There are a million Spaniards, more or less, who have stopped receiving electoral propaganda. Surely there are more who would like to get rid of the laws that are approved quickly and running in the pre-election period. We went to Twitter to clarify about Housing, whose effects promise to mess it up as much as those of the only yes is yes.
The anger comes out to meet us as soon as we connect, accompanied by a barrage of complaints/comments about the proof of charge in an eviction/occupation passing from the alleged usurper to the alleged owner. Assuming everything, the impudent debate, public pardon, has evolved from rents to inquiokupation, a word that has already become a preferential site in the battle of 28-M and what follows.
Mentar occupation, be it with K or C or even with H, is a magnet in the networks and outside of them, it is enough for the totum revolutum to take human form. For example, that of Joan Baldoví (Compromís), who turned the Virgin and Saint Joseph into biblical squatters in Bethlehem “because they were poor” and Vox into Herod in the parliamentary debate: “If Vox had been there then, they would have sent the bravo, brave and gallant Ortega Smith to vacate the stable and throw them out of Egypt (...) Mary and Joseph would not have given birth to Jesus in a stable but in jail”. But Bethlehem is not in Egypt...
Instead of talking about housing, the comments on the networks focused on the knowledge of the deputy in religious matters: was Jesus of Nazareth really born in Bethlehem? Was it an occupation, when according to the Gospel they stayed in the manger because there was no room in the inn?
Bearing in mind that Núñez Feijóo had already resorted to the Gospel to describe Sánchez's public housing as "the miracle of the breads and floors", we can only conclude along the same lines: whoever is free from populist sin should cast the first stone.
We leave religion class and go back to economics. The melee of Congress is transferred to the networks. A tweeter complains that there is so much talk about occupation when only 1% of the properties affected are private homes, the rest belong to banks. Another replies that even if that figure is true, whoever gets it gets 100%. And the previous one returns to the charge: for the house to be occupied, he would have to have one, which is not the case. And so ad infinitum.
Luckily the housing trend soon went to the background. There was other, more real news.
