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

  1. The progressives did not do well in California, name recognition, complacent base (or indoctrinated with conventional wisdom) , .... Either Feinstein or Pelosi did not even have a challenger, and the establishment candidates with the money and the typical "CV" made it - if they were new. Or the incumbents. FDR threatened to campaign against certain "Democratic representatives" if they would not support the New Deal. The Dems had a majority or even supermajority in both houses in 1933 (so they did not need the Republicans, which was good or nothing would have ever got done). FDR did not fight with the dissenters officially but it is known that he twisted the arms of some. On the other hand he gave in to the Dixiecrats who made sure that black and brown people got less out of the New Deal. And in 1944 the party establishment hit back and demoted very popular VP Wallace. In 1940 there was a fight - and FDR threatened to not run at all and insisted on the progressive Wallace. I guess in 1944 the politicians knew that FDR would sooner or later die of his dangerously high bloodpressure (which he did in April 1945) - so they did not bother to fight again and instead made sure their guy - Truman, the war monger - would be VP and ready to take over. I think progressives should not underestimate the longterm capacity of the "establishment" to bounce back (and their contempt for the unwashed masses and the indignation when they are made to pay their fair share). The citizens (also in California) are not doing well, and most realize they should do better - but they lack the desperation of the Great Depression - else it is hard to understand why the many progressives that were running escaped their notice. Maybe the upcoming presidential campaign helps with that - sharpent the awareness. Last time many newcomers run a grassroots campaing with a Bernie platform. Why the hell are people not doing a web search before elections. even if they know not much about a candidate and have litte energy, interest or time to dig deeper ? For most the status quo has not worked out too well, they can as well try the obscure candidate that says they do not take corporate donations and they usually refer to Bernie style policies. So it remains to be seen if NEXT time there are serious challengers. It would help if they come close, they must not even win against the big shots and longterm incumbents. Just enough to scare the shit out of them. Sanders did not support most of these candidates btw (I think only if it did not "offend" the party establishment) - he hung out Tim Canova (the challenger of Debbie Wasserman Schultz) in Florida. Tim Canova was cheated twice, once in the D primaries and then the next time as Independent. Ongoing court case, recount of paper ballots (the backup) demanded, the court dragged their feet, and the paper ballots were destroyed - by the same clerk that came later under fire in the midterms 2018. So for now Sanders is playing nice with the establishment. He likely COULD topple Pelosi - but he is not going to do it, for fear of alientating "conservative" Democrats, and the party establishment would go nuts. (Thinking of it: it would be unwise for him to do it, that ugly battle must be fought by the base) It should be noted how much the people sacrifice who are willing to engage in those David against Goliath primaries (the DCCC ramped it up, every agency, videographer, marketing expert that would do work for the challenger of a Democratic incumbent will be blacklisted). Since 70 % of the districts are reliably blue the intention is to grant the D incumbents a seat for life protection and to discourage any competition (so they can gladly ignore the constituents, they would not vote Republican - that was was Crowley did, and it worked for 16 years or so. Then AOC came around. On the other hand those party establishment endorsed marketing experts, and election strategists suck anyway - they may be good fit for the big money circus before the internet, - but not for grassroots campaigns using social media and peer to peer recommendation. Challenging the big money incumbent with the name recognition worked out for AOC - but a campaign is long and exhausting, especially if there is not a lot of money to grease the works. Money can buy support, services, comfort for the candidate while they concentrate on the race. If they run from the position as mayor of a town .... well ....they cannot neglect the town or city complety. (On the other hand they have something to fall back on, the campaign may raise the profile in town - and positively - they "only" invest a year or more of their life, with uncertain outcomes. You must be ambitious and a little crazy for that).
    2
  2. Best case scenario: Pelosi becomes unable to hold office because of old age (she and Schumer !) Usually it would not do to wish bad health on somebody (bad karma) but I'll make an exception for them These rich "representatives" made money of the office (California real estate, ....) Plus they took the official salary and the benefits (good healthcare !) on top of it and are utterly comfortable to let their fellow citizens / constituents struggle_ even go bankrupt or die because of lack of care. There are claims that 1 in 4 or 5 persons in the U.S. do not take the insuline as prescribed because they cannot afford to. This is going to have ugly consequences for these diabetes patients. They will die sooner and it its not going to be quick and easy either. Even from a financial perspective for society: at some point it will cause high emergency costs - but that spending will not even grant a good medical outcome. If the patient had modest savings / owned a home that will be lost (no intergenerational wealth building for the peasants, that is ONLY for the rich)
    2
  3.  @laetrille  The Koch brothers have refineries in TX that can handle only the heavy crude they were !! getting from Venezuela. (Now they are getting it from Russia, likely some sanctions have been lifted). The quality is needed to mix with lighter qualities. It seems VZ demanded a higher than "market price" - but that is of course nonsense if the Koch's could not import from Russia (or the transport would be too expensive) this was just VZ using their "market" advantage. and the Kochs certainly still made a nice profit (the qualities are NEEDED for mixing - and of course the refineries have to be kept operating so they can pay off). Now imagine they could get their own little coup and the stooge of the U.S. had already signalled the oil reserves of VZ would be up for grabs.
    2
  4.  @laetrille  no troops - that could not be kept secret. But CIA and mercenaries. Ever heard of death squads ? (They are still in business, they just switched to drug and other crimes as a full time job, when the wars on behest of the U.S. financiers were over).  And the Republicans (Reagan, Bush = former CIA boss, the same crowd that was at large under Bush2) got really creative so the CIA had the black budgets after Congress had explicitely forbidden to fund any regime change in Latin America. Screw the founders that had thought congress should have the most say because they are voted in and in theory should be the most responsive columns of power - responsive to the will of the voters). Smuggling drugs into the U.S. under protection of the CIA. Or selling arms to Iran (with help of israel). speaking of Mossad .... maybe Bibi wants to thank the current admin .... if some agents, mercenaries, terrorists, provocateurs are caught they would NOT be U.S. citizens ....
    2
  5.  @craigwagner9698  Is that a literal quote ???
    2
  6. Yes, and the corporate Dems would rather have another term of Trump (likely it would be Pence after some time) than Sanders. They and their buddies think they can make E.W. fall in line, and she already gives the signals. Never mind the rhetoric or the UNWORKABLE unfair, half baked concept to finance M4A.  - like with Obama - there was the green light to give ther nice coverage. In the case of E.W. they might hope she can undermine the votes from Sanders and that she would be more pliable if the superdelegates decide in the 2nd round if no candidate has 50 % of the delegates.  - 4 more years of Trump = ratings for corporate media AND the Corporate Dems can stick it to the progressives (SEE your side lost to horrible Trump) and they can virtue signal and clutch their pearls about bad Trump. I guess Pence would get a much nicer treatment (even though he is more dangerous than Trump, Trump controls the cult, but beware if Pence has power. HE would know how to get along with the letter agencies and the war machine. An exercise in pearl clutching would be a good distraction for the D "leadership". They can continue to NOT giving the voters anything of substance, anything that would cost the DONORS money. They have the SAME donors as the R's - and the owners of the networks are rich people that love their tax cuts.
    2
  7. That family likely will be able to solve their financial problems, because local news picked up the story they'll get a lot, so if the surgeries go well, they are good. TV has an incentive to bring her on again, as she has the surgeries (she needs several), she is cute she "sells", but that does not solve the systemic issue.
    2
  8. I do not have so much time to go up the echelons because of stray golfballs hitting by windows (because the golfcourse did not want to fix this, which i guess is a property issue ) - Well you do not have time because you are still busy educating yourself on construction and safety course, on the law to decipher the small print of the car dealerships and after that you take your courses as mechanic so you are an informed consumer whenevery you buy a car. That is while you work to save up the money to be able to pay for private firefighters.
    2
  9. Not all products and services are a good fit for the "free market". Education is a bad fit - it tends towards "natural monopoly". The "choice" is non-existent for low-income families. And it is not a "nice to have, but can do without" service. It does not make sense to privatize schools if you think about it (if you want the best for all of the citizens that is - private for-profit schools are a fabulous investment niche for rich people to extract money from the low and middle class) Also real life results proves that it enhances inequality and poor outcomes for children of families that struggle (financially or otherwise). Kids that come from families hwich struggle, are dysfunctional, where parents have little education, do not appreciate education, or the child has learning disabilities - do have a disadvantage anyway. Eager and caring, well educated middle class parents can and will counterbalance for instance learning disabilities - other parents will be overwhelmed. The child is left with much less chances for success. It is not a meritocracy when the income and dedication of the parents massively correlates with the outcomes for the children. In countries like Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Japan to some degree also France, Netherlands, ... they have well funded non-profit school systems. The Scandinavians and Japanese are especially dedicated to offer a level playing field for all in education - it shows in the results. (btw Sweden tried out private education, one company was allowed to operate, it was a test run. The company went bankrupt, the tax payers had to pick up the tab, the children were of course not left behind. In Sweden you do not mess with the children, they are quite sensitive about that, that was the end of such experiments). In the U.S. or elsewhere: The teachers have subjects to cover, they do not get into politics. - Although whitewashing MLK or how history is taught - especially what is left out - or a sex-ed where it is forbidden to show and explain the use of a condom seems quite polticially/religiously driven to me. Even young fundamentalistic Christians can profit of that information - they tend to marry young and might not want to have a child immediately. From the obsession with the appearance of female students (the neckline of your shirt shows your collarbones, that is too much for some of these snowflake teachers who send female students home) - it seems that some schools or teachers are quite "conservative" (more like bigotted). Being a teacher does not make a person automatically lean to the "left" politically. The whole spectrum is assembled Besides - in the teenage years the teenagers do not necessarily take the word of the teachers as gospel. And if some would like schools to teach their pet outsider positions - like no-sex until marriage, creationism, and Global warming is a hoax - well a) you live in a science oriented secular society b) you can make your case privately to your children (to counteract the "evil" teachings of the public school). Healthcare is another area that is a terrible fit for the "free market" - it shows in the U.S. expenditures (see the U.S. vs. the other rich countries, you could add 70 % to the expenditures where I live - Germany- and would land at the U.S. level. Never mind everyone is fully covered and the U.S. does worse in parameters like life expectancy and child mortality than most wealthy countries)
    2
  10. @Kevin Michael BoJo is a narcissist. Brexit is a lose/lose scenario, even now. Some hardliners among the MPs and the riled up supporters * want a hard Brexit. The Leave base seems to be blissfully unaware of the economic challenges / dangers behind a hard Brexit and not willing to be informed - "Brexit means Brexit !" and "We won" - that seems to be important: people that were fucked by the system or they do well but are culturally irritated that so many "foreigners" are in the country. "Strongly disliked" foreigners can also include people from Eastern Europe (as citizens of EU member states they can work in other EU nations even though the member states can restrict access of such EU citizens to unemployment benefits, disability and other benefits or demand that they must have a job within 3 months). These EU migrants are usually very well integrated, working and WHITE. Doesn't help their cause with many U.K. citizens and they tend to be in the Leave camp (and feel now emboldened to show their hostility towards "foreigners"). The last proposal BoJo has got is a SOFT Brexit w/o worker's rights (even Farage called it a softer proposal than the last one May had - but Farage supported the Tories nontheless, the Brexit party did not compete for seats where the Tories had a chance to win, or they would have split the vote). soft Brexit: selling that to the exited base in a deeply divided country (the Frankenstein monster he created) - or crashing out of the EU with no deal (which means hard brexit). Which is likely very bad for the economy and the business community that normally supports the Tories is panicking about that. Boris Johnson was not happy the morning after the referendum with the result Leave (in summer 2016) - watch the footage. He should have been, he campaigned for it, so he "won" against the odds. But he had no firm position on leaving (or many other things, he is like Trump in that) before he took up the cause. BoJo wanted the position of party leader Cameron who is a traditional sleek Tory. BoJo had his base which liked his antics, but he could not beat Cameron - so he had to find a crusade to distinguish himself. He pestered Cameron and riled up the base with anti immigrationrhetoric as well (also not so subtly agains the legal migrants, many of whom are from other EU countries). the xenophobia of the Tories used to be more subtle. Cameron solved that inner party rivalry by promising a referndum on the EU during the GE 2010. The Tories winning in 2010 made Cameron the Prime Minister of the U.K. (he stepped down after the referendum, he had of course supported Remain along with the business community). The plan of BoJo: build up your right wing street creds in the Leave campaign, lose honorably. Use the national platform then to challenge Cameron with an activated base AND at that point the people that always vote Tory but would not want to leave the EU had no reason to not vote for him as party leader = PM. The consistent Tory voters are usually well-off, affluent or rich, many do not go for character as long as he will serve their interests (and is not too uncough). That obstacle (Tory base not in favor of Leave) would have been dealt with in the referendum, surely the referendum would end with Remain, but Boris could present considerable support by the base to bolster his claim that he could appeal to the masses and win a GE for the party. The disappointed base that wanted Leave would be told that "We must respect the referendum" - but if they voted for him now as PM he would do something about immigration nontheless. He did not want to "win" the Leave campaign (he campaigned along with Farage who also did not strike me too enthusiastic the morning after the referendum, not sure about him, but BoJo was flattened) .... because of course Boris Johnson did not want to deal with Brexit as Prime Minister. On the other hand some of the oligarchs - not those in manufacturing - but those in finance could see the advantage of a hard brexit and to use the ensuing economic crisis to turn the U.K. (or England) into a tax haven and to crush the rights of workers, consumers and environmental protection while they were at it. So the tabloid press supported Brexit (anti immigrants) and helped to rile up the masses.
    2
  11. No choices for the patients ? Not true, in single payer systems with a non-profit public insurance agency there are some choices for the patients - for instance their are no network hospitals. If you have a broken arm you show up where you want. Other times you choose with your family doctor or sway the referal of your doctor (you have heard that hospital has an excellent reputation for eye surgery - although your doctor is likely to know that anyway. Or a hosptial is more convenient for your visitors to reach. Or you liked the hospital and the staff the last time you were there). Other times the choice will be made for you by the ambulance drivers, by the doctor - especially after an accident. Or the treatment is specialized and / or you are in a bad shape an it will be a major medical intervention.
    2
  12.  @AllMustJump  ..... when the inept intentionally unprepared Texan actors in their closed niche finally RETURN to the grid (no major input from out of state 'cause Texas Stand Alone Grid) .... let the price gouging begin. If you are an electric company and bribe the politicians so 1) you do not have to PREPARE for the foreseeable crises (1989, around 2000, 2011, 2021, ...some problems in 2014 too), and if you fail miserably with your technology when it gets cold and 2) bribe them so they make Texas a CLOSED SCENE (to avoid the word "market" )
    2
  13. A classic, comment section has not taken notice so far ! Thanks for quoting !
    2
  14. Healthcare spending PER PERSON in rich Europan countries per person is 55 - 65 % of that in the U.S. - that has nothing to do with diversity. Whatever the challenges and strenghts of the system may be, running the system much, much more cost-efficient DOES help.. Fixing a "native" broken arm costs the same as fixing the limb of a person that has no passport or does have an EU passport but is a migrant from outside of the EU. (EU "migrants" are natives - like someone from Alabama would be a native and treated as such (legally) in New York.
    2
  15. If he was serious he would be for "money out of politics and out of elections". Sanders finds time to work in D.C. and time to meet regular people (not only in Vermont) - he KNEW what worried people, when Clinton's campaign with all the experienced insiders and the highly paid strategist had NO CLUE what was going on. They say that the politicians spend 30 - 40 % of their time with fundraising (dinners, meetings, and of course the hated dialling after dollars). Many careerists do the beauty contest before the Big Donors - which will buy a seat for the winners of the contests (Congress, minimum age is lower and easier to get such a seat). They buy them name recognition with expensive ads. The shills vote as they are told by party leadership (who has the task to sheepdog the party towards Big Donor interests) and the lobbyists approved by the Big Donors. They network for a few years, build the rolodex and stay in the good books of party leadership and Big Donors. THEN they leave politics and are rewarded with a cushy post. A member of Congress or Senate makes 170k per year - plus good benefits (incl. excellent healthcare plans) and some expenses for office and travel I think. Which would be a appropriate pay for public SERVANTS. Living in D.C. is expensive, they need at least to rent an apartment, they need to travel a lot and of course they need to have a residency in another state as well. Many of them are lawyers - which can be an advantage to understand the bills. If they would be content with what they get paid and work for the best of the constituents - that wage would be fine. It IS a demanding position if done right. There is a risk to lose elections and then they need to rebuild their career - someone who worked For The People inevitably stepped on the toes of rich and powerful people - so no cushy jobs for them. That means they need to build their careers afresh and if they are not sell-outs they have no directly transferable special qualifications. It is not even sure they are good in managing people for instance. after a few years they also get the right to a pension (presidents do - I know that Jimmy Carter does not get one - not from the presidency he had only one term and that is not enough. Not sure if he gets something from being governor before - or if he scraps by on social security - that on writing books. Although he says he does that to have the money for his charities. Which in his case is believeable).
    2
  16. On a side note: Fauci is born in December 1940 - in other words, dude is close to 80 years. Looks like he is 60. Trump must be so envious. Fauci had a distinguished career, speaks concisely and w/o notes and deserves credit for his diplomatic abilities (never mind expertise, he ever so politely corrected Trump - and still has not been fired).
    2
  17. Sanders run on policy in 2016 - and does it again. he built his brand with healthcare (policy inclunding a BILL ready) and that is highly attractive. - Warren is less convincing (she is female, but those who go only after that have other females in the race. She talks a good game but she folds over before being pushed. The urgency of financial reforms and breaking up the banks is not a main issue with voters - it should be, but it is not tangible at the moment (that used to be her signature issue - going after the banksters). And regarding Medicare for All she is wobbly. She also does not rock the boat like Tulsi Gabbard. The media does not cover her (even she is too progressive for them), and she is l
    2
  18. The country is in a crisis - and it is going to get worse. Timid, polite and smooth talk will not suffice. FDR was all about policies - and he twisted arms to make Democratic politicians vote for the proposals (some wealthy Dems then could easily arrange themselves with the suffering of the masses.  The special interests will not roll over w/o a fierce fight. the U.S. spends 3,2 trillion USD per year on healthcare - it should be 1,8 - 2 trillion (assuming 325 million people have insurance - and I mean good insurance). Some is wasted in the bureaucraZy but a lot is profits. The profiteers are not giving that up w/o a fight. Same is true for the Military Industrial Complex. The rich that do not want to give up their tax cuts. The oil industry. it will need a very determined president willing to make enemies and to convince the population of his general good intentions and whenever possible backed up with CONCRETE plans for actions. Nothing screams I mean it - like having a bill ready to be passed. Talk is cheap: everyone can claim that they want their fellow citizens to have good healthcare. One can either let the industry make a lot of profits OR the citizens will have good and cost-efficient care. both is not npossible. You scratch the politicians about their views on MfA and most expose themselves. Either they have not been thinking this through - and it is not THAT complicated. No the "free market" and "competition" cannot work with healthcare, it is on principle not possible. No the public option would have been a very distant second best 10 years ago. It creates even more hcerrypicked pools for the insurance companies and undoes a LOT of the cost saving potential of single payer (which is very simple, streamlined admin and broad political support when ALL of the population use it - because they are mandated ! to pay into it so they can as well use it instead of having a private contract on the side. The other major cost saving will be possible with drug prices). They either deceive the public with think tank talking points - or they have never had an independent though about how healtchare works in the U.S. and in other countries. True to form mayor pete is wobbly on that issue as well.
    2
  19. people vote for reliability - I think Sanders does very well in that segment. Voters have had it with the talking points, they want a politician that means it, has experience in certain areas and is stubborn enough to push for it. - HEALTHCARE is a major issue. A better minimum wage or student loan debt WILL get people to the polls - provided they think the politician is not another bullshitter. One thing is sure: Sanders did not kill it with his lovely voice, or his sophisticated optics. His grumpy granddad gig is unlikely to endear him to the voters - you would think.
    2
  20. a private foundation is a "feudal" concept, it is anti-democratic, and gives these rich oligarchs undue influence. - the tax revenue funding social support, affordable housing is not depending on their whims.
    2
  21. Duh - look at countries with the best schools and results: most teachers (well most people) are in the middle or slightly above average in their capacities. Embedd them in an excellent structure and they - as group, as organsim will CREATE excellent outcomes together with the children. The forest is more than the sum of the trees ! The ability to nurture children and to teach them how to learn learning - does not lend itself well to competition, to being graded. Humans have an innnate desire to do good work, they are not only motivated by exterior factors .. TRUST a person that likes children and likes to teach and arrange for the right environment - and there will be no need for micromanaging. How they do it in Finland: Select for people who LIKE children, have no major personality flaws, have an interest in their subject (it they teach to older students). Select carefully who gets to be a teacher, give them enough funding, embedd them into a nurturing structure, don't appoint jerks as director or (head) adminstrators, pay them enough - and then LET THEM WORK. And reduce the red tape. The adminstrators should SERVE not run the whole place. There are schools in the U.S. where the adminstrators make much more than the teachers. How so ? I mean one needs some management and people skills sure. but there is no entrepreneurial skill necessary and it is certainly not rocket science. (I forgot the state, the teachers complained in a meeting the the adminstrator got himself a raise, but not the teachers, the police forced her out of the schooboard meeting). Testing and grades are overrated. Learning of content/ facts is overrated as well. Education used to be about useful skills but also and very important - to show off to which socioeconomic CLASS you belonged. There are not many skills that one absolutely must have (reading, writing, basic calculation, some compter skills, driving a car, operating a mobile phone). People can get through life and be unable to practically apply the rule of proportion (it does not even enter their mind that they COULD use it) and to solve simple equations. Now, that - unlike a lot of more advanced maths that they also "passed" - is actually useful. Those who did not completely fail must at some point of time have passed the related tests successfully. And since it is a process and builds up one would expect it to be like when you learned a language or to ride a bike. It should stay with you and be easy to reactivate, as well. But they never made MATHS their OWN. They learned plenty and more advanced maths. But it is meaningless if the process of acquiring that knowledge is not (mostly) enjoyable. Anything "maths" is treated by many adults like a minefield (of humiliation !) Some rescue themselves into the admission of their stupidity. To avoid to ever again having to engage with that frustrating/scary/boring/annoying topic. What's the use of being an adult when you cannot refuse to ever again have anything to do with maths. One can do well w/o the rule of proportion - but if you do not master reading and at least basic writing you are really in trouble. So schools MUST master the art of teaching all children (that do not have developmental problems) to read well. Some inner city schools fail at that, a sizeable portion of their "graduates" had poor or very poor reading skills. In the lawsuit the judge decided that the students do not have a right to be taught in a way that would raise the overall level of reading skill to the average level in the U.S.. It is a combination of background, stressful environment at home, the area where they live, an underfunded school, likely most teachers flee if they can. Good funding AND making the school a safe haven would help (plus some outside mentoring if the school is so dysfunctional). Lots of social work, nurturing the teachers, the children take the hostility and hardship with them into the social structure of the school. Teach non-vioent communication. Learning does not happen when the amygdala is not engaged and gives the green light. Survival and or emotional distractions beat picking up factual information. For efficient learning a relaxed, SECURE, agreeable environment with a tinge of positive excitement and a little bit of friendly competition is ideal. An adult that is mobbed will underperform in the workplace - it is worse with children. Motivation, curiosity, ambition can compensate if the subject is boring. And some stuff is boring but you must learn it anyway (in architecture or law, or anatomy. Of course teenagers and young adults can be expected to withstand more drill and boredom - but it is toxic for smaller children. It conditions them to dislike learning and school in general. That happens very often with the subject of mathematics. School as the place to fill up students with facts/content to which they do relate (to which they do not bond) I notice that with college students, they like Sanders - but cannot tell the difference between Socialism, or Social Democrat, I wonder if many understand what single payer system means). And THEY are supposed to be the intellectually ambitious. They are enthusiastic about him - but could never be bothered to search even for a short definition ?? They have a certain verbal skill level and I notice a tendency to gloss over with word salad over the embarrassing fact that they did not even know the basics. And if they can they do not simply admit that they are - yet -underinformed. They have been trained to parrot things, and to do so with a certain degree of eloquence. They were not trained to question, to detect on their own. Admitted that is more challenging for the teachers. And if the goal is that the children should be able to parrot a certain volume of facts at a certain time (teaching to the test) - then you cannot allow for the slow, deep, meandering, organic process where a child immerses itself into a self-chosen ! subject. In the end it does not matter if they become experts on dinosaurs (you would be surprised how many exist among the young ones) or Japanese tea ceremonies. And it does not matter if they know nothing about the history of the nation. If they are not ALIENATED from LEARNING they will be in the habit of wanting to know and explore things - and as for geography or history: if the bug bites them (at 15, 10, 25 or 65) they will get the information. School and even more university used to be the hub for information, and to some degree libraries - now so much info is available in digital form, and many colleges have some lectures that are publicly availabe online. Most of the things we learn in school (history, geography, ...) we forget. Part of it is that the subject was forced upon the students. A good teacher can of course make the subject interesting for MORE children, but will never reach all. Being bored is the ultimate turn-off for the human brain, and it is worse for the brain of a young homo sapiens. It might be necessary to inflict that on them when they get some drill when it comes to concentrating. Or reading. ... although. Who says every child must learn it at age 6 -7. Some learn it with 5 while for others the age 9 might be right (and then they learn it w/o hassle). Motivation (either fear or ambition can deliver the necessary excitement to overcome boredome, especially with increasing maturity and frustration tolerance). Example: Finland, Denmark: they make the extra effort to level the playing field. Which is also the reason they never had the underclass like the U.S. - these countries never allowed such an extent of inequality for adults and children. In a country with a lot of inequality, where children are living in a harsh environment - give GENEROUS fundung for social work, have some anti-mobbing programs, let the school be save havens. Have programs that watch out for kids who do not integrate well, and do not have good social skills. School is about learning to learn, learn to concentrate, social skills, learning to present. And let's be real: to watch over the children while their parents are working in a job. Especially when they do not live in a nice area and the parents are busy, abusive, will not or cannot help with homework - school can level the playing field. And with after school programs for teenagers it can stand between them and drifting apart form society. The young men ending up in jail and the young girls getting pregnant. Dropping out of school, hanging out on the street. Philadelphia stopped their Zero Tolerance policy (often minor offenses, could get a teeanger arrested. Like having a fight. Or small amounts of weed). That was very successful. In Sweden a major part of the 6 - 7 year olds get extra help. when they have a harder time learning to read. It does not depend on the patience, teaching skills, commitment of the parents if the kids are getting help. And since so many get extra attention it is not shameful for the children. (Littel children are highly sensitive to being the "stupid" ones in their class, that is another thing that is completely overlooked.
    2
  22. Treaties overstepped in insignificant matters - let's throw out all the treaties instead of stepping them up. - The MIC was shocked - SHOCKED - when the Soviets stepped down from the Cold War - and w/o much of a prior warning. they lost the reliable enemy of decades. - So then the neocons started wars all over the place and made sure to create the War On Terror instead. That has advantages. When the Soviets stepped down the army - chain of command - followed suite. With terrorist groups that is not going to happen. It is much easier to help to create them, fund them covertly in some reasons, use them for proxy wars, later bomb the shit out of them (a pretext to have illegal bases in other countries). And it "justifies" mass domestic mass surveillance and abolishing due process. So that is fabulous for the war profiteers and war mongers and armchair warriors - but now we are in the next stage. Trying to bait Russia and China into the next arms race. And the crazies dream about the nuclear war that can be won (the kind of people that advised JFK during the Cuban crisis to launch a first strike. a) he did not take their advice and b) he made sure no one could escalate "by mistake"
    2
  23.  @bugviddump7397  Not to forget Sweden. They have a very high death toll (corona deaths per million). Sweden has better conditions to pull off a partial lockdown (much more than Spain, France and Italy, not as large cities, many single households, less international trave in late winter / spring, more remote areas, they got the virus later) - but the approach to keep the economy open and protect the vulnerable did not work and cost a lot of lives. Especially in care homes. Their rise is the fastest of the developed nations (deaths), then come the U.K and the U.S. - however I think the Swedish numbers are correct, but I guess there is a lot of undercounting in the U.S.
    2
  24. They can't compete with the offer * of a well set up reasonably funded (read: less spending pe rperson than now) single payer agency. The unions members currently get a less shitty, still overpriced plan in a dysfunctional system. Unions cannot fix that. And it COSTS their members wages. There is no private insurance company that can compete with a single payer agency. Not on this planet - if the pools and services are comparable. You get always more bang for your buck with a public non-profit insurance ageny.
    2
  25. In NV union mebers have a problem if they cannot work because of illness, if they want to change careers, become disabled, ... The culinary unions there are strongly organized around offering healthcare plans. Since the laws undermine them, offering healthcare plans is a way to recruit member in a right-to-work-for-less state like NV). They also have hospitals (which is good. I get that they fear to miss out on the one advantage for recruiting. But if a Sanders admin would have successfully pulled off M4A (in the first year of rollout for the people over 55 - so it is not like everyone is in right away) - an admin that can pull that off can also push for better legal conditions for unions. And Sanders is pro unions, so he would have pushed for that, too. Not only M4A. In NV the workers CAN buy in to be kept on the plan while being unable to work - but of course that means extra costs at a time of no income, it is especially bad for people with chronic conditions that make them often miss out work. And in the pandemic they have not insurance when they cannot work for longer.
    2
  26. ​ @Alan-wj5zc  The VOTERS have to compromise - because the DNC certainly is hell bent on not giving the base (or the citizens in general) an inch. Not even healthcare like all other rich countries have and most at least for 60 years. Always playing the game of "only this election emergency" while the big donors play the long game (over decades literally !) lead to the current crisis. It is true that it is an ermergency. - But giving in to the blackmail of the Democratic Party lead to this situation. And worse: Biden is not even going to do anything about Climate change and cannot be trusted regarding wars OR cutting Social Security. Apart from the Iran crisis Trump is NOT the worst president. How to weigh the dead children of Yemen against the separated and detained migran families. How to weigh the wars of Bush1, Bush2, Reagan, Bill Clinton, Obama + Hillary Clinton and Kerry against the threat of Iran. The red line regarding Syria in 2013 was as foolish of Obama. He just presented a more coherent FACADE. (Ray McGovern: Putin helped Obama out of the mouse trap - McGovern was a renowed CIA analyst).
    2
  27. The Atlantic had an article this summer about the New American Aristocracy. Not the 1 % but the 9,99 % gets all the cream from the milk for themselves and their children.
    2
  28. What need is dealt with by NOT letting the 5 year old staying with mother and grandmother until they got their hearing dealing with the asylum request * - Apart from CREATING INCOME for the private for prison / detention industry. * Honduras has become a neoliberal nightmare, Hillary Clinton was very eager to acknowledge the new regime of course, and the constant U.S. meddling before on behest of big biz did not help.
    2
  29.  @twoshedsjohnson8540  Rand Paul still profits from the cost-efficiency of the public system (with a strictly regulated private partner = the hospital). Else he would just drive into the next U.S. hospital. These hospitals are not in the habit of ripping patients off, they mostly deal with the non-profit insurance agency. One side effect is that they are not as good in money extortion as the U.S. counterparts and will usually come up with a more reasonable bill. Rand Paul might not be sure the neighbour can pay the bills so he wants to use a good offer. - Or he trust a hospital more that makes most of it's revenue with "socialized" medicine. [Edit: they are world class in that kind of surgery.] Speaking of which - Senators and members of Congress have also excellent socialized healthcare (coverage - and no hassle when they need it). I wonder WHY he does not use that ? Maybe because a lawsuit is going on and if the damage was done by another party it is not covered ? [Edit: he wants the best - and since acceptable hernia surgery is offered in the U.S. his insurance does not cover it. That's the thing with the ideologues - as soon as their personal well-being is affected they get very pragmatic. All of a sudden a hospital that exist within the single payer context can be world class.]]
    2
  30.  @emileconstance5851  To be sure it is odd that Greenwald incorrectly uses the word Socialism - and not calls it Economic Populism (which has been used by the far right, center right, or center left = Social Democrats or New Dealers, or even the dictatorial Soviets and Maoists etc. that had the rhetoric but not the policies of Socialism. The Soviet Union and China had State Capitalism, and Lenin correctly used that term. They invoked Marx, but they did not read him (and if they did, they certainly did not apply his theories).
    2
  31. Socialism: Workers - not the government and also not a group of often rich individuals - own the means of production. Public welfare or the government having key industries nationalized is NOT Socialism / Marxism / Communism. That would be co-ops, or the kibuzzim system in Israel.
    2
  32. If someone like Sanders ever has a chance to win elections - it will be because Dore, Greenwald, The Rising (because of Enjeti even though he is inconsisent as hell) still REACH those on the right that are NOT Trump cultisits - and give them ideas about economic populism (never mind if they use the correct eocnomic terms). Ohio voted twice for Obama - and then TWICE for Trump and with 8 % margin each time. Sanders might have had a chance to won Ohio in Nov. 2020. One would hope that those voters are disgusted by Trump. To be fair - the D alternatives are pathetic. IF they got a good performance in form of "hope and Change" they went for it, didn't they. Recently Krystal ball said Kentucky her home state used to be solidly blue. Yes, like West Virginia. Well many voters do not care about the ugly rhetoric of Trump, and they seem to be unable to see how dumb he is. People vote their SELF INTEREST. They have a better excuse than the financially super secure Democratic "leadership" and the affluent suburbans that are busy to protect and to vote for their self interest. All the time. Selling out the country. And unlike many that voted Trump - they cannot even claim economic grievances. Nor can we give them a pass for being underinformed, not having time and the resources (D politicans have staff, if they do not "understand" how M4A works and is far superior - it is by choice. A voter in Ohio and WV might have genuine misconceptions).
    2
  33. Is the guy addicted to that kind of behavior ? Show of power and dominance in an non post of office or job related way ? How hard is it to figure out that that will get you into trouble some time ?
    2
  34. spending for every person average in the U.K. USD 4,250 and 10,240 in the U.S. - the U.K. spends 41 % of what the U.S. spends. - the other wealthy nations spend 46 - 55 % of the U.S. per capita spending.
    2
  35.  @debraleighscott  very well put - the non-endorsement of Sanders is one of the "lesser" sins of Warren (although completly in line with her tendency to NOT annoy the party establishment, lack of spine and conviction and (mis)calculating). She simply does not have the guts ! - and that is the issue: the times call for a brave bold principled president, fighting like hell. I am not sure if Sanders has all it takes - if he would take the risks ! and if he has the guts - but Warren would be a "nice" useless president.  Barking up against Wallstreet does not count. People liked her strong words - that is a way of venting. After all was said and done - Wallstreet was not prosecuted. Her agency is in the process of being dismantled. The WEAK Frank Dodd regulations are vote out - with the help of Democrats btw. But she found it necessary to call herself a capitalist to pander to the nervous special interests. Capitalism has failed miserably in 2007 - 2009. There was no real recovery just wait for the next recession. (Sanders would not aks for the end of capitalism - but there is not need to pander to the neoliberals). In the next recession it will be the pitchforks / Yellow vests everywhere. It will either go to the far left or far right (historically the far right is more likely). She is taking Big Donations (also from the healthcare industry, AT&T, Comcast I think) AFTER Sanders showed how one can win without. She has to make considerationas and compromises Sanders does not have to make. As an alleged native she could not be bothered to support the DAPL protest. That was AGAIN: not annoying donors (BIG OIL and the banks financing that project) and the party machine. Like with not daring to run (against Clinton) and not daring to endorse Sanders. She is not going to stand up against the special interests when it comes to Climate change. a window of 12 years we have got - the scientists say. lukewarm Warren is not good enough and will not reign in Big Oil. She failed the "DAPL" test.
    2
  36. 1:00 the Corporate Democrats are NOT WEAK. They are just opportunists. Of course they do not fight fiercly against Republicans - they SHARE the same donors, WHY would they even bother. (The Republicans often have strong but mistaken convinctions, so they DO fight, and the Big Donors do not mind, so the selfish personal interests of Republican politicians are not negatively impacted when they do put up a fight). The Democratic establishment is useful to the Big Donors because they reach voters that would be out of reach for the Republican party (and who knows what revolutionary ideas the Democratic base would come up if left to themselves). The Big donors pay the Dems to win primaries and to keep Progressives away from influence.  If they lose elections (and if they are well connected with party leadership and the Big Donors = served them faithfully and never, ever annoyed them) they will be well provided for if they lose elections. (Joe Crowley got a job even though he made the very serious mistake of letting AOC win the primaries). Sure, Hillary Clinton wanted very much to become president - but the 1 billion USD for her campaign were not wasted, after all she prevented Sanders from becoming president (although with some trouble). Trump is uncough, but the tax cuts are higher than what the Big Donors would have gotten even under a Clinton presidency. That compensates for the fact that he (unlike Clinton would have) did not sign TPP. And their is bipartisan support for the war machine (and insane increases of the already insance spending). Some member of Congress btw plan their carerr that way: Congress is a step stone to the much more lucrative career of being a lobbyist. They just do their time in Congress to build the network
    2
  37. They also had "charity" in the feudal system and when the workers lived in squallor under the conditions of the First Industrial Revolution. I guess it keeps the peasants from revolting which they would do if they have no hope whatsoever. individual charity handed out in handpicked cases for the worthy poor that did no upset the rich with demands for systemic change. Today the worthy poor are drug tested to qualify for food stamps even if they never find drugs (it is also a contract for buddies of Republicans). Or if the child is cute and her mother presentable so she can trigger compassion. Added bonus: the greedy a-holes and especially the super rich do not have to chime in. Of course a person that can afford to donate 100 USD (like one man in the video) likely is not in desperate financial circumstances.
    2
  38. No not almost half of the electorate. Historically high turnout in a very controversial race would mean 85 % turnout in other first wold nations. In the U.S. 65 or 68 % broke a record for the last 100 years. and it is almost half of those 68 % (which is bad enough). low turnout is another specifically American problem. I concede that the wanna be fascists and far right have way too much appeal - it illustrates the betrayal of the "liberal" class and sellout politicians and colluding corporate media. Only economic left populism can beat right wight nationalistic populism. And the Dems are utterly unwilling to raise to the occasion. At leas NOW. See Obama (even now) see Biden and his transition team and cabinet picks. They act as if they could return to the war mongering ways, and making outsourcing safe abd lucrative for the big donors. Obama comes from the North - and pushed for TPP. Biden likely will try to pass a new and shiny TPP (the same shit as the old one). Both are all for propping up big finance. Under Obama the banksters were saved, no one was prosectued and 5,5 million homes were forclosed. Oh, and big auto got a bailout. And he opened the Arctic for drillining.
    2
  39. 3:50 The Saudis cannot just switch to buying from other countries. Experts say they would need DECADES for the technological transition (training, signals, IT) and integrate the new technology. Tthey cannot even integrate into a military strategy what they have bought so far - Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell. KSA fully concentrated on U.S. / NATO systems (not like India which always mixed).
    2
  40. Former aristocrats, landlords and monarchs had it easier. The churches colluded with them and supported their claim that they deserved to be on the top, and a crusty class system helped as well. Plus they were the ones that could dress nicely, had "cultivated" speech patterns ("posh accent - especially in the U.K.) and they were educated and at leisture to pursue academic interests (if they wanted to) while the rest of the population was kept undereducated or at least away from the NOBLE institutions of higher learning and clubs. Especially the underclass overworked. When people are getting more wealth and education (females, citizens in general, the British merchants in the empire, the landlords in the American colony, people of color) - w/o fail they challenge the right of the upper classes to dominate and govern them. They want participation - at least for themselves. (The British merchants or the American revolutionaries did not want a democracy for everyone, THEY wanted more influence on governance). Back in the day it was not hard to maintain the illusion of superiority. "good manners" and insider rituals of the upper classes, private schools, clubs, marriages within their circles were other means to exclude the masses. Or even trivial things like having access to books and newspapers. Or medical care, good living areas, better food, clean water. The wealthier commoners were busy trying to emulate and to imitate the 1 %. To some degree they challenged the upper classes but they did not challenge the structure itself - it is just that THEY wanted to be accepted in the club as well. (So wealthy British merchants married their children to broke aristocrats to get a foot into the door of "better" society.) See for instance in 1776 the wealthy landowners of the American colony who shook off the reign of the foreign parliament (dominated by rich Brits and their nobility) and the foreign king. These landowners allowed some freedoms (like religious freedom) but it was by no means a democracy. Only around 40,000 white males with some wealth had the vote. The did not shake off the reigns to have freedom for everyone - THEY wanted more freedom and influence for themselves, the wealthy / rich commoners. All these justifications and a lot of the traits of poverty / wealth (education, being well groomed, access to information) have widely vanished in modern secular society. The upper class is much more inclined to deny there is such a thing as class - while cultivating feudal attitudes.
    2
  41.  @blairhaffly1777  probably not ALL Boogaloo Boys are beyond reach. - Ohio and Florida voted twice for Obama, and then twice for Trump. in FL Trump improved from 1.2 to 3 %, in Ohio twice over 8 %. I assume there must be people that switched from Obama to Trump.
    2
  42. There is no rationing of healthcare - but there may be a rationing of profits !
    2
  43. As an intensive care doctor and a mother whose own baby son was critically ill, the Alfie Evans case makes me angry | The Independentwww(dot)independent(dot)co(dot)uk/voices/alfie-evans-doctor-intensive-care-life-support-parents-nhs-a8321226.html
    2
  44. That's the new talking point: It will end Medicare as we know it.
    2
  45. + Jade Fox Which "left" did you support - there was no left to support - unless you were a Sanders of Jill Stein supporter. - I assume it is a rhetorical trick of a right-wing supporter. - This is not a court trial. The interesting thing is that collegues of Kavanaugh that endorsed him before NOW retract their endorsement and ask him to step down. It does not look like we will ever know for sure - and the "as if" FBI "investigation" and the carefully restricted "hearing" did not help either. That said: That the story is not completely consistent does NOT prove that Ford did not tell the truth. On the other hand of course it does nto prove the guilt of Kavanaugh either.
    2
  46. ** I checked out the two most successful GoFundMe campaigns: the Palo Alto group raised USD 545,041. I went back the last 1000 of total 11,898 donations (that is an average of 45 USD - that is high - remember the 27 USD of Senator Sanders ?) It was started in Palo Alto (where Dr. Ford works). Within those 1000 latest donations I saw ONE 1000 USD donation and 2 for 500 USD, the rest was in the range of 5 - 200 - strongly leaning towards under 50 USD. Now that would indicate that there were some higher donations in the beginning - there is no easy way to scroll back so I skipped that. That said: the campaign has been shared 167,000 times and 1000 donations back is around September 28th - lots of donations that day. So it is a grassroots campaign. The next largest campaign was started by Heidi Feldman a professor in Washington D.C. (name and photo) for the security costs since Dr. Ford and family had to go underground and needed extra security. So that is not money Ford would profit from. Extra money will go to another charitable cause. That campaign is closed and raised 209,987 USD with 6656 individual donations, I scrolled back only around 100 donations - also small gifts, the average of the whole campaign is 31 USD. Since that professor appeared with name I am confident she will make sure the money is funneled to security expenses only. I think those donation drives are more grassroots than the Big Donors that support the nomination for Kavanaugh for Scotus (including ads) - he would be their dream candidate - he almost always sides with corporations against workers and the rights of consumers.
    2
  47. And God help you if the U.S. is hostile towards you !
    2
  48. + M. Fink the Nazis, the Italian fascists increased gun ownership (they founded gun clubs, civil militias etc.). In Germany only the Jewish people that had firearms were forced to give them up. No one expected them to use them btw, at that time they were not yet arrested or taken to camps, they started stripping them of citizens rights (government employees, teachers were fired, they could not sit on public park benches, go swimming, etc.) This was another way to harrass them, humiliate them. Some of the men had of course served in WW1, it is possible that officiers could keep their weapong. Even though they did not idolize weapons like many U.S. citizens do - this was a degradation. Firearms were expensive - they were not that widespread (also not in the U.S. apart from hunters and famers). Hunting is not as widespread as in the U.S., the countries in Euirope are more densely populated. So for people who did have firearms in Germany in the 1930s that meant usually having served in WW1 at a higher rank or being a hunter or farmer - and as Jewish people were rarely farmers - a hunting weapon or being a collector would indicate wealth. Being forced to give up the firearms was more a measure of degradation. If any Jews had gunned down police, Gestapo, etc. - they would have brutally killed them and their whole family (and taken it as pretext for more violence). So that was no danger for the tyrannical state.
    2
  49. 7:30 periods of societal change rile up the conservatives / reactionaries. But she seems to be a neoliberal apologist. There are always reactionary elements, they were also around in the 1960s and 1970s (and also in Europe where racism wasn't that important). If the economy is doing well for all !! they do not get traction. She very carefully avoids mentioning the obvious economic reasons caused by neoliberal politics, the reasons why the far right got traction.
    2
  50. of course the Dems are not against tax cuts for the Rich - D-O-N-O-R-S (Silicon Valley anyone ? Wallstreet anyone ?) Now the Dems must somehow keep Sanders from running in 2020.
    2