Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Jimmy Dore Show" channel.

  1. I think that probably was an honest remark and she really does that. I know people who eat a lot of chilli peppers because it is supposed to help you lose weight (stirring up your metabolism or something). I think she does it either for that purpose or to boost immunity or something. I saw the video and she received criticism at that time, I do not really remember her reason why she has in her purse (or that of her aide more likely) but I thought it was plausible. Made her look humane, a little quirky.
    1
  2. Costs: Canada, rich European countries 5,000 - 5,500 USD, the US plus 9,000 (WORLD RECORD) the outliers are UK with ONLY 3.900,-- and Japan around 3,800. - source World Bank 2014, per capita healthcare expenditures in USD. - UK is doing great costwise, but there are complaints about waiting times, looks like the conservative government tries to defund the NHS to ram through a partial privatization. (Defunding means the public system will not work as well anymore and that provides the pretext for the "fix"). As for claims that the rich European countries have bad healthcare services, waiting times - no they don't ! - as I know from experience (Austria Germany, costs USD 5,400 resp. 5,600 / 8 resp 82 million inhabitants, in both countries the citizens are on average older than in the immigration country U.S. - which means a cost DISADVANTAGE, older people need more care and they get the more costly treatments).  All other wealthy nations DO have private for profit and profitable insurance companies - and health care is just not one of their business niches.
    1
  3. lol - greetings from Europe
    1
  4. + Maxwell Montgomery P.S. In case you haven't noticed - Sanders continues to take a stand that does not make him popular with the donors. The Dems are quite nervous/annoyed/perplexed about it. He has built himself a reputation and a follwowing. He does NOT NEED the Democratic Party, their donors, or the Clinton machine to ensure his reelection. He does not need the mainstream media (that much) to get his message across (although NOW they invite him all the time). And it looks like he is content with the regular salary for the job as Senator + what he can make with the books. (Which is admittedly more than plenty and since he is busy - when would he have time to ENJOY SPENDING that money anyway). The Dems on the other hand need him and they also cannot keep him from saying things (Corey Booker certainly did not like being "mentioned" by Senator Sanders when he and 12 other Democrats DEFECTED on the the vote to allow the imports of medical drugs from Canada.
    1
  5. apple took a stand with the San Bernadino shooter phone because they fear - rightly - that their customers are getting more aware of the surveillance problem - and there ARE other technical solutions from other countries. After Snowden encryption etc. became a topic (not yet mainstream but that can change quickly). Some of the wealthiest European countries are more sensitive about privacy - that is an important market for google, facebook and apple. They don't want to leave the market to European providers or Samsung phones. (Storage solutions are quickly to set up). Google is the most used search engine in Europe - but it would not require cost or time for a lot of individual users to change that (less advertising revenue).
    1
  6. A book I read about the Blue Helmets on their peace keeping mission** when Turkey invaded a part of Cyprus in the 1970s: Comparsions made between the nationalities. The Canadians had earned themselves a military reputation they shot the airport (? Nicosia) free - Turkish or Greek folks who had a mind of messing with the fragile cease fire thought better of it when the Canadians showed up. The Swedish had the best salaries and were mocked as being a little snobbish and not very practical. The Austrians had good cooks and a lot of DIY savvy men. The Danish were good sport too, they had the best porn ! (Remember these were the 1970s) So they lent it to their peers from other nations and finally these magazines were deposited at certain spots in the landscape. Where the local men were free to pick them up. These communities never gave the Blue Helmets any problems. ** The UN troupes were there to keep people from getting at each other's throats, keep civilians safe, relocate them into a safe "Turkish" or "Greek" area. The population fortunately was not that much into extremism (although nationalistic feelings were quite stirred up), from time to time one village would try to do something mean to the next village from the other "ethnicity" like cutting off their access to water or power. In which case the Blue Helmets restored order in the "kindergarden" and sorted things out, so there was no need for civilians to "take things in their own hands" which would have escalated the situation.
    1
  7. +Jonathan C. To be fair hydrolectric is only an option if the country is lucky enough to have the topography and streams for that. And ... what marketing genius came up with the term "natural gas" as it is used in the US. Like "natural crude oil"? It is fossil fuel, mainly methane. In the US it usually means fracked gas, a highly agressive method to extract gas from shale rock. (as opposed to or instance the gas fields of Russia where they can extract the gas just like that. The bad thing is that it is almost unavoidable that Methane before it is burnt will leak (either during extraction or because of pipeline leaks). It is clean where it is burnt and the burning process can be very well controlled (ideal for industrial processes). There is this claim that coal has a much worse carbon footprint that Methane. That is only correct if the leaked quantity of Methane is not more than 2 % (if I remember correctly). Estimates are that the losses are much higher. Not that I am a fan of coal. Methane is a greenhous gas - like CO2 but 28 times more effective. And when it finally breaks down in the atmosphere, a part of it becomes CO2, another fairly stable greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. With fracking there are the aggressive chemicals in the water, with which they break the gas out of the rock. Extraction may release dangerous elements from deep down in the earth (like mercury or radioactive elements). There is the use of huge quantities of water - they do not or cannot recycle the water. The risk to pollute aquifers, that cannot be cleaned, that water will stay poisoned maybe for thousands of years. Some companies have the lakes of the waste water in open ponds . Volatile Organic Compounds (highly toxic, these gases are really dangerous, think cancer, brain damage, especially dangerous for children, skin damage). In the video I saw the company had a fan over the pond to help with the evaporating. Not sure - the narrative was it decreases the volume of the waste water, they are supposed to take care of. I doubt that - maybe it is to decrease the content of the really bad stuff so they are allowed to dump it somewhere ? Anyway there are special expensive cameras that make these fumes visible - I saw that on the web (maybe a teaser for gasland). And last but not least an increased risk for earthquakes. But only low to medium intensity, so no worry. Except that the industry is allowed to pump waste water - that can be from other industrial processes - into the earth. Of course an earthquake could open leaks in layers that were supposed to hold that poisonous waste water. So it could seep through cracks into areas where you don't want it. What could possibly go wrong with natural gas in the US ?
    1
  8. To specify: She DID NOT pass NAFTA, her husband and the majority of representatives were in favour of it (Republicans and Democrats). It is known that she supported it but ultimately her opinion didn't decide matters. Bill would have passed it even he she had been (as a matter of private opinion) against it. I heard in a Noam Chomsky interview that the public was divided 50 / 50 on NAFTA. Media supported it enthusiastically (of course). The unions were tricked by Bill Clinton. They were promised to get the contract and to be allowed to make an assessement of it before the decision. (So they did not stir up too much trouble in advance - they would be heard after all). The unions got the papers extremely late. (if I remember correctly they had to work it through on a weekend). Still they came up with a qualified assessment, which Clinton somehow managed to suppress (with same "administrative" bullshit). If you are in power you do not have to adhere to agreed procedures. Additionally you can use the power of administration, red tape and the fine print to erect road blocks against anyone who wants to oppose you.
    1
  9. see (and feel chilled): DAPL's Worst Nightmare: Big Oil EXPOSED By Whistleblower TYT Politics - it is an interview of Jordan Chariton with John Bolenbaugh, former oil spill clean-up worker, ex marine, ex oil worker. no DAPL activist.
    1
  10. + Ray Carter I was thinking the same. Maybe the parte establishment think they use him, might well be the other way round. And for him accepting the "outreach" position in the DNC (which they created so they did not have to give him a CONVENTIONAL position of power withing the party) may have been very smart. It leverages where HIS POWER really lies - communicating the change to the people. As Dem outreach he is now naturally invited to the TV networks (also using him for ratings, go figure). And while on TV he stubbornly says stuff the Corporate Dems would rather like to NOT REACH the ear of the unwashed masses. NOW single payer has become a thing that is widely discussed. - Watch Nancy Pelosi using Republican or even Right Wing talking points to justify in a townhall meeting why she will not support Medicare for all "now" - because it is government take over and stuff. - And IF he ever wants to go Third party he could - and the people would follow him - no problem with the web. (and not even MSM could bury that story it would threaten the existence of the Democratic Party)
    1
  11. Tim Kaine maybe isn't that bad (Jimmy called him a "right winger"). In person he seems to be a very nice guy. He was a missionary abroad (that is a mixed bag) - that COULD however mean he has a heart for disadvantaged people. And he experienced people living under poverty. That can help with a sensible human - shape their worldview. So he is maybe not so much of a rightwinger (not sure about his corporate votes and where he gets money from). Of course his private view on abortion differ from that of the party. Would he have defunded Planned Parenthood ? Hell, no. Would he be open to arguments, lets improve sex-ed, access to contraception. Let's make it easier for people to HAVE the kids (even the unplanned ones). - Maybe. I think even Tim Kaine COULD have won the presidency - he might have had some appeal to Conservative voters. Because he IS GENUINELY CONSERVATIVE (like Jimmy Carter appealed to Southern Christian folks). - Like Sanders is "forgiven" for his progressive views (gay marriage, pro-choice)in his state. Burlington under Sanders as mayor become a refuge for queer people in the 80s !!! - It was like, he didn't think they should be discriminated against. Sure Burlington was much more progressive than the rest of rural Vermont. Still - this was BEFORE it was chic, this were the 80s in a 30,000 citizen town. - The citizens KNEW he took a stand because he thought it was the right thing, as it was his habit to stand up for what he thought was right Oh, well. People will tolerate you to be honest and standing up for unpopular views if the total package is O.K. - it means you will be honest with policies that will affect them much more - like gentrification, taxation, energy policy, healthcare, ..... One could see that in effect when Sanders had a speech at Liberty U (during the primaries). In the Q & A of course abortion came up - "Here we will respectfully agree to disagree". The hall packed full with young students from conservative families. He was received very well, despite being pro choice.
    1
  12. Mongo Local780 thanks - very informative comment.
    1
  13. the Clintons made 150 billions after they left office. If he wants to beat them in this game he better not piss of the fossil fuel industry. And Michelle tells us cute stories about how important it is for them to have family dinner together and how she and and Sasha are annoyed when Malia - again - drags Daddy into a conversation about politics or global warming. Because Daddy is so easily persuaded to go on and on on these serious topics instead of keeping it light for the familiy dinner. If one watched the sketch at the White House Correspondence Dinner (anger translator) one could really think he acutally cared about global warming - silly me.
    1
  14. Gen. Wesley Clark learned in 2001: We are going to war with 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Liva, Somalia, Sudan, finishing off with Iran. ..... Iran never GOT money from the US (or elsewhere). ACCOUNTS (over which the US can exert control) that belong to Iranian citizens, corporations or maybe even the state had been FROZEN. In the Atom deal it was agreed that the sanctions would be lifted (when Iran adhered to certain requirements, that would take some months) and that the US would let the people to whom the money belongs access the money. Not sure if the accounts were de-frozen, the sanctions were NOT lifted but shortly after the Iran deal extended ! even though the Iranians did hold their part of the deal (as confirmed by the other parties that co-negotiated the Iran deal, Germany, Italy the International Atomic Engergy Agency). So the sanctions are baseless, not that the US ever bothered about that when putting sanctions in place (Cuba). When the deal was signed I thought Iran had managed to get itself off the kill list - but no. If you remember how pissed off the Israelis and the Republicans were, maybe the Obama administration or the deep state wants to placate Israel (and American Jewish donors). Of course the Obama administration is pissed off that Iran along with Russia helped Syria withstand the US regime change attempt. And last year ISIS was stronger, and Iran helped fight ISIS. Maybe Iran seems less useful than a few months ago. The sad thing is that president Rouhani had to defend the deal against the hardliners in Iran as well. The president is usually not that powerful in Iran, but he played his cards well. The citizens were happy about the deal (maybe they thought they did not have the target on their back anymore). The US still being hostile against Iran weakens of course the position and internal power of the relatively moderate Rouhani - as if that was the intention of the US. If the hardliners in Iran prevail, Iran will remain rigid and theocratic. If the country would open up (and the Iranians are more than ready for it, they are very young (average age) and interestingly very friendly towards US citizens. No need to give up on them, they are hungry to participate and communicate with the world, they are not Arabs but Persians, their culture is different. Women have to wear the headscarf (even tourists) but they can drive, hold a job, teach, be a TV anchor, go to college etc. Although they are Muslim and conservative when it comes to family values, they are not as extrem as the Saudis. Well the religious hardliners are as extrem as the Saudis, but I think the majority of Iranians would be glad to have a modern state foundation not the Sharia Law forced on them by some religious extremists.
    1
  15. Alexander (you know the Greek conquerer who died around 360 B.C) knew better. Troops can travel through Afghanistan, but the country is a military nightmare. 10 % is more flat or low hills, the rest is middle to high altitude. Mountains, valleys, caves, more remote areas than larger settlements, lots of opportunities for an underground army. As the Soviet Union found out as well. The US had armed the foreign mercenaries (Saudis etc.) = the jihadists with stinger rockets so that took care of the SU helicopters. The US wanted the Stinger rockets back after the SU left the country without having accomplished anything. The "rebels" thought otherwise. So the SU army under a dictatorship (which is an strategic advantage in war times) could not succeed in Afghanistan but the US under Cheney/GWB in 2001 thought they could. (GWB prepared for that war in SUMMER 2001, 9/11 was the pretext to bomb Afghanistan and that war was started in Oct. 2001). Of course once civil order is destroyed and you have the mess, you cannot just leave the country to itself (well it would return to tribal wars and more likely another group like Taliban would take over, like the situation was in 2001 when GWB thought he had to intervene. ISIS finds it also attractive since the Russians and recently even the US give them trouble. The only solution to avoid slaughter of civilians AND another safe haven for terrorism (Libya anyone - the US never learns) would be a costly longterm UN occupation aka peace keeping mission, ALL suppliers of weapons abstaining from supplying any weapons (incl. to the Saudis and others who might want to make the middle man) AND a long term economic program to help the Afghans. Maybe in 10 years time the country would be stable enough for self governing (and for an economy that does not depend on drugs - US soldiers guard poppy fields, Michael Moore claims that the brother of the Afghan president is the boss in the drug deal).
    1
  16. You want to listen to Richard Wolff on worker co-ops. or Capitalism for dummies. If the workers own the means of production (or if it is a family owned business) a nice profit is enough. you pay people well, take care of your costs, put something aside for future investmensts. In my country we had years ago a sugar production close down (they made it from sugar carrots not from cane). It was profitable but - elsewhere they expected it to be more profitable. So they closed it down. Now if the workers in that company would at least have a veto in business decisions (owning the means of production is also about being included in the important decision), the production would have stayed put. In this system we are under the TYRANNY of the HIGHEST PROFIT and the LOWEST PRICE. Reality is: within a certain range it does not really matter what the price is, and a lower profit can be good enough. If you buy a washing machine one or two years longer functioning is much more valuable that saving lets say 50 or 100 bucks (that is 5 or 10 bucks a year) and a good machine should last much longer (well they used to). In my country electricity and fossil fuel always has been much more expensive than in the US. Did it matter - no, not really. It may have driven technological progress, because we of course tried to subsitute oil from Saudi Arabia etc. with technology and work (either domestic or from another country with high standards, one of our trade partners). The US has more lawyers per 1000 citizens we have more doctors - so the US has to feed more lawyers ;) It is just that the legal system in the US was set up in a certain way, has grown over the centuries. It is almost impossible to change that - and it is not necessary. Every complex system has it's inefficiencies - within a certain range they can be easily tolerated. There is nothing more damaging in an economy than people not having jobs / income and businesses not having enough customers.
    1
  17. Maybe McCain had some scores to settle with Trump ? and he needed the dramatic buildup, so Trump would feel obliged to call him asking for his vote - and THEN he could do otherwise. - Theory 2) I heard McCain wanted to get the Bill out of the way so the next Bill can be voted on (and the Democrats owe him), the nex Bill of course being massive Military Spending (not sure if that is true, it came up in a comment I read).
    1
  18. Thanks for the Fredrick Douglas quote (it's been 2 years, BLM needing to be "invonvenient".
    1
  19. No factually incorrect, the export/import imbalance started with 2000. Germany had a thriving export industry before, but NOT these extraordinary imbalances. The German "export miracle" since 2000 depends on the stagnant wages in Germany. They were made possible by the "labour market reforms" of Schroeder around 1998/1999, especially the possibility to undercut wages by using subcontractors which is widely used by German exporters (including the automobile industry). In 1999 the EURO was introduced as accouning currency, so it made it's impact on the financial and export/import markets even if the citizens did not notice that (EURO in coins and bank notes came in 2002). Again huge advantage for the German export industry, suddenly they had a much weaker currency, until then the strong German Mark granted some balance. Didn't matter if the importing country had the EURO or not. Germany no more operating under a hard currency made German products cheaper - in the new EURO zone and worldwide.
    1
  20. Watch Body Language: Bernie Sanders and Tom Perez on the youtube channel of Bombard's Body Language - (short analysis of what THEY say and what their bodies are saying - PRICELESS)
    1
  21. The Democratic mayor of Baltimore claims - despite research to the contrary - that incrementally raising the minimum wage to USD 15,-- (until 2022) would hurt employment * . Studies have shown that the effect on EMPLOYMENT is insignificant, sometimes it is slightly positive, sometimes there is a SMALL decrease of employment. Usually it is slightly positive or zero and if there is a decline in occupation it is miniscule. It does however make the live of people MUCH better (and it hurts the profits of corporations). She did not do her research - or much more likely she spouts these CONSERVATIVE talking points and hopes that the working poor do not know better and that she will get away with selling out her constituency for the sake of HER WEALTHY DONORS. * The jobs that can be outsourced were already outsourced and automation is not that easy in service industries - like restaurants, dry cleaners, hair dresser, beauticians, personal trainers, cooks, ...)
    1
  22. She is a freelance that is aired on RT. No doubt she would report her point of view for CNN or VOX with delight. How likely do you think it is they (or other networks) invite her or use her work (if only to play devil's advocate). They would not do that, not when she gives such a strong impression.
    1
  23. Tulsi Gabbard , bless her heart, is coming out strong against US intervention in Syria and talks about US funded terrorists. It looks like her service in the army left her with an impression how catastrophic war is. Just checked: Yes ...US funded terror ... She introduced legislation to prevent funding of terrorist groups recently (Dec. 2016).
    1
  24. Important issues make strange bed fellows. A lot of lefties agree with them, Jeremy Corbyn could hardly bring himself to support REMAIN. Take it that way: if the left AND the right find themselves in agreement then maybe we have a really important issue at hand. And maybe the government / establishment is screwing up things royally. You can observe the same with resistance against the "free" trade deals like TTIP. People of the left the right, farmers, catholics, green party, unions, consumer protection organizations, the far right, professors. Even the public TV stations in Germany are pretty critical and recently the represetatives of middle sized companies (not big biz of course!) have declared their reservations. Maybe the protest movement against TTIP / CETA / TISA is on to something.
    1
  25. It is not impossible. But I cannot imagine that the Corporate Dems and the Clinton wing of the Party and donors like Soros REALLY want the public to pay attention to politics and to get actively engaged. The problem is: people might stay awake. Another problem: if the unwashed masses succeed in one issue they might be tempted to demand more. and there is more than enough to demand. The upper 10 % want something that the lower and middle class does not want - 60 % success rate to get it passed anyway. The lower classes want something and the upper don't: 0 = ZERO chance to get it passed. Also see "The influence of elites, interest groups and average voters on American politics" on journalistsresource.org
    1
  26. You could unsubscribe - Hint they usually have a field where they politely ask you to insert the reason why you chose to unsubscribe ..... of course they might remove that option .....
    1
  27. Obama was almost mousetrapped into a war escalation because of the August 2013 poison gas attack in Ghouta nearby Damascus - that was blamed on Assad as well - according to former CIA officier Ray McGovern (he briefed presidents) - see the video "The inside scoop into the Middle East and Israel". - Content: How PUTIN HELPED OBAMA OUT of the MOUSE TRAP set up to drag the US into Syria with a lot of boots on the ground (necessary to impose a no-fly zone). Obama had foolishly (or intentionally ?) given the Syrian rebels/jihadists a cue how they could achieve more direct U.S. help when he "drew the red line" = use or even moving around of chemical weapons in Syria - in August 2012 during a press conference. One year later the rebels were losing and they obviously thought they could use more direct help (apart from weapons supply, funding and training and letting them deal with oil without restriction). UK laboratory findings* showed that the chemical attack was very likely staged ! by the rebels to frame the Syrian government, and also General Dempsey (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) warned President Obama to get more engaged in Syria and that the evidence against the Syrian government was not clear. * it was "improvised" poison gas and did not match the military grade stuff of the Syrian army .... the escalation could be avoided and Obama could - somewhat - save face. Russia negotiated that the Syrian government would hand over their poison gas stocks, they were destroyed on an US ship with special equipment for that job. The neocons (with Israeli ties) were furious - they almost - ALMOST had their war. (Israel considers Syria an arch enemy - well I guess the feeling is mutual). I recommend anyhting Ray McGovern and that video is well worth watching (even though it is around 30 minutes long). Also ex CIA officier Michael Scheuer is very informative. He borders on cynicism (or his straight talk sounds like it) and he seems a little bit on the right wing side (Trump fan it seems). But when it comes to the Middle East he knows his stuff and tells it like it is. (see his CNN and other interviews about the Arab Spring, especially Libya in 2011 and 2012 - if only someone had listened to him).
    1
  28. Democrats are not supposed to be into guns ;)
    1
  29. And if you make the claim THAT will get you fired. (I know women who were sexually harrassed / got a lot of unwanted attention from their very unprofessionaly behaving superior and knew it would get them fired if they complained).
    1
  30. They are scared. BDS. And Trump gives mixed signals. The Syrian jihadists are not getting money anymore. Israel want Syria broken up (warring Jihadist fractions) and next thing - then they want the U.S. to ruin Iran for them. - Doesn't seem like it is working that way.
    1
  31. you watched some videos of John Bolenbaugh, did you ? (Jordan Chariton from TYT Politics interviewed him, video title DAPL's Worst Nightmare: Big Oil EXPOSED By Whistleblower TYT Politics Everybody else, it is well worth your time P.S. Watched a Thom Hartman RT segment, he had a union guy in the studio, they talked about what he thinks about the Trump administration. DAPL was mentioned and that Trump granted it. The union guy: Yes we were always for that project, so that is good, Yes we know they are only temporary, but at least they are good paying jobs. And TPP gone is good, that is good too (here I agree). John Bolenbaugh in that Jordan C. video (more to the end): I am a union guy. I am not against pipelines per se. If they were thoroughly controlled and immediately repaired if they find a leak, there would be more than enough permanent jobs.
    1
  32. priceless comments - we should bomb Michigan for it's chemical attack on children you can skip the country radio imitation and start at 1:39
    1
  33. As for fracking being likely worse than coal regarding the impact on climate change. I heard relevant information DECADES ago. When I could know it, the Obama administration with all their advisors should have known EASILY. Of course "science accepting" Clinton reorganized the State Department to promote fracking all over the world. The US backed coup in the Ukraine has a lucrative side effect - the U.S. companies will now frack in the Ukraine (main goal of the regime change was of course to stick it to Russia). Back to MY decades old INFORMATION: Russia wins fossil gas without fracking - I heard maybe 15 years ago (or 20) that they lose as much gas on the transport way (pipeline) than Germany uses in 1 year. And that is bad regarding climate change. Fossil gas (mainly Methane) when it is NOT burnt is a strong greenhouse gas, they usually claim that it has 28 - 30 times the effect of CO2 (CO2 we get when the gas reaches it's destination and is burnt there but then we at least used the energ). Now, a part of that methane uses up the ozone (=Oxygen) high up in the atmosphere (the Ozone Layer that protects us !) and becomes CO2 - and like all the other CO2 it is stable in the atmosphere for a long time. Which genius came up with the term "natural" gas - shale gas is FOSSIL gas as well - and it is won by using extreme methods of extraction out of the rock (poisonous liquid injected with extreme pressure - using a LOOOOT of water that cannot be recycled.
    1
  34. TV report "It started with a lie" - it came a few years after the war on publicly funded TV. - Back in the day we believed that the U.S. had no sinister motives IN THIS CASE. Yugoslavia has no oil, is geostrategically not that important. - They were however an easy target. And I guess the US had the possibility to blackmail the new German government WHO helped them by LYING - making up the story that Serbia planned a genocide (it is always atrocities or weapons of mass destruction). It was made up as we found out later. But then we could not imagine the GERMAN government inventing a pretext for war (the German population is strongly against war !) And we mostly believed the media. When Nato with German help started bombing Serbia killing a lot of civilians ! - then the civil war got totally out of hand - the crazies and hardliners in all groups got the upper hand. Joachim Scholz, a former airfoce pilot and member of a planning group of NATO realized that the politicians and the military did not want a peaceful solution. Germany was about to have elections. As it happened the conservatives (who always like war and the illegal kickback payments of the manufacturers) lost the elections, the Social Democrats with the Green Party (which had merged some years before with peace groups) took over. - So surely Germany would throw it's weight around now and do everything for a peaceful, diplomatic solution ? Nope ! They made up lies - to justify the war.  With a resisting Germany the US could not have gone to war with Yugoslavia. I think Yu was a test case and Clinton maybe wanted to polish up his resume (after Monica) Plus the Cold War was over. An more active Russia / Soviet Union would have supported Yugoslavia of course.  The MIC needed a new strategy for endless conflict. And / or maybe the German war minister (a Social Democrat !) was a self-important piece of shit who once wanted to play war. Or was paid nicely for his lies. (He was working the media very professionally - so I suspect some US think tank influence here).
    1
  35. No idea if Sanders sold out or was pressured or if he chose the lesser evil and absolutely wanted to keep Trump out of office. However, the vacation lake house they got in summer 2016 for 600k they financed (at least partially) with the sale of the house which Jane had inherited from her mother. And yes he has 3 houses now, 1 regular home in Burlington (where he was mayor), and a row house in D.C. (seems to be a usual solution for long time representative). As mayor and then especially in Congress and Senate he got paid good salaries, I assume his wife had good positions when he became more influental in Vermont (board of an university etc.) and I guess his books are selling well. So it is entirely plausible they can afford the last purchase on their own. Moreover there is no way 600k do not show up in the books somewhere. Do you really think Sanders or the DNC would be that stupid to make themselves vulnerable ? If a "bribe" is intended it is delivered in POSTITIONS - positions that allow a politician to get favours from donors. That could be: 1) Campaign donations: remember 27 USD per donation ! he does not need anyone to get that money 2) Politicians are not allowed to take money for personal gain while in office. But of course familiy members can have cushy jobs or impressively paid speaking gigs, or they get jobs as consultants - see Clinton Foundation. Or speaking fees for Bill Clinton. 3) And of course the big reward of the donors is AFTER the political career: Lobbyist jobs, consulting, think tanks, maybe in television, board member. And author of books that will be sold with the help of ... whoever. I suppose some memoires ARE bestsellers and would sell like regular books but some seem to be a front for financing an ex politician. So DID Sanders get bribed by getting a position where he can make money for himself later (with the help of donors) ? Or would he need the influence of the Democratic party to sell his books.? I think it was smart from him to get the position of "Outreach" in the Democratic Party while being an Independent (he switched back immediately after he endorsed HRC and dropped out as presidential candidate of the Democratic Party). He is not part of the machine - That means he could go Third Party without being accused of defection (well at least not by reasonable people) AND he can leverage his strength - that he was able to fire up people with his message. That is what gave him influence in the race and he is widening that influence. He is given air time now on television - they cannot sweep him under the rug like they did. If he criticizes (very mildly but anyway) the Democrats that defected the vote for his recent amendment (allowing import of drugs from Canada to the US to lower costs) - the Dems were not pleased. At all. The amendment would have passed with 6 more votes, 12 or 13 Democrats defected, even some Republicans voted for it (free market and stuff). And there is not much they can do in retalitation when he calls them out. He does not need them - but they need him.
    1
  36. If that isn't a hoax - then the Dems are a) beyond redemption and beyond reson and b) it looks like the donors have come together and decided that the Republicans will get the the 2018 and 2020 elections and the Dems will continue to perform their little "resistance" gig as distraction (to maintain the illusion of a functioning democracy and an opposition). Obedient and useful (influental) democrats will be compensated for the loss of their seats with cushy jobs - the donors will provide for them. So they are crafting carefully a losing strategy. I mean they cannot possible be THAT stupid !
    1
  37. FDR INTRODUCED ! the minimum wage. In the middle of the crisis. ! And it helped the economy !
    1
  38. What about: Let's help Bernie kick some behinds. (I avoided a$$ as to not offend some sensibilities) - that could be a winning platform.
    1
  39. JamaisMEC ... Henry The Bestest Most Awsomest Secretary of State Kissinger... lol
    1
  40. + Gru ber I live in a (still) wealthy country in Europe and No, Socialism has not failed - it was never implemented on this planet * (see also Richard Wolff - Socialism for Dummies). As for Socialdemocratic principles they softened capitalism for some time, served many now wealthy countries well, right now neoliberalism is eroding the progress we made after WW2. I can state that the left leaning (usually moderate) politicians after WW2 were most of the time folks with convictions and a spine. Being to the left in the 30s was not for the faint of heart. People who were out for money, fame and a career would not bother - and it became outright dangerous when the fascists took over (Italy, Germany, Austria, Spain, I think also Poland and Hungary were very rightwing before WW2). A post war Austrian politician came from the concentration camp directely in the provisory government (the governmental "board" allowed by the Allied Forces). Of course some Social Democrats were lucky that they had the status of "high ranking political prisoners" - they were not kept in the worst camps and had a chance to survive. When the wall in Berlin fell and the Soviet Union gave up the control of Poland, Eastern Germany, Hungary, etc. - I thought it would be the economic miracle all over again. These countries had a usually well educated workforce, often with technical skills, cohesion within the population, low criminality rate. They had demand in consumer goods. Their societies were stable if somewhat restricted in their economic opportunity. The wealthy countries could provide technology and capital if needed. It would be a blast. The Economic Miracle did not happen. Neither I or my fellow citizens, nor the politicians (incl. Kohl of Germany) or the media and the economists under the neoliberal spell realized that that post war recovery was due to good wages, high taxes, a strictly regulated financial sector and only somewhat fee market conditions with a lot of quotas, import restrictions, tariffs. My country developed a thriving export industry in that time. No tax evasion or undermining the domestic workforce with outsourcing, free movement of labour (from countries that are much poorer) etc. In short Western Europe, the U.S. and Japan could develop under relatively sheltered conditions while the newcomers in the 90s were unprepared to be suddenly exposed to the neoliberal onslaught. And it shows in the results. * the Soviet satellite states had dictatorships, and their economic model was STATE CAPITALIS - and Lenin called it that when assessing the "progress of the revolution". (the state OWNED and more importantly CONTROLLED the MEANS OF PRODUCTION - not the workers as would be the crucial idea in Socialism/Marxism !) The Bolshevics and Mao used a very popular idea in their bitterly poor countries, and they implemented populist elements (public healthcare, education). So there were a lot of Socialist elements (also that no one could control large real estate or large manufacturing sites). They did not apply the MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT - the workers control the manufacturing and agriculture = means of production (where, what to produce, sales, hiring people, salaries - incl. for top management). This IS DEMOCRACY IN THE WORKPLACE. Examples: the Kibbuz movement or co-ops (like Mondragon in Spain with 100,000 workers/owners). Lenin, Stalin and Mao knew what they were doing when they left that deeply democratic (almost subversive ;) ) element out - this would not be compatible with a political dictatorship.
    1
  41. 1/4 General Wesley Clark learned in 2001 !! : We will go to WAR WITH 7 COUNTRIES IN 5 YEARS, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, FINISHING OF WITH IRAN. That was decided a few weeks after 9/11, Afghanistan was already being bombed then, so it is not even mentioned on the US WAR AND GLOBAL DOMINANCE BUCKET LIST. Gen. Clark made that speech several times, if you have got time, watch the speech from fora.tv (here he gives also explanations and insights into the power politics of the Gulf War 1991 and the role of the Soviet Union /Russia). I promise it is WELL WORTH YOUR TIME and not boring (but you might get furious!). There are shorter clips with similar statements (4-5 minutes). I recommend one of the short Democracy Now clips because of the reaction of the auditory (that was a live interview on a stage).
    1
  42. Jimmy: "Tom Perez says we got to unite behind that. - No we never unite behind that, we PRIMARY that. " 6:40
    1
  43. 7:20 - looks like Sen. Murphy D wants to keep his seat. the Democratic should be hyperfocused on the economic message. The Republican Party is all for economic growth for rich people, the Democratic party is for economic growth for everyone (well the SHOULD be).
    1
  44. Times are desperate - mainly the fringe on the right and on the left is willing and capable of challenging the status quo. - Sanders held a speech in Liberty University in the primaries (one of those religious "universities" in case you do not know them). Of course abortion came up during Q&A.. And he made - respectfully and shortly - clear that he would always support a woman's right to make a choice should she ever have to make such a difficult decision. Despite this being a very religous, conservative environment, the students reacted positively in general (and he was not booed for that statement). People respect others who have principles that they respectfully articulate (giving the other person in the conversation the possibility so save face instead of "winning" an argument). - Maybe it is time to forge alliances and seek the goodwill (and the alingments) of the other political side for the greater good. On a side note: Amazingly I found once useful information on the Alex Jones channel (it was via a link). It was about an audio of John Kerry during an informal meeting with people of the Syrian opposition at the UN. Kerry said: The US wanted ISIS to grow stronger in Syria because that would damage Assad.
    1
  45. Bernie Sanders avoids endorsing Canova. Said even something like I do not remember him (is that possible ?? - O.K. he has been busy he gave him an endorsement, but just did not campagin for him). It seems like he does not dare to cross the Democratic Party where DW is still an important figure. She is the first Jewish representative in a district with a lof of older affluent Jewish people which are proud of her. So she was supposed to attract a lot of donations. It seems like Sanders does not dare to step on the toes of the establishment in the party.
    1
  46. No Greece WAS NOT ALLOWED to default, not at all ! Not in Dec. 2010 - that ende with Papandreou revmoved, what do you think the row of last year was about. The new government came into power and said we are broke! The EU and the national governments protected the French and German banks who had recklessly lent money to Greece, the "cut" of 2011 made sure that the debt was transfered to the tax payer and away from the banks. Also the "cut" is attributed to the private sector, when in reality the social security system (for the retirement pensions) was forced to pick up a part of the debt - that is hardly a "private" institution. The banks had to accept losses in 2011 - well they were private. (And they were lucky). If Greece had defaulted before the cut of course the tax payers of Germany and France would have had to save their banks (AGAIN), but then we would have had the discussion where it needed to be. Also it would have cost some cushy and extremely well paid bank management jobs, losses for the share holders etc. It is true that a lot of nepotism is/was going on in Greece. That was exactely what the German and other exporters liked about Greece, so they could sell their products even though Greece should not have bought and could not afford the products. The banks supplied the necessary loans for it. Greece bought a lot of military equipment from Germany! - these kind of transactions also provide a good cover for bribes - also bribes of political parties in Germany). Portugal does not have that kind of nepotism. Neither do the Baltic states - so what did they wrong (apart from being hit by the crisis). The austerity policy of the EU made the situation in Greece worse. Their economy downspiralled. So now they need help again and again - which they would not have needed if reasonable policies would have been applied. BTW: the IMF (that gave a loan to Greece too and the EU insisted that they would do nothing without the IMF) changed it's rule for Greece. Usually they have to make an assessment if the loan they give out is likely to be paid back and they make some economic estimates. The estimates for Greece were completely and intentionally unrealistic - way too positive, they calculated with growth rates Greece did not have int it's best time. The rules were changed in secret and without prior discussion/vote. It was obviously a political agenda that Greece should get the IMF loan without any sustantial discussion of the board members. (We know these facts from a board member of Brazil). If Greece had not gotten that first IMF loan in 2008/2009 Greece would have defaulted and the German banks AND German financial regulators would have had a lot to explain.
    1
  47. + goonez the Cuba Crisis was in the 1950s (1953), then Chruschtow was president of the Soviet Union, (Putin was born 1952), there was some thawing of the daily politics after the death of Stalin, for a short time there could be talk about the camps in Sibera (political dissidents). He was a heavy drinker, somewhat impulsive. I think the Cuban Crisis damaged him, the Polit bureau (a lot of them) were very suspicious of him anyway, Stalin had goverend with a "iron fist". He stood for opening, even trying out new things. We know from Robert Kennedy (Justice minister under JFK) that JFK promised Chruschtow that the missiles from Turkey would be removed within a few months. These misssiles had made the Soviets very uneasy - they unlike JFK - assumed them to be a threat they could not counteract. JFK thought less of the potential of these weapons. Actually JFK before had asked his military adviser if it was possible to remove them, that somehow did not happen. Anyway some time later the Russians in "retaliation" got missiles to Cuba . Cuba in the beginning felt them to be their protection, they always had to envision the next attack of the US. Then the shit hit the fan. The secret agreement after about 10 days of wold crisis was that the Soviet Union would remove their missiles from Cuba and the US would do the same some months later with the US missiles in Turkey. AND that the deal was off when the SU mentionned that they were promised something in exchange. (So JFK obviously tried to save face). And Chruschtow lost face, which might have underminded his position in the Soviet Union (in the Polit Bureau to be specific). Robert Kennedy the brother and confidant of the president said that the threat to blew the deal off if the concession of the US came out was a bluff. JFK would not have risked a nuclear war. The US missiles were removed without much ado some months later. Chruschtow did not remain for long president and was replaced by a more "conventional" candidate. It seems the both leaders more or less stumbled into the crisis and desperately tried to retreat without making things worse. We know from Robert that Generals (at least some of them) advised JFK to launch the first strike ("As long as there is time"). Actually in these years many in the Pentagon believed that the US had an technological advantage, and should strike first before the Soviet Union caught up. Some (in the Pentagon) theorized or even believed in winnable nuclear warfare. JFK was not one of them, and ordered that no consequential military action could be taken without him consenting - obviously to avoid that one of the general tried to create a situation of "no return" and tried to enforce a decision towards war.
    1
  48. +Jlastre - thanks - the spelling of Chruschtow is different but we mean the same person, other points will be transferred to the database ;;)
    1
  49. +DrCruel "the global cooling" of the 80s was an interesting scientific theory a few scientists did research on it - and gave it up - a quite usual occurence in research . And a few magazines (popular science - not peer reviewed brought a few articles - and then let go of the topic as well. So what is your point. Do you have any EVIDENCE that in the 80s there was MAJOR CONSENSUS in the scientific community that global cooling was the next thing to happen. The season changes are NOT climate change. Are you playing around with words ? climate is the weather of a larger region OVER a long period of time. the telegraph BTW is not a peer reviewed magazine either ?? They are a for profit privately owened corporation, so the owners might have a bias. And the so called climate gate was a storm in the cup (it was in 2011 !) - the data and it's adjustment (necessary and valid adjustment) was handed over to be reviewed by a Havard scientist who (then) was not completely sold on Global Warming - and he found no fault with the way the data and the adjustments were handled.  The internet is your friend.
    1
  50. George Orwell wouldn't believe this shit.
    1