For Trump, size clearly matters; reality, not so much

[Tomef]

more Dems going to Rep than Reps going to Dems..

In Pennsylvania. Every election in the US in the last 20 years has featured huge, unexpected swings in at least one district, and every time it happens people act like it never happened before. I’m not going to go to the trouble of addressing such trivial errors. You can easily find out yourself in a few minutes that what you are saying isn’t accurate.

It translates that something is wrong with the direction of the leadership (not that the rank and file are wrong but the leadership)

Before you get to the point of interpreting what it means you need to know what it is you’re trying to interpret.

 

[Copernicus]

See Snopes ... and try more thoughtfulness and honesty.

That is what snopes said the actual quote was… so I was honest… does that mean you should try more thoughtfulness and honesty?

It is snopes personal interpretation I don’t agree with.

No, you implied that the quote was about passing the bill in Congress without legislators knowing what was in it. You characterized it as "with no debate." Here are Pelosi's words, which you accurately posted to @metis, although you had originally posted a shortened snippet earlier that was not the full quote to @Tomef :

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."​

​

Originally, the rightwing website Chicks on the Right posted the quote without the boldface portion of it, implying that she was admitting that legislators did not know what was in the bill they were voting on. You perpetuated that false impression when replying to Metis. However, the actual quote was made to the National Association of Counties' annual Legislative Conference on 9 March 2010, in Washington D.C. Pelosi was explaining that the public would not really know what was in it before it was passed. Here is the paragraph that preceded those very words:

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.​

​

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."​

​

This is not just about a "personal interpretation" by Snopes. It is about the facts refuting the false impression that you gave in your reply to @Tomef and @metis.

 

[metis]

I would say it this way...

We have so left the responsibility to “the government” that the “People” no longer care for the poor and the widows. By and large, when we see poor and/or widow and/or needs, we say “Don’t bother me, go to the government” instead of being the good Samaritan.

Let’s reduce the government and get back to our responsibilities!

Well, let me say it this way...

If we leave it only to the chance that people will willing to donate enough to charity to cover peoples' healthcare, and the widows, and other peoples in need, such as with what FEMA now has to deal in the South, then that tells me money is more important to you than peoples' wellbeing, and that is highly unethical as far as I'm concerned.

So, go with your political position is as you have made it clear that is where your heart really is.

 

[Kenny]

Well, let me say it this way...

If we leave it only to the chance that people will willing to donate enough to charity to cover peoples' healthcare, and the widows, and other peoples in need, such as with what FEMA now has to deal in the South, then that tells me money is more important to you than peoples' wellbeing, and that is highly unethical as far as I'm concerned.

So, go with your political position is as you have made it clear that is where your heart really is.

I don’t follow your deduction.

We already know how FEMA operates. Very inefficiently as there is now no more money to help the people in the south. If I am saying that we should be giving more personally, how does that translate into “money is more important to me?” I’m surprised that you even suggest it.

 

[metis]

I don’t follow your deduction.

We already know how FEMA operates. Very inefficiently as there is now no more money to help the people in the south. If I am saying that we should be giving more personally, how does that translate into “money is more important to me?” I’m surprised that you even suggest it.

Simply because charity alone has never been enough to properly deal with those in need, which is why Jewish Law mandates that taxes be used to help the poor, the widows, and even those in the case of life-threatening emergencies. Jesus never suggested that government must not help as far as I can read.

Also, the mistake so many make is their apparent thinking that somehow money collect through taxes seems to evaporate into thin air, which logically is not true as there's the "multiplier effect" that circulates through the economy, and often these monies can and should be directed to where it can do the most good.

But my biggest question that still baffles me with you is how in the world can you justify supporting the man who spews hate, hate, and more hate but Jesus taught "love one another"? Even Trump's own sister, nephew, and niece say he an entirely self-centered conman as we've repeatedly seen. And even today he denies he lost the 2020 election and that what happened on January 6th was "peaceful".