line teachers) as the politicians who they put into office, can fund.

[Walker]

Re: Affordability

The White House has considered your opinion, and responds.

“He (President Trump) signed the largest middleclass tax cut in six months. In six months in record time putting more money back into the American people’s pockets. So affordability is what the American people elected this president to do (as she motioned toward her boss) and he is doing it and you guys refuse to cover it. And you refuse to cover that the previous administration created the worst unaffordability crisis in America’s history. And I’ve been watching the TV all day saying that he doesn’t want to talk about affordability. That’s what he’s working on every day.”
- Karoline Leavitt, spokeswoman for the chief honcho.

*

The lady is talking to the Leftist Media, the source of international news about the US, and also the source of international comments about affordability in the US.

[Walker]

... gibberish and cutesie riddles instead.

Even Surely can understand that God made men circumspect in order to spare the fairer sex, and God made women circumspect in order to survive uncircumspected men.



laugh and maybe the world laughs too ...