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

  1. He could have come uncomfortably close, or even tied her in spring 2016. And the establishment was panicking that may happen. Fact is he - not Clinton filled the stadions and had the appeal to groups that normally do not vote. And in the polls he was the safe bet against Trump not Clinton. Some states Sanders lost narrowly, so the count of WON states would have looked much better when the media talked about his slim "success chances". Again: why bother to mislead the viewers by adding the Superdelegate count. The narrative being, yes he is a bit of a surprise, but don't bother to engage, Clinton is leading nontheless and by a wide margin. If - IF - the media and the DNC (joined at the hip) did not at least hope it could get them an advantage why did ALL TV networks (maybe not FOX but certainly the "liberal" ones) consistently chose to present the count that way. 0,2 % here, 0,4 % there .... it adds up. And then there is the "winning underdog appeal" people like to go with a WINNER and a surprise candidate. And the way to present Sanders to people who were not digging into politics was that he was MORE of an outsider by including Superdelegates than he acutally was. If the primaries are supposed to be a democratic exercise than the Superdelegates would not matter in THAT STAGE (only later). Now they could from time to time have presented BOTH numbers (of course alerting the viewers to the fact that some votes are substanitally more equal than others). I think after massive and ongong complaints they started to change that practice - but only late into the primaries. I think in an neutral and fair environment (the DNC made sure media helped Clinton) Sanders could have come much closer or tied her, not sure if he could have won. But that in itself would have been catastrophic for the Clinton campaign. Think what advantages she had.
    1
  2. The healthcare industry has realized that they cannot completely prevent change. But they can delay, water down and fool the voters (or more pecisely: let media and politicians do that). the more sophisticated attempts to muddy the water - include THOUGHT STOPPING CLICHÉS: People are used to it that there are private insurers, the concept "Why not offer choice" seems plausible on the surface. Private for-profit is not always better - and with healthcare it raises costs and introduces red tape or even dysfunction, nver mind toxic incentives. All two tier systems are more expensive than the systems than have little to no role for private insurers. (That is why the Austrian system costs 6k per person per year, versus 4,700 - 5,600 in most other wealthy single payer nations, versus 10,240 in the U.s. Choice and having a private offer as well (or only a private for profit offer) would be sensible for any product and service where there is a "free market" possible and there will competition. That does not apply to healthcare. At. All. But you will hear the "free market" lingo applied to the area of healthcare all the time. If people started thinking about it beyond the soundbite they could realize easily why healthcare is not at all like other products (sell more, market to entice people to consume, it is expensive, complex, often about life and death or future ability to life well and earn an income, impossible to assess for lay persons - even doctors consult other specialists. Anyway: expect some serious propaganda: it is a trillion dollar industry, the U.S. spends approx. 3,2 - 3,4 trillion per year - and if the U.S. had set up the system in a reasonable manner it would be in the range of 1,6 - maximum 2 trillion per year. (that would be 10 % of the GDP, more to the high end but acceptable. The other wealth nations spend between 7 and 11 % of GDP.
    1
  3. NOW the Medicare for ALL Lite Bills are popping up, the lobyists are doing overtime to work their politicians. The Harris / Booker version is like a public option I think. Well wouldn't that be a gift to the industry ? A hybrid system is invariably more expensive. For the 4 year transition stage it makes even less sense. Apart from top positions I do not think that many employees have really good insurance via the company. The spending per person in the U.S. is roughly double - so an employer has to invest a lot if they grant benefits (no deductibles, no co-pays) that would be considered default under the public coverage in Germany, France, Netherlands, .... people can of course have private insurance full coverage or for extra packages - as long as they also fully participated in the mandatory public service that gives full and good coverage. If the public version is good (menaing reasonably set up and sufficiently funded) few people will see the necessity to even have private insurance. See: Germany (10 % of the population have full coverage under private insurance) in Australia it is public only for the basics (and the big stuff in the hospitals). In both cases it CREATES the NEED for private insurance. If there are enough clients that will bring higher revenue doctors will try to only accept them as patients. Expect also non-harming but useless procedures like unnecessary testing for patients ith a good contract. Under public coverage every test that prevents damage in the future will pay for itself. But unnecessary testing is avoided. If one person can have it, all can have it and it would cost too much .... Especially if there are not enough doctors they will try to take only patients with the "better" insurance (the one paying the higher rates). Inferior quality under public coverage (for instance longer waiting times) then forces people to buy an upgrade or stay fully with "private" - which is of course left to the private insurers. It is a way to do favors to the insurance industry, but with higher costs for everyone. And this is in countries where the industry never honed a toxic culture and the art to ripp of patients, to bribe politicians and to game the system. Give them 4 more years with the chance to cherrypick the pools and see what happens. One of the major cost advantages of single payer is the streamlined admin - a hybid system wastes a lot of that potential (more complexity, more chances to sneak in costs). They had a video on it on TheRealNews Single payer could save 1,5 trillion (I think that was the title, beg. of March approx. a numbers cruncher, an professor of economics from Amhurst and a Harad trained doctora and speaker of a group of doctors for single payer. The U.S. will not profit from the full savings immediately anyway (backlog, training of then obsolete staff for billing and in the insurance companies, transition costs, new software, ...) Medicare and Medicaid are already being defunded, the many that stand to lose a lot of money will mess with the sytem to make public look bad and private look better. The indoctrinated citizens will find out that they would like to switch to MfA but it is just not up to expectations (of course not with insufficient budgets, even good operations can be ruined - that is the strategy with which the Tories have been defunding the already very cost-efficient NHS for 10 years. To run it into the ground in order to "justify" a privatization. Think charter schools in the U.S. the same handbook). If the private insurers have the whole pool of 25 - 55 year old - they can and should give better rates right away. And if not it is on them. Drug prices could be negotiated by public agencies and private insurers together, so every insurers has the same costs (would need a legal amendment, Medicare is currently not even ALLOWED to negotiate, this is not a technical but a political/corruption problem). And the private insurers would already have a cherrypicked pool (no one older than 54 years). So when they do not reduce prices - it is on them. (Which should help to put more political pressure on them or discredit the system. When the first round goes well the 4 yours could be reduced. I think there might be need for more nurses and doctors. In the first round of the proposal Sanders supports people till 25 and from 55 on would be under MfA. Old age is a major factor for healthcare costs, so the private insureres do not even have the most expensive age group - not now (from 65 on they are with Medicare already, and with the Sanders version of MfA in the first round the people from 55 on will be included). With a public option private insurers would have the chance to purge their pool even more. Their packages would look good, the public agencies have all the costly patients. So it is easy to badmouth the costs of the public agencies. Some sneaky defunding should help as well - then the public agencies will be able to pay only insufficient rates for treatments - so doctors would not accept the patients, or give only shoddy services. So it is "proven" that you NEED private insurance after all (they can offer seemingly reasonable prices to the extra purged pool - still overpriced, but international benchmarking will not be possible because they cover only a manipulated age group of 25 - 55. It is not even so much the size of the pool - take 100,000 people and it is fairly representative - but not when the composition of the group is changed in favor of the insurers. 10 % of the partients cause 90 % of the costs. So the advantage of a cherrypicked pool is huge and the population does not know how much leverage it gives the insurers. They very likely could parade their offers around as "good" - when they are still overpriced considering the preselection.
    1
  4. Kimmel gave Sanders a very nice reception. Did you see it ? .... Spoiler alert
    1
  5. he refered to the heart attack and that he is back and well again after the stents. then he put out a stethoscope. Let me listen to your heart .... fine .... I just had to check that you do have a heart.
    1
  6. Macron the "economist" is so fucking clueless that he mentioned Germany as economic role model (see my comment above). Neoliberalism WORKS for rich people, multinationals, and finance. So maybe he knows what he is doing, he just can't admit it. - Or he is so in love with every economic theory that serves finance well, that the is unable to assess reality . Like Alan Greenspan, who for a long time was heralded - in the media owned by rich people - as highly qualified. In hindsight - no, he wasn't. He was an ideologue, and he did not notice when reality did not match up with his neoliberal ideas. The interesting thing is to what degree educated and likely intelligent people can disregard reality (and the role of human nature, greed, the potential for corruption) so they can keep their pet theory (which happens to justify an economic order that massively favours them). Or the economists and analysts of the many huge banks that were instrumental for the Great Financial Crisis ? - The London School of Economics were in a sort of embarrassed disconcertment when the Queen asked them if the crisis was really impossible to anticipate. They came up with some lame non-answer some days later (she posed that question during a diner to a representative of the LSE). Well, there were SOME economists who had seen it coming (some years before) and had warned as far as their platform would reach. And of course the appraiser had sent a public letter (published in the New York Times) how the banks pressured them to give them too high appraisals - or they would not get more orders from them. A bank wanting to do honest business in the mortgage business and expecting the loans to be paid back, does not do that. That is a red flag, it was a red flag in the 80s - which Greenspan should have well known. He certified in a letter of reccommendation the excellence of a major player in the S & L scam, which shortly afterwards was prosecuted for fraud. But the economists using commong sense (instead of preaching whatever finance, and big biz likes) are not the ones who will be hired to advise politicians, if they work in central banks they know how to shut up. And those economists who are presented in mainstream media or even in mainstream academia do not bother anyone with inconvenient insights (inconvenient for the 1 %). Hollande did not challenge the neoliberal status quo ( fake left resp. Champaign Socialism)
    1
  7. + Mikhail Salzberg Germany has the strongest (most profitable) export industry in Europe. The INSANE export import imbalance has been EXPLODING since 2000 - on the back of the majority of citizens and the business sector that serves the domestic economy. If you are economically literate you will KNOW that such imbalances are not good for a country; in general they serve mainly those on the top (same with China, German does the same gig, just from a higher level, suppress wages, have a too weak currency, the population does not reap their fair share from the good performance, the country exports way, way more than they import, because they are underpaid and can't afford to consume as much as would be due to them). Germany is on decline from a high level and they are living off their former glory (and the former infrastructure investments, you can neglect them for a decade or two but it will eventually show, which is now respectively the recent years. First attempts to privatize some motorways had already the time to have devastating results). Wait till the "retirement poverty" sets in Germany. The export industry profited from neoliberalism, from the EURO which is too weak for such a strong economy as Germany, from the "reforms" of the welfare system and the labor "reform" (read suppress good industrial wages - again helping mainly the export industry). Austria has meanwhile surpassed Germany in GDP per capita. That is unheard of. And it is not a reason to be cheerful for Germany's little sibling either. When Germany is in decline, over time Austria (supplying a LOT to Germany) is going to suffer as well.
    1
  8. The CIA backed a coup in 1953 in Iran to get rid of the democratic government (they wanted to use most of the oil revenue for Iran - no kidding). The US propped up the Shah who turned out to be a brutal dictator. (Well, he knew how that is with being overthrown and plots financed by foreign governments). The oil revenue that he was allowed to keep was used to build a strong army, but likely not that much left for the people. Around 1978/1979 the people took it to the streets, the police/military shot some people, than the military retracted to their barracks. At the end 1 million people were assembled in Theran, it was a PEACEFUL revolution. The Shah fled the country. He for sure had enough money on foreign accounts. The bad news: the new leaders formed a theocracy. And holding the US embassy people hostage (no doubt a nest of spies but still) might have cost Carter the 2nd term. Which was not good for the world. If the protesters had used weapons it would have become a massacre AND then the military would have seen reason not to let things take their course.
    1
  9. The people that were non-violent and brutalized in Selma, the children marching in Birmingham, forced a very, very unwilling system to change - without guns. (And if anyone had to deal with government brutality - it was them).
    1
  10. + M. Fink - in Germany a town had been bombed by the British. At that time the Jewish or half Jewish husbands of local Geman women were arrested/picked up. The women in desperation assembled before the building where they held the men and demanded their release. Which was quite a brave thing. And the Germans maybe were somewhat resistant to immediately cack down on the women (one of their own !). Add to that the damage of the airstrike - they got lucky, the Nais actually let the men go. That is how you stand up against a tyrannical government. Weapons would not have helped - on the contrary. These were good German women (or nicely dressed schoolchildren in Birmingham or people in their sunday's best in Selma) - and the system could not (continue to) crack down on them because of how it would make them look like. Btw: even the Nazis despite the intense propaganda hid the death camps, the locals knew that something was going on, but were not allowed to go there, nor was it tolerated to talk about it. There was talk - and there were snitches selling out even family members that were talking too open. And there were friends warning each other - or counseling to be careful with what they were saying. So even a vile regime has to maintain appearances - or it will upset the MORAL sense of the population. Non-violent protest or civil disobedience uses that human trait. Would the establishment like to beat up the dissenters ? Sure. Can they do that ? It will make them look horrible. Especially when the establishment was not successful in villifying the challengers. Had the police beaten up Black Panthers in Selma - there would have been the possibility of complacency and to ignore it or explain it away (they are so dangerous and vicious - not like us). That "justification" did not work with the crowd in Selma.Or the children in Birmingham under assault from the police - the pictures went around the world.
    1
  11. The "top" bracket is a joke when it comes to the PERCENTAGE that is demanded. CEOs used to make 30 times what the average employee made in their company. Now they make at least times 330. (I recently heard times 500, that I did not check out, the 330 number is reliable.) Either they have learned to walk on water - or they are rigging the system. The shareholders ! are not only rational humans (only large companies which of in most cases traded on the stock exchange can afford to pay that much). They need the CEOs to exploit the workforce, shut down plant or threaten to do that. The shareholders want to push an ideology of how it is legitimate that some get so much - so paying excessive salaries to a few has become part of that culture and mindset. Another reason: there has been a wave of mergers and aquisistions. There a much fewer companies, but those make very high profits. The CEOs intended to get their share - even if they deny it to everyone else. The CEOs and shareholders often rub shoulders in the private education system. Not everyone: but it that spin that shaped the dynamic over time. Shareholders and top CEOs belong to the same class. There is a revolving door going on - if they want to buy some like Dick Cheney as CEO to take advantage of his connections (also international) connections they of course have to bribe him with a high salary. So after he was part of the Bush admin (in the 90s) and found out there was no interest to support him in a presidential bid, he let himself be hired. He did become president after all - with co-president GWB in 2000. And neither of them was correctly elected. . Excessively paid CEOs are NOT held accountable when they mess up, nor are their benefits cut. they get a golden handshake: CEO of Volkswagen (Dieselgate) or Joseph Ackermann Deutsche Bank. Or what happened to the bosses of Wells Fargo ? The U.S. CEOs / banksters were not prosecuted. They got a warning in advance that there would be provisions that bailed out banks cannot pay benefits to the CEOs - so they could arrange for provisions to circumvent that. Old fashioned CEOs and company owners might have had to some degree a benign if paternal attitude towards the workforce. and it was not unusal to stay for a long time in the company. so whatever mess they created there was a chance it would bit them in the behind. Not the newer hot shots. In the 90s an new generation was educated. They stay only a few years, new lawas allowed them to be paid with shares and options so of course !!! they then were taking the SHORT term approach. That was another massive contributor to a toxic management culture. One CEO ignored that the baby powder likely was damaging - and then they also had some long term troubles with a production plant the law suit was settled after many years in 2016 or 2017. Or one management ignored that (secret study) that cigarettes indeed cause cancer - they could have shifted production to something else instead of lobbying to ignore the harm.They are now restricted in the West - so they target aggressively children and adolescents in developing countries. It was convenient to ignore the problem, especially when since they expected to switch to another company in 3 or 5 years. The problem is handed down from "leadership" to "leadership" (only that the costs attached to fixing it or the negative PR increases over time).
    1
  12. KSA does not have a people's army like Iran or Syria. That would be a constant danger for the rulers. The oil riches in combination with the political system and the kept down population would all but guarantee a coup by some other bastards. The families in power place their sons as officers in the army to have an eye on what is going on there. Those sons see other male siblings being engaged in the international jet set, parties, living in luxury - or being a wealthy and influental business man if they are savvy and ambitious. Or playing a role in the top echelons of power. So the (younger ?) sons of such influental families are not going to be overly motivated to die in a war. The environment also do not encourage good and disciplined, dedicated military leadership. Nor do they have the Western institutions and academies (not their own at least, it is likely they get U.S. / NATO training). They do not have Westpoint.
    1
  13.  @Linda43  are you operating from Israel ? -Eveybody: she had the balls to call out the powerful Israeli lobby. and the requirement to pledge alllegience to another nation in order to be able to serve as elected representative in the U.S. ! Congress.
    1
  14. She does not seek reelection. She is old enough to retire. And she is friendly with the Bushes. GWB phone her - so she will be invited to the parties.
    1
  15. Is that you correct the record - apart from the nuclear waste story nothing of interest. Good luck with smearing Sanders with the story about phantasies. Did not fly in 2015.
    1
  16. Blue Cities police overreach should be a slogan too. Most large cities are blue - and there it is often the worst.
    1
  17. + Jade Fox appears several times in the comment section - in one comment she claimed to have been driven away from the left - right because she ever was a liberal or Democrat let alone a "leftie".
    1
  18. It is not demented and insane. I think Santorum INSULTS the intelligence of his audience.
    1
  19. Venezuela is the new Russia !
    1
  20.  @MorePlatesMoreRapes  The voters in London, and the cities are NOT "cosmopolitans". Many struggle as much as the people in Wales - just different challenges. Naturally they tick differently than the voters in rural areas (or the deindustrialized North), is Labour supposed to concede the cities to the Tories to make the voters in the regions happy that are underdeveloped ? - I wonder if that contempt for the city dwellers is the comeback for when London abandoned the miners (for cheaper coal and because Thatcher could play Divide and Conquer, the regions were not that connected and solidaric).
    1
  21.  @MorePlatesMoreRapes  It is possible that Labour would have won the heartland with a soft Brexit but lost London. Or narrowly win in the Remain areas but not be rewarded for having a CLEAR soft Brexit position w/o the 2nd referendum. (the positioning was decided on the party conference and the Blair / Remain wing of the party shaped it. I heard that Corbyn would have been for another course. If that is true - that would have been the time to dig in his heels and do his thing. Needless to say the Remainers that lost their seat now complain * but do not mention that little fact of the strategy being democratically determined. (if you think about it, the regions that are more behind Corbyn, and were pro Remain (most likely they dominated at the conference) did not have a clue what was going on outside their region - to them the decision making was handed over. Oops ! exhibit a) Ruth Smeeth, Jewish, Friend of Israel, "Protected source for the U.S." (according to Wikileaks !) ushered into a seemingly safe seat in 2015, backstabber extraordinaire.She was long active / employed in the party apparatus but a rookie as MP, nontheless as soon as Corbyn became party leader she was part of the opposition. Helped to get rid of Marc Wadsworth, with some drama. .... narrowly held her seat in 2017. Her district voted 72 % Leave. so her campaign before the referendum was not very convincing it seems . Nontheless after the referendum she too supported the Chicken Coup against Corbyn. It should have been clear to her that her position was difficult - so she should have worked her district all the more - maybe with help of Momentum. - Nah, she was at odds with them - as ardent opponent of the left wing of the party. Boris' last proposal is a soft Brexit w/o worker protection (softer according to Farage than the last proposal of May. In other words: the U.K. - not the EU - blinked first). - Now the Hard Brexit and "Brexit is Brexit" and "we won" cult might forgive BoJo for having a soft Brexit - and the Daily Fail and the telegraph and the Sun would graciously condone that. Corbyn likely would have been ripped apart for the exact same proposal by the rightwing tabloid media so the positive response of the heartland was not so certain. They would have been told to vote for BoJo to get a "proper" Brexit. - I saw a clip of old people in Wales, hardcore Labour country, it looked like they selected for voted-for-the-Tories-for-the-first-time-in-my life. The reasons - if any given at all - were astoundingly shallow. - not to be judgemental but that sounded like Turkeys voting for Chrismas to me. They did not even mention Brexit. Nor sure how many "foreigners" they even have in that area and if it played a role. it would have been of course interesting if the interviewer had dug more, they did not rush the interviewees, they clearly wanted to drive home the point how extraordinary it was tha these people had switched to the Tories. But no explanation offered by the voters (me father would roll in his grave) nor extracted by the "journalist". Why does a lifelong Labour voter go for Tory even though she does not even like BoJo. Orin another case: what does "I do not like Corbyn" mean ? The region does not do well, wouldn't you think they would cite some economic reasons (even if they fear the proposala would be unrealistic, or wrong or whatever ...) or objections against immigrants.  They seem to feel safe that their retirement will be paid, that they will get healthcare - so they indulge in "feels" ?
    1
  22.  JB JG  I disagree. She may have been in a safe state anyway, or at least she assumed that Clinton would win anyway (that was a plausible assumption according to alle th prediction) - but not with HER vote. Now she could have voted third party, but maybe she did not much research and is only aware of the two major parties - it is not like mainstream media reported a LOT on Jill Stein or Johnson.
    1
  23.  JB JG  I get that she was fed up with the lesser evilism, and would have voted "reasonably" - if the elites would have been reasonable and given her a good choice.
    1
  24.  JB JG  In the U.S. it is not that candidates / parties have to court the voters. It is upon the voters (especially the D base) to "prevent the worst" - because the Democratic Party for sure cannot be bothered to do everything they could do, to get back both houses with convincing majorities and the presidency. That would go against the interests of the Big Donors, and they always hope to pull off a narrow win, without giving the base anything of substance. The voters have to dutifully deliver a vote for the Democratic party, and they always are urged to look at the narrow framing of "this election only" and to prevent the worst from happening. You think we are useless ? Or we sell you out ? Have you seen the Republicans ?? Nice little country you have here, wouldn't it be a shame if something bad happened to it ...? Well it is is framed as the duty of the D base to prevent Trump - because the Democratic party sure as hell does not give them anything to vote FOR. That btw was very clear in the midterms 2018 : still not much of substance (the Big donors do not like policies that help the masses, it costs them profits). A bold stance for MfA in summer / fall 2018 (not the Lite versions that now pop up since they try to stem the tide in a sneaky manner) would have delivered a landslide win. The message could have been: Turn out, give us majorities and exactely this and this we are going to do for you. The 2017 spring townhalls held by Democratic establishment were very telling (we must prevent ACA from being repealed - sure that means that lots and lots of subsidies are fed into the completely overpriced private for-profit system). Feinstein, Pelosi, Wasserman-Schultz used right wing talking points and LIES to misrepresent single payer systems when the increasingly better educated base presses them. It is the job of the elected "representatives" to KNOW about those systems - they deliver healthcare for half the spending per person for billions of people and since approx. 70 years. The U.S. system is a complicated machine, the system is not going to be as efficient as that of Germany, France or Japan right awyay. But major improvements that help voters are immediately possible (drug prices). That would have been a very tangible, pressing matter that would have done extremely well even in the more conservative blue states. But it was not THAT important to get high majorities in both houses - not when if would go against the interests of the Big Donors in the healthcare industry. So "Russia" and "Trump bad" and values and vague talking about "healthcare is a right" must suffice. The boogeyman game or Good Cop Bad Cop routine works on both sides btw. Republican voters were partially scared with Hillary Clinton, while the Democratic base was supposed to turn out to prevent Trump. And then the parties play around with gun regulation, abortion, LGBT rights - two sides of the coin. Voters are supposed to get all riled up. These issues (whatever is the outcome: abortion access hindered or possible for instance) do not cost the Big Donors anything. But with a little luck the parties can motivate some voters to go to the polls because of those issues. And then there is "identity politics" - racism being a special case of that.
    1
  25. In order to be able to fundraise, the girl must be informed of the severity of the condition. She could be somewhat shielded - but not if the reason for the fundraiser is on the jar (and there it better be drastic or they are not going to trigger enough sympathy to compensate for the failure of politicians).
    1
  26. Shout out to "compassionate" Democrats who passed the healthcare "reform" with not a single vote of Republicans in spring 2010 (also not of McCain and Susan Collins). Then they could have passed as well a good reform. After they had allowed those Republicans to negotiate the big donor friendly proposal down for a year. After a few Senators posing as Democrats had then even killed the Public Option. Extra shout out to Joe Lieberman former running buddy of Al Gore to be engaged in the effort (he later became a Republican, but Democrats will blame Ralph Nader for the loss of Al Gore in 2000). Charismatic president Hope and Change and the VP that is allegedly so good in negotiating with Republicans ..... could not even get the Republicans within the Democratic party to fall in line. (I might be wrong on that: they probably were glad that a few like Lieberman took one for the team and prevented what the big donors did not want to have passed. And the president did not have to admit that he never meant his campaign promise. Pretty much like the stunt Biden pulled now with the 15 USD minimum wage till 2025).
    1
  27. youtube delivery of the ads is not THAT intelligent - the tag may be U.S. politics. Or the alt right intentionally targets progressive audiences (which would be a stupid strategy in my opinion). I have seen pro Scientology ads delivered before decidedly anti-Scientology videos. Either the youtube algorithm is not very effective or the people paying for the ads do not define the campaigs well enough, or Scientology is delusional in their marketing approach. Either way, Sam will get ad revenue, the alt-right FINANCES their opponents. Such ad campaigns usually have daily or weekly budgets - so if YOU "consume" such ads (let them play and turn down sound) no innocent souls are deceived. Win/win. And youtube will learn that you have interest in them, so likely more of them will be coming your way. (Not sure if they use the IP address too - or if they need you signed in). you have to suffer for the good cause ;)
    1
  28. The Ozone layer problem was a piece of cake - compared to the problem that the transition away from fossil fuel poses. - The world was lucky that Reagan was on board with doing something about ozone and about acid rain. Usually the Reagan admin shied away from environmental regulations - but in these cases he rather wanted to err on the side of caution. .....for the rightwingers that claim to be inspired by Reagan .... how about that attitude. What if we created jobs, avoided pollution, eliminated the need for wars, made communities energy independent, jumpstarted new technologies ... and then it turns out it was all for naught. If it turns out that Global warming isn't that bad, or that there is an easy and cheap fix .... * * I do not really believe there will be an easy fix (we are not going to be as lucky) - I refer to the viral cartoon ....
    1
  29. 1) do not invest for foreseeable intense cold - evade to be part of the national grid in order to not winterize 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 (normal output), can now demand extortion prices, and not because they even have that much higher production cost
    1
  30. TX is a closed niche - not a "free market". 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 insulation 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
  31. A free market only works if the consumers have the most important of all choices. TO NOT BUY. You can avoid buying a cupcake, so the price gouging opportunities are somewhat limited. And you KNOW the price even if they jack up prices. - If the bakery failed to prepare for technical problems and then have 3 days no cupcake output, no one will die. There will be no damages as consequence (burst pipes). And when they finally start to bake the usual number of cupcakes they cannot deliver them to the households and then you get an insane bill some days later.
    1
  32. a doctor usually can refuse treatment (except in the case of an emergendy). He or she has enough patients, wants to downsize so does not take on new patients. and they could refuse treatment (except for emergencies) in the rare cases that a person does not have insurance. (if a person has insurance it is always FULL coverage, that is a black and white issue. The overwhelming majority has, EU memberstates recognize the coverage of other EU member states (the agencies send each other the bills, the costs are no doubt reasonable and the patients have no hassle.). So a French person in Germany or Netherlands would be covered even if they are in the foreign country only for a short time. If they had a work contract there they would be in that system anyway, but trips and vacations are also covered. Hospitals do not refuse patients unless they are not qualified to treat them (like they do not have an eye department then you must obviously go elsewhere).
    1
  33.  @AllMustJump  That could be a general idea BUT you also save if you use less.
    1
  34.  @AllMustJump  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 - all because you cannot cope with the cold (which is not problem other states shrug their shoulders with 20 degree F) 3) those providers 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
  35.  @AllMustJump  TX is a closed niche - not a "free market". 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
  36. A centrist * could defeat Trump more easily - Yeah, that worked really well in 2016.  (* meaning a Democrat that is like a moderate Republican plus abortion and gay rights, preferably financed by the oligarchs OR an oligarch).
    1
  37. For those who leave politics in the foreseeable future - like Paul Ryan: they can cash in (and they had good healthcare as politicians and will have it in the future). Their Donors want the idea of small government - else they will have to pay more taxes. One of the dogmas: government is always worse than private for profit. (they conventiently gloss over the insane military spending, and the push for wars and regime change, that is as "big government" as it gets).
    1
  38. A well functioning European style healthcare system would be liked by the voters, they would have a very hard time getting rid of it, they try that since decades with SS and Medicare. When it is reasonably run single payer is much, much more cost efficient than private for-profit. (Usually at 55 - 65 % of the U.S. per capita expenditures so in the range of 5 - 6,000 USD versus 9,200 - data World Bank 2014)
    1
  39. For a free market to work all participants in the system must have about the same power. In healthcare the patients / insured are in a very weak position (information, the urgent need for the service, complexity, high costs even if it is cost-efficient). In such a situation there is no real competition, the companies do not need to be good - so they aren't (can see that with internet/phone services - but there the rip off is only annoying).
    1
  40. It would undermine the ideology that they promoted for decades - big government is not always good for the citizens (it can be wasteful) - but small government certainly isn't. Small government does not have the means or staff to reign in the companies. There are laws for declaring lobbying (with a lot of loopholes). There is one - ONE - employee in the DOJ that works in that field (processing the paperwork). There was never an investigation. Laws are meaningless if the government does not have the "cops on the beat" to enforce them. That's the beauty of small government. They - and the democrats - had a nice collusion going on with mainstream media. The level of healthcare discussion is abyssmal. And for progressives it is hard to debunk the propaganda of decades in 30 and 60 seconds soundbites. often there is interruption. the host play dumb or disingenuous. Avoiding to have a menaingful substantiated debate about healthcare could have continued to work w/o the internet and the Sanders campaign. Of course the pressure on citizens became more and more, as long as only low income people had problems it was ignored. After the deindustrialization the good jobs left the country - and the healthcare plans with them. And the insurers and healthcare industry took it to the next level with the dysfunction. More people are now poor, low-income. Medicine has improved, but the new tratments are also expensive, the population also gets older on average. w/o student debt or having lost the house some people could suck up the overpriced insurance costs. Add exploding rent to that. - As it is: citizens are often at breaking point AND they do not buy the b.s. anymore. Not from the D or the R servants of the Big Donors.
    1
  41. That said: Obama and the Democrats cynically fooled the public in 2009 - insurance interests over the interests of the patients and insured - even though people THEN already were eager to get a good system.
    1
  42. When Obama and the Democratic party started out with the healthcare "reform", single payer was not even discussed, public option (not ideal but an improvement) was killed right in the beginning - by Blue Dogs ! ACA is good for the industry and throws some bones to the citizens - at excessive costs for the insured and for the government. Protecting the industry profits instead of the well being of citizens. The Dems will not step on the toes of Big Donors - just to help the constituents. The Republicans had bad townhalls in spring 2017 - but one could also "enjoy" some rightwing talking points (we know them from the Republicans) from the likes of Pelosi, Wasserman-Schulz or in summer 2018 from Tom Perez, the party chairman. ACA - Yes, Single payer No. Perez was busy protesting at the Texan border against the separation of children. That does not impact the profits of the Big Donors. The prison / detention center donations (where they hold the pople and also the children) go more to the Republicans. Abortion, gun rights, LGBT, identity issues are used by BOTH parties to get the voters motivated w/o giving them anything that would reduce profits of the Big Donors. Tom Perez was cornered by Amy Goodman regarding "Universal Healthcare". His reaction: pathetic - he is not even good in sugarcoating and deflecting The Dems held a Senate hearing in 2009 where the industry was invited. Single payer advocats / experts or the nurses organisation were NOT invited - single payer was not even discussed. All European countries introduced or expanded their single payer / universal healthcare systems AFTER the end of WW2, even before they had started to recover fully from the war. That's more than 70 years and hundreds of millions of people (you can add Canada, Australia, Japan, ...) - nothing the Democrats thought they should consider in their Senate hearing in 2009. THESE nations realized the obvious: healthcare is a terrible fit for the "free" market, So all other nations after WW2 decided to not play the for-profit game - they all went for sytems that lean heavily towards the non-profit public side. Obamastill undermines progressives and FDR style democrats whenever "necessary" - he wants to stay in the good books of the Big Donors to cash in on the presidency. He and the Corporate Democrats are sell-outs. That is why it is so important to vote in candidates that do not take the Big Donations whenever there is chance, candidates that are against money in politics and for single payer. In most cases they run under the Democratic ticket, as progressives. The Corporate Democrats and their mouthpieces in mainstream media carefully avoid naming Sanders as possible 2020 candidate (they will discuss Joe Biden who has the same age). They know he means business with good affordable healthcare for everyone. Joe Biden does the folksy talk with blue collars but he is no danger to the establishment or money in politics. Had the Democratic Party rallied behind Medicare For All in summer 2018 as signature Democratic policy for the midterms they could win Congress AND also Senate. Polling in September: 51 % of Republicans view MfA positively. - Even representatives in a very conservative state would have a winning SIGNATURE issue. Allegedly Trump and the Republicans are terrible. Not so terrible that the Dems would resort to supporting a very popular policy in order to make sure they take BOTH Congress and Senate. If possible with a decisive majority. Looks like it is not that important. The Big donors do not care much, they always win, not matter if the D or the R wing of the Big Donor party wins the race. They will reward obedient shills who lost a seat - that is important for the system to function for them and they honor such obligations. If an unispiring spineless Corporate Democrat "beats" a progressive with the help of a lot of money in the primaries and then loses against the Republican in the GE - he or she still worked well for the big donors. Especially if the politicians or candidates played really nice with the party leadership they will be taken care of. Maybe as strategist / consultant in the big-money-election-circus or as lobbbyist.
    1
  43. Dominion might make good money of it. And imagine the lawyers ;) Champaign corks popping.
    1
  44. I heard that several times - "Something happened to Ford - but it wasn't "our" guy." TRANSLATION: we cannot help to notice that her testimony was strong, and Kavanaugh was a mess. Or at least we do not dare to call her outright "nutty and slutty" like Anita Hill. Times have changed - it might alienate even conservative women. We are going to need every vote we can get in the upcoming midterms, and Trump lost support among white females. Double think in action: that is our way to reconcile the inconsistency (because IF she is such a strong witness - than a cloud of doubt hangs over our guy. But we get the best of both worlds: Yes her testimony is somewhat true and our guy for sure didn't do it. Then maybe we should have asked "our" guy to step down and return to his other life time seat on the U.S. court of appeals for the D.C. circuit. And we could nominate ANOTHER conservative judge. Although she called Kavanaugh and Mark Judge by name and also other people that were at the gathering. The calendar entry of July 1st 1982 is a good fit - that could have been the day of the assault. The prosecutor asked a few question - but she could not dig deep: Lindsey Graham jumped into action and performed his tantrum, then they had a break and then the Republicans dismissed the prosecutor. she never had time to dig deeper regarding July 1st, 1982. which happens also to be the date when Maryland raised the drinking age from 18 - 21. That is another lie that Kavanaugh told - the gathering (under the week - another lie - not only on weekends) - may have been a party in defiance of the new law. Truth is Kavanaugh comes with a bonus (extra conservative, anti abortion, anti unions, anti consumers, pro businesses AND he would protect Trump). Likely there were some talks. Which may have "qualified" him for the nomination (apart from his 2009 opinion that the president should not be bothered with law suits). did not apply to Bill Clinton. Kamala Harris some weeks ago: Did you discuss the Rober Mueller investigation with a lawyer of lawfirm xx (she said the name, they are linked to Trump). A professional judge would have said: No of course NOT. I would have to recuse myself if something related to that would ever come before my court. K. endlessly dodged the questions, played dumb, fished for details (which lawyer - so did he talk to more than one lawyer about the Mueller investigation - and on top did he not know for whom they work ? - That was another dumb remark, that was a large law firm he could not know any of their lawyers. Well, he had not business discussing the Mueller investigation with anyone. He knew he had a shot at a SCOTUS nomination ! Did he discuss such a sensitive matter - he is judge at the 2nd most important court - if the matter would come before him he would need to recuse himself. Well, he would not recuse himself voluntarily of course - but if that was known .... He ALSO lied under oath in the confirmation hearings for that position. In 2006. Unlike the claims of Dr. Ford there is written proof - they kept almost all records of the Bush era under cover - but the little which they released already shows that he committed perjury in 2006.
    1
  45. + Matt w Yes and Sanders said the same - more often - and managed NOT to offend people who were more than reluctant to vote for her (he would have killed it as Democratic candidate, and he WOULD HAVE GOTTEN some of the moderate Republicans. And the young, and the African Americans.) Imagine a person that already nodded their head to Trump (gladly ignoring the racial remarks, the manners, etc. etc.) because of the economics issue. And then gets told that 50 % of them are deplorables. Will an undecided voter leaning somewhat towards Trump flatter themselves to be sorted by her majesty into the box of non-deplorables ? And if they are not deplorable what are they then - stupid ? (Well many are, but you do not tell voters that). Trump said once that Iowa is stupid (in the primaries and before he won there). Well, HE could afford such brash remarks. BECAUSE enough people thought he was hearing them. HRC was clearly not listening OR understanding. Apart from the political stupidtiy - and that was a prepared speech! - Did she think it would be reported with all the NUANCE ? What was the GOAL in making that (prepared) remark in her speech ? And does she have no advisors ? She was preaching there to the choir - her audience would vote for her anyway (but could feel elevated that they were better than these "deplorables"). The "deplorables" didn't give a damn and certainly did not change their opinion because she scolded them. So WHY make the remark at all ? All it did was offend - and it may have cost her votes of undecided voters. The people that are sensitive at all to certain things, do not need to be told all the time that Trump is impossible. She could have stuck to policies and let them come to their own conclusion that the clown is unelectable. (Of course she did not have that much policies, they were copied partially from the Sanders campaign and she had no intention to fight for those populist positions.) So the Clinton campaign revolved around "Trump bad" and did not concentrate too much on policies. (Her ads were especially without policy substance). She did something like that recently in India as well - in March 2018 !! - "I won the areas with the highest contribution to GDP, where there is progress, innovation, forward thinking. The areas where Trump won on the other hand ... " Paraphrased - it came accross that the Trump win was only possible in the areas of the backwards minded people, who do not have much of an economy (and WHO signed the trade deals that thinned out the heartland ?) Many people considered Trump because they SENSE that the elites don't know what they are doing, they are lying - and they don't care for the little people. And the elites - unlike the little people - came out just fine out of the financial crisis. Michael Moore got that vibe - and predicted the Trump win. Some of those folks plus the votes of the usual Democratic base would mean the win that allows to promote GOOD policies. And when the economy works for everyone that placates eveyone but the wildest racists. Hillary told the voters that things are going O.K., that the country IS already great (So make America great again was not necessary) and that she stands for more of the same. Many Latinos and women voted for Trump - which is proof for the the anger about the economy - they just waited for someone they could follow. This is why Sanders and Trump shocked the establishment.
    1
  46. A gathering of 3 is a "riot" - well and some commotion can be easily manufactured. The new " stop resisting arrest" so to speak. - and a "riot" is by definition a mass event where a larger group of people assemble.
    1
  47. Gooooood !!!
    1
  48. 34:30 great comments
    1
  49.  @littlegreenscavenger2932  JD forced the Squad (almost), w/o him the ForceTheVote discussion would not have happened. Had a look into the TikTok of AOC where she explained why the minimum wage was not included - couldn't watch it (and I am a fan) Looks she is folding under the pressure. That word salad proves that she KNOWS they should have been bolder.
    1
  50.  @littlegreenscavenger2932  often overlooked: Dore (but not TYT and Seder) can reach a part of the right. I also think that Seder does a little bit of clickbaiting when he concentrates on Dore (Jimmy is too extreme - sometimes). - But if the right hears from him abut MMT, M4A, UBI, Palestine, Assange , Minimum wage, Chomsky and Greg Palast - so be it. He had Rubin on because he has a large audience and they give each other exposure. Hope Dore gets a lot of Rubin fans, it is an improvement.
    1