Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Humanist Report" channel.

  1. 40
  2. 23
  3. 22
  4. Early 2015: Sanders coordinates with Warren - if she had run in the primaries he would have stayed out of the race (the official launch was at the end of April 2015 in Burlington. MSNBC btw hindered Ed Schultz to report live on that announcement. the higher ups called literally a few minutes before going live. Ed was furious but had to stand down - he was fired some 10 weeks later). Waiting for Warren to make up her mind in 2015 might have cost Sanders valuable time. (Of course at that time the Sanders campaign did not dream of having a shot a the nomination. They intended to run a small donors campaign and planned with a budget of 30 million USD - they actually raised 230 millions). But Sanders urgently wanted some issues discussed and thought the primaries would be a good stage for that. Unlike Warren he was not afraid to annoy the party establishment and the Clinton machine. Sanders wanted to serve the country (he does not need exposure and free airtime to win the races in Vermont or to "activate" the big donors to pay attention to him. Which is a reason some politicians run for higher office, especially the presidency. Sanders had been winning the races for Congress / Senate handily for a long time). Warren on the other hand was playing nice with the party leadership / the Clinton machine. Her campaign also let the Clinton campaign know that they were "flexible" regarding financial regulations on Wallstreet - in other words, Warren talks a good game but if she is angling for a VP position things change for her. I do not want to villify her for playing political games and she is certainly better than many of the lot - but she is not putting the country over her personal advantage. Sanders does. HE is going to put up a fierce fight to get things done - taking a page out of the textbook of FDR who also had to strongarm some Democratic "representatives". Then like today they were often wealthy / rich and members of the upper class. So many could have resigned themselves to "the masses will have to suck it up". A president Warren might be "allowed" to forgive student loan debt. The financial industry does not mind - they will get their money. and the producer of goods and sellers of homes would like it - more consumer demand. But likely it would have to be on the credit card - not by inconveniencing the rich and big biz by paying taxes. Reversing the Trump tax cuts is not enough - they were paying to little even before. Sanders has never needed the Democratic party to win the races in Vermont - and it shows. He has never courted the party leadership to "have access" to the media or needed them to get money from the big donors. And he liked to stay in politics - so he was never angling for a cushy corporate "job". That shows as well.
    14
  5. 13
  6. 13
  7. 13
  8. 13
  9. 11
  10. 11
  11. + Pizza Pizza - Tulsi Gabbard took a difficult stance at least twice with endorsing Sanders AND visiting Syria (for which I am genuinely grateful - it looks like she really does not like war). She seems to be sure that she does not need to bow to the Big Donors and the Party establishment. Lots of extra points for that and for standing up for a not popular issue (with Syria there was nothing to win and a lot to lose - if you think only in terms of making political points. And she held herself really well in the interviews afterwards (in Jan. 2017 and again in April when the government was accused of having gassed their people). Wolf Blitzer of CNN tried to trap her in an interview. She is smart and thinking on her feet. In January she advertised her "Stop funding terrorism bill" - needless to say such an exotic and ridiculous idea could not find enough support in the U.S. houses. I think I glanced over the Jacobin article some months ago . Gave me the vibe of a hit piece. Not really substantial and too harsh. She may be wrong on India (I am not sure if the allegations about the political leadership are even correct. We are told a lot of B.S. about foreign policy all the time.) Anyway her having a blind spot towards India has nothing to do with profiting financially. She is entitled to be wrong sometimes - being wrong about the ? Prime Minister of India being a terrible person who allowed assaults on minorities (if that is even true) has not influence on domestic and little influence on international policy. Fortunately India is not such a minefield as the Middle East. And she would be reasonable enough to seek good relations with Pakistan AND India. E. Warren would likely be as spineless as Obama if push comes to shove. She is all bark and not much action (except for the agency - financial protection xyz - where she did good) Or in a cabinet if she was given a position where she can go after the banksters to her hearts delight. Or implement a new Glass-Steagal - I think in that role she could be really good. In a fairly progressive environment she can be an asset But she does not take the lead or stand up against the forces of evil.
    10
  12. 10
  13. Think what you will about the Iranian Mullahs. The religious motivation also urges them to have some social programs (at least that). People do not have religious, or political freedom, but a part of the oil revenue is used to give them healthcare, do something about housing, etc. Syria and Libya were also relatively wealthy countries (for the regions) with welfare programs and free education and healthcare before the U.S. initiated regime change against them. (Gen. Wesley Clark 7 countries in 5 years - that was in 2001 and it was a dusted off plan of the 90s). Under the Shah propped up by the U.S. they had no public healthcare system (The wealthy people in Tehran went of course to private clinics). I know that because an U.S. company colluded with a corrupt official in the administration. They sold them an expensive ID card system and software to use for a private U.S. style healthcare system. The contract was based on the premise that the card system would be for millions of Iranians (a system for the lucky few that were middle class or wealthier was too small a pool to warrant such an investment). That software/card system was completely useless in a country where then the poor majority lived in rural areas where they did not even have a doctor or a hospital anywhere near. Never mind using First World technology. A mobile doctor visiting villages once a week would have been a good start to do something about healthcare. And with a robust 4WD car - it often wasn't the tarmac road they had to drive. But that kind of reasonable policy was not a business niche for a for-profit U.S. corporation. Because the scheme was so ridiculous, it was clear that there must have been massive bribing - or the official must have been exceptionally stupid and the U.S. company took advantage of that. Anyway: when the (peaceful !) revolution of 1979 happened the Revolutionary Islamic government put that official in jail, and the U.S. representatives of that corporation that were in Tehran as well. It were a few men - there was a scheme later to help them flee. They survived and were able to return to the U.S. - there was a book about it.
    9
  14. 9
  15. 8
  16. 8
  17. 7
  18. 7
  19. 7
  20. 7
  21. 6
  22. 6
  23. 6
  24. 6
  25. 6
  26. 6
  27. Tiny VT cannot go against the trend - some ? 300,000 people vs. the dysfunctional practices of powerful industries "serving" 325 million people. - CA would be a game changer but the propsoal was undermined - the budget being the PRETEXT. I live in a European country (Austria, neighbour of Germany) with single payer (in reality there is not ONE public non-profit insurance company (they adminstrate also retirement and disability pensions). There are about 15 - 20 (for the 9 states and certain professions like farmers, teachers, gov. employees, etc.) Some of these do not have risk pools of more than 100.000. That is enough - if the risk pool is not cherry picked (no one is "sorted" out because of age, risk, status of the family who also have insurance). But of course each of those sub insurance agencies profits from the central drug price negotiations, the fees that are paid to the doctors or the hospitals with a contract are all within a reasonable price range (and they communicate about that). I would estimate that 80 % of familiy doctors, dentists etc. do have a contract (and there are hardly any for-profit hospitals). So it is not like the doctors flee from one region because they can charge more otherwise. Some doctors offer specialities - and then they may be private. But most (also) accept the modest price structure of the public insurance agency. For that they get a regional quote. In a smaller town there will be only a certain number of doctors. Citizens can go to any doctor with a contract w/o any payment (usually in the city for practical reasons, but they could keep their doctor outside as well). That means they have a predictable income, a suffucient case load and even little rural towns will be attractive for starting out in the profession - if there is no other free slot with a contract. They are not going to consume the (free) university education and then flee the country. The systems here (8,7 million) is the same as with large neighbour Germany (82 million people). So there will be enough doctors available. It is entirely possible that doctors have less income here than in the U.S. (university is free though, and low income people get subsidies for the cost of living during their education), they are still doing very nicely. Switzerland pays excellent wages, doctors here COULD go there (same language, and the Swiss like the level of training and the similar culture), but usually they stay in the country. - In Vermont on the other hand if a public agency (singley payer) offered more streamlined contracts there is a chance the doctors would just go to another state. If the whole country switiches to a more European style system, most U.S. doctors would need the additional patients to have enough revenue (and they still would do fine) - and have much, much less hassle. And from what I heard Vermont could not negotiate drug prices (that was forbidden on the federal level) nor can they import drugs from Canada. So the costs were too high - in that setting.
    6
  28. 5
  29. 5
  30. 5
  31. 5
  32. 5
  33. 5
  34. 5
  35. 5
  36. 5
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39.  @DanielJames8  It came out that the Trump admin put pressure on the U.K. government to have a hard Brexit and to allow the privatization of the NHS (Corbyn showed the documents). - The U.S. insurance industry and the for-profit hospital chains prepare for the worst - that Sanders can push through a real reform and priavte insurers will become obsolete and hospitals will see their profits going down. So they try to get a foot into the U.K. market. Make no mistake: if Johnson and Trump win the next election that will mean a massive assault on the NHS. A president Sanders would not blackmail U.K. in desperate need of a trade deal to sell out the NHS. On the other hand president Sanders and Corbyn might quickly find common ground - Sanders can only be interested to have an example how economic reform works. If Labour wins the majority of seats they have budget control. (a president Sanders could be helpful to keep the speculators from going against the U.K.) Who gets the most donations from the industry in this election cycle in the U.S. ? Donald Trump - and then Pete Buttigieg who recently attacked the Sanders proposal (the only candidate that remains firmly ! in the camp of a geniuine single payer system. Not quite as cost-efficient as the U.K. system, but most wealthy nations have reasonable costs with it. (Think 50 - 54 % of U.S. spending per person, versus 42 % in the U.K. - in case you have wondered why the NHS is in trouble. Some increase to match the funding of the cheapskates among the wealthy nations would do wonders for the NHS performance). In essence that would make the U.K. the poodle of the U.S. government and the oligarchs behind it. So much for "we take back sovereignity".
    5
  40. 4
  41. William Binney (NSA technical director for 24/7 spy programs turned government critic): IF that was a HACK (remote access by an unauthorized person) as opposed to a LEAK (insider) there is no way the NSA would not have TRACKS (they have EVERYTHING that travels over the net). AND: it would be SAFE to SHOW the PROOF - it does not reveal sources, methods etc. - Since they chose not to show it, they may not have anything (nor do they allege to proof in the report). Moreover the CIA depends on the NSA for intercepting. - That is what the NSA mastermind says on the technicalities. The official "report" has as attachment the "Golden Shower document", it does not make firm statements - no "it is alleged ...", they make a psychological profil of Putin and his supposed desire for revenge - and they obsess with Russia Today TV = RT. Can you imagine, RT tries to stir up dissatisfaction, they reported negatively on Wallstreet greed, fracking and hosted Third Party Candidate debates. (In Nazi Germany and under Stalin there was a crime called "subversion" - I wouldn't be surprised to hear that term soon.) Back to the official report of the agencies on fake news and the "hacking": Disclaimer of confidence. NSA (the experts on hacking on which the other agencies depend when it comes to surveillance and interception) has only MEDIUM confidence that "Russia did it" (whereas all other agencies claim hight confidence). Wikileak's Julian Assange said about the embarrassing EMAILS of Clinton and DNC (and it was never about anyhting else than these emails) : "It was a leak of a disgusted insider". Craig Murray former British Diplomat, now working with Wikileaks, also recently confirmed that he received the data in a park in Washington on a physical device - well then of course the NSA will not have any tracks - the data did not travel over the web. Trump might have peace talks with Russia (Ukraine, Syria) reduce or end sanctions, reducing nuclear weapons - Obama signed a new excessively expensive nuclear program not long ago), end the politics of regime change. To me it looks like a POWER STRUGGLE - would not be the first time the agencies undermine elected politicians, presidents, Congress (Carter, Iran/Contra) or LIE to the public (in hearings) or yield to political power to come up with desired "evidence" (WMD's in Iraq)
    4
  42. 4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. Please don't donate if your are not an US citizen. I read comments of non-citizens from time to time: Can I donoate ? No ! It is a good sign that foreigners want to chime in, but they are not doing the campaign any favors. On the contrary. - It is not legal, and all campaigns have to sort through all donations. ALSO for citizens and legal residents from within the U.S.: - whether they give beyond the limit of USD 2,800 (or whatever it is, in that range). They have to return that (but monitoring the sum of what a person has given so far can be automated). The Sanders campaign has much more donations to check than other campaigns. and they likely will return the 20 USD if you are not a citizen. I am certain they use software for that (at least filtering the harmless and obviously legal donations) but if the data around a donations shows it might not be legal, then it might need the attention of a staffer. They pay the fees of the banks anyway, and with the extra attention the legally required handling and returning of such donations requires, well meaning people unintentionally CAUSE the campaign costs and hassle. In 2016 they got over 2000 donations of foreigners, they had to return them. I found that on a blog of Hillary fans who were "incensed" about it. Many donations came from Canada, but also from Europe, Australia. The amounts were modest, most in the range of 10 - 50 bucks, hardly some over 200 bucks, so it could not be weaponized against Sanders and mainstream media did not run with the story. But it could be used to bring the campaign into disrepute if it happens more often this time. (Evil foreigners financing Sanders campaing. Who knows if it is a Russian ploy ? Stroking of a white cat and musings about world dominance is involved).
    4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4