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

  1.  @faceplants2  I do not understand your accusation of tribalism - nor do I understand what Musk has to do with that.
    1
  2. President Bonespurs doing favors to Israel and Saudi Arabia while trying to start a reeclection war with Iran. - Has anyone seen the film: Wag the Dog ?
    1
  3. The estate tax is the LAST stop, also to avoide the new ARISTOCRACY, the last correction (not much was left of it even before the Tump tax cuts) - even if a person very successfully extracts money out of the economy (speculation, paying low wages here or in developing countries - Apple !, tax evasion, or saves their fortunes in bankrupcies at the costs of others Trump family) - individuals and their heirs at some point HAVE to pay even if the parents successfully avoided paying income tax.
    1
  4. One could read the self-congratulating headlines 1 year ago - how much progress had been made to eradict extreme poverty. (Of course glossing over the fact how the picuture would look w/o China, when that is sold as success of capitalism). So .... they are not desperately poor at the point of starving - only VERY poor. That is some progress, clap yourself on the shoulder. (The Guardian did a good piece to debunk the jubilant headlines. If you assume that 5 USD per day would be necessary to grant a halfway decent life - it would take 200 years at the current rate to get the world population everywhere at least to that modest standard).
    1
  5. And while I am at it: Years ago students proved to a a major newspaper how easy it is to HACK the voting machines. (no other nation with a democracy uses them, they all do hand count and with good reason. And in no other country it is possible to purge voter rolls). The SILENCE of the Dems on the issue of hackable machines is DEAFENING. Well mayby it isn't a bug - maybe it is a feature. Of course the Republicans might find that feature useful - so it is clear why they do not protest. And the donors - who finance both parties - might want the Dems to HAVE THE OPTION to tilt primaries. Which would be a plausible reason why both parties keep silent. a) the donors do not want the unwashed masses to become suspicious of the whole process and b) even though the ability to hack the voting machines would likely in most cases work against an electoral win of the Dems - the donors will compensate them for lost seats (if they served them well). and the donotions will continue coming in. The ability to keep progressives away from influence is really, really important - that and the continued stream of money is more important than winning elections. (BTW: Trump won with a razor-thin margin in some Rust Belt states - which led to the electoral college win. In Ohio for instance they never activated the security feature of the voting machines - it would ressemble a sort of paper trail. The judge dismissed the case of a citizen group who wanted to force Ohio to activate the safety feature in 2016 (They can come back to the court when they have proof that something was rigged - a catch 22). Needless to say the Dems did not support that attempt of the citizen group. The hacking of such machines might be possible for foreign actors - but I assume if used it would be done by domestic insiders (matching up the "rigging" with the exit polls in order to stay plausible. One cannot prevent a landslide - not with the appearance of plausibility - but often it is a few percent that make all the difference - if applied strategically. Trump won one of the Rustbelt states with a plus of 1000 votes.
    1
  6.  @camelopardalis84  There are the oil rich theocraZies and a few SMALLER tax havens that have a higher per capita GDP. But for a country that is larger (and needs some real economy) the U.S. is pretty high up on the list.
    1
  7.  @camelopardalis84  Of course the activities of the Big Casino = finance, Wallstreet, ... are estimated and ADDED to the GDP. It used to be that the U.S. was an economic / manufacturing power house (real economy) and really one of the richest countries on earth (of those who earned the money with an economy, not by luck of natural resources or being a tax haven). But since the economy has been "financialized" (speculation, credit card companies taking over) and manufacturing has dropped - the GDP numbers would have gone down (per person). So they have to estimate what finance "contributes" - it is not as self evident as in te former times .... (Dr. Richard Werner). The U.S. GDP is likely inflated. But developed countries with a much lower GDP than the U.S. would airlift children to a hospital w/o extra costs for the parents. In her case she likely can even take a regular flight. So the 10k out of pocket they know of so far are not only transport costs, or the mother staying in a hotel.
    1
  8.  @TroIIingThemSoftly  Doing "only so much" would be plenty - if they would bother. They did not even do what was possible. And that cost them the 2010 midterms so they did not have more leverage (because the voters saw them at least giving it a good try) they had less power from 2011 on. but the Dems are not comfortable with having power or using what power they have - they would run out of excuses. Serving the big donors does not align with making good on campaign promises.
    1
  9.  @TroIIingThemSoftly  McConnell only can "hold them hostage with a _power sharing agreement" because Dems preemptively disarmed. They always do, they need excuses why they do not deliver. It is a good cop / bad cop act. What possessed Democrats to voluntarily ! make that agreement, hasn't Biden and Schumer been around in 2009 ??? I cannot remember Republicans making VOLUNTARILY ANY concessions in the last decades. I can remember they swore to make Obama a one term president and to stonewall. btw it does not matter if Trump gets impeached or not. they do not need to give up power to get that concession. Mitch McConnell and the big donors want Trump to be history anyway. From a political point it might even be a disadvantage. There are plenty of grifters in the R party that would like to inherit Trump's base to win primaries, as long as Trump has ambitions that should be very interesting. Trump could split the vote just nicely. (if he is still alive and also not engaged in court battles).
    1
  10.  @TroIIingThemSoftly  the whole point of "power sharing" is to NOT DO anything and to not even try -and then to dupe the base by telling them: Republicans do not let us. - If politicians voluntarily and in the first days give up power - it is a politcal spectacle.
    1
  11.  @TroIIingThemSoftly  R and D have the same big donors. The donors like their Repubs to be fierce ideologues that use every trick in the book - and then some (no power sharing here, not even fair play) and they like their Democrats to be spineless careerists. Corporate Dems pretend to be pushovers (they can fight the progressives just fine) Corporate Dems do not dare to run campaigns that would guarantee them landslide wins that give them the political power, the mass support and the majorities to get things done (see FDR, also see the Hope and Change campaign of Obama). meanwhile they have figured out that the voters conncect with social media and sidestep the cover up of Corporate media, and they cannot gloss over broken campaign promises so easily as was possible in the past. Obama used the racist attacks as cover, the myth was created that he and Democrats could not do anything 'cause obstructionist, mean, racist Republicans. Somewhow he had inspired the masses and these intelligent politicians (some with a lot of experience like Schumer or Pelosi) could not figure out ways to sideline Republicans ?? of course they could have, they never intended to do that. Biden took it one step further he did not even bother to make campaign promises. Now some of them may be aware the country could become a tinder box, if economic hardship continues. That the next Trump could be more skillful. So Biden is caught between his big donor serving ways and neoliberalism and the need to give the masses something.
    1
  12. Saudi men in leading positions do not ear expensive clothes (unless they wear Western clothes) - it is part of the tribal tradition that they all wear pretty much the same headdresses and tunics. They wear expensive watches, exquisite shoes. They buy pedigree horses, camels, falcons (trained for hunting), expensive cars and yachts of course. But not much possibility to show off with the garments.
    1
  13. Plot twist. The pulls over a lot of Rubin viewers to his show (which would be certainly an improvement).
    1
  14.  Johnny Murillo  Obama already sold out on the campaign trail (see cabinet appointments, see Podesta emails published in 2016, citibank ! sent a mail with cabinet proposals - and here we thought Goldman Sachs had a subscription! on ondue influence). It is true that the R's would have tried to block him. In 2010 the R's did not not have the filitbuster proof majorty. Then the Dems passed ACA depsite the trantrums. He found enough support for a fast track for the TPP, no ? o they - the dems - started with a WEAK healthcare plan i 209 , some blue dogs watered it down, the theater of bi-partisanship allowed Republicans to degrade the bill even more. then they did not vote for it anyway. Do think Rs would have acted that way with a reisisting Democratic party ?? obama used healthcare and the crisis to get elected. But any measure that would REALLY have helped (the citizens) would have affected the profits of the Big Donors. So - NO. Under cover of "reasonable" bipartisanship they could kick the can down the road. And since there were really racist attacks on Obama he was was lucky enough to have cover. blue wave in 2006 and the campaign of 2008 - where did the momentum go ? - Obama diffused the eneregy and completely ignored the base once he had power. Tha masses had lost interest in 2010. Obama had a mandate like FDR. Which had to fight as well to get his measures through. Dems which did do not support him - he had talks with them, and even threatend to campaign against them, if they would not vote for the proposals. Press was owned by rich people, was pro Republican ? - FDR did fireside chats. To inform the masses (he would do youtube videos today). Supreme court may undermine the minimum wage etc. - he threatens to pack the court. FDR meant business. - Obama was and is a neoliberal sellout, too spineless to bother to fight. He has preferences but no convictions.
    1
  15. They need to go after BIDEN to go after McConnell. All that is described here - OBAMA CHOSE NOT to use the tools. And he is much younger, fitter and also smarter than Biden. - Secretly Biden does not WANT to have tools to circumenvent the R obstruction. They would run out of excuses !
    1
  16. Its called bankrupcy UP in Europe. - Trump knows how to do that as well.
    1
  17. For an eloquent, very knowledgeable analysis (of all things foreign affairs) I recommend Lawrence Wilkerson on The Real News Network. TRNN also had other contributions when the murder had just happened (for instance from former activists who had to flee KSA, which were more to the point.) The interviewee might want to return to KSA - which would explain why he is so careful with his analysis.
    1
  18. 1:20 So .... Americans can handle 233,000 mail ballots in one state (PA in 2016), but if 2,5 million ballots are handled this way the processes are not "secure" anymore ? Ever heard of scaling up things ? Or are Amercians on principle incompetent and cannot carry out ROUTINES. It is not rocket science, does not need a genius mind or special skills. trained staff and budgets (but in the long run it is also more cost efficient to run elections with mail in ballots as opposed to have the polling stations open in remote areas, and INCREASES VOTER PARTICIPATION. (Repubs don't want high turnount in the general, and the Dems do not want it in the primary). It seems that it is popular in AZ too, many people have filled out their paper ballot and then drop it off in person. Which is a good compromise, and one cannot arrange for long waiting times. Sure they can shut down polling statiions in the low income area so that people need to drive longer. But it is not possible to make them wait for HOURS that way, not with cutting budgets and also not with old machines that are bound to fail and thus create the long wait times for some areas. To be sure if they have that much of an increase , the first mass rollout can be with flaws or taking longer, but one learns and then it is "rinse and repeat". In Oregon voting by mail is supported and popular, so they had no problems with the counting in 2020 they had the results fast, they are used to the drill of having to deal with paper ballots. Which are much safer than any electronic voting machines.
    1
  19. Cuomo did not "rely" on the polls, Crowly looked good in the polls against Ocasio-Cortez, and Gillum in Florida looked like he was behind - he rigged just to be sure. That is dangerous - it sets an EXAMPLE also for OTHER RACES in other constituencies. - They did the same with the purge in 2016. Bernie would not have won anyway - BUT the result would have been MUCH closer. The purge in 2016 and now would make sure 51 % turnout ! (as opposed to votes the citizens could acctually cast when they showed up) would NOT be enough. Nothing but a decisive majoritiy would be enough. And if one has voting machines the machines can go into error mode in select areas. In some states they have the option to vote on machines OR with a paper ballot: On can mae sure the polling stations do not have not enough paper ballots in case of an emergency (it does not cost that much to print double the number once you started printing at all, economy of scale). Many ways to skin a cat - no ?
    1
  20. If there are no consequences - lessons will be learned. It sets a very dangerous precedent. Nixon should sue the Board of election. Even if it would not have mattered this time.
    1
  21. you know that the Clintons helped bring about mass incarceration - to win votes with the white law and order crowd (who know how to take care of their kids in the rare case THEY are caught up in the "system"). - The Clintons may not have expected the prison population to explode like that - but they for sure did not object to it. Bill and Hillary Clinton never ever got upset about it or tried to use their political influence to say: "Wait, we have unintended consequences here. THAT we did not mean to happen, let's change that." Of course not - they just want the votes of the black folks, it is not like they are getting much money from them. And you do not think HRC would NOW have done anything to end the war on drugs or empty the prisons, do you ? Remember: under Nixon weed became a schedule 1 drug (like Heroin, no medical value, extremely dangerous, almost impossible to do research in the U.S.). Whatever you think of recreational use - that is nonsense. Any president could have changed that (without Congress or Senate). Now did the users Bill Clinton or Obama bother to change at least THAT ?(when being classified as more harmless then the prison sentences would have to be adjusted). No, they didn't - the donors would not like it (Big Pharma, the "justice system", Big alcohol, the for-profit prison financiers). And I think HRC also took money from private prison financiers.
    1
  22. Doesn't it give you pause that the POLICIES of E.W. are NOT covered by the "liberal" media - but they fawn over the empty suit without substance. - They cannot ignore the issues regarding Sanders - but they certainly do not cover E.W. - the voters could get ideas (!)
    1
  23.  @jo23bulls  Stealing data NOT true (several informations BY the Sanders campaign TO the DNC that the data was not secure and they should do something about it - and then one staffer - hired with the help of the DNC ! - had that ethics violation. Which was announced by the Sanders ! campaign immediately afterwards and the person was let go. The Sanders campaign did not USE the data (email addresses ).
    1
  24.  @jo23bulls  there were NO death threats. There also was not violence in Nevada that was completely made up and could never be backed up by video footage - as one would have expected. - o and there were no sexist slurs. - citations and footage please.
    1
  25.  @jo23bulls  all you accuse Sanders of (the stuff he pulled) - even if it was true - would have been done by staffers or supporters. - Needless to say contrary to your claims he did not get support - no "leeching off". (it is EE not leaching - hint for all the busy trolls). There was some cooperation to get staff in the beginning - that was it. NO MONEY. - and of course the rigging against him. Starting on the day of the announcement when Ed Schultz was forced by managment to stand down reporting on the announcement (5 minutes before start of live coverage from Burlington). Ed is sure the Clinton campaign acivated their buddies in MSNBC. He was fired 30 days later. he likely would not have stopped to report on Sanders - he had a well established show and was the last "blue collar voice" standing.
    1
  26.  @jo23bulls  NOW Sanders polls very well with minorities incl. people of color - and in ALL age groups. So putting the Southern states first where the Clintons had excellent name recognition did prove to be an advantage. That is not going to work THIS time though. I was one of the people that hoped Warren would run (didn't know about Sanders then). Well, Warren proved to be a lot of bark no substance. the times call for a BOLD president with a spine - she would fold - like she did in recent years. Starting with NOT daring to run against Clinton, not daring to endorse Sanders (a smaller mistake - but typical for her). Siding with party and oil industry over the protests against DAPL. Since these were natives protesting for the sake of the water for millions of people - it would have been a no-brainer. But - No: deafening silence from E.W. you have no idea WHO Tulsi Gabbard voted for. She met with Trump when he was president elect. To influence him towards a reasonable policy. Then Gabbard promoted her "Stop funding terroris act". Didn't work out - at least she took a principled stand and TRIED. Gabbard is presidential material. She would not fold like Warren, she took the invonvenient road several times - and is not overly afraid of the party machine (or she whould never have dared to endorse Sanders). Nor would Warren have travelled to Syria in January 2017 - the policies regarding Syria, ISIS, Al Qaeda etc. were Obama, Kerry policies. that was an indirect criticism on them and the war machine. Speaking of which: Warren is not too concerned about that either ....
    1
  27.  @Syzygy629  Sanders has little friends in bougth and paid for Congress / Senate - that is an endorsement.
    1
  28.  @jo23bulls  Burlington was a safe haven under mayor Sanders for queer people - Warren was a Republican at that time. Likely not hostile towards them - but not doing anything for them either. Other than guns I cannot see how she is more progressive. As for "intersectionalism" and all the other politcal establishment lingo. Voters do not care: they want decent treatment of themselves and others. - Warren takes money from Blue Shield etc. - true she co-sponsored the Medicare For All Bill Sanders has the much, much stronger record on healthcare though (and much longer) that includes his efforts after Nov. 2016 to tour the country to promote Medicare for All (and before that in the shirt term fight against the repeal of ACA without a solution to replace it). he was pushing for reform with First Lady Hillary Clinton. Even his politial enemies agree that he means business. MfA is only the first step and the industry would fight it like hell. That would need some spine. which Warren repeatedly failed to show when it was needed.
    1
  29. The ULTIMATE SIN - daring to vote third party - it breaks the power of the oligarchy and duopoly. It is the choice between politicians (R + D) who will put the Big Donors ALWAYS first and representatives who work for the people. - Ralph Nader is STILL being blamed for the "win" of GWB in 2000 - or the Iraq war (so the Dems were forced to ignore the rumours all over D.C. and vote WITH the war mongers ???) Both claims are is factually wrong* . I get why the establishment tries to villify third party voters. It is an interesting question why that triggers someone like Sam Seder. I get the point, that is is increasingly dangerous. But the "better" party actually is still way too bad. The Democrats are so cynical (and they will not suffer when the wrong man / party wins) the donors take care of them. To beat the cynicism Progressives must accept losing battles - so that the chance to win the war remains intact. Jimmy does have a point - Obama did very bad things to the country (he could have been the next FDR, he is part of the reason why Trump is in power). Obama hid his betrayal (which literally destroyed lifes and families, and cost U.S. lifes, never mind the lifes or foreigners of regime changed countries) behind polished manners, with intelligence. Trump is at least an uncough stupid buffoon and wakes people up. * never mind the 100,000 Democratic voters in Florida who had switched to GWB. but that CAN be FORGIVEN they do not challenge the DUOPOLY. Or POTUS Clinton/VP Gore doing nothing when Jeb Bush purged black men from the voter rolls - it was headline news in EUROPE. Maybe the recount was set up in a stupid way (so the courts could dismiss it). maybe that was done intenionally (where is some tinfoil if you need it). Anyway: Gore was told by the party leadership to not rock the boat - the donors do not like that, it alerts the unwashed massed to the fact that they might not have a democracy after all. The Third party vote means breaking free from the blackmail of the Democratic party. Despite the talk about resistance they sold out on many occasions - like appointments - a few Republican dissenters made some Dems votes necessary - and they got them. Sanctions against Iran (to please Aipac), the resisted Trump by giving him more military budget than he asked for. (Do they secret backroom deals on that ? - organized by the donors). I wonder if they would have resisted if Sanders had not been so strong on the healthcare front. Maybe some fights for show before rolling over. but Medicare for all ? the Democratic townhalls in spring 2017 were very revealing. They gave rightwing B.S. answers why that is not possible - well not with them. They have no integrity, no courage, no convictions - and do not really care if people are dying. if it was easy and cost-free they might do it - but not when it is uncomfortable.
    1
  30. Oh, yes it does generate MORE jobs - in 1940 - WW2 already going on and the U.S. of course ramping up military production - they switched to the 40 hour work week for everyone (some branches and large companies already had it). - The labour "market" is under pressure since our dear politicians made the domestic workforce compete with the workforce of foreign countries = globalization enabled with "free" "trade" deals - which were and are unnecessary except that the shareholders love them. If it is legally possible to make people work more, the business owners will jump at the opportunity to dismantle the 40 or 35 hour week (and those who do not want will still have to join in the race to the bottom). If people work 35 hour jobs more folks will have a job. There is no law of nature that 40 hours are the "right" amount of hours to work. It was a good fit in 1940 for the U.S. (for the state of automation then) and in the 1950s Europe, Canada, etc. followed. Since then automation and productivity have increased dramatically. Until the 1970s those increases were transfered - mostly - into wage increases (in the U.S. purachasing power of the average wages nearly doubled). From 1970 - 2013 U.S. productivity increased further + 69 %, but wages (adjusted for inflation = purchasing power) in that time only + 8 %. One of the effects is that more and more output is produced ever more effectively - but the disposable income of the consumer( = wage earners) cannot keep up, not even close. In the U.S. they closed the gap for some time with consumer debt on the credit card. But the idea of the 40 hour week has not been challenged much (Yes 38,5 in many branches in Germany and Austria, and even less in France). But they cannot go against the trend everywhere else. And many people (it they have a job) are pressured into unpaid overtime. And in the U.S. it is even worse: often both parents in a household working 2 jobs (60 hours or more in total for each person) to make ends meet. And well paid jobs come usually automatically with overtime. So the 40 hour work week has been practically abolished.
    1
  31. btw: UBI WOULD result in people working less hours per job (so the jobs are more spread out).
    1
  32. a massively subsidized private hospital that is part of the single payer system (most have a lot of private actors as well).
    1
  33.  @JenniferDaniels909  The Real News had a piece about ? Baltimore. Not too many jobs outside of civil servants and POLICE. the police unions SUPPORT the politicians in getting elected. there was abuse, a reform of policing discussed. in a hearing the chairman of the council asked the representative of the police if they were O.K. with a certain reform (that was watered down to begin with).
    1
  34.  @GeorgePiazza  Joe Biden, represents Delaware the state for the tax dodgers and big biz and big finance. - he was ALSO instrumental to write the bill that makes it almost impossible to discard student loans in bankrupcy. * 1,5 trillion USD in student loan debt U.S. GDP is in the range of 20 trillion (GDP it is inflated with some trickery, it is not comparable to GDP numbers when the U.S. had a lot of industrial production ! speaking of course of GDP per person and adjusted for inflation) 20 trillion is also the range for federal debt. On second thought: of course he is ALSO for war, the "investors" have shares in the highly profitable war and military equipment business.
    1
  35. to be fair, Clinton would have brought them TPP so that could have gotten them into trouble as well.
    1
  36. .....good thing it is a rare predicament....
    1
  37. 20:00 Let me help you. Western media and politicians were always kissing the a$$ of KSA. The appearance of MbS being a reformer helped them solve the unpleasant conflict between the heralded ideals (that are often the pretext for wars) and the reality that was hard to suppress - even for these experienced courtiers. MbS did not have to put up a convincing show. And he got some PR councelling, no doubt about it. (Maybe Tony Blair - or people like him, were pleased to help for a hefty fee). As the guest mentioned - every ruler was introduced as reformer - and got an eulogy of having been a cautious reformer. That is just virtue signalling to the population/voters in their own country. If there is alllegedly prospect that there will be reforms, than one can stomach to continue to do highly profitable business with them. Meanswhile Venezuela and Cuba are bashed for human rights violations. (In Venezuela the opposition is very violent, so at least there the situation has to be seen nuanced). China is hardly talked about. Russia gets some flak, and everyone is huffing and puffing about Syria (and was about Libya under Gaddhafi - although they are/were not nearly as bad as KSA.
    1
  38. Repubs are the party of no government (except for outlawing abortions, wars, military spending, and tax cuts for the rich), of course they will hate on a service where ALL government agencies on the globe do a MUCH better job than the for profits. It directly contradicts and disproves a core ideology - in an area where people NOTICE. Healthcare (or admin around it like insurance coverage) is a terrible fit for the "free market" but public non-profit insurance agencies and hospitals do a surprisingly good job. Medicine is standards, and clockworks - no creativity, marketing or sales skills needed. Medical care IS expensive even under the best circumstances (starting with approx. USD 5,000 per person per year. that would be 20,000 for a family of four year after year even if they hardly ever need a doctor. it is the average) Voters / people pay attention what experiences they are making when they really need help: they feel vulnerable if they or a loved one have a health crisis. And an ageing population causes higher spending Medicine offers more option, but it also got more expensive over the decades. In the absence of "free market" mechanisms THESE conditions ensure quality and cost-efficiency. There is pressure in the right direction. Natural cost pressure and political pressure by ALL the voters.
    1
  39. Roey making a pitch for a political career...
    1
  40. Seems Krystall also has stepped on the toes of a lot of normie Democrats ;) they are all over the comment section. Does Seder do some clickbait ? - o.k. he has 981,000 subscribers, but that says nothing about the views and ad revenue. And Rising has grown FAST online they have 1 million now (I think in that range)
    1
  41. I hope Dore GETS a lot of Rubin viewers out of that (permanently) They hear at least about MMT, Greg Palast, M4A and minimum wage
    1
  42. 11:30 Rich people USE the resources of national economies and they also use one very valuable asset of any economy: CONSUMERS that can spend money. And then when they used these resources to make fortunes they retreat to Switzerland The Ikea founder did that. Btw the U.S. stuck it to switzerland and is now one of the major tax havens int he world. But not all of the U.S. Only DELAWARE (againt the typical characteristics. Not many residents, not much industry anyway - see Unites States as tax haven article on Widipedia). Switzerland can easily grant the tax dodging traitors the low taxes - Switzerland (or Delaware) had to contribute NOTHING to make that wealth happen in the first place. You can forget the sales in Switzerland (they do not really make a dent). And manufacturing does not happen there - Ikea is cheap stuff, the labour costs would be too high. Whatever the Swiss get from the Ikea founder - they would not have gotten anything if they had normal tax rates, so even the tax revenue they get from the small rates is an unearned gift for them. They usually have to give the same tax rates to their own companies (although Ireland made special deals with google - they pay LESS than regular companies). Switzerland also exports machines and high technology. Someone has to pay for infrastructure and they have high end tourism - these tax havens are stable and safe places with good infrastructure. If all the companies in a larger country pay next to nothing - someone HAS to pay for it. That would be the citizens - well in a democracy they will not accept it. In smaller nations the ratio between (stagnant) money coming in and what the government needs to spend to keep things going is better. In larger countries there will be many companies (all of them paying very little tax) - but there will be substantial expenditures needed. And the rich people do not go to a banana Republic, they want Switzerland, Ireland, Bahamas, the Channel Islands in Britain ... even nice stable, bautiful, reliable places, with a neducated workforce, good medical care, functioning waste management, etc. They do not process all the furniture, provide all the raw materials, or provide all the consumers that are necessary to buy the stuff. Switzerland - and every other tax haven - is leeching off the infrastructure and contributions to the real economy (production to consumption) of other countries. Not one of them could sustain the business model they profit from out of their own.
    1
  43. Please let the ads play FULL (youtube will recognize that you seem to be "interested" * and will deliver more of them. Those campaigns are usually defined with a daily or weekly budget. Other viewers (maybe some innocent souls or gullible fools) will not be deceived if you take one for the team. Plus: channels like that of Sam are getting revenue from people that stronlgy oppose their views. * you can turn down the sound and read the comments ;) And Sam usually has only one ad or two (the owner of the channel can define that as well)
    1
  44. I do not know if Sam gets revenue if you skip the ad or if it counts if your are in it for some seconds. Youtube might change such policies anyway. I let them play full to make sure they pay and the owner of the channel gets some revenue.
    1
  45. Not endorsing Sanders shows a PATTERN. She does not want to offend the party establishment / Big donors. If it was ONLY that one time she was not bold - but she showed that behavior many times instead of taking a stance when the situation called for it. Sanders coordinated with her in 2015 - had she run, he would NOT have run. But Liz respected / feared the annointed one. I doubt she co-ordinated NOW in the same manner with Sanders like he did wit her. Sanders did not expect to win - they planned the campaign with 30 million USD, he wanted to change the discussion, use the platform to talk about healthcare, Wallstreet reform, stagnant wages. He does not need to think about his longterm career and can hold on to his seat in Vermont easily enough - so the only reason for him to run in 2015 was to SERVE. The dems btw WERE concerned about him running in the primaries - they thought he could cost them a few percent in swing states and the Rust Belt ... little did they know. (There was a third candidate). That was the reason they grudingly accept him to run as Democrat in the primaries - that was better than him running as Independent. He has been touring the country (townhalls) also AFTER the elections. We have heard little from E.W. (she was invited to a meeting behind closed doors in 2018 with Big Donors - she and the other 2020 suspects like Harris or Booker. Sanders NOT. Of course not. she was a Republican until 1995 - while Sandes held social Democrat values and lived them (including that he saw to it that Burlinton was a safe haven for LGBT / queer people before accepting them became mainstream) Warren would be better - in her intentions - than many neoliberals. Without boldness it does not matter, she will be a "nice" president that will not get anything done. Sanders talked about a policital peaceful Revolution. And about having a March on Washington if Congress continues to ignore the will of the people. she does not say that - and she would not do it. Which might be the only way to break throught the control of the oligarchs. Congress - not the president- has the most political power. And they are completely bought off. A president rolling over and playing nice with the establishment is not going to get the bold green investments going that are needed to use the 12 year window that scientists are giving us now.
    1
  46. There is no "what-about-ism" with Jimmy Dore. It goes without saying that Trump and his gang are morons, cruel, a shame, ... etc. It is like denouncing the mob. That said: what is really, really bad and what CAUSED this Trump (and the next if there is no change) is the CYNICAL BREATHTAKING SELLOUT of the CORPORATE DEMOCRATS. GWB was a moron, the shill of Cheney, etc. etc. What else is new. The FACT that Obama pretty much continued his agenda is somehow worse - Obama is more intelligent. I am not sure how much they fooled GWB and how much he was caught up in ideology. Well, Obmas wasn't caught up in bias. He does not have convictions he has preferences. The crisis opened a career window for him. The country was ready for change. He KNEW what to say and what the masses wanted to hear and gave it to them. And no intention whatsoever to SERVE or to make good on his promises (or at least give it a GOOD EFFORT).
    1
  47.  @JeffPenaify  the question is if the Trump voter was in a safe blue or red state.
    1
  48. Is Sam shilling for the DNC ? Sanders would have lost the South (among the first primary states) - but it would have helped if he had gotten MORE votes there and NAME RECOGNITION for a campaign with a planned budget of 30 million USD is everything. And some primaries were decided by only a few %.
    1
  49. GRASSROOTS make R and D (and their SHARED big donors) very uncomfortable. Repubs suppress the vote in the general, and the D elites may need to do the same in the PRIMARIES. they certainly do not want a high turnout of young and poor people. And if that is to be expected they use the same tactics as Republicans. That explains the deafening silence on most forms of voters suppression (except for some rhetoric to voter ID laws). I was astonished that Stacy Abrams got a platform on national TV in 2018, and it is very uncharacteristic for a Democrat to not fold with a whimper. She acknowledged that Kemp would be the govenor but she did not concede. The D establishment is NOT WEAK when they sabotaged ACORN first chance they got. Whether it is conscious or subconscious they KNOW that the grassroots organizers are longterm a threat to their cozy grifting. WINNING THE PRIMARIES is THEIR main purpose of existing / being financed. The Dems have the job to keep progressives down in the primaries and are rewarded for that. They would like to win the general, too but that is not as important as keeping the donors happy, getting their money (for the party hierarchy and individual campaigns) and keeping the chance to a cushy job later. if a rank and file politician does not fall in line it is the job of the party "leadership" to make them fall in line and THEY have all gotten rich in office resp. they will get the cushy jobs. All the more reason for the lower charges to never annoy the party establishment or the donors. They control access to campaign funding and access to friendly coverage by the colluding media and the chance to also get a golden parachute later. Joe Crowley in an act of dereliction of duty was so negligent that AOC won the primaries (thank god the polling was off, because they work with past data and she changed WHO turned out. if he had known that he was in danger the whole NY party apparatus would have been unleashed against her. Embarrassing to admit, but no doubt they cold have stopped her. I think around 30,000 people voted in the 2018 primary. The party machine with help of unions could have organized against her in a last minute action. But she did win the primary, and in that solidly blue district that meant that not even the Republicans could help out their D peers to beat her. But Joe Crowley had been ushered into that safe seats like 16 years ago - and then he got a job right away. Or Claire McCaskill that was hired by TV (they get a lot of ad budgets, so they will also gladly help out to provide for obedient sellouts).
    1
  50. thanks for acting. The Dems should do away with the filibuster, not impose on themselves the need to have endless debates, not even for a few days, that means WEEKS in delay. Ain't no one time for that shit. The voters can judge them in 2 years, all congressional seast AND one third of Senate seats are up for reelection. Of course the Democrats if they deliver could explain to the voters that it pays off for them to turn out - if they do that, Dems will have or expand the majorities to get shit done. The Rebpus can see if they have the votes to reinstate it. The smarter ones of them will think of the 1933 - 1980s - The New Deal had a Looooong run. Between 1933 and 1968 it was only Democrats and Eisehower that also was for (mild) economic populism. Taxes remained high, government spending that helped with jobs, and he defended SS from his own party (it is unpatriotic to be against SS). Dems chould do a FDR 2.0 run on that in the midtems 2022, they can reinstate the filibuster later. That is exactely ! what Republicans would be doing.
    1