Democrats Have Faith and/or Proof in President Trump's Impeachment-worthy Perpetrations?

One may have faith and evidentiary proof together; Prosecuting attorneys do that all the time. It would be a terrible thing if they prosecuted people they believe innocent. They should need some faith in the guilt of the accused. I believe Democrats working the impeachment proceedings are an example of faith in the culpability of President Trump while they seek to build evidentiary proof. It does not mean that if Rep. Shiff has faith President Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses that he therefor has no proof (well, there may be exceptions to the rule), or that to have proof of the President's impeachable offenses means that Democrats need have no faith in that (or maybe it does).

Can the Von Warren Medicare for All Incld RIch Subvert Social Security?

The 52 trillion dollar Von Warren plan to force everyone to get medical coverage through the federal health program designed for the elderly seems so spaced out that it could subvert the social security system. Already the Federal Government borrows money from the social security system earnings surplus to finance its debt and unbalanced budget.

The Democrat Party has become so spaced out, depraved, dopey, globalist, communist and anit-American regarding border security that the maturation of the decay has produced the fruit of belief in Lafferian Economics on hyper-steroids. The true heirs of Reaganomics are Democrat leaders.

It seems as if they are a fifth column for those that would gut all of the nation's safety net by forcing the government into permanent insolvency.

The only people getting federal retirement payouts should be those that actually need them. medicare for the prosperous who can afford their own health coverage is as stupid as unemployment payments for everyone including the employed. What a sh-t for brains party the Democrats have become. They may even end up kissing the butt of the Oxford homo the Brits have supplied running in the 2020 primaries. What a daft collection of idiots.

In the 1960s and 70s the Democrat Party still had their oars in the water. Presently they are without any practical sense, have no interest in secure borders with zero illegal entrants nor balancing the federal budget. Politicians are supposed to do things like that at a minimum.

Democrats became a party of non-white males. That is they became females, homos and non-whites moving to leadership roles. In that process they forgot to watch the budget and economics across classes for anyone irrespective of race or gender, and that was a nearly fatal budget for democracy. Democrats would be better off changing their name to the socialist or neo-corporatist/communist sympathizer party so people would understand what they are. Even for socialists thought the Democrat Party candidates would be shamefully incompetent as if they don't know what proper socialism is or how it works.

When a nation tries to weasel through costly programs as if no one has to pay the contemporary trick seems to be to include everyone in it and claim it will save money. As if no one needs to pay for it except for the rich that own factories and get unlimited nearly zero interest loans so they can issue their own newly minted e-dollars at the pace of 400% per every dollar deposited into their account by the government and federal reserve, Democrats splurge without limit on inefficient programs.

In Obamacare the poor actually fell through the cracks. If one earns 15,500 annually one doesn't qualify for Medicaid and would need to enroll when the 'window' for enrollment opens at some hundreds of dollars monthly for insurance. If one is poor and travels interstate it is quite an unreasonable program designed apparently for the middle class, many of whom don't need it. I am sure that Medicare forced on everyone would exclude the poor from solid coverage at least regarding prescription drugs. The Democrat Party designs for the middle class and queers rather than the poor.

Fox and Rest of MSM Support the Most Rich in Coporatism

Fox news provides a right wing alternative to the leftist mainstream media. Yet Fox does sometimes seem like butt-kissers of the most rich Americans. A tax increase on the richest 1000 Americans of 10% would be helpful in paying down the public debt. Instead of advocating that practical move one Fox commentator attacked the homeless, poor and down-trodden for going to warm places in the winter. You need to be a real a-hole to attack homeless people for trying to be warm. Cold weather injuries are not too amusing; they are a pain that keeps on giving.

There are innumerable reasons why some people cannot buy a home and a Volvo; or even a Tesla. Making life more difficult for them isn't helpful. 

There are major forks in the road of life that keep some people out of comfort and security such as the prosperous may have. Some need be nothing more than media air-heads attacking the poor.

If people really had solid, recurrent opportunities for a job that worked and allowed them to save money for upgrading lifestyle yet choose to use illegal drugs and be homeless instead then there would be some justification for criticism. When the practical and real chances for a job does not exist; such as a place to live is required a priori, there is no justification. It would be very challenging to work even for Wal-mart from a homeless starting place. For certain grocery stores won't hire people that can't smell sweetly like Fox news casters every day.

It is unfortunate that the Democrat Party has no moderates these days as in the 70s and 80s; just extremist lunatics that with socialism support corporatism as much as Fox.

The MSM Y has two approaches that yield the same destination of concentrated wealth and power approaching that of royals. The left takes the Troskiite branch of global socialism to end democracy, free enterprise and free speech with political self-determination of nations. The right takes the Hitler branch of corporatism to end free enterprise, free speech and political self-determination. Neither major American party or the bulk of the broadcast media support democracy with a human safety net that keeps everyone in the game for life. each MSM and political party and building global plutocracy with a corporatist-socialist entity for the underclass.

I should point out that the President is more of an independent than a Hitler-figure. For the left President Trump may seem that way, yet that is a fruit of the main stream media propaganda rather than a fact-in-itself. Though the Trumps are of the rich class, that does not require that they are intentional plutocrats seeking to repress democracy. Actually they may be in favor of it. The problem arises from uncorrected political economy and historical demographic progression.

Democrats Conflate Socialism with a Welfare State

The Democrat Party has perpetrated a fundamental blunder in conflating a welfare state with socialism, so far as Hayek's notion goes. Hayek differentiated the two- a democracy with a welfare safety net and socialism-wherein the state runs business such as in Elizabeth Warren's program to eliminate health insurers and of course the Bernie Sanders agenda.

If Democrats do not speak out loud and clear against socialism the nation will not trust them at the polls. After all, free enterprise is what made America great and keeps it great, so far as Christian moral norms guide it to a relationship with God.

Democratic platforms do not clearly distinguish between socialism and the expansion of a welfare state. Elizabeth Warren has crossed the line with the Medicare for Everyone plan into the Mussolini-Hitler axis of state corporatism and socialism such as the national Socialist party of Germany broke trail on.

Democracy can have a substantial welfare state with taxation, regulation and incentives. Welfare today ought to include a healthy ecosystem in the U.S.A. rather than one in decline. However democracy need leave businesses free to exist with the market intact. If they want to reduce or change the way business works it need be through incentives and regulations instead of government spending or outlawing various businesses.

Republicans should at least co-opt the 2020 election and propose a 2% tax increase on the wealthiest 5000 Americans to pay down the public debt and also pass a bill to make frivolous impeachment actions have some sort of penalty equivalent to those state with laws against frivolous litigation. Maybe the leaders of failed frivolous lawsuits should be banned from leading congressional committees or holding other high jobs such as Speaker of the House for a decade.

Faith, Knowledge and Certainty

Faith is based on knowledge of some kind, as is any belief that in turn requires an element of faith. Philosophers since Socrates have pointed out the uncertainty of knowledge. It is quiet an ancient topic. I suppose language and lexicons about an ontology have a bootstrap kind of presumption about the certainty of certain founding axioms, yet philosophers have noted that the axioms need to be taken as functionally valid in order to validate all that follows from them. People sometimes like to use certain relations like knowledge and faith with a kind of metaphysical opposition; different poles of an existential magnet, yet I think they are just different concepts within given lexicons or ontologies. 

Assuredly though empirical and other scientific work may not share a lexicon or ontology with faith, yet some would One sees through a glass darkly regarding epistemology and other matters including the reef of solipsism. The Universe is like the woods lonely, dark and deep and people have only so many miles to go before they sleep. Faith is more meaningful and even eventful to some than others; all are called yet few are chosen.

Monism and pluralism are easy and ubiquitous concepts, From the one arises the many. A big bang is a metaphorical paradigm with a singularity becoming pluralism, yet remaining one with a field within a field. The many are always less in quality than the One, like a dollar changed into one cents has one-hundred items of less value each (not that I am saying that the many [parts of the Universe, or even the Universe itself is in some way equal to God.

How the Reaction to Hilozoismo Theory has Changed Over Time

I believe that many people don't regard 'matter' in the way it was regarded in the 17th century when some philosopher invented the term or idea that matter is alive. Probably the guy was some kind of liberal that liked Shakespeare over-much. Hollywood might make films like Attack of the Smartest Dirt yet so much is known about molecules now that anything above the molecular level could be fabricated to a certain extent; some day artificial worlds of 'matter' might be constructed instantly. 

Leibniz had the idea that the smallest particles of 'matter' are one-dimensional things he called monads that are made of spirit- like a one-dimensional string, yet that probably isn't what was meant by the inventor of hilozoismo. He was more like a guy that regarded everything as being alive in some way. Of course the definition of life would then be an issue. Biologically speaking there is a lexicon that is used to classify life in its various forms that probably won't soon include minerals or hydrogen atoms.

Why Statues Were Removed by Reformers from Some Formerly Catholic Churches

Why did some Protestants remove statues from formerly Catholic Churches?  The reformers such as Luther, Zwingli and Calvin wanted to stay true to the Bible- the word of God, and to eliminate errors and authorities that seemed to be in contradistinction to the word of God. That is easy. Luther opposed the sale of indulgences that was ubiquitous and corrupting, the sale of relics that were normally bogus, the veneration of idols/statues and other items that had to much in common with pagan idolatry and so forth. 

Since Martin Luther believed in a priesthood of believers that all Christians are priests he was inclined to be more egalitarian in his approach to reading the word of God. Since the Catholic church had eliminated the married priesthood about 400 years before, and because the New Testament elaborates that marriages is o.k. for Christians, though Paul said it is better to be as he was (single), Luther supported married priests (as apparently has the Catholic Pope recently as he suggested that be allowed again). About Protestants buying Catholic Churches- I think there is quite a lot of ecclesiastical history people are missing- such as the Smalcaldan War, the 100 years war etc that was more important to ecclesiastical structure control than real estate markets. Napoleon made St. Peters a stable for a time, yet consider what iconoclasts and others such as Muslims did to Orthodox and catholic structures alike- The Hagia Sophia- The Church of Holy Wisdom- was converted into a mosque, and communists converted churches into museum-while in Juneau Alaska, a Protestant Church was converted into a public radio building until the public radio network were able to buy a television station.