Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Status Coup News"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A German sociologist on the increasingly rabid anti maskers in 2020 (didn't have vaccines then). He said: Some people go into freeze mode during a crisis, others in flight or fight. The problem with a virus: You can't fight the thing, not with shouting at it, not with weapons, progpaganda, money, .... - so they needed something tangible to be furious about and to be adverserial against.
it is a quite primitive knee jerk reaction (my take, the sociologist did not put it that way). They are not exactely in panic - where people can get very irrational. So at some point they could use their frontal lobes. But they prefer and likely are used to fall back on the much older TRIBAL patterns of behavior.
in spring / early summer 2021 the mask mandates were loosened (until Delta came back to bite us in the bum), and no more lockdowns.
So what could they be angry about ? FIERCLY opposed to ?
Why, vaccination of course. the most standard way to defeat any epidemic and wide spread diseases, as they should know from experience if they were born in the 1950s and 1960s. When vaccination was enthusiastically embraced by governments and citizens alike.
The same people that got their polio shots and are blissfilly unaware of the term iron lung, or the fear which cases of polio, whooping cough and tuberculosis in the community triggered for parents.,
Whopping cough: Around 1900 a newspaper called it the Strangling Angel of Death for the little ones.
It is bad when adults get it, now imagine babies and toddlers fighting for air for days ! - it killed a LOT of children under 4.
And to round it off the many that survived measles but with severe lifelong harm.
The estimate is that 1 in 1000 dies - now with modern medicine, and maybe 5 - 10 suffer lasting (mental) damage). Measles is highly contagious (one, if not the most contagious disease. So a 1 in 1000 fatality when the majority o the population is exposed to it at some point, usually already as child - there will be a fallout for society. If one child got it in a family the statistical chances were not bad that the child would fully recover and then enjoy immunity. So no need to panic, although a sigh of relief if the child has fully reocovered. The is a deadly complications years down the road in 1 of 100,000 cases, BUT they found out recently that risk is higher for toddlers and even more pronounced if a child under 1 gets it.
The virus gets dormant and resurfaces years later - and attack the nervous system. There is no cure for that.
So it is wise that we protect the population at large, so the children are spared those risks.
The individually manageable risk of 1 of 1000 for individuals meant for society that there were victims every year, even in smaller communities and as new children were born (or immunity wore off) there were new victims.
Plus of course the people that bedame disabled because of polio.
Every communtiy and family had these victims. They were visible and put a burden on their families, so no one played stupid games of opposition when vaccines were - finally - available. On the contrary. And research was not as advances as it is now. See the polip campaing of the 1950s, they do not use inactivated viri anymore to stimulate the immune system.
People / parents in the 1950s and 1960s took a leap of faith. Polio vaccination was a bumpy ride, in the US they had to abort a campaign in the 1950s (the inactivated virus was able to infect some children. Now - polio can manifest in a light form, or even be conflated with a harmless infection *, so I do not now there was major harm done - but of course then public trust in that vaccine was undermined. In the late 1950s there was a bad polio season and they tried again with a different approach and that finally delivered a safe vaccine.
* that is how it can spread, it is not always detected, and does not always cause damage. Polio is not nearly as contagious as the new variantes of CoVid-19. And measles is still at the top, although the CoVid-19 virus has improved on being contatgioous since Feb. 2020 (in March a more contagious version turned the Chinese epidemic into a pandemic).
Parents in the early 1950s were not hesistant - knowing the last attempt had not worked, they trusted the process and lined up for the NEW vaccines.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
People that would be good in the fight against the monsters are often very controversial, struppy, adverserial people - unpleasant in person and willing to fight over nonsense, too. Also often not good with their fellow fighters, lots of infighting, over internal power etc. You must be a little crazy if you go against the machine. Reasonable and nice people would arrange themselves. Also because there is a good chance to be crushed by the system and to be worn out.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
I am glad that Cory Booker and Jamaal Bowman are sworn in, and hope Nina Turner wins her race. They seem to be made of stronger fibre.
And for the nice and reasonable, well intentioned progressives or mildy progressive leaning liberals: There is strenght in numbers (there would be also strenght in having a peaceful mass movement, but the citizens are also wussies, or too complacent or resigned).
It is possible that being always the lone voice also got to Sanders.
In a reasonably set up system with VOTERS that can be bothered to turn up (in the primaries !! of the Democratic party) good folks that were voted int, would not need to have an unlikely combination of compassion with enough asshole attitude. (not all voters like Trump, but they appreciate his I do not give a damn attitude. They voted for him despite his affairs, racism xenophobia. How they could overlook his stupidity I do not know).
Good intentions, their heart in the right place, not being corrupt, diligence and intelligence would suffice to do their job as REPRESENTATIVES.
The D party has very successfully resisted all attempts of the base for over 50 years. Lets make that 90 years. FDR likely had a big ego, but he liked the role of the benefactor of the masses and he had enough asshole energy to twist arms. Of Democrats - then and now it was Democrats that stood in the way of progress. Republicans only would have like to be an obstacle. They did have the votes and FDR made sure all of them voted for the New Deal bills.
The Democratic party abandoned and sabotaged their candidate in 1968 against Richard Nixon. The traumatic year when MLK and Bobby Kennedy were killed and then the protest at the D convention were brutally crushed.
LBJ did not bother to expose Nixon as traitor undermining very actively peace talks (It is possible that LBJ was not serious about the peace talks either, that he only gave in to the concerns of the D nominee that he could lose the election to Nixon. But it was only for show. That LBJ knew Nixon would continue HIS war and he prefered a win of Nixon.
LBJ could not admit that, could he.
I read that the DNC run ads against their own candidate, and I understood that was in the general (was it ? but even in the primaries that would be out of line). In other words the D elites then were as bad as they were today. Even though money equals free speech decision came in 1976 (and a Nixon appointed right wing activist judge was very important for that). They could not be as openly bought, but they had sold out in the 60s already.
2
-
2
-
The idea that the city is meant to work for ALL citizens, not only for big biz (or even small biz *) seems to be too exotic to consider. The myht (nothing is more important than a job) - was perpetuated when New York was supposed to be utterly grateful to Amazon for the intent to create "jobs" (not that many new jobs in the U.S. - if was a shift. No city is an island. they are all part of the U.S. So it does matter when Bezoes pits the cities agaiinst each other - and does not pay federal tax).
* Those schmucks can finance Amazon with their taxes while being put by them out of business
I know European countries where the federal government takes in more tax - and then the money is redistributed to the states and the communities. The cities and towns get a wage related tax (percentage) per employee. So they have an incentive to offer areas for commerce, build streets, electrify etc. Better wages mean more income for the community, but for retail it does not matter much if the company is a chain or it if is samller shops. They get the same for the budget for comparable wage levels.
When so much money comes from property tax the communities have an incentive to promote real estate bubbles and prices being driven up. Plus the developers bribe politicians with campaign and party donations and jobs for ex politicians. There was areason Crowley was speaker-in-waiting and had no primary challenger for the longest time - until AOC hit him. He was an excellent fundraiser, no doubt, wallstreet, and real estate developers.
Party and the Big donors were quite content with the siutation, they saw no reason why anyone should challenge him in the primaries. he did little for the constituents, so being around for decades (literally) was an advantage, he had at least some name recognition. The district was savely blue but why upset a smoothly running scheme.
Hardly any of them take the side of the citizens over the real estate "investors". They could limite the influx of international rich "investors" that buy up real estate (it is unused). That is going on in Europe, Asia, Australia, the U.S. New Zealand made it impossible to buy real estate for non-citizens. Berlin has such rules implented a few years ago. Small touristic communities in Austria have been doing that for the longest time, only permanent residents who spend most of their time in the community (they look at work, where the children go to school etc) can buy.
There is a mayor in ? California that ran in the primaries, she used eminent domain when the banks tried to foreclose (the city buying up homes, either turning them into city property for rent, or helping out the distressed home owners.) She had ideas about a public bank. Did not win the primary unfortunately.
New York would have had to bribe Amazon with 500 million USD in direct payments (financed by a loan ! ) and then approx. 2,5 trillion in subsequent tax gifts (at the back of everyone that does pay local taxes, I am sure they all like to give Amazon a free ride).
At a time when the U.S. supposedly has full employment.
So if New York would really get those 25,000 jobs over the course of maybe 10 years (attracting new people to the City, as if New York needed THAT) - it would only be after many years that New York would see tax from Amazon. Who knows - maybe the swarm of locusts would move on to the next place to plunder , before they ever get to the point of really paying.
Who SAYS the city even needs more jobs. And who says they wold get tax revenue ? Not from Amazon, if you follow their example from Seattle. Indirectly from the employees (new people in town) - but THAT comes at a cost, too. And there is the 500,000 million loan plus interest to pay, 500 millions divided by 25,000 would be 20,000 per employee - so they might compensate New York for the direct expenses to bribe their employer to set up shop in New York.
But the costs for the residents that are longer in New York, that have no affordable place to live ? the drain on the budgets are IMMEDIATELY so the public services for THEM are getting even worse. Amazon chose one of the few still affordable areas in New York. The Amazon employees might have rebelled if forced to move and forced to buy the completely overpriced real estate elsewhere in New York And there was an area "ripe for gentrification" so they intended to create an IT sector district - for the employees of Amazon it would mean short commutes, and the real estate will increase its value - so for them it would have worked.
A city is a place where people live, work, spend free time, move around, children need school, parks. Streets, sewage systems, police.
More jobs for highly paid professional that are lured into the city with generous gifts to their company - but not enough space to live for the regular people and a mass transportation system that is already on the brink for lack of funding.
Weirdly enough the Chinese or the Russians find the money to have modern, clean, fast public transporation, but the global financial center can't.
Those additional jobs would have come with displacement of low or normal income people in the area where the highly paid employees would buy up real estate and drive everyone else out. Those employees use of course more space than regular renters, they can afford to.
No plans whatsoever to build more affordable homes elsewhere. Of course not that is not where the real estate developers make the money, and the city has no intent or the budgets to fund that. And Amazon definitely had no intent to do something FOR the community. It could not be clearer that they wnat to leech off the community.
The New York elite political class was willing to splurge on something that would make all existing problems for regular people worse immediately with uncertain options (and no legal regress for that) for revenue in the future. I can see many businesses or co-ops throughout the city appreciating getting 20k per new full time employee - and that employee might not consume as much or pay as much local taxes - but they also will not cost the city as much in additional expenses for public housing - if the city would to its duty.
I assume poor people pay easily as much local tax as rich ones. The tax on a house is higher per individual. but the commoners pay the local tax - if only in form of rent - and many of them share the space that is taken up by one affluent home owner.
These new subsidized jobs might be for people that are already there, that live throughout the city and that have a much smaller footprint (how much space they use) compared with the upper ranks of Amazon. Advantage - the employees might pay less tax - but the company WILL pay tax.
Of course the oligarch class likes that kind of misleading and very reduced discussion (which is eagerly supported by the media / political mouthpieces which the oligarchs bribe) That kind of FRAMING muddies the water for the peasants. The peasants do not like the status quo but as long as the current state of affairs can be declared to be the workings of a natural law - "There is nothing we can do about it, like you cannot protest against how gravitation works" - as long they will not rebel (until things get really bad, then the oligarchs like to side with the fascists to help them keep the masses down).
People do not need a job, they need an income to make a living. (And they must be able to LIVE where they are supposed to WORK.)
- there is plenty of worthwhile work to be done - people can find themselves something to do, they do not need a corporate overloard to find meaning in their life by being productive (for a corporation).
So that would go in the direction of a jobs guarantee, of UBI or reduced worktime. The 40 hour week became the law of the land in 1940 !!! in the U.S. Massive technological shifts happened - the 40 hour week has been undermined (people work overtime, both parents need to work in a household, people work more than 1 jobs and way more than 40 hours, seniors still need to work to add to their income).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
But the costs for the residents that are already NOW in New York, that have no affordable place to live ? the drain on the budgets are IMMEDIATELY so the public services for THEM are getting even worse. Amazon chose one of the few still affordable areas in New York - they seem to consider it an area "ripe and well sutied for for gentrification" so they intended to create an IT sector district - for the employees of Amazon it would mean short commutes, and the real estate will increase its value - so for them it would have worked. But those IT workers and management would do fine in every city.
A city is a place where people live, work, spend free time, move around, children need school, parks. Streets, sewage systems, police.
More jobs for highly paid professional that are lured into the city with generous gifts to their company - but not enough space to live for the regular people.
And a mass transportation system that is already on the brink for lack of funding.
Weirdly enough the Chinese or the Russians find the money to have modern, clean, fast public transporation, but the global financial center can't.
Those additional jobs would have come with displacement of low or normal income people in the area where the highly paid employees would buy up real estate and drive everyone else out. Those employees use of course more space than regular renters, they can afford to.
No plans whatsoever to build more affordable homes elsewhere.
Of course not that is not where the real estate developers make the money, and the city has no intent or the budgets to fund that.
And Amazon definitely had no intent to do something FOR the community. It could not be clearer that they wantto leech off the community (see Seatlle)
The New York elite political class was willing to splurge on something that would make all existing problems for regular people worse immediately with uncertain options (and no legal regress for that) for revenue in the future.
I can see many businesses or co-ops throughout the city appreciating getting 20k per new full time employee - and that employee might not consume as much or pay as much local taxes - but they also will not cost the city as much in additional expenses for public housing - if the city would to its duty.
I assume poor people pay easily as much local tax as rich ones. The tax on a house is higher per individual. but the commoners pay the local tax - if only in form of rent - and many of them share the space that is taken up by one affluent home owner.
These new subsidized jobs might be for people that are already there, that live throughout the city and that have a much smaller footprint (how much space they use) compared with the upper ranks of Amazon. Advantage - the employees might pay less tax - but the company WILL pay tax.
Of course the oligarch class likes that kind of misleading and very reduced discussion (which is eagerly supported by the media / political mouthpieces which the oligarchs bribe) That kind of FRAMING muddies the water for the peasants. The peasants do not like the status quo but as long as the current state of affairs can be declared to be the workings of a natural law - "There is nothing we can do about it, like you cannot protest against how gravitation works" - as long they will not rebel (until things get really bad, then the oligarchs like to side with the fascists to help them keep the masses down).
2
-
2
-
Slave2PaperWithInkOn have they FINALLY released ALL precincts ? (I saw an article where one still was missing - graphic with popular vote and SDE, and the report was from yesterday, but the article of course claimed 100 % released). Iowa in total has only 41 NATIONAL delegates. which is 3 % of all National delegates.
The prize of IO is the media buzz and pete for sure tried to seize the glory of having "won".
Sanders has more votes and -
the SDE count already factors in that rural votes are worth more. So how - when Sanders is only 0,1 behind in SDE (if that, see the one missing precinct) - how does that translate to 3 delegates more ? 11 versis 14 ?
I read the explanation (in comments) that it is like the EC versus popular vote.
Well the SDE already reflects that not all votes are created equal. So what other rule could possibly give pete 3 more delegates ?
Sanders did very well in the Satellite caucus (working class, minorities, people that can't vote in the evening, or would shy away from showing up at a very white event, for instance people from Somalia that are Muslims). They awarded the SDE proportionally. I suspect the party did some finetuning there to "make" pete the "winner".
Interesting. so rural votes count more (I suspect it has to do with the fact that in a rural location 90 people coming is a good turnout and in the cities (that get more attention by the campaigns) it is 300 or more. (I read a comment: You got 10 delegates with 94 people showing up ? We also got 10 - with more than 300 caucus goers).
Awarding more delegates to rural areas (indirectly, the precinct has 10 delegates whether 50, 90 or 300 caucus goers compete for it) could be a motivation for rural voters to participate. They make dent and above their paygrade, so to speak.
The same logic could be applied to the Satellite caucuses (which were not calculated with any extra bonus - but if they want to reduce the Sanders count - they could work there). Satellite caucuses are new, so maybe they have ambiguous rules or they changed the rules on the fly. Wouldn't be the first time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@ceciliachavez4668 it is still public option. As long as there a plans around where for-profit is the issue, the costs savings because of streamlined admin will not manifest, the more plans are around the more red tape. For billing - insurance company AND hospital and doctor have more of a hassle. The insurers need sales, marketing, the beancounters to know when to purge a company * from the pool. The have to check the applications and the healthstatus (for individuals) and they work with big data. Add to that profit, sales, marketing, lobbying.
All of that is under the assumption that all players (insurers and the hospitals and pharmacies are honest players. They are not, they are ruthless predators that will exploit the chances the complexitiy of healthcare offers them.
In other words: STILL TOO EXPENSIVE.
In singlepayer systems the profit motive and all toxic incentives and useless expenditures (useless to deliver healthcare with good outsome) are removed. Medical decisions and treatments are complex, billing could be made complex. profit is just not in the equation.
The medicare for some maybe proposals are misleading, they take a piggyride of a bill made popular by Senator Sanders. And they alls suffer from the flaw that they do not eliminate the profit motive. Does not matter is some individuals or some companies still operate under for-profit contracts.
they insurance companies WILL do purges to make more profit. Add to the inefficiencies the profit for the shareholders. The insurers are middleman a public agency can well do the job to collect the contributions, negotiate and to pay the bill, it does not require a genius.
* They already do that, if in a company there are more costly patients (not neceessarily the employee, that can be covered family members) then the companies raise the premiums or stip down the contracts - until the company ends the contract. (I do not think an insurance company can "fire" a client, or at least they don't do that - would be bad PR.
I got that from an interview with Wendell Potter.
Solution for the company ? Accept contracts with higher deductibles or exclude family members from coverage. Or fire the employees that are the "cost factors".
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kevin Tewey Note that the "communication" director danced around the question: HOW MANY INVALID votes ? and the interviewer let her filibuster and did not press her enough. 100 invalid ballots, or 1000 or, 5000 ? - 18,000 people voted early on day one, if a high number has an invalid ballot, the PARTY blew it. They did not explain the rules good enough, or the ballot is confusing.
That party representative did not make the NV party look good. At all.
The training was obviously of poor quality (for caucuses - other leaks, the party is not transparent, volunteers asked how they would integrate the early votes into the precincts.
That is a logistics trap:
even if they act in bad faith, doing it that way is shopping for trouble. Don't make it THAT complicated. you need coherent rules for such complexitiy. They exist in manufacturing or in the way pharmaceuticals are transported (proper temperature).
But if you have volunteers who do it every 4 years, often elderly persons and on top you changed the rules - good luck with that.
Especially when complexitiy
1