Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Status Coup News" channel.

  1. I once read that cocain is the go to drug for cops, they have access (holding back from raids, or they have reliable "sources"). it is fast out of the system, the drug tests are announced a few days in advance, so no problem. Cocain boosts performance (night shifts AND side gigs !) - but it makes people also aggressive or reckless. And the same is true for stereoides. Improves performance, growth of muscle mass, helps with weigh loss - but people can get highly aggressive. Chauvin worked in a night club !! For many years ! a) conflict of interest (in THAT kind of biz even more, because they are often locations of illegal activities, like retail drug trade b) working more night shifts ! In other countries police is not allowed to hold any other job. They are supposed to be well rested, and they avoid the obvious conflicts of interest. They might get a waiver to help out at a farm or a family business, but that's it. The owner of the nighclub after the killing of Floyd (Floyd and Chauvin had worked there, they had butted heads over how Chauvin treated black patrons) said the officers that she had employed, incl. Chauvin were always skittish around black people, wanted to escalate fast if there was a problem, always called for backup. So if the civilian bouncers were more capable, and level headed as bouncers and solved the situations better - why did she even bother to employ police ? It is a protection / non-interference racket. Even if she is careful to not allow / encourage illegal activities - police raiding herclub a few times can really mess with her business. They never have to find anything.
    1
  2. I needed that laugh !
    1
  3.  @theciakilledjfk5973  glad to hear a nuanced analysis of Putin. The man is also intelligent and knows a LOT about international affairs (reads, he once mentioned in passing something Colin Powell had written, and another time I think he quoted from a book of John McCain). Being so long in power adds consisency to the foreign policy and he is a RATIONAL actor (but does not hesistate - see Crimea and see Syria).
    1
  4. Maybe she KNOWS Jordan already (he had a larger platform on TYT) or sniffed it out that he is a fellow progressive. She is mainly interested in Warren or Sanders (and her partner will caucus for Sanders so she likely knows his positions). What both candidates SAY is not that different (unless you dig deeper), and she likes Warren so she does not doubt her. Or her willingness or ability to show some spine and actually fight. Plus that she may not have noticed the last row where Warren stabbed Sanders. If so, it had no impact on her either way. That's a good thing I wondered if Warren tried to poison the well. If the supporters of a candidate do not get the 15 % they can realign with other groups in a second round (respectively other groups will court them). Anyway, if Warren's group does not make it over 15 % in a location, she will at least realign in the 2nd round with the Bernie supporters. Not leave the location or go over to team Biden.
    1
  5. Ladies and gentlemen, the next Vice President of the United States. Can't wait for those debates when she wil drag Mike Pence.
    1
  6.  @anotherworldviewispossible  Pelosi is 80 years old, so .... Of course AOC would have a target on her back, the establishment creatures would never forgive her. So sad: I think she ias a people pleaser. For the bloodsport you have to activate your inner asshole.
    1
  7. medicare cannot even negotiate DRUG prices (forbidden). the U.S. spends already DOUBLE per person (subsidies, Medicare, out of pocket, money paid from the insured and companies paid to insurance companes). - Medicare does a good job regarding overhead. But the services of the providers are so overpriced that the funding is not enough (to pay for good care for dental for vision etc.). Big Pharma is just too expensive. The pharmacists have middlemen for the middlemen (they must have them, not happy about them !). Completly dysfunctional it is a profit extraction machine and funds useless jobs. Hospitals and doctors have to deal with an insance bureaucracy. That is necessary to handle the many individual insurance contracts. Of course some of the hospitals chains WANT that - it still helps them make profits. But I think that is more to blame on the FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE corporations. The insurance agency or company is a middleman too - the public non-profit ageny has to work for the public good and to make care happen. the corporation wants to make as much profit as possible and denying coverage or payment when treatment is needed is the best way. So they do that.
    1
  8. In the U.S. people must join the military (with all the risks for life and health, incl. psychological health) to get higher education and decent healthcare free at the point of delivery. In most other wealthy nations that is taken for granted. But it is hard to find cannon fodder - other countries have a military as well, but it is not nearly as risky to enlist. The VA is another complication - the agency is no advantage when it comes to the delivery of care. it is the admission of the U.S. society that only people that were willing to enlist (with a good chance to be IN a war) will get good medical care later (unless they have a very good job in the private sector, or are wealthy). There may be some military related conditions and treatments. And maybe they do not want that civilian doctors see some conditions (Gulf War Syndrome). On the other hand if a vet needs a hip replacement or gall bladder surgery - they are not different than any other patient. There is no reason to run a separate structure. And the vets are spread out over the country - in a cost efficient system you want to have the doctor practices and the hospitals evenly spread out over the country (rural and urban areas) The patients usually can choose between a few (unless they are willing to travel) - enough but not too many providers in every area hat can be planned (more providers simply do not get a contract), a certain number of eye doctors, GP, .... hospitals, physiotherapists per 1000 or 10,000 residents). And EVERYONE uses them. VA is another form of in or out of network - and that makes things inevitably more costly and more complicated. At least they are allowed to negotiate drug prices - the only public agency that is allowed to do that in the U.S. They brought costs down by 40 %. the last reform I think allowed vets to use "private" providers if using the VA unit would be a hardship, like long wait times. it would be of course much more fair and more cost efficient to have ONE system for ALL citizens. if it is reasonably ! funded (much less per person than now, but enough) it works well. See the wealthy nations that spend 41 to 56 % of what the U.S. spends per person (U.K. ..... Germany). The U.S. spends 10,240 USD per person and 60 % of that is either subsidies or paid for by Medicare. That's 6,200 USD approx. The single payer nations do not even pay that in total. The insured and the companies have mandatory contributions that are very affordable and are a % of wage. The rest - a lot - is subsidies from general tax revenue. But the subsidies are NOT as high as in the U.S. - because all the funding goes into a system that leans strongly towards non-profit. And it is much, much more cost efficient that the bureaucraZy in the U.S.
    1
  9. Medicare does not go bankrupt, that is like saying "The military or the CIA goes bankrupt". Congress allocates funding - there you go ! Medicare gets contributions from individuals but that is not nearly enough - of course not, not even if people pay in for decades. The highest medical costs manifest towards end of life - so the group plus 65 is the most expensive group of patients. The private insurers already have a cherry picked pool - their offers should be much, much more affordable. But of course the free market does not work for healthcare. At. All. That is why all other nations switched / expanded single payer systems after WW2. And they ALL beat the crap out of the U.S. cost level, spending per person (that per person is also for people who do not get needed treatment or do not have insurance or are healthy and did not see a doctor. All that is spent in the country divided by All people). and on top the outcoms are better (spending and outcomes of wealthy nations, I hope the U.S. still beats India, that is a low bar for instance).
    1
  10. I currently live in a single payer nation (Austria 5,400 USD per person) and also know the Germany system (5,700), The care is good. Compared to the spending of 10,240 of the U.S. (2017, Keiser Family Foundation, based on OECD numbers). Both are at the higher end of the average spending but the population is on average older which may account for some of the higher spending compared to other wealth nations (like Canada or Australia with only approx. 4,800 - 4,900 USD - these nations spend less than half per person compared to the U.S.) The U.S. has a younger population too and should beat countries like Germany, France, UK, Netherlands only because of that. Plus the outcomes are better - see infant / maternity mortality (that is for instance an indicator how the system works for lower income groups).
    1
  11. Media colludes with them, so no they are going to get more brazen, voting machines !!!
    1
  12. Pete polls at no. 3 - shows you what the fawning media can do for you
    1
  13.  N Vannote  The bills of Sanders, Jayapal and Booker/Harris have generous provisions for retraining staff. at least the regular people. Top management and no-show jobs for fmr politicians will not be covered, they can fend for themselves. - Wendell Potter became a Whistleblower on the industry, his last job in PR was with cigna. He had to come up with all the arguments why Canadian healthcare sucks, why private is better etc. - He said: a lot of jobs will become obsolete, like the job that I had. I will just not be needed anymore. After Bush2 signed the China agreement (early 2002 under cover of 9/11 so to speak) the next wave of major outsourcing hit the manufacturing workers. Many had employer plans (for sure they cost too much then, but people were covered). With the jobs those plans disappeared. Of course not everyone has a health issue right away after losing their job and getting one w/o good coverage (or none), so it took a few years to fully manifest. Around 2006 it started becoming apparent - Potter had become cynical in his early years as journalist and could square his job to do PR for the industry, but at that time he got uneasy. Then cigna denied coverage for a liver transplant until public backlash made them backpaddle. By then the teenager's organs had started shutting down (her doctors had to give a pass on 2 livers that would have been a good match). As a father Potter was very relieved when cigna reversed their decision (the reporters had started calling and he was the go-to man to deal with such PR relevant incidents). She died 5 hours after cigna had greenlighted the organ transplant. Potter handed in his resignation the next day and left a few months later. The case of Nataline happened in late 2007 if I remember correctly. It should be noted that her family had a good plan - not a Cadillac but a Mercedes plan, so obviously a parent worked here. The plan covered organ transplants. But she did not fit the profile of being a recipient with "good" survival chances (had leucemia treatment before, had gotten a bone marrow transplant). Her doctors saw a chance and wanted to give her a fighting chance - but the insurance said it was "experimental" and initially denied it, and in the time until they reversed their decision she became unfit for the surgery.
    1
  14. She has little chances to win the nomination (judging from the polling even BEFORE that foolish own goal). Did they think such ruthless tactics would endear them to the voters in the Rustbelt, to blue collars and lower income people of ALL races ? To the Rustbelt state voters that MUST be WON BACK in the general ? These states voted for Obama (once or twice), and they voted for Trump (never mind his comments and record). The common theme is desire for CHANGE, populism (both Obama and Trump deceived them) and the hope someone will shake up the establishment (in order to help them - not against real or imagined slights but with severe economic problems ). I guess most people prefer a president that knows how to behave. But these silly games (that are so transparently self-serving and a smear of an opponent) repulse the voters. The "establishment" and D.C. insider games are unversally disliked by voters (R or D). Expecting "hope and change" from Obama was naive - Noam Chomsky saw right through him in 2008, and recommended to vote for him in swing states only, and third party in safely red or blue states. To expect Hope and Change from Trump (this time with a white and nationalistic tweak, Make America Great Again) was even more naive. But the genuine and legitimate desire for "Hope and Change" continues to exist. Do these unethical morons (Waren and team.... DNC, Clinton machine, Corporate media) really think regular people care about it if Sanders did say in a private * conversation_ "A woman cannot become president in the U.S." * No one likes a backstabber, a person w/o a spine and selling out a friend by using a PRIVATE conversation - Warren just made herself poison for the GE. (the hidden mic of closed door meetings with donors is one thing, leaking info from a meeting of friends is another one). I do not even think it is true that Sanders said it that way. Never mind: Sanders has the good sense to not say such things in public. ** ** Joe Biden did allude to it and in public: that Warren would endure misogynist attacks from Trump, and that he is safe from such attacks - not that he condones it. If was circumspectly formulated by Biden (a very subtle hint that this makes him maybe more electable - but it was within bounds. He might be correct. There is no doubt however that there would have been a shirtstorm if Sanders had dared to mention such a thing in public.
    1
  15. Sanders does not have a record of policies or behavior putting women at a disadvantage (on the contrary). The beltway insiders will not believe it - but that is good enough for most voters who have much more pressing problems than if a rich white woman running for president felt slighted in a PRIVATE conversaton with a political ally and friend in Dec. 2018. The regular voters (that do not follow politics closely) do not care - they are pissed about rent, and healthcare going up, everyone knows one healthcare insurance horror stories (they know it can happen to them and there is a real chance to get into serious financial trouble over medical bills). They fear another trade deal with outsource even more jobs. Some start taking Climate Change seriously. Others are drowning in student loans.
    1
  16. They uninvited her from holding a speech at the stage of the 2016 conventions - , that was after the release of the Podesta emails showing the shenanigangs and collusion between DNC and Sanders campaign (and their arrangements with the Corporate meda). - No wonder they did not dare letting her speak. She would have blasted them.
    1
  17. But they would need to have defined and SECURE processes for the early voting and for keeping them SAFE. They want to bring the early ballots to the precincts and factor them in when people do the caucus LIVE. Volunteers asked HOW that is going to unfold. Information: the tool on the iPad will do that. Sounds convincing. If you have any experience with implementing process in manufacturing in organizations - having such a COMPLICATED procedure means shopping for trouble. No, chasing it down ! I do not think the party is good in setting this up, but even if - that is a recipe for failure. If they would be more competent they would realize that they try to pull off something above their paygrade. First rule: Don't make things complex if there is no value in it. In Iowa they had early precincts. They had their delegates awareded (only the DNC decided they were worth LESS delegates. In Iowa in a rural area a precinct with 90 people could have 10 delegates and in another area 300 people came and still not more than 10 delegates. so it is set up with to give the rural areas more weight (or compensate for naturally lower turnout). One could argue that it gives campaigns an incentive to not neglect these areas. It is harder to reach a lot of people, but the better vote count makes it worth your while. Pete had that strategy and I think also Obama. The satellite caucuses were ranked in the middle by the Iowa State party. They have a certain number of state delegates (11,000 in the first round). these statellite caucuses were new and they had to make a rule how many they would be worth - that was in the middle, not doing them favors but better than the areas that are the easiest to work for a campaign (like College cities). Sanders did VERY well in those satellite caucuses. So Tom Perez from the DNC decided that these low income, minority people, many had caucused for the first time, many working in the evening, driving longer distances to ge to that caucus (so it was not easy peasy to get there) - that these new precincts were worth LESS. That is why we had Sandes and Pete tied in the NATIONAL delegate count (11 each) and then (media had already moved on) all of a sudden Pete got 14 and Sanders only 11. Now they do a recanvss, and in the very last days they have published the last updates to State Delegate Equivalents (the 11,000). Sanders is a fraction of an inch behind Pete in that count (that already factors in that different areas and votes have different weight). So now Sanders is up to 12 and Pete still has 14 or 13 WTF ?? Sanders wins popular vote in both rounds, has the same SDE count (despit the fact that pete has an advantage because his votes from rural areas count more). And pete gets more National Delegates ? How does that work ?  In total the candidate that wants to win the nomination at the convention in the first round with 50 % needs approx. 1900 delegates. - On the other hand it might come down to a few delegates. And it shows the pettyness of the DNC denying Sanders the narrative of "won in 2 categories" (popular vote in round 1 and 2) and tied in 2 other metrics (State Delegate Equivalents and National Delegates). Which technically .... drumroll ..... makes Sanders the winner, not pete who is tied in two categories and second in two others. manipulating the count of National delegates is a way to give pete the "win" and it was done AFTER media and voters had moved on (so it did not even create buzz for him, but they rewrite the record). Pete's premature victory lap with only 62 % of precints released (several strongholds of sanders missing, and the state party KNEW that of course, they had the count of voters, and not that much was going to change). That manipulation already gave him the media bump that is the real prize of Iowa.
    1
  18. The super rich can be taxed later - IF the voters stop being brainwashed sheeple. Same voters that could rock the boat big time every 2 years. Congress - not the president has the most power domestically. All of the House and one third of Senate is elected every 2 years. Money is some bytes in a server. It is a virtual thing, a legal and societal agreement. Sure the rich CAN buy up land, patents, companies, media outlets, goodwill from universities - IF the voters let them. There are anti trust laws on the books, and things like wealth tax got them huffing and puffing. Not to forget the dirty L word: Land reform. The U.S. oligarchs have regime changed any country that did that made even mild attempts at land reform or nationalizing key industries (and are super miffed at the few that somehow slipped through the cracks: Cuba, Russia, China. Also the hysteria about Venezuela although it is a capitalistic country where key industries are nationalized (oil). Even that is too much. The whole Cold War was also to have a pretext to justify meddling with countries that were insubordinate to U.S. oligarch interests. The U.S. voters couls have taken notice of successful land reform (one reason democratically elected Salvador Alliende was killed, he was a democrat, Chile had resources, that could have worked out very well and set a dangerous precedent. Countries using their natural resources and land to improve the situation of all citizens). In Texas (ruthless) persons owned the oil drilling rights and land, and made huge amounts of money. That money could have served all of the state. It is like that in Norway. GWB and Cheney supported a coup attempt against Hugo Chavez, but the kidnapped president was released after 1 day or so (the masses had taken it to the streets and the military was not fully supportive of the coup either). One of the sins of Chavez: Nationalizing the VZ oil industry. You bet that rubbed GWB the wrong way. There are things that you cannot undo - like declarations of war or climate change tipping points. or successful coups. Money is a highly virtual thing, if voters EVER care to understand it, they can reign in the oligarchs and the politicians that prop them up. the U.S. voters could have had Sanders and rejected him in March 2020 (and the U.K. voters Corbyn in Dec. 2019) - so they are not ready for that, and that is the problem. The time for a general strike was in 2020. Did not happen, people just take it. the bill might help to delay to point of no return regarding Climate Change. And if enough people suffer from the fallout they might remember. Also that the government CAN find the money if they want to.
    1
  19. Hillary Clinton looking at the lates polls: No one likes Bernie Sanders.
    1
  20. Well, Bernie's VP pick for a start. She has been part of the Ohio legislature, so she lacks experience in the shark infested waters of D.C. In that respect she is like Mayor Pete. Only she has a spine, convictions and wants to work for The People, He is all about the sweet nothings, and she tells it like it is. Nina is smart, and has a backbone and is young. Good speaker, woman of color so that helps to get the necessary electoral success (also in the midterms 2022) to get shit done, and to scare the hell out of those Democrats who are not rotten to the core but went along nicely with the machine. If the want to get reelected they better change course. I hope Bernie has the generosity to give her (and other members of cabinet) a a BIG role in his admin, to deal with "She does not have the experience". She soon will have and high profile, too. (Hillary's head would explode when Sanders wins in Nov. 2020, and she would be super bitter again if Nina becomes the first female president of the U.S. let's say in 2025 or maybe Sanders would step down in the middle of his second term. Which would give Nina the incumbent bonus. (I wonder how the Democratic establishment would badmouth that - offending females, offending people of color). Bernie has unusual energy for a man in his late 70s, but he needs a strong and good team (not the lobbyists) to share the burden. A strong VP (and potential future POTUS) would be part of that strategy. With being fully in the loop (so not like Biden) she could take over at any point or be a very strong contender in 2023 / 2024 if that should be necessary. If the first term of Sanders is halfway successful (M4A, and some infrastructure, and increasing taxes for the rich) it should be a no brainer to have her as the frontrunner in the 2023 primaries.
    1
  21. ebay seems to be a good alternative (also prices !) if you cannot get certain things in retail - you just have to make do without the fast delivery, and I would buy food and medication and plants in retail anyway. I saw that homesteaders send ducklings or eggs online, which helps some if the farmer's market is not their thing or does not work for them, so I assume many do that via Amazon. The problem is not if you use them on RARE occasions - that is not what makes them the money. Acutally it is the web hosting biz that makes them money (incl. I think government contracts). And the sellers have raised prices now that Amazon has become so mainstream.
    1
  22. Progressives are not self-righteous, they are PRINCIPLED - realizing that this is a very necessary charcter trait in ANY politician trying to facilitate change in a corrupt and very powerful system. - Progressives do second chances (for instance with Cenk Uygur - who sad some very questionable stuff when he was a Republican and tried to be edgy). Progressives look at the whole record. Every politician will have some shady or very shady compromises, it still matters how and why they are made, and if or if not the vote made a difference. If the politician profited personally from certain votes or went along with the crowd. Sanders voted for the Afghanistan war, he voted against the Iraq war in 2003 but later for the budgets that covered also the spending that allowed the troops to continue to occupy Iraq and to fight there an illegal war). The good has to outweigh the bad (and the good has to be the more recent thing). Being unprincipled, a shill, backstabbing a friend - saying one thing on an important issue but obviously without real conviction (Medicare for All and Warren), or giving in into the narrative of the war mongers - that is noted with worry among Progressives - and some things don't fly. At. All.
    1
  23. btw: Sanders withdrew his endorsement of Cenk (running for Congress in CA) when his old baggage came up. Sanders and team have "not given in to PC culture" or the "demands of SJW's" as some friends of Cenk / genuine progressives like Kyle from Secular Talk claimed. Team Sanders just CHOSES THEIR BATTLES WISELY. Including when and how to have them. - The wisdom of unendorsing Cenk is now confirmed with the latest attack launched with the help of Warren - the first one that had the potential to HARM Sanders. L.A. Times published an article going after Cenk but with SANDERS being mentioned in the headline (Sanders endorsed candidate ....). That article would have gotten PLENTY of coverage on TV, they would have snowballed it into a faux outrage campaign about Sanders - even more than a campaign against Cenk. They were salivating about the chance to smear Sanders as being a sexist by proxy (and Cenk back in the day had made some weird remarks about sex, with animals. Sure it was meant as edgy and satirical. That kind of nuance get's lost in a smear campaign. If you cannot defend yourself with very simple arguments and very obvious fact you are going to lose in the court of public opinion). Well, the Sanders campaign reacted immediately ("retracting" the endorsement) and robbed their enemies of that chance. The DNC cultivated the impression in 2015 / 2016 that Sanders is a sexist, almost racially insensitive (they could not go any further, he had the Civil Rights record, while their candidate had been the Goldwater Girl and later wanted the young Superpredators brought to heel when she enthusiastically stumped for the Crime Bill). The many enemies of Sanders certainly intend to build on that groundwork to prevent him from winning in 2020. They know that people in most cases read only headlines and maybe the first 2 paragraphes, the corporate media still can create, form and alter perceptions (they do it all the time when they help to push for war and regime change, or cement economic fairy tales). So of course they would have made that into a scandal, building on the "misogyny" narrative of 2015 / 2016. Only that Sanders and team were smarter than that. I think once Sanders is in office he can afford to handle it differently - but for now he has to keep the eyes on the prize and to stay focused: on getting elected. He will be smeared - but there is no need to hand his enemies ammunition on a silver platter. That recent attack by Warren and CNN was so over the top that it might have woken up some of the uncritical consumers of mainstream media. By and large it was a failure - and that makes it also harder for his enemies to launch the next attack on grounds of "sexisim". I am now waiting for the accusations of Sanders being a Russian asset (Hillary Clinton did a test balloon in the Howard Stern interview, the guinea pigs were Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein, did not really work either) - or that Sanders is an antisemite. Cenk has done a lot of good things for the progressive cause. There is legitimate critique as well (Russiagate, Hillary Clinton endorsement, in California (where the studio is located) they could have pushed for voting for Jill Stein. That was the strategy that Noam Chomsky recommends: voting for the Democrat in the swing state (while firmly holding your nose) and in the safely red and blue states voting third party. But the good outweighs the bad with Cenk. Fighing against money in politics. Being critical of the war machine.
    1
  24. How Bernie & Squad Actually Support Corporate State. w/Chris Hedges The Jimmy Dore Show - not to take away from Jordan - but that is an excellent take (of Chris Hedges who held events with Sanders in 2018) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpa7GR-EyF0
    1
  25.  @PoggoMcDawggo  I works just fine for "Democrats" Synema and Manchine in the Senate. It worked well for the Tea party faction that drove Boehner insane during the Obama years. if progressives ONLY had half that fierce determination ! One does not need to have the majority, _only the FEW missing votes_. It is a simple concept and Joe Manchin and the tea party understand it. Republicans needed the vote of John McCain to abolish ACA - he decided that vote (Sosan Collings voted with Democrats but VP Pence could have broken the tie. It was McCain that turned this around. In hindsight: as bad as it would have been shorterm, shit would have hit the fan earlier, and all voters could have enjoyed being screwed even more by the insurers while the Trump admin did nothing. Same with Medicare LBJ needed TWO votes - and he got them. If the progressives would rock the boat (showing half the spirit of the Tea party faction - but for a good cause) instead of meekly falling in line a) media would go crazy, meaning they would have to be smart about their messaging. But most of them are good on social media. b) voters would be enthusiastic (remember how E. Warren got national attention when she was feisty in her messaging - but not against the party only against finance, and she was all bark no bite) c) they could get the name recognition with apathetic voters and Independents d) They would maybe get results OR expose the cravenness of the party
    1
  26. They are tribal (Clinton delegates). And they accept the "image" presented by mainstream media. A little knowledge is a dangerous things (I am sure THEY think they are well informed).
    1
  27. It will be crucial to turn out NEW voters and young people in the primaries. The skewed polls are a danger - the Democratic party could try to rig the primaries or even change the votes numbers (I assume there are still some states with a caucus - they have methods to rig them as well. Busing in people the Sanders supporters were scrutinized to the T, the Clinton supporters were waved through).
    1
  28. Germany got the public option in 1884 and was the leader of the pack (not recommended, single payer for ALL is far superior). Many countries in Europe that had been severely hit by war overhauled their healthcare systems (or implemented something for the first time like the U.K.). I guess being hit that hard and then scramble to rise again meant a RESET in a way. Being occupied (like Germany and Japan) meant opposing parties came together to deal with the situation and make the best of it - so they had GOOD bipartisanship then (that was certainly the case in Germany and Austria). Also: the Left had the moral authority in these times, (still in the U.S. with left economic policies, although the Red Scare provided the pretext to purge the left after the death of FDR). in Germany / Austria some politicians of the provisory governments (allowed by the occupyers: U.S. U.K. France Soviet Union) came out of concentration camp (important political prisoners like leading Social Democrats were not kept in the worst camps, so they had a chance to survive). Labour in Britain had a surprising win (during the war they had a unity government and no elections), in France the left and especially the far left (Communists) had refused to cooperate with the German occupiers, they were the Resistance etc. The Lefties and even some of the Conservatives had convictions, and a spine. Being a Lefty wasn't for the faint of heart in the 1920s - 1940s.. It was not an easy and lucrative career then to fight for unions, or to become a Social Democrat, let alone a Communist or a memer / activist of any other far left movement (not even before Hitler had his silent coup in early 1933 - with the informal help of the "conservative" pillars of German society btw.). Many European countries went the far-right, even fascist route due to the ongoing economic stress after WW1 (which ended in Nov. 1918). Becoming a fascist state was only the most consequential in Germany. In the U.S. there were some fascist tendencies, too. But far right (fake) populism was kept at bay by the left populism of FDR. After WW2 there was also the insight that ongoing economic stress had led to WW2, so there were politicians who wanted to do better this time. Arranging for healthcare for all was one way to make sure the masses would not fall for rightwing populists again.
    1
  29. ebay seems to be a good alternative (also prices !) if you cannot get certain things in retail - you just have to make do without the fast delivery, and I would buy food and medication and plants in retail anyway. I saw that homesteaders send ducklings or eggs online, which helps some if the farmer's market is not their thing or does not work for them, so I assume many do that via Amazon. The problem is not if you use them on RARE occasions - that is not what makes them the money. Acutally it is the web hosting biz that makes them money (incl. I think government contracts). And the sellers have raised prices now that Amazon has become so mainstream.
    1
  30. Considering how little cocoa there is in many sweets you would think they could have always afforded to put pressure on the oligarchs that owned the plantations or could have paid the small farmers better. But if the spoils go only to a small group of people (shareholders, top management) controlling a LARGE biz, even tiny cost savings that do not make a dent for consumers, do add up in profits. Be it tiny cost savings for cocao or Texas energy prices. - Instead these U.S. oligarchs instrumentalized the U.S. government, letter agencies and military to crush all attempts of peasants and farm workers in Latin America AND Asia - and they started wars or regime changes when the population dared to vote in politicians that leaned to the left and were labour friendly. Or when they started a rebellion against the tyrants. The "Cold War" was the perfect fig leaf for the imperialistic endevours. 'cause cOmMunisM - and the U.S. voters let the U.S. oligarchs and politicians get away with it. The minimally higher prices for coffee, cacao, rubber (in case you wonder why the U.S. helped France to keep their colony Indochine later called Vietnam) would not have been felt by the consumers, but the poor residents of developing countries could then have afforded to buy moreMade In the U.S. and would have been safe places for tourism. Plus of course immigration into the U.S. would not have been as high - so harder to suppress U.S. wages even with the outsourcing.
    1
  31. The effect of even tiny cost savings per unit (that make only sense for the shareholders and management) is the reason for the Texas energy prices and policy to have a stand alone grid when they could enjoy the backup from the much larger national grid. Their prices and price policy do not allow for preparedness, do not allow to encourage reduced consumption in summer (the heat waves are the only time when some providers make some profits), or to pepare for extreme events they can expect to have every 10 years. Except El Paso region, for geographic reasons they are on the federal grid, so they must abide by federal regulations which include pepraedness and more reserves - so they had no problem in Feb. 2021 and avoided all the damage for regular users. The costs for winterizing would not be that high, that it harms consumers or normal businesses, but the large companies that the Tx politicians lure into the state can pass on the small savings as profits and thos savings do add up with large volume versus few beneficiaries. Large companies (chemical or oil industry or call centers or server farms) usually have a backup plan (diesel generator), and will be the last to lose power, and they have maintainance crews to handle bursting pipes every 5 - 10 years. They stand to save more by the low energy prices than they stand to lose by the occasional extreme weather event, and if not, they work to get bailouts. And which CEO that props up the current Tx policy with donations expects to still be in the company 10 years later ? Or to be in Texas ? They cash in on the short term gains and the motto is: After me the deluge. (it is not like they pay an arm and a leg in El Paso region for electricty despite the investments they made after 2011. When they like all of Texas were hit the last time - and boy did those investments to winterize and to be willing to be on the grid - so they could ramp up imports - pay off). If you do infrastructure and construction codes ! right (insulation also helps against heat waves and occasionally against extreme cold) the first time you write if off over 20 or 30 years and be done with it. Cutting corners and then having to retrofit costs more.
    1
  32. Be aware that many brands have been bought up. There has been an enormous concentration process in the food industry and the buyers almost always kept the well established brand names for marketing / consumer nostalgia reasons. So you might be buying from Nestlé without knowing it. - if you stay away from processed foods (for the most part) you also do a lot for your health and with staples like flour, or sugar it is easier to know where you buy from. (or to get them from regenerative producers). I just downloaded a pdf, a Crisco cookbook from 1937 ! (I might even try out some recipes, with other fat of course, organic lard beats Crisco by far) they belong to Procter & Gamble (or at least that was the case in 1937, I knew the company only as supplier of detergents). Quite interesting from a cultural / societal perspective and the messaging (a whole chapter on fried goods and how they are healthy with Crisco and how long you can reuse the fat). How to set the table for dinner or a luncheon in style in a household w/o a servant ! (incl. spotless linen and silver). Plus how do do things in a household WITH a servant (the lady they depicted with the appropriate uniform for day resp. late afternoon / evening was white btw - unreal, if you consider that was published during the Great Depression, things were not good in 1937 despite the reforms).
    1
  33.  @aozf05  And maybe in 2021 and 2022 Dems will get the Senate back (GA elections) - or later. Many Senators are OLD the landscape can change quickly if one has to step down or dies. - Then there is no Mitch the Turtle that helps sellout Democrats (their donors) by standing in the way. If they now vote for M4A they will be reminded of that vote when it becomes a possibility to pass the bill. If they bolt now or later it will be a major political liability, especially in Congress that is voted for every 2 years. AND FIERCE progressives should SET THEM UP for that dilemma by forcing a vote. Now. it is a long term strategy, step after step they are DRAGGED. Talk (lip service for Medicare for some maybe) is cheap. A vote counts. And if you vote for now (sure it will not be passed anyway) how do you defend not voting the same way when I CAN be passed. Back in the day voters and the pulic missed out on the information, mainstream media of course did not report on such strategic votes that changed as soon as there was a danger of being successful. But NOW social media helps to kick their behinds and make the voters aware of the hypocrisy and the double game. Sanders had a bill in the Senate and even Ted Cruz and a few other R Senators voted for it (maybe also with a cynical calculation - that they knew enough D Senators would desert). 13 Senators were against it becoming legal that drugs could be imported from Canada. (it would have started the legal process, it was not like the bill passes and soon after it is possible). Well it did no pass. In Jan 2017 it was known that Cory Booker most likely would run for president in 2019 / 2020. He was one of the traitors. If all the D Senators would have voted FOR the bill it would have passed because a few R's joined them. Ted Cruz on grounds of competition and free market. (Plus he may get more money from other industries and does not depend that much on pharma money). Sanders expressed his "regret" that some Democrats did not vote for the proposal (I think it was no bill, as I said the first step). He was very mild in his rherotic but he did not forget to mention Cory Booker by name. Ooops ! And social media was not mild, they took their cues from Sanders and slammed the Dems especially Booker. Booker came up with same lame excuse and took notice that votes like that could harm his run. Some of these sellouts may conclude that they would have to throw THAT industry under the bus if they want to keep their seat or aim for the highest office. so they would have to make do with only selling out to finance, big oil, the war machine, but give the voters at least healthcare. That vote can be used against them in primaries and they know it. If they do not dare to be associated with a vote against M4A - well, one more vote for the good cause, steadily working on it. If they vote against it it increases the chances of a progressive to win a primary against them. many of the D politicians are old (I think even oler on average than the R's). There will be special elections in the future Progressives better work on their name recognition, even if they lose the first races.
    1
  34. There is no reason NOT to have the whole population in the same risk pool. Sure you could calculate lower costs for younger groups (would that mean lower wage deductions ? - that would put older employees at a disadvantage, plus it would be MORE COMPLICATED) WHAT would be the rational in a NON-PROFIT system to have different risk pools ? Everone is getting older (if they are lucky) and everyone needs healthcare incl. the young. So over time their average calculated share of the spending would rise - maxing out when they retire ! A lof comes from subsidies anyway. No profit motive - no reason to even have healthcare questions when signing up. No denial of paying for treatments either. That makes administration VERY STREAMLINED for the agency, the hospitals, the doctors.
    1
  35. One reason why the single payer systems are all so much more cost-efficient: the money goes into delivering care, and not into a bureaucraZy. - Healthcare worthy of a first world country is so costly that it needs plenty of subsidies even in cost-efficient systems. - OR the LOWER INCOME GROUPS get no treatment. Or there will be unpaid bills and lots and lots or red tape. If patients have high co-pays, have to navigate a buraucraZy (who gets what kind of helpful program) - many will not pay the bills, that starts MORE trouble for hospitals. Not only will they have to navigate many very different contracts. on top they will still end up with unpaid bills. The next level of red tape. the proposal of +Shshadri goes in the opposite direction of simple streamlined cost-efficient admin. It increases complexity, red tape, admin costs. if you do not let low-income patients die on the steps of the hospital (which would be the other cost-efficient method) - you can as well define a modest UPFRONT contribution for everyone (a percentage of wage), that grants FULL COVERAGE - and be done with it. In either case subsidies will be necessary - but with single payer you keep at least the admin costs down. (Plus avoid cruelty). Single payer countries get all advantages of preventive care. No chasing after unpaid bills. The doctors and nurses do not waste time to fight with a for-profit insurance company whether or not a treatment will be paid for. The doctor makes a diagnosis and a treatment plan - it will be paid for. Single payer avoids toxic incentives - like "milking" good insurance contracts to make up for the money of the unpaid bills (or just to make more profit). Or doing tests that are not necessary, or keeping some patients a day or two longer than necessary in the hospital. If everyone can potentially have the test or a surgery, there are certain costs - which is fine if the outcomes can be argued. But testing just for the sake of it will not be done (and the rates are competitive, it would not even make sense for a hospital. They do not make money on the test or the drugs - and for worktime they do not get that much. The systems are set up like clockworks, they have a lot of things going via the lab (necessary testing) and that takes care of having enough revenue. Every treatment that is medically warranted will be paid. The doctors make those decisions. The agency provides the framework and negotiates costs (like medical drugs, costs for ambulances or airlifts, what costs a day in intensive care or a day in a regular hospital bed, ....).
    1
  36. If a country wants EVERYONE to have healthcare w/o hassle - doing it with modest wage related deductions combined with gov. subsidies (but paid to the public agency, or the states or cities that run hospitals) is the MOST UNBUREAUCRATIC way to go about it = little overhead. Subsidies that are paid to individuals are potentially more hassle. In single payer countries the patients do not need their wallet or bank account for the healthcare system. Their employer is resposible for the wage deductions, no payment is due when getting care. The insured / patients have little contact with the public non-profit insurance agency (and do not miss it). If a country would give subsidies per person HOW would you do it ? Via income tax ? - what is with people who do not have a job, or pay little tax, etc. etc. - it is easier to calculate the costs for the whole pool and that the large players (agency, gov. hospitals, ...) deal with each other and leave the citizens alone. That is how the single payer nations do it, that is how the Sanders MfA proposal works: wage deductions, and money from the gov. to the Medicare agency. People with better wages pay more although there is often a cap (not sure about MfA - the systems that I know), the company pays more for the staff with high wages (more is relative - think 2 - 3,8 % of wage before taxes), and the rest comes from general tax revenue (from affluent people and profitable biz). That means that low income people or start-ups and smaller biz that do not make much profit have an advantage.
    1
  37. I was shocked that Sanders endorsed Biden in exchange for NOTHING. when they were tied (after the second Tuesday) Biden felt comfortable enough to say in an interview that he would VETO M4A even if Congress and Senate would pass it. Laurence O'Donnell: with some miracle and compromises it get's passed, maybe the Warren plan ... would you sign it ? Biden brought up some wrong right wing talking points about the high costs. please note: the Warren plan is public option first, followed by M4A in year 3 or 4. Mr. Hope and Change mentioned single payer in 2008, I guess the donors told him that does not fly. So he promised the public option on the campaign trail. He and Biden couldn't be bothered to even defend P.O. A few Republicans with a D to their name killed the P.O. when the bill was negotiated (Joe Lieberman, former running mate of Al Gore). To be clear: P.O. is a distant second best to Single Payer. Missing out on major cost savings for streamlining the admin, also all of the country need to be in the same boat. If people can buy their way out they will do so, and it undermines solidarity and gives the "lower taxes" people an incentive to undermine funding. After all their core constituents (wealthy, rich) would save more in taxes than they pay for their overpriced healthcare. Insurers can cherrypick, the expenise insured are kicked over to the public pool. And it keeps the toxic insurers relevant. The for profit insurers in other countries (typically upgrades, supplemental) never developed such a toxic culture. Switzerland is the ONLY rich country where they have only private healthcare insurance. There is a reason no other wealthy country has the P.O. (maybe Chile - as you would expect an two calls system with a defunded public system.
    1
  38. It is not new either. SERPICO was lucky that he did not die. the New York politicians did not support him at all. They just had to pay some lip service. They wanted him to leave police, get rid of the whistleblower too (not killing him in that case - after he had recovered and returned from the hospital). The New York Times had reported on him and on the corruption. It was a big story, so they could not pull any b.s. and they even had to do some window dressing (an "investigation") And I think police also thought it would be wise to not attack him any further (It is assumed that the police helped to set up the ambush, and he did not get backup when he called for it). Corrupt police had delivered the chilling message to any other brave and morale cop, cowardly and courrupt politicians seconded that. Serpico had left the police, it did not matter if he was alive or dead. Their crimes would go on undisturbed.
    1
  39. Canada spends 4,800 USD per person (2017) versus 10,240 of the U.S. versus 5,250 of the average wealthy country. (I know you have it per province). But on average you are at the low end of the average for a first world country. Which may explain why there is some legitimate criticism. Many European countries have well over 5000 USD per person (and you have to multiply the difference in spending per person times all the Canadian population. So a few hundred bucks times 30 millions, thats a medium double digit billion amount. that can by some cistic fibrosis meds. And if you have the system per province there is a disadvantage for the more rural or poorer provinces or states. I live in Austria - they have not one but many single payer agencies (9 for every state for instance and then some for certain professions like civil servants, or farmers, ...) They coordinate. The federal government distrubutes the money of general taxation. There are subsidies for hospitals which are run under town, city or state budgets (so all levels of governments are involved - and have an eye at costs). And on top the insurance agencies of the rich states help out the agencies of the less affluent states.
    1
  40. No - Michael Moore defended Sanders on this. He endorsed Hillary Clinton (if you hold that against him) because Trump was the alternative. If I remember correctly Moore endorsed Sanders in the primary.
    1
  41. It seems this is Ed Fallon who did a climate march across the U.S., and he supports Steyer in the primary (I got that from another comment, did not verify). - Even Biden realizes that he is weak on climate change and that this man probably is going to challenge him (or do gotcha).
    1
  42. Taking liberties (like a lover or husband) with women he hardly knows is another way of playing the alpha / bully. Lucy Flores mentally prepared for her appearance. They started lining up to go on the stage (latest event in her campaign, I think for deputy prosecutor, so she was a small fish in the party). Biden - as much more senior Democrat - and some celebs were there to support her. Biden and Flores hardly knew each other. And she is an attractive young woman. Biden approached her from behind, placed his hands on both her shoulders (possessive gesture) sniffed her hair and gave her a slow kiss on the head. Weird - and too intimate. It is thoughtless anyway to approach a concentrating person from behind and to surprise them. Taking liberties like a spouse or parent or close friend does not make it any better. If he had come from where she could see him and would have given her an encouraging pat on the shoulder or arm or a handshake that would have been O.K., appropriate, and likely she would even have liked it. Shoulder, arm are neutral places to touch even if you do not know the other person well - if the initiator of the touch is higher ranked, older (the age of a parent) or a superior. At best Biden is clueless how to behave and does not take advise from his staff or wife. Or they would tell him not to be creepy towards little girls or females.
    1
  43. No, they watched TV and like to show off how informed they are. Putin and Kim Jong Un are not going to be the deciding factors in an election. And the statement was pretty unspecific. The president has no control about what other countries are doing, but he or she can push the domestic agenda.
    1
  44. That is almost Sarah Palin level of filibustering. Where do they find these people ? Daughter of a party loyalist ? As for communication: 1) content 2) not answering what was asked and talking about things that were not asked. Our volunteers are trained, we are excited about turnout ? that's cute - so what about invalid votes. Her way of speaking (meaning her voice) is less than ideal, she does not speak very clearly. Content aside, just the way she uses her voice (how about opening the mouth so the sound can come out ?)
    1
  45. to be fair it is tough to govern in cities like Soutbend when the federal government promotes deindustrialization, the budgets are limited, he inherited problems AND a racist police force and racial disparities. Maybe Pete even did an O.K. job, or decent in some areas. BUT: I mean O.K. for someone operating under a neoliberal paradigm and he used that office only as starting point for his career. Sanders also aimed for higher office but he CARED about his constituents as long as he was there. He had no big donors, that was the first well paying jobs with benefits, and he was 40 years old. He strived to deliver as long as he served as mayor and the voters gave him good grades. Won first election with 10 more votes, in a race with a Democratic incumbent that seemed unbeatable plus 2 Independents, Sanders being the one Independent that got relevant support. The Republican party did not even bother to run a candidate in that race. 2 years later it was a race with 3 major competitors: a R, D and incumbent Independent Sanders (plus maybe more independents that played little role, outsiders running as Independents is a tradition in Vermont). Turnout was much higher and Sanders won the 3 way race comfortably. he wanted to keep that job, and his employers (the voters of Burlington) gave him good grades. I think that is one of the advantages of Sanders: he owes his career and secure financial status to the grassroots, he was content with thepay and benefits of the office (and did try to get more). He never forgot about the power of grassroots and who are his employers (the voters). Pete does not care: He did not notice the homeless that surround Harvard (those elite universities drive up rent and pay no local taxes, so no budgets for public housing), he was slightly dismissive of the movement to get living wages for the blue collars that keep Harvard going. There were students that stood with the workers - but not Pete. he just has no regard and real compassion for the little people, so he does not bother to get creative. Plus those grassrootsy solutions that can help a mayor to stretch budgets violate the neoliberal paradigm. Usually it means that real estate developers and the landlord class do not make the big profits. There is a mayor in California who tried to use eminent domain against the banks when they sat on forclosed property during / after the crisis. in the end the state Supreme court stopped her - but her voters knew that she tried. They came after Chevron (fossil fuel) which had poured a lot of money into the local races to get a Chervron friendly city council. Under the leadership of that activist mayor voters cleaned house over the course of 1 or 2 elections and Chevron DID finally pay what they owed in local taxes. There is a community nearby New York City which has had an alternative currency (Ithaca Hours) for decades. Might help the local economy a little bit - and citizens see that local government does something. Black and white complacent Southbend citizens - for pete they were voter material and he needed them to get his career started. The gigs with McKinsey helped to network (the professional managerial clas and the consultant class is often initiated at McKinsey). the gig with the CIA helped as well (plus he ticks the "veteran" box, likely his service was less dangerous than for normal soldiers. Given his meagre record in office he had to polish up the resume). to offset any good he may have done in Southbend - of course he very gladly obliged his biggest donor after he won the first time and fired the first black police chief. And coddled the white police force (a part of them racist for sure). Did not care about disproportionate weed arrests (1 : 4 white to black arrests). Bulldozed 1000 homes. They could have tried an alternative currency to finance repairs, to house the homeless, getting people (homeless) back to work, train them at construction. (there are experiments regarding alternative currencies, an academically minded person like him should know that). Also: he could have studied what Sanders did in Burlington (creative ways to finance public housing or projects), I think that was quite successful and got Sanders national attention in the 1980s). People that already did well and then see some development in a few areas (even if it means gentrification for low income people) interpret that as a success story. A part of the city looks much better, and more presentable. Plus the mayor is well-spoken and educated and a veteran (well it was a CIA gig) - so for voters that do O.K. Pete was good enough.
    1
  46. Moore forgot to say: "they" have the VOTING MACHINES. There is a reason for the deafening silence of the Democratic party regarding easily hackable voting machines: Or a state (Ohio, parts of Texas) uses machines where the safety feature have never been activated (a NGO, not the party tried to sue to force the state of Ohio in 2016 to activate the safety feature, the judge dimissed the case) R and D have the same donors. the big donors finance the D's to WIN PRIMARIES against progressives. - for a "progressive emergency" like this techniques like voter roll purges or even directly manipulating the vote numbers will be very useful. John Oliver did a show on election machines - check it out. As for voter roll purges: R's do them more often, but D's use them too (normally more in primaries, Greg Palast mentions New Mexico where they kicked poor Latinos from the voter rolls so an Establishment Democrat would win the primary. Greg: Republicans steal elections, Democrats steal primary. And the Dems for sure cannot call out the Repubs for their tactics. Some generic whining about demanding ID's but not hammering them. Stacy Abrams got a little bit of media attention because they were so eager to see another Republican ousted (to parade that around as referndum against Trump). Abrams is unusually feisty, she said that she did not concede - and these were special circumstances where the Republican rigging got some attention.
    1
  47. They can spoil the media buzz for the first won caucus but they cannot steal the votes. They were called out on twitter to make the corrections. And the Sanders people had fought hard in the reform commission that the numbers of round 1 and 2 (count of people)were released, not only (like in the past= the calculation of SDE's that the person did that headed the event. Plus to reduce the importance of the STATE Delegates Equivalents. still relevant for the STATE party, but not for the NATIONAL convention where the nominee is announced / elected. Out of tradition (SDE used to be more relevant because in the past they could indeed change the National delegate count) media always showed that metric, the only one that ever mattered. Now there are approx. 1680 locations, usually run by normal people, volunteers. They couldn't cheat and I think in most cases they wouldn't do that anyway. Might be different in the cities where the most people come and where maybe party apparatchiks run the event and might be tempted to manipulate in favor of party darlings. So I guess there were mistakes made but not intentional. Normally the mistake are not that consequential. The large assembley should be run more professionally, and the smaller and many events should not matter, the errors should equally harm all, so in the end it does not change the outcome. In the past caucus goers that thought something was not quite right had no recourse. One person leaves early ? they are included in the base when they do the percentage calculation. So starting with 95 persons, 2 leave before the first count is even done. The rules are clear, they must calculate based on 95 - , but if they didn't do it correctly that can make the difference between being viable or not. if the total is 93: 14 persons will get you over the threshold of 15 % if the total is 95: you will need 15 persons to get over the threshold. If a group for one candidate does not make it in the first round they can try to convince others to join them in the second round - but if that does not work out they are not viable. Now the location may have 10 delegates to award (rural areas get a lot of delegates comparatively) - but that is 10 of 11,000. Also new rule: if a group got more than 15 % in the first round those group members are BOUND, they cannot "realign" with another group. Such a group can court others to join them, but they cannot lose members. Only: such cases also happened in the 2020 caucus. But I doubt it made that difference in the gand scheme of things unless a lot of people were allowed to desert. (If they leave they can only leave the event, but they are not supposed to SWITCH. Let's say one person joins team Bernie, which is viable, and then sees that Biden is not viable in this location. Well - too late, that vote is locked down. Again if n t mass desertation mass was allowed in locations with many caucus goers, it should not matter in the grand scheme of things. Sanders had 6000 votes more in the first round compared to number 2 Pete Buttigieg. Sanders gained in round 2 but Buttigieg gained more: so the gap was reduced to 2,500. I guess the votes that were up for grabs in round 2 came from more centrist leaning persons (Biden, Klobuchar) and went more often with the centrist doing the best. I had hoped that Yang and Gabbard would be doing better and their fans would join team Bernie if they not viable, but that effect did not bring much. So while it may stand out to disappointed Yang or Steyer or Klobuchar supporters that they spent 3 hours on a winter evening caucusing and could not earn their candidate some delegates - in the grand scheme of things it does not matter. I guess people are not always aware that it is 1 or 2 or 10 delegates out of 11,000. They are supposed to close the doors: Caucus goers can leave (although they shouldn't if their team made it over 15 %), but you cannot hinder people to go. But you cannot have more people IN TOTAL at the location in round 2 than in round 1. I suppose that was another mistake that volunteers made, maybe they could not control the doors in the location, maybe they did not know or care. I doubt someone "spiked" the event (Example: calling the wife from the couch "Come over honey, team Biden needs some help or they will not even make it over 15 %). These are volunteers often people that know each other, normal people don't do that - party apparachtiks might do that - well often their jobs, budgets and privileges would be threatened. If they get orders from above to promote one candidate over the other (state party of Nevada 2016, remember the voice call, when they should have counted. They decided that team HRC was louder and team Bernie disagreed. Now team HRC might have been more numerous and even louder. But the rulse are clear: if there is any ambiguity there must be a COUNT. Now you cannot manipulate a handcount in broad daylight, but you can claim that the other team was louder and it was obvious who was the majority. Media helped them to cover up for that by circulating the lie about violence and chairs thrown around.
    1
  48. 2:50 so it was a vendor who crafted the attack (although not approved, tested). And every campaign tests negative ads to see what impacts they could have. But WAIT: WHO would try to frame Sanders in a deceptful manner as being antiwoman or like Trump. The Trump campaign ? Certainly not ! Or some Democratic rivals ? But why would they compare him to Trump when they have nothing in common ? they all signed a pledge to not play dirty, no ?
    1
  49. "I like politicians with more moderate positions." Follow up immediately: What do you mean with moderate, can you give me specific positions, policies ? (liberal, conservative, left, socialist, libertarian - those LABELS can mean a lot of things to many persons, it is often not more than a thought stopping cliché).
    1
  50. With that electorate .....
    1