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

  1. KSA does not have a capable army and cannot intergrate the expensive toys anyway. They do not spend so much for military excellence but to BUY the goodwill - also of the MEDIA. - Most they buy from the U.S., then U.K. - but Germany, France Sweden also export weapons, no doubt policicias and the media are also placated with those bribes. KSA gets a very, very nice press also in Europe, they are never called a regime, the obituary for the late king was very generous. (to avoid the word slimey) the critique on their track record very mild. - They throw a lot of money around.
    1
  2. The U.S. tolerated the KKK - well beyond the 60s. (see Johnny Lee Clary ex KKK - search with his name and ABC Australia "Enough rope", there are video clips (4 minute) of the interview on youtube - they are HILARIOUS and INSPIRATIONAL. The original video (full lenght of the interview) is not anymore on the archive site of ABC, but they still have the transcript of the interview - very enlightening, regarding U.S. domestic politics, the infiltrated police AND the psychological reasons why someone would join the Klan and what (WHO) inspired him to leave. I highly recommend watching at least the 4 minute clips.
    1
  3. It IS the American way the country has a brutal history when it comes to the Labor movement. In 1932 the unions enrolled 1 million MORE members (total population just shy of 90 million). considering the families were larger then - almost every family had a union member (and unemployed). - then all left leaning parties (incl. Communists) and the unions coordinated. Strikes and demonstrations. The Veterans March when their promised benefits were cancelled was brutally crushed as well in 1932 - with help of the MILITARY (Eisenhower, McArthur, ...) That movement gave FDR the impulse and the leverage for the New Deal. In 1917 the Russian Revolution had happened that was not that long ago. The New Deal and the time after WW2 unitl the 1980s when the incomes of the lower brackets grew faster (percentage !) than the income of those on the top were an aberration of history. From 1947 - 1970 the workers got the lion's share of productivity wins (lots of it by automation. REAL (= adjusted for inflation) hourly average wages grew by 97 % (so purchasing power for one hour of work almost doubled). Productivity rise in that time 112 % - most from automation, new technology like computers, ... Listen Andrew Yang. From the 1970s on the wins should have been given in more FREE TIME not in more wages. Purchasing power of wages kept "constant" by inflation adjustment but not more, the rest would be FREE TIME. That way everyone capable to work could have had chances to get a job. High employment. Plus it would have been easier for young parents to participate in the workforce and have enough time for the children. The producers of goods and services would have the same costs (relatively speaking higher wages, but for people who produce more output in shorter time). They would not have had to seek buyers for more and more output - so less aggressive marketing and less consumerism and throw away cuture. Consumer purchasing power would have stayed constant. Standard of living was not bad in the 1970s - and the feeling of security was certainly higher (at least for all white people). Wage levels were not bad - but the public services and housing, education and healthcare and childcare got much more expensive since then. People have periods of unemployment. Good houses can last way beyond 30 years (so young people inheriting from parents means wealth that has been accumulated is passed on). The government CAN easily grant low interest rates for affordable housing or apartments - if they do not work for the banks and the real estate donors.
    1
  4. She is either deceptive or an apologist for neoliberalism (even though she knows a lot, she has massive blind spots). Trump IMPROVED with every gender and ethnicity in 2020 (even black women) he only lost support from white males in 2020 (especially those w/o a college degree = white ble collars), that cost him the second term. Yes a part of the population is racist / reactionary. What else is new ? - but the black president could have leveraged the enthusiastic base and been the next FDR. Obama could have won the respect of people that voted ONCE or TWICE for him by fighting FOR them and WITH them. No one could deny the obvious benefits once single payer would be implemented, not even the racists. Obama made the choice to sell out to big finance (in 2008 already, he got a lot of donations from them) and the banksters were saved, no one was prosecuted. Generous help for big biz, and finance and limited help for homeowners, and that was petty, complicated, ambigious rules. Pretty much like they did now the pandemic response. Petty and complicated rules and not enough funding for the citizens and for small biz. Slush funds for big biz. Trillions. Literally. 5,5 million homes were foreclosed under Obama. it was a CHOICE not to help them. The Dems had the president, Congress and Senate in 2009 and 2010. They passed ACA despite the tantrums of the Republicans, when they had for 60 days a filibuster proof window in spring 2010. THEN they could have as well passed a GOOD reform. But serving the big donors was more important. A country can have a cost efficient healthcare system for ALL - OR the big donors can make money hand over fist. Democratic elites incl. Obama chose 2 - and he still gaslights the population about ACA. Obama is intelligent, he knows what he is doing. There are many people that were pissed about a black president. But these people would not have voted for ANY D president and candidate (even a white, male one), so Obama did not miss out on their vote. They may have been more riled up about Obama than a white male - but in the end it does not matter what they say or think. Won is won, and Obama did have power. Cheney and Bush could pull off their thing just fine no matter what the Democratic base though about the "win" in 2000, the wars, etc. Obama won Florida once and OHIO TWICE. Trump won both states now with solid margins ! And there was also a witch hunt on Bill Clinton going on.
    1
  5. +winter snow You are right ACA is only slightly better than nothing at all. Obama and the Democratic Party are sell-outs. That is why it is so important to vote in candidates that do not take the Big Donations, are against money in politics and for single payer. In most cases they run under the Democratic ticket, as progressives. That puts pressure on the system. They were more shocked to see Alexandria Ocasio-cortez than they care to admit. Crowley was in line to become speaker of the house. He was cozy with the real estate developers (screw the constituents) a good fundraiser (main qualification for speaker) - and then shot down by a grassroots newcomer. The Corporate Democrats and their mouthpieces in the 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. 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 (some of them, you fall through the cracks) - 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 Had the Democratic Party rallied behind Medicare For All in summer 2018 as signature Democratic policy for the midterms they could win Congress AND 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 ..... Medicare for All ain't gonna happen. Not if the party machines (both parties !) can prevent it. Only when Dems are scared to lose MANY primaries to other progressive democratic candidates will they change their stance. The progressives do not need to take all the seats. The Tea party fraction could move the Republicans to the far right. True: they ALSO work for the Big Donors, no conflict of interests there. The Progressives would have a harder time. Isn't it insane that the majority of the population WANTS a solution, that other countries have shown the way for decades. And it does not happen. In a so called democracy. More DemocraZy. I heard that the penalty does not apply in states where they refused federal money (some Southern states did that). And if that state does not have an offer with federal funding - the citizens are at least not punished for that. Now that may still be unaffordable for you. Just saying ....did you check it out all and in detail ? you have my symphaty: It must be exhausting: in Europe signing up takes 5 minutes: Name, adress, birth date, SS number plus the same for dependents. When a new employee starts working, HR gets the info, they announce the new employee to the public non-profit insurance agency for the monthly mandatory contribution. That contribution must be matched by the company. No health status questions - contribution is a % of wage, has nothing to do with risk. End of. The relatively few "self-insured" citzens have to process an application directly with the agency. But that is easy (again no health questions) and costs are affordable. 75 USD per month for full coverage in the most expensive cases. (Student older than 26 w/o a job that pays at least 500 USD per month - that's the threshold for mandatory insurance and gives full coverage. Stay at home wife, never a mother, husband or partner has at least a medium income, that would be the USD 75 per month for her). 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, for that to work the consumers need to have about the same power as the suppliers. When the consumers have the power "not to buy at all" that restores a lot of power even if they deal with large companies. Does not work like that for healthcare: the patients are by far the weakest participants in the system (information, need for the service, complexity) and WILL be exploited by profiteers. And they cannot just "do without". 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.
    1
  6. If they knew they had only 4 years - no one would dare to cross the powerful and wealthy. Good luck with getting a job after having served the citizens with integrity. Most of them are obedient to the Big Donors anyway. Big Money and establishment politics would love term limits. The party establishmen STAYS (no term limits for them they are private organizations after all) and big money selects the puppets that will show up at the ballot for the next 4 years. If they are bothered with someone like Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn or Tulsi Gabbard - the rare exceptions - no worry, they have a shelf life. And can be retaliated against with the power of big money when they get out of office. As example for others who might be foolish enough to dare to dissent. And of course no one will have more than 4 or 8 years experinece. All the better, the lobbyist will be the ones with the longterm experience.
    1
  7. Term limits would cement the power of money (or even the establishment institutions if money was reduced) like nothing else. Term limits are often used if a lot of power is concentrated in ONE person, one office. Congress, Senate or a Parliament consists of many members and the persons and majorities change. So it is not like ONE person becomes too powerful.
    1
  8. Politician taking a lot of Big donations: that money BUYS name recogniton, which is very mportant for being elected. Sometimes (if the time is right usually times of difficulties) an authentic message and a LOT of grassroots efforts can overcome the disadvantage of lower budgets. Politicians obey their donors. If it is funded by small donations - then they will work for the citizens. But it is a lot of work to achieve the name recognition AND then the positive reputation. And can take more than one attempt to get into office. Senator Sanders ran 4-5 campaigns in Vermont for higher office with a small independend party and no Big Donors (no corporate money, likely some union money). He got never more than 4 - 5 %). Then at the age of approx. 40 in the early 1980s he became mayor, which was a big surprise (won by 10 = TEN votes). From that much better platform he lost another race with 3 parties (he as Independent was second after the R, the D was the spoiler). In 1990 he finally won a seat in Congress after the Dems did not run a candidate anymore. Now, if a candidate beats money and the voters start liking him or her, name recognition becomes better, and it becomes easier to campaign without the Big Donors. And it becomes harder for Big Money to unseat the grassroots candidate. I think in Vermont they would have had a hard time to unseat Sanders even before he ran for president. Now I do not think any amount of money could jeopardize his Senate seat. Tulsi Gabbard seems to have the same confidence about how she has a safe seat. She DARED to cross the Democratic Party - she must feel she can afford to. She has the voters, they cannot hurt her and she does not need them. Can't have that with limited terms. Not the poltician - and not the constituents. Frankly if there is such a gem of politician - I would gladly vote for them every time and be done with it. Instead of having to deal with new faces every 4 years. If they are usually reasonable and no sell-outs one must not monitor them all the time.
    1
  9.  @uncletom356  Go study the 1968 RIOTS (in a traumatic year, MLK shot in spring, Bobby Kennedy shot in June, young men drafted for a war they did not support). And the DNC felt it was safe to ignore the anti war movement. Or to offer a compromise candidate. They used the delegates of Kennedy as they saw fit. police brutally crushed the protests. (there were dead people). OF COURSE they lost the elections. They must have known they would los them. But they protected the war machine. and that was before money in politics took over.
    1
  10.  @uncletom356  I remember Dore saying you cannot reform the Democratic party from the inside. that there would be more attention to the political process because Trump is so uncough, and puts an ugly face on ugly affairs (instead of putting a pretty face on ugly things). I did not follow the Sam Seder vs. Jimmy Dore arguments in 2016, but THAT Dore got right.
    1
  11. The Clinton endorsment is not the worst (it can be rationalized - but it is in character for being calculating and not bold when she should show a spine). She ignored the DAPL protests of the natives (her base no doubt brought it to her attention). Can't offend the donors of Big Oil, and the party establishment, can't we ? And then she comes out with that silly DNA testing video later. The connection is not worth anything. The natives do not fight the pipeline just for the fun of it. When this pipeline breaks (and it will they all do) it will jeopardize the water of millions of people. It will not only poison the locals and make them sick and let them die .... Any president would need to fight like hell to fight Climate change - she would not be the person - she folded with much easier challenges.
    1
  12. Bush2 ! Donald Trump ! 'nuff said. - and Rafael changed his name to Ted Cruz
    1
  13. * funding by small donations is a threat to the profits of Corporate media * and to the Industrial Election Complex (that includes strategists, consultants, PR persons). For now progressives have to raise a lot of money just to have a small chance in an uphill battle, when Big-donor friendly candidates buy name recognition with ads, especially TV ads. For now progressives also have to buy TV ads - to a degree. In most democracies TV and radio ad spending is restricted (and they might expand that to social media spending in the future). There are fairness rules for TV and rado, so debates are not decided by private entities (political parties) that can cancel candidates at a whim: The DNC did not let Mike Gravel on the stage, even though he met the criteria for the first or second debate, they KNEW he would have wrecked their corporate candidates, and the viewers would have loved him. In other countries it is either grassroots (not often, but it happens and can lead to new parties emerging) or the party ominate the candidates and get a candidate elected (so voters vote more for a party and often not for a person). Unions used to play a role, that is vanishing though. Usually that means the PARTY decides (with luck the BASE of the party has a say or can determine outcomes) who becomes a candidate on a ranked list (they do not vote for representative per district, except in the U.K.) - and the special interests have captured the leadership of most parties. Plus of course the major national media outlets act as kingmakers by shaping public opinion: either friendly press or blacklisting or slamming candidates and parties (Sanders would not get friendly press in Germany or U.K. or France). See U.K., Germany, Austria, Sweden, ... - so it is not as rosy.
    1
  14. U.S. progressives could cope VERY WELL with restricted ad spending and small donation campaigns. They rely on grassroots efforts and have the volunteers online **, so they do not need to pay trollfarms (which should also be outlawed). Remember Correct The Record that was used by the Clinton campaign (or the DNC) in 2016 ? - I do not remember which one, no difference anyway. ** I see polite comments of Yang Gang members online, likely a volunteer texting / social media campaign. Sanders has the same kind of acitvities. They are monitored and there are rules and they have canned messages on the issues (if a volunteer wants to use them). so it is not completely "organic" - but still legitimate. So if more U.S. representatives are elected with small dollar grassroots campaigns - these are the politicians that would vote for Money Out of Politics. It would favor them (and like minded candidates aspiring to join them in Congress and Senate). It is VERY popular with the electorate (that you EARN your way into office by campaigning, interacting with voters and doing THEIR BIDDING when elected). The Democratic party used to be the party of the regular people and even farmers (kind of, the elected Democrats were often from a wealthy or rich background and had the mindset that comes with that. but they had to pander more to the interests of regular people). The Republicans were the party of business. That is a major disadvantage if you have to be good in grassroots and are forbidden to engage in astroturfing. If Progressives can "bring the party home" (AOC) the Democratic party could cope well with that model. But not the Republican party. The cushy jobs for ex politicians (and favors for family members, buying the books written by politicians by the truckload and being given insider tips and favorable deals, for instance regarding real estate) - all of that would fall sideways for Democrats. And for Republicans when they become useless for the special interests. Of course lobbying would need to be strictly regulating and ALSO and especially the Revolving Door (the current regulations are a joke, the bill is window dressing. Lots of loop holes and no funding for the staff at the DOJ to monitor and investigate). It would be necessary to ban large donations to parties (the more money they have the more high paying jobs they can offer which is another toxic incentive). Think tanks and corporate media also offer jobs for obedient politicians when they leave office or are voted out. So they can afford to betray the voters (if they belong to the big fish), they can move on to a more lucrative position. Again_ meaningful legislation to curb the Revolving door is urgently needed.
    1
  15. the U.K. ELECTION PROCESS is not corrupted. and the amount of money that can be spent on elections is limited as well. Grassroots do have a chance. Plus fairness rules on TV during election time.
    1
  16.  @doctorthirteen5727  Considering who she is - her opponent should have slammed her on that. Normally I would say to not use her husbands offenses against her .... and she would use that gladly in attack ads - if Dems had the nerve to run such a person. The party would try to keep them from running with that spot on the record.
    1
  17. Mayor Pete must not WIN the GE - the Big Donors can live well with 4 more years of Trump. And if the just snatched enough votes from Sanders to take it to the next round (where the Superdelegates can decide that Sanders is not electable)
    1
  18. So NOW the U.S. (and their partners in crime) FINANCE and arm AlQaeda and their spin offs in SYRIA. As Condoleeza Rice no doubt knows - she is not stupid. Just a sell-out.
    1
  19. Don't we wish Trump was a "comrade". Not that the Soviet Union REALLY followed the ideas of socialism or Marx (the WORKERS control the means of production). The S.U. was STATE CAPITALISM (the state micromanaging and controlling TOW DOWN all economic endeavours and healthcare). That said: they followed "left" ideals like that everybody should have access to healthcare. As for the S.U. doing unethical testing: I have not heard that (except in the case of political prisoners, but I think then was not intended as "test" but it was torture). But I can imagine that a dictatorship would do that (with prisoners for instance).
    1
  20. The U.S. did it to soldiers - during the war against Iraq in the 90s. And they withheld Syphilis treatment from poor people of color (totally curable at that time, that was in the 1960s). The patients lived at home, saw doctors of medicine (if those cretins deserve the term) from time to time, but were unaware that they did not get the necessary treatment or that they could have been healed instead of deteriorating. The "doctors" who participated in the Mengele experiment wanted to see what happens (their mind and body gets destroyed until they die, as was well known - doctors came accross that terrible illness and its effects in the time before antibiotics were detected, and the effects were well documented.). I assume some were totally O.K. with it while others were just to damn cowardly to blow the whistle. You can look it up, some remote rural area in one of the poorest states in the South.
    1
  21. Not every state or county has a paper trail. In Europe that would not even be legal, a process that on principle cannot be verified. On machines that are easily hackable.
    1
  22. 2:58 Biden I am not talking about SOAKING the wealthy. (putting a lot of emphasis on the word: obviously to stress the difference between him and people like Sanders, Warren - FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK - Nixon and JFK in 1960 debated 72 % top marginal tax rate, EFFECTIVE top marginal tax rate, now it was Nixon that accused JFK of wanting to reduce the taxes for the rich).
    1
  23. Dems are paid to lose - the big donors like their Dems spineless and their Repubs to be fierce ideologues.
    1
  24. If the Saudis would raise oil prices by reducing output it would be a blessing in disguise (Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Iraq, Syria, having more revenue - yes we want these countries to be stable). Unfortunately would make fracking more attractive too. It would boost green energy. Once the technologies have made the leap, they are here to stay even if oil gets cheaper again . The technology we need now is STORAGE - batteries for electricity but also transfer of heat and electricty into storable form - artificial photosynthesis, power2methane, power2hydrogen. And cars where you can buy and quickly exchange extra batteries. Most people stay well within the range of an electric vehicle - only occasionally they want to drive longer distances. And the city folks with no own charging station - could pick up their pack and give back the empty one - going to the gas station as always.
    1
  25.  mayrana2  her job is to have the female fox presenter look (that often means weird hair), to wear a DRESS, to cross her legs (they must show them, no pants). If she had a well informed opinion on politics they would not have hired her.
    1
  26. Lawrence Wilkerson in a speech: He asked Obama why he tolerated the Saudis starting the war with Yemen (L.W. says that is on MBS, HE started it, and he called him a vile human being). Obama: They are already upset about the Iran deal they might turn their back on the U.S. Wilkerson in the speech: I would let the bastards go. The crowd was cheering.
    1
  27. With the Rs one knows WHAT to expect. And slamming the Ds does not mean one goes along with the Rs. Both can be sellouts who first and foremost serve their donors and their own interestss - and they are (well most of them). Who is worse: the person that is racist and pro rich people and not very shy to show it. Or the person who holds the office to represent the people and campaigned on that strategy - but who cannot be bothered to do something when they could - just because THEY and their families are doing fine no matter what. And let's not rock the boat: the donors don't like it, the party establishment doesn't like it - and it is a lot of work and could get messy. I think the Dems are even worse because they CLAIM to be for the regular people and the minorities. - Just recently they showed how little spine they have - even when it comes to DACA which actually has a lot of public support - according to polling most citizens want these groups of immigrants to stay. But even in that case they roll over before they were pushed.
    1
  28. As for pain - our brain produces * that sensation, if you pinch your arm, the input is delivered to the brain, then an unpleasant sensation is dutyfully * provided by the brain - so that you can stop doing whatever you are doing because that could be self destructive. The brain and the processing playing a role is very evident when a person feels the pain IN a limb that has been amputated. so it is not there anymore, but the persons feels it. There is the physical damage or input (arm squeezing, kick at the shin, falling) that triggers a pain response - and then there is what the brain makes with the input and what output (sensation of pain) you are provided with. Since it is not only "hard facts" like an objective damage in tissue or your discs - but also a (non-conscious !) process - pain_can_ respond well to methods like EFT because it is known that the tappig calms down the amygdala and reduces stress. Which also means tapping helps against anxiety. Reduced stress in itself can lead to you experiencing = feeling less pain. One method of pain managment is also that people distract themselves. It is very important for survival that the brain delivers the sensation of pain - the output of the process. (People in shock often do not feel the pain either, that sets in only later) * There is a rare genetic condition where a child is born w/o the ability to feel pain, and their parents have to watch them all the time, also monitor them in their sleep. They could bite their tongue and suffocate in their sleep. They do not feel a sunburn. You cannot let them touch the hot stove. They would see the blisters, but have no warning sensation.
    1
  29. I think they want to go back to the FIGHTING SPIRIT of then. It was a time of crisis that was met with bold change. The left parties (from moderate to communists) and the unions worked together ! They gave FDR the leverage and inspiration to push through the New Deal.
    1
  30. He would not have run in 2015 if EW had run - but she did not dare to anger the Clinton / party machine. That is a pattern with her. I wonder if SHE co-ordinated with Sanders now - or if she is willing to to SPLIT the progressive vote - in order to help the neoliberal establishment. If Sanders and Warren split the vote - someone like Kamala Harris could win.
    1
  31.  @Durrutitv  Sanders asked E.W. if she would run - but she did not dare to. Did not want to offend the party machine. - I cannot see her standing up to the oligarchs. Not sure if Sanders can or is willing to take the risk ! - but she would likely fold. She has a history of pussyfooting around when it is time to take a stance. And I wonder if SHE co-ordinated with Sanders like he did with her the last time. or if she is willing to "split the progressive vote" - which could help the neoliberals. She was not ridden by ambition in 2015 so why now. - anders did not join in 2015 thinking he had any chance to win - the calculated a campaign budget of 30 million USD. Nor did he 1) want to build his career in the next 4, 8, 12 years or 2) try to get name regocnition to hold on to his seat. 1) is unlikely because of his age. 2) In tiny Vermont it would be pretty hard to unseat him, even if the parties would throw money into the race. he actually wanted to render the country a service in 2015 - using the platform and attention to highlight issues like healthcare, inequality and the excesses of Big Finance - and got surprised by his own success. If I compare that with E.W.'s willingness to play nice with the establishment / the donors ..... That likely kept her ALSO from taking a stance when the natives (!) protested the DAPL pipeline. ...... you bet the Warren fans brought it to her attention.
    1
  32.  @Durrutitv  Warren showed several times that she will not stand up against the party machine - which is owned by the oligarchs and Big Donors. That includes also her stance on Israel. - The times call for a BOLD president. I am by no means sure that Sanders would have the guts - but he is the best bet. The oligarchs, their institutions and the media will come down on ANY progressive president like a ton of bricks. Warren would fold as usual. Incremental is not going to cut it - not with climate change. And the next Trump will not be such an idiot that does not know how to play the game. A nation in economic trouble either goes decisively to the left (the U.S. did in 1932 because of strong and united left movements that gave FDR enough leverage. AND: FDR was the man to stand up to the oligarchs). In Europe they went the far right or fascist route. E.W. would be a nice president that would like to do the right thing - if only they let her. Sanders might make good on his promise and engage the masses to have a March on Washington. I do not see E.W. pulling that off. Nor will she stand in the way of the fossil fuel industry / Big donors - which was most likely the main obstacle to her supporting the DAPL protests. Not the president needed to tackle climate change head on.
    1
  33.  @maxfedor1  I do not know the Electoral votes Trump got (not by heart thee were some faithless electors). Enough. And it was 70,000 in 3 states more for Trump in 2016. In 3 states in total and 2 of them are fairly large.
    1
  34.  @maxfedor1  in 2020: MI was a win with over 2 %, so O.K. PA was also not in play for Trump in Nov. 2020, although somewhat underwhelming result for Biden (1.2 % resp. 81,000 votes). BUT: there were 3 states with a total of 43,200 votes (AZ 10,500 / GA 12,000 / WI 20,700). That is NOT comforting, and I would also not bet on NC demographic changes when the Republicans run a Jeb Bush type next time.
    1
  35.  @maxfedor1  I also advise you to look at the margin that libertarian Jo Jorgensen had in WI, GA and AZ. 1.7 - 5 times more. I am not talking about PA here where she got around 79,000 - while Biden's lead over Trump was 81,000 so he would have won that even if every Jorgensen voter would have voted for Trump if she had not been on the ballot. But if she got 5 times the lead of Biden you start to wonder what would have been the outcome w/o her.
    1
  36.  @maxfedor1  Last but not least, Trump's Pandemic response was abyssmal, he could not campaign on the "good economy", and he was too dumb to force a relief package through in late summer / fall 2020. He could have dragged Mitch McConnoll AND Nancy Pelosi. Trump would have needed to win GA, AZ, and WI but that was doable. Like I said 43,200 votes in 3 states. 15,000 - 22,000 per state that stay home, or a little over half of them voting differently.
    1
  37. person working on federal minimum wage of 1968 does at time travel to 2018. 50 weeks, 40 hours at the purchasig power of 12.25 in 2018 dollars = 24,500 per year before taxes. That is the purchasing power of 1968. Time traveller wonders how his or her 2018 counterparts put up with that crap. They have a federal minimum wage of 7.25 - since 2009, which gives them 14,500 USD. Only: the 1968 provided good purchasing power because wages (incl. min. wage) rose with productivity. In my example the 1968 level is only adjusted for inflation. The productivity increases SINCE 1968 are not even factored it. Then the federal minimum wage would be over 21.00 USD Economic Policy Institute.
    1
  38. In case you have wondered how the Building of the Amercian Middle Class, the Golden Era worked. btw: the minimum wage trickles up, people that had a little more typically get a raise. And manufacturing has always paid more than minimum wage. In 1968 and in 2018.
    1
  39.  @susanw2869  the tipped federal minimum wage is 2.25 in the states that even allow that and have no better provision. Think poor red states. - that atrocity has to go. It only invites abuse. The employers are supposed to compensate for it if the staff member does not get the minimum wage if you factor in tips. For the hours they worked, mind you. If labor conditions are so bad the "tipped minimum wage" is still a thing in a state, they will also cheat staff out of that. If they do not only pretend to give the workers at least the current 7.25 (well, yes that is what it is about). Calculate the tips into your prices and train the consumers to tip less. The prices could be raised over 2 - 3 years so that patrons get used to it and do not freak out if they see the higher prices on the menu. They give less in tips. If the consumers hold their end of the bargain regarding tipping they would have to pay anyway, or the employer must chip in. So what is the point of the filling up scheme ? If the staff is not nice to the patrons, you have a problem. Starting a hassle with tipping and filling up with tips is not going to solve that. In reality the employer gets extreme cheap labor to keep the biz open for a long time and the staff has to make that possible by giving their time, but they cannot fill up the insult of a wage (2.25) with tips because biz is too slow. If there is no special cost of doing biz and staying open - depends on how much heat or A/C they need more - they can have looooong open hours. One person present will only cost them 2.25 per hour. It also allows the owner to continue with a badly managed business. If they cannot earn the money (on average) for 7.25 (which is little enough) they should go out of business and another company should take over for them. That knows how to streamline hours, or how to get in more customers in the slow time.
    1
  40.  Donald Trump  one regular middle class home in Burlington, a modest semi-house in D.C. (that or renting an apartment). He MUST have a residence in his state (either rented or ownership) and he is half of the year in D.C. - since 1991 - renting might have cost more. Then the home that Jane inherited - and they sold that and bought a 600k cabin-style vacation home instead. Nothing fancy but it is lakefront property, that explains the price. He has a salary of a member of Congress and Senate since 1991. Add to that GOOD healthcare - like all the elected representatives, many are only against the citizens having that. As for Sanders - no bad financial surprises for healthcare, family is covered. 27 years with the D.C. salary and before 9 - 10 years as mayor, and a wife that has been working as well. Who knew you could amass such a fortune .....
    1
  41.  Donald Trump  Wait until he gets into the White mansion in D.C. ;)
    1
  42. I wonder if Alex Jones is screeming that of the roofs.
    1
  43.  Derek Hitt  didn't get Canada the system in the 1970s ?? - plenty of time for those expensive but world class U.S. clinics to catch up - no ?
    1
  44.  @anthonylamont6518  They developed a CURE for hepatitis C - it can REVERSE the liver damage even in severe cases (waiting for a transplant) An 8 - 12 week cure, 1 pill per day, little side effects, almost 100 % success rate (some need a 2nd cure, in most cases one is enough) The chances for healing are excellent. a roaring success. Even better it is so effective that new infections go down. Big Pharma is not completely happy with the Miracle drug - for the investors it is obviously better when they have treatments and not cures. .... and now new infections are going down as well ....
    1
  45.  Derek Hitt  the PATIENTS have no control over what a (truly) private hospital or a pharma multinational does. They cannot threaten the CEOs and shareholders with voting them out. But they have control over politicians - if they use it.
    1
  46. the U.S. has been giving signals to the speculators. If they agree "on a trend" they can bring a currency down (they do not need to have the money for the bets, no downpayment for large players, max 10 %)
    1
  47. the gov. of VZ created a cryptocurrrency tied to the oil price that was a reasonble measure, and would have stabilized the currency. they could have imported goods for that. - needless to say theU.S. sabotaged it. Forbidden in the U.S., for U.S. companies AND like with Iran - the U.S. tries to force other countries to hold the U.S. sanctions. (the same with Cuba btw - WHAT are the offenses of Cuba that justify approx. 60 years of sanctions ? A short interruption under Obama, but the necons that surround Trump put them into place. Cuba committed the unforgiveable crime to dispossess the rich oligarchs some decades ago, the oligarchs and rich people, and the mob ! that looted Cuba ! Now the EU picked a fight with the U.S. over Iran - but they hang out Venezuela to dry.
    1
  48. And sadly the Dems are completely CYNICAL. Would they NOW (midterms 2018, Supreme Court, defunding SS, Medicare, 2020) turn to some (mildly moderate) left populism ? Hell, NO ! - They hope "Trump is bad and we are nice to gay people" will be enough. They are secretely very happy - they exploit that PR desaster now. And that - like gay rights, or safe abortions - does not cut into the profits of their finaniers (which are the same financiers as a group that finance the Republicans). It is the Big Donor party with a Corporate Dem and a Repub wing. The Big Donors ALWAYS WIN. The Dems get paid to keep the PROGRESSIVES DOWN, they must win PRIMARIES not necessarily the GE. The donors will provide the cushy jobs for ex-politicians. If they were obedient and are well connected with the party leadership. The last sentence applies to both parties. Dems have no intention to offer solutions that would help the majority of people and would steal the thunder from Trump. Truth is: there are always nasty people in the population. When the economy is doing fine they do not make waves pubicly. Of course the DEms would win in a LANDSLIDE. Good European style healthcare, cut the interess for student loans, infrastructure spending, break up the banks, minimum wage, job guarantee ....would be good for the citizens BUT NOT for the profits of the BIG DONORS. How are you supposed to exploit people when they can make the same bucks at a place where they are treated with some decency.
    1
  49.  @taumus1  Actually he is (in action, you do not need a degree). And he did good interviews. With Larry Wilkerson.
    1
  50. To whom wants Biden prove that Repubs are not acting in good faith ?? - They haven't been acting in good faith since the mid 1990s when Repubs detected division and riling up the base as electoral strategy. When Newt Gingrich and his merry gang started the witch hunt on Bill and Hillary Clinton. I am sure they are both corrupt, but they have nothing on the Bushes or Reagan. Biden and Democrats ONLY have to convince voters that are at least in reach for Democrats. See the win of Obama in 2008. Democrats do not need the core R voters and are not going to get them anyway. 68 turnout in Nov. 2020 counts as 100 year record. Well - in other nations such a contested election would have seen 85 % turnout.There are plenty of voters the Democrats can fish for - (not the fickle "moderate" Republicans that they lose next election when the Repubs run someone less moronic than Trump). They only have to give them something to vote for. It also does not matter what FOX says. Or other outlets. Screw them. Especially after the "stolen election" gig. Fox helped with the propaganda, they helped in summer and fall to denigrate the voting by mail process, they helped with downplaying the pandemic and badmothing mask wearing and the lockdowns. Remember when they slammed Obama for his tan suit and eating Dijon mustard. Or Michelle Obama for wearing sleevelss dresses. (the nude pics of Melania were not even mentioned). Remember Benghazi ? Cheney / Bush were asleep at the wheel (that is the benign assumption) in the months before 9/11 happened, they ignored warnings (also from other nations like Israel or Russia). The Republicans would not yet be done with the hearings if that had happened under any D president. Now there are plus 400,000 deaths from CoVid-19. Has FOX ever given a fair and proportional assessement of these events ? Have the viewers ever called them out on their obvious bias ? Fox was over critical of the Obama family (over nothing) versus Trump getting a pass on everything. Some Republicans (although not Fox) even made Chelsey Clinton (age 13 then) or the Obama teenagers targets. Again over nothing. The Bush teenagers had a mildly wild phase - they got of course a pass.
    1