Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder"
channel.
-
@jjw6961 Ashli Babbit ploughed ahead, then police shot the idiot. THEN the group she was with thought better of it. To be sure the officer could not know if they had firearms, and if so - if they would use them. _These_intruders were riled up Trump cultists, they (most of them) were like the dog that catches the car and now he does not know what really to do with it.
which was lucky, or that could have had a bloodbath. Either police shooting more of them, or some of them using explosives. They were carried away but they had no intentions to die for the cause. Or even get harmed.
Ashli Babbit SAW the police officer gun drawn right at the other side of the door her group and he were only separated by the large locked door and fixed side panels. (wood and lots of glass). that closed off part of the ward was visible from a distance., although they were already very close to one of the last constructive obstacles to entering the Senate chanber.
That was the reason the officer stood at the left side close to the the wall as to not become a target, people had to come close if they wanted to shoot at him with a firearm.
Before the rioters / intruders had enccountered police in soft uniform (some of them waiving them through even, others helplessly letting them roam * inside the building. Or outside in riot gear (so not soft uniform, but helmets, shields, ...) but ALSO no guns drawn.
When she and the other members of that group saw him with the weapon in hand she should have thought - this was different. She was a vet after all, if police was overrun they would concentrate forces at crucial points, would they ? And then they would use deadly force.
*
In the case of Eurgene Goodman at the staircase detering them with smarts and only a baton in hand from the ward with a then probably still unblocked door (furntiture) to the Senate. Not to take away from Goodman's performance - but that would not have worked with more determined, ruthless "revolutionaries".
*
I do not know if theses idiots even realized how close they were to the Senate chamber - then still with legislators in it. ** (Mike Pence was not in it anymore, but still somewhere nearby with his family. He had Secret Service with him, they would have shot to kill as well).
It had been all fun and games, as soon as police was willing to use force, even deadly force and not only defended themselves when being viciously attacked by a few rioters - the courage of the overwhelming majority of the intruders collapsed.
In other words had they met half the resistance BLM protersters storming the ground let alone the building would have faced - that would have ended at the doors of the building.
** One state legislator of ? PA was an organizer, he announced to the crowd on the ground that "a few Senators have left the Chamber". That means someone that was inside must have texted. Not sure if some rioters could see them escorted away by police. It was so soon that I think only Mike Pence, his family and the highest ranking members had been secured, the rest followed a little later.
It suggest that one of the Republican lawmakers INFORMED the rioters of what was going on. I hope THAT becomes an issue in an investigation too.
4
-
Obama (his betrayal) set up the country for someone like Trump. The NEXT wannabe fascist or staunch right winger that will get his or her path cleared by the Biden admin may not be so incompetent as Trump. That is the only good thing about Trump. He is so incompetent.
Either candidate could have won this in a landslide. Trump is too stupid, the grifters around him are too ideological and too shortshighted, and Biden put the theory to the test that big donor service is more important than everything, even winning the general.
More important than making damn sure to win thisand getting rid of Trump by giving the voters something to vote for. The Dems act under the premise: Our voters have nowhere to go, what are they gonna do, vote for the _Republican ?
That cavalier attitude failed in 2016 (for the country, the Democratic elites are fine, despite all their handwringing about Trump). In 2020 Biden eeked out a win. Just about.
The 6 million more votes for Biden come from the large blue states AND there was no third party competition this time. The democrats even got the Greens off the ballots in some states, in order to limit choice for voters. Biden needed to win 2 out of the 4 nail biter states. And with another candidate than Trump AZ and GA would not be in play. One out of the 4 would not have been enough - not even PA with 20 electors. Any combination of 2 or more of the 4 meant that Biden won the EC (with WI and AZ it would be just 270). Well he did pull off a narrow win in those 4 states.
But lost handily in Ohio and Florida.
It should have been a landslide and it is way too close for comfort - considering that Trump had been in action for 4 years.
Biden won those 4 states (all of them) with a total of 125,000 more votes (and Jo Jorgenson the Libertarian has roughly double the votes in the 4 states).
If Trump won a state - he won them with solid margins. Also Florida, Ohio, TN, and TX.
Michigan and Nevada were O.K. wins for Democrats, they were no nailbiters (Trump won Michigan in 2016 with 0.23 %)
4
-
2 scenarios presented by the fairy godmother to the Corporate Dems
1) They can win the midterms in a landslide with a veto proof majority (so they can do damage control on Trump), even force a DACA bill, gun control etc through. AND they win the presidency in a landslide. And continue to have a supermajority in the Houses
They can save the country (partially even the world - think of Global Warming) undo the damage of the Trump presidency with a Sanders style platform: healthcare, immigration reform, prison reform, gun control, huge green New Deal and infrastructure bill
Getting reelected is easy, campaigning is mostly pleasant - it is a love party, really.
Their jobs, the salaries and benefits are secure
Oh - and they MUST switch to publicly funded campaigns, no Big donations, no SuperPacs, restriction for ex-politicians after they leave office.
Elections are also won with grassroots efforts and/or a politician has made him/her-self a good name over time with the voters.
And they must be content with the pay they are getting. And it is necessary to be informed on what they vote on.
The must serve the citizens - the majority
**********************************
OR 2) The keep the MONEY in POLITICS. They keep getting the Big Donations for party leadership and individual campaigns: Massive election spending is one of the things that also fuels the cushy jobs and lucrative contracts for ex politicians.
There are higher risks involved, one can lose a seat - it is important to have served the party leadership + the Big Donors well to be taken care of.
The advantage is: one does not need to read the bills or know something about an issue. the lobbyists who write bills tell the representatives how to vote and they provide the talking points and thought stopping clichés.
Some need jobs provided by party and/or Big Donors when they lose elections , some plan their career like that, a few years in Congress, they build the connections, then they become lobbyists. That can be much more lucrative than the 150 or 170k they get as representative.
They spend time with well educated, wealthy people, they serve only a tiny part of the population (the Big donors) and interact with a small not-representative part of the population (the people who work for the donors) . - They have nice parties, good food, splendid mansions and real estate though. Chic people.
(Mark Blyth: the most often mentioned location in the leaked Podesta emails was either the Hamptons or Martha's Vineyard. And then some locations on the Coast, San Francisco or New York).
**********************************
The Corporate Dems can chose only ONE scenario
What would the Dems choose ?
Well, scenario 2 - MONEY - OF COURSE.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@williamcortelyou4524 read the currentaffairs article All about Pete - they talk about his book, and what he says (and what not). He is posing as folksy boy all stunned by Havard and the big world. - describing how the sophisticated setting impressed him. He (or more likely his ghostwriter) forgot to mention the many homeless that are at the place that he described so in detail (incl. the newstands with INTERNATIONAL newspapers ! and clocks at the wall - imagine that).
He is intelligent - but either completely unaware - or a sell out careerist. Likely both.
I also wonder if the Afghanistan deployment was a calculated move to help with his planned political career ?
I mean - he got a safe job processing data (and given his education he could be sure to get such a post).
The pay may have been lower than as mayor but it would look good at the CV.
Not to sound too cynical, but he does not come from a military family (or one with agency background like Edward Snowden). His parents are professors - people coming from such a background rarely enlist with the army (and this was long after the patriotic frenzy directly after 9/11).
He also completely uncritically got a post with McKinsey (the vultures) after Havard, and I am sure that paid well enough.
When recently asked about some of their questionable projects (like helping to market opiodes to U.S. citizens, or counseling dictatorships) he claimed to not have followed the details.
Huh ?
But McKinsey taught him to crunch the numbers (so he applied that to the sewage system9. Yes that is what accounted for the contributions of Roosevelt (Theodore) FDR, JFK, LBJ, or even Lincoln - they were technocrats and good in number crunching (it would explain his dislike to be associated with any vision or policy).
The guy is supposed to be intelligent - that should also help with being AWARE.
(However, selfishness and group think easily undermine the advantages of intelligence and education. Intelligence and other mental capacities (like a good education) can also be used to NOT BE AWARE of certain inconvenient things (that would undermine your own privilegeds and advantages if you allowed yourself to take notice).
Like the fact that one of the richest universities in the world - Harvard - is besieged by homeless people. A countryboy that is on principle very impressed with Harvard, and is is bright would wonder how THAT is even a thing ? And would remember the astonishment about the contradiction even after years and would not forget to mention it in his book (and how that shaped his political views or his actins as mayor).
Senator Sanders: When I came to university a whole new world opened to me. .... I met people that were involved with the Civil Rights movement. We found out that the university of Chicago discriminated against black renters .... - which propelled that simple boy into action. he felt CALLED into doing something about it.
Mayor Pete mentions in passing in the book that during his time at Harvard some students helped the staff of Havard (kitchen staff , janitors) fighting for higher wages - so they could afford to live not too far away, and did not need extremely long commutes. Needless to say he did no get involved in that struggle - but we are glad it did not completely evade his attention.
As mayor, Sanders let himself be influenced by his wife (Jane was divorced and raising 3 children on her own before she married Sanders). So youthcenters, childcare, etc.
4
-
4
-
4
-
The LEADERSHIP of unions has become corrupted (or that of NGOs that hope to be financed by the Democratic party when governing - even Planned Parenthood). The oligarchs would prefer to not have unions at all. But some still exist. The second best way to deal with it is to bribe their leadership and also to make them so afraid of the Republicans that they will support the less evil Demorats. (that is a point of Thomas Frank, might be partially true, apart from self serving leadership).
It works like that with the elected board of workers in the large German industry as well. They must have a seat at the board of directors in the large companies, it is a law.
Well they get high salaries, they get to park side by side with the CEOs, they are also invited to the trips with wild parties and loose women. (there has been a scandal and a court case around corruption and that came out - Daimler's CEOs and the workers boad "reprsentatives" if memory serves).
The men (almost always they are male) that are elected into the workers representation of the LARGE companies are also always big shots in the unions and also destined to to hold leadership position in the SPD.
The SPD is the center-left Social Democratic party of Germany, one of the two traditional, (former) dominant parties of the German political landscape.
The SPD is now in a free fall: GE 2017 20,5 % (down from 25,7 % in 2013 - that is the party that used to be good for a majority or almost majority). The CDU (conservatives ) that could get 50 % of the populare vote are down to 26,8 % - from 34,1 in 2013.
The former titans have to form a coaltion to even be able to govern and to keep the outsiders (incl. the far right) at bay.
Turnout for that election was 76,2 % which is not too high for a European country (in a controversial race it should be well over 80 %). In Germany they have proportional vote with a 5 % threshold. And such a tiny party CAN be the hinge that swings big doors in a coalition government.
NOW the SPD (and the large unions) play nice with the neoliberal consensus, they also make sure no small or outsider unions (which could be out of control) can be formed. The SPD is again in a coalition with the Conservative party (until recently dominated by Angela Merkel). The larger party in the coalition gets to nominate the chancellor, so Merkel.
But the seat warmers of the SPD get some posts as well. - damned be the base that is getting restless - some former SPD voters switch to the Greens, a few to the Left party. Many switch now to the new pretty right wing xenophobic AFD which does the usual populist economic rhetorc (these parties always do - as soon as they are in power they side with the oligarchs. the working class base is placated with kicking the scapegoat - usually the foreigner, the immigrant, in Europe in the 1930s it used to be also the Jews. Not only in Germany btw).
Voter participation is not overwhelming (only in the 70 % range - that would be high in the U.S. but not in Europe), but a few have given up and do not vote - if 2 - 5 % of your base cannot be bothered to vote at all - that is all it takes for a big shift.
After the end of WW2 Germany got a provisory government (the country wass still occupied by the Allied forces for many years). Some of the members and political actors came straight out of prison or a concentration camp (there were camps that were not as bad as Auschwitz, where they put the higher profile prisoners, like political prisoners. They had much better chances to survive and stay healthy enough to be functioning right after being freed).
Other former left supporters (if they were not leadership or stood out) had to keep a low profile, and most of the able-bodied men were drafted as soldiers anyway. That is if they did not have any skills that were essential for the (war) industry. So being an engineer, doctor, scientist could keep a man away from the front. The Nazis in most cases were willing to overlook a biography of left activities in the past provided that person kept their head down. (did not work for people of full Jewish descent though).
Either way - being a Social Democrat or a member of unions in the 1920s and 1930s was a matter of conviction and spine. It was not the way to a cushy position nor was it a carefully crafted career path. And being a "leftie" it was not for the faint of heart - even before the Nazis took over, the fasicsts made a point of beating up "lefties" when they assembled and the police and justice system was comprised of enough right wingers that they could do so with impunity. (Many members of police and even the justice system leaned very much to the right, they became ardent, if still covert Nazis - the Nazis were smart they knew how important it is to undermine and infiltrate the institutions). So the "left" grassroots, unions, parties did not get sufficient help from the justice system and law enforcement, those in position of authority often looked the other way.
Back to Germany post WW2: More often than not the conservative party was part of the government. As dominant or only party - long time in coalition with a tiny libertarian party. They lost enough support (like the SPD the other large popular party) so that in 2005 they had to enter a coalition with the SPD. The SPD that is only a shadow of it's former self (in size and when it comes to truly representing the regular citizens.)
the LEFT could be the working class party now - the establishment parties incl. the sneering mainstream media despise them. Especially the SPD and the bourgoise Green Party which are reminded of what THEY should be like. And then the LEFT also harbours some youthful phantasts, which are more concerned with identity politics than a genuine blue collar message that would be appealing to the masses.
Neoliberalism took over in the later 1990s - in Germany that was triggered by the costs of the completey botched unification (economic illiterate or treacherous handling by the conservatives under Kohl). That the Soviet Union stepped down from the Cold War and let the Warsaw Pact states secede meant now the defenders of capitalism did not have anymore the burden of proof that their system was better for the majoritiy of citizens.
In the former Warsaw pact nations there was a pool of well educated people that could be economically exploited and the domestic workforce got some competition. Outsourcing to Romania or Bulgaria was almost as cheap as outsourcing to China. True: labour costs were higher, but there were other major logistics and legal advantages.
These countries were quickly integrated into the EU to help with the effort to cement a certain level of unemployment in the wealthy countries that would undermine the negotiation position of labor.
Outsourcing to Eastern Europe meant not too long distances (just in time logistics !) . Also very import! - legal security. They could prevent patent and copyright violations. That CAN be enforced within the EU (but not with China for instance). The multinationals can set up their own companies in the former Warsaw Pact states, there is no mandate to have Chinese partners (or Saudi partners). Also the languages are much easier to learn than the Chinese main language (there are many, but mandarin is the lingua france in China). They use the same alphabet, cultures are not that different.
Before neoliberalism hit Germany the country had a Social Democratic Party that deserved that name, the Conservatives had to implement policies that worked for the majority - or they would be voted out of government. The conservatives always had serious competition by the major opposition party and had to be moderate.
In the mid 1990s the war generation was replaced by a class of sleek, well educated careerists, many of them did not have the working class / genuine union (struggle !) background like the former guarde. That class of allegedly left or liberal aspiring politicians identified with Big Finance, and with the needs of affluent and well educated professionals, got cozy with Big Biz and could not be bothered to challenge the neoliberal paradigm.
In the U.S. Bill Clinton (HE could get elected with the help of the unions and then break his promises regarding NAFTA. Bush1 could not get it passed, Clinton could sideline the unions). In the UK Tony Blair played that part.
In Germany Gerhard Schroeder could partially dismantle the welfare state and social contract in Germany (Kohl would have liked to do that but then the SPD was the opposition, so he couldn't). Same with the French "champaigne socialists" - be it Hollande, and now Marcon.
Macron is part of the bankster class, and it shows that he is a neoliberal and a warmonger on top of that.
4
-
4
-
4
-
+ Sune They could have had that "insight" for cheap. The Gates are like benevolent absolute monarchs. Their money gives them too much power (they also have a chilling impact on other charities in Africa - no one dares to "oppoose" them). It is a feudal mindset even if they mean well. It is hard to keep your vanity in check when you are so rich, live in the bubble and everyone is always so respectful even deferential.
It would spoil the best of people.
Schools - and the people in Africa - CAN find their own solutions. Some help, some input yes. - But it is very hard to say NO to such volumes of money. The impact of the funding gets a life of its own, there are unintended consequences, it can strangle local forces instead of strengthening them.
And too much money can attract the wrong kind of people.
They are too detached - from common sense and from some straight talk/criticism . - Vanity could inspire the wish to re-invent the wheel instead of relying on the humble experiments (alternative schools for instance) that many before them tried out.
Not every experiment was good - but w/o the huge amount of money there is a chance for a grassroots element. and the ability to self-correct.
No human - including smart nerd Bill Gates - can beat the swarm intelligence of a diverse, cooperative group of pretty average but dedicated people who KNOW, who have lived the experience. (And he likely interacts a lot with "experts" who have not lived the experience. With luck they listen to the foot soldiers. But the more centralized ! money enters the system the less likely the people that are willing to LISTEN will be involved in the process.
(It is a little bit like the clueless but extremely well funded Clinton campaign. The authors of the book "Shattered" were allowed access to the campaign , and gave interviews to promote the book. Very enlightening in regard to how organizations can take on a life and a logic of their own.
A lot of intelligent well educated people who should have known better engaged in a highly expensive circle jerk. Bill Clinton was one of the few who sensed that not all was right, that the Rustbelt needed more attention. Political instinct beats "consultancy").
There are systems that work. Emulate them. (Bill Gates would automatically do that in HIS field of expertise)
I think Gates is also a logic guy - but education is about emotion, relating (FIRST to the teacher and then to subject - that is especially true for younger children) and feeling safe.
Itis not like coding. It is not linear. Not everything can be MEASURED. If you trust the intrinsic constructive motivation of children and teachers - then you can let go of the desire to micromanage, to grade.
Feeling safe and well is essential - For children AND the teachers !
And neither can divorce themselves from the reality of their lifes when they enter the school building.
He could have gone into a few underperforming schools and stay there for a week. LISTEN to those who keep the system afloat. Visit the countries with excellent results. Distill the essence. Learn from their victories and failures.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Daddy John McCain was a danger for the U.S. troops, he had a reputation as reckless / rogue pilot and caused the death of many U.S. soldier - I think he unloaded by mistake his bombs on an U.S. ship - he had to parachute out, the plane crashed on deck with all the ammunition/bombs, something like that - more than 70 U.S. soldiers died. Grand-Daddy (who was an admiral) cleared it up for the son and prevented a tribunal.
It is described as more than a mere unlucky error, real negligence and caused by someone who was either not qualified as pilot or was reckless and thought himself above the rules.
W/o his daddy (Grand-daddy) being an admiral he likely would not have made it as pilot to begin with, fellow pilots did not like to fly with him, he was considered a security risk.
There are audio recordings that were "misfiled" by the CIA and only "found" recently (2017 or 2018) that prove that he cooperated as POW with the Vietcong, which likely gave him better treatment in return. (Among other things that recording made him open to blackmail by the CIA, it could have ruined his political career). I would not condem him for playing nice with the Vietcong once he was a POW - who can say they could have withstood bad treatment even torture, and he was injured and needed medical help.
What is proven: (only) pleasant words about the people running the POW camp that were played over the loudspeaker to fellow POWs. Although those who refused to bow and got mistreated were bitter about it - and kept the story alive. In the age of the internet something like that resurfaces.
But the legend of the war hero was created with help of his father and fawning media. I think he got a medal when he returned - Grand-daddy saw to that as well. And at least he refused an earlier release - ahead of fellow POWs. so maybe another man that was not lucky to get better treatment could return earlier.
McCain came back to the wife that had waited for him. She was sick if memory serves, and he got soon after his return involved with a much younger heiress (from a beer dynasty), divorced his first wife and married into really big money.
4
-
4
-
If I remember correctly 40,000 white males had the vote in the new republic. I also read that the reason for breaking away from the empire was the unwillingness of the British to support more expansion into native land and that the "founding fathers" wanted some real estate deals.*
The revolutinary leaders (the oligarchs in the colonies) no doubt had a deal with the French absolute monarchy - without their military and financial help they would not have dared to challenge the superpower that Britain was back in the day.
* That may or may not be true - but the intentions for sure were not as noble as the legends would have you believe.
Many well educated people and even European monarchs (covertly) read Rousseau and were impressed with the ideas of the enlightenment which spread like wildfire then - does not mean they applied that. Even the tsareska of Russia Katharina received proponents of the enlightenment (foreigners ! - in Russia that was certainly suppressed) and read the books - and Russia was more backwards than the rest of Europe.
Giving religious freedom and having it written down was necessary in the new Republic - they needed to attract ongoing immigration from Europe to take the land from the natives and hold it together, that would mean many protestant sects and Catholics - many of them quite fundamentalistic and often fiercly proselyting. So taking the issue off the table alltogether was the only safe way to deal with it for the young nation.
the people then were indoctrinated to accept their place in life and the god given rule of the monarch. There was not nearly as much upward mobility in the colonies as the myth would have you believe. Rich people from Europe came over and seized the chances to increase their fortunes, they despised the poor peasants at home and that did not change on the "new" continent.
Of course the political process relevant for the colonies would favor their interests over that of the underclass in the colonies, even if it was a little more difficult to control the unwashed masses in the new setting. (It worked like that in U.K. the merchant class had gotten at some point very wealthy and therefore uppity and had forced the British monarchs to accept a parliament - but that was no democracy).
It did not really matter what the pioneers did or thought. They mostly did not get wealthy, scrambled by, were under danger form the first nations and sometimes almost starving if only one harvest season was bad - they were the destitutes from the Old continent trying to carve out their niche. They were the shield against the natives, held the frontier land and protected the cities and densely populated areas - where the money could be made.
The founding fathers knew breaking away from the empire would mean war - and they needed the unwashed masses for that. They had no intention of giving THEM any real influence in governance or the vote - but the underclass had to be convinced to be the cannon fodder for the new project.
A good story needed to be created why NOW they did not need to obey the king all of a sudden but should obey the richest top 10 % in the colony - oh and expect war and economic difficulties along with that. Here the ideas of the enlightenment come into play - which after all challenge the rule of monarchs and aristocrats.
You better have a good story to sell that. Well, they had ! And to be sure considering the circumstances the constitution is very well designed - it is better than the men and their intentions. They were also eager to control EACH OTHER which may account for the separation of powers and the provisions to allow for a formal process to change the constitution.
And they made provisions to not give the voters (the only 40,000 ! with some wealth) undue influence (Senators were appointed not elected then - replicating the Britsh House of Lords). The system was modelled after the British parliamentary system (which the rich merchant class in Britain had demanded from the Biritsh monarch and nobility. The British parliament and the system in the new republic was still the rule of the few over the many.
One of the desired effects was a to cement a two party system, eliminating a lot of political competition. The provisions (along with the influence of money on elections since 1976) is so effective that the Republic never ever had more than two parties that played any role. In two cases one party was REPLACED by another - but never more than two parties.
In theory states could elect Independents as representatives here and then. It almost never happens (most Independents leave their party while holding their seat). Vermont is the glaring exception of the rule, it is no coincidence: VT is a tiny state, independent rural population with an influx of hippies in the 1970s and no major industries or natural resources, so the Big Donors and their shills in the party leadership did not bother to intervene with lots and lots of money and dirty tricks.
....that is why an Independent was allowed to survive by the Democrats - Sanders had grown popular as mayor and it would have been a major effort to get rid of him in the mid and late 1980s. And then he did not shy away from 3 party races - where the Democrat was the spoiler - so the Republican then won the seat, after that the Democratic party did not run candidates against him.
He agreed to caucus with them in Congress. For all intents and purposes he was almost as good as an elected Democrat. He could reliably defeat Republicans and needed almost no funds of the Democratic party for that. - And how much of a danger could he be - coming from that unimportant state and w/o Big Money backing him up ?
No doubt they now regret their severe mistake.
The underclass in the 1770s would have to accept the economic difficulties and shortages and money inflation that is typical for war - never mind the risk of losing health or life. War with the British empire was riskier for them - the rich people that started that project ran the risk of losing their plantations and at least a part of their fortunes - but I am sure they had money in French controlled territory, and the intention to flee there if things did not turn out well in the Independence War.
The upper class in the colonies did not expect that the war expenditures and additional hardship for the poor in France along with bad harvests would be the straw that broke the camel's back and would lead to the French Revolution only a few years later.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"We do not even need to read the intelligence reports" - well if you DO read them (the one of January 2017 that was a bow to the outgoing admin. The alleged "hacking" was soon worded as "Russian intervention in the U.S. elections". It was about the alleged hacking of the DNC and also the RNC seems to have been targeted - although we have no proof WHO tried to hack them (no proof regarding DNC and even less information on the alleged RNC hack). And then there are allegations thrown around regarding Austria (even Sanders repeated that nonsense) and France - the motto seems to be: throw some dirt maybe something will stick.
The DNC never handed over the allegedly hacked server to the FBI for an independent investigation as Comey recently testified, only their dependend private IT firm (which they hired after the suspected hack) supports the claim that they were indeed hacked. And as far as I know they did not say so under oath. And the DNC refused to get help from Homeland Security as well.
Note: the Podesta emails published by Wikileaks are supposedly the result of that hack - THAT IS THE WHOLE "INVERVENTION in U.S. elections". This is why the wording was changed from "hack" to "intervention in elections" - and recently they switched to "meddle with out democracy".
It suggests ! to the naive audience - and obviously it worked on biased Majority Report as well - much more than is definitely claimed (even by those who cry Russia, Russia). They carefull avoid ever specifying WHAT THEY MEAN by it. By repeating for months "Russia interefered with our elections - which has recently become "Russia interfered with our democracy" they hope the unproven claim will stick and people will forget about the initial event, the initial suspicion and accusation, and will abstain to ask for concrete and detailled PROOF.
Only when they are unlucky enough to be explicitely asked they have to admit that they have little to no concrete proof. (Nancy Pelosi in January 2017 : Report about Russian hacking is stunning. Pelosi in April: No proof for hacking. (Also Dianne Feinstein in May after being briefed by the CIA: At this time we have no evidence for collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia - another topic they were screaming about for months on end).
The agencies could SAFELY PRESENT the PROOF (no methods and sources would be revealed - that is according to William Binney, former NSA technical director). They CHOSE not to submit the evidence - they did so for instance very quickly in the case of the Sony hack.
And we have the claim of Craig Murray, former UK ambassador, who says he got the data (Podesta emails !) on a thumbdrive from a disgruntled DNC insider in a park in D.C.
Binney and as McAfee agree: IF the Podesta emails were obtained by a hack the NSA ! MUST have some proof thanks to complete surveillance. (Binney is an expert on those kinds of programs). If the data was handed over on a thumdrive or other physical device - well then it did not travel over the web, so of course in that case there would be no evidence to show. The claim of the agencies that it would be unsafe to show the evidence is contradicted by Binney and also by McAfee.
From the alleged 17 agreeing agencies (incl. Coast Guard, Wildlife ...) actually only 3 issued the report and claimed medium (NSA !) and high confidence regarding the conclusion of the report. Interestingly the NSA - the specialists on hacking ! - were the agency with only medium confidence.
The report is a general listing of HOW Russia would have done it IF they indeed performed the hack. And then they obsess with a psychological profile of Putin ("Why he has a personal grudge against HRC that would lead him to order a hack on the DNC") and even more with RT - yes, that's right a media outlet using freedom of the press, and free speech to inform the U.S. citizens and the world about the things the MSM sweep under the rug.
The fault the report finds with RT ?. They INCITE DISSATISFACTION, they talk a lot about Wallstreet greed and fracking. (The report does not explicitely say so: but HRC was not treated too kindly on RT - they usually described her as the war monger and neoliberal moderate Republican that she is. Although Thom Hartman was adamently against 3rd Party voting and encouraged to vote for HRC to keep Trump out of office.)
Can you imagine the audacity of RT ? Instead of dutifully telling the U.S. citizens that they live in the best possible society they STIR UP DISCONTENT over Wallstreet and fracking. (I am sure they had derrogatory word - confirming their potential for being dangerous - for such subversive persons and institutions in the Soviet Union and under the Nazis.
True: on MSM you will hear hardly anything about Wallstreet greed, inequality, or the dangers of fracking - one could see it as counterbalance. - But no, it is clearly against the national interest (you just have to define WHOSE national interest) and if the First Amendment wasn't in the way the government would have already closed RT and their subversive messaging down.
Sadly, they get their funding from the Russian state so unlike with the independent (internet) media defunding by advertising boycott does not work on them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Mantonio Have you ever had contact with children, babysat some ?? - Indeed, it is a good idea to house them in a facility, the former admins did exactely that - and the adults stayed TOGETHER with the children !
How do you KNOW that the children (of Guatemala) are not with a legitimate caregiver? Sources please - with DATA, not just some claims.
And a caregiver can of course also be a parent, older sibling, other relative. As opposed to someone who wants to exploit the migrant children.
There may be some cases of human trafficking.
I however do not assume there are so many cases as you claim (the "vast" majority ? 70 % 90 % - logic wil tell you that cannot be true. If so it would have been heralded by the speaker of the White House in Press Conferences etc.).
And then there is DNA testing.
The separation (which is only necessary since this admin CHOSE Zero Tolerance = every adult is CRIMINALLY prosectued and is put into jail) costs 750 USD per day per child.
One DNA test does not cost as much.
In a facility staff can see them interact. And it is much cheaper, less stressful for everyone (incl. STAFF and ICE, do you think it is fun to be in a room with children crying for the parents ?)
And it would not be such an adminstrative clusterfuck.
The children did not howl when they were with the adults and were picked up by Border Control. But they started crying (or looking really scared and in shock) when taken away.
Staying with your parents/care givers in a foreign environment is the instinctive and survival promoting reaction for a small homo sapiens.
But even IF you are right that most adults that come with the children are not legitimate caregivers : Even then the policy of the former admins would be better.
Let the "parents" be together with the children. With smaller children you can SEE if they are with a family member. (Again: have you ever taken care of a child ?)
You can't make a 4 or 2 year old fake that, even if they are afraid.
And if an older child/teenager is afraid of the purpoted adult relative, staying some time with a trustworthy staff in the detention center could help.
As for child abuse by biological parents - yes that happens, inside and outside the U.S.
But how does BY DEFAULT traumatizing the children who are with loving parents help with that ?
You cannot just take ALL The children from their biolgical parents because some abuse them.
If you take 2000 U.S.citizens I grant you some of them mistreat (or even sexually abuse) their children.
3
-
3
-
@Nickle314 ACA (Obamacare) = private insurers, doctors with their own practice and for-profit hospital chains (also some non-profits). Medicare is like a single payer agency but only for those over 65 (plus the Medicaid programs for low income people). And also the VA (Veteran's affairs).
The private for-profit part in the U.S. is completly overpriced (that has been the case before ACA as well, there was a reason a reform was promised - even if it was hardly an improvement, and did nothing for cost control.
so lots of subsidies necessary to keep the system afloat.
Oh, and middlemen for the pharmicists, that is another rip-off. Pharma Benefits Manager. PBS video Why a patient paid 285 USD co-pay for a 40 USD drug. - Drives the small pharmacies out and the chains take over.
Medicare ageny beats the heck out of the private insurers: max. 3 % administrative overhead (less ! - I do not remember the exact number) vesus over 20 % of the private insurance agencies. ACA was supposed to limit that to max. 20 % but the Capitalistic ! companies found of course ways around that.
VA is the only agency that is ALLOWED to negotiate drug prices and brought them down by 40 % (the "socialist" agencies all do, that is why the rest of the world pays much less). Medicare can't negotiate.
The private insurers won't. Wendell Potter former Cigna Senior executive turned Whistleblower: the U.S. insurance companies have no interest to bring costs down, they want to have more and more and higher deductibles so that they can pass on the costs to the patients.
The lobbyist wrote the laws - extension of patents, or renewal (Obama), fast track of approval (Trump) and forbidding the public agencies to negotiate drug prices (Cheney / Bush). That is very much in line with Capitalism it serves the goal to maximize profits by all means necessary.
"Socialist" would be to develop, produce and distribute drugs without profit and profit incentive, either to provide them to the pharmacists as grossists or to run the shops. The only socialist thing is the basic research that is funded by the U.S. taxpayer - or the taxes in other countries.
The rates of Medicare (for hospitals and doctors) are of course lower than that of the private insurers - that is normal: Globally all public non-profit healthcare insurance agencies ("socialist") beat the heck out of private healthcare insurers. They just have more negotiating power
In no universe - parallel or otherwise - is ACA a socialist system. Welfare for corporations, yes. Quite a capitalistic thing.
(you could call Medicare, Medicaid and VA "socialist")
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3