Last edited by Zacha341; October-02-19 at 10:27 AM.
Get well soon Bernie.
Here are some more takes on other countries socialized healthcare and the reductions of the armed forces to pay for it.
Sweden used to have a military force of 700,000 which has now dwindled down to 50,000,much of that is civilians being trained in a military capacity.
The country is also training the children and younger generations in the art of survival and encouraging prepping.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YCAJofc4ajM
Last edited by Richard; October-03-19 at 10:02 PM.
Cannot edit so part 2
On the examples widely given on the countries that we should copy thier spectacular socialized healthcare,well it seems like all is not well in unicorn land.
The government of Finland collapsed Friday due to the rising cost of universal health care and the prime minister’s failure to enact reforms to the system.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/0...0-hardest-hit/
Finland also tried the UBI approach and it was also deemed a failure.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/0...-basic-income/
There seems to be a common thread of,it is all well and good until it comes time to pay for it.
Bernie did get called "too old" by some. He is one year older than Biden.
He is not dropping out. He plans to be in the next debate.
Here's a video contrasting the crap the media throws at vs. the reality of his support.
https://youtu.be/3ZhkKATtqtU
I meant to say "throws at Bernie" above. Can't edit the post.
gee he seems to have his touchy feely moments kinda like Biden.Here's a video contrasting the crap the media throws at vs. the reality of his support.
https://youtu.be/3ZhkKATtqtU
I like Sanders and would have considering voting for him in 2016 [[Had he not been cheated out of the nomination), but that said this should be the end of his presidential run. Campaigning alone is probably going to be too much for a man of his age after a heart attack. How is he supposed to compete in the crowding Democratic field, then against President Trump, then assuming he wins in 2020 lead the country? That would have been a tall order before this health scare, and now it's a near impossibility.
He's already out of the hospital. If the drs. think he can continue, why shouldn't he continue?I like Sanders and would have considering voting for him in 2016 [[Had he not been cheated out of the nomination), but that said this should be the end of his presidential run. Campaigning alone is probably going to be too much for a man of his age after a heart attack. How is he supposed to compete in the crowding Democratic field, then against President Trump, then assuming he wins in 2020 lead the country? That would have been a tall order before this health scare, and now it's a near impossibility.
I think a lot of people would question his ability to serve four years without significant health issues. The presidency is highly stressful - it makes campaigning look like a cake walk. Ultimately, he may become a king [[or queen) maker in the primaries.
I agree. Chaney managed well while already VP. Running is another issue.
Heart disease is often associated with sometimes chronic issues; edema, shortness of breath, and general fatigue.
These can be monitored and maintained by medicine, diet and exercise.
One has to take time for structured activities such as proper exercise and examinations.
IMO, he should step down for his health in the context of what it takes to GEAR up to run for the presidency. etc.
Last edited by Zacha341; October-09-19 at 08:15 AM.
Bernie's 46 yr old DIL Raine has died at age 46. I hope the family finds peace.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...s-heart-attack
But, for those who do get quick care—as the Senator did—the difference matters a lot less. We now have the technology to re-open a blocked artery and, if done quickly enough, eliminate the lasting damage that used to result from heart attacks. The watchword of people in this business is "time is muscle" [[heart muscle, that is). The sooner you can re-open the artery, the more heart function you save. Soon enough, as appears to have been the case here, and you save it all.
A point for Bernie, more or less:
"Where Sanders has differed from his two top contenders is on his plan to make subtle changes to the H-1B visa system and prevent American workers from having to compete against illegal aliens for U.S. jobs.
Like Trump, Sanders has warned against corporations using the H-1B visa program to import cheaper foreign workers instead of hiring qualified and job-ready Americans.
Out of all the 2020 Democrats running for president, Sanders is the only candidate who earns a “mixed” review from NumbersUSA’s scorecard, the organization that tracks the records of politicians on whether or not they support less immigration to boost wages and job opportunities for Americans.
Sanders is the only 2020 Democrat that has mostly endorsed nationwide mandatory E-Verify to ban U.S. companies from hiring illegal aliens over American citizens. Nonetheless, Sanders’ support for mass amnesty, critics have said, will mean that those illegal aliens currently in the country would be able to eventually compete against Americans in the workforce and pass through the E-Verify system."
Why should the use of E-verify even be controversial?
This is the idiocy of Breitbart and those who follow them. By DEFINITION holders of an H1B visa are NOT "illegal aliens."
Also, immigrants cannot vote until they are naturalized, which requires living CONSECUTIVELY in the US for five years [[3 if married to a US citizen) and resided in the same state for 3 months. You also have to have permanent resident status, which requires an employer to file an I-140, and permanent residence status is generally a 50/50 shot except for persons with "extraordinary abilities" or who are "Outstanding researchers or professors."
The headline for the linked article is " Leading 2020 Dems Unified to Turn Red States Blue with More ImmigrationThis is the idiocy of Breitbart and those who follow them. By DEFINITION holders of an H1B visa are NOT "illegal aliens."
Also, immigrants cannot vote until they are naturalized which requires living CONSECUTIVELY in the US for five years [[3 if married to a US citizen) and resided in the same state for 3 months. You also have to have permanent resident status, which requires an employer to file an I-140, and permanent residence status is generally a 50/50 shot except for persons with "extraordinary abilities" or who are "Outstanding researchers or professors."
"Immigration" can include illegal aliens. You are also incorrect about "immigrants". You should have said ""legal aliens" cannot vote until they are naturalized..."
I must have missed your criticism of ABC using fake footage of the Turkish invasion of Syria the other day.
Also, note the word "and" in the first sentence you reposted. Instead of using "and'. This sentence could have been written as two sentences to be less confusing to you. ...his plan to make subtle changes to the H-1B visa system. He would also prevent American workers from having to compete against illegal aliens for U.S. jobs.
[[black)Going back to the headline, both of those things run contrary to the positions of other Democratic candidates.
The article did, however, fail to include that Tulsi Gabbard distinguishes herself from other Democratic candidates by supporting U.S. borders even saying that fencing would work in some sections of the border. Although, in fairness, some Democrats and Republicans have acted very concerned about Syria's border in the last week. [[black)
hhhh
I have to say, I find the use of the terms 'aliens' and 'naturalized' irksome.
I realize these are the accepted terms in the United States, but I would argue that in any contemporary use of English they are poorly chosen and not particularly accurate.
One can be a citizen; a legal resident; a legal visitor; or present illegally. That best describes the vast majority of persons present in any country.
'Alien' is a succinct legal term meaning non-citizen. Legal aliens include diplomats, visa holders, and those with work permits. I prefer 'illegal alien' to fuzzier Orwellian terms like 'undocumented immigrant'. An illegal alien is by definition 'present illegally' so maybe 'a foreigner who is present illegally' would work in a clumsier sort of way.I have to say, I find the use of the terms 'aliens' and 'naturalized' irksome.
I realize these are the accepted terms in the United States, but I would argue that in any contemporary use of English they are poorly chosen and not particularly accurate.
One can be a citizen; a legal resident; a legal visitor; or present illegally. That best describes the vast majority of persons present in any country.
Google dictionary defines the noun 'alien' as "a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living. "an illegal alien",
Google Dictionary defines the adjective 'naturalized' as "[[of a foreigner) admitted to the citizenship of a country.
[COLOR=#878787 !important]"a naturalized US citizen born in Germany"[/COLOR]
The term 'natural born' also appears in the U.S, Constitution so there is a legal concept, perhaps unique or more important in the U.S. differentiating natural born citizens from naturalized citizens.
Sigh... language is all tied up in politics, and sometimes NEEDS to be adapted.
I'll just settle with undocumented so we can move on with the problems of undocumented 'status'...!
You know someone's argument is wrong - and that they know it is wrong - when they use all caps, larger, bolded fonts with color, etc. in their response.
^^^Say WHAT? LOL! -----#&!@
But your honor,I did not rob that bank,I just did an undocumented withdrawal.
I do not need a drivers license,I choose to remain as an undocumented driver.
Naturalization is a process that one goes through to gain citizenship,it is not a status,kinda like in the 1950/60s Canada allowed Jews for the first time to become naturalized citizens and not be considered second class immigrants.
Last edited by Richard; October-17-19 at 03:40 PM.
|
Bookmarks