Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Jimmy Dore Show"
channel.
-
Jimmy criticizes Dr. Fauci because he went along with "wearing masks by regluar people does not help much, if anything. We do not need to mandate it" and NOW Dr. Fauci admitted, he supported that claim to prevent a run on masks which would have hit those who needed masks the most then (March, April).
It is more complicated, among other things the science was NOT clear then (nor is it settled now, but then even less insight), the novel corona virus is unchartered territory, and it is not a European / American tradition to wear masks. It is however in Asia, and they also did have the stocks and THEY produce them. They could mandate mask wearing without a run on masks and provide them at low costs and in sufficient volumes.
Neither the U.S. nor other wealthy nations prepared in Feburary (when the experts warned already) and when they should have ramped up production in a WW2 style effort. Or prepared their domestic manufacturers that they could be forced having to produce them.
It is a cultural norm to wear masks even in the cold and flu season in Asia. Even if you only have a harmless cold and a runny nose, it is the polite thing to wear a mask when meeting other people, and the social pressure exists to comply with that norm. (We should adopt that, could save lives even in normal flu season).
The West was not prepared did not have enough masks for the population, not even in countries like Germany.
Germany had a coordinated, mature response to corona virus, and fast relief packages, so the population was less TENSE about lockdown and the whole situation. There was a minor run on toilet paper, but that ended fast, and nothing like the craze in the U.S. The shelves of retail were well stocked.
Europeans do have sick leave, and healthcare free at the point of service, and it was clear, they would get testing and healthcare for free - but even in Germany some morons stole masks from open containers in hospitals (major quantities, a few missing masks would not have made the news).
If it is "everbody is on their own" like in the U.S. and I- got-mine-screw-you, and there is scarcity and a real risk to lose everything, if it is not even clear what will be with healthcare costs or relief measures during an effing PANDEMIC - then SCARCITIY MINDSET and FEAR to be the one that is left behind, becomes the dominant mindset - which leads to all kind of irrational fear based behavior.
Professional MASKS are arguably more useful / life saving, scarce, indispensable than toilet paper. consumers hoarded it for use at HOME. if no paper is to be had you can ration use and keep yourself clean at home. People still had running water, washing machines, wash clothes (or T shirts they could cut up) to keep themselves clean.
Toilet paper is already mass produced and USED by every one to the extent that the human digestions requires it.
Masks are produced outside the country. the whole population already needs and uses toilet paper (and can hardly need that much more when sick apart from some diarrhea, but that would not even increase demand by 20 %). But outside of medicine, masks are mainly used in manufacturing (food) and construction or DIY.
No ramping up of toilet paper production was necessary. But the production of masks needed MASSIVE increasing.
If the Asian plants would have produced simple masks (because the masses bought them up and at higher prices, due to the OFFICIAL recommendation) - they would not have had the capacities for the more professional masks that are necessary for medical staff and were not on stock in sufficient volumes.
Andrew Cuomo said that the STATES competed and OUTBID each other for medical equipment. That was when New York was at the height of the crisis. Because there was no FEDERAL coordinated response to make the materials available in the states that THEN needed them most and at reasonable prices.
Italy did not get help when they needed it the most - but once the neighbour countries realized they could control the situation their hospitals were not overwhelmed, enough ICU beds - Germany and Austria took in CoVid-19 patients from Italy (military transported them). Adapted trains transported patients from Paris to other regions in France where the hospitals still had capacities.
Plus invoking the Defense Production act. Not only for show like Trump did, but stepping fast and strongly on the toes of domestic manufacturers.
In an ideal world the admin would have done a dry run and planning with the industry in February already. Ready to execute the plan and jump into action at March. But the big donors had showered Trump campaign and RNC with money, so that did not happen.
Even fabric masks (cotton) are good enough for laypersons. Less investment: manufacturing chain busy making them, domestic production, self-reliance of the DIYing population, comfortable to wear, users can produce as they like them, and adjust the design). Even a loose shawl is better than nothing (for a shopping consumer), not if you are in a ventilated building for long time.
But even if a rational, capable government would have pushed for a DIY effort to sew masks for regular people in order to leave the industrial capacities for healthcare workers, it would have been taken as signal by many to BUY industrially produced masks and hoard them.
Dr. Fauci was caught between a rock and a hard place - he chose the essential workers (in medicine) over the rest of the population. That was a rational way to handle it, it was not his fault, that he had no better alternatives.
Could they have tried to activate the U.S. DIY spirit and avoid a run on masks ? Maybe. A good president could have pulled it of - and it would have triggered a spirit of the country pulling together engaging the suburban mums, that have time for sewing.
A president that settles the issue of healthcare costs, and assures voters and smaller businesses that they will not be thrown under the bus - might have been listened to, when pleading to not hoard toilet paper and leaving the professional masks for our heroes: medical staff, firefighters, ambulance drivers.
Citizens stuck at home could have CONTRIBUTED and would have felt much better. DOING something means CONTROL, and they would have felt as part of something bigger. This was the spirit in the U.K. at the beginning of and during WW2 including the bombing that hit the civilians. (Keep Calm And Carry On. Everyone has to do their bit).
Medical staff has MUCH HIGHER ongoing EXPOSURE, they need better masks. The producers could have pitted mass production for regular folks versus what the healthcare providers have to pay to make the ASIAN manufacturers produce the better masks for medical staff. Which need and deserve protection the most. Plus keeping medical workers healthy is crucial or the healthcare system will break down.
If lots of doctors and nurses and ambulance drivers are getting sick, even if they retunrn after 3 weeks, they are very much missed. And the U.S. or Western governments could not put pressure on the manufacturers because it has all been outsourced.
This was the situation Dr. Fauci had to navigate. An inept, unpreapared admin, an idiotic president in denial that cares only for his reelection and his grifting schemes. A president that had even dismantled what the former admin had put in place - prompted by the 2013 Ebola crisis. 'cause Obama. No stocks of protective equipment or preparations (that needs funding).
A run on masks and price gouging by manufacturers would have come, the idiots in the U.S. even created a run on toilet paper and THAT is produced in the U.S. and there never was a shortage (of course it will not be on the shelves when people buy all of a sudden what they need in months.
The distribution and manufacturing is geared towards the usual reasonable quantities. Most people have a few rolls at home as reserve, and you CAN make do as consumer at home and "ration" toilet paper if the shit hits the fan ;).
But medical staff cannot improvise around their PPE. And if the large (Asian) manufacturers are busy (and well paid) to prodcue the simple masks for the masses, they will not produce the masks for medical staff.
2
-
2
-
Carter had to deal with the aftermath of the oil crises. that ravaged ALL developed nations. Did not have good economic advisors (as clueless as everbody else aobut money creation).
Good wages, high employment, high taxation for the rich - had produced a complacent middle class - who thought they had pulled it off all by themselves.
They had profited from the New Deal economy - but did not realize it. The lesson were forgotten, and the "haves" eager to finally get rid of the New Deal restrictions were doing their best to shape public opinion. The only thing that kept the balance was low unemployment.
That is why the Soviet Union was immediately villified as soon as they were not needed anymore to do the heavy lifting in Europe against the German army.
(FDR died in spring 1945, and the progressive and very popular Wallace had been sidelined. Instead of that war monger Truman became President - first as VP being promoted, than winning elections).
Unemployment rose during the oil crises - and it would have anyway. The 40 hour week was introduced in 1940 in the US, since then a lot of automation had happened, computers, women joining the workforce, contintued immigration.
it would have been the time to overhaul the system - but not one leader in the West understood (their understanding of the economy was from the 19th century).
A gradual reduction of the work time would have been reasonable.
Between 1947 and 1970 productivitiy rose by 112 % (more than doubled, most of it was given to the workers in form of rising wages, so the stuff that was produced found buyers !, average wages adjusted for inflation + 97 %, so that is almost a doubled purchasing power)
after 1970 - 2013 plus productivity 69 %, wages plus 8 or 9 %.
The workers lost their negotiation power because of higher unemployment. That was caused by automation etc. - and later because the political elites colluded with Big Biz to enable outsourcing = "free" "trade" deals - pitting the workers of poor and rich countries against each other.
the alternative: another reduction of work time, the gains of productivity are given in time not in wages, so the wages stay the SAME (so same purchasing power for workers/consumers, same amount of goods produced in shorter time or with fewer people, same profit for the companies). And the developing countries would get the same deal as the citizens of the West after WW2. Wages rising with productivity (they could right away implement the technology of the West) would trigger the same boom.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Only wealthy people could afford the gamble of having a healthcare policy with high decuctbiles or a high degree of uncetaintiy. (they can come up with the out of pocket expenses). Low(er) income people cannot afford to NOT have good and full coverage. - It is a sneaky way to obfuscate that many people cannot afford appropriate insurance coverage and will not get healthcare worthy of a first world country:
If those "representatives" are honest they would admit they do not care and are not willing to bother the rich with taxation and / or cut the excessive profits.
But that is politically not possible so they offer contracts that seem to be affordable but INCREASE INTRANSPARENCY. Contracts that are NOT comparable - and kick the risks and the payments down the road.
Take 10,000 peole. Some of them will need treatment. Many (most) will be lucky and only a few will be hit by high costs.
One way to organize healthcare is to run the numbers, find out the statistical costs for the whole group * and divide it per person.
Have good contracts with the providers of care (even better let them be non profits - still with a well negotiated contract, that will bring costs down).
Add modest adminstrative fees for a non-profit insurance ageny (2 - 5 %). There you go.
Then you have the transparent, upfront costs in a streamlined system. No bad surprises later. No need for a bureacracy that decides who has what contract, which preexisting conditions and gets what coverage.
Everyone gets what is necessary - the doctors decide what is necessary and which tools of a first world medical system they are going to use.
Even such a cost-efficient system is costly: on average 5,000 - 6,000 USD for every person per year in most wealthy nations. That means for a family of four 20,000 USD per year and upwards. That is a lot of money.
If the individual contributions are intended to be affordable so that EVERYONE can participate (and gets coverage for dependent family members w/o extra costs) - there must be generous government funding. Which goes however into a cost- efficient system.
Advantage: efficient streamlined, the best for the population, no worries, no hassle
Problem: upper middle class and rich people have to help out (taxes) AND
healthcare which is a major part of the economy is mostly off-limits for the "investor class"
Plus the potential patients /the insured are UNITED. They are a political force that will not put up with b.s. and the system is so transparent / simple that they know what is going on.
Either all of them get a treatment - or no one. No games of "divide and conquer". Or that people have contracts that are not comparable and are split up by their individual risks, deductibles, the luck of having a large employer, etc.
All potentially have the risk - but only a few people get actually hit. Which is good for sneaky politician. They would rather not deal with a unified group that has a potential risk (and wants a system that deals upfront with it and be done).
Disingenuous politicinas prefer to have only to deal with the relatively few unfortunate for which the risks manifest. the complicated system / contracts makes it look like each case is individual and "everyone is on their own".
People experience the systemic problems when they are already stressed out. (the other unified group can fetch their pitchforks / get the yellow vests when they do not even as indiviudals have problems. Because of "everyone gets the same" the problem of one is the problem of all.
The politicians that do not arrange the system better also do not want to deal with the backlash of the unified and much larger group. With transparent contributions in advance for FULL coverage but too high prices or too little public funding all of the insured would have higher contributions. They either cannot afford it (or they do not like it ) - so there the political trouble starts.
Deductibles are a way for politicians who do not want to provide necessary funding and / or cut excessive profits of the industry to mask TOO high upfront premiums.
such contracts also make it easier to blame the citizens that were lured into taking the gamble and realistically could not have paid the contract with the honest price tag.
They underinsured should have been more responsble, did not read the fine print, were too dumb to understand the contract, should have gotten a better paying job, etc.
High deductibles and intransparent costs also hide the high profits and the high adminstrative costs much better than a system where people know the full costs in advance.
No one really knows WHAT the costs could be and IF the insurance will pay - until they are in the situation.
Compare that to the citizens of wealthy countries with single payer. They know the costs (affordable wage deductions) and no or insignificant bills when they need treatment.
What do they get ? whatever is the most recent / effecitve treatment at that time. the catalogue of what is covered is constantly updated to include new developments - and then the treatment is available for everyone if they need it.
it is also hard to defund the system when low-income to affluent people use the same hospitals and get the same treatments.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Spanish Flu and this virus likely have a comparable mortality rate. But CoVid-19 may have the higher complication rate (people may survive but need intense care). Cynically speaking: in most cases people survive the flu *, if not they are usually dead within a week, and not much of a hassle for the healthcare system. They do not need the ICU for 2 - 5 weeks, and then they may or may not survive.
Spanish flu was a version of the swine flu (I think so, not of the corona family), so it was somewhat different (mechanisms that spread it, symptoms, complications, typical effects on the body) than the novel corona virus. Plus it mainly hit people till the age of 40.
If an infectious disease can spread like a wildfire - if you have open society, travel, and ecomony then "less deadly as percentage than we thought" does nothing for you: It is a NUMBERS GAME.
It means it is very contagious and that easily compensates for lower death rates. - if the number of infected persons can grow exponentially you can fill the hospitals, ICU beds and morgues even with "lower" percentages the case numbers just have to be high enough.
At some point - if we would let it spread - there WILL be some base immunity. After all the Spanish Flu also run its course, 2 years and 50 million dead people later. Same with The Plague. It is not sure we will get a safe ! vaccine earlier.
SARS-Cov-2 isn't record setting contagious btw (many infectious diseases are in the same range) - more than the common flu and cold, but likely comparable to Ebola, tuberculosis, HIV. Polio might be higher. Never mind measels (much higher). It is sneakier in the way it spreads, and it is NEW, so no base immunity, no treatment drugs, and no vaccines.
There is no light asymptomatic form of Ebola. We all would much rather be infected with Sars-CoV-2 than the Ebola virus - but the authorities can control Ebola outbreaks much better. See 2013: the African nations and WHO had asked for months for help. Only when it really became a crisis to the point where it could be imported into the rich nations, the first world countries jumped into action. The poor African countries did not have the medical systems to deal with it, but with help if was possible to contain it, and that happened fast.
There is no light form of Ebola, and if modern medicine is involved they CAN follow the infection chain: quarantine, treat people and stop it, or bury the dead properly. CoVid-19 is not nearly as deadly, and has not such a high complication rate (hospitals, intensive care) but it is much more sneaky in its spread (asymptomatic spreaders, people spread it when they just develop symptoms).
That is why it is much harder to contain and why it is so much more of a headache for governments and epidemiologists.
The current strains of Ebola do not give us headaches (in countries with a modern medical system). Heaven forbid the strain would get more OR in the same way contagious as CoVid-19:
Many light cases, that spread it before they know they have it. People that might have it, but still go to work. You risk that as young person with CoVid-19 especially in the U.S. where many have no sick leave (and a lot of homeless people).
If people would suspect they have Ebola they might seek help earlier. And given how terrible the disease is, even the ruthless big donor serving U.S. government would be promted to provide that early free care, testing and sick leave as to avoid spread. But now they - in a cavalier manner - assume that the wealthy elderly can be kept safe, by buying services. And they can of course isolate much more comfortably if they have a house a garden.
Even 80 year old have a fighting chance to survive the infection if they are generally healthy so far. Good luck if Ebola would strike. So then the rich and wealthy (who need their cleaners, gardeners, cooks, people that have the usual infection risks) have an excellent reason to demand that the reasonable thing is done. Sick leave and protection from being fired, mandated quarantine (and help with that), and free treatment and testing.
I took the Trump admin quite a while to get at the point where CoVid treatment and testing would be free. That was a no brainer in most wealthy nations.
The concept of herd immunity is that 50 - 90 % of the population must have at least some immunity against the virus.
The estimate for CoVid-19 is that 70 % herd immunity would be necessary (it is higher if the disease is more contagious)
2
-
2
-
@Demodaze1 straight from the book of unreflected * right wing talking points. Republic is the opposite of monarchy. Both can be democratic (free, secret and fair elections) or dictatorships. - A democratic monarchy is a constitutional monarchy, at least they call it that in Europe.
Norway, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, U.K. They have elected governments. And a constitution. So being born into a certain family is not enough, the consitution regulates the rights of citizens and how governance is executed and how the government is formed.
Having a constituion does not mean it is a democracy. Iran has a constitution. They even have elections.
Typically most Republics have an active government that is formed after ELECTIONS (and the head is often called Chancellor or Prime Minister) and they often also have a president (see Czechia, Austria, Germany, ....) The president is then one pillar in the spearation of powers, often the head of the military and is the counterweight to the power of the government.
The active head of government of France (a Republic) is also called president.
the presidents that are more figurehaeads (in normals times) are the last stop to a coup - in normal times their role is more ceremonial (But when they refuse to sign a law they can get some attention).
In monarchies that are democracies the monarch fulfills the role of the president - as the counterweight to parliament and government.
Example: The Queen of England and the president of Austria give the order to form a government after elections. Typically that will be the party with the best result. Even if that party does not have the 50 % that you realistically need in a parliamentary democracy to be able to govern and get anything done.
A party could decide to have a minority government (it happens rarely) but usually it means they will shop for a coalition partner.
Now if the president is for some reason not O.K. with the Conservative party (let's say they got 35 %) he or she can order another party to try and form the government - for instance a coalition between a left leaning party (let's say they got 28 % and had the second best result) - but if they form a coalition with the centrist party that got 23 % they have the necessary majority for a govenment that can get things done).
The president for sure would be under pressure why he or she does not go the traditional route, they are not expected to play favors, almost always the party with the best result has the first try - but they have the authority to do that.
if the Conservatives find no party willing to work with them they might have ideas to form a minority government. It is rare but not unheard of.
The president can accept that approach OR give another party the chance to seek for coaliton partners. Sad day for the Conservatives they had the best result and end up being the opposition anyway.
For that reason there is no "wasted vote" it is the popular vote anyway and you never know. Small opposition parties can become king makers.
Former long time governing parties find themselves in the role of opposition.
Likewise the Queen could refuse to allow the party with the most votes the first try. Not sure if that has ever happened, but she could. For instance if Labour would have won the election but the leader of Labour could not convince her that they will find a coalition partner.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Obama on "Relax Mode" = charming, witty, engaging AND FLUENT. Versus Obama on "Cautious Mode" - the latter he used as POTUS when speaking about foreign affairs, the State of the Union, etc.. Very, very carefully "crafting" the message, SLOWLY releasing the words, as to not accidentally giving too much away - or saying something that he/the cabinet would regret later. (Like offending the Russians, Chinese, the U.S. Deep State or the "Israel First" crowd. Or - gasp - other Big Donors).
Nothing wrong with POTUS being careful about what he says in official statements (number 45 is woefully inadequate in that department) - but an ex-president on that "mode" because he needs to "defend" his pet project ?
Jimmy Carter does not have to "weigh" each syllable that carefully - well he has nothing to be ashamed of - and if someone wants to criticize him for some off the cuff, relatively honest, relatively unfiltered (*) statement - let them come.
* I am sure Carter still does not say everthing that he thinks (or knows) - but he can afford to communicate authentically.
Carter also mentions that he raises the money for his REAL charities by writing a book occasionally. In his communications he does not mince words however to not endanger his book deals.
Obama cannot speak his mind - he got a very good book deal (WHO is supposed to BUY all these books - because the publisher will need to sell an awful lot of them to cover Obama's contract, their costs and then some. - it is almost as if they KNEW that they would get orders and help with marketing / launching the book (which is also a huge cost).
And the 400k he got for the Wallstreet speech. He is a cheap sell-out, really. Given HOW MUCH he did for the banksters and how much they owe him. ... well maybe they want to be discreet, they can hand him some consulting contracts later, when the public is not that interested anymore.
I do not think Obama would spill the beans if they did not compensate him for his collusion - but the other opportunistic aspiring sell-outs are watching closely. If Obama does not get paid properly it would not be good for "morale".
2
-
@patrickwinn9700 I am sure the Nazis lied about the stats, but there is no doubt that Germany had a spectacular economic recovery between March 1933 and August 1939. Then WW2 started when they invaded Poland, and from then on they could seize the assets of occupied countries (which made up for the men that were drafted and in the army, occupying and invading other countries).
In countries like Poland the also kidnapped people and forced them to do unpaid labor in Germany (to replace German men and women in manufacturing, farm work etc). There was some racism going on, they did not kidnap people from the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, France for that purpose, but they subjected Eastern Europenas to that, they were considered less than. That also happened to half Jews, they were not put in the camps if they were not suspected of any resistance but were subject to forced labor.
I am sure they seized the gold of annexed "allies" Austria and Czechia in 1938, but they did not plunder these countries for instance their railway infrastructure, steel, timber, art ... They wanted to have the population on their side, so it was not like occupying France, or Netherlands, ... or worse in Poland, Ukraine.
But in the years before WW2 started they had to pull their own weight (and they built up the military, big time). Built streets, railway, some public housing.
Keynsian deficit spending. Like FDR did in the U.S. only bolder (because they prepared for war). I guess the New Deal spending of the U.S. was not bold enough, in 1940 the boom started, that was the war economy in the U.S.
for the economy it does not matter, if you build houses, tanks, cars .... actually a nation gets more bang for their buck for civilian spending. But they only ever find the big bucks for military spending and war.
If the Race to the Moon project had been swapped for affordable quality public housing for the masses (incl. middle class), they would not have "found" the money. The U.S. needed satellites that was a national security issue for sure after the Soviets had launched Sputnik.
But they did not "need" to put a human on the moon, that made things complicated and expensive.
It was an ego exercise.
They always find money for real war, but never for the war on poverty.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bernlin2000 AOC: "It is not a "takeover" - I want to bring the party HOME. Well, it will have to be a hostile takeover by the Progressives. - It looked - for some time - like Labour in U.K. would be successful in taking over the party AND ! its institutions.
But the Left wing of Labour hesistated when they had the upper hand. (there were good reasons to not do that - but in hindsight, they could as well have risked it).
The dark forces NOW are not hesistant and have no scruples. The neoliberals / Blairites try to reverse that development now.
Corbyn is less calculating and more honest and "undiplomatic" about his stance (incl. Israel) - so he was an easy target for "antisemitism" etc.
Sanders is more savvy in not giving them ammuniation (and being a Jew he is a harder target for antisemitism. In his case the enemies think "misogynist" would be a good strategy).
Of course there is the question when "Chose your battles wisely" or "Do not say all what you think about important and controversial issues" - becomes weakining compromise. He has gotten bolder on Israel (but he makes it around Netanyahu).
He calls out healthcare insurers and big pharma - but not he for-profit hospital chains. Does Sanders know they are very problematic as well ? Of course !
It is easy to bring drug prices down - you only need political will. It will not shake up the system for patients or doctros.
The insurers are glorified middle men, no one will miss them, and they do not add to the service. BUT: the doctors and hospitals ARE a necessary and limited resource. When the owners of for profit hospitals riot, that may cause real problems when implementing reform.
In the 1960s the powerful American Medical Association almost prevented Medicare. Then insurers were private NON-PROFITS, it was illegal to profit from healthcare (insurance) then. That changed under Nixon.
Sanders should criticize the make-up of the superdelegate list. Will he dare to ? Will he remind voters to CHECK if their restistration has been altered and if they are still on the voter rolls ?
I do not think Sanders is a coward or "weak" on a personal level. It would have been so tempting and easy to give in - since decades.
See Howard Dean. Or Rachel Maddow as example in the media.
Sanders is not so nice and agreeable (as many fans assume him to be) either, he said himself that he has a temper, can be grumpy. A hard worker, legendary for his energy, and very demanding towards his staff as well.
After the death of John McCain in an interview:
John and I saw that we had to do something abut the VA, his proposals for solutions were very different from mine, we had to compromise. He had a temper, I have a temper, it got loud sometimes. But in the end we found common ground and agreed on a bill.
Back to the U.K. and why Corbyn hesistated to clean house and unify the party on a message to render the media attacks pointless
The neoliberal and tabloid media (owned by rich people) joined the witch hunt. Plus of course his many enemies in the party.
The U.K. has also the Winner-per-district-takes-all system (FPTP) which results in 2 relevant parties only. (It is a little better in the U.K. because they have campaign finance laws, so not unlimited spending possible. Grassroots and new parties have a fighting chance in the uphill battle).
Corbyn never dared to kick out the backstabbers for fear of splitting the vote and handing the Tories a win even in safe Labour districts. For the same reason the backstabbers never dared to break away.
Corbyn is nice, compassionate, principled man, maybe not ruthless enough for politics.
So the backstabbers could continue to undermine him (from within the party) and collude with the media, even after Corbyn had graciously and generously glossed over their various attempts to undermine him. He did not exploit it when grassroots took over all the important committees in the party, when the result of the snap election 2017 was much better than expected.
The party never united in ONE strategy and and in shared ! soundbites against the ridiculous claims of anitsemitism. Calling it correctly a deflection strategy - and "We will not dignify that with an answer, now let's talk about the ECONOMIC issues that are really important for the voters".
The backstabbers would have gladly undermined that line of defense.
The media shills could have talked circle jerks about "anti-semitism": loyal Labour representatives just would not have played the game.
Jews are only a tiny minority among the voters (although over represented in media and politics).
you could have gotten the impression Labour would round up Jews as soon as they would be elected.
The disingenuous smear campaign was effective after they did it for years (pretty much like Russia, Russia in the U.S.) . They had Corbyn and Labour very often on the defense, (which makes you look weak even if you have good answers in most cases) and they could talk negatively about Corbyn and Labour but NOT about the popular policies.
Add the Brexit mess to it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Please consider marketing rules when sharing on social media. Information overload and too little time - if you get the first line right the people in your circle WILL read it (humans are very curious, evolution made us that way).
Catchy headlines: 1 USD to vastly improve the Democratic debates. or Attack dog for genuine We The People candidates. Or: the unlikely candidate that could let the good candidates shine (that headline needs some more work).
Or An 88 year old fool / patriot entered the race - and why I support him TOO or WHY I donate a few bucks
It is also important to let them know they should do it right away, because there is not much time left (beg. of June - see tweet of May 6th, they did not spell out an exact date).
After the catchy headline the LOW costs the urgency (as little as 1 USD, but only till beg. of May) AND your personal involvement is the next important thing - it will matter to the people who like you (you are not just flooding them with info, you already DID something).
I think many people that have sympathies for Warren, Sanders, Gabbard, Yang never have heard of Gravel. It is NOT immediatelyobvious for them WHY they would give to another campaign or an "old fool" - so it is a good idea to let them know the reason why Gravel would be so VALUABLE.
(and I think it could be fun as well).
Gravel can be fierce when telling it like it is (ruffling feathers, calling out inconsistencies, kicking some behinds - chose the language your audience can digest) - the candidates that COULD win (or position themselves for a cabinet position with a strong campaign) MUST be more CAUTIOUS.
you better spell that that argument out in the headline or the next sentence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@William1866 The U.S. system already has a lot of subsidies from the government - in the U.S. it just funds red tape, dysfunction and plenty of profits. I come from a lower income family with many children, I cannot imagine what that would have been like in the current U.S. system.
- in single payer system people must pay a percentage of wage, there is a cap, employer (all no matter the size) must match it. That gives full coverage, risks do not matter. Dependent family members included. Full coverage of course as well.
Which means that the single high income male shoulders some of the burden of a fellow collegue who happens to be a middle aged family man maybe with pre existing conditions (which is only fair, he raises the future tax payers, voters, entrepreneurs, workers, mothers and fathers).
Signing up takes 5 minutes at your new job. (you should know the full birth date of all your kids - been there - at the adminstrative side)
couldn't be easier (read no red tape, streamlined admin).
No bills when you need treatment. (again: easy, no chasing after money by doctors and hospitals. The insurance agency collects the money and pays the doctors and hospitals and pharmacies.
Not the slightest incentive to deny care or invent fees and do "creative billing".
First world medical facilities, everyone uses the same (it helps if the affluent share the facilities with the low-income people). In most cases the patients have a choice where they show up. No "out of network" nonsense. There will be referals of course or some specialized procedures are only done in larger hospitals.
No denial : not of coverage (that comes with the job, of course provisions also for people w/o job, single stay at home parents, retired, ...)
No denial of treatment or extra payments
Doctors decide about the treatment.
The wage deductions are affordable - so like in the U.S. the government must give additional funding.
That funds a public non-profit insurance agency with 3 % overhead, and non-profit hospitals (run by cities or the large ones by the states). Pharmacies and doctor practices are SMALL companies with a contract.
The only Big for-profit actor in the system is Big Pharma - they have internationally comparable, highly standardized products.
Non-profit national insurance agencies have no reason to guard their "information advantage" - like for profit insurers would do. Read: there is some transparency about the general levels of costs for drugs - in the EU in a market with plus 530 million people.
Hospitals, insurance agency, Big Pharma - all well taken care of - these are the worst offenders in the U.S.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well Sanders may have a frugal side: If your read the article, he lived poor and did not seem to care much. Very stubbornly followed the idea to run for higher office with that small independent party in the 1970s (they never made more than a few percent, the fight against the Vietnam war had run its course, they ran out of steam in the late 1970s).. - I recall someone mentioned that when he was elected to Congress (so age 50 and older, in the 1990s and later) he picked up his laundy from the dry cleaners.
Well, elected representatives are not allowed to dial after dollars or meet with lobbyists IN the House. So during miday (which is the best time to reach people) Dems and Repubs flock to nearby offices and dial after dollars in the "cubicles of sweat" No one likes that task but they MUST raise money for their campaigns AND the party, the aides have the lists with the names and some small talk info about wealthy and rich donors. The aides keep the politicians on task.
They have lists on the black board who raised what money - it is like multilevel marketing or a callcenter.
Way to go: running for office to be one of the approx. 500 people that govern the country on the highest level (Congress has more power domestically than the president, the founders set it up that way) - just to have to do THAT.
A Republican spilled the beans when he was about to leave Congress - no doubt for a cushy position provided by a Big Donor (biz).
They also call the donors of the other party (they must be disclosed, so public information). If a person / company gave a lot to the Repubs they can be "expected" to at least give a part of that to the Dems. And the other way round. The potential donors understand the hint - you never know when you need someone influental for your interests and financial gain. (Donald Trump said that in the primaries on the stage: They call and I give, but I know where to call when I need someone).
When politicians do the hated work they are not wasting time on the measly 2,700 max donors. They go after larger prey.
Now, I assume fancy fundraising dinners (maybe with celebs) and meeting with bundlers are more pleasant and not as humiliating. But that is more for the big fish and the races that get a lot of attention.
Sanders never did fundraising THAT way (although he is known to have appeared at fundraising dinners of the Democratic party - but can you imagine him dialling after dollars ? - lol - ) - so of course he had time to pick up his laundry. Who knows ... he may have met regular people there, even gotten into a conversation with them ....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BennyOcean By ANY metrics white people are the dominant group in the U.S. STOP WHINING. And the dominant group (white middle class Americans !) allowed the political process to be bought, beginning with Reagan and allowed Big Biz to take over.
The New Deal policies had also favoured white people, I am not sure if FDR was a racist or if he (gladly) bent to political realities. In the 80s the people that were doing quite well were unwilling to listen to Carter who told them they would have to save energy. The U.S. could be the top supplier / exporter of such technologies now - where fossil fuels are replaced by human ingenuity and labor. Read: good jobs in engineering and manufacturing.
But they ran after Reagan who continued Nixon's dog whistle policies.
Instead of lifting UP the poor minorities so that the whole country does the boring middle class gig (see Germany, Switzerland, France, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, .... ) the covert undermining of the minority communities went on.
Reagan started a lot of bad projects- and Clinton put enthusiastically the last nails into the coffin. The white middle class voted for both of them (or shills on the other side of the aisle who would have done the exact same thing - see Mitt Romney for instance).
BTW: Germany or the Netherlands or France are NOT more homogenous than the U.S. (O.K. there may be more different groups in the U.S. What really matters is if you have at least ONE major constantly underprivileged group in the country.
With all the negative social / criminal consequences
In a society that shits on ALL poor people and everyone is on their own it is harder for those at the bottom to make their way up. Many - most - of white U.S. citizens took their chance in the Golden Era - 1950s - 70s to work their way up. So THEIR children do not have to be "exceptional" to make it. Just following the middle class script is good enough. Well, it used to be. Now the policies of the elites which they so complacently allowed to be dished out on the U.S. underclass and the poor poor people in developing countries comes back to bit them in the behind.
If people are poor there will be more crime. ONLY if the poor people have a strong community social pressure and cohesion will prevent that. Our modern life tears families and communities apart. In the case of black communities it was mass incarceration that helped to undermine the communities.
The now wealthy European nations were homogenous in the 1950s or 60s. But then came a lot of work migration. People from Greece, Italy, Yugoslavia, Turkey (poor muslim, the wealthy and well educated Turks stayed home). In the former colonies they got people from overseas (U.K, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, France, ....)
The European nations just do not "perceive" themselves as "immigration" countries or use that term. But in practical terms they are. The process of getting citizenship is not nearly as complicated, long and expensive as in the U.S. That means that a lot of work migrants from the 70s, and later got citizenship and do not stand out in the official numbers. See Germany, where a lot of Turks have dual citizenship.
In the U.S. the dominant group complacently let deregulation of media, finance, environmental protection, oil drilling, money in campaigns happen. They also have no qualms if the U.S. government assists Big Biz to exploit and oppress the poor people in developing countries * and starts wars and regimes changes all the time.
Turns out a polical class that is vile like that also does not take good care of their OWN normal ! citizens. NOW in the last stage the system turns at most people AT HOME - even at the former white middle class - Who knew ?!
2
-
2
-
Vienna 1848, the palace of the emperor. He demands to know: "What is this noise outside, why are people assembling outside, and why are they so loud ?" - "Your majesty, they are starting a revolution" - "Are they allowed to do that ?! ......"
He was a little dumb, the royal family hastily left Vienna, The revolution was crushed (unfortunately), his nephew took over (and sooner than expected instead of his feckless uncle).
Even 18 year old Franz Joseph was narrow minded, backwards oriented - and was in charge for decades, he was the one that signed the declaration of war against Serbia in 1914 that officially started WW1 (to his defense he may have expected that war would come anyway, the UK started to prepare for a war in 1913).
He died in 1916, another one of his nephews took over the empire in decline (but only for 2 years, with the end of WW2 the winners of WW1 made sure to end monarchy in the losing countries, the German and the Austrian Hungarian empire - only there).
2
-
2