All_Pro_Bills

Counties and municipalities already impose a wealth tax. Its called property taxes. The amount of tax is based on the "value" of your property as determined by local assessment of market value. As your primary residence generates no income or revenue the tax must be funded out of salary/wages and other sources of income like investments or interest income. In the 100 acre example above the owner already pays a wealth tax to the county/municipality. As do all homeowners and landowners. Warren's idea is to extend this tax to the Federal level. The problem with property taxes is that after the initial purchase transaction there is a growing disconnect between the value of homes, which tend to rise faster than your ability to fund the tax which is based on your income that generally rises much slower.

https://apnorc.org/projects/public-supportive-of-many-voting-reforms/

Yes, China and Cuba. Two countries on planet Earth where voters have no rights of any kind where MLB does business. I get you're evasive and refuse to admit or acknowledge any liberal hypocrisy. But perhaps rather than dodge my questions you could once in a while answer or rebut them? Say I'm wrong, call me out, or provide some insightful counterpoint. That would be appreciated.

Its been pointed out elsewhere that MLB has no issue with voting rights in places like China and Cuba as they are more interested in loot than votes in those places. What do my liberal friends here have to say about that inconsistency? Or is your outrage confined to the domestic front? Recent polls show 72% of American voters agree that identification should be required to vote much like to board a plane or in my state to buy cough medicine at the grocery store. A majority of voters considering themselves to be Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all polled a majority for each group. So shouldn't democracy prevail? I've also seen comparisons of the Georgia law to other states where 19 other states are more restrictive including the Presidents home state of Delaware. You'd expect he would want to get on that immediately to eliminate his place of residence from his "Jim Crow" list. But not a peep as outrage is conditional. Conditions being what we do is okay and what others do is not. As for baseball the only use I have for it is to turn on a game in order to put me to sleep when I need a nap.

As Chef suggests I expect a guilty verdict the manslaughter charge. Whether its voluntary or involuntary remains to be seen. Not so sure about conviction on the other charges. 29 cites cause and effect. For me the prevailing piece of evidence is the "choke hold" and subsequent death. While the defense can argue the hold is legal and included in the training officers receive the key factor is not the hold itself but the duration of the hold. The video clearly supports this position. I expect the prosecution will show that by any reasonable measure the 9 minute duration of the hold was excessive and much longer than necessary to subdue a suspect and also much longer than the referenced training would allow. And by maintaining the hold for 9 minutes the officer failed to "protect" a suspect taken into his custody.

The problem with the state's case is their strategy conflicts with the findings of their own medical examiner. The ME concluded asphyxiation was not the cause of death. This is an unusual approach. The defense is not claiming drug use contributed to the cause death. They are expressing the opinion of the ME. Typically the defense might dispute the ME's finding, but the State? This might create a quandary for the jury to resolve and might also lead them to not convict on the most serious charges and point to a manslaughter conviction as most likely.

The Dems were able to slide in all kinds of rules changes in 2020 in key States so they should be resourceful enough to find a remedy for any of these issues before 2024.

As always with these social justice issues there's a lot of drama but not a lot of specifics. Every idiot is tweeted (I always wonder why they didn't call it Twitting?) mostly nonsense. We need some common definition here. I would define "restricting" to mean insuring all legal citizens can all vote in the distinct or jurisdiction where they reside and people not meeting that criteria cannot vote in that district or jurisdiction. Is there any problem with that for starters?

These numbers are troubling but these shootings are not motivated by political dogmas, bias, or mental health issues. But nobody seems to be in any hurry to address the issue of gun violence here other than placing blame with out-of-state gun purchases or lax laws in other states where weapons are sourced and purchased. One other key factor is almost all these shootings are young black men killing or wounding other young black men. Unlike the mass shootings angle this doesn't provide any race baiting and gun control exposure. And the added dramatic attention getter that "it could be you next". With these inner city killings it most definitely will not be you in the case of most Americans whatever their political or social views. So these shootings don't generate a lot of political capital and the core social issues here are an area where politicians fear to tread. What it comes down to is a lot of young men without any social or male parental guidance caught in an endless cycle of violence, lack of education, poor job prospects, and poverty locked into an environment of lifetime social welfare dependency. Who could be expected to grow and prosper in such an environment? To solve the problem requires a complete and honest examination of social and economic factors. And a redefinition of assistance programs targeting a goal of personal independence rather than dependence. Something the liberal establishment running failed policies refuses to address or consider. Although its obvious these social programs are dysfunctional and fail to meet any goal of improving the lives of the target audience the strategy of "do more of what's not working until it works" continues to be employed. If they worked you'd expect to see some substantial results after 50 or so years. So I suggest the shootings will continue until people actually "on the ground" in these communities have more say and input. In this situation dropping the political rhetoric and just getting down to solving the problem is needed. But when will that happen?

What I think or feel is not relevant. Only the facts are. And the facts are CRT advocates judge people by their skin color. Its all written down in their theory. Its no secret and it requires no interpretation. Once again its not my opinion or view its a fact. Just read the stuff. And probability suggests that almost 100% of the advocates are members or supporters of Democratic candidates and the party. This will likely be my last response here.

While I generally disagree with your conclusions its clear you're very well informed of events so I am 100% certain you are aware of critical race theory. And you are feigning ignorance of the subject because my argument has you boxed into a corner and unwilling to admit the truth. The truth being CRT believers judge people by their skin color and CRT believers and advocates are Democrats. I'll wager a year's pay there is no school board, academic organization, or other organization either public or private that is pushing CRT that is not controlled or significantly influenced or pressured by members of the Democratic party. An FYI to wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

Now you're just pulling my chain here. Which party do CRT believers and proponents support? And which party do administrators and other officials that are pushing this into public and private education and training curriculum support? And which party do cancel culture enthusiasts who attack people that don't buy into this CRT support? There you go! Can it get any more obvious what the connection is here?

Believers of Critical Race Theory are judging people by the color of their skin. They believe all whites are racist oppressors and all blacks are victims of that oppression. Am I wrong about this?

I share your plight. I grew up in a staunch union & Democratic household but this party no longer represents working people. Working class American's and immigrants seeking a better life through hard work and values. No longer. The core constituency are "victims" Victims of all types and all kinds of things. When do these people ever play anything but the victim? When's the last time any union leader was invited into the White House to meet with the President? It might be Jimmy Carter. And internationally why are they so eager to engage in all types of confrontations everywhere when the consequences of these policies is anything but beneficial to the country and our people? Its disturbing that some fringe element has taken control. The problem I have is the Republicans do not represent any of my values and beliefs either. So where can I turn? While as I've aged and gained more life experience and my views have changed, I still hold those core values of the old party. Unfortunately the current leadership has gone off the rails. If their goal is to ruin the country then mission accomplished. I find myself wishing for the Greater Depression that will surely hurt all of us but will rid us of these idiots by burning down all the dysfunction they have created and replace it with some new vision based on the old traditional values of the party . Expressing such "extreme" views might get me labeled as a "domestic terrorist" by the new party visionaries. That's have sick and twisted these sociopaths are at this moment in history.

The law says all people that meet the legal requirements to vote can and will be able to vote and will be afforded assistance to do so such as obtaining required personal identification. The law says all people that do not meet the legal requirements to vote cannot and will not be able to vote.

The problem is you are attempting to address the issue of racism as defined in today's social setting with logic and rational thinking. And making an effort to understand real tangible problems and harm that racism may cause. I am guilty of that too. But in order to make complete sense of it we need to look at the environment from the perspective of social justice warriors, virtue signalers, woke, and people pretending to be woke so the woke don't attack them. To these people, racism is is in the eyes of the perceived victim. All that matters is that emotionally and through their feelings somebody thinks that another person is acting in a racist manner against them or against somebody else. Emotions and feelings along with constant judging of words and language drives all outcomes and is the basis of woke philosophy. In this case its applied to race issues. No proof of any kind is required. Guilt by accusation is equal to guilt by trial. Guilt by association, taking specific events and extrapolating it to society in general. Facts don't matter, logic doesn't matter, critical thinking doesn't matter, or the fact the oppressor denies it. Denial, especially by whites only proves they are a racist in denial of their actions. The worst kind of racist. A dishonest racist or a racist that doesn't know they're a racist.

Its events with Ukraine that have gotten my attention. Since taking over the Biden administration has been transferring a large amount of weapons and equipment to the country. And Biden and the State Dept. have not been shy on expressing their intentions to bring Ukraine into NATO as part of the effort to encircle and contain Russian plans to expand influence over Europe and the Middle East. On March 24th President Zelensky signed a decree, which is similar to an executive order here, declaring the desire to retake Crimea. Hostilities have also increased in the east of the country where "rebel" forces exert some control. Internationally, this is being seen as Zelensky given the "green light" by the US administration. This week Russia moved tanks, aircraft, and large troop contingents to the border between the two countries and into Crimea. None of this has really shown up in the MSM but my suspicions are it will very soon. The global concern when war breaks out is this will escalate beyond a regional conflict and result in direct confrontation between US and Russian forces? And where it might spread to? The Middle East, Asia with Taiwan and Korea, war in Europe, potential to escalate into a nuclear exchange. Bad things like these. Most likely all of this would have happened in 2017 if Clinton had won the election. But she didn't. Trump never warmed up relations with Russia but he didn't escalate them much either. The Russian collusion narrative was really all about trying to associate Trump's administration with Russia and Putin to make it impossible to improve relations and de-escalate tensions between the two countries. Tensions and plans which were established by neo-con and neo-liberal war advocates earlier under Bush/Obama. The Mueller investigation provided cover here. And when Trump dared to mess with Biden and the Ukraine connection, looking to engage the government their to investigate the connection, the deep state war machine had to act as their most vital interest and plan was being threatened. They had much more to hide than just some payoffs and bribes involving the former VP.

The gunman in Orange California has been identified as Aminadab Gaxiola Gonzalez. Apparently a disgruntled former employee of the firm targeted. You can bet your last penny many on the left will characterize him as a "white" Hispanic. If the lefties are one thing they are predictable..

Yes it is absurd. But what I find most troubling is a focus on all the wrong details. Names and words are offensive but the fact their children are "graduating" from these schools as functional illiterates is not offensive and apparently much less of a concern.

I also find the Big Boy statue offensive.

There's a lot of grey area here so its not like just getting rid of the law. So let's say you can sue gun manufacturers. Okay, so lets say five armed robbers break into my home and threaten my family and I shoot them all dead. The police investigate, refer the evidence to the prosecutor's office, and they determine it was self-defense and decline to press charges against me. Under that scenario do you think the families of my "victims" that intended to harm and rob me are entitled to sue either me or the gun manufacturer? I say Hell no to that..

Plus product liability law is very complex. For example, differentiation of circumstances of intentional misuse or accident. Assumed and implied liability of the user and the supplier. But that's why lawyers love passing new laws. It keeps them all busy, well compensated, and employed!

That's absolutely true to the "woke". What's important to them is words and language and the emotions, feelings, microaggressions, and offense those words and language generate. Reality, logical and critical thinking, reasoning, facts, intent, and objectivity don't matter. They are emotional and mental weaklings. If they read my post it would trigger them and make them cry.

Well I did put "asylum" in quotes for a reason. My point is the Mexican government appears powerless or unwilling to stem the flow so send forces across the border into Mexico and conduct "sweep and clear" patrols to weed out and eliminate smugglers and cartel members. We're spending over $800B a year on defense and military spending and this seems like the biggest national security threat out there. And if you're afraid to use that power when threatened, and this is a threat, then why spend the money?

Part of the tragedy here is how the people seeking "asylum" are mistreated and abused by these smugglers. It obvious the Mexican government at all levels is unwilling or unable to take any actions to protect life here. Everybody it seems is in on the take here. My view, we should inform the Mexican government of our intent to cross the border to arrest, detain, and eliminate these smugglers and cartel associates by whatever means are necessary and at our disposal. And if they get in our way we shoot them too. Basically let them know if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. Is that too strong a message?