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

  1. Lack of fathers does not cause crime in Europe - see my other comment - introducing !! crime into a community by selectively putting their males into prison and creating the necessary laws to do so (even for minor crimes and drug possession) DESTROYS communities and destroys families. There is no scientific reason why marijuana should be classified like Heroin as schedule 1 drug (very dangerous no medical use).And later Crack (artificial Cocaine) lead to much, much harsher sentences han Cocaine. Why ? If it is about the substance - they have the same effect. These laws and regulations make only sense if the drugs laws are not desgined to prevent the use or keep harm away from the population - no they are designed to TARGE COMMUNITIES, to create a PRETEXT to incarcerate the members of certain communities. - See what a former high ranking member of the Nixon admin said about it. The problem is not so much the lack of the father - but that the father is in PRISON. And cannot hold even a loose contact with the children. What is a widow supposed to do ? - well she hopefully has an intact extended familiy with grandfathers, uncles, brothers, ...). Plus that she and her children have access to good school. That they are living in a SAFE environment, in communities where men are volunteering in youth groups and churches etc. And when their young males come out of prison they had been in contact with hardened criminals, and then had much worse ECONOMIC chances. Meaning stress, no being able to care for their children, stress also leads to more drug abuse, domestic tensions, it can make marriage fail that were not strong to begin with, etc. Adversity and struggle does not always bring out the best in people, sometimes they just falter. Drug crimes are of course also illegal for white people in the U.S. - but the FBI has their spies in the black communities, the police searches much more black folks - so surprise, surprise, black and white folks use drugs at the same rate, but black people go to prison much more often. That is proven btw - and it is also proven that minorities get harsher sentences (same crime, same history, that means if they already had been in trouble, etc.). That bias btw also shows up in the school system (more minorities especially black kids are suspended etc.). That means if you take 100 or 1000 kids and they have the same transgression, the white kids will be treated with more leniency. And if they then deal drugs and take drugs they have a much better chance of not being caught. Meaning if they get their act together a few years later - they have a chance. Their black peer (doing the exact same things and we are talking about statistics here not about some individuals) already were in prison once, and are then unable to find a good job, have troubles with colleges (because of the conviction), likely a lower credit score, etc. Getting the males into jail under ANY pretext and under exclusive laws (only applying to them - see black code ) started in the 1830s and became only stronger after the Civil War. That - not single parent households - is toxic.
    3
  2.  @Amadeus8484  - "they" are just waiting for a chance to turn peaceful (mass) protests into (seemingly) violent ones. - Corporate media will be please to show "outrageous" footage, even if they need to be very selective. Footage w/o context can look misleading. The police has perfectioned tactis to round up and entrap protesters (there is a term for it which I do not remember right now, the policy is not ethical and illegal of course). Then the police orders the protesters to "leave" - but the protesters have no chance to leave because the police made sure all exits are closed down. That helps also to discourage normal law abiding people who do not want to get hurt to join in protests or civil disobidience. (See the crackdown on OWS that was done by THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT. The mayors of the large cities are Democratas and Mr. Hope and Change had already sold out to Wallstreet in 2008 on the campaign trail and did not side with the protestors. On the contrary: they were an embarassing reminder hwo his handpicked Attorney General carefully avoided prosectuing anyone. If the prorestes are restricted in their movement and coralled in an area someone has only to deploy teargas, or start smashing something. (And that can be an agent provocateur).
    3
  3.  @Amadeus8484  Activist and feminist Naomi Wolf held a talk at a libertarian event. That was in the Obama era. Laura Poitras was there as well. Her speech was not about feminism but about mass surveillance and that the constitution had been abolished. She narrated how she (and Laura) - both perfectly law abiding citizens who use their constitutional right to free speech - got a "code" on every flight tickets. That Laura was harrassed on airports. She was always picked up for an "interview" by "security" whenever she had arrived after a flight - an op-ed of Glen Greenwald in the NewYork Times set and end to that illegal practice (after 30 or 40 such harrassments). Wolf said she did not get that code on her flight ticket anymore ( that gets you the "looks" of staff) when the Obama admin came into power. Seems her feminist bio helped her with high ranking ladies in the party. But it got worse for Laura Poitras (She and Glen Greeenwald were the persons who Snowden trusted - they met him in Hongkong in 2013 ). Before she had made a documentary about the war in Iraq (very critical) - and is critical of the war machine no matter who is the puppet in the White House. Wolf also strongly recommends NOT to wear masks when protesting. She says that is an invitation for the mules. If a person is caught on camera and it later comes out they are connected to police, FBI or one of the other letter agencies - that would be a scandal. If the organizers of a protest ban the wearing of masks and the participants monitor that their fellows stick to that rule - it is hard to pull off stuff anonymously. The DAPL protesters did not bear weapons - weapons, alcohol, drugs were banned in the peace camps and during the protests on native land. But the "security" sent over a guy with a weapon and tried to start trouble. The mobil phone cameras protected them and they surrounded him and urged him to put the firearm down and to leave in peace. All while recording it. So he eventually left. Wolf also says that she always knows when the FBI mules (assets ? or even employees) show up at her public speeches (so the FBI takes out time of their busy schedule to monitor HER ??). They do not master to dress the part obviously caught up in the idea they have to dress with a hippie vibe, which looks odd at a middle aged, often overweight, maybe conservative guy. "It gives me the idea they take off the headband with the Rasta locks, put on the tie again and write the report." - Well, if I had to kill some time in the agency I would also rather deal with peaceful citizens like Poitras, Wolf and the crowd they attract. As opposed to the really dangerous and elusive criminal people in the mob or the white collar criminals that are protected by the politicians they buy. The peaceful law abiding people that instigate peaceful mass protest are the enemy of the establishment. The powers that be can arrange themselves quite cozily with the mob, or even terrorism (they are protected better and how many jihadist attacks were there really ? And the occasional attack is the pretext for more mass surveillance, which is a lucrative business AND very useful to keep down their own citizens) The woke citizens are the enemy and their leaders must be crushed. Thom Hartman remembers one such infiltrator during the time of the Vietnam protests - he also stood out because he was trying too hard to make a case for use of force and made wild, loud and erratic comments after and often during the speeches. He was not very subtle, in that case the relevant people in the movement knew full well that he was an agendt or asset of the FBI trying to get someone to say something that could be used against them. Wolf: "They always stand out a little bit." Cry from the seats of the organizers of the libertarian event - "But they always pay full ticket price - so thank you." the audience was laughing. So that crowd - civil, quiet and normally dressed people were monitored as well while doing perfectly legal and law abiding rational !! things. Mind you: that was uncer the Bush and then the Obama administration. If need be, they will use FBI agents, undercover police and use TEARGAS to turn mass protest events chaotic.
    3
  4.  Nicholas Frechen  You should come accross soldiers that have been in Europe or Japan, tourists, ex-pats - don't take my word for it - ask people that have experience (or know the citizens well) what they know about healthcare in every other wealthy nation.
    3
  5.  @PseudoProphet  IF you push for sufficient funding there is no need or justification to have DUPLICATIVE * coverage. - * That means that private insurance covers something that Medicare already covers. And for which Medicare should have sufficient funding - so what would be the point ?? The Sanders plan does not allow duplicative coverage and neither do all the other single payer nations. Single payer nations also do not allow an opt out (public option) They MANADATE the wage deductions as a percentage (and company and employer have to pay). They don't do a head tax (Warren plan, that is a flat tax for comapnies and highly regressive) and they don't create loopholes that some employees or companies are excempt. For instance 28 hour per week rule under ACA, that is how Walmart weasels out of giving their staff a plan. Walmart watches like a hawk that no one has more than 28 hours - they would fire employees (if they are busy and forget to run to stamp out). ACA / the recent ludicrous plan of Elizabeth Warren for financing MfA: Companies with under 50 employees are excempt from providing a plan / from paying into the system at all. Singley payer nations don't do that either.
    3
  6. ​ @PseudoProphet  Gabbard and Yang did not do their homework, lack indepth insight of what works and /or may have fallen prey to seemingly plausible arguments of lobbyists ("why not give choice"). That is the benign assumption - or they shill for the special interests and try to deceive the voters.
    3
  7. 4:00 Trump, Sanders the public hate TPP, HRC declares she changed her mind, Obama is still for it and outspoken. NOT a BLUNDER, it is good cop/bad cop for the BIG DONORS. (HRC has to SAY those things, but she doesn't really mean it - and Obama kindly takes over her part and talks like a good shill of Big Biz should talk.
    3
  8. If the U.S. or the EU had economic policies "for the many not the few", and if the media would do a halfway decent job - the Russians could hire troll armies all they wanted. They screwed up the unification of Germany, and the common currency (West-Marka the East-Mark) was the first common currency going completely wrong. The currency must be tailored to the needs of an economy (which is logical money represents and facilitates the exchanges of what that economy can produce). So within on year they had destroyed much of the industry and the jobs in Eastern Germany. The rich Germans did not accept homelessness - but the stress on the welfare system was enough to lead to "welfare" and labour "reforms" - read screwing the little people (like in the U.S. done by the party that allegedly is for the working people). the EURO, the EU membership for the former Soviet satellite states has been a disappointment turning into severe problems for these weaker economies after the financial crisis. The rich European nations are somewhat holding on - but their economies are of course under constant neoliberal attack. The Iraq lie, the endless Afghanistan war. The shady 9/11 commission, the many unsolved questions. Libya, now Syria. the trade deals that are widely opposed in Europe and in the U.S.- but the "elites" try to ram them through anyway - including parties who used to be left and pro working people (Wel they were that back in the day, in the 70s). The ruling class tell us that the EU, the EURO, NAFTA, TTIP, TPP, etc. are all wonderful. (same elites that did not see the Great Financial crisis coming). Even before the crisis there was mass emigration of Polish workers to the UK: Now the well educated young people are leaving the Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal. The young in Spain and Portugal often have wealthier parents - so they hang on and stay - but of course there is high young unemployment. In Germany they talk about the upcoming retirement mass poverty. (Germany isn't Germany anymore they are crumbling behind the facade, their decline is from a high level though, and still some social welfare. Way too little infrastructure investment for decades !!, the only thing that works is export (with the too weak currency the EURO, too weak for the strong German industry), that and wage dumping for qualified workers means stagnant domestic conscumption. Not even Germany can live off its export industry alone - and it makes them immensly vulnerable if their exports break down (for instance downturn in the U.S.) the citizens are not THAT STUPID. They KNOW not to trust the regular politicians or the regular media anymore Then the fuck-up with the refugee crisis. (That's another story. the UN got the funds cut from USD 30 per person to approx 11. and of course destroying the stability of Libya opened the routes for human trafficking - but the media does not bother us with that information). For the money spent in Germany one could excellently provide for double the number of people in a country with lower costs of living - but THAT did not happen, when they had the possibility to do that for years. Austerity had been sold to the citizens. But when huge numbers of refugees came (millions) a lot of extra government spending all of a sudden was a good thing and would do wonders for the economy (housing the refugees, social workers, etc.). Not to pit the low-income natives against refugees - but if such Keynsian spending is so beneficial NOW how come it was not beneficial for the natives a few years earlier ? The bank bail-out cost money, and the unemployment meant more expenditures for welfare (unemployment) and less tax revenue. So more government debt. Which was the PRETEXT for austerity. Those who are in need of an authority go to the right. The others are left w/o an option to vote for. In the UK and the US many JUMPED to the populist candidates (people had just waiting for someone like Sanders of Corbyn to come along, the clueless "elites" and their media lapdogs just did not see it coming.
    3
  9. possibility 1) he is playing the long game. He already considers to run either as Dem or as third party BUT he wants to give the Democratic party enough opportunity to screw him. He would need the votes of as many Democratic voters as he can get. So he should look like the victim of foul play and the party should look like the villains that deserve to be abandoned. To play that he cannot OPENLY create a third party. Meanwhile he uses the position as outreach for the Democratic party for media appearances (he NEVER fails to mention Medicare for all, the only country that does not grant healthcare to all, student debt, free collge and 2 - 3 other points which he varies. ALWAYS healthcare.) He acts like someone who builds a BRAND. And he is good at it. Maybe he waits until Nov. 2018 - for the results. It is even possible that the Dems manage to lose again. Or pull off a narrow win only. Another nail in their coffin. If he would start a third party in Jan. or March 2019 - all hell would break lose. He could raise a lot of money and jumpstart the organization in 2 weeks. 2) Sanders likes to be a popular candidate (but does not REALLY want to be president) and he is not like the people that do it for their ego or lust for power or money (Trump, Obama, both Clintons, Cheney/Bush) - I mean it IS a little frightening if you are a responsible and intelligent person. So he restricts himself to push Medicare for All which is good work after all and wants that to become his legacy as the most popular Senator ever. 3) he is aware of the risk of being assassinated (and that fear would not be unfustified) ** 4) He is so "indoctrinated" with the impossibility to go third party that he cannot see the forest for the trees. He watches politics since the 70s it was NEVER possible to win third party. He must overcome that - we are in the era where Trump became Presz - anything goes. 5) he is more aware than us how far the possibility go to rig the election machines goes. So does he hope with the Dems on board he could prevent that. the most rigging is to be expected in Republican controlled states. In Ohio they never activated the security mode of the machines. 6) he kind of colludes with the Dems to sheepdog progressives. I cannot see him doing that with sinister motives. Being too cautious, not having enough courage in a desperate situation ?
    3
  10. I saw it on TYT before I saw it on Jimmy Dore. I click on these videos also to help them with views. Tampa Bay Times may pick up the story, but do not expect mainstream media to report on it. Big biz owns politiicans and they are pissed that she (and her data) stand in the way. She has some legitimacy because of her fmr position and her firing already drew some attention (THAT was covered 'cause Trump and his goons - like De Santis - bad". Not saying that they are wrong. But now that Biden has won, they will move on and they usually cover up for police and big biz.
    3
  11.  @sapienssapiens35  The brain can adapt and compensate, when the person had good capacities before. And Biden also has to compensate for his stutter (or at least it is possible that he still needs some processing power for that *). But when his mental capacities decline overall he cannot compensate anymore. Plus: his campaign team holds back, he doesn't have an intense schedule and they likely hold back with the interviews (after S.C. he added to the "gaffe" footage, big time. The fumbled quote from the declaration of indpendence. When he ended the interview with Chris Wallace with calling him "Chuck". Biden spoke slowly (so it wasn't a mistiake made during a hectic exchange). And he did not notice that he "misspoke", Wallace corrected him. Now under stress and sleep deprived people malfunction and can have moments of mental fog, not remembering names. But if you have to substitute "god" with "thing" you are in trouble. Everyone seems to have forgotten, but he couldn't remember Obama's name last year. he called him ..... uh ... my president (and also my boss if memory serves I would have to check that ). It was weird, but if this would be the only incident, you could dismiss it. But he produces gaffes every time, and this will get worse if he campaigns more. (IF maybe they rely on Bloomberg's ads and the fawning collusion of Corporate media).
    3
  12. Excellent interview - Peter is an interesting guest for sure
    3
  13. It takes a ery adverserial character - and those are not always nice people (often not). and the people with good intentions get worn out. I seem to remember they may have gotten some money from a rich oil monarchy (did not fact hceck.Not the Saudis, maybe Qatar ? Now that would explain the Syria view of point). TYT got 20 or 30 millions from people close to the DNC and also the RNC. If is very easy to sell out when the funding is not sufficient (their fault, too much fluff, too many people who do not add substantive value, once in a while th chatter is fun, but most of the time the commentary is not very enlightening). They have invested 5 - 10 years or more they want to have the nice life, I get it.
    3
  14. The Dems are paid by the Big Donors (who finance BOTH parties) to keep progressives AWAY from influence, they must win PRIMARIES (not the GE). And sadly in most cases they were successful. ** The money THROWN into the primaries helped the establishment candidates. And don't think they would EVER support a progressive that does well in a purple district. They would rather have a Republican win. on of the few exceptions: ** Crowley in New York was too complacent, Alexandria is uncommonly good, her campaign went on for 1,5 years !, and recent polling showed her 36 points behind (so it was approx. 50 points off, she activated non-voters. That is hard to handle, pollsters rely on "same old, same old" for their predictions. But that might have helped her, the party for sure would have used all legal and illegal means to prevent her primary win. Some citizens in her district did not even dare to have a photo taken with her (could cost me my job) when employed as civil servant or with the city. And many do not dare to work for the campaign that opposes the "machine". Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez confirmed it, Cynthia Nixon (who goes against heavyweight Cuomo) also said that some people do not dare to work for her campaign for fear of being shunned in future. They could have tried to covertly activate civil servants ("encouraging" them to vote in the primaries, directly endorsing Crowley. Likely more successful - getting the unions to make their members vote for Crowley. unions - unlike the government - have no legal problem when they give such endorsements. But with the polls showing her 36 points behind they did not bother.
    3
  15.  Matthew O'Rosco  no many will vote third party - or stay home.
    3
  16.  @achtungensie  the WALL may never be completed BUT Trump and his associates will squander some money and will act as if they have achieved something worthwhile. Well, yes - they will extort profits. Jimmy shouldn't make a fuss about it ? you are AWARE that Trump Shut. Down. The. U.S. Government, do you ? There was a proposal congress and Senate agreed upon, it looked at the end of December as if the budget was going to be passed - and Trump agreed on it too - until he didn't. He pulled an 180 - as so often, he says something one day, and the opposite the next day. It is almost as if he does not care that that also alientates the people that are not hard-core supporters. The people he and the Republican party need to get elected. Grabbing whatever he can - as long as the party lasts. I also think he draws emotional support from the rallies. (meaning the president is like a highschool student eager to please the in-crowd). They prop up his ego. And he would do a lot to keep that support - even if it is unreasonable and they are the fringe and do not reflect the majority in the country. or he is under so much pressure and it shows that way. after all they have been stealing treaties from his desk so he could not sign them to prevent him from starting trouble with North Korea. He may have beginning dementia. His ego (and business interests ) made him run - but he is not up to the challenge. There are hard-core supporters but not enough of them. Some of these government employees etc. are what you would call centrists or moderate Republicans. They may even have voted for Trump last time - fed up with the Dems (which is somewhat understandable. Michael Moore called Trump the Molotov cocktail thrown through the window of the establishment and warned a few weeks BEFORE the elections that Trump might win.) He did win - but only by unexpectedly pulling of a narrow win in some states. I think in PE he did good - but in some of the Rust Belt States it was only 10,000 votes).
    3
  17. excellent !
    3
  18.  @gregorysmith4784  Chomsky said to FIRMLY hold the nose in SWING STATES and to vote for Obama - or for HRC in 2016. Slightly better outcomes in a country with the population and power of the U.S. do sum up. (That does not hinder him to criticize them in strong terms - I have heard him do it.) On the other hand in states with a dominant party (like in his home state where the Dems are going to win anyway ) he encouraged people to vote THIRD PARTY. Imagine the Greens had gotten 5 or 10 % in California and New York - that would put some pressure on the Dems. Such turnout for the Greens in those "safe" states would still mean the Dems pulling off a narrow win. Those numbers could carry the Green party over the national 5 % threshold (meaning funding). The Dems would sh$t their pants (if the Greens would get even more votes it could split the vote and the Dems would "lose" a safe state. Of course they would ramp up the anti-voting-third-party rhetoric. But if a party does get 5 - 10 % it is a movement. That means danger for the establishment. They would be motivated (forced through gritted teeth more like) to have more populist policies. (Nixon did not end the Vietnam war and sign the Clean Air and Water Act out of the goodness of his heart. He - respectively Congress - were forced to do it.). Can you imagine the uproar / buzz for the Green party parties if they had done better in 2016. They would be talked about. A heated discussion about whether or not citizens should dare to vote for whom they like, is better than ignoring it. Like the mainstream media cannot completely ignore Single Payer anymore. At least they now have to bother to come up with b.s. talking points against it. If the Greens get some money they can pay people to do the political work. It is an uphill battle anyway - it helps if it must not be done as unpaid and exhausting "hobby". Chomsky votes Green Party. In 2016 he endorsed Jill Stein. He saw right through the empty rhetoric of Obama even in 2008. (I saw a clip from before the election). In hindsight: Obama was not SPECIFIC what he would do.
    3
  19. Orders by police IN the house to the husband (one of the owners of the place): COME. DOWN. NOW. - I get that cops cannot refuse to carry out a warrant / raid no matter how they think about it. But you would expect them to inform themselves in advance, if only for their own security. - No this is not a mafia hideout, or a supposed meth lab we are raiding. These are middle class people and it is a non-violent crime (if it is even crime). It is very unlikely that they will be a danger to us. Never mind IF that would be a meth lab they should deescalate the sitution. Then they should be super calm and polite as to not freak out people whose thought processes and mindset have been impacted by drugs (and who have much more to lose than this middle class couple). "Ma'am I need you to put your hands up in the air, please leave them there. Now please come out, it will not take long. Is anyone else in the house ?" .... "Your husband and kids are upstairs - Would you please tell them to come down." We will then go through your home. Are there any pets, especially dogs that we should take into account ? They have to search the house, but they could as well have done it that way.
    3
  20. “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.” ― Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier He died in 1940 (approx.) - nothing has changed - on the contrary !
    3
  21. Took them a few years more to pay it out. it was peanuts and in the meantime more had died. (1990 is approx. 45 years after the fact).
    3
  22. A low skilled job is one where you make your employer IMMEDIATELY a PROFIT. These jobs do not need much on the job training and the workers do not need much formal training before. They do no hire people if existing staff manages the work. AND if they make a profit. If there is not enough profit (and that can be totally the screw-up of managment) - then they will not hire if if the workforce would be needed. profits are taken out yearly - no saving for the rainy day here.
    3
  23. One of the most valuable thing a human has is TIME. Which they give up to help someone else make a profit or have an advantage. For THAT they are also compensated. True, people that have to invest more time or costs in their professional training ask for a higher compensation - but that does not mean someone working a full day should not make a living*. That means either subsidies or not being able to live a full live (your own place family etc. * 1940 when the 40 hours week - and that meant with a living wage then - became the law of the land Some think persons working in those sectors just do not deserve to have a family, they should go and get a better job. millions of people work in those industries and get minimum wage or a little more. And many of them have the vote. Good luck with telling a sizeable portion of the public THEY do not deserve to have a family because they mow you lawn, make or serve your food, pick your veggies, or look after your children and clean your houses. The only possibility is to work 60 - 70 hours - which of course excludes time to enjoy your family (see 1940 - that was BEFORE WW2 - and remarkable even though it was likely the U.S. would join the war). The economy was picking up - war production also for the U.K. etc.
    3
  24. Lawrence Wilkerson (he was in acquisition - later he became Chief of Staff to Colin Powell). He was told that one project he headed cost too little. He had to make it bigger and involve more states. Else it would not find the votes in Congress. MIC jobs are not going to be outsourced and are well paying industry jobs. The representatives are placated and bribed with such deals. They have something to show when they come home to the voters. So even if they are not personally corrupted (often they are: campaign finance, cushy jobs for ex-politicians) - there is still a strong incentive. I think that even applies to Sen. Sanders (F35 fighters are produced in Vermont). And Senator Rand Paul rolled over with the confirmation of Mike Pompeo - he had come out strongly. Either one of the Big Donors thought otherwise - or he was bribed / strongarmed. such deals do not always come immediately - but that his state would be considered next time .... Of course many would find it outrageous to spend the money on green energy, infrastructure, education, .... The skies would be falling, and the money could never, ever be found. (In that context: Debt and interest free money Dr. Richard Werner, short clip excellent information, easy to understand). Bold government spending on civilian projects would have the same beneficial economic effects - actually better. I remember a story about how the Pentagon did not want certain tanks - they got them anyway. So a few citizens got jobs and now the tanks are rusting away (which is the best case scenario, if used it would mean WAR). The same money spent on childcare would employ people AND deliver useful services for the citizens. So "war is not the source of everything else" - it is more that the powers that be cannot be bothered to make bold investements for anything less than the military and war. Think of the Race to the Moon, the Cold War (it was one spending spree and that was one of the MAIN reasons) or the Manhattan Project. Unfortunately only the military and war triggers such bold determination, support of the media - when it comes to the well-being of the citizens the money is impossible to find. I think it is a matter of hierarchy and class. Imagine government spending supports employment and we would have REAL high employment. Not the fake numbers we have now, yes people have jobs but they are underemployed as well. Else we would see wages rising. Which only happened very recently. Plus things like childcare, housing, healthcare, public transportation would be affordabe and well taken care of. So if a person was willing to live modestly - they would have the basics covered. Could risk a disagreement with their employer or start their own thing. It would reduce the FEAR, the ANXIETY. People do not have to put up with employment conditions, they can risk to get fired (a job that will pay the not so high bills can be found), they might chose to work less (good wages mean a part time job can be sufficent, especially when a couple works part time) and either invest more time in the family or be politically active. A nightmare scenario: citizens active in politics and the communites who are relatively safe economically. The military budget is funneled towards EQUIPMENT - that is funding for the contractors ! It is harder to find money for soldiers for personal equipment that would increase their safety, or the VA. Those products are so unique that they are not very competitive. On the other hand if money would be spent on civilian services, citizens would save on childcare or avoid the car damage because the roads are well maintained - no holes. So they do have the JOBS and then they get a service which is useful (instead of tanks rusting away somewhere). Civilian products and services are not THAT unique, a lot of companies of ALL SIZES from all over the country (often local) can deliver them - as opposed to special interests. Those many potential entrepreneurial beneficiaries of such government spending may not hire lobbyists, ex politicians, they will not advertise on TV and donate huge sums of money to politicians or SuperPacs. That is also the problem with hiring teachers or soldiers or experts for the NSA instead of outsourcing to private for profit contractors. If it is in the public sphere no one is going to MAKE A PROFIT. Nor will it provide jobs for ex-polticians. Yes: It is an economic activity, it delivers services to the citizens, the staff costs money and the staff then has disposable consumer income - so the positive effects on the economy are there - BUT it is out of reach for "investors". In military conctracting it is often about HUGE sums - that gives toxic incentives even in private companies never mind in the government contracting environment. For profit companies do not automatically serve the clients as well as they can (that is only the marketing message !) - they only do so if they are FORCED to do so. That is the case if it is easy to switch for customers and if they have competition (see broadband, also see what the "too big to fail banks" feel emboldened to do to their little customers).
    3
  25. The "vag" voting did not happen in 2008, no ? Or does being a man of color beat being female ?
    3
  26. + Vickie - she used her free speech. the kid used his. The advertisers used their economic freedom. Freedom of speech protects you from government retaliation. - A person like Laura Ingram represents the company, she is totally in the spotlight. Which she knows and she has the training, experience, support and salary appropriate for that responsibility. - Even a person with no TV experience or - gasp - human decency would have known this college acceptance story was irrelevant, unprofessional, mean, and potentially harming the business interests of her employer. (well at least as far as advertisers are concerned).
    3
  27. + Ruth Hunter: the Dems serve a noble cause - they make sure that progressive politicians NEVER EVER come to power (see the shenanigans they pull off since they MANAGED to lose the last election).In THAT job they are actually better than the Republicans, who could never sheepdog the progressives. The donors do not waste their good dolllars. Progressive voters (and aspiring politicians) would simply not listen to the Reps. But so far the strategy "You have nowhere to go, the Repbulicans are EVEN WORSE" worked for the Dems (and their financiers !!). They actually COULD suppress the progressives or even the people moderately to the left of the middle. And they have been doing it now for decades.
    3
  28. Jeff pain got a job as prison guard, he had been fired for the arrest of the nurse, but they take care of their own.
    3
  29. Tamir Rice was 11 when he was executed by the police - I do not know WHEN the parents of black boys have THE conversation (no, not about sex). And he may have picked up on the Kapernick controversy. - either way: saying the flag is racist (the anthem is - have you ever read the 2nd part) is also covered by free speech. It does not matter where he heard it - it's a big world with the internet and all. Don't you notice the irony of putting so much importance on the pledge and being hell bent to not grant that kind of freedom - if only to teach the other kids about constitutional rights.
    3
  30.  @s.o.c_914  The people that WORK are productive (even IF they are not working legally !) A modern economy CAN provide healthcare for everyone when the society is so productive. the per capita (= per head) expenditures * in wealthy European countries are 50 - 65 % of that of the U.S. (even though the population in Europe is on average older - that is a major cost driver so the U.S. has a cost advantage !) I know 2 systems in Europe very well - Germany and Austria. In these countries there is much less tolerance to have poor people. There are low income people, divorced mothers on part time - BUT the basics are covered. The Europeans do not define themselves as migration countries - but they have been in reality since the 1960s - maybe not to the degree like the U.S. - but on the other hand if you think about the refugee crisis (caused to a large degree by the U.S. setting the Middle East on fire). In recent years ALSO the non-productive refugees and migrants are covered by the healthcare systems. Germany has 85 million people - 1 million migrants were taken in. And unlike the migrants in the U.S. they are mostly not productive - they are often not allowed to work (until their status is clear - and even then they must be able to get a job), and get an allowance for housing and costs of living or they are housed in communal homes where everything is covered for them. per capita healthcare expenditures That means all that is already spent !! in the country divided by number of people (in USD per year - source World Bank). In the U.S. that includes a lot of people without or with insufficient coverage and also those with high medical debt !! in numbers: the range in most wealthy single payer countries (in Europe, also Canada, Australia) is 5,000 - 6,000 USD (USD 5,400 in Austria, 5,600 in Germany). Compared to 9,200 in the U.S. (again all that is already ! being spent and then the AVERAGE per person). The U.S. system is so overpriced and inefficient that there is plenty of room to cover everyone - in the long term that should still SAVE money. Per capita costs (per person): that can be scaled up and down for the countries - indeed there is little difference between Iceland with 300,000 people and Germany with 85 million. The economy of scale does not seem to make much a difference (but being a large country does not hurt). it makes sense. Hospitals and doctors can realistically serve a certain number of people. And they need to be spread throughout the country to be accessible and for short distance for emergencies. So that can be scaled up or down. Iceland is not a weaker negotiation partner for Big Pharma (they could buy with other countries or get the information what other countries are paying - so no chance to rip them off even though they are tiny) Maybe they cooperate with other nations when it comes to university training of doctors (if so likely with Denmark - because of the language). Training of nurses they can certainly do locally in a cost efficient manner as well. In most European countries the training of medical staff, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, ... is free. In Germany and Austria the nurses have a 3 year paid internship. The students are usually young women 16 years and older, that live in a boarding school that is run by a hospital. There they go to school, work in the departments, learn for the tests and in most cases live in the dorms. After the costs for the dorms are deducted, they are left with a small allowance, more if they come from the same city and can live with the parents. Even though the school prefers to have them on campus. They have a lot to learn and it is lights out between 10 and 11 pm. So usually they can visit home every fortnight. Having your daughter or son make that training does not burden the family budget - on the contrary they will be left with some money for clothes. and they are kept busy - and are supervised. The hospitals that do the training are likely getting compensated to some degree by the states - on the other hand they have some labor of the "apprentices" for cheap. In Europe per capita also means: all that is spent in the country - the average per person. But this time without hassle for the patients/unsured, everyone has coverage and the money goes into a cost-efficient, streamlined system. Streamlined means: Everyone gets (potentially !) the same treatments in the same facilites, there are no networks that you can have with your policy or not. And there are no standard or platinum plans. When people start a new job they must be announced to the insurance agency (the comapny pays the wage decuctions once a month). That takes 5 minutes. No health questions - of course not. Privacy - and it does not matter - ONLY the wage decides the contribution. And there are no later payments - that is what "Free" healthcare means - free at the point of delivery. That simplictiy results in low administration costs. It also makes it impossible for hospitals and doctors to rig the system against patients. They have no reason to deny care - and they are accountable to the public. (public non-profits). It is not possible to hold the CEO of a hospital chain or large insurance company accountable - but if the system does not work for the patients in Europe the blame would be on politicians - to do something. No need to engage in a lawsuit. And since everyone would get the same good or bad treatment the citizens - and the politicians - have a stake in the game. What happens to one person concerns all. Certain treatmens are covered on principle (or not - braces for instance are in many cases not covered) - and then the doctors decide what they think is the right treatment for a certain patient (for instance if the doctors thinks it is necessary to order a helicopter transport instead of an ambulance. Helicopter with emergency doctor is "on the menu". So is ambulance transport with or without emergency doctor. People pay mandatory modest contributions from their wages, which must be matched by employers (all ! employers) - AND like in the U.S. the insurance ageny gets a lot of subsidies ** - but these subsidies go into a cost-efficient system where many (and especially the large) players are public non-profits = the insurance agency and many or all hospitals. The only large and powerful for profit player is Big Pharma - but they have very standardized products so luckily that makes it easier for the public non-profit insurance agency to drive a good bargain. (And I am sure the agencies of various countries have found opportunities to "compare" prices). ** In Germany the budget for a family of 4 would be around USD 22,400 per year (5,600 x 4). Even if they are healthy - that is the AVERAGE. That is too much for low income people. So whatever the parents (or the one breadwinner) pay as percentage of their wage will be enough. And there are provisions for people w/o a job.
    3
  31. Is there a possibilty that the vote can be attributed to a certain person with blockchain - aka undermining anonymity - and it WILL be done if it is technically possible !
    3
  32. +E W the incentive of for-profit private insurance is toxic AND they had decades to practice and hone all tricks. Every system can be played, every rule abused in large and complex systems. Non-profit public insurance with one (or a few) agenies is the way to go. In Europe they usually spend a few % of the budget on the administration of such an insurance agency (like 3 or 4 %). It does not matter in which hospital you land (they all have a contract). And there is no incentive to deny a treatment. The NHS has the most cost efficient system: their doctors and hospitals are also public and non-profit. There are countries that have a mix: In Germany there are many hospitals run by the church (privat) while others are run by cities (public). Both have the same contracts with the public insurers. I assume the Church squeezes some profits out of that. The more streamlined and unified a system is the more cost-efficient it is. So: public option STILL offers incentives to play the system AND requires bureaucracy to decide who gets what at what costs. And gives incentives to milk the patients with the better insurance plans. A treatment is either standard for modern medicine and worthy of a First World Country - in that case everyone gets it when the DOCTOR decides there is medical necessity. And what doctors and hosptials are being paid for that treatment has been negotiated in advance. The contributions for the budget of the public insurance agency are solidarity - low income people pay less - and IN ADVANCE. Usually it is a percentage o f the wage plus tax funding (so that the wage deduction do not have to be too high and are affordable for low income people). Size of company, hours, profession, level of wage does not matter. The individual health risk, age or pre-existing condtions ? - no one cares. A person got a job: worker AND employer MUST contribute. Every citizen (legal immigrant) gets FULL coverage. AND: there are NO more OTHER payments LATER. No unexpected high treament costs. (there are minor co payments for drugs, some payments in the hospital, usually with exceptions for low income people - and nothing that would break the bank). The hospital does not know if a person has a high wage or gets the coverage from unemployment or a low wage. For them it does not matter.
    3
  33. tell your family and friends - greetings from Europe - Bernie 2020 (if we are all lucky - all meaning the world)
    3
  34. 9:00 The Dems can live with losing elections - the Donors that pay them assigned them to task to sheep dog and suppress progressives. That is even more important than winning. And as long as they do that the Big donations continue. - Nader (and Jill Stein a little bit) disturbed that scheme - that is why the Democrats go so furiously after the third parties. - They bank on it that the working class people have nowhere to go, that the blackmail "the Republicans are even worse than us, and will really hurt you" continues to work. They would never, ever accept ranked choice voting - that would immediately end that blackmail, they would need to start working for the people in order to get their votes. (A lot of people would ould vote third party, voter participation would skyrocket and the D or R candidate would be the "lesser evil" plan B. Just in case the preferred third party candidate would not make it. There would be competition and choice in the policital landscape. They STILL come up with the crap that Nader prevented Al Gore becoming president, ignoring the hundred of thousands of Democratic voters in Florida that voted for Bush. Or that the voter purge in Florida became public BEFORE the elections - it was headline news in Europe. So what did the SITTING president and his VP Al Gore - who knew he would need to win Florida - do ? They did nothing - the Big Donors did not want the boat rocked, the unwashed masses alerted and the image of a flawless election process stained. - Al Gore after the elections was warned by the Party establishment to not to raise a stink about the lost/stolen election. Al Gore was rewarded for his compliance and the Dems kept the Big Donors. People like Bill Maher make it look like Nader running ultimately led to 9/11 and then to the wars. The logistics for the Afghanistan invasion was prepared in summer 2001 - the politicians in D.C. must have known that. The Dems could have voted against the Iraq war in 2003 or blown the whistle - D.C was buzzing with rumours, Schroeder of Germany and Sarkozy of France KNEW why they declined to join the US in the war. No doubt Clinton and her Democratic collegues ALSO had heard something - but she has never met a war she did not like, her donors and the media friendly with the Clinton machine liked the war, too. And if the vote turned out to be a mistake - she was not going to be alone with the mistake and no one in her circles would be in combat. So it was a "safe" vote, damned be the Iraqis and the U.S. soldiers.
    3
  35.  @cctv1381  There are Democrats that are not pro abortion on a personal level (Carter is a genuinely religous man, or think Tim Kaine, Joe Biden is a Catholic) but who are still for having safe and legal abortions for those who WANT them. Many Republicans back in the day were O.K. with decriminalizing abortions. Not that it was an option for many Republicans or Democrats (especially if they were religious) - but they saw the terrible results of back alley abortions. Women dying. Abortion was outlawed, and punisehd, religions declared it a sin - and women did have abortions for thousands of years regardless. Just not SAFE abortions. So being pro life can also mean: avoid having women die of a sepsis or injuries caused by an undercover abortion. You must be pretty desperate if you submit to a back alley abortion, but they risked it. What does that tell you about REALISTICALLY ENDING abortions ? The Republicans would never want a situtation where there are no more abortions, they would lose a "winning" wedge issue - one that they can bring up all the time to rile up the base and it does not COST the big donors anything. The same applies to the Democratic party. Fear of Republicans ending access to safe and legal abortions is supposed to drive their base to the polling stations. Neither party bothers to give the majority of low to regular income voters ANYTHING that helps them economically. For millenia the ruling class wanted a lot of people desperate for work, any work at very low wages or under bad conditions. They wanted the poor, serfs and slaves to procreate (but hardly being able to feed the children). They needed cannon fodder. Back in the day (you can go back centuries) only wealthy people had SAFE abortions. And they were not bothered by law enforcement.
    3
  36.  @1250Gator  you are not sane. Medicare does not give the government control over bodies of the retired and Medicare for All would not do that either. Nor does single payer in other countries give the government control. Vaccines requirements (or testing) have nothing to do with how health insurance is arranged anyway.
    3
  37. 3 days general strike - with Sanders as president - and it would be passed. - There is a reason they started to smear Sanders the day after the midterms. He might be stubborn enough to acutally get it done. But not w/o a major struggle. - the next recession is coming - likely in 2019 or 2020. if it is bad - and the people have an activist presidential candidate or president - a LOT could get done. In 1932 the government used the army to crush the Veterans march (tear gas, people died). The veterans and their families marched for benefits that were due to them. In 1933 FDR - in the middle of the crisis - introduced unemployment benefits, Social Security, jobs programs - and high taxes on the incomes of those still doing well. He had to strongarm some Democrats and the Republican industrial leaders considered a coup in 1934 (see the story with Gen. Smedly Butler) - but he rammed a lot through.
    3
  38. I'll go for "no billionaires" - I think we will survive !
    3
  39. 0:40 wrong. He is NOT the leading guy on mRNA vaccines, Jimmy Dore did not do his homework and dr. Malone should not accept that framing (but indeed he is eager to get that attention and tours the anti vaxx shows). The only published on it in 1989 / 1990 (an important if small contribution in the early stages - and many more people made comparable or larger contributions). People did research before and LOTS of research on that later. His 2 studies inspired hope that it made sense to continue - something could come of it. Note that HE did not continue. Although it was not universally seen that it could ever work. Dr. Katalin Kariko that published and worked on it later, lost her funding, switched to another university and for years did research only in her free time (in a lab of the university that had hired her, at least she could use that). Neither the people in charge of the budgets nor big pharma and certainly not Robert Malone thought it really could ever be used safely for animals or humans. She was one of the people that were involved in a breakthrough (safe for humans). in the late 1990s she and a male published a trial that got some attention, and that was promising enough that they could secure funding.Still she continued the work for almost 20 more years. When the pandemic broke they got very generous funding from the German government - she is a co-founder of BionTech. Which partnered with Pfizer.
    3
  40.  @jasonp.1195  Those m'fuckers would rather have another Trump term than a true FDR Democrat (or even better think VP Wallace style) in the White House.
    3
  41.  @richardbarry04553  She needs chocolate in these stressful times ....
    3
  42. + Joe Hammond - you cite the Greek city states - really ? They had slavery, no human rights, no rights for women, etc, etc. - Now that many men (not all only the "free") in theory had a say was not a bad thing. Certainly an improvement to a king having absolute power (over life and death usually). But since the advent of agriculture society had split up in the elites, and those who serve them. The elites in ancient Greek were of course BUSY to get back all the power from the commoners. Same happened later in Rome as well. - It is not only that you CAN vote - the question is: WHO has a realistic chance to come on the ballot ? And do you have the vote - or also a good CHOICE for someone who will really represent the interests of the commoners (not the interests of the powerful and rich elites). It seems the citizens of ancient Athens, Rome or now the U.S. have the same problem. (that is not remarkable, the problem stems from human nature and how to control power in larger societies). And a real democray (whatever from, Republic, constitutional monarchy) must also have a working JUSTICE SYSTEM (meaning the powerful are held accountable as well, and the powerful cannot harrass and kill people who disturb their rackets as they please). Do you think there was a long and carefully executed PUBLIC court case against Sokrates ? With lively public attendance and interest ? We rely on the stories that were a) written down and b) made it into our time. So we have to take the story as is reported (no court case at all, if memory serves - just a bunch of people showing up, how is that the majority). But when we go after human nature - how likely is it, Sokrates got a "fair and speedy trial" with the right to bring witness and with the right to get support. habeus corpus has been suspended btw (by the U.S. government). Things have gotten better over the millenia - but some mechanisms show up again, and again. (and today people ARE STILL harrassed, killed by governments and stooges paid by big corporations, for instance Canadian or U.S. mining or oil companies. Not in the First World Countries - but FOR corporations of these countries too).
    3
  43. Noam Chomsky in the famous BBC Andrew Marr interview Marr quoted Watergate in that exchange with Chomsky about Manufacturing consent and very obedient media as example "how the press holds those in power accountable" Chomsky: No - With Watergate one set of powerful people stepped on the the toes of the other set of powerful people - and they are able to defend themselves, such violations can have consequences and mainstream media will cover them. there is a compilation on the web showing clips * with Marr during that famous exchange and Marr the government Yes man. mind you in the past (not anymore the BBC has completly capitulated) the BBC at least had Chomsky on from time to time, the U.S. media has always ignored him. They knew it would not do to cover the man that organized against Vietnam war early on. Chomsky then asked Marr about another very consequential information that had come out at the same time and got hardly covered by the "independent" press. I forgot the name of the program - ;) - but it was a systematic attempt to surveill citizens that were engaged in peaceful protest and it was of course unconstitutional. It violated the law of people w/o power. Andrew Marr had never heard of that program. Noam Chomsky: that proves my point, .... The free press saw no need to be up in arms about that violation of the law by the powerful - because it was normal people that were on the receiving end. Marr also uttered the impression in this old interview that journalists, especially the top journalists that win the prizes are struppy, independently minded people. Noam said the famous journalists that he knows are very cynical about their profession (more cynical than him regarding what they are allowed to publish), sometimes they manage to squeeze in a story. That remarkable interview was done before the internet and youtube became a thing, but someone had kept the video footage all the years). Search with Noam Chomsky Andrew Marr Manufacturing Consent Watergate, it should pop up, that exchange - or the compilation about how Marr illustrates the opionion of Chomsky about very obedient media.
    3
  44. 13:30 Ben Bernanke Fed Chair in 60 Minutes about how they "printed" money to bail out the banks * - confirming the MMT explanations. They do not actually print banknotes or produce the coins - the money is created electronically. (and it is a little bit more complicated: the central banks they bought "assets" of the banks **) When he gave that interview they either already did QE for the Banks or just got ready to do it - and wanted to sell the idea to voters. They had to assure the voters / taxpayers that they were not giving the banks "taxpayer money"  Now the Fed - or any other central bank - does not "have" money. They are one of the few actors in the financial system of any modern economy who are given the legal privilege to create money. Actually I think congress had to support QE with passing a fitting bill - and they did. The central banks (not only the Fed) "bought" worthless "assets" of the banks - which no one else would buy. Not then and not many years later. The central banks held those assests and for the most part still hold them. So it wasn't just that the "market" was bad during the crisis and the worth of the bought up "bank would recover (and be useful) when the dust had settled. Or that the central banks were able to put these assets to better use than the commercial banks. So that the assets would have value for the central bank meaning value for the WHOLE economy and society. All the central banks held the assets they aquired - which is a strong indicator that what they bought is for the most part pretty worthless. In layman's term we can take it easy and call that "printing money to bail out the banks". The bean counters may object - but that was the "effect" and intention. - Stephanie Kelton mentioned that Dr. Jill Stein did not explain QE for the banks correctly when she tried to promote QE for the People. (In the 30 seconds that Jill Stein would be granted by the TV networks for the explanation of her program when she ran for president.) I disagree with Dr. Keltons qualification / mild critique - for all intents and purposes it was the same as if they had started the printing press and delivered the money to the bank vaults. It was a gift.
    3
  45.  @slamandjam2  healthcare INSURANCE is ADMINISTRATION. They are glorified middle men.
    3
  46. TheZodiacz - well said - something like the litte doubt they could be held accountable saved the non violent resistance in Eastern Germany in 1988/1989. The rigid dictatorship in Eastern Germany was always very obedient to the Soviets - until Gorbachev started the Perestroika and Glasnost thing. - Then for the first time Eastern Germany did not fall in line. - Their civil resistance however sniffed morning air - and the police and army did not DARE to shoot the demonstrators (some were roughed up or arrested, or lost their job, but no one was killed). We know that use of firearms was discussed - but the bureaucrats clinging to power were not QUITE SURE how this all would end, now that even the Soviets considered giving their citizens more freedom. And if they started a massacre and the regime would fall anyway (or in a few years time) they would be held accountable. Never mind that Western Germany would withdraw financial support (like loans), it was always upheld in Western Germany they would strive for unification, so that kind of state violence would have triggered a massive public and political reaction. When the Berlin Wall went down, the spy agency STASI (running an extensive spy and snitch operation on their own citizens to keep them in line) tried to destroy the files. They had everything documented (incl. the clear names of the snitches, their rewards, etc. - that's a very German thing: to do the correct accounting and to have precise files. The demonstrators just entered the building and prevented them from continuing their destruction of evidence. The secret service guys of STASI were completly perplexed and caught off guard by that intrusion into the holy halls of spies and snitches. No one had ever stood up to them. They knew their reign was over, they had of course still armed security at their disposal, they just did not dare ordering them to shoot - and the security forces would have refused to comply. Which is why Germans (and also citizens of other countries, they also worked West Germany etc.) still can make a Freedom of Information request and find out if a neighbour, supposed friend or coworker, or even sibling spied on them resp. reported them to the regime. Or if someone in a major Western German newspaper was a mule and STASI informant. Of course the STASI is nothing against the modern surveillance state.
    3
  47. Obama will work behind the scenes so that the lobbyists for Netflix get whatever why want. And that the "right" people are getting elected. Obama phoned around to MAKE SURE Tom Perez not Keith Ellison would become party chair.
    3
  48. if you try to "scare" people with statements about CoVid-19 - that is called FREE SPEECH. Terror - if you mean that in a legal sense is a well defined crime. btw: the people that agree with the assessment of that data scientist are not scared or feel "terrorized". They just pay attention and take it SERIOUSLY.
    3
  49. @Elron Nope, the Republicans with the Southern strategy under Nixon. They apologized for that later, so do not deny it. And Reagan who held his kick-off rally nearby where the civil rights activists had been murdered (KKK and help from the local police). Classy ! Sure Reagan did the dog whistle in a more polished manner than Trump. he had better manners.
    3
  50. well, since it was kids and teenagers that were killed ... but the NRA was not impressed with the children of Sandy Hook. why would they care about those dead teenagers ? And these teenagers (and their allies) play a good game - the NRA and their stooges HATE it. P.S.: the 2nd amendment says "well regulated militia". Not any powerful weapon for anybody. And regarding FREEDOM: all the relevant freedoms were already undermined. If a citizens ever thinks he needs weapons to keep his government from becoming tyrannical - at that poin the battle is already lost. The government is fought in the court, on the streets, in marches, with grassroots, on social media and at the ballot box. MLK showed how to fight them. (And then "they" were equally indignated about the Children's March in 1963). This is when some of the haters - the government officials could do nothing anymore (they could bomb churches yes). But the city, the mayor, the police had to give up. They could have beaten up a protest march of adults. But the children remained - mostly - unharmed. The intense waterpressure from the hoses and also the German shephard the police kept on the leash (and sometimes at the body of the children) did not cause lasting injuries. the pictures went around the world.
    3