Do you need to vent about things COVID-19?

[Panteleeva]

i feel like our government wants to *uck people"s salary wages  untill they start  to k&ll each other  . 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Panteleeva

[FairreLilette]

As far as the United States government, it's all partisan now about the help.  They want to "look good to their party"...it's all about their party now.  They even said that exactly in an article I read that helping the American people through the coronavirus is a partisan issue because it's an election year.  I'm doing okay financially right now...my family sits on the edge of a cliff and it's giving me an ulcer.  I don't like any of them (my government) right now.  No, not too much like here towards either repubs or dems.  It's all about them and the election.    

Edited August 7, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

My only  current issue is with how it's stopped me from starting my dbt classes..

[Chroma Starlight]

The COVID non-response is a wrongful deprivation of our rights, a criminal abdication and obstruction of public duty. It is actual Capital Treason.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Chroma Starlight

[FairreLilette]

20 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

The COVID non-response is a wrongful deprivation of our rights, a criminal abdication and obstruction of public duty. It is actual Capital Treason.

It is.  It's a "let them eat cake moment".  Any other government, in times past, might not have lived if they did this to the people. 

The only hope is possibly the military could be sent out with emergency food stamps...or something....? 

And, this one is not on Trump.  He's looking to see what executive orders he can come up with to over-ride Congress, both the dems and repubs and their "party" positioning so they can look good to their party for the coming election.  

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Chroma Starlight]

11 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

And, this one is not on Trump.

Trump was never fit for duty, his presence in that office was always actionable. Warning was given by a plurality of credible voices ranging from the WHO to the CIA to medicine to science and all were ignored by psychopathy and a treasonous Executive branch endorsed and enacted the criminal madman's every whim and obstruction and deception in growing mass violation of statute, Constitution, treaty obligation, and International Law.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Chroma Starlight

[FairreLilette]

7 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

Trump was never fit for duty, his presence in that office was always actionable. Warning was given and ignored by psychopathy and a treasonous Executive branch endorsed and enacted the criminal madman's every whim in growing mass violation of statute, Constitution, treaty obligation, and International Law.

The stalemate is between the Dems and the Repubs of Congress; that's why I said this one is not on Trump.  Congress has to act first (decide on the bill/act).  Well, at least Trump can put in an executive order to stop evictions and said he would because he tweeted Congress doesn't care if they evict people but Trump said he wouldn't let that happen and he can stop that through an executive order, but rent is not food money.  The article I read said he and a team he's set up are looking at what other executive orders they can come up with because the stalemate and the party positioning is Congress.  

The two different acts put forth by Congress are:  The Democrats - the HEROES act.  The Republicans - the HEALS act.  Two different acts and a stalemate.  It's Pelosi and Mitchell mostly.  

Edited August 7, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Chroma Starlight]

2 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

The stalemate is between the Dems and the Repubs of Congress;

Wake up. There is no 'between' in a one-party system. You've been deceived by a crudely-authored farce. Which is the party unequivocally opposed to electoral corruption? Which is the party unequivocally opposed to crimes against humanity and war crimes? Which is the party unequivocally opposed to corporate oligarchy and corruption of the Legislative branch? Which is the party that unequivocally has supported LGBTQI rights? Which is the party unequivocally opposed to a democratically ungovernable deep-state military-industrial complex, now nuclear re-proliferating? Which is the party opposed to psychopathic lawless violence excess of a police force comprised mostly of the United States' growing class of war criminal?

Edited August 7, 2020 by Chroma Starlight

[FairreLilette]

10 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

Wake up. There is no 'between' in a one-party system. Which is the party unequivocally opposed to electoral corruption? Which is the party unequivocally opposed to crimes against humanity and war crimes? Which is the party unequivocally opposed to corporate oligarchy and corruption of the Legislative branch? Which is the party that unequivocally has supported LGBTQI rights? Which is the party unequivocally opposed to a democratically ungovernable deep-state military-industrial complex, now nuclear re-proliferating? Which is the party opposed to psychopathic lawless violence excess of a police force comprised mostly of the United States' growing class of war criminal?

That has nothing to do with anything now.  

It's on both Pelosi's and McConell's head.  And, the Dems are not as perfect as you paint them.  They have been involved in corruption in the legislative branch.   And, many favor where their business interests run just like Republicans.  

You need to wake up.  Some people think Democrats walk on water.  They don't.  While I lean towards liberal about 3/4ths of the time, there are not perfect, not by a long shot.  The Dems have done things I don't agree with 100% of the time.  

Edited August 7, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Chroma Starlight]

13 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

It's on both Pelosi's and McConell's head. 

Respectfully, I disagree. No. That's a sideshow for the groundlings. No. I'm not painting one side of the illiberal party occupation of liberal democracy as 'good,' here, much less perfect. Please consider carefully what was actually written on the merits.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Chroma Starlight

[FairreLilette]

12 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

Respectfully, I disagree. No. That's a sideshow for the groundlings. No. I'm not painting one side of the illiberal party occupation of liberal democracy as 'good,' here, much less perfect. Please consider carefully what was actually written on the merits.

Okay, I will.

At least if they agree to split up the act and just decide on the unemployment right now as a separate bill, they will regain my respect back here.  But right now, they all have lost my respect.  

Edited August 7, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Chroma Starlight]

2 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Okay, I will.

At least if they agree to split up the act and just decide on the unemployment right now as a separate bill, they will regain my respect back here.  But right now, they have lost my respect.  

We have one-hundred and sixty thousand individuals who died horrible sqalourous miserable traumatic deaths for no reason whatsoever. I just sort of feel as if you've calibrated your entire response to a hard right insurrection incorrectly. Could it be you are in denial?

Edited August 7, 2020 by Chroma Starlight

[FairreLilette]

2 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

I just sort of feel as if you've calibrated your entire response to a hard right insurrection incorrectly. Could it be you are in denial?

Huh?  Denial about what?

My family and other families are sitting on the edge of a cliff because of all of them.  How much credit expenditure do you expect families to take out?

I think you are in denial.  I don't think of politicians as saints but I think you do.  

[Chroma Starlight]

1 minute ago, FairreLilette said:

Huh?  Denial about what?

My family and other families are sitting on the edge of a cliff because of all of them.  How much credit expenditure do you expect families to take out?

I think you are in denial.  I don't think of politicians as saints but I think you do.  

You still don't appear to Get It. Perhaps it's Stockholm Syndrome.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Chroma Starlight

[Ceka Cianci]

Second Stimulus Check Update & Stimulus Package News

 

[FairreLilette]

8 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

You still don't appear to Get It. Perhaps it's Stockholm Syndrome.

I think you have a Democrats are the saints of the world blindness.  Dems all good, Repubs all bad.

Right now I want voodoo dolls for them all.  They are not deserving of respect at this time as both are party politicking for the upcoming election but you don't Get It and it's worthless debating that with you.  It's all the Republicans fault with you, I'm sure.  But, that's not how it is.  It's both.  

[Chroma Starlight]

40 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

I think you have a Democrats are the saints of the world blindness.  Dems all good, Repubs all bad.

Did you twice not read the posts in which both are equally worthy of our condemnation? Why are you trying to turn this into some kind of partisan thing, when it is not for all the reasons? You're standing over there prodding at a straw man of your own construction. The conversation is right here. There is no need for partisanship in a one-party two-brand system of illiberal corrupt occupation and oppression.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Chroma Starlight

[FairreLilette]

15 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

There is no need for partisanship in a one-party two-brand system of illiberal corrupt occupation and oppression.

If you say so.  I say they are playing party politics right now for their business interests.  People are effed at this time.  Unemployment ended on July 25th.  

And, furthermore, I am not the only who believes they are playing party politics for the upcoming election.  To many others, it is quite transparent as well.  

Edited August 7, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Luna Bliss]

15 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

There is no need for partisanship in a one-party two-brand system of illiberal corrupt occupation and oppression.

I believe as you do, that basically we have a 1-party system, an oligarchy where corporations or the wealthy control nearly everything.
But we see a haggling between Democrats and Republicans presently. The Democrats I believe were calling for a continuation of $600 per week unemployment, while the Republicans want this lowered ($400 or $500 last I looked).
How do you jive your conception of a 1-party system we basically have in the US with these very real differences proposed by two factions within this 1-party system?

[Chroma Starlight]

8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

How do you jive your conception of a 1-party system we basically have in the US with these very real differences proposed by two factions within this 1-party system?

What is 'real' about the 'debate' between farcical actors on a false political stage giving monologues to one another meaninglessly about the proper position for the deck chairs on the Titanic as she sinks?

Meanwhile, while people give in to their basic instincts and become distracted by this theater, as designed, the enemy factions secure for themselves all The People's lifeboats and continue their consolidation of wrongful illiberal power.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Chroma Starlight

[FairreLilette]

35 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

The Democrats I believe were calling for a continuation of $600 per week unemployment, while the Republicans want this lowered ($400 or $500 last I looked).

All I want to say is both are out of touch with reality when it comes to the expensive states like California and New York to name a few.  Four hundreds dollars a week, a single person could not afford to live in California as a single on that income.  The cheapest studio may be at least $1,000 if at all.  Last I heard, when my niece was looking, a studio about two years ago, a studio was about $1100 in the "poorest" section of her area.  They both need to get realistic regarding the "expensive states" like California and New York.  

They need to split off this bill and just decide the employment now though.  There isn't much time at all as I am sure many people went into credit card debt last time when the lockdowns first happened and there was no income from February until end of April or thereabouts.      

Six hundred a week is enough for California, four hundred I don't think so.  

EDIT:  I mean they are out of touch because neither Democrats nor Republicans have brought up the issue of the cost of living of the expensive states.  Five hundred a week at least for California.  If four hundred a week goes to a single person in California, they'd most likely have to move back home or have their parents or someone supplement that.  

Edited August 7, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I believe as you do, that basically we have a 1-party system, an oligarchy where corporations or the wealthy control nearly everything.
But we see a haggling between Democrats and Republicans presently. The Democrats I believe were calling for a continuation of $600 per week unemployment, while the Republicans want this lowered ($400 or $500 last I looked).
How do you jive your conception of a 1-party system we basically have in the US with these very real differences proposed by two factions within this 1-party system?

What is 'real' about the 'debate' between farcical actors on a false political stage arguing meaninglessly about the proper position for the deck chairs on the Titanic as she sinks?

Meanwhile, while people give in to their basic instincts and become distracted by this theater, as designed, the enemy factions secure for themselves all The People's lifeboats.

Yes I think they do what they can to make us think a valid debate is occurring, giving us a sense we have some measure of control or power, so they can distract us while they run off with the money...

[Luna Bliss]

Will the unemployment checks be retroactive?  It seems they could save a lot of money via squeezing the peons by arguing as long as possible if not...

Edited August 7, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Chroma Starlight]

30 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

All I want to say is both are out of touch with reality when it comes to the expensive states like California and New York to name a few.  Four hundreds dollars a week, a single person could not afford to live in California as a single on that income.  The cheapest studio may be at least $1,000 if at all.  Last I heard, when my niece was looking, a studio about two years ago, a studio was about $1100 in the "poorest" section of her area.  They both need to get realistic regarding the "expensive states" like California and New York.  

They need to split off this bill and just decide the employment now though.  There isn't much time at all as I am sure many people went into credit card debt last time when the lockdowns first happened and there was no income from February until end of April or thereabouts.      

Six hundred a week is enough for California, four hundred I don't think so.  

You do understand there can be no economy until the pandemic is being tested for and contained effectively and sufficiently, don't you? You do understand there would be no need for emergency payments to millions of unemployed people if the pandemic had been tested for and contained, don't you? You do understand this is not freedom, you are not free, and you are being deprived of your Universal Human Rights, don't you? You do understand all this is an intolerable affront in a liberal democratic system, don't you?

[Luna Bliss]

22 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

You do understand there can be no economy until the pandemic is being tested for and contained effectively and sufficiently, don't you? You do understand there would be no need for emergency payments to millions of unemployed people if the pandemic had been tested for and contained, don't you? You do understand this is not freedom, you are not free, and you are being deprived of your Universal Human Rights, don't you? You do understand all this is an intolerable affront in a liberal democratic system, don't you?