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

  1. I think it must be a sandwich. OPTION 1) Running grassroots candidates w/o Big Corp. Donor money (and hope that they don't do an Obama = dupe the voters and change course as soon as they are in power - see IDC in New York). Moreover there is always the possibility that they LATER get corrupted, integrated into the machine, intimidated. For a senator for instance it is approx. USD 172,000 before taxes with good benefits (healtchare). That is not bad, but they need 2 households and one in expensive D.C. So they needed to be content with that pay. Plus going against the machine (which can be exhausting) Or much more money * and going with the flow. IDC in New York: a few renegade "Democrats" in the State Senate caucused with the Republicans so despite the majority nothing (good for The People) could be passed. Needless to say the party bigshots in New York (governor Cuomo !) were O.K. with the IDC, they could govern as Republicans and had always an excuse. The State Senate was the reliable grave for all measures that would have been good for the masses and bad for the Big Donors. It started out with one (Jeff Klein I think is the name) who defected when the Republicans had a slim majority in 2011. When the Dems took over the Senate in 2012 more Dems were "hired" or bribed by the Republicans to causus with them. So the official Republicans and the IDC Republicans still had the majority. 7 more Democratic defectors eventually joined the IDC (Independent Democratic Congress) - and one of them was a new comer, a Latina, she had run on a Bernie platform and sold out immediately. Perks for the district, better office, more money for staff - chance to hire a relative for instance. Now she lost her seat of course as well but you bet she calculated (and likely got) a cushy post as compensation for the services rendered. True, she could not make herself a name with the Big Donors so the gamble may not have gone well. On the other hand the others served the oligarchs and Republicans longer so THEY will be taken care of.... 6 of the 8 defectors got voted out in September 2018. Only in April 2018 the party leadership could finally be bothered to lean on them (took them only 7 years !). Cynthia Nixon was instrumental in that, she called the IDC and Cuomos silence out when she challenged the govenor in the primaries. So Cuomo had one meeting (!) and brought them into the fold. As far as party "leadership" was concerned all was forgotten and forgiven - but the voters were not having it, they exacted revenge for the years of betrayal. ...... In New York it is about BIG MONEY - for instance when the real estate developers get favored over the population. They can easily buy a few state senators A possibility to make money OFF the OFFICE * For instance the SuperPacs can buy up the books. Or hire relatives (or give contracts to relatives). or they get information where to buy real estate. Or they get offered real estate that is seriously underpriced compared to market value. (the person that was responsible for the "mistake" to purge voters from the rolls in Brooklyn in the 2016 Democratic primaries got such a deal. In that case the civil servant could SELL a house well above market price - to someone with ties to the Clintons). You bet they would love to buy AOC - if only to shut her up.
    2
  2. the OTHER VENUE pushing for a Constitutional amendment. Congress could pass one, but they would need a supermajority AND then the D shills in Congress would have to get rid off the gravy train - for most it is THEIR gravy train - and they would need to agree to do the campaigns the old fashioned way (plus public funding). The toxic incentive that the large coroporations and the special interests can provide cushy jobs when they want to end the career (or after being voted out) is still in effect. But of course there would be polticians like Sanders who want to stay in politics, can manage to get elected and the job is a good fit (so they will stay in office - often for decades). Congress would not pass such an amendment not even when they would get a supermajority.
    2
  3. Reform the police has not helped for decades. De-militarize is not enough. They also kill (in many cases) with standard equipment. The rip off in Ferguson was not done with military style weapons, they financed the city budget with fines which they got mainly from poor brown and black people. Police and curt and city council and mayor colluded.
    2
  4. She is too weak, she talks a good game - Tulsi Gabbard and Nina Turner showed spine when it mattered. E. Warren could have campaigned for Sanders. - And they coordinated in 2015 - Sanders would not have run if SHE had run. - But she did not have the guts to stand up to the Clinton machine and did not dare to run. So Sanders took on the calling. She meets with the Big Donors - he doesn't.
    2
  5.  @L98fiero  It caters to the ego. And some like it to have someone to kick down at. Getting benefits / welfare carries a stigma in the U.S. - maybe they overcompensate. identifying with those who complain about welfare queens and alleged abuse. They deserve to get help of course (and those whom they know and like). Everyone else is a moocher. Being to the right / being conservative has to do with excluding SOME people and being into a somewhat authoritarian / paternal leadership. . To a degree that is a disposition and a society needs both: holding on the to old and the well known - and being expansive and exploring new frontieres. For people that are "conservative" the border and the insiders / outsides issue is important - that is not only about countries, they are also more irritated when other borders are tested like gender norms. Or when they have to put up with people that do not look like them. Likely they were always more rightwing. They just did not talk about it - and now they feel they do not have to hold back. They can be very nice to those whom they accept as being IN the club, and if they do not talk politics when you meet - you wouldn't know.
    2
  6.  @mavillejones5908  One important aspect: he will also attract people that voted right - so they are exposed to Medicare for all, and guest regarding that, etc. Frankly I think Sam Seder does some click baiting - and some self righteous smugness on top of that.
    2
  7. The instinct of the upper / ruling class for individual charity for the deserving (like a CUTE little girl) resurfaces whenever the first go to move is to MEANS TEST assistance, even during the middle of a pandemic, even though it delays rollout, creates unnecessary buraucracy, and they could easily tax the money back LATER when they KNOW the 2019 income for a 70k before taxes family * stayed the same in 2020. But NO, There. Must. Be. Some. Means. Testing. And. Strings. Attached. For the citizens and smaller biz, that is. Big biz got showered with money, early on and no string attached. * The same instinct kicked in in 2009. Glossing over the criminal activities of banksters were glossed over. But finger wagging for the imprudent home buyers who had misled or duped the unsuspecting too big to fail banks. I guess the media telling unexperienced consumers for years about the real estate prices going up and no context with former real estate bubbles had nothing to do with citizens rushing to buy before it got even more expensive. And no warning by media with their research teams about loans that were obviously meant ton entrap naive home buyers. the interests and payments were low in the beginning. As for politicians instinct to be wary to help the regular people "too much" Generous help for big finance. Bailout. After ! that 4.5 TRILLIONS in QE (so the fines that Eric Holder negotiated before he "settled" w/o prosecution did not really hurt the banks. Not only had they made spectacular profits before the bubble burst. They got showered with money, it prettied up their balance sheets. They "swapped" their (unsellable !) assets for money from the Fed / treasury. So Holder had record fines for show - and they had no real financial hardships. The program for struggling home owners was not nearly as generously funded. It was handled by for-profits who likely had an incentive to forclose not to prevent forclosue. anyway: it was a hassle for the homeowners, they did not know from on quarter to the next if they "qualified" if not they owed the whole 3 months of mortgage right there and then (and did not have it of course). Then Larry Summers was "worried" about it and suggested it should be shut down earlier ..... If only the U.S. would be a democracy, then citizens would not have to put up with the oligarchs and the politicans that rule on their behalf.
    2
  8. So the sanctions on Russia and Iran were O.K. - THAT economic damage hits the allies especially in Europe and Japan. Iran: Again - other countries do more business with them - obviously, they are not going to buy U.S. weapons, and the U.S. does not manufacture much beyond weapons and cars that are mainly sold in the U.S. (and hard to sell elsewhere). The U.S. cars do not have a high reputation, the cheap AND the quality segment is dominated by other countries. That may or may not be a fair assessment of U.S. cars now (but they tend to need more gas) - they made themselves that reputation many years ago, and there are global production over capacities, so they will not be able to compete with Korea, Japan, or Germany when it comes to high end cars.
    2
  9. Hardly any British politicians come from regular schools / universities. They all went to the exclusive schools where you have to pay. Tories, Labour, the media guys and gals, the "wizards" from Big Finance - it does not matter. George Galloway says some decades ago it was not uncommon to have people with a working class background in parliament (not the majority, not with the Tories of course). But in Labour some made it - usually via the unions. Well und Tony Blair that ended - some neoliberal careerists were ushered into safe seats. That is a trend in ALL wealthy countries, that the "Social Democratic" parties got taken over by sleek, career politicians who have a LOT in common with the conservative party folks (especially the neoliberal approach) and some dismissal of blue collar agendas versus white collar. They all got very cozy with Big Finance for instance. And not a peep about challenging neoliberalism or austerity on principle. Austerity Lite if the voters are lucky. Or they screw the regular people almost as much as the conservatives while paying lip service (the Democrats in the U.S. are good with that exercise). And of course they do not fight - they would they - they have planned their careers, and hold only convenient views. Another politician who has preferences but not convictions - and another valuable tool for the neoliberal agenda and Big Finance to keep damage away from THEM after the financial crisis: Barack Obama. That was different for instance in Germany, Austria after WW2. Some politicians on the left came straight out of prison or one of the less deadly concentration camps into the provisory governments during the occupation of the allied forces (higher up Social Democrats were lucky insofar that the Nazis did not put them into the worst camps, so they had a chance to survive). The people chosing to be a left politican or working for the unions in the 1920s may not have known what that politicial engagement would get them - but even then being a "lefty" was not a lucrative career choice nor was it for the faint of heart. It showed in the kind of politics they made then. corruption and nepotism aside - they still had some principles when they passed laws that influenced the life of citizens. They would never have sold out to neoliberalism. I compare that to the pathetic performance of the German SPD when it came to TTIP and also CETA which also gives multinationals undue rights to sue governments - the base was fiercly against it. Sigmar Gabriel first paid lip service - and then rolled over before being pushed.
    2
  10. He was known to INSIDERS, but his claim to public fame was being beaten by AOC ; ) Someone in the comment section called him a cellophane Corporate Democrat. Invisible but holding things together. Certainly a good fundraiser (New York real estate, and likely very Wallstreet friendly, all on the back of the constituents) - therefore predestined to become the next speaker of the house ....
    2
  11. + sjewitt22 - glad to notice that JC9 took over the National Executive Committee - so the eternal backstabbers and Tory Lites among the Members of Parliament can be purged. I think the Corbynistas have pretty much taken over the party AND the institutions in it !. Only a lot of MPs are still dissenting. of course now they are plotting a split (Chuka Umunna Labour is institutionally racist ! or very recently Tony Blair - he even mentioned a centrist party) The problem is of course they STILL would need to win. And their rich donors and buddies cannot help them much. the tabloid press is bad enough - but they cannot outspend the grassroots like it is possible in the U.S. If the most committed Blairites (maybe 8 - 12), the LibDems and Remain Tories try to form a centrist party - it could get interesting (some danger for Labour too in an upcoming GE - but I think the lot is so self-interested that they likely will continue to stab each other. Let's hope they self destruct.
    2
  12. +Nate - when they deliver you into the hospital after a severe accident or a dramatic display of symbom they probably would not deny services. They would have people dying on the doorsteps. Does not look good. - They are only legally required to "stabilize" a patient - and they have ways to work around that as well. If uninsured they would charge you at least double what they would bill to a public non-profit insurance agency (in Europe or even to Medicare). There was a woman that decided to run for office becasue the Corporate Dem (relatively new in office) could not be bothered to be for Single Payer. (TYT covered her - the shill was pathetic in a townhall and she got furious. I think she lost the race sadly). She is a nurse, her husband is a veteran. Their daughter had insurance (from a job, or from her father. She intended to start a training in autumn and then would have been covered with her father. But in summer she was in a limbo. She was always healthy but got pain in a leg and it got really bad. The hospital figured out that her insurance status was at least "unclear", they were eager to get rid of her. She returned she begged for help. Her mother advised her on the phone (she was not in town, in person she might have rocked the boat big time.) The mother which also was a nurse was incredulous - maybe her daughter did not communicate right with the hospital ? Did they know the pain got worse and worse and unbearable ? Considering this was a middle class family - even if the daughter had been w/o insurance, the bill would have been paid. If a healthy young person gets out of the blue pain and it becomes worse over short time, the thing to think of is an embolie. They can check that out with a MR. That they did not want to do however. - If they want to err on the safe side (time is of essence IF it is an embolie) they can give her blood thinning medicaton and/or transfusions. With the MR they would have found the clog, it caused the pain in the limb, later it swept in the bloodstream (heart attack). The young woman had been sent away with a prescription for pain medication. - Later they had to take her in - she was delivered into intense care. When her family arrived she was there and in very bad shape. She died some hours later. Michael Moore showed in Sicko how the hospitals get rid of elderly / poor patients w/o a family that cares for them. The ambulances take them and drop them off a few streets away. Or they just shove them out of the house so to speak. "Letting them leave" is not the correct word, when they have dementia (or are confused because of the sickness, that happens a lot with old people, they can recover from that). They may not need hospital care anymore but they need care and you cannot kick them out to let them fend for themselves. The ambulance transport likely avoids legal problems - for the hospital. A charitiy had set up shop in proximity to a hospital that had a reputation for doing that - so that they can rescue such patients. Which means the ambulance drivers or the adminstrative staff (the lower charges) which get maximum pressure from management to execute the ugly schemes will likely be glad to drop off the abandoned patients there - at least they can hope the person is not going to die and they participate in it. Management likely never gave written orders for these procedures and will play innocent and blame it on the lower charges if sued or called out publicly. A confused old woman, dragging along with her the cart with the transfusions. She might have landed herself in the nearby street with a lot of traffic had it not been for the intervention of the charity. Staff (ambulance services and hospital) that do not want to participate in the ugly scheme can go and look for another job. And I would not be surprised if they have a Non Disclosure "agreement" in their work contract. They cannot go against a dysfunctional system.
    2
  13. Thanks for your post - have you considered medical weed ? - and on a side note: if possible maybe add some paragraphes it is hard to read - and I am sure you want it to be read or you would not have bothered. Also would some mild sauna or infrared cabin be helpful (the heat might help with pain, of course you would have to ease into it to see if it helps - it also could make things worse. If soaking in a warm bathtub is good mild sauna would likely hlep.
    2
  14. As for anxiety - EFT (meridian tapping) might help with that. it is something that lay persons can do on their own, or you work a few sessions with a practicioner. Even doctors or psychologists have it as additional tool. the website EFT Universe is run by Dawson Church he has a large archive where you can look for case studies regardig pain management, PTSD, minor deprression (because of not being able to work). And he has an instruction video on the site. it is easy to learn, easy to use and you do not need to get it perfectly right to see some effects. The earlier forms of EFT also tap points on your hand (not on the body) so that is more inconspicious when you are in public, you can search for that (Dawson Church likely does not have that or it is somewhere hidden in the large archive). But you should be able to find it. (also look for gamut routine).
    2
  15.  Derek Hitt  The "free market" cannot work for healthcare because the patients are by far the weakest actor in the system, it only works if there is approx. equal power. That is on principle not possible. And as long as maximal profit is the motiavtion in the system (market - not free, but market - and it is the principle of Capitalism) the government also cannot prevent that the citizens are being ripped off (and government too, since it pays the subsidies).  They cannot regulate and monitor. The complexity is very high, each case is individual (diagnosis) - the big players will always be ahead 3 steps of the patients and 2 steps of the regulators. That is why almost all nations after WW2 built systems that eliminated the profit motiv in all areas where it is unrealistic that control is possible (with reasonable demand on time and administration). Big Pharma has highly standardized internationally comparable products. that is why they can be contained despite their market power and quest for the highest profit possible. Non-profit public insurance agencies have power too - and they use if for the interests of the insured.
    2
  16. "guaranteed" healthcare is a weasel word (like "access" to healthcare Tom Perez and other Democratic big shots) - if at this stage of discussion he does not use "single payer" (or at least MfA which is a compromise because there is a transition period) he works for the healthcare industry.
    2
  17. Democrats: "Nice little country you have here. Wouldn't it be a shame if Donald Trump happened to it ?" They run on that in 2016 and 2020 (platforms are to placate the better informed progressives. Regular voters do not read it - if they even know such a thing exists. What the campaign stresses in ads, speeches, interviews is what sets the expectations of the voters.
    2
  18. Meghan threw a tantrum regarding Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - the money it would cost to have healthcare / education. - In the end she was furious she could have to pay estate tax for the fortunes she inherits - not that she admitted that, but this was the first time I have seen her so furious (and she clearly had rehearsed her routine). That was a few months ago and Trump/Republicans had already lowered estate tax along with other major tax cuts for the rich. It was clear that her father would not have to live long anymor e - on the other hand the big money comes from her mother's side so it is possible that she did not yet inherit it all. So if Sanders comes in in 2020, if those "terrible" ideas get more traction and more people get elected into congress and senate - she might have to pay tax on her unearned fortune. Just so that other people can have a slice of what was natural for her.
    2
  19. There was a case where a Catholic home for foster children and also Child protection services ! allowed some unrestrained doctors of medicine to treat HIV-infected children with HIGH doses of AIDS drugs. The drug doses were not adjusted to the body weight (and maybe differing metabolism/system of a growing human). It came out because a couple had 2 little girls in foster care, both were HIV infected. Their pediatrician later confirmed that the girls were doing wonderfully. They became more lively and upbeat AND their health improved very much over time - on reduced Aids medication. The doctor in cooperation with the foster parents had reduced the dose of medication (that had been going on for some time and obviously suited the little girls well - one can assume that the overdose of drugs was an assault on their system - like I said they were given doses that were high for ADULTS). When the usual case worker of the couple (who was cooperating well with the couple) was on holiday, the substitute in CPS signed or issued an order to forcibly remove the girls from their foster parents - no former warning, no consultation with the doctor or other experts, nothing. Well, that family was solid middle class and LOVED the little ones. So they fought back. They reached out to the media, the doctor made public statements. Unfortunately the little girls were not returned to the family. Can you imagine the PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE to the children !!! They were maybe 3 - 4 years when they were taken from the home, likely the first loving and caring home and bonding they had. Anyway: it also came out that a Catholic home caring (also) for such HIV infected children colluded with the drug companies in that "experiment". The New York Times reported on it. The doctors that run the experiment justified their actions with: we answer to an ethics commission. Only the ethics commission also (or solely - not sure about that) included the same doctors that run the experiments. So they were controlling themselves. After the public outcry the experiments were stopped. - I guess they moved to developing nations where there is no hassle with a New York Times or citizens / voters who do not like foster children being abused as guinea pigs. I also recommend the film with Rachel Weiss and Ralph Fiennes The Constant Gardener. (related to the topic).
    2
  20. In 1970 a slave trader got a statue when you drive into Nashville, TN. He was a son of Memphis and no doubt fought bravely in the Civil War, engaged in the KKK etc. 2 years after Dr. King was killed those morons gave that man a statue.
    2
  21. The advantage is that Saagar often gets push back from Krystall AND people to the right will watch the show (and hear the other side as well) because they like him. They would not watch it if there would be two progressives or 1 progressive and 1 liberal. I find him to be all over the place and he reverse engineers his arguments, and is oblivious to how inconsistent he is. That said: he seems to be genuine. of course he has to be the palatable Republican for that format, but I think that is not out of character for him. The two have good chemistry and get along well, and that also has appeal for the viewers (One of them slams the Republican or Democratic establishment or both in a rant and the other one gigles in the background). Obviously he has a lot of bias and suffers from believing a lot of thought stopping clichés, and introspection is not his strong suit (or he would realize how much he contradicts himself). That said: at least he is for economic populism (while styling himself as kinda f libertarian. He is also against weed ;) some libertarian. When they had a discussion Krystall pushed back and he "clarified" that he was for decriminalizing weed. Well, it is a start. And w/o being pushed he may not have come to that insight. Or concession.
    2
  22. the parliament elections were in Dec. 2015 and the various opposition parties won a supermajority. "The MUD won 109 of the 164 general seats and all three indigenous seats, which gave them a supermajority in the National Assembly; while the GPP won the remaining 55 seats. Voter turnout exceeded 74 percent.
    2
  23. in the presidential elections at least 4 candidates were running. The opposition consist of self-serving oligarchs and despite the economic troubles they could not get their act together and defer to ONE candidate / party that could lead. Lopez was barred from running (If memory serves he was involved in the 2002 coup against Chavez) and another strong candidate also was not allowed to run: Henrique Capriles who had lost narrowly against Maduro in 2013. Claim: irregularities, donations from abroad, not sure what to make of it. ONE - Falcon - broke ranks and DID run against Maduro (he is well known and polled like Lopez in the beginning): He was expelled from his party and of course the other parties told the voters to not vote at all in the election. He was also smeared as colluding with Maduro - well THAT was NOT helpful in challenging Maduro. He lost heavily against Maduro. The U.S. btw threatenrd him with sanctions. Now THAT is weird: Sanctions for challenging an incumbent that the U.S. wants to see beaten - even though the narrative was that the election was not legitimate because the opposition was banned from running ?? Falcon WAS from the opposition and from one of the parties under the MUD umbrella, and he had chances .... Just to repeat: TWO were banned. Lopez is a highly shady character, so that leave Capriles who might have been deprived of running under a pretext (but it is entirely possible that he is corrupt and the ban was legitimate). And the opposition (before united under the umbrella of MUD - the united opposition) could not come up with one convincing candidate in the national crisis ? ? Falcon would have been ONE logical choice. Likely they were not at all sure they could win - or they were too self-serving to let this or that party and candidate have the advantage of winning. (The U.S. might have settled that, and might have backed up the claims of some actors recently). it tells you something about the opposition when they cannot find ONE convincing candidate (or support the one that IS running) even when the economy is doing badly. The voters of Venezuela might not even like Maduro - but they realize some things about the "opposition". They had them before 1998 - see per capita GDP and extreme poverty in the decades before 1998 when Chavez was voted in. Malnutrition of children, favellas around the cities, no or bad access to schools or medical care ! Falcon GAVE the voters an option to stick it to Maduro - so why didn't they seize the chance to get rid of Maduro - never, mind if the opposition got their act together or told them to stay home. You bet the situation was hotly debated everywhere- and private media was not banned from reporting. no doubt the U.S. assured the incompetent, fractured oppostion, that if they would refuse to participate - that it would be woven into the narrative and would help create the mythos that the elections were not legitimate. The press and privately owned major TV channels could report negatively on Madura and they did.
    2
  24. it is unheard of that a person in Europe would enter the polling station and NOT be on the list. - And is it also well established customs that the parents phone after their children who go to university or moved in with a partner - and did not yet bother to update to the new address. "I got your invitation to vote in the mail. Will you come home this weekend to vote ?" Most of the time mothers do the phone call ;)
    2
  25. + mike you have no idea who the Bernie supporters are or how they think. Obviously.
    2
  26. Actually no: GWB passed it in 2007 I think - maybe it was after the Great Financial Crisis broke and they threw crumbs to the citizens considering the election in 2008. Anyway they did not get crazy. 7.25 and in effect since 2009. I had always assumed that Obama had passed it, but no: the U.S. workers have GWB to thank. Aren't they lucky with the history of Obama and Dems being lame of purpose, the minimum wage might never have been raised (likely would have been another version of: We didn't have the votes even though voters gave us the presidency, the House, and Senate).
    2
  27. 7.25 have lost 15 % purchasing power since 2009.
    2
  28. Federal minimum wage worker of 1968 makes a time travel to 2018 - so 50 years later. Would have the purchasing power of 24,500 USD before taxes per year (40 weeks, 40 hours at inflation adjusted 12.25 hourly wage). Only that rent and higher education was cheaper back in the day. Health care too, it was forbidden to make a profit from health insurance (not sure if that non-profit mandate also applied to hospitals, but certainly for insurers, Nixon is to blame for that change). Time traveller can't fathom why his 2018 counterparts would put up with 7.25 which amounts to 14,500 annually before taxes.  The purchasing power of the minimum wage peaked in 1968. Of course manufacturing paid more and states may have had better minimum wages. That wage applied in poor and rural areas, too
    2
  29. Yes the Saudia started an open war with Yemen, before that they started and arranged for regime change in Syria with hundreds of thousands of dead people. (pipeline, and stepstone to get to Iran, wich the Saudis consider to be the arch enemy). The Saudis also commented immediately very negatively on the new Iran deal (like Israel) - so they KNEW righ away it would not work, did they ?
    2
  30. Obama also planned that kind of thing (along with death panels) just never got around to it. Same with confiscating all fire arms. But he did wear a tan suit, the bastard.
    2
  31. The "elites" in the party have major double think going on - and Sanders reminds them of how they SHOULD work for their constituents. And they detest him for it. - They try to convince the voters that they are for the regular people - but they are funded by the same corporations that also finance the Republicans. They also work for the upper 20 - 30 % of the population with a STRONG emphasis on promoting the interests of the 1 %. That colludes usually (almost always) with the interests of the 70 - 80 %. What is more: they do not like to have the (cynically honest) self assessment of being sell-outs and cowards. Or to watch the effects when they - the Corporate Dems - roll over before being pushed. When they FAIL to fight the Republicans tooth and nail. Well, that is not what the Big Donors pay them for. Their most important role is not to win general elections. They are supposed to win primaries to keep the progessives out. If they were obedient to the party establishment and the Big Donors they will get a cushy position if they end their political career. So losing a GE is not the end of the world for THEM. The donors and the top of the party honor such "obligations". It reassures the shills that still hold seats that is better for them to serve the Big Donors and to do as they are told by the party leadership - as opposed to serving their constituents. The lower ranks of the political class have to earn their status with the big shots in the party (true for both parties). So the leadership can easily fulfill their obligation towards the Big Donors - make everyone fall in line. Big money in political campaigns also provides some of the necessary employment opportunities for obedient ex-politicians. Stratgists, consultants, lobbyists - media gets a lot of campaign ads and will help out with contracts as well to keep the cozy scheme going. So the sell-outs that claim that they represent The People prefer to stay in the insider bubble, and to avoid to SEE the effects of their policies on the voters. That psychological mechanism made the Clinton campaign so tone deaf and unable to see the writing on the wall in 2016. Their need to protect their good self-image (typical for homo sapiens) while being sell-outs interferes very much with a fact based, honest if cynical assessment of what is going on with the electorate. Homo sapiens is a very social species. Only outright sociapaths have the fortitude to be unashamedly selfish and corrupt and be fully AWARE of it (they do not tell others, but this is about self image). Selfishness goes against our instincts honed by evolution: group cohesion, solidarity and avoiding infighting was crucial for survival. So we all are very much inclined to find excuses when we are selfish or cowards, to sugar-coat non-social behavior. It is easier to harm / neglect people if they are stripped of their humanity, individuality, personhood. It also manifests in the technocratic language of war: humans are "soft targets". Killed civilians are "collateral damage", the soldiers of the other side are "the enemy". The next level is to riducle or villify people to make it easier to neglect them. If they are seen as humans, "like us", they are automatically "members of the tribe". It is very difficult for homo sapiens to wrong a "tribe member" millions of years of evolution made sure of that. What works best: to suppress knowledge. Stay inside the bubble. Don't dwell on conflicting information. Well, that does not help with a brutally honest assessment of what is going on with the electorate. Self-serving politicians fall victim to their own rosy narratives. [Edit: the real estate developers in New York can breathe a sigh of relief. Nixon was defeated by Cuomo in the primaries in Sep. 2018. He (the Big Donors) threw millions into the race. He outspent her by factor 20 or 40 - something like that. The INCUMBENT. The mayor of New York and the governor of the state COULD do a lot for social housing and restricting WHO is allowed to buy up real estate for "investment" with the effect that rent becomes unaffordable for the people that live and work in the region. But usually the politicians in power are bribed to side with the landlord class and the rich investors and those who build for the investors. In the U.S. they can be bribed directly, in other nations it is done with the help of donations to parties - campaign spending is restricted but not necessarily donations, and then there are cushy jobs for ex-politicians, family members, .....] Politicians learn the sound bites that the think tanks and lobbyists are glad to provide: The thought stopping clichés that help to sugar coat policies that are hardly better than that of the GOP. * So Sanders very uncomfortably reminds them of what THEY SHOULD BE. And they detest him for it. He shows to the public what is possible and he very much distrubs their double think. As is usual with humans: they had once made the choice for SELFHISNESS,COMPLACENCY and COWARDICE - instead of integrity which is more challenging and much less lucrative. Such anti-social choices are usualy not revised (those crosroads lead to one direction streets so to speak, those who will have integrity make the choice early on). The usual behavior is to double down and develop contempt for anyone who threatens to burst their bubble - that way they can continue to profit from selfishness and can prevent feeling bad about themselves - even under more "difficult" conditions. * The 2017 spring townhalls were challenging for the Republicans which were confronted by angry voters. Remarkable also the Corporate Dems when they were asked about healthcare: They delivered the obfuscating rightwing talking points and misrepresentations. Listen to Debbie Wasserman-Schulz or Nancy Pelosi for instance. Even in summer 2018 when Medicare for All polled excellently even among Republicans: Amy Goodman cornered Tom Perez, he was protesting at the border the separation of children from migrants - "access to healthcare, opportunities, values ... " the usual phrases. He could not bring himself to even mention the word "Universal healthcare" even though Goodman used that phrase in her question (What do you think about Universal healthcare, are you for it ?) Then he turned away to the other mics. He is not even good at lying.
    2
  32.  @debraleighscott  The Big Donors finance BOTH parties. (two wings of ONE party really). They do their branding on issues that do not cost the donors profits. Abortions, gun, LGBT rights - both parties use these issues. Voters are supposed to get so excited about them (D and R) that they forget that they get nothing of substance. the Dems must do identity politics. They do not work for the regular people but have to maintain the fiction.  It looked like a progress when gays could marry. That is not doing them much good if they have student debt, have no jobs security, clean water, and Big Finance will cause the NEXT CRASH. The Dems cannot give their base what they need - it could offend the Big Donors. Worse the money would stop flowing. Campaigns are ALSO a way to employ people and loyalists after they left politics. Media helps out as well, they hire ex politicians. The circus goes way beyond the financing of political campaigns. good shills will have cushy jobs - even IF they lose elections. The job of Democrats is to keep progressives from winning elections - by any means possible. The Big Donors pay them for that and they can reach people that are out of reach for the Republicans. They all do not want Big Money gone from poltitics.
    2
  33. Maduro should accept food deliveries .... and they DID - from the EU via the UN (which the Trump admin is defunding right now) from Russia and recently they had an agreement with the Red Cross. - It is only that the "special envoy" is a war criminal, has a history of regime change in Latin America and also has a history of smuggling weapons etc. into a country that was on the regime change list (likely under Reagan) under cover of "humanitarian aid transports".
    2
  34. +Charlotte Philips not all whites are complacent. The media have got their marching orders though. - many white people (who still have the nice life) let law enforcement get away with murder (literally !) - they seem to assume that it will not affect them in the end. Well the fascist acting police will turn out to help take their freedoms away too. If someone has aspirations to join the KKK - why would they enlist with THEM. Much better to join the police. Much more possibilities. Impunity from prosecution they could only dream of in the klan. A good salary on top. The police was infiltrated by the klan even (or especially) back in the day. For instance in L.A. !! - A former reformed big shot of the KKK talked about it: Johnny Lee Clary). As for racism - usually that is the system of oppression by the dominant group. so black people have prejudices. But not the systemic or economic power that could show any effect in the big picture. (But good luck if you are the only white kid in a poor black neighbourhood).
    2
  35.  @GeorgePiazza  excellent post - if I may make a recommendation, please edit and add some paragraphes - it makes it better readable so more WILL read it.
    2
  36. Is that you "Correct the Record" ?
    2
  37. Some unlucky intern was sloppy with their research ;)
    2
  38. That's the problem. Even the solid middle class (and their employers) pays an arm and a leg for comprehensive coverage. Unify Medicare and Medicaid. Almost ALL VOTERS would LOVE it. Republicans have hated on Social Security since it was introduced in the 1930s and it was only expanded. They STILL were not able to abolish it. Reasonably funded M4A would support small hospitals, it also gives a LOT of political leverage and the divide and conquer strategy does not work because affluent people like it too. (in other nations that is the case, it also makes sure no political party can make hay from defunding the system because their voters could shop for the equivalent of gated communities in medical care. a 2 class system. if it is reasonably set up and the amind kept steamlined and straighforward - the public agencies ALWAYS beat for profit insurers if they have the same budget. so that argument also flies out of the window. If the nation gets M4A they will never look back. Good cost efficient services will be provided, staff is paid - but the insurers will not make any profits with that niche. And probably a lot of hospitals would have to become genuine non-profits. Or get competition from non-profti hospitals (they cannot compete). you need a certain number of patient to have a cost efficient operation, and they would not get enough patients if they do not accept M4A covered patients. And outlawing duplicative care means if Medicare would cover it a private insurer (or an employer) cannot offer it. patients can only pay out of pocket. That restricts how many doctors can exist w/o accepting M4A and have only "private" services.  Take care of sufficient funding (after a transition phase much reduced spending per person, almost all wealthy nations are in the range of 49 - 56 % of the U.S. spending per person.
    2
  39. The task assigned to the Democratic establishment (by Big Donors) is the WIN PRIMARIES and to keep blue collar representatives (FDR style, or progressives) away from power. It does not matter if they win the GE. The establishment of the party will be safe (even Joe Crowley got a job immediately and he made a VERY SERIOUS mistake, he let AOC win. But he served the Big Donors faithfully - there is a reason he was speaker-in-waiting, he was a good fundraiser - so HE was of course PROVIDED FOR. The Big donors want the voters to have follwing "choice" on the ballot: a spineless sellout Corporate Democrat OR a fierce Republican. The Democratic party does have value for the oligarchs. There are voters that are out of reach for the Republicans. If left to themselves they would come up with dangerous = progressive ideas.  It is helpful to have a system that allows for not more than 2 dominant parties. A system with "winner takes all per district or state" inevitably leads to that. (In the U.K. that can be sometimes overcome because spending on elections is restricted and grassroots do have a fighting chance, not a large one, but it exists). In the U.S. there were only Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders that were Independents for longer time.
    2
  40. Abortion opponents - it is often about the gratification of telling other people what to do. And of course an opportunity to exercise a holier than thou attitude.- Discuss with abortion opponents - and sure enough after a little pro and contra many will come up with: "If the sluts have sex they should live with the consequences" Or a more polite version w/o name calling and talking about that they have "responsibility" if they engage in the act and in ends with an unwanted pregnancy. Often the same crowd would not make birth control available for cheap or free. And heaven forbid the kids can get birth control w/o parental consent, are taught beyond ! abstincence or are shown in sex ed how to use a condom and other birth control information. John Oliver has a hilarious video clip - a state where it is forbidden to show the use of a condome (on a banana etc. -In Europe they often MUST show that in sex-ed, even in Catholic schools, HIV prevention). That teacher (a male) showed the right technique - how to put on a sock and what to consider when putting it off the sock. Back to the bigots: it used to be that one could shame women that had children out of wedlock, or got divorces - does not work anymore. The joy of looking down on people - and AT LEAST creating difficulties in their life - if one cannot hinder them at having sex as they see fit.
    2
  41. Other well meaning, active abortion opponents are incapable to transcend their own circumstances, belief system and experiences. If a family WANTS a child they are overjoyed when finding out. They talk about the baby, it is already real to them, everybody congratulates, "When is the baby due ?" "What names do you consider ? etc. Almost always their religion tells them it counts as human from the beginning, when the sperm unites with the egg, even before it attaches to the uterus. - It is fine to have that view - but the medical, legal, scientific view is that it is not yet a human, does not have personhood, it is a clump of cells, later a fetus. And these nice people are not able to let go of THEIR view of things and accept that OTHER people have other spititual beliefs (or none), do not share their idea that a zygote, embryo, fetus is a human baby, and do not want to add a child to their life in some months. Or cannot or do not want to cope with a child with severe disabilities. They do not come so much from a place of bigotry - but they are self-centered, often blissfully and willfully ignorant about the troubles of other people - and are very certain that their's is the right god and the right gospel - and they have the moral compass, so in the end they can tell other people to accept a massive responsibility for the next 18 years.
    2
  42. The first nations sometimes kidnapped children or took in run away slaves and they became tribe members. Which means they are Cherokee (or any other tribe) - but it would not show in the DNA. . The relatives often searched for them, sometimes found them and tried to get them back or offered a ransom. But many did not want to go back (when they were treated as the tribe's own children there was a good chance - the shock of being separated often made them bond strongly with the next family, sometimes they forgot. the First nations treated their children very well in general and if they took someone it did not matter if they were white, black, Asian, .... Spare the rod and spoil the child was often the motto of the settlers. Not for the native Americans. When the trail of tears happened such a white looking person (the adopted child now grown up) may have been separated by the soldiers - while also living with the stigma when being brought back to white communities (which would explain the prejudices - the person that lived with the savage).
    2
  43. Let me quote Dr. Richard Wolff who has a degree in economics from Harvard and also degrees from Yale and I think Stanford. From 3 Ivy League institutions, that I am sure about. He did not find them that superior. when it comes to content. He had a regular background with a father influenced by the French Labour movement, so I assume it was outstanding academic achievements and being bright and eloquent what got him in. He found the approach to economics biased and narrow minded and influenced by the Cold War (all hail capitalism). He got interested in exploring Marx - the economic and philisophic academic - if only to refute him or to compare his ideas to let's say Adam Smith (which is misquoted and misunderstood anyway, he is not nearly as libertarian as presented today). Well, he found out that it was not "allowed" to have such academic curiosity -Studying him does not even mean agreement - but Marx was taboo. Given that then the Soviet Union and China claimed ! to follow the economic ideas of Marx and that his writings (from 1840 and later !) contunied to be considered relevant - pf course any serious academic in economcs should have known first hand what Marx did and did not say. China and the Soviet Union had suffered extreme difficulties, war, famine during the 1920s/ 1930s and in WW2. Both countries were desperately poor agrarian feudal societies, and behind in their development (that lead to the revolution). Once the internal fighting for power was over (which cost millions of lifes) - they DID massively improved survival of their citizens, literacy rate, etc. Despite the negative commenting - in the 1930s the U.S. state department was worried about the leap forward that the Soviet Union had made and commented on that in reports. That in 1917 there had been a revolution in Russia (where the rich were dispossessed and fled the country) likely helped FDR to push the New Deal through in 1933. It was not that long ago and showed what the under class could do to the upper class if they were not willing to improve the situation for the lower classes. To quote Mark Blyth: "Redistribution of wealth is asset insurance for the rich." And: "The Hamptons are flat country, and not a defensible position." (Now imagine what would have been possible in Russia resp. the Soviet Union w/o the terrible dictatorship of the Bolshevics that ended that experiment of the fledgeling democracy - an experiment that had started after the czar had been unseated and put under house arrest - the democratic phase did not last long though. As the saying goes: the Revolution eats it's children.) During WW1 Russia was ruled by the czar and the war allies of Russia forced the Revolutionaries to continue fighting - the troops of the czar got support from the U.S. France, U.K and they even invaded Russia. So that prolonged the Civil War. If fighting is necessary, usually the most ruthless forces take over. Those who are most likely to win in such battles are usually not the moderates that are willing to share power. Marxism is the critique of capitalism - and a remarkable academic achievement. So it should be part of the curriculum, like Adam Smith is part of it. The buildings in the Ivy League colleges are fine, the instructions should at least be good (if not superior) maybe they are better funded to do research in the STEM areas. The Ivy League colleges have ONE important function - to facilitate the networking of those that are destined to become the future "elite" of the country. and in former days the ladies from wealthy families had their choice for a future adequate husband. Wolff said the value of having those Ivy League degrees were not WHAT he learned there (that he found unimpressive). Later he could inhabit the outsider niche of non-orthodox economics. And if challenged by some defenders of the established and "allowed" academic range he could always refer to his "distinguished" education from those "elite" institutions and they would back off. So when challenged why he did not think that the current system was the greatest ever and why he even thought a lot of critique was appropriate - those degrees were useful as cover. he did not take advantage of the networking opportunities with graduates from well-off and well connected families. Three unorthodox economists (incl. Wolff) succeeded in being hired by a university (I think in Massachussetts) - the university found the rogue economists an interesting addition. True to form they did collective bargaining and the university was so eager to get them that it accepted their demand for immediate tenure. (Wolff said then he had no real idea of the VALUE of having immediate tenure). Then the governor had to approve of tenure (intersting - no ? politicians decide WHO gets full academic freedom w/o endangering their economic safety) - and they got short term information that the governor was influenced against them. So they came up with some impressive letters of recommendation within a few days - and the govenor approved their hiring, tenure and all. Noam Chomsky said that in the 1940s and 1950s the Ivy League institutions (like Havard) did not accept a lot of Jews. Therefore many of them went to MIT (and maybe Yale). Like Chomsky went to MIT (then almost 100 % military funded) - it was brimming with Jewish STEM talent. So then they tried to keep people of Jewish background out of "The Ivy Club". Well those Jews had money and good education and were not having it.
    2
  44. Example Germany: It does not cost more to fix a Turkish arm - even if that "guest worker" has not adapted much to German culture for instance. . The system is financed with payroll deduction and taxes. - if you pay people enough and do not allow wage dumping (and it does not matter WHERE they come from) there will be enough money in the economy.
    2
  45.  @lenurban  Not his life savings, over 16,000 and he said for a vacation home. Maybe he was not there, it was in a good area where they got heat back, and the controls went for normal cozy temps - but now it needed much more because of the 20 degree F outside (- 17 C). Anyway, he was on autopay and they cleared his account.
    2
  46. The golfballs (that accidentally continued to hit his windows !). I do not have time to go up the upper echolons to get that fixed (owners of the golf course is not "responsible", well they too might know that police will not do anything, and it is in their rational self interest to ignore your woes if they can, - and they can).
    2
  47. Of course he does not have time a) he still studies the law to undo the efforts of car dealership b) studies building and safety codes as to not be on the mercy of landlords (how do you find out about hidden problems, if the property laws do not allow you indepth inspection). c) studies furnaces and safety codes regarding them, and tries to find out the installation and maintainance in THIS property.
    2
  48. They take what might function in a world where people hardly interact and live remotely (with guns to protect themselves against renegades). And want to apply it to a highly complex society.
    2
  49. William Binney former NSA technical director supports the assessment that the download speed was TOO fast for a hack - and is entirely plausible for download on a thumb drive. Either way - the INFORMATION was interesting - not surprising for someone who followed the events - but thanks for confirmation in writing. A few nuggets like City Bank making suggestions to Obama about the cabinet (in 2009) - which were followed ! And of course Craig Murray the former British ambassador said that the received the data on a physcial device in a park in D.C. (by an insider who did not like the rigging against Sanders).
    2
  50. 1978 Supreme Court decision Money equals free speech. Jimmy Carter ran a publicly funded campaign - I think he was the last (and one of the rare) presidents that was not in it to make money off his presidency. Look at the net worth and what the presidents DO after they leave. Obama continues to serve the Big Donors and intervenes on their behalf. And on behalf of the party establishment that absolutely wants to keep money in politics. Reigning Gillum and Beto in after they won the primaries (no MfA, the donors of Big Health do not want that). Obama spent a vacation with billionaires after leaving office (on the yacht). When Keith Ellison had a good chance to win the election for head of the DNC the party establishment sent Johnny-comes-lately Tom Perez into the race. And Obama pulled the strings behind the scenes to make sure Perez would win. He did a lot of phone calls the days before the election. No doubt he will undermine Sanders in the primaries if he can. for the 1978 decision Justic Powell was instrumental (a right wing hack although praised as "centrist") - just look at the Powell memo (how to ensure the rule of the upper class and big biz over the unwashed masses, never mind "democracy")
    2