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

  1. I am astonished that governor could win, he is incapable to call a spade a spade.
    1
  2. FDR did not appease them - and he twisted arms WITHIN the party (like now the representatives usually were wealthy or rich - so some Dems thought the masses would have to suck it up - more or less). FDR said about Big Finance: I welcome their hatred. Or the Bretton Woods conference: the Banks were not even invited when the setup of the post war financial order was determined. Some oligarchs were afraid of the strong united left movements (that gave FDR the leverage to push for the New Deal). this was 1933 (in 1917 the Russian Revolution had happended). The U.S. had shy of 90 million people then, of which 1 million had joined unions in 1932. almost every family had unemployed people. Strikes and demonstrations everywhere. The veterans march (for the benefits promised to them) brutally crushed in 1932 (with help of the army btw, not many top brass were in good standing with the veteran community or the public after that). So many oligarchs and well off Democratic politicians accepted FDR as the "lesser evil". And he was allowed to save Capitalism (and banking ! and Wallstreet) from it's own excesses. On the other hand some Republican industrial leaders were furious (higher taxes for them, minimum wages, ... unemployment benefits and SS). They could do little but look with envy to Europe where fascism was on the rise. Their own considerations to have a fascist coup in the U.S. went nowhere (if interested search for: 1934 offer to Gen. Smedley Butler to lead a "bonus army").
    1
  3. What is an "irresponsible parent ? Abusive, stressing the kid out ? Not being able to live in a safe, nice, secure environment. Working long hours. Not working. Not being able to help them (not good education ?)
    1
  4. There is a reason modern nations have a professional school system. Patience, ability to explain, TIME, the knowledge of the parents (or lack thereof). Of course it helps to have a loving wealthy home, with a lot of support from the parents. "Education" is a SYSTEMIC thing - what is with the children who cannot get that from their parents (irresponsible or not).
    1
  5. In many European countries the education SYSTEM takes care _to level the playing field_. they compensate for the disadvantages for those children who have higher needs or worse conditions or parents who cannot or will not support them. - So it is not left to luck if a child in need of help will get it. And all children get it - so there is no element of "welfare" (children react very sensitive to that aspect, if they are the few ones that get the "special classes" or if one third of the 6 - 7 year old get some extra support). The TRIBE (well in modern society the education system, in a wider sense the tax funded government) takes care that ALL children get their chance. Not only those who are lucky enough to be born into the "ideal" family and are perfectly healthy and have it easy to learn.
    1
  6. Friedman calls Bloomberg: "Mike"
    1
  7. 1) do not invest for foreseeable intense cold 2) lose 40 % of the electric output AND also the natural gas for heating homes so much more demand 3) those that come back on the grid to do their job, can now demand extortion prices, and not because they even have that much higher production cost
    1
  8. TX is a closed niche. They (fossil fuel producers, electricity plants) produce a lot and their consumers and companies must use (squander) a lot. The politicians will certainly not mandate energy conservation. For instance better insualtion of buildings (demand for aircondition in summer, would have also helped now). The energy provider CANNOT export so they need to sell it in TX. They also cannot import during a crisis. Why ? Part of the national grid = subject to federal regulation. Would mean backup in a crisis and the regulations are common sense (demands to prepare, having reserves) and would have prevented the worst in 2011 and 2021.
    1
  9. no - the subscriptions have been going up fast, I think they started out in 2017. Resistance is very much necessary. Obama was lucky he got a pass and I think the racists attacks helped him, the base rallied behind him, no questions asked.
    1
  10.  @nigelcox-hagan6820  Taibbi and Greenwald are not reactionaries. That is ludicrous.
    1
  11. the procedures of keeping mail ballots safe (how to get them, processing by post or dropboxes, and the storage when they are handed over to the poll workers) must be different of course than for in person voting or the voting with electronic machines (the results of many of these machines are on pricincple NOT verifiable, not paper trail - and Repubs had no problem with that so far). They have to design the rules once and then the do the drill.
    1
  12. 10 millions matter ! for Meghan McCain. Her mother is an heiress already. McCain divorced the wife that had waited for him when he was a POW in Vietnam and married the young women from a very weathy background. So at least 2 trustfund babies - mother and Meghan - if not more.
    1
  13. Or version 2: Black leaders threatened to have a black march on Washington. - FDR complacently denied black folks an Executive Order to end discrimination in defense jobs (in 1940 and 1941 the economy boomed, with the war preparation. But those jobs were almost exclusively for whites regardess of qualification. From that link: As momentum and publicity for the march built, Randolph increased his estimate of the crowd it would draw, from 10,000 to 100,000, and asked FDR to address the gathering. FDR and his wife, Eleanor, who served as his liaison to the African-American community, were aghast. “The Roosevelts feared the march would result in a race war in the nation’s capital that would prove an embarrassment to a country that held itself up as a model of democracy,” Pfeffer wrote. FDR met with Randolph and the civil rights leaders again in June 1941. [For context: Dec. 1941 the Amercian bases in the colonies Hawaii and Philippines are bombed. so this was not long before the U.S. officially entered WW2. The U.S. declared war on Japan, and Germany then declared war on the U.S. - and yes the U.S. expected to enter the war.] FDR attempted to charm them and urged them to cancel the march. In exchange, the president offered to call defense industry chieftains to get them to voluntarily hire blacks. Randolph and the other civil rights leaders refused to budge. Roosevelt finally relented, issuing Executive Order 8802 barring discrimination in the defense industries. Randolph and his colleagues then canceled the march. Far from encouraging the civil rights leaders to make him end discrimination, Roosevelt did everything he could to resist their pressure, according to Randolph’s biographers. Only when he was convinced that they wouldn’t buckle to presidential persuasion did FDR have the executive order issued. The story offers a tougher lesson for reformers than the “Make me do it” legend does. They may not have a co-conspirator in the White House, despite his rhetoric of change, hope and community organizing.
    1
  14. The Saudis cannot just switch to buying from other countries. Experts say they would need DECADES for the technological transition (training, signals, IT) and integrate the new technology. They cannot even integrate into a military strategy what they have bought so far - Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell. KSA fully concentrated on U.S. / NATO systems (not like India which always mixed).
    1
  15. KSA buys GOODWILL of Western politicians and mainstream media by buying military equipment - and they buy that the U.S. will not invade them - they spend more "on military" per year than Russia. - So they would just quit spending if they do not buy U.S. arms anymore. There is no reason for them to bribe China or Russia, both nations are not likely to start a war of aggression against them. Russia and China are also not likely to help them if the U.S. does an "Iraq" or "Libya" on them. They would not get themselves into a mess to help out Saudi Arabia and sacrifice their soldiers. Setting the Middle East on fire / fire up Islamic terrorism, holy sites in KSA, etc.
    1
  16. Let them play, full length - Sam gets revenue for that ! - see my comment under +danill
    1
  17. ICE is going after the EASY TARGETS, the harmless families - much more trouble to go after the real criminals among undocumented immigrants. And the "success" numbers would not be as high either - it takes much more time and effort to go after these people (of course THAT would actually make society safer - but who cares about what works - it is all about appearances). It is much more difficult to go after the people who have money, who are not tied down by caring for families and establishing a normal steady life, and who may have the financial, legal and organizational support of organized crime.
    1
  18. the major change is MONEY OUT OF POLITICS. And they are fearful about a media campaign.
    1
  19. Dimon should have been prosecuted ! Do a websearch: JP Morgan whistleblower Alayne Fleischman. And middle management did not come up with the racket, that has been drafted by top management. if Eric Holder could have been bothered to prosecute the manager (in trouble because of the mail that Fleischman provided as evidence= likely the manager would have revealed WHO gave him WHAT orders (in which case he would have gotten a deal and would have avoided prison). The guy was new and then the culture in the department that self-evaluated the risks of repackaged mortgages shifte. it would have been interesting why the other one had left - maybe because he was pressured into breaking the law and did not go along ? he would have been Interesting as witness ! Instead the identiy of the whistle blower was leaked to the press (even though they had assured her they would keep her name secret) and Holder used the mail to bargain for a high settlement. Which looked good - see how tough the Obama admin is on the banks - but in the end it was a slap on the wrist. The managers were rewarded for the criminal practices. And then the banks got bailouts and were showered with money in form of QE, never mind cheap money because of low interest rates - so it was easy for them to recover from the fines. Only prison also for top management would have sent the right message. Which would mean that middle managment would always keep evidence in case something comes out - so that their top managers go to prison and not they. Top management never can pull illegal activities alone, they need staff for that. There are always enough witnesses. But usually they fear retaliaton - and they are right to do so. Either their courageous act is ignored and they have all kinds of difficulties, while it was in vain. Or those who should uphold the law (like Holder or later Lynch) side with the crooks.
    1
  20. Citibank prepared for the Obama admin the list of names * for cabinet / admin appointments. - citibank also got a lot of money under Obama. - Good that banksters vetted which foxes were fit to guard the henhouse. * Weakileaks Podesta emails citibank sent that to the Obama campaign in October 2008 - before the election. Makes you wonder who was in charge of the cabinet for an McCain admin - I would place my bets on the crooks of Goldman Sachs.
    1
  21. Older black voters will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee. The usual crowd will come out for him - AND many, many young and non-voters. He is much stronger with the grassroots. - That Warren is seen as the lesser (kind of progressive) evil by corporate media should tell you something. They might know something we don't. The bosses also gave the green light for Obama in 2008 as well. he had arrangements with Wallstreet and other big donors (behind closed doors). see citbank email to the Obama campaign (Wikileaks).
    1
  22. As highly social animal humans cannot just say "I do not care if poor desperate people die, even chidren". Double think must balance out the need/desire for selfishness plus the reward for "othering" and "scapegoating" - and on the other side there are the LAWS of our deeply social empathic nature. Those two motivators (selfishness, defining a group which naturally means there is "not-our-group") are opposed to natural empathy. if you want to unify a group in modern anonymous society, nothing works as well and quickly as a "common enemy" or a propped up "common threat". These three instincts !! are all very strong. Double Think makes it possible to put the the square peg through the round hole, if you will. People can indulge their selfishness and still maintain the view of themselves as "good people" and sleep well. (If that view cannot be maintained our social nature will haunt us, our conscience will make us very, very uneasy. But humans are very biased creatures and can make perception fit. They use their frontal lobes to make the migrants a threat, dirty, as "not human" and "not like us" as possible. And they use their frontal lobes to not let anything disturb that illusion. Like facts about the caravan or common sense reasoning. (WHO would really make that dangerous journey - walking no less.) 1) People who are out there to get you ? 2) or people who are so desperate that they have not much left to lose ? It would be legitimate to be annoyed, non-empathetic or even hostile in case of scenario 1). Scenario 2) however ! - it would be against our deeply social human nature to be hostile towards them. Our social nature was honed by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution - but those instincts developed to help with the survival of small groups of hunters / gatherers who knew each other and knew the neighbouring tribes. Even if it is not possible to help everyone within the bounds of regular self-interest/selfishness, that would not require villifying them. Well, of couse that would leave behind a feeling of uneasyness. (That is why rich people give to donations after they have used their money and power to make sure those "charities" are needed in the first place. So that they can feel better about themselves and do keep some social standing). Usually those former humans held peace with the tribes and groups around them. The neighbour tribes (especially from the same sub-species) could be essential for survival, and the costs of conflict would have been just too high (they had to walk ! to war). On the other hand meeting for hunting large animals and to intermarry had advantages (or ask their healer for advice or their shaman for help. Of for trade like getting salt into the inland or just plain to have visitors who knew the latest news and gossip). Humans are territorial, so the "other" as "not-a-human-like-us" and therefore not deserving of the good treatment every tribe member deserves, is not a new concept. (That meant other tribes respected and mainly kept to their territories. They cooperated from a position of mutual advantage and there were certainly a lot of customs, traditions, rules, manners ! that supported those exchanges and structured them). 74,000 years ago a super volcanoe exploded. After that almost no homo erectus were left on earth, homo sapiens after that dominated i Africa and India (which were espececially hard hit by the explostion, 6 m = 2 floors high ash in some areas, it became drier in certain regions, so lack of water and prey). So during that time even the neighbouring "others" may have become enemies (especially when they belonged to another sub-species of homo). And humans then (erectus, sapiens certainly, not sure about neandertaliensis) were forced to leave their territories. So then there were conflicts over now scarce resources. Before I think they had a hard time expanding their numbers - like the Bush people, Inuit and Aborigines kept their population numbers stable. Life was so hard that the populations did not grow much, there was no need to compete for resources.
    1
  23. Leave it to corporate local TV to carefully avoid criticizing the affaif of states. It is on the individual level (if it is a cute child with a presentable mother), it is never about commenting on the system.
    1
  24. No country that can be on a larger grid will not do it. And no, Tx is not large enough. See 2011 or 2021. Well - smaller stand alone grids can function, but they have higher costs.
    1
  25. The financial damageof this event will be higher than of Harvey. One dime in prevention sames you one dollar in damages. El Paso learned from 2011, and they could afford to winterize. So can Canada, Vermont, Michigan, Minnesota, ..... many European countries - they all have reasonable electricity rates and often thriving industries. Germany and 20 F (= - 17 C) To be sure unsually cold in some areas, but they would cope just fine. And are export champion (outside of pandemic times) with those energy costs (which are much higher than in the U.S. That is a blessing in disguise. Replacing energy use with technology and human labor).
    1
  26. TX is a closed niche, not a free market. Which does not work for electricity anyway and it is especially not free in the TX. They have MAINLY Tx suppliers. Not much imports possible. They (fossil fuel producers, electricity plants) produce a lot and their consumers and companies must use (squander) a lot. The politicians will certainly not mandate energy conservation. For instance better insualtion of buildings (demand for aircondition in summer, would have also helped now). The energy provider CANNOT export so they need to sell it in TX. They also cannot import during a crisis. Why ? Part of the national grid = subject to federal regulation. Would mean backup in a crisis and the regulations are common sense (demands to prepare, having reserves) and would have prevented the worst in 2011 and 2021.
    1
  27. 1) do not invest for foreseeable intense cold * 2) lose 40 % of the electric output AND also the natural gas for heating homes so much more demand 3) those that come back on the grid to do their job, can now demand extortion prices, and not because they even have that much higher production cost Costs that they have in most of the countries in the temperate climate, or the states not far to the North of Texas. Oklahoma, Mississippi, Arkansas do much better than TX and I do not thin they have that high prices. But the are on the national grid (well Southwest) and they accept common sense regulation - incl. the investments to winterize Switzerland, Austria, Germany, North of Italy, France, Netherlands do not routinely get those temps in all of the country - but they could handle them, some better than others, but no nation would fare as badly as the U.S. - the energy prices are higher in general, but that does not damage the economy. And part of those costs are high taxes
    1
  28. Both men are not good in the delivery - I know it is presented for free - but they want to make a living of it, they could as well train their rhetorical abilities and train themselves to avoid the constant "uhmm".
    1
  29. So the potential rigging of the census will be an excellent opportunity for the Dems to show their capacity for DEAFENING SILENCE. Or alternatively to roll over before they were pushed. That's just me being cynical.
    1
  30. No MMT was not implemented in our financial sytem (Well, in a special form to the tune of 13 trillion USD as QE for the Banks - but else - NO). What we do have is FIAT money (and that was played since maybe 1500 or 1600 - not officially then and likely also not legal - but the haves and bankers leveraged that at that time already.
    1
  31. Dr. Wolff does not warn of "runaway inflation" (not in the sense that this would be inevitable). He warns that if access to funding projects becomes easier there are some pitfalls that must be avoided. An example: before the GFC not only finance in the US had gone crazy. The neoliberal deregulation showed its negative influence in many countries. In Spain it was a real estate bubble (the Spanish banks giving out regular loans = creating Fiat Money). They also built houses for investors and holiday homes (as opposed to homes for real people living in them and homes where the jobs and the families are). And the corrupt government and regulators tolerated useless construction projects (even illegal ones like a hotel in a national park, a NGO stopped that, the corrupt government could not be bothered to do its job). Think a corrupt governor colluding with his friend who owns a construction company and builds a street and bridge that no one needs (no doubt with a hefty surcharge). Someone had to allow the building of that project, I do no know if the government ordered the building of that needless infrastructure or if the govenor helped so that a private bank willingly gave the money to a private "investor" of the "bridge to nowhere". Anyway a waste of money - and obviously meant to make someone money without creating value for the community. Commercial banking OR financing the government with debt (by issuing bonds - governments in most cases do not borrow from banks) includes MORE LEVELS of DECISION making and control. There is a sort of restraint on spending. "We do not have the money" creates that idea/fiction of scarcity. Wolff calls it the financial straitjacket. There is no scarcity - but the resources of the economy are not endless of course and the funding should be used prudently. Stephanie Kelton gave an interview to Democracy @ Work - you can listen to it, she explains it well. There is a role for commercial banking (with broken up banks, and boring strictly regulated banking). The services like ATM and savings accounts are not that lucrative - the banks need to have one niche where they can make good money. That is by using the privilege of money creation (Fiat money) by giving out loans and earning the interest and other fees. Even normal banking - which used to be safe, boring and prudent until the 80s - can be underminded by an unregulated financial industry who is no more a humble intermediator and servant of the economy but has gone crazy with profit expectations, mergers, complicated financial transactions (bets - but they are not called that of course). And worse many small banks have merged or been bought up. The remaining few large banks could then afford to pay very high salaries to managment - and they offer cushy positions for ex politicians and bribe mainstream media with genours advertising campaigns. Plus their celebrated managers, people who are traded as financial geniuses - until they get their company into major, major trouble. Deutsche Bank Joseph Ackermann, and of course Wells Fargo which opened fake accounts for existing customers and charged them extra for those unauthorized accounts. The media does not dwell too much on those failures/crimes though. In both cases those financial wizards left with a golden - or better with a platin handshake - after having cashed in extremely high salaries year for year. And these few Too Big To Fail banks have the means (or they commit to the investment) to bribe politicians and regulators. That keeps the regulators away in the build-up of any bubble and keeps the banksters out of prison after the bubble pops. Plus they are getting bailed out and propped up with QE later.
    1
  32. So if the state creates money directly: the projects must be in the public interest (infrastructure, education, healthcare, social housing, research comes to mind - and if there are then profits from pharma or renewables for instance they must remain under control of the public. There can be cooperation with private businesses maybe - but never for full 100 %. The Military Industrial Complex is an economic niche (see Noam Chomsky: the role of the military is misunderstood). As for getting promising developments for free after basic research was financed and the risk shouldered by the tax-payers: Development of computpers, electronics and also the infamous Epi-pen or anti-Malaria medication was paid for by the US military. As soon as it looked good, the private companies got their hands on the patents - and you bet for cheap. Ideally MMT financed projects are spread out and are not too large. And the local citizens must decide on them resp be represented IN them (in the boards and ideally in changing constellations. A long existing citizen board can be bribed as well). If the projects do not involve too much money, if people know each other, that reduces corruption and nonsense investments. So citizens could decide: Do we want a new sewage plant, or library, or fixing the streets, or renewables, or installing their own internet - which they own as co-op and if they make a profit in the future the surplus goes into future community projects. Last but not least social housing.
    1
  33. Also it would be important wherever possible to have CO-OPS (for MMT style funded community projects) with rules regarding highest pay (I think they have something like that in a state bank in South Dakota). If the management gets a reasonable but not too high salary (like in S.D.) you get the locals who are all about getting the job done. If pay is too high it becomes about the money, and only the money, and how to rig the system to get even more out of it. There are studies to that effect. Offering people pay for menial or hard physical work. More pay equals better results. Does not work like that for white collar tasks. If the task in itself is interesting, enjoyable, challenging, or at least meaningful - getting the work done is part of the reward (it was crossword puzzle solving or sudoku in one example). So there was little difference in the result with low or medium pay. (Meaning it is possible to exploit people who do work that is meaningful for them). But if they paid a lot - the probands without fail messed up. That produced the worst outcomes. The incentive of "MONEY" took over and drowned out the much healthier motivations that supported productivity. It became about the fear to MISS out on the reward or the incentive to play the system and get even a little more. Reminded me of the financial system. Or politics.
    1
  34. Biden (or the people around him) trying to create the impression they would like to get things done.
    1
  35. They are afraid of the U.S. getting a brown country - and getting more Democratic / Progressive
    1
  36. Dimon was one of the banksters that should have been criminally prosectued. hard work ? the Obama AG (Eric Holder and also Loretta Lynch) carefully avoided prosecuting the crooks. - citibank provided the name list for the appointments of the Obama admin. citibank mail Oct. 2008 !! to the Obama campaign (Wikileaks Podesta emails). No wonder the liberal and the right wing crooks hate Assange.
    1
  37. part 2 of 2 There was a case where a DRUG TESTING went completely wrong in the UK. In my opinion they waited too long until they handed over the test participants to the normal (intense) care of a hospital. When all 6 of the participants have MASSIVE reactions right away and get worse and worse it's time to end the experiment. (the other 6 in the double blind study who had gotten the placebo infusion watched in horror - they of course did not know in the beginning if it would hit them too in the next 15 minutes or the next hours). it became apparent soon who had gotten the drug and who not. They started bleeding, had intense pain, vomitted uncontrollably, etc. etc. Luckily (and it was a close call for at least one participant, we are talking about multiple organ failure, long intense care) all survived. One man had fingers amputated (both hands affected) and I think also one foot (because of necrosis that he contracted during his long intense care where he was close to death). The company went bankrupt (insufficient insurance). The company that did the testing for them was sued, there was an out of court settlement. The case garnered a lot of attention and the rules for testing were altered in the EU (to protect participants BETTER). The drug was in an advanced stage of testing - the monkeys had tolerated it just fine and in higher doses. Ruthless, cost-conscious drug companies for instance would have detected that effect on humans by using terminally ill guinea pigs w/o legal rights and without the state controlling them. And they could have avoided the bankrupcy, the insurance costs, the costs of settlements. Good thinking of the pharma industry. And it is also good practice that one company has the rights to the drug and another one does the testing. It allows to separate the levels of accountability and the risks. If something goes wrong and gets costly one can always send one company into strategic bankrupcy and thus protect the real assets. (They messed that up in the UK - but one can learn form the mistakes of others).
    1
  38. But I think maybe two thirds of younger adults have. And Biden was going places. Maybe he had an active dislike, as Trump that does not drink any alcohol. (but is supposed to take adderall). Biden's son had a lot of problems, so maybe he lumps it all together. His son is not in trouble because of weed
    1
  39. I cannot really understand all the details of the comment - it is expensive and when they think thy can make money off you by doing testing they will. - maybe you can add some paragrapahes and a few words.
    1
  40. Another story from Austria (I heard it from the family a few days after it happend): neighbour 85 years but going strong and very fit, got major stomach pain. Of course on Boxing Day (which is a holiday in Austria). He delayed it a little bit then called a doctor. From what I heard the local doctor came and did a check on his heart. That much I understood - the results were inconclusive, he aleady has a stent - it turned out to be a ruptured stomach, but they could not be sure what was going on at that time. Whether he was in danger of heaving a heart attack of if heart problems could be additionally triggered by whatever the problem with the stomach was (considering that he already had a stent). That I understood were the worries. So they prefered to not send him with a normal ambulance on the 25 - 30 minutes drive but one of the cars that has an emergency doctor on board (the cars are larger, better equiped, they can reanimate during driving, the doctor is not your normal GP, they are trained to cope with bad accidents, the severe cases.) Only problem: they did not have such an emergency ambulance free at the time. So they ordered a helicopter (which also have always a doctor on board - if an airlift is warranted it goes w/o saying a doctor will be needed to accompagny the patient). The family was told to not freak out (no it wasn't that bad that a helicopter had to come, they would rather err on the side of caution). That man has the same mandatory standard public insurance like everybody else. Needless to say each case of ambulance use - when it appears to make sense, let alone when ordered by a doctor (or in your example when the hospital is not equipped to provide the necessary care) - will be paid for. They fixed his stomach in hospital, he revovered well from the surgery (and not from the medical bills - there are trivial payments to make - cable TV maybe, and a daily fee that is small and does not even apply to low income patients. Think 20 USD per day if they are extravagant. I do not know the fee and it is certainly not a major amount nor do they burden lower income people with that, possibly there is a cap as well, because even 20 USD can add up if the time is longer). Usually a doctor decides where you will go. If you have preferences (usually in more trivial cases) and there is not much difference in the distance if you go in one or the other hospital they will consider that. I never had to call for an emergency ambulance (instead of the normal one) so I do not know who decides when that more scarce resource is used. I think the suspected severity of the situation, and usually a GP is pretty fast on site. My brother who volunteered with the Red Cross (as ambulance driver) said that years ago the ambulance staff could order the helicopter, that did not work so well, they overdid it, so that authority now usually rests with a doctor.
    1
  41. "Is this about politics - or is this about keeping schools safe ?" - well if it happens again, and again, and again and all over the country - then it is by definition a SYSTEMIC = POLITICAL ISSUE - meaning it needs fixing at a higher level. As opposed to freak events or things that CAN be fixed by an individual. If a random person insults me in public I can chose to walk away (and sue them later for libel maybe). So a part of that problem I can really solve by being reasonable, and maybe I will use the INSTITUTIONS later . (Although it would be a good thing not to burden the system with trifling law suits). On the other hand when someone runs into a room where I am and starts shooting around - there is nothing that I can do to solve that situation. Or to prevent the next time. Even if I have a concealed gun with me there is a very good chance that I will not have it ready immediately. And moreover even trained members of the police make a lot of misjudgments when it comes to deadly force (they either shoot unarmed people, teenagers even 11 year olds, or they shoot around randomly endangering folks in a park. Or they MISS. Or ARMED SECURITY chose to value their life higher and do not go into the school - like it happened in Parkland.). I am supposed to take out a crazy individual with my gun (which in theory I can use for "protection") - while my brain is flooded with Adrenaline which shuts down the rational mind and activates the much more primitive and erratic "survival of the species" reactions. Run OR attack OR freeze. And until I am in that life and death situation it is impossible to know which is my MODE OF INSTINCTIVE REACTION. (Now that is the part that maybe a high level of CONSTANT training can influence. I suppose a member of the Marines has either a reduced Adrenaline rush - or they are trained to cope with it and keep their rational brain functioning). The Adrenaline rush is likely why even police gets this wrong so often - that or widespread use of cocaine in the police (to cope with shifts etc.) It needs high level of constant training to remain cool in life and death situations. Maybe not everyone can be trained to be so cool. And police and the military (if they are in the combat zone) are supposed to BE ON THE ALERT. While usual citizens go about their day, ENGAGE in regular activities. The person that plans such massacres has time to plan and prepare mentally - and catches everybody else OFF GUARD. there is no way in hell the regular citzens are a match for that. The only solution is to make availability to firearms much harder. I live in a country where that is the case. Firearems are not part of the personal IDENTITY. They are not glorified. If you want to feel like a badass you have to do something else. Some people have guns. But guns are a tool. Usually for hunting, if you want something other than a hunting rifle you have to provide a very good reason. Well there is sports, and some people are collectors - in which case the weapons are often historic weapons. There is less interest in the latest "development" - which are not available for the regular citizens anyway. So "gun-shows" would not attract an audience here. Military and police have firearms and semi-automatic weapons (which are forbidden for reglar citizens). You may get a concealed carry permit - with very careful background checks - if you work as bodyguard or can give another reason why you would need that (so that is the exception not the rule). Occasionally (very occasionally) someone kills another person with a hunting riffle here. More often it is used for suicide unfortunately. (If a person has these dark moments you want it to be as hard as possible for them to take their life. Sure some will find other methods that are not so "easy" - but some will be lucky. Things will change, and they will stay alive and want to stay alive. In most cases the gun violence is targeted against a family member. If people "lose" it, it is a good thing if they have no firearem within reach. They might do something they regret later bitterly. You can survive a knife attack or a beating - and other people have a chance to intervene withoug being killed themselves.
    1
  42. It will not hurt the right because the police will simply not enforce it.
    1
  43.  bruce wayne  No 74 milions voted for Trump or against Biden - but they are not necessarily delusional or even religious. But the religious right does open agitation against Biden. He is evil incarnate (like all liberals), a tool of the devil and many of them said that god will intervene to give Trump the presidency. (not sure if all of them insist on that after the inauguration, but they have to gracefully fade out of the grift, they have leaned themselves out of the window before the election riling up the crowd and promising that Trump will win. For sure). God will intervene on behalf of Trump who is his chose one - god also parted the Red Sea for the Israelites after all. - Check out the youtube channel of The Victory Channel. The video of Jan. 7th had 2 million views !
    1
  44. I guess the Russians and the Chinese have stocked up the Popcorn .... They must be having so much fun.
    1
  45. In bed with the real estate "developers" so major fund raiser THAT is why he was the speaker of the house in waiting.
    1
  46. +Donald - excellent point about affirmative action woth white people (GWB and Trump)
    1
  47. Opposition reserach was already done in 2015 and 2016 (and no one more eager than the Clinton campaign !). Another thing: the people that knew him in the 1970s (incl. his divorced wife) are very protective of him. they do not talk to the investigators or the press. So if he did embarrassing things when he ran for higher office (very unsuccessfully) while working odd jobs (some aligning with his political passion, like the documentaries about Eugene Debs - and some just for the money) - it is not going to come out. There are rumours that he got electricity with a cable when power was shut off because he did not have money, which it seems happened from time to time. Well, that will stay rumous, the paper records are all gone. And the people that could embarrass him (if you even care what was going on in the 1970s) are not going to do it. It may be that he could not pay child support for his son Levy in the early years. The mother of his son married, that man became the step dad and his son is doing fine (and they are obviously in friendly contact). Whatever went on when Levy was little - they settled that among themselves (on the other hand I cannot imagine Sanders not chiming in, the moment he had the salary of the mayor of Burlington - from 1981 on). it says something about the man that has been active in that little state for so long - that they will not find people providing bad news about him.
    1
  48. The Ed Schultz coverage (Sanders likely would have gotten an ongoing friendly treatment, which could have balanced out the treatment elsewhere a little bit) AND the debates are major factors to increase name recognition. Name recognition is not enough (it can be negative) but w/o it you can forget it. Free exposure early on is essential to have a chance for a grassroots campaign with a small budget (they did not dare to invest full scale early on into a ground game, only when the campaign picked up and more donations came in) - it is different of course NOW. Sanders would have had a higher momentum in the first months. -
    1
  49. if the tactics were not relevant - why would the DNC and mainstream media bother. It was a death by thousand cuts strategy. That includes complicated rules in California, cross over ballots, provisional ballots, it took 1 month for the final results in CA to be announced, and I wonder how MANY provisional ballots were thrown out. Of course changing voter registration the same day (party affiliation) could have solved that - in CA I think the parties CAN handle that as they like. Well, it was not supposed to be easy for the enthusiastic Sanders crowd. Voter roll purges by "mistake" in New York.
    1
  50. Greg Palast sugggests that the tabulation could have been off in other states. There are no exit polls (that is partially true for primaries) and / or they do not publish the raw data. THAT is also true for the GE, the raw data may need to be adjusted - but if the data is open for the public, statisticians and not only in the U.S. - could scrutinize how the adaptation is made. Is if legitimate, is it plausbile, why and what is adjusted ? Or is it adjusted to bridge the gap beween poll and announced results and to raise no suspicions. I saw a video of a very experienced statistician, weird things going on (in other primary states) usually as more votes come in, outliers are smoothed out, and the gap between vote count and exit polls gets smaller. In those tabulations the gaps grew and in a very linear manner. That is statistically impossible he said. (only if for instance one vote is assigned a 0,9 value and the other one a 1,1 value for the count you would see such a pattern. The way the machines are programmed allows that kind of manipulation. (If a number for a vote can only be zero or 1 such manipulation would not be possible, it is about what number type is allowed. When you apply a 0,9/1,1 trick the gap (compared to exit polls) would unexpectedly widen, the more counts come in (1 in 10 votes does not count or are added). Sanders would have lost the South (early primary states) anyway (not that it matters in the GE how a D candidate does there, Republicans win in the GE) but maybe with LESS margin. Which would have mattered in the total count of how much votes did HRC or Sanders get in total.
    1