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

Roof is born April 1994, Terror attack June 2015. He also claimed in the manifesto to have developed his white supremacist views after reading about the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin and black-on-white crime. So he was 18 when Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. And 21 when he resented the Baltirmore protests of the death of Freddie Gray
1
Rising had recently the campaign manager of Trump on. War chest of RNC and Trump is well filled. More to come (you bet, those tax cuts for big biz). He said: the Democrats will also get a lot of donations for the 2020 race, no doubt. But they will have to spend all of that. Unlike the RNC they will not be in a good financial shape.
1
Nothing ! is more important for the Democratic elites and the associated consultant class than to keep the money flowing. Not even winning the GENERAL. The big donors finance the Corporate Dems to win PRIMARIES against FDR Democrats and Progressives. The big donors do not care which shill wins the general, as long as the ballot "choice" is a fierce republican or a spineless Democrat. Both beholden to the Big Donors. "We MUST beat Trump" is only a line to make the sheeple fall in line with whatever undesireable candidate THEY intend to run in the general.
1
Perez does his job - exactely as he is supposed to do it. His job is not to promote democracy, a fair primary, or in general an agenda that would help regular people. Sanders is such a disruptor of the cozy established racket, that they now have to drop all appearances. Perez is not good at covering the shenanigangs up, but at this point it is hard to spin it for those who pay attention. But he get's a lot of help from Corporate media - so most people are still not aware what is going on.
1
It is not true that Corporate Dems can't fight. One could get that impression if you watch them dealing with Corporate Republicans. They can and do fight: with money, dirty, using the rules against the opponents (which are bound by the rules to a T, while the establishment bends them as they go). The fight with determination, creativity and endurance. Death by a thousand cuts. They apply those skills only against progressives and FDR Democrats. Which is their job after all ! -
1
Corporate Dems (DNC, DCCC, luminaries like Obama * and Hillary, ...) can start a civil war within the party, lose the election against Trump and be JUST FINE. Stirring up the base by pulling off such stunts could be helpful. * Obama will help them behind the scenes to make sure Bernie does not win the nomination in the first round and / or that the brokered conventions goes against him. If not even that helps, I guess he might vote for Sanders (and even endorse him or campaign for him with gritted teeth). If they rig the game AGAIN, they can reactivate the narrative of the bad Bernie Bros and how Bernie (his base) are SO DIVISIVE. Media will glady help with the propaganda. Which will be the pretext why they can't nominate Sanders when he has 50 % plus, or has 49,5 % or why they have to change the rules unilaterally and bring in the Superdelegates in the first round already. Sanders would have to signal that he is willing to run third party in the general. Trump said that in 2016 and the RNC believed he would and did not dare to cheat him (the base had voted for him, no doubt about that). Only problem: Trump did not care if that would potentially hand the victory to the other party. And: after all is said and done even Trump was going to be a big-biz friendly president. The donors did not like his nomination. He is too uncough, they like the figureheads in the White House to be more polished. Jimmy Dore: Obama put a pretty face on ugly things, Trump puts an ugly face on ugly things. Bonus after the Corporate Dems lose general with help of a civil war: they can scold the base for not turning out after they cheated the base out of a fair primary (again !) and blame them for the lost election. The history books will tell the tale how the divisive Bernie Bros were responsible for the second term of Trump. All (politicians, media pundits, the owners of networks, the advertisers, the big donors of the Dems / Repubs) keep their tax cuts. Likely there will be war against Iran: the big donors love war, and it means ratings for media. "Trump bad" for 4 more years means also ratings for the useless big media outlets, and the Democratic elites can continue to clutch their pearls and to collude with the Republicans on many issues (always good for their common donors and always against the interests of the regular people).
1
@fl00fydragon It worked with JFK, with Dr. King, with Bobby Kennedy - the Reagan assassination attempt was "weird" as well (although for other reasons - he was not in the way of the establishment and the war machine, but maybe in the way of Bush). the police could murder Black Panthers in their beds without impunity. Oh, and the students that were shot by police when they had assembled for demonstrations (against Vietnam). The police started shooting with no reason at all, at least one of the victims was on the way to lessons, did not even participate in the protests. No one was held accountable. No, I do not think there would be a mass uprising. And if - they would send in the agents provocteurs to make sure they have a pretext to use violence. Sanders better watch his back. And choses a VP with a spine and courage, that would be his life insurance.
1
where I live the towns, cities and the states run hospitals. Meaning they are public, non-profits (and these hospitals have a contract with the public non-profit insurance agency). And then there are church run hospitals - that is historically grown - they are allowed to make a small profit, but have also a contract with the public agency. both type of hospitals co-exist, and the agency sees to it that they complement each other. They do not compete, they specialize in some departments, enough beds in every region but no overcapacities. There are no for-profit hospitals like in the U.S., let alone chains. They are not forbidden, but they simply could not compete, they would not get a contract (there are enough players already, that was built in the 1950s and 1960s). And the patients are not going to use them if they would have to pay - when they get good treatment free at the point of delivery elsewhere. The mandatory public insurance coverage (modest wage deductions which are matched by the employers) gives full coverage, in any kind of hospital. The modest wage related funding is not nearly enough for the system (drugs, hospitals, doctors) so there are plenty of subsidies - but not as high amounts are paid per person as are paid in the U.S. (never mind if that person in the U.s. even has insurance or got treatment that year, the total spending in the country is divided by all people in the country, the avearage). And the individuals and companies in single payer nations pay much, much less. Which is obvios - when the spending already is double per person compared to all other wealthy nations (it is 50 % - 60 % if they are "expensive" - the vast majority of rich countries is in that range) there is plenty of room to pay less - for the government and the citizens.
1
The for-profit hospitals NEED patients, else the whole investment (incl. building, beds, machines) is obsolete. If the public system = insurance covers all people and gives full coverage they will need to accept those rates - or move over. In which case they would have to go out of biz and sell the stuff. Well then the community could take over - which would be better anyway.
1
@terminsane Yes - if ONLY for economic reasons undocumented migrants should get the chance to have affordable insurance coverage ! And pay into it. - They already get treatments !!! Good healthcare is expensive under the best of circumstance. It does not help that is costs double in the U.S. (compared to other rich nations) of what it should cost. Undocumented migrants work mostly in the lower wage sector. They will get some treatments - often too little to late. Also no systemic savings from going early to the doctors (before it gets too bad) or from using preventive care. - there are costs for the system - and they will not be able to pay for the big stuff. They can't - like legal residents often can't. The insurers rip off the citzens - it would be worse when undocumented migrants would be at the mercy of the insurance companies to get insurance. They would often hope for the best because it is as unaffordable for them as for U.S. citizens.. There are 11 millions in the country it is not possible to deport them all. So they WILL need treatments. It is either let them die - or treat them. If is only the question if the doctors will get the money. Now it is treat them - but they cannot necessarily pay the bills afterwards. The migrants do WORK and someone profits from their work (consumers: fruit, veggies, meat affluent people for services like maids, nannies. home buyers - construction. and companies). They pull their weight for the economy. They cause less costs (age is a huge factor for healthcare costs and they are younger than the average legal residents). If you want to set up a cost-efficient system you cannot have a number of people in the country who de facto will not have insurance COVERAGE. It causes dysfunction, red-tape. One reason single payers systems are so much more cost efficient are that they are very streamlined. Everyone is in - so the hospitals do not chase the bills. They concentrate on the medical part of the transaction. Migrants will clog up the ER system because there is no good access to earlier care. That is expensive, often too late, unfit for ongoing treatments. And on top they make it worse for those who should use the ER.
1
@terminsane So have you run the numbers what that upset costs (for employers, costs for the family that stays in the U.S.) And "deporting" means likely a lot of people that are new are turned away.
1
5:30 Money in politics is hard to regulate ?? Nope ! regulate the amount of money that can be spent in elections and especially for mass media like TV and radio (they need to include Social media now). So any party that has AUTHENTIC and mass support and the grassroots will have an advantage. Money could not buy that support and it could not drown out the grassroots. Restricting WHAT can be spent on elections and who is allowed to finance that and what can be spent of mass media - that is what they do in all other democracies. Usually they also do not allow underhanded, negative advertising. One huge loophole is left open in most democracies: ideally they ALSO should regulate HOW much money special interests can give to parties (even if they cannot spend it on elections) - so the parties would need to have citizens supporting them, not the special interests. And they often have fairness rules for mass media (even private ones) during election campaigns. If a format covers politics at all - ALL that are on the ballot must have a chance to make their case and be given equal airtime. A government could allocate each citizen a budget (with limits how much they can give every time - so the parties would need to continually lobby the CITIZENS for support). On top of that there should be public funding of parties (according to popular vote). That would ALSO mean that the parties are not "private" organizations that can chose candidates in smoke filled backrooms if they feel like it. That was the defense of the DNC lawyers in late 2016 before court when small donors asked for their money back, because the DNC had promised to be neutral !! in the primaries but was anything but. The lawyer's claim was: the DnC didn't just chose the candidate they wanted to - but they are PRIVATE ENTITY and theyare legally entitled to do so. The court agreed with that view. They can give themselves rules and advertise them to the voters - and completely disregard them. It is not even considered deception. As opposed to the U.K.: there the party establishment of Labour started a coup against the directly elected party leader (Sept. 2015) Jeremy Corbyn after not even one year in June 2016 (until then they had backstabbed him all the time). Well, they would rather not have had him on the ballot for the election of the new leader in September 2016. They thought he would step down, but he didn't. Everyone new on the ballot needed the nod of 30 MPs (mostly establishment), J.C. just about got that in 2015 when no one thought he had a chance (but it was nice to have an outsider on the ballot, too it improved the optics of it being democratic). Corbyn would not have gotten the support of 30 MPs again after a large part of the Labour MPs (members of parliament) tried to undermine him and tried to force him into a resignation. The party did not dare to refuse him the spot on the ticket (as an incumbent accepting the CHALLENGE) - but one of the rich donors to the Labour Party that liked neoloberal "new" Labour acted and sued against Corbyn being automatically on the ballot (which meant he would win, because he still had the support of the base, never mind that the party establishment and the career politicians threw tantrums). They lost that case in court. The judge sees the parties in the UK as institutions of PUBLIC INTEREST, they get plenty of public funding. they have some freedom to give themselves rules and structures with a democratic process (so the procedures and institutions within the parties differ). But they must have a democratic process to set up and change the rules, they cannot alter them on the fly - and they are legally bound (not only by "honor" to abide by fair and democratic rules). So Corbyn did not step down, remained on the ballot - and won even more convincingly in Sep. 2016. If he would not have been on the ballot it would have split the party - giving the Tories a chance to call for a snap election, with good chances to win with a high margin (at that point of time).
1
@MisterTrotts Obama made sure Tom Perez would become the party chair, he phoned up the relevant people the night before. Plus some backroom last minute unexpected rule changes - the usual stuff. - for a short time it looked like Keith Ellison could make it, but when he was ahead they made sure to usher Tom in. Keith had the Sanders endorsement and also I think initially that of Schumer (but of course he is too blue collar and also critical of Israel)
1
So: many fundraisers are held by an Obama admin / Goldman Sachs veteran - not even by the candidate Pete Buttigieg. I could understand if he would have surrogates of the calibre of AOC, or Danny De Vito or Mark Ruffalo. His husband Chasten is O.K. as well, weird in a way, but O.K. Maybe they should just invest in a cute dog to make it a better deal. (Just not a Golden Retriever that is Warren's shtick). Or maybe Barack Obama, Michelle, or Stacy Abrams (if she would be stupid and cheap enough to do so). - But just the guy with the connections but w/o the office ? or any other appeal. Send the accountants and be done with it ! Could it be MORE obvious they are selling access and the Goldman Sachs guy is taking notes of the telephone numbers so that Pete and the people he serves can stay in contact.
1
My take on it: incompetence, a tradition of being tight lipped and intransparent (insiders doing their circle jerks, damned be the base). Arrogance. - they may not AIM for chaos but they are certainly willing (and able) to bend the rules, to make use of chaos and any irregularities, and to squeeze some establishment advantages out of it as they go. If you are a the top of the food chain you can make, break and amend the rules, while enforcing that the outsiders have to keep the rules to perfection. It does not need evil genuis and strategic planning to disadvantage the outsiders. An improvised death-by-thousand-cuts performance works well enough. See 2016. (Strategic or Planning are not their strong suit).
1
they are oversampling 50 year old and beyond - and those of the group that still have a landline. So not urban folks, some may need it because no provider in the area for internet - or they are tied to the old technology. you would not expect these folks to take notice from Sanders much, they also are much less likely to get the news from another source than TV.
1
Didn't even get the math right: Sanders won the election for the Congress seat in Nov. 1990, the 30 years time perriod "expires in Nov. 2020. Again her team not doing their job to research. - Well, Warren and Klobuchar are Senators ? - her little lawerly quip might apply to Senate races only.
1
And I do not think losing elections per se says something about the candidate, their viability. Maybe they stubbornly refuse to take the easy route and suck up to the party establishment and the big donors. Sanders ran for an odd small Independent Left Party in the 1970s, they chose always the big races - and if they had 5 % it was a good result (they did not expect to win, it was to spread the anti war message). Then Sanders had the unlikely race against the incumbent mayor, so well liked by Republicans and seemingly so established that they did not even run a candidate against him. This was in 1980 start or Reagan era - and the U.S. media reported about the mayoral election result in a city of 30,000 in little Vermont. THAT is some record. Sure Warren had to win her first race in Massachussets too (when the public was enraged about the crisis and willing to listen to someone who gave the impression to go after the banksters). Klobuchar ? she is almost a Republican and maybe her opponent sucked even more. The wins of Warren and Kolbuchar with the nod of the party AND taking big donations was NOT like the uphill battle that Sanders had fought (over and over, and VERY often losing). Admitted the CFPB was an uphill battle which Warren won (in the short term). Then Warren did good, but while such agencies are necessary, they will not bring the "big structural change" Warren is talking about (she is right about that, even though SHE certainly would NOT change the status quo). A few years later and a hostile Republican admin can go after that agency and neuter it. Same with ACA, even if it had not been that corporate friendly, it was a highly complex project, not tackling the core problem (private insurance, for profit hospitals, no cost control), so they worked around the fringes while being very cautious to NOT upset the big donors. - The Republicans and Tea Party were correct to slam Obamacare (even though they didn't do it for the right reasons) - and what little was good about it is EASILY UNDONE by the next hostile admin. Some defunding goes a long way.
1
As mayor Sanders was STONEWALLED by the Democratic aldermen - best buddies of the ousted mayor. He had the support of only 2 or 3 - that was not even the veto power. First thing: they fired the secretary of the mayor (so the first budget was written on the kitchen table with the help of volunteers). - Sanders did what he could do given the obstruction and continued to engage the base. The voters did not appreciate the shenanigans of the aldermen, next election was not too long after that (they vote every 2 years it seems, likely alternating). Some aldermen were voted in that were supportive and from then on he had at least the veto power (but no majority). He started working with the Republican aldermen on a case to case base (the relationship with Democratis in Burlington and in Vermont remained strained for a long time). Next mayoral election he won very convincingly. His time as mayor was a success (1980 - 1988) and made him known in Vermont. Still it took 3 or 4 races for higher office until he won in 1990 the Congress Seat. He always had 3 candidate races (at least 3 major candidates, they have a tradition to run Independents in Vermont, so add some people with no real chance to win). But in the last race that he lost (1988 I think) the Democratic candidate turned out to be the spoiler: handing the victory to the Republican (Sanders was a close 2nd). So then the national party agreed with Sanders that they would not run (finance) candidates against him if he would caucus with them. Did not endear him anymore to the state Democratic party - but the next race he did win. As Congress man (under Bush1 and then Bill Clinton) his position was not that safe in the beginning. He had to carve out his niche and sell the transformation from mayor to member of Congress to his constituents - it is fine to win ONE election, but you have to repeat that.
1
Sanders was around 50 years when he became a member of Congress and he never had any secure well paying jobs (with benefits) outside of politics. The finacially good times started at age 40 when he became mayor of Burlington. Seems he was unfazed by being poor, and working odd jobs and gigs (some related to his political passion and some just for an income) in his younger years - while stubbornly running for office in the 1970s with small donations only. But in this later phase of his life it would not have been surprising if he had started cozying up to the D.C. establishment and the party leadership to SECURE his political career, taking big donor money for Congress races, etc. He didn't. Warren stopped being a registered Republican when she was hired by Harvard (some say they do not like Republicans there, that it improved her chances for tenure to register as Democrat). And she hired herself out to big corporations to help them pay less in settlements (breast implants, coal miner pensions, ....) Not to villify her (for an consumer advocate that has seen the light "It takes one to know one" could be an advantage) - but she has been playing the safe and lucrative game for decades. Did the Southern Strategy under Nixon escape her notice ? Her ploy against Sanders mirrors the tactics of ruthless lawyers.
1
another example by someone who rooted for Yang. The person doing the math did not calculate correctly and it lead to team Yang not being viable. That must not be bad intention: these are often small groups of people who assemble, one person is willing to lead the caucus there. They may have volunteered for many years (and may have calculated incorrectly if it got more complicated for a long time. It is much more easy if there are 2 strong candidates and not more or they are a clear minority). The volunteers that do the work are often elderly people and they may not be good at math or logical thinking. I did not understand why the Yang supporters did not protest. They may have been the young newcomers at a precinct with a majority of elderly "experienced" caucus goers. In a region where people know each other, so there is social pressure and maybe the person leading the caucus was not open to input (and admitting an error).
1
Such logic / arithmetic mistakes (which are not too consequential if they happen in rural areas with small groups - 1680 precincts award 11,000 delegates that day - did not become apparent in the past. Not in a way that you could prove the mistake. But now they publish the data from round 1 and 2 - so if a person leading a precinct made a math error NOW the caucus goers who did not like it, can point that out. If the Iowa party or the DNC corrects that, and have impeccable results, they can redeem themselves.
1
That man could as well have had a weapon. Just sayin'. If mentally ill persons with violent tendencies feel resentment anger, they can attach that to the culturally offered causes (like racism, or being against migrants, getting riled up because of abortion, or the Trump admin drive to use China as boogey man got US Chinese citizens into trouble - in March. Nothing too bad, but the restaurants and shops feared for their safety, some vandalims and nasty remarks, also in schools or random encounters in parking lots).
1
Joe Biden does not even want to run, but the establishment begs him. So they are waiting if the other empty suits will be able to contain Sanders - if not they will "unleash" Biden .... and the media will push him big time to make up for lost time (you can see what good media coverage can do for unknown "mayor Pete". Well I hope the Sanders campaign have their groundwork in place meanwhile and are going to crush him in the first primaries. Biden does not do well with young people and they are going to come out (see much increased turnout of usual non-votersCorbyn in the snap elections in UK in 2017, see AOC in the primaries). Kamala Harris is more dangerous to Sanders in the long run). The media have abandoned her a little bit for the latest candidate of the moment, but once the field has been cleared, they will return to fawning over her and giving her free airtime. Ideally Sanders would win California (which is early this time) that would be a huge disadvantage for her. And definitely expect some funky stuff. Well not in California, if they clear young people or people of color from the voter rolls or close down polling stations they also remove the potential Kamala voters. Having the California primary early on could prove to be a blessing in disguise (it was of course done do disadvantage Sanders in case he would run, but he might be able to flip that on them) - if Kamala Harris doesn't do well compared with Sanders it is over.
1
Of course FOX and the "liberal" networks collude with both parties to gaslight the voters. (if he does not inform himself and only watches the large networks, and no debates he can hold on to the opinion that no one has serious problems because he has none - so far).
1
People are self-centered and selfish. He is, too. - So WHAT is the excuse for the likes of Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, the big donors, the media shills who ALSO stand in the way of a good healthcare reform ? They are much richer than him, have more power. Democratic "representatives" gladly take the tax payer funded salary and benefits - plus the goodies from the donors - and they are even more cynical and selfish than this voter.
1
That man may be beyond reach - until HE gets into trouble, then they see the light - but Progressives can't wait until that complacent crowd also gets screwed (which is only a matter of time with this economic system and the oligarchs trying to consolidate their power). More insightful persons willing to show more solidarity and compassion would be held hostage. That is one key feature of (closet) Republicans: they only recognize that something is wrong or should be changed when it impacts them. Addiction in poor white communities is a health issue. The crack crisis was because of black thugs. The compassion and insight how the environment creates diseases of despair (incl. substance abuse) was only mustered when white people got into trouble (and in typical red states). That's the kind of voters the progressives have to deal with, you have to work with the voters you have - they have to convince them too at least a part of them. Enough to win elections. I guess when his wage goes up (company saves on the expensive premiums) or Medicare starts covering the 55 year olds (first year of rollout in the Sanders plan) he would "get" it. Or when Medicare Advantage becomes obsolete for seniors. The PRIVATE upgrade seniors must buy if they really want really good comprehensive coverage). The progressives cannot rely on convincing enough of the dinosaurs - they need to turn out the vote of the people that have been screwed by the complacent I-got-mine crowd already. The young, minorities, low income people. In droves.
1
She was scheduled to speak on the stage at the 2016 convention. Then the Podesta emails were published that PROVED the shenanigans in writing (People who followed closely had always known, but thanks for the confirmation). They didn't let her speak after that leak - there was no way she would have "politely" glossed over it. Sanders didn't rock the boat. Well, you have surrogates for the "Good cop / bad cop" act. Nina would have been a force of nature as bad cop, so the only way to stop her, was to cancel her.
1
HotPeridot 30 April 2015, Sanders announced officially. Ed Schultz show had coordinated to report live. Ed got a call from * management 5 minutes before and was ordered to stand down (* joined at the hip with the Clinton campaign to quote Ed Schultz). There was a heated debate on the phone, but Ed had to give in and to cover something irrelevant, his contract was ended 30 - 40 days later. Likely the Clinton camp had sent in an observer and they noted the camera team. That was when everyone incl. Sanders thought he had a snowball's chance in hell. That does not reek of a confident and souvereign campaing of the clear frontrunner, no ? Well turned out she could not even beat the orange clown with help of 1 billion USD and with friendly media coverage. The Clinton campaign thought initially Sanders could cost them a few % in some states and that worried them (Dr. Richard Wolff). The Sanders campaign had only calculated with 30 million USD, so friendly coverage from the Ed Schultz show would have been helpful to introduce the candidate to the VOTERS. This is not only about being unfair to Sanders, or O'Malley - the voters are tricked out of a chance to learn enough about a candidate in time. For the same reason the DNC massively reduced the number of debates and also scheduled them on dates where they could expect to have less views (that strategy cost Clinton, she missed out on chances to shine on those occasions and to make her case to the voters early on. And they also neglected to have an early get out the vote campaign for the same reason, activating people beyond the usual loyalists would potentially activate people interested in the outsiders, can't have that). The DNC played dumbed and denied the rigging of the debate schedule , until there was proof (Podesta leaks) - then Debbie wasserman-Schultz had to step down (followed by her replacement Donna Brazile because of the leaked debate questions). Oh, and Sanders was late with entering the race because he coordinated with Elizabeth Warren - if she had entered the race he would not have run.
1
HotPeridot The rigging had started FROM DAY ONE. - Sanders was very gracious towards the Clinton campaign (well, he knows the shark tank and he knew from April 30th 2015 officially what was going on behind the scenes). - He is good sport - and he is not as weak as Clinton, so he concentrated oh the issues and on HIS CAMPAIGN, instead of sabotaging the other candidates.
1
They could very well live with Trump winning again (and clutching their pearls the next 4 years. Bonus: scolding the progressives which they will blame for the loss. Media would get the ratings over some Trump or Pence frenzy and they all can avoid having the "issues" discussed.
1
BLAIR M Schirmer It is often hard to PROVE the involvment of the higher charges, and of course the 2 tier justice system and politcians protect the higher ups- HOWEVER no white collar crime is pulled off without middle managment and lower charges. So in the future the higher ups will have a harder time to convince / bully the lower charges to do the dirty work for them going to prison while the real villains walk free isn't just not worth it. And if so - the smart galls and guys among the lower charges will have a paper trail, secret recordings, diaries - so in case something comes out they can strike a deal with the prosecutors (who hopefully will grant them immunity and go after the big fish instead).
1