Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Michael Moore Warns That Trump Is Set To Win Again" video.

@alexcarter8807 FDR had a willingness to be pressured by the UNITED organized left (parties and unions) that is utterly missing with Biden and almost all the other sellouts. (and the left is not united, and Sanders is Missing In Action). I think after a few generations even money and influence gets boring. FDR may have liked his role as benefactor of the masses. Maybe it tickled his vanity and stroke his ego. He did not benefit financially from office. He did not need the office to become ot stay rich (like Pelosi, Schumer, Biden family or the Obamas or Clintons). Either way to a degree he sided with the regular people against his own class. Which is a RARE exception. usually the politicians make promises during the campaign and then sell out to big biz and rich people. FDR was the other way round. He wasn't for Keynsian deficit spending and did not specifically advocate for the New Deal policies he later adopted (he was for trying things out and correcting them or abandoning them. Which was smart, because the old economics had turned out to be a utter failure, so a new flexible approach was needed). Of course candidated FDR criticized the Republican government and promised he and Democrats would govern better and bring economic relief. But he was a middle of the road Democrat if you will. Only in office he adopted the BOLDER new policies. And he was willing to twist arms (of affluent Democratic politicians that stood in the way of reform. Like today the Democratic politicians and not the Republicans were the problem. Likde today they were very willing to ignore the suffering of the masses and willing to tell them they would have to suck it up - as long as THEY and their families were still doing fine. ).
6
@craigadams4143 Please consider voting for the Green party candidate. At least the Greens are rewarded for their good faith efforts and with 5 % they get federal funding. Their platform includes most of the Sanders demands (by and large) - so you get two for one.
6
@craigadams4143 There is a reason why hundreds of thousands / millions of D voters can switch to Reagan, Nixon, and Bush in 2000 or Trump in 2016 (in Florida) and no one in the Democratic establishment bats an eye. Or people just stay home. Only the third party voters and candidates are ever villified. - Jill Stein gets 1 % in an election that Hillary Clinton manages to lose, and all hell breaks loose. WHY ? - because they FEAR that the voters just do not accept the blackmail of lesser evilism anymore. The voters move outside of the party duopoly. The Dems rely on it that from time to time the Republicans mess up so badly that they will stumble upon a victory. Obama campaigned on Hope and Change and sold out immediately. But by and large the Dems have dropped all pretense, they do not offer any concession, they do not COURT the voters that used to be the D base (blue collars, young people). They run on "have you seen how bad the Republicans are ?" and nothing else. Biden has perfected that.
5
The voters and primary voters never learn. The DNC can live just fine with 4 more years of Trump. The next wanna be fascist will not be such an idiot and will be able to accomplish more. (not that the Corporate Dems mind. Meanwhile I wonder if BOTH parties try to lose. Only New Deal style politics could take care of the economic fallout of corona - the 2008 / 2009 crisis had not even been overcome. Both parties serve the same ! big donors, so they do not want to enact a New Deal. w/o that it will be very difficult to get an economic recovery and to heal the divisions within the population. The handlers of Biden like their Trump tax cuts. They like the militarized police, at some point they will be needed to keep the masses down. And no one wants to clean up after Trump.
3
@Objective Freethought * one reason to make guns an issue. Someone may have informed Biden he has to throw a bone to the left wing of the party. THAT is the only issue they CAN offer that does not cost the big donors anything. although I think the proposal is terrible on top of all of that, taxes for relatively normal hunting weapons, really ?? So it is not only idiotic from a strategic electoral standpoint to make that an issue at THIS time, considering that the Dems - allegedly - want to win with the help of "moderate" Republicans. Both parties work a few wedge issues: The economic left cannot be captured with identity politics. (The R version of identity peolitics is dog whistling, White nationalism). Dems cannot offer gay marriage or abortion (that are other progressive policies where the big donors do not care either way). There is a reason both parties (financed by the same donors) work those issues - else they would have to talk about economics.
2
The big donors finance the likes of Biden, obama, pete, Kamala Harris to beat progressives in primaries. Winning the general would be nice but it is not necessary ! From a general perspective, HRC for sure wanted to win. But for the party machine (think Schumer, Pelosi, Stany Hoyer, Feinstein, .....) it does not matter. They do just fine as "opposition". From time to time the Repubs mess up so badly that the Dems cannot help but win, at least it was like that in the past. They thought it would be like that with the horrible candidate Trump in 2016. And they for sure think it is now the case. Trump is such a failure that they very confidently slap the base in the face and pretend to court "moderate" Republicans. In other words: the court the base of the OTHER party rather than the traditional D base. The gun reform is such an idiotic move (from a strategic perspective, but the policies are also not good, and of course big donor and urban police friendly) that I wonder if they want to lose. It could be utter incompetence and cluelessness of course. Guns are the ONLY area where they can throw the left base a bone (they can't give that base abortion or gay marriage that has been settled). They cannot adopt ANY Bernie style policies, the big donors will not allow them. And the police unions do not allow them weed reform either. Urban Police unions are important donors at the local level !, think the large cities, in case you have wondered WHY the likes of Bill Clinton, or Obama who know weed from experience could never be bothered to change the classification of marijuana. The crooked Nixon classification - schedule 1, the only other one is heroin - could easily be changed by a president, an EO would suffice - or appointing an FDA boss that is NOT a lobbyist. It is not like any admin could reverse that once a president has ended that nonsense. Schedule 1 = very dangerous, addictive, no medical value. Nixon wanted to double down on the war on drugs to stick it to hippies and the black power movement. That is why his admin classified weed like that.
2
The Corporate Dems / Biden campaign are like: "Nice little country you have here, wouldn't it be a shame if Donald Trump happened to it ?" - I wonder where they want to go from there, even if they pull off a narrow win *. If Trump is the boogey man (or Pelosi HRC for the fans of the other wing of the One and Only big donor party - how will the next convenient R villain be ? * The Dems do not want a decisive win, they would run out of excuses why they cannot get policies passed that help regular voters. They are financed by the same donors as the Republicans. That line of argument (Republicans stand in the way) worked just fine as excuse for Obama. They had the Senate and House in 2009 and 2010. They had a filibuster proof majority for 60 days in spring 2010. Then they passed ACA despite the R tantrums. The R attacks on Obama were ugly and partially racially motiavted. THAT helped Obama to serve the big donors. The base rallied behind him no questions asked. A few Democrats killed the Public Option in the Senate. Not a peep from Obama (likely he was glad, it was killed the big donors did not even allow as little. It is a distant second best to single payer (no other rich country has the P.O.), but the industry did not want even mild reform or a little bit of competition. The likes of Joe Lieberman did the dirty work for all of the party establishment, and the big donors were content. Not to forget Wallstreet, big donors for the party machine and also Obama and they are behind EVERY major industry). Do Corporate Dems realize that Trump could have been even worse. Do they have enough patriotism to CARE ? (if the alternative for these rich people would be slight financial disadvantages). Imagine Trump having a few decent policies and not being THAT stupid. Like a halfway decent corona response. Maybe realzing the obama promise of 2008 of at least ! Public Option in 2017 / 2018. Trump would win the 2020 election easily with only MILD concessions - just by not being a complete in your face moron. The Corporate Dems are THAT bad.
2
@michellec274 to be fair those sheeple (old black female voters) helped Sleepy Joe with his 50 % performance campaign to win South Carolina. Not to forget the catastrophic mistakes of Sanders and his wife - the "my friend Joe Biden" strategy did not work out. (Or the Sanders confirmations in January interviews: Yes, Biden can also beat Trump. Sanders sometimes sounded like a Biden surrogate, and that was when it looked like he could run away with the nomination. That was before corona and then it was not even true that Biden was likely to prevail against Trump. Sanders is a coward he is so afraid of being blamed (for the HRC loss) if Biden manages to lose, that he caved in). Many of these nice eldery voters also like Sanders. But Biden had always beeen presented by the Corporate media as friendly uncle Joe, the friend of the workers and elder statesman. These low inforamtion voters had a chance to watch what biden REALLY stood for. ... Oh well .... And Sanders even confirmed that conviction 1) Biden is nice 2) he can beat Trump. These old ladies have their SS and Medicare and they do not think it will get much worse for them. That is another factor they would not admit. The cost efficiency of Medicare for all was nto well communicated. The overpriced ACA policy indirectly also undermines the Medicare programs for the elderly. Healthcare is costly even in singl payer countries, approx. HALF ot the U.S. spending. Think USD 5,000 - 5,800 versus USD 10,2660 in the U.S. in 2017. If a nation squanders 1,6 trillion per year on inefficient healthcare (and not even with good outcomes or coverage for everyone) - it becames a burden for ALL public programs. Incl. SS and Medicare, Medicaid, public housing, .... Older black voters (in New York - in Feburary so before corona): I like the Sanders policies but now is not the time for them, the most important thing is to beat Trump. The wanna be oraginizer-in-chief returned into his safe corner as eternal dissenter with no power - even Biden in cognitive decline wants to win more than Sanders. I think Sanders self sabotaged. It is like he had second thoughts about having that power. Reasonable, decent people would have second thoughts. That is why the careerists, opportunists, sellouts, psychopaths and narcissists usually make it into the highest positions.
2
@craigadams4143 Remember how pissed the Dems were when Jill Stein got 1 % of the popular vote in 2016 (doubling from 2012). If the Democrats would REALLY lose a winable election because of the Green votes (not like in 2000 and 2016 where they only make that claim) - it would piss them off to no end. Not because they LOST - that is fine as long as they lose to the other wing of the Big Donor party. THAT does not undermine their cozy collusion with the donors. The same donors that also finance Republicans.
2
@Objective Freethought Biden campaign: courting Moderate Republicans and slapping the left wing of the party in the face (young people, working class, progressives). Also Biden campaign: NOW we also alienate the "Moderate Republicans" by making gun reform a big issue for no good reason at all *. Handing the Republicans and Trump the talking points on a silver platter. You couldn't make that stuff up. Of course it is possble that the handlers of Biden WANT to lose. Both parties do not want to deal with THE corona economic fallout. Only FDR style policies could turn this around, but that does not rhyme with big-donor-friendly governance. FDR said: "I welcome their hatred". To a degree he was a traitor to his own class and sided with regular people. A rare exception to the rule. True a UNITED ORGANIZED pressured him. On the other hand: HE was listening. And I think he may have started to like his role as "benefactor" of the masses and popular and populist president. He was not in it for financial gains.
1
@grmpEqweer in a SAFELY RED OR BLUE state you can always vote third party. - and you should. (Bonus: The D base can switch to R and no one bats an eye, But it really pisses them off if the base does not fall for the "good cop / bad cop" routine and votes outside the two wings of the one and only big donor party. Even if you do not (fully) agree with the candidate or the platfrom. At least there are grassroots elements and they seem to be good faith actors. Even a libertarian like Gary Johnson would have been an improvement compared to Trump, HRC, Biden, Pelosi. At least he got some things right ! And I do not think he was / is as corrupt.
1
@DarkMatterZombies that 100 million (nonvoter) survey is an excellent link, thanks. - apathetic voters or switching between a D and R candidate is NO threat to the big-donor-friendly status quo or the grift of both parties (meaning the politicians). I noticed - from my first quick read - that the young emerging electorate is even less interested in politics than in former times. And the non-voters tend to consume more entertainement than news (well at least they do not watch cable TV). Which would explain why the likes of AOC are a danger - they do not only have the policies they also have to infotainement following, the social media hype - and could activate those kind of voters. Also interesting: the young that do vote are underrepresented in ALL income brackets. And the income group (household income plus 100,000 - 200 or 250 k) has the most voters. So the policies are for that income group. and not for the young or lower incomes. That can be squared with serving the big donors. With dog whistling of Republicans and with "I feel your pain" (and backstabbing in terms of actual policies) by the Democrats. I think the average household income in the U.S. is around 50 or 60 k. so well below that income. With plus 100k a family does not desperately need single payer (sure their policies are also way too expensive and that costs them or their employers, but at least they have good coverage. They can deal with costs for education. Do not need public housing or mass transportation. Their kids do not enlist in the army are not even targetted by the recruiters and they are also not harrassed by the police for weed possession. If they have problems with the law - their parents finance the GOOD lawyers. In other words, these voters can be outraged about the bad manners of Trump, they do not need the help of government and they do not need the populist policies. So they vote for the likes of Mitt Romney, the Bushes or HRC - or now Biden (that is if they are not emotionally invested into the 2nd amendment). In other countries they have 80 - 85 % turnout in high profile races. In the U.S. Nov. 2016 presidential race close to 60 %. That is the reason why the corona relief measures are so much better in the other democracies. And they the policians do not dare to attack single payer. Their politicians are not morally better, they also collude with big biz. But things like corona virus and the economc falout is an issue where they cannot play divide and conquer and it affects all of society. They would soon be kicked by the voters if they had dared to pull off what is going on in the U.S. Voting is EASY and reliable. So if the government would dare to piss off the masses, they would get 85 % (realistically) turnout and it would be a bloodbath. Since election intervalls are longer the voters would use the next state elections to stick it to the sitting government, if the next election is only in a few years. So the lower charges in the party also pressure the upper echelons that may be in government or in the opposition role.
1
The technokrats that plan on winning with Biden do not really care if Trump wins. They just would prefer Biden (or someone like pete or kamala Harris) to win. But they certainly would prefer Trump over ANY concessions to the voters. Let's say policies that they have in other rich countries since WW2 or the 1950s and 1960s.
1
I can't help but put some blame on Bernie Sanders too. Some organizer-in-chief. Fate served the historic chance for him to assume that role, he does not need to be elected president or appointed ! to be the nominee. He is a coward and so scared of being blamed for any loss - that he ENABLES the rotten and incompetent DNC to lose this. They will blame him anyway. They have been setting this up for months, just in case. he should have organized peaceful ! mass protest right from the beginning. Being the uniting face. Calling out the colluding mayors. The ongoing protests scare a part of the "moderate" voters. The mayors could have ended that long ago. The reason for the protests is that in those blue cities rent explosion was allowed to happen (the politicians got their cut from the "real estated developers". If you have apermanent underclass you also must collude with the corrupt police, that has to help keep the masses down and rule the city in the interest of the maybe 30 % for whom the system works. The blue mayors and city council members also want the donations and they fear the organizing power of the police unions. The policies of the blue cities are not meant to positiively excite the grassroots so it is not like they could use other grassroots to nullify that organizing power. It shows in the arrogance that the NYPD shows De Blasio and his timid response to that. The mayor in Portland has no interest to offer any maningful police reform. The booming cities all saw rent explosion, the working homeless, defunding of public hospitals (NYC !! - one of the richest cities in the world if you look at the business fields). Portland ? rent explosion. Seattle ? the same. Having thriving businesses does not do much for the low to regular income people. And they cannot even move to the rural areas. With deindustrialization the rural good manufacturing jobs have vanished. The service sector jobs, finance etc are all in the cities. So the population has been funneled into the centers and NO provisions whatsoever regarding housing.
1
+ Kyle - if you do not live in a swing state you can vote as you please, it will not make a difference in the outcome - this time ! if Biden or Trump wins. But it would encourage the Green party, it pisses off the Democratic machine (and the liberal networks) if the sheeple do not go allong with to the lesser evil blackmail
1
Idiotic DNC and Biden campaign: slap progressives and announce proudly to pursue the "moderate" suburban Republicans (that strategy aligns nicely with the general big-donor-friendly course). Half baked response to protests or "riots" in the blue cities - at least they let the media define the narrative. It must be half baked because the mayors of the large blue cities have no intention to give the population there any meaninful reform OR to change public housing situation if the citie has / had a lot of NOW they also CHOSE to slap the moderate Republicans with their gun reform. They are either idiots - even worse than the arrogant and clueless HRC campaign - or they WANT to LOSE.
1
J Jackson No they "must" not - and I do not think the Sanders campaign just hands over the money (I hope not). The DNC has not legal claim on that money.
1
J Jackson Left over donations are used by the politicians as he or she sees fit. In alignment with the legal FEC rules of course (so not for personal enrichment). Giving it to other campaigns, race on all levels, maybe they are also allowed to support non-profits (with Sanders that will not be an equivalent of the Clinton foundation). The DNC cannot force Sanders (or anyone else) to hand out the money. They also can sit on the money. Sanders can agree to give them some money or not. No, I will not dig into it how much money was left over and how he dealt with it, but feel free to give me the summary. after all you made the claim, he gives it (all) to the Democratic party. I hope the party DNC / DCCC does not get anything from him, and he gives only to his chosen races.
1
Sanders will keep some money for Vermont he supports the state Democratic party there. He won his Senate seat in 2018, so good till 2024. Maybe his son runs again, and he would support him .....
1
Yes but Trump winning is NOT bad news for the Corporate Democrats ! They just pretend that they want nothing more than beating Trump. They would "prefer" to win, and we must beat Trump no matter what (w/o any concession to the base !) is only the mesaging for the sheeple. The voters have to make concessions and have to compromize - because the Corporate Democrats for sure will not make any concessions to the traditional base of the Democratic party. let that sink in .... We are not Republicans / Trump, that is all you will get from us - what are you going to do, letting Trump win ??" is all the Dems run on.
1
NOW the Corporate Democrats also CHOSE to slap the moderate Republicans with their gun reform. (after having abandoned the left over these kind of voters). They are either idiots - even worse than the arrogant and clueless HRC campaign - or they WANT to LOSE. They seem to include HEFTY TAXES (in their proposal) that would hit low income gun owners and rural hunters much more (incl. taxes ! for hunting weapons - I have my information from seemingly reasonable comments. The tax would also include the inherited weapons of one commenter from WW2 and 1950s era. So no modern "assault" weapons. So it would help the big donor class: their security will continue to have firearms, they can afford to pay the tax - if it even applies to them - if the oligarch and landlord class just pays a little more for the services. No problem. Gun Reform is not the hill to die on right now. And that kind of tax I think was never a left talking point. I wonder what kind of consultant came up with that strategy - even IF the proposal would be good, fair, level headed taking into account the mood of the Republican voters they allegedly court (very likely all of that deos not apply). WHAT possessed the DNC to deliver ammunition (!) to the Republicans, FOX, and the Trump campaign ?? It is not like Republicans would misrepresent even good policies (gun reform) - would they ???? Somone must have told Biden that he has to make some concessions to the left of the party, throwing them a bone - and that is one of the FEW concessions that they CAN give - that does not cost the big donors anything. They cannot give the base "gay marriage" or "abortion". Or the removal of some confederate statues. That is already settled. The only issue the sellout Corporate Dems CAN even offer is guns. so they decided that will be the bone to throw to the more progressive wing of the party. (Thinking of it, it would also give the urban police they collude with, the chance to go after LOW income people, if they have weapons but do not pay the taxes or if the weapons are NOT legally registered. Registration = subject to tax).
1
@andrewzcolvin Of course - the big donors finance both parties and the role of Corporate Dems is different: They are paid and necessary ! to beat progressives in primaries. To LIMIT the "choice" on the ballot in the general. The voters will ONLY have pro war and pro big biz candidates to "chose" from. Dems are useful - a part of the electorate is out of reach for Republicans and must be contained. The big donors HATE organized grassroots and mass movements. The Bernie wing of the party would be naturally prone to set up such mass movements. It was one of the jobs of Obama to deflate the energy of his rainbow coalation as soon as they had gotten him into the White House. He delivered as the good shill that he is. Corporate Dems would also like to win the general but pleasing the big donors is more important, and KEEPING THE MONEY IS MORE IMPORTANT. - if not for the candidate - the party "leadership" is going to remind them. That is why the candidates and the party "leadership" do not adopt common sense policies that are popular and would grant them landslide wins. What would Democrats even do with decisive majorities. They would run out of excuses. Members of Congress and Senate get approx.170,000 USD before taxes. The big donors offer better perks (informal deals even for sitting representatives that have "established themselves". I assume the rookies are not getting that - but later, if they are in office for some years. Think 3rd term in Congress (= 3 x 2 years). Or getting relected after being in the Senate for 6 years. Perks: Think real estate or investment tips. Jobs for family members, buying up the books by the truckloads, and of course the golden parachute if they lose elections or want to, or have to leave politics.Could be a scandal, health, burnout, family situation, ... Then they can officially cash in on the big-donor friendly votes. After 6 or 5 years in fedeal service they get a pension. But that is likely not that much. Jimmy Carter did not even get that. He had only 4 years as president, and before he was govenor. So no pension for him. The big donors honor these obligations. After all the still acitve shills must be confident, that they will be taken care of if they lose the elections with their lame Republican Lite platforms. Else they would figure out that it would be safer for them to WIN the elections with progressive populist ! policies and grassroots fundraising. Which gets easier after they won 2 - 3 elections. They get the name recognition. One of the major advantages of getting big donor money ? It can BUY name recognition with ads. (and giving contracts out - these people owe you favors later). See Bloomberg campaign, it was disheartening that the ad spending was that successful in the polls. Even if his suport was not very strong. The likes of Schumer and Obama or Pelosi got rich while or AFTER being in office. but there are the medium level politicians, no one knows them, they are completely unremarkable. Those bland politicians get their marching orders and the party leadership helps them get the higher paying jobs if - when - they leave politics. Some take it one step further. For them Congress is a chance to network, they aim for the later cushy job and have no intention to stay longer in politics. They vote accordingly and never give the representatives of big biz (= party "leadership") any grief. With lame policies even getting lots of big donor campaign contributions cannot secure their win. And the Republican that runs against them is also good for the big donors. Normally such candidates would have an incentive to court the constituents to have a SAFE job in politics. They do not have to be charismatic if they are perceived as honest. Sanders followed that route. but until recently they all feared they would be primaried by a big donor friendly challenger, and they needed the money for the campaigns. Even that obstacle has been - to a good degree - removed. But it is still true that longterm the big donors pay better than what politicians get as official salary and benefits. So they all can afford to lose elections because they serve the big donors. . McGrath - after she lost to McConnol - WILL be taken care of. Her main job was to beat Charles Booker. And she delivered ! There is a cushy job waiting for her, if she is not successful in the general. Else the Republican that runs against her might be rewarded. True, unknow first time candidates may not get the cushy job - unless they eliminate a high profile progressive. First term Senators and members of Congress have an incentive to be always obeident. Then they earn enough brownie points to get the status that they too will get a Golden Parachute later.
1
The party leadership and many elected "representaitves" will never break with the corporate masters There are informal perks when they hold office and the big donors provide the golden parachutes laters. Sellout politicians CAN afford to lose, they will be fine not matter what. The VOTERS have to learn.
1
The primaries are the most important elections. Corporate Dems had a roaring success in 2016 and in 2020 - they beat Sanders. That is all that counts: keeping the big donors happy (that finance them for exactely that task: for the primaries ! so that the progressives and pro blue collar types are kept out) Keeping big donor money (and the golden parachutes later) is more important than having policies that would secure a landslide win. There are things that are more important than wining the general. HRC will beg to differ, but the D party machine as a whole does just fine even though they love to clutch their pearls over Trump. The "liberal" networks love the ratings, and they all can avoid to talk about POLICIES: "Trump bad, Russsia" is a good distraction.
1