Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" channel.

  1. 21
  2. 16
  3. 15
  4. 15
  5.  @MemoTercero  No Kyle Kulinksi does NOT think racism and homophobia are myths. On the contrary (I heard him talk about that) - and I challenge you to quote any example where he said so. Kyle very clearly states that both parties use certain issues (that do not cost the donors anything) to rile up the base. Abortion, gay marriage, gun regulation, transgender bathroom and identity (racism is a form of that). Both parties play those issues, and the donors that finance both do not really care about the outcomes. They may have prefernces (let's say Koch versos Bezoes or Zuckerber) but as long as they can evade taxes, can outsource, pollute and the employees or consumers do not have rights they are good. Decriminalizing weed or a higher minimum wage ? Not so much. Biden had the minimum wage on the platform but there is a reason he CHOSE not to campaign on it (and excite the base to turn out and to vote FOR something. His donors do not like it, so team Biden got it into the platform to placate the (usually better informed) young and progessive base. It gives them plausible deniability during the campaign in order to motivate at least some of these voters. The rest of the voters do not even know about the stance that he allegedly has on minimum wage. No need to, Biden has no intention to make good on it. And he does not want to be held accountable for broken campaign promises. Obama run on Hope and Change and Biden run on: I will give you nothing, but at least I am not Trump. Democrats have abandonded the base, and they do not have much to differentiate themselves from Republicans. They feel entitled to the Latino vote and are shocked that those voters (or the blue collars in the Rust belt) do not have the same blind loyalty as the (older) black voters. A lot of voters care most about their economc interests. They should be enraged about the stances of Trump on BLM, dreamers, his misogyny etc. etc. - but it does not register much. people are self centered, you could call that casual tolerance of racism shown by other people. Well the elites have sold them out, and they are financially much better off - so who is to blame the voters (who are often by no means financially secure) for their: "Everyone is on their own stance". The elites (incl. the Democratic establishment) pushed for a society with that mindset. Trump in 2020 did better with every gender / ethnicity _except for white males (especially those w/o a college degree). Black women, white women, Latinos both genders - he improved with them. Obama won Florida once and Ohio twice. Both Biden and HRC lost FL and OH. the VOTERS care more about their economic prospects and future (TPP !!) than they care about the transgender bathrooms. You cannot prevent people from being homophobic, but as long as they are not openly attacked - if they have housing, education, and legal protection from being fired, they can live a good life and ignore the few idiots (that dare to be vocal). And it is easier to rile up people against the "other" (gays, people of color, Muslim) if they have economic worries. There is part that is reactionary even under the best personal circumstances, another part is potentially prone to fall for a agitator like Trump - but if they are doing good they will concentrate on their own life and not create trouble. And be content to vote for politicinas that do not violate the norms. The way to keep the assholes quiet and not let them gain traction in society is to have (financial) stability for all. Democratic elites helped to pass the laws that made outsourcing lucrative and safe for big biz. They propped up the health insurance profiteers (with ACA). NOW they have to wonder if they are able to win Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Ohio ! is a solidly red state, and florida is off limits too. Under Obama the banksters were saved, no one was prosecuted and 5,5, million homes were forclosed. he started more wars and pushed for TPP big time. THESE were political decisions. The opioide crime may have started under Bush but it was allowed to fester and blow up under Obama. NOW people are addicted and die from overdoses right left and center. In areas of economic downturn there will be the "diseases of despair" people are even more susceptible to addiction in a climate of economic hopelessness. Those who have homes or inherited them, cannot sell them and move to another states. There would not be enough jobs, the rent prices there would go up even more. And: They would not get a good price if they have a paid off house now. So they lose (intergenerational) wealth, and will be made to pay a steep price for housing elsewhere. corporate Democrats purport to be against racism - yeah if it is convenient, rhetorically and does nto interfere with donor interests. Also see: Crime Bill, and the police brutality is the worst in the large cities which are usually blue. And they picked up the cause of gay and transgender people after it became a safe thing to do. (the grassroots did the heavy lifting to gain societal acceptance. Bush did some identity politics and wanted to make it constitutional that a marriage has to be between a man and a woman. Needless to say Hillary Clinton supported that. I assume also Biden. I think they do not care, it was just seen as a chance to make brownie points for cheap. Now the D leaning citizens changed their mind, and it is convenient to be for LGBTQ rights. ONE major way of how discrimination manifests is economics and chances to get good healthcare, education, jobs etc. Securing that for ALL would disproportionally benefit women, LGBT folks (ask black transgender people !), veterans, people of color - AND that would be a winning elelctoral strategy even with people that tend to vote Republican. Divide and conquer games would not work with UNIVERSAL economic measures, the Republicas would lose against economic populism. That would be a fast way to improve the situation of marginalized and low income people. Dr. King was for for reparations. But his more immediate agenda (after the Civil Rights Laws were passed) was a War On Poverty and he wanted to unite poor people of color AND poor white people in that. That was his agenda when he was killed, he was in Memphis to support a strike. His strategy was smart as always. If he had only pushed to relieve poverty for black people, he would have missed out on a lot of allies and he undermined all attempts to play Divide and Conquer. But of course he WANTED to achieve something. Not only posing as having the morally correct position on gays, or other races when that is convenient and does not cost you anything.  The Dems are very lucky that Trump was too greedy, incompetent to embrace economic populism (and by that I mean PUSHING for policies, not the campaign rhetoric) in addition to his right wing and nationalistic stances, and all the uglyness. The grifters around Trump are too ideological and shortshighted so they did not see that this was the ticket to his sure reelection. he would have won in a landslide.
    15
  6. 11
  7. 11
  8. 11
  9. Sen. Boxer is an establishment shill - she is not going to embarrass the Republican establishment *. The majorities swing between the Rs and the Ds - that is part of the "good cop / bad cop" routine. In the end they go to the same parties and are financed by the same Big Donors. * And the same is true for the media. Media and the 2 dominant parties - they ALL have the SAME donors resp. advertisers. (Media gets a lot of the insane election spending, too). So the Democratic establishment pays a little lip service. They demonstrate "outrage" - and then they continue to play nice with the Rs in the institutions. If the Democrats had tried to place a fairly "left" judge in the Supreme Court the Republicans would have shut down the Senate. - See what they did when the Dems tried to pass ACA ** ** not that I am positive about ACA, but the Rs would have rioted even worse if the bill had been good (for the citizens, that is). Of course a party and a president working for The People would have used the momentum from the 2008 Obama campaign, reminded the masses of the POWER they have when they organize, and would have encouraged a March On Washington to bring the Republicans to heel. But the Democratic establishment and Obama served Wallstreet - and also the insurance and healthcare industry. ACA was weak from the start, then the Blue Dogs killed EVEN the PUBLIC OPTION, then the R's were allowed to have some input (admitted that is the general idea when making laws, but it should not be followed if one party perverts the process and is hellbent of making the law NOT WORK because the voters might like it if the results of the laws are GOOD for them. So the Rs made the bill WORSE (cost control) - and then they did not vote for it anyway.
    11
  10. 10
  11. 10
  12. 10
  13. 9
  14. 9
  15. 9
  16. 9
  17. 9
  18. 9
  19. 8
  20. In single payer systems that I know well (Germany and Austria) _ the only large for profit player is Big Pharma_ (and they have standardized, internationally comparable substances - so it is to a degree a buyer's market. The EU has plus 530 million citizens and it is possible to "compare" prices even if that happens inofficially. private insurers would guard an "information" advantage (if they have a good deal with Big Pharma). Non-profit national public insurance agencies have no such motivation to withhold information. So it is pretty sure that litte Iceland knows what other larger countries are paying - and cannot be ripped off. Their per capita healthcare expenditures indicate that. They are in the normal range for a wealthy country - (that is 55 - 65 % of what the U.S. already spends per citizen. - almost all wealthy European nations, Canada, Australia are in that range). Small pharmacies and doctor practices are "private" (they must be small, no chains allowed). They are companies, the profit is the "wage" or income of the doctor. But they are not able to game the system, they do not have enough power. Their professional representations (also a non-profit of course) negotiates on their behalf with the public agency - but that representation is NOT a profit maximizing corporation that is engaged in the daily business. They will fight for the advantage of the members - but they cannot offer courses in "creative billing" for instance (you bet U.S. doctors and hospitals do such trainings). Only in the U.K. the doctors with practices are employees of the NHS. The doctors with contracts run companies - but they are not entrepreneurs - there is a regional quota and other regulations. Per region or 5,000/ 10,000 citizens only a certain number of doctors get a contract. (they can open a truly "private" practice, but they need to find the patients). The regional quota ensures that all doctors with a contract have a chance to have enough cases. They do not get very much per case under the contract. It also makes sure that new doctors will consider a more rural region for their practice. If that is an open slot. So the whole country is covered not only the most attractive areas. They are also not allowed to advertise (it does not matter if they have a contract with the public agency or not). So they better be good so they have word of mouth recommendations. usually it is some of the dentists, eye doctors, TCM, sports medicine, ... or if they are a known capacity in their field. (Lawyers are also forbidden to advertise for ethical reasons).
    8
  21. 8
  22. 7
  23. 7
  24. 7
  25. 7
  26. 7
  27. Their sales pitch to the investors is that the chance that a person once in prison will come back is pretty good in the U.S. (they have brochures on that - so it is presented as a safe investment, almost like a monopoly on a street or something). They lobby to undermine social services for ex prisoners, for instance that they are excluded them from social housing, student loan grants - and they make sure there are EXTREME punishments for relatively harmless substances like marijuana in place and stay in the law books. And Bill Clinton implemented the "3 strikes and you are out" rule (and cut welfare at the same time). Some folks are now !! imprisoned FOR LIFE for relatively minor NON-violent drug charges. Which is unethical AND extremely costly. And has devastating effects on those families. Most of those prisoners are men (of color) - and they often have children. Those laws came before for-profit prisons became a thing - but of course that started filling the public prisons, having so many prisoners is expensive (much more expensive than prevention). So they started getting creative in the attempt to cut the costs w/o changing the contempt for the people that are much more likely to get caught up in the system (school to prison pipeline). Corrupt politicians INVENTED a safe investment niche for their buddies. Or their buddies gave them ideas. Needless to say: the "investors" are also DONORs to political campaigns. So now they collude to make sure there is NO PRISON SYSTEM REFORM (do we really want to lock up people for so long for non-violent crimes ??) They have and GET contracts where the state guarantees their revenue - no matter how many prisoners the company that runs a prisons "takes care of". In Sweden they closed down a prison in the recent years - they do not need it. In the US the private investors would continue to get their money (in the theoretical case that would happen). They cut the costs for health care, food safety, heating and cooling of the prisoners and make a buck in this manner. And let's not forget that prisoners are an extremely cheap workforce, not even the 3rd world countries can compete with those wages (the expensive housing and security is paid for by taxes). They cannot unionize, no legal protections, and cannot really refuse to work (they have ways to make them "volunteer". Slavery by another name. They let them pay extreme rates for using the telephone. They curb in person visits and let them (or their relatives) pay huge money for video conferences. Visits and contact with family and friends are extremely important, people that are visited have a much better chance of not going back to prison. And the prospect to getting a visit (or the privilege being removed !!) makes them cooperate in the prison.
    6
  28. 6
  29. Charlie Gard got lots of free healthcare (I think for 1 year in hospital) - which would have bankrupted his parents in the U.S., Charlie's parents are not wealthy. The question was an ethical about LIFE SUPPORT and prolonging life for someone beyond hope and not about healthcare insurance or coverage - he became a warden of the court. The suggested treatment was not even tested on animals !! and even in the best case scenario - drug works as expected by the researcher - he would have remained in a vegetative state. His brain was damaged beyond recovery. The doctor/scientist came over from the U.S. held a meeting with the doctors, saw the patient files and agreed that it was pointless. The problem with Charlie was that no one could say for sure if he was feeling pain or not. And he was so impaired that he was unable to communicate that. So if the treatment prolonged his life (in a vegetative state) but with pain no one would have known. - in his last days he was sedated. But if you do that for longer it also has a negative impact. Alfie Evans was not as clear cut - I think transferring him to Italy would have been pointless - but with Alfie they could at least discern if he was hurting. A medical doctor whose child had a severe illness and died after they had come to the decision to end life support defended both court decisions btw. She also narrates the desparation and the irrational hope of the parents - and she had a medical background.- she thought the emotional stories - and the desperate parents who could not allow themselves to "give up" and let the child go - were exploited. By the tabloids and in the case of Alfie also by the Catholic Church. And many half informed persons in the U.S. The U.K. btw has per capita health expenditures of USD 3,900 - vs. 9,200 in the U.S. The NHS for sure is underfunded - but with only 50 % of the U.S. budget it would work like a charm
    6
  30. 6
  31. 6
  32. WORLD BANK per capita health care expenditures ** in USD in 2014: UK 3,900, U.S. 9,200 !!!! average for wealthy * European countries and Canada 5,000 - 5,500. Note these are the 2014 expenditures, likely the costs in the countries with single payer have risen with inflation rate (or above), while the U.S. costs have risen steeply. Getting those costs down by going in the direction of the systems that have been much more cost-efficient means: less economic disruption for high medical bill, less STRESS, lower and middle class income people will have MORE disposable income. People are free to start businesses and change jobs - no need to stay with a company because they offer a plan. The paper shufflers will become obsolete, the budget will be freed up for more nurses, doctors. And businesses will have less costs, and small businesses / start ups can compete for qualified workforce with larger businesses. When it comes to healthcare it does not matter where a person works. * the average standard of living will influence the labor costs, which are an important part of healthcare costs. Therefore you can compare Sweden, with France, or Canada - on average pretty much the same standard, but not with Hungary or Poland (wages are much lower). ** all that is spent in the country on healthcare (no matter if paid for out of pocket or by a private insurance company, or non-profit public insurance agency) divided by the population (it does not matter if the person needed the system in that year, or even has insurance/coverage - in the U.S. many have not)
    6
  33. 6
  34. 6
  35. 5
  36. 5
  37. 5
  38. + dinojerk - the bill UNDERMINES SCIENTIFIC evaluation and SHARING of INFORMATION. Two reasons would justify to allow Big Pharma to do it: the slim chance to rescue patients - will not happen very often. And that it speeds up testing and development because the patients are willing to make a SACRIFICE for SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. would OF COURSE mean PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data. At the minimum that the date is available to the regulators. In that setting there would be no need to HIDE the DATA. It goes w/o saying that many participants would die anyway. With statistical methods it can be extracted out of the data pool and the many deaths if the drug helps (a little bit, considerably, not at all, etc.) So as long as the pharma companies stay within reasonable ethical bounds there is no reason at all to OBFUSCATE. And if they OBFUSCATE - and the bill is clearly set up to do that - then it is NOT ABOUT SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS won with the cooperation of terminally ill patients. The well informed and consenting patient is a myth. These are patients and families are under enormous pressure, likely not capable of objectivity (it is a life and death situation !!) and at a complete disadvantage regarding information and expertise. Never mind they might not have the means to consult independent experts for their opinion (many specialists for their conditions might still not be competent to comment on those completely new - STAGE 1 - approved treatments. And good luck with hiring the relatively few experts that are competent to do so). One could expect the FDA to be able to have the necessary expertise - after all drug approval monitoring is one or their core tasks. The FDA expertise and authority and also OBJECTIVITY to protect where the patients have a hard time to protect themselves would be absolutely needed IF that was meant for the "greater good". One can also assume that many of these patients are not feeling well, have constant pain, are weak, cannot concentrrate, are influenced by the drugs, and are psychologically down. Good luck with immersing yourself into a medical issue while being so weakened. Many folks can't even do that when they are in good health.
    5
  39. 5
  40. 5
  41. 5
  42. Even if you only work your Facebook and social media contacts - if you get a few people to register and to vote that otherwise wouldn't have, that is a huge contribution to the cause: NON-VOTERS are the largest voting block: 2016 139 millions of 250 used their right to vote. (55 % only). Getting one such vote more is as good as a major financial contribution. It takes a lot of money to activate voters via ads - there is nothing like word of mouth recommendation. Of course door to door canvassing is also very effective. One Sanders staffer (with dual citizenship) helped in the UK and did some training (for 2017 snap election with a motivated volunteer army). UK snap election 2017 - Labour starts out 16 points behind and has 5 weeks to turn that around. The backstabbers from the neoliberal wing for once rest their case and the party unites ! behind a progressive manifesto. Young people (18 - 25) used to have almost the same turnout as the plus 65 year olds in the 70s (around 70 % *)I. n the last regular election in 2015 they were around 42 % * (** numbers from memory). So the establsihment "knew" that young people "do not vote" never mind the mass rallies and the canvassing. They did - Corbyn activated the NON-VOTERS (to a degree he still has potential). A young man and first time voter a few days before the election: "Jeremy is the man ! Usually it is cool to say you did not vote, what difference does it make, anyway. Not this time: I am voting and everybody on my facebook page is voting too. Labour missed winning the popular vote - but the Tories that thought they could benefit from Labour being behind in the polls found 5 weeks later that they lost the narrow but safe majority and instead had to resort to a coalition with an obscure Irish party to even have a majority in parliament. (Labour closed the gap to 2 % which silenced the neoliberal backstabbers in the party for a few months. They had hoped Labour would have a catastrophic result and then they could force Corbyn to step down. Like the Democratic establishment - they would rather see an Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney type in the White House than Sanders. And covertly they might even prefer Trump to Sanders (although they would never admit that). I consider setting up a soundbite "database" - the "haves" and the war machines have been doing so much propaganda over many decades and when you do not address people the right way they will bolt and form an even stronger attachment to their opinion. Humans are like that, we are also territorial on opinions not only on physical space. That is especially true when they are still doing O.K in the current economy and if they have bought into the thought stopping clichés (I borrowed that term from people dealing with destructive cults). They will double down on what they accepted as truth - their ! truth (like MfA would be too expensive, etc. the level of ignorance and debate is mind boggling. I know European single payer systems for experience.)
    5
  43. 5
  44. 5
  45. 4
  46. The role assigned to the Dems by the Big Donors (who finance both parties) is to win in primaries against Progressives (or keep them down by any means necesssary). Those who then lose their seat against a Republican hope for cushy jobs/lucrative contracts (if they obediently served the Big Donors and the party leadership representing the interests of the donors ). The Big Donors always win. Dems would like to win - but NOT losing the money is more important. If voters develop the bad habit of voting third party that interrupts the cozy scheme - they are potentially dangerous. The Dems do not have the (cynical) intellectual fortitude to be self aware about the fact that they are sell-outs. They like the financial rewards and the safety of selling out (like the Republicans) and they would like to pose as the better more woke, more sophisticated people, too. But only if it is not inconvenient. The whole third party thing touches the sensitive area - they already need to practice double think - that is why they react so allergic and are so glaringly oblivious - and IMMUNE - to the facts. "Nader cost Al Gore the presidency, and that ultimately lead to the Iraq war." - Bill Maher I think in 2016. - 100,000 cross voters in Florida in 2000. The Dems willingly voted for war. They must have known that the war against Afghanistan was being pepared in summer 2001 and that 9/11 was a pretext. In 2003: Washington D.C. was buzzing with rumours, OF COURSE Hillary and Bill knew that the CIA was pressured into conformity. They have connections, no ? Or that UN agencies were intimidated / hindered. The vote was politically expedient, if she was wrong she could hide among the others who had also voted for war. WHO CARED ?
    4
  47. 4
  48. They are getting in trouble when you call their bluff. (You want to win - you sure don't ACT like it, you do not even adopt policies that are a WINNER among D, I, R voters). They do not want the regular gullible voters to find out - after YEARS of declaring that tRUmP mUsT bE DefEaTEd. And the "liberal" large networks strongly supported that. No sacrifice can be spared, no compromise is to big - to get rid of Trump. Sacrifices are only for the voters (AGAIN). The Corporte Dems will not give an inch and would rather risk losing that even implement WINNING highly popular policies (like M4A which polls well even among Republicans). Turns out they would rather lose to Trump, than win with Sanders OR win with a Sanders platform (no even with M4A with is a sure winner). Beating Trump is not THAT important. Judge them according to their actions (or the obvious things they NEGLECT to do) not the rhetoric (that is meant to scare the voters into obedience). They abstain to run on a platform that would GUARANTEE them the victory. They chose to PROP UP an incredibly weak candidate (because the other man still standing was Sanders). Does not look like WANTING to win. Now: the BASE wants to win against Trump, and if the BASE realizes they have been sold a bill of goods they will be furious. That is the narrative that is currently going on. They try to preemptively blame progressives. If the progressives refuse long enough the regular Biden supporters might start questioning WHY the Biden campaign does not give them anything, so that they shut up and fall in line. Considering that M4A IS popular with that crowd as well, it just wasn't their first priority. and THEN came the pandemic that changed the view of people. The way Sanders dropped the ball here is epic. I think he got scared of his own success, and has been self-sabotaging. He is comfortable being the eternal dissenting underdog. not holding and leveraging power and his movement.
    4
  49.  Frederic Bastiat  i assume you are old enough to not care ("... after me the deluge") - do you have children ? Nieces and nephews ? - your argument does not hold - I recommend the youtube channel of potholer54 - if you are interested in facts. And facts and science is what you are going to get. He is a paleontologist, worked as prospector for the oil industry and for 25 years as science journalist. He debunks the deniers, clueless claims (yes there was climate change before humans were around, three main factors, solar irradiation, CO2 and the wobbling when revolving around the sun (that's a very long cycle). So this time it is CO2 - and nothing else. Temperature rising with UNPRECEDENTED SPEED (that means scientist cannot find hints that EVER the globe warmed as fast - cooling yes - when massive volcano erupted or a meteor hits the earth and the dimming brings about the big freeze. But never such quick warming. And that a warming happened in Europe does not mean it was GLOBAL. There are cycles where the Northern or the Southern hemisphere gets colder or warmer. Which can suit some areas just fine and bring them into trouble. - the warming is measured globally, on the surface, the oceans (two thirds of the globe ! water can absorb a lot of heat), and the atmosphere. 1 degree (or even 0,6) in that short time is HUGE. the warming that has already happened is 0,6 degree (Celsius) - most of it over a few decades only. During the ice age the global average temperature was only around 4 degrees lower. 6 degree more than now and there would be for sure a mass extinction event in the oceans (there was a time when that happened PBS eon channel The Last time the globe warmed) Even the oceans in the Arctic and Antarctic region would have around 20 degree - that is enough to go swimming (not yet balmy but not too fresh either). All temperatures in degree Celsius.
    4
  50. 4