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

  1. Fox and Republican politicians (for poltical gains) and voters that would not vote for a Democrat EVER will foam from the mouth. No. Matter. What. - They also foamed from the mouth under Bill Clinton or under Obama, never mind the attempts to appease them. The more TIME the Democrats give them the more they can drag out the propaganda battle and poison public opinion.  If the Dems would slap them with one bill after the next (CoVid, vaccination, immigration reform, healthcare, infrastructure bill, ...) they would have a hard time to be sufficiently enraged about all of it. The base has only so much time to watch the news. If Dems would be smart they give them plenty to complain about (they are going to whine and lie anyway) to BURY them with a lot in short time. Trump used a variety of that strategy btw, whenever he needed cover he offered some bait in form of a wild tweet. Then When the dust has settled voters would see that Democrats do something, and that their life is better for it. It would also improve chances that the economy recovers. Then they could kill in in the midterms 2022. FDR killed it with economic populism. Actually that New Deal phase lasted from 1933 - 1968 (even till 1980) and the Democrats dominated during that time. Sure, Eisenhower had 8 years as president, but he was on board with the New Deal, maybe the only R president ever to defend Social Security. He told his own party that it was unpatriotic to be against SS.
    1
  2. There are many actors in the U.S. that have been making hay with division - for decades. Much more so than in other rich nations. Media (TV, not to forget radio, that is important). Especially the ring wing outlets (also the large liberal networks, although they do it in a different and more sophisticated manner than Fox "News" or rabid radio hosts). Politicians try to win elections by riling up voters. Actually that is a quite effective strategy as long as feckless neoliberal Democrats feel the pain of voters but do nothing for them (they are financed by the same donors as Republicans). Money in policitcs allows for a lot of TV advertising.Denigrating ads, fierce attack ads are allowed. Other first world countries (even those were the Murdoch empire does some harm). Campaign donations are limited, TV and radio spending is very limited and there are ethic rules for the few political ads on TV and radio that they do have, and only during campaign season. Fairness rules for media during campaigsn, if they cover politics in a format, all parties must be mentioned or allowed in debates, even small ones. They often have coalition governments, so the politician cannot be too vicious, they never know if they need the other party to get a majority. Some combinations are not likely - but the large parties could move to the right or the left with a smaller coalition partner so they will be more moderate and not go to extremes to slam politicians. In the U.S. there were ads that fear mongered about death panels. ACA is not a good reform, but that was ridiculous, these were deceptive lies. In other countries no network would send such ads, the citizens would not like it, and FOX would not get a broadcasting licence if they acted like they do in the U.S. Sky News (also from the Murdoch empire) in Australia is pretty rabid, too - but it is the worst in the U.S. That has created division and riled up a part of the U.S. population for decades.Riled up people come back, they bring money (ratings) or they donate (churches, political campaigns), or they vote only based on abortions, guns and a general and inspecific disgust for "liberals". That is convenient because that does not cost the donors of Republicans any profits, the politicians that get elected that way do not have to deliver for the voters (which invariably goes against the interests of the big donors). Trump fundraised 600 millions on "stolen election" narrative after election day. Likely the fundraising from small donors was better AFTER the lost election. Very important: Churches. check out the channel of The Victory Channel and the video of Jan 7th where they comment on the storm of the Capitol. How Trump will win anyway. Unreal. More than 1 hour political propaganda. I wonder if the pastors belong to churches (run them more like) that have tax excemptions, they should lose that. In other nations they have very few large denominations. Think Catholics and Protestant Church (one church, not split up in many sub groups). They have central financing / budgets. It is not like in the U.S. where many smaller groups outcrazy each other to keep the (already underinformed, gullible biased, conservative) congregation engaged. If they start to engage the faithful by riling them up about abortion, gay marriage and other issues - that is easier than to model a good Christian life and to inspire them with the gospel. Negativity also can keep people engaged but they have to increase the dose of poison over time. Now it is "Biden is a Socialist" is evil incarnate, and he serves the agenda of the devil. I am not exaggerating. Not that I like Biden, he is a 1980s style Republican. The economics, the war lust. Not better or worse than Bush or their Saint Reagan. They have gone so far that they have to be more and more extreme. If they don't do it - another group / church / pastor will stoop lower and capture their supporters (and the money they donate). Division as Republican electoral strategy has been going on since at least the 1990s (well, Nixon invented the Southern strategy, there was the KKK, etc - division is part of American society. The U.S. is also more gentrified than other nations. and the contrast between rural overly conservative areas and the cities is much larger. Rural areas are also more conservative in other nations, that is normal, but they don't have that many Evangelicals. It is not nearly as extreme. Other nations do not have that level of division, that is why abortion, guns etc. are not hyped up as wedge issues by cynical politicians or grifting pastors or radio hosts that rile up the audience. Until the clinic they chose to target is assaulted and a doctor is killed. Ooops ! then the radio host will tell that he does not feel responsible for triggering the shooting. Well maybe he really did not want anyone killed. Finding an issue to rant about and to keep the audience engaged is just part of the business strategy. The killed doctor counts as collateral damage in the cynical game.
    1
  3.  JB JG  Why ? With Sanders you can be sure he MEANS it. (Yang has time, and it is crucial that Sanders could pass on the torch, he would only have a 4 year term). - Sure Sanders did make compromises over time. That does not reveal what he would do when he had power. - I think it is an advantage that he his old - unlike Obama - or Yang - he does not have to think about what he will do and GET after he held that powerful office for 4 or 8 years. NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. After all Michelle also had to give up her career, not only Barack. POTUS gets only modest 400,000 USD per year (and the First Lady gets nothing) - and it would be unbecoming for them to return to pursuing normal careers of lawyers. I mean they get a pension - but if you want to be rich so you can keep up with the circles you got used to, the "Martha's Vineyard crowd" ...... (In the Podesta / DNC emails THAT was the geographic destination that was mentioned most often. Then New York and San Francisco - or L.A ....... ) Jimmy Carter does not get a pension (only 1 term, 6 years needed - I guess in federal service, and he was govenor = state, not in Congress or Senate) He is content with the modest home and the local normal company. Carter was the last presdent that was not in for the money or the glamour. The last who run a publicly financed campaign. In 1978 the Supreme Court ruled that money equals free speech (it was the blueprint for Citizens United - Powell a a Nixon apppointed right wing judge was crucial for that. Since then the oligarchs / heirs have taken over the political process.
    1
  4. Conservative word salad: always use "choice" and "opportunity" (which is not the same as GETTING the REAL thing - for instance guaranteed good public education or healthcare). The Dems like to use "opportunity" as well to mask their neoliberal agenda (Tom Perez anyone). "choice" was BIG in the nonsensical healthcare discusssion (Ted Cruz tortured the word many times. Now, CHOICE is good in some areas, NOT in healthcare though - and having pick between two or more bad but differing scenarios that can play out is NOT CHOICE - at least nothing that a politician should try to sell as a good thing. If the choice is between pest and cholera ....)
    1
  5. TX is a closed niche, not a "fre market". Normally the regional producers can suply enough but in the Stand alone grid (highly unsual ! if a country or region COULD be on a larger grid) they get hardly any electricity from out of state (if they do not routinely export / import they will not have the powerlines that can handle that load). That was a major problem now. The companies in TX did not prepare at all. and had also no competition by better prepared providers in the Southwest grid (wich includes also Canada. 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 TX energy providers CANNOT export so they need to sell it in TX. They also cannot import during a crisis. Why ? Part of the national grid, export and import of electricity - but 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
  6. Are the think tanks running out of talking points ? (I missed the trigger word "handouts" - well at least he mentioned "personal responsibility".
    1
  7.  JB JG  No Democrat will be able (short term) to win the GE with the Southern states ! It would be still important to turn out the vote - just because, and maybe a few states get marginall and the Repubs that run the shw can get used to the idea that everybody is voting. Clinton despite her alleged appeal (not that I understand it the Clintons threw minorities under the bus to vote for law and order white votes - which was logical Clinton's policies started the outsourcing wave, so of course they could not get plenty of votes of low(er) -income people (be it white or black). Bill did all for Finance and undermined manufacturing.
    1
  8.  JB JG  I do not understand "lip service" - Sanders means business with healthcare and he is serious to not take corporate money, so he does not have to serve them - wouldn't that be good for black people (and create jobs too). he wants an infrastructure program, a jobs guarantee program, a much better minimum wage. Would that be POLICIES that make life better for ALL low(er) income communities ? - are the healthcare needs of black people different or their need for housing. Some black or brown people have arrived in the middle class or upper middle class, their needs are not the same as their poorer black fellows. Dr. King planned a War on Poverty of ALL races (he talked about reparations too) but being against the Vietnam war and to relief poverty for all was on the forefront. Advantage: a broad coalition. That what helps the most can be more quickly realized because it is not limited to one democgraphic. some people make shitload of money of the dysfunction they will fight tooth and nail so there better be a broad coalition.
    1
  9. Collins is friendly with the Bushes, she wants to retire (maybe she has Parkinson read something in the comments). GWB called her - NOW the good little shill may be invited to their events - she will be tolerated by the big boys. I am not even sure she did it for money !
    1
  10. That's a meme.
    1
  11.  @kevinchristensen7510  you might be interested in the Channel of Beau of the Fifth Column. It is U.S. politics.
    1
  12. Sanders foolishly dropped out - well he dropped the ball big time, anyway. No way it was necessary to suspend the campaign. No one hinders Biden to BEHAVE like the frontrunner. In an on the ground campaign he and Sanders would compete for states that are ignored in the general. both could agree to delay the primaries and pressure the states to implement mail ballot. While dragging the Supreme Court for their last Wisconsin descision. FDR did not get the bill sof the New Deals passed by being meek. in a way Sanders being in, shielded Biden, the Republicans have a strategy for both, but did not yet know whom to attack. Sanders right now could act as the organizer in chief, walk-outs, people protesting in cars (so they do social distancing), rent strike etc. And then dragging the Repubs regarding postal office.
    1
  13. Ressentment, anger and selfrightousness are EMPOWERING emotions. So some LIKE the emotion of ressentment (a lot of Trump voters were well-off working class people, not all of them were struggling). The blue collars that still got theirs want the door closed after them as well. The woman with the accent might have applied in the regular (costly and time consuming way). The black woman is pissed off because she lost her eye. The man with the beard talks about the "constitution". He has never read the constitution. - It does not say anything SPECIFIC about welfare or social services nor does it exclude non-citizens from getting public services. The consitution does not specify how to deliver public service and to whom to deliver what services, nor does it regulate immigration. The only thing that has been clear for a long time (nor sure if that is part of the constitution, but it has been the law of the land for a long time) is that a person born in the country will be a citizen). That would not have made sense anyway, so they left that wisely to the government at the times. At the time when it was written lots of people came into the country and it stayed that way for a long time. So regulating THAT in the constitution
    1
  14. She - and many others - got purged from the voter rolls. Provisional ballots ! Which are usually not counted. Jimmy Dore did a segment on it. The Dem machine did it again - like in 2016 !! Cuomo got nervous, that is why they sent out the letter accusing Nixon of anti-semitism. Polls were unreliable recently, she he did not trust his lead (Gillum won, and Ocasio-Cortez won too). And he (and the rich and powerful people behind him) were not going to take any chances. That is the difference to U.K. - the media is completely biased. BUT the election process itself and the voter registration is uncorrupted. * Nixon should sue the Board of elections. - Nothing but a LANDSLIDE of any uncorrupted candidate would unseat the meddling incumbent. A honest 55 % turnout on her behalf (or anyone else) would not be sufficient with those shenanigans.
    1
  15. UK - how to do elections: In the snap election in 2017, the campaign lasted 2 months. parties can take declared big donations, but they are limited in what they are allowed to SPEND (incl. TV ads !!). Fairness rules on TV and radio. 2 million voters (population 65 millions !) registered (first voters, change of address) within 2 weeks. 600,000 on the last possible day. Registration was EASY, most did it online, the government had a catchy TV ad to promote it. (Age group 18 - 25 turnout in the last GE 2015 was 43 % - in 2017 it was 72 %) Eveything else is good oldfashioned "tech". Enough polling stations, election is on a workday but many stations are open until 10 p.m., paper ballots, the boxes brought to ONE hall in the constituency, someone in charge signs them off (so of course they keep track of them). They are hand-counted before the eyes of the public. At 10 p.m. after the last polling stations haveclosed, they announce the first exit polls on TV, in 2017 with 30,000 participants. As is usual it was fairly accurate. The poll workers sit on long tables in pairs with a stash of ballots. Supervisors everywhere. Young people sprinting around with boxes, and papers. They have a friendly and traditional competition (usually between 2 cities, forgot the names) - about which one will be first in the country to report a final result. They have a "winner takes the whole district" system for 650 seats in parliament. So it it not hard to keep track. But the handcounted numbers a announced to the locals (and a few important constituencies are usually shown in TV - so if it was a proportional representation ("popular vote") system - the citizens could do the math if they liked to do it. Manually, with a calculator, in their head if they are savants, or tipping the numbers into an excel list. (the country has 65 million people - so that could be scaled up to a country with 325 million like the U.S. ) When the count (and maybe recount) is finished for a constituency the result for each candidate running in it is read to the public and press. Mandatory recount in case the results are not far apart (in last election some districts went by less than 20 - 100 single votes, these were sure recounts). That is how to organize an election. It is not that the parties would not try to corrupt it - they can't. Not even in the first steps. It is better than have voting machines with a paper trail (that evidence can be destroyed - see Tim Canova. Or complicated rules can make the recount legally impossible or expensive). In the U.K. they would need to corrupt the poll workers and manipulate during election night - all of them plus the supervisors - and then they have flipped only ONE district. It is impossible to pull that off. If they tried closing down polling stations - it would be a row. The governing Tories took a cue form the U.S. Republicans, they "tested" mandatory ID (with a few polling stations only and that was advertised so that people would know). The result: it prevented young people and poor people from voting - as was to be expected. Like in the U.S. there are no signs of abuse by the voters. The tory majority is threatened with with good voter turnout of young people - so they would be tempted to introduced that. Well, expect another row. I do not think they will dare. The First Past The Post system and the way the districts are drawn favours them anyway 42 % (40 % for Labour) of the popular vote - but that gives them much more seats (districts). The good results in the large cities do not help Labour 50,05 % is as good as 80 % in a district. UK citizens navigate through life with the social security card (also to open a bank account), so if citizens do not travel and have no car, there is no need to have an ID or passport. As long as they are still in the EU - there are no border controls WITHIN the Schengen zone. Technically you are still required to have a passport with you - but when young people drive through the tunnel to France, Belgium, Netherlands for a quick visit - there is a good chance, they will get away with it (a drivers licence will be better, or at least the SS card). The police of the foreign country may send them back and likely give them a fine when found w/o proper identification in a foreign EU country. A jogger (a visitor from France staying with family in Canada) erred on a non marked dirt trail and unintentionally crossed the Canadian/U.S. border. She was detained for 2 or 3 weeks, even though her mother brought her passport within short time. That is not going to happen within the EU in the Schengen zone.
    1
  16. Mate has substantive content, so he has it harder to grow, and the left channels are seriously suppressed. So he needs exposure and Jimmy can provide it. If yourtube shuts down Grayzone for no good reason at all, Dore can behis lifelie, he recently helped out a channel. Plus he is the polite and calm guy, so he would not push back loudly (and JD is hard to stop once he starts ranting)
    1
  17.  @adamsmith7058  Thanks ! good points, spared me the trouble.
    1
  18. 11:49 So Obama adressed Social Security as being in crisis in Indiana and the may have helped him win ?? (because the voters thought he would fix it ?) - Well Obama accepted an untrue right wing talking point - that should have given people pause (Sanders: we should expand SS and we will finance that with taxes on the rich).
    1
  19. vEneZUeLA - BReaDliNEs !!
    1
  20.  @Junebug89  43,200 votes in total in 3 states made the difference. Trump's loss (not Biden's win) was way too close for comfort. A few thousand votes being cast differently, or any legal challenges (mail arrival etc) and Trump would have a second term - Biden was a huge gamble, and w/o pandemic he would have lost for sure. His lead over Trump: AZ / GA / WI 10,500 / 12,000 / 20,700 votes - In PA Biden at least won with 1.2 % = 81,000 votes more. The 20,700 votes more in WI equal a margin of only 0.63 %. Why were PA and WI even that close ? In a pandemic year, economic down, Trump being a certified idiot on stereoides. Trump increased his result in Florida from 1.2 % in 2016 to over 3 %. In Ohio he won twice, and each time with over 8 %. - Obama won those 2 states twice (and no, that does not reflect well on him, he paved the way to poison the states for Democrats. After 2012 he rewarded Ohio with pushing for TPP. That was it, they have had it with neoliberal Democrats.) I think Sanders would have had more chances to win Ohio, and even Florida would have been in play. and not limping over the finish line in PA and WI either. We waited for the count of these 4 states, (MI and NV were at least over 2 % which means the lead manifested earlier and the statisticians could project the states earlier to go for Biden). Biden absolutely needed to win 2 of the 4 nail biter states (PA, WI, AZ and GA) in any combination - or Trump would have won. Biden got the "best" result in PA, and it is the state with the most electors = 20 - but that state alone would have put him only at 269 electoral votes = a tie with Trump. Biden had to win at least ! another one of the 3 states where it came down to 20,700, 12,000 or 10,500 votes. More than half of them voting the other way and they are lost. PA was not obligatory, even the 2 smallest would have gotten Biden to at least 270 electoral votes (AZ + WI 10 + 11). The bare minimum - and maybe some fun with faithless electors. In the case of a 269 tie the House picks the president BUT not every Representative has a vote. The Reps. per state determine ONE delegate. That rule would have favored Republicans, they would have picked the president. The VP is picked by the Senate where the Republicans had the majority, anyway.
    1
  21.  @Junebug89  Dems can fervently thank Libertarian Jo Jorgensen that she was on the ballot, in PA she had around 80k votes, slightly less than Biden's lead, so she made no difference to the outcome. But look at her results in the other 3 crucial states. 1.7 to over 5 times the lead of Biden, a few of those could have voted for Trump had she not been on the ballot. Holy shit !
    1
  22.  @Junebug89  We were also assured that Biden knows how to work accross the isle. - He cannot even negotiate with the Republicans within the Democratic party. (or rather: he doesn't want to. But he official line is: we did not have the vote. Like he is allegedly for the 15 USD minimum wage. Well the first 2 defectors stuck their neck out soon, but in the end 8 defected. And needless to say zero votes from the official Republicans.
    1
  23. They do not WANT to - they serve the same donors, the Dems just need plausible deniability for the "good cop" role in the gig.
    1
  24. Hard on the little people and lenient on West Bank (Mnuching) that illegally forclosed people. - She is not the president that the U.S. needs.
    1
  25. Get's you to appreciate Jeff Sessions for crying out loud - at least he is consistent in his dislike for weed. Even though he knows the stuff is increasingly liked by Republican voters.
    1
  26. Holding accountable for WHAT ?? The U.S. ruling class LOVES dictators and promotes them all the time.
    1
  27. The "War On Christmas" is so Obama era - so now they have to make up the "War On Thanksgiving". asserting indirectly that left leaning people do not like family gatherings. Now apart from the Imperialistic past of the U.S. - giving thanks / festivities at the end of the harvest season is usual for ALL agricultural societies if they have pronounced growing / harvest seasons. it is a human attempt to "bribe" or placate the gods, ancestor, spirits, deities. not celebrating or giving thanks would be tempting fate. Christmas is a pagan festivity. In the countries with a cold and longer winter they celebrated the shortest days (or around that time). That is more pronounced in the North and the Alpine areas, where the growing season is shorter (so if something goes wrong with your first crop you cannot recover by starting over with a crop that needs shorter time and help you survive. In some parts of Europe there is also folclore with demon masks, and noisy bells and other noise making. They do processions to "drive out the winter", to scare it away once winter is past its prime (after the shortest day and the Chistmas holidays, usually in early January). In Austria (and I think the South of Germany = Bavaria) they are called Perchten (the beautiful and the ugly perchten - the latter have demon / devil like wooden carved masks and other head gear like horns, they wear cloaks / garments, made from sheepskin, with the long fur etc.) In that outfit young males are allowed to do some pranks and they do processions. Or in some areas the groups go from house to house and it is the custom to give them something to eat or to drink (alcohol, too). The same tradition shows up on All Hallows Eve (Halloween) on Oct. 31st in the tradition of trick and treating, and it has morphed into an event for the children and they way they dress up is much more flexible. Oct. 31st being a special and eerie (otherworldly) day is also important in the folclore and mythology in Europe, (you were not supposed to have laundry on line or an unfinished spinning project for the females.) In Europe Halloween is not celebrated (now a little influence from the U.S. and promoted by marketing, because businesses try to sell on that, but it has not gotten hold). In Europe Nov. 1st is often (still) a "holy day" and that often also means that retail is closed and most people stay home from work or school / university. It is an official Catholic Holy Day so that is why it is widespread, a day to remember the dead and to go to the graves of loved ones, often also with family gatherings but they are less festive and pronounced compared to New Year, Easter or Christmas, and there are no specific decorations. but if people drive to where they were raised and have a day off anyway, they naturally will arrange for meetings. Or in the case of "Krampus" in the advent season (the four weeks before Christmas). Krampus (outfit more less like a perchten) has become the side kick to Nikolaus in the last 100 to 150 years. His day is Dec. 5th and on Dec. 6th he accompagnies Nikolaus who gives out sweets and little gifts to children. Nikolaus is a Santa Claus like appearance (more like the American Santa was modelled after the European example, and Coca Cola advertising enshrined the optics, the red cloak, white beard, the reindeer sledge). As for being glad if one harvest season went well: In some countries you can start over, but in many if you do not have rain or the right conditions in "spring" you are screwed, because the growing season is too short, or you only have enough rain in spring. Or if the draught or the storms or floods come later to destroy your harvest. No wonder people celebrated and gve thanks to the spiritual world it one year went well. One bad harvest could mean devastation and famine, no wonder people celebrated if one such cycle went well or O.K. Survival guaranteed for the next 12 months, and the money or stores had to be enough until they secured the next (hopefully good) harvest. And they finished the work to processs, dry, secure the harvest in fall, and could be also done with the first round of slaughtering animals (a lot of work, and in fall the temperature were low enough that the meat would keep, and it gave them more time to process it within a few days. In summer they could only slaughter smaller animals). that is why the crelebrations are later in autum when people (working in agriculture) have more time. For the same reason elections in the U.S. were set up to be at the beginning of Nov. - The work of harvesting and slaughtering is done and not yet snow or snowstorms (in most regions). In the beginning only white males with some property had the vote, and they accomodated farmers with that time and also with the day (Tuesday). Not the weekend (that was reserved for worship). and even if they had a longer travel (and used that occasion also to buy stores or to meet friends) they had time to return home before the weekend.
    1
  28. He goes on one of the large networks and does not even care to prepare himself.
    1
  29. It was a spontaneous !! answer which I liked in the beginning. it sounds like something she really means and she came up herself with the idea. and it was coherent and understandable - so not at all like Pelosi. On second thought: for Climate change the time of talking is over. Action !
    1
  30.  Frederic Bastiat  Facts matter ! Chinas does NOT emit more C02 than the U.S. even though they have much more people - 1,3 bn versus 325 million. (Last number I remember is that both countries are the same in absolute numbers - meaning the U.S. is much, much more wasteful with energy. Also: the U.S. deindustrialized while China manufactures a lot (for which they need extra energy) - and a lot of those products are used in the U.S. and Europe.
    1
  31.  Frederic Bastiat  Warming does NOT increase the production. The crops are well adjusted to the temperatures as we used to have. If the tundra swamps thaw they will not be able to compensate for the U.S. midwest on draughts. Temperature is only ONE factor in growth - and it is obviously not a limiting one so far. Same with CO2 content of the air. That in itself could be and advantage because it should be easier for the plant to get carbon - but there could be other side effects (for the the plants WE use). And the CO2 increase comes we very quick erratic CHANGE. Lack of water, erratic rain (not enough or way too much in one setting) can ruin crops however. Same with sudden burst of heat or cold that we (and the plants we use in agriculture) are not used to. And then there are the pests who have more time to procreate. Which already makes an impact, btw.
    1
  32.  @Ron_DeForest  It is because in the U.S. election campaigns are financed by corporate interests. It shows. Republicans did not deny CC in the 1980s - 1976 Surpreme Court decision that protected the "free speech" of rich people wanting to donate without limits to the politicians of their choice (Money = speech). Then the oil interests captured the Republican party (even more than the Democratic party). And they had to find a profile differing from the Dems plus they started to pander to Evangelicals (anti-science anyway) to scratch together enough votes from any fringe group they could find. the Southern strategy took care of the racists and being anti-scientist and anti abortion secured the votes of the Evangelicals. They wanted to serve Big Oil - and accepting the reality of climate Change and NOT doing anything about it would be irresponsible. So their conclusion: it can't be true because we find it inconvenient and are too stubborn and selfish to change our consumer habits (even a little bit). The Dems have a more sophisticated strategy of double think: they accept the reality of manmade CC - and do not nearly enough about it. The reason ? They too take Big Oil money. Plus they would have to sell it to the voters. And since so much time was allowed to pass - time that could have been used for a gentle adaption with not too much disruption - NOW they would have to sell sacrifices. In the end it would also mean asking the rich and the profitable business for more contributions. Like when WW2 and the resulting debt had to be handled. Both parties get a lot of money from rich people, and business, ThEY are their CORE CONSTITUENCY. Responsible politicians would need to sell a changed way of life to the regular citizens (that still could be the good life, with a lot of affordable publich housing, good free education, excellent well funded public transportation, people consuming free time instead of buying, buying - but it would be a change not doubt about it). the rich would have to pay more to make it happen. Not that politicians in other democracies (I se that term loosely) are much better - in Europe they do not deny it - they just drag their feet. There is a huge gap between sunday speeches and tangible action. Same is true for Democratic politicians. Hillary Clinton remodeled the state department to promote fracking (for her donors) - that is really, really bad if you take CC seriously. And Obama was all for the Keystone XL pipeline and other such projects. In the end it was the energy prices that delayed those projects.
    1
  33. The Clinton campaign no doubt did intense research - and could not come up with anything. The people that knew him in the 1970s (incl. his divorced wife, or the mother of his only biological child) are protective of him. they do not talk to the investigators or the press. So if he did embarrassing things when he ran for higher office (very unsuccessfully in the 1970s) while working odd jobs - it is not going to come out. There are rumours that he got electricity with a cable from a neighbour when power was shut off because he did not have money, which it seems happened from time to time. Well, that will stay rumous, the paper records are all gone. And the people that could embarrass him (if you even care what was going on in the 1970s) are not going to do it. It may be that he could not pay child support for his son Levy in the early years. The mother of his son married, that man became the step dad and his son is doing fine (and they are obviously in friendly contact). Whatever went on when Levy was little - they settled that among themselves (on the other hand I cannot imagine Sanders not chiming in, the moment he had the salary of the mayor of Burlington - from 1981 on). it says something about the man that has been active in that little state for so long - that they will not find people providing bad news about him.
    1
  34. There is a reason the world class service is on top cheaper than in the U.S. (8k versus 12 k on average). The hospitals exists only because of single payer, they attract paying patients from outside but not enough to have a cost efficient operation. And they get subsidies. - giving a bill to a foreigner is also usuall in non-profit public hospitals. - The bil IS so reasobly priced because the hospital is a (regulated, subsidized private-for profit) part of the single payer system. Pretty much like the church run hospitals that co-exist with the non-profit hospitals in Germany and Austria. They get the subsidies (like the publicly run), they may pay a little less in wages, and I assume the church makes modest profits of them. The agency sees to it that both sectors complement each other. So one hospital has a specialty and the other one close down an departement and specialize in something else. it may be private, even with a profit, but it is not free market (which is not possible in healthcare, the patients are the weakest part in the system and would always be exploited if the profit motive reigns. So reasonable public mandate and regulation, not competition and the play of market foces ensure quality and cost-efficiency).
    1
  35. They are told they are gettig wolves if they do not vote for foxes. (Wolves need more to eat).
    1
  36. cut him some slack, he adored Gabbard. He had to emotionally process her "betrayal"
    1
  37. The FREE MARKET requires EQUAL ACCESS TO INFORMATION. - now if only terminaly ill patients would get those drugs administered - with a spark of hope and also to HELP future patients: that would be one thing. But: in that case the responsible, ethically acting drug companies would have no need to hide the data before the only entity that can hold them accountable, the FDA And why would we assume the pharma companies would act ethically in the first place - in what alternate universe would that be.
    1
  38.  Leo Mengel  No Melania was not well known model in Europe. She went to New York to start her career. what she did on the old continent was smalls stuff. She went to the U.S. on a tourist visa and worked illegally. But she never was a big number in the model business. The nude photos later were a highlight of her career (that magazine was printed in larger numbers). But she also did some softporn style stuff, advertising for cigarettes (only older models are legally allowed to do that) so she clearly was not doing really well in modelling (there are lots of women that try to advance). As a supermodel or well known artist or actress she might have gotten the Einstein visa, but not as one more female that tried to make it.
    1
  39. It is almost as Jimmy dore has a point. The Democrats are useless they are that bad, it is not even sure that Biden can win when the engaged Bernie voters make HUGE concessions and hold their nose once more (at least in swing states). Biden might lose anyway.
    1
  40. India has always bought "mixed" - KSA does not have a capable army, they do not even know what to do with the current purchases.
    1
  41. KSA buys GOODWILL of Western politicians by buying military equipment - and they buy that the U.S. will not invade them - they spend more "on military" per year than Russia. - So they would just quit spending if they do not buy U.S. arms anymore. There is no reason for them to bribe China or Russia, both nations are not likely to start a war of aggression against them. Russia and China are also not likely to help them if the U.S. does an "Iraq" or "Libya" on them. They would not get themselves into a mess to help out Saudi Arabia and sacrifice their soldiers. Setting the Middle East on fire / fire up Islamic terrorism, holy sites in KSA, etc.
    1
  42. 3:50 KSA buys GOODWILL of Western politicians by buying military equipment - and they buy that the U.S. will not invade them - they spend more "on military" per year than Russia. - So they would just quit spending if they do not buy U.S. arms anymore. There is no reason for them to bribe China or Russia, both nations are not likely to start a war of aggression against them. Russia and China are also not likely to help them if the U.S. does an "Iraq" or "Libya" on them. They would not get themselves into a mess to help out Saudi Arabia and sacrifice their soldiers. Setting the Middle East on fire / fire up Islamic terrorism, holy sites in KSA, etc.
    1
  43. I think the interesting thing is that a few swing states like Florida often decide the votes. So the idea that smaller rural states are better represented because of the E.C. is not even true. And every larger nation has rural and metropolitan areas and usuallly they find other mechanisms to consider the interests of rural states. One thing: the winner takes all system suppresses the vote (what is the use of even voting it the state is a red or blue state). I think the current system gives the U.S. more conservative governments that they would have if you go for the popular vote. And that does not benfit the rural states either. Remember that FDR and his policies were popular in ALL areas (urban and rural). Dems btw could create a few more states (there is a reason there a 2 Carolinas and 2 Dakotas). California could be broken up, Puerto Rico could become a state. What about D.C ?
    1
  44. The DONORS (of BOTH parties AND they are the main advertisers) have nothing against the Republicans running Wisconsin into the ground. Chuck Todd has to please them. Now the unwashed masses have dared to make a change in a state that used to be reliably red. That is a little worrying - what will come next ? They might get ideas of higher taxes for the rich, and support for "socialist ideas" like good healthcare. So Todd KNOWS whom he has to attack - and who gets a free pass. P.S.: that governor elect seems to be really afraid to call a spade a spade. Wasn't he around when the norms of politeness and appearing willing to cooperate were shreddered ? a) Republicans in 2008/2009 b) election 2000 that was stolen c) North Carolina 1 or 2 years ago, where they pulled the same tantrum/trick when a Democrat won govenorship. in essence the Rs are so incensed when they lose a state that is rightfully theirs ! that they will do everything - and I mean eveything - to either rig the elections, steal it (likely manipulate the voting machines - many do not even have a paper trail, see Ohio). Of course they prefer methods of hindering people to vote in the first place, that is less risky in the legal sense. They are pretty sure that it will not come out - but IF it ever comes out, it would be a major scandal, ruin their favorite talking point and get someone 5 years into prison. If they do not win - as is their right - then they take power away from the governor or undermine him or her by every means legal and illegal. Or they shut down the federal government. There was a Democrat of a Southern state that was dragged before court with some trumped up corruption charges. I think they could not prove anything and he was convicted anyway. (Jury selection can do wonders).
    1
  45.  @VI5H  I get the feeling a neoliberal think tank has unleashed their trolls because Rising dunks on the D establishment, and is going to call out the neoliberal Biden admin. and they do have a considerable following and have grown fast. - Or is that the following that Sam Seder has now ?? (I didn't watch a lot in recent months) Obama got no scrutiny from his base, and I think in a weird twist the racists attacks shielded him. The base rallied behind him no questions asked * and the media had something to talk about that was NOT policies or the track record of the people (foxes in the henhouse) he appointed. * cabinet appointements, he let D Senators kill the public option which was a campaign promise. FDR would have twisted arms behind closed doors. and if that did not help, call them out publicly and rally the masses against them.
    1
  46. Until 1968 the minimum wage (and average hourly wages) rose almost in lockstep with productivity. (1947 - 1970 plus 112 %. The average hourly wages adjusted for inflation rose by 97 % in the same time. So almost doube the purchasing power in 23 years for 1 work hour, and with overal high employment rates. Minimum wage jobs were included in that average). 1970 - 2013 - so much longer: Productivity rose by 69 % (the outsourcing shows, more service sectors jobs in the average - and there you can automate less etc. so not the productivity wins as in the first phase that was also 20 years SHORTER). But there were gains: But the workers did not get the lion's share of productivity wins anymore. Only 9 %. Which also meanst that a gap opened between what companies offered and what workers could afford to buy. Consumer debt on the credit card and lots of marketing bridged the gap between output and disposable income of workers.
    1
  47. If the minimum wage had continued to rise WITH productivity - it would be over USD 21.00 now thanks to the productivity * wins that happened since 1968. (and 12.25 if only the 1968 level of purchasing power had been kept = 1968 numbers and adjusted for inflation). I have the numbers from the EPI website (Economic Policy Institute). The productivity wins numbers I remember, can't tell you right away where I found that info. * Productivity is GDP (value of goods and services) divided by all paid hours. (if productivity is calculated for the nation overall, I think they may do it also for industries). That means inflation is baked into that calculation because what goes into the calculation of GDP are the prices of goods and services that were sold to consumers and government (agencies), which increase over time of course.
    1
  48. Sanders made that mainstream - starting in 2015 with his first campaign. Activists demanded it before of course - but he did the broken record on single payer and minimum wage (good strategy, the interviews on TV usually give very few time, so he had to rapidfire catchy talking points - and he had a Republican style messaging for The Issues * , but of course w/o getting the friendly platform for Republican economic ideas). * I wonder if there is ONE TV appearance between 2015 - 2017 where he does NOT mention healthcare and how other wealthy nations spend only half per person.
    1
  49.  @faceplants2  the Democratic party would at least be 2 parties in any other democracy. Same for the Republians. Yes there are pronounced differences. If you are for small government, Climate change will sort itself out (if it even does exist), abortions should be prohibited, etc. or in matters of war, low taxes are good versus the New Deal era. (high taxes for the rich and highly profitable biz). It does not make sense to lump it all together.
    1
  50.  @faceplants2  No, no tribalism. At. All. - I currently live in a country where voters have more than two parties (financed by the same big donors) as choice. That allows for some nuance, choice and voters are not married to one of the parties - and the politicians know it. The parties have to move on positions if political competition breathes down their neck. - The lesser evilism blackmail of Democrats does not work. In other democracies they typically have 1 center right and 1 center left mainstrean party (they used to be solidly Social Democratic, now they are often weaklings / neoliberal shills - the Tony Blair, Justin Trudeau, Keir Starmer, Emanuel Macron types). And then there are other smaller parties - if they get 5 - 7 % of the popular vote they get into parliament. The party with the highest result almost always gets the job to try and form a government (with a simple majority in parliament or it gets hard to get anything done - although they do it differently in Netherlands and Denmark I think they pull off coalitions or working arrangements with several parties). And the strongest party (or partner in a coaliton government) also provides the chancellor (Germany, Austria) or the nation votes directly for the head of the government if the "president" is that (France) and not only a figurehead and constitutional check on power (Germany for instance) But even a 5 % party can become the little hinge that swings big doors if they help a larger party to get the necessary majority with a coalition government. Never mind they are there, can grow and offer voters an alternative. No such thing as "wasted vote" or helped the larger evil win by voting third party. (try 6 - 8 ! parties) All of that makes for nuance, the parties influencing each other and a minimum of decorum being observed. They never know if they need them come next election. Some combinations are highly unlikely: like center left or green party with far right for instance, but overal it is better to keep it classy. No one can make hay of denigrating campaign ads and outright lies (FOX level style or ACA means death panels) - they would not be aired. Ethics guidelines and the population would not appreciate it, as they are not used to it. So they have to try with running on issues. Even a few % of the popular ! vote (if they make it over the threshold that is typically around 5 - 7 %) means public funding, fairness rules during debates, the small or new players are NOT excluded, the voters deserve to hear from them. Also fairness rules for media during elections season and they do not allow big biz to contribute directly or indirectly to campaign spending. Plus the spending on mass media is very restricted. all of that gives a small outsider party with an engaged base and smaller budgets a better chance to COMPETE. If the voters have had it with the established parties they are not stuck with "lesser evilism" - the cynical game that makes sure BOTH relevant U.S. parties that are openly financed by the same big donors can do their God cop / bad cop routine. or the Dems testing how little they can promise to the voters and they can still win the election. No, in all other nations one or several minority party can grow fast if the big parties are getting too comfortable. The 2 - 3 mainstream parties are never secure from competition. Also: high voter turnout makes sure the interests of low income or young voters are not completely neglected. (there is not the well established practice of voter suppression like in the U.S. based on long standing contempt for the poor and people of color). Voting is easy, automatic voter registration, on a Sunday. And claims of voter fraud would be laughed out of the builing. How do you do it if each polling station with representatives of all parties does a hand count of the paper ballots and then reports for then numbers to be aggregated. After all have signed off on the count. An election with controversial candidates like 2016 or 2020 would see 80 - 85 % turnout. With 6 - 8 parties getting into parliament.
    1