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

  1. RT makes a dent - and they only need to tell the truth. And as long as freedom of media is still a thing they cannot outlaw them. - They have their own bias, but the people working there confirm that there is no editorial constraint (other than legal and libel stuff). A necessary condition for working for FOX or one of the "liberal" networks is that you are incapable to understand single payer. You must like war, be completely uncritical of military spending or the idea that the U.S. has a right to determine the government in other countries (like Venezuela). You must praise trade deals and manage to be oblivious the the effects of NAFTA or the China deal. Also: Be willing to present the GDP growing (artificially inflated by the speculation of big finance), the stock exchange doing well and low unemployment numbers as a "booming" economy. People that cannot or willnot engage in these exercises of double think are not a fit for corporate media. So the right wingers (FOX) and neoliberals have their niche (all other "liberal" large outlets) - but peoeple that are pro workers, anti-war or lefties have nowhere to go. If they slip through the cracks or do not toe the line after being hired (being against the Iraq war of 2003, against TPP or wanting to give Sanders some friendly coverage) they will be purged. So the only TV outlet with some money that is a potential employer is RT. They do not need to do recruiting, they just have to wait until good people that lean to the left are fired. Factoring in some pro Russia bias one gets solid information with from a left perspective watching RT. Intelligent, knowledgeable hosts and interesting guests (John Pilger, Stephanie Kelton would be a good fit, not sure if they had her, they had Dr. Richard Werner on Renegad Inc. excellent show - RT UK. Ray McGovern, Bill Binney, Bill Black - not sure if they get Noam Chomsky, but he would certainly be a good fit as well. Noam's is often on on Democracy Now.) And they are more factual than the U.S. outlets, and let the guests speak w/o interruption (also no "pre" interviews - they may select the guests - but if they are invited, they can speak their mind, no test run).
    1
  2. you realize she came from a religious family and was very young when she had that stance ? Not sure about "conversion center" - she ran for office fairly young and she enlisted, so when would she have helped her father ? as older teenager ? . As teenager and young adult she helped her father to campaign against gay marriage. She changed her stance in the military when she met gay and lesbian soldies, and had apologized long before 2016.
    1
  3. Democrats assume nothing - their DONORS have ideas (same donors that finance the GOP). And keeping the money is more important than ANYTHING. Including winning elections - And the money finances strategists, consultants, marketing firms, and MAINSTREAM MEDIA. That is all it is about. The policies are second to that (I am a little hyperbolic here, sure among the Dems there are people who do have convictions, but even they look over their shoulders in order to not offend Big Money and also not Aipac and the Israeli lobby).
    1
  4. The most important task the donors have assigned to the Dems is to KEEP any PROGRESSIVE movement (should it ever arise) from getting into power *. If they can win elections on top of that - fine. If not - the donors will provide cushy positions for ex politicians - at least for the big shots in the party. * Admitted in that function they are superior to the Republicans. Progressives would not listen to the GOP, but they can be lured into the party with promises of unity, change, or they can be scared (look how horrible the GOP is, what they are going to do to minorities), and threatened with the "Nader" scenario and blackmailed with the lesser of 2 evils scenario. (and the GOP can be relied on providing ALWAYS an even worse candidate).
    1
  5. Al Gore falling in line in 2000 is a good example, he chaired the Senate session where the Black Caucus asked for support of 2 Senators so they could demand the investigation of purging black men in FLORIDA from the voter rolls with help of Jeb Bush (thanks Michael Moore for including the video footage in a film). The purge of black voters was headlines in Europe months before the 2000 election btw, and it was weird since they reported that Al Gore likely would need Florida to win. So WHY the heck did the sitting president and his VP not raise a stink about the purge ? Because the DONORS do not appreciate the boat being rocked, that's why. They may have preferences but the donors will win no matter which party has the presidency or the majority in Congress or Senate. They are not investing their money for nothing. The plebs are supposed to believe in the charade of legitimate elections. And on top the Democrats rig elections and purge voter rolls as well (Greg Palast: Republicans steal general elections, Democrats steal primaries, - the worst case of voter purging it seems he observed was in New Mexico robbing Latinos of their vote so the neoliberal candidate of the Dems would prevail).
    1
  6. Austria: Hold my apple strudle
    1
  7. you forgot Israel - and good thing that little nation gets so much foreign (military aid) that sure helps to free up the funds for healthcare
    1
  8. The most important source of inflation is wages (and that is not a bad thing), it used to be like that in the booming era after WW2 (when inflation used to be somewhat higher). But regular folks were compensated with ongoing increases - which in turn fuelled inflation (and people that get benefits like SS are also pulled along). That was also the time when minimum wages were catching up, the highest ever in 1968 (in purchasing power). PRODUCTIVE companies are invested in machines and the means to production and have it easy to sell, so they are good. But the people that have fortunes in form of money (or bonds) on accounts hate, hate, hate inflation. It reduces the value of their money fortunes. Not income but fortunes. It funneled money into the real economy and a lot went to workers - and it reduced the fortunes of the rich. Only if they could invest in real estate (but that can be regulated). OR if they invested into manufacturing and R&D - but that comes with risks. So the money accumulation was somewhat hindered. An Elon Musk would have done fine but not a Bloomberg (finance).
    1
  9. Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez came late. PATIENCE and CONSISTENCE. AOC's campaign lasted 1,5 years. TYT had her on over the course of 1 year.
    1
  10. I read a comment how the "non-profit" hospital in his or her city invests big time on Wallstreet (2 billion, Detroit if I remember correctly ? not sure). Like the tax excempt Harvard University that has billions upon billions to invest and is a "charity".
    1
  11. woman 37 years old.
    1
  12. Terrible president for native Americans. Had the courage to stand up to the banks (they were then as corrupt as they are now). - I think only in the New Deal era they behaved. (so 1933 - 1980)
    1
  13. 11:00 The current system - all in all - costs 49 TRILLION USD per year. The Sanders model would cost only ! 32 trillion USD per year. - And it would include all citizens, and "deprives" the citizens of all the stress, the question if they will actually be covered if they need expensive treatm ent. The label under which money is collected does not matter. Maybe the citizens will have an additional Medicare for all "tax" - but in exchange NO MORE premiums, none, zero no deductibles, no lifetime caps, and no hassle, no pre-existing conditions. No checking if one gets treatment in the right facility, one that is in "your network" - you try "choosing" the right network, when they pick you up in shock or unconscious after an accident. And even if patients can and do prepare and go to the right faciilty - hospitals employ "freelancers" to save costs and when those freelance doctors happen to treat you (as if you have a chance to prevent the treatment by a freelance anesthesist if a woman needs stitching after giving birth for instance) - then they will charge you extra (and it is not going to be small change).
    1
  14. I would have liked him in the game until after SuperTuesday - even a few % can help to divide up the vote. Imagine no one but Sanders would be over the 15 % in TX and CA ! - that's of course the reason he dropped out before. That and not having the bad record of 2 % in TX / CA or whatever it would be.
    1
  15.  @luannbenitez6232  Wallace should have been his VP (he was very progressive, and the most popular politician except for FDR) but the party made sure that Wallace did not become VP again. FDR could pressure them in 1940, but in 1944 he was terminally ill (high untreatable blood pressure - in hinsight makes you think). Press and party covered up for him, but they made sure their man Truman (not very popular) was ushered in. With shenanigans of course.
    1
  16. Explosive growth: Reproduction rate 3,5 (1 infectious person infects 3,5 others *) Let's start with 10 infectious persons, and the time intervall is 3 days (which is plenty). On day 4 you have 35 cases ... on day 7 122 on day 28 788,000 people, and ...on day 31 2,76 million people. Same number's game with "only" 2,5 reproduction rate and still 3 days intervall: On day 19: 2,441 cases ... so that looks better (although more than that number are in various stages pf infection, home / hospital, morgue).. BUT: On day 37: 597,000 cases and on day 40 1,49 million cases of people infected (some dead, some on the path of recovery, some still on the ICU). With THAT many cases the hospitals in that region are completely overwhelmed of course. Remember: the U.S. recently had 1 million cases, New York did not have all of them, and things looked grim. Realistic models would look differently. When so many people are infected spread starts to slow down (always hoping that with the HIGH numbers the virus does not mutate and the new strain attacks - one can hope immunity when you had the other mutation would help - but hat is not always the case. Or that a new form emerges that is worse - lethality, complication rate, reproduction rate. MERS another corona strain is MUCH worse but lucky us, it is not very contagious. And because people would be locked at home (recovering) spread would also slow down. But the numbers games should show you what EXPONENTIAL GROWTH means. It would be a culling. Good luck with giving birth or any accidents. And of course hospitals would be hotspots of infection. With so many patients they cannot separate anymore.
    1
  17. Police: "unfortunately he can stand there and hold the sign". The officer hopefully did not mean it that way, it sure sounded terribly - because if it is public ground, so free speech applies. Even if a white wealthy middleaged (elderly) woman thinks that could "incite riots" in her nice neighbourhood. On a side note: highly unlikely but not a bad idea then they might start to care how the rest of the country is doing which gets to show you that wealthy people also can be very stupid. How did she think one protester with a sign would lead to riots. He would be darn busy running a riot all by himself.
    1
  18. UK is one of the few democracies that do not vote on a sunday or holiday. BUT registering to vote is easy, most do it online (first time voters, or if people move). The polling stations are open till 10 pm voting is quick and easy (of course paper ballot) and people must be allowed to leave from work. - all other nations I think do it on sundays or holidays, anyway. 15 minutes waiting time would be considered long, enough places to vote and 80 - 85 % turnout in races that are important / get attention.
    1
  19. I did not hear that - but I am shocked as well. She IS getting over it, she did not say much in the beginning, she did her job, did she ? her testimony is powerful - I must say the day after the insurrection the idiocy of the cultists somehow drowned out what this was. I saw interviews on the channel of WUSA9 channel of police that held certain points and they describe it as an ongoing battle for hours, and they attacked with with all but firearms and explosives (the man squeezed against the door and yelling in pain. That was the second ! of three major indicents he had that day. Daniel Hodges also had that deer in the headlight look in the eyes. The nervous smile while he told his story. Pretending he was O.K. - nope, a few sessions with a trauma expert might be in order. Another interview with a female officer, she was lucky she was not (much) injured, but also describes it as unreal, and a combat situation that was going on for hours. They attacked a LINE of officers in riot gear they threw heave objects at them, not all were in blood lust, but if a person pounds on doors and yells where is she - you can brace for the worst. Officer Eugene Goodman was in (soft) uniform and had a baton and a radio. The group he led away from from the then still unsealed chamber was less rabid.
    1
  20. It should not be HARD and an uphill struggle to cast a vote. People have to wait for hours in line. They need to have endless (legal) battles with the state of Georgia. The court orders the state to abstain from certain practices. They turn around and do it AGAIN. Voters (again see Georgia 2018) do not dare to send in a mail ballot. Republican states have perfectioned the art to declare them faulty and to kick them out (if they come form poor areas with a lot of minority voters). The old broken machines are allocated to the poor areas. That is if they do not find a pretext to close down a polling place alltogether. For instance if it is not suited for disabled persons. Now I am sure a solution could be found. Like volunteers helping disabled prsons accross the steps that are an obstacle for the wheelchair bound person. having a provisory ramp. The affluent areas do have the the ramps and provisions, or they will get them. That is a small price to pay when it also helps to shut down polling place s in poor areas. (such a shame that the poor do not have the time and vehicles to visit the far away places and take a day off only to vote). The option to vote in churches (early vote) is reduced or ended at all. I read the story of a man that wanted to move to another state (he had gone to school there) and tried to register to vote for 2016. His driver's licence and his birth certificate had a tiny difference. So he had to bring the school reports, his vaccination record (he had grown up in the state). I do not remember in detal the other hoops they made him jump through, but it was an uphill battle with 3 visits in person. And then he had finally come up with with the last piece of documentation they demanded him to provide to make sure he had not stolen the birth certificate and wanted to impersonate another voter) - He asked if he could sent if by mail. No - he had to appear in person (meaning a flight). Then he handed it over to his lawyer. And decided NOT to move (return) to that state after all. Oh, and he was black. Of course.  Let me tell you I know elections in European nations. If people had to wait longer than 15 minutes they would feel VERY badly treated. (usually it is 5 minutes, 10 minutes if the lines are long). Broken machines, problems with the IT, power outages ? - not an issue. They perform the elections OFF the grid and with unhackable procedures. The voter rolls are printed out BEFORE the elections (and are manually crossed off so that no one can cast a vote twice). Usually they automatically sign up the voters (only in the U.K. voters have to register BUT that is easy and can be done by phone or online with a few clicks, name, address, SS number, birth date. They had a catchy ad for the snap elections 2017 to remind the voters of that. Sure enough more than 1 million people registered within 2 - 3 weeks - 600,000 in the last 2 days before the deadline. These were first time voters or people that had moved. 1 million in a nation with a population of 65 millions. They all have paper ballot and hand count. The oldfashioned SAFE way that is IMPOSSIBLE TO RIG. And where the voters can follow the count and tabulation from a polling place to town / city / district / national level. On the level of the polling place the commission consisting of civil servants and representatives of parties have to sign off on the hand count result. A village may have only ONE polling place, but larger communities have of course many. In the U.S. t he vote (digital information that CAN be altered) is transfered from easily hackable voting machines (hacking can ALSO menat to cause malfunction. If the machines cannot be used for a few hours, tht is as well to suppress the vote in certain areas). Then the hackable digital information is transferred to a central tabulation place - and in Ohio the safety features of the voting machines have never been activated. And no one knows or can VERIFY WHAT happens at the tabulation place (Funky stuff happened in 2004 when Kerry unexpectedly "lost" in Ohio. Obama had the FBI at headquarters in 2012). In countries with functioning elections it would be highly unlikely that at the level of a polling place manipulation could happen - and that would be the ONLY place where it could happen at all. All representatives of all parties would have to agree to the manipulation, incl. the civil servants that would lose a secure job, a pension if they were found out - and all would have their day in court. For something that cannot even change the outcome of an election. One polling place would not make a dent - but if the results were very implausible then it would get attention. And if they would manipulate, but only a little bit - the effect would be even more negligible and the idea to take risks even more ridiculous. The results for every polling places in a town / city / district can be gotten by a FOIA request. Usually the numbers per city or district are published (intenet, newspapers - people like to see how their town voted). And you can do the count from there if you like (but you CAN dig deeper, they just do not publish it by default, because it would take up too much space and be more of a distraction. No one doubts the results at the base level - but if there would be any doubt incongruencies could be easily verified (for instance by a party that does not do well). The ONLY way to cover up would be to remove and destroy paper ballots in ONE pollint station only - of course while everyone in the commission at that polling place would need to participate in the election crime. So the fact that everything is VERYFIABLE makes sure that no one even TRIES to MANIPULATE the COUNT at the base level OR the TABULATION at the higher levels. And walking into your polling place and NOT being on the voter roll is unimaginable. It is not rocket science to have a register (data base) in the era of computers. To sign up people automatically with the birth certificate adding 18 years. Or to remove them with the death certificate. Voters should announce when they move (they do not always comply) - in that case they can exercise the vote only at their old place. It is also not rocket science to assign every voter a unique number that makes it very easy to verify in every state and throughout the country !! if a person votes more than ONCE or in two states. The problem is that it would rob the Republicans of a narrative/lie they like to spout - and it would make it impossible to purge voter rolls or to hinder people to cast the vote (in reality).
    1
  21. The presidency is not everything. The Houses are almost more important. And one can see how many spineless Dems bow over (just voted for a military budget that is even higher than what Trump demanded.
    1
  22. it is called thought stopping clichés - short phrases like freedom, choice, capitalism, socialism, Venezuela are thrown ou .. these terms imply a lot, everyone has a lot of ideas what they mean (as opposed of having an informed precise definition). And then throwing the "phrase" into the ring replaces thinking ABOUT the issue or facts. (both sides are guilty, but of course the right wingers are conditioned to use certain clichés to avoid meaningful debates - which they would lose. I borrowed the term from the discussion about destructive cults (like Scientology). - an example would be Ted Cruz in the townhall that he held with Bernie Sanders. He talked about "choice" or to offer certain groups (young healthy) the possibility to opt out (or have high deductibles). He talked about the "free market". That may sound superficially convincing. But he has never thought that through and derived the correct conclusions from the European systems (why are the public non-profit systems cost-efficient in a way that is IMPOSSIBLE for private for-profit systems). He is ideologically blinded - or he KNOWS and lies intentionally. The think tanks are of course eager to provide the "phrases". In a rational debate the healthcare discussion would be over (apart from the technical details how to get it done). the overwhelming majority of the population (who have the the vote !) would decide: we get good healthcare, the industry and the politicians get much less profits or campaigns contributions, and very wealthy people have to pay more. The majority can easily resign themselves to those downsides. From an economic standpoint this is good - the high income segment (including the rich owners of Big Pharma, Big Health and well-off politicians) can well exist with less money, they would not reduce their spending if they get less money, they hoard the money anyway there is not economic advantage in letting them have MORE. Good healthcare would increase the disposable income of regular citizens = good for the economy. The resources (time of medical staff administration would be used in a much more productive manner. The work would go towards delivering healthcare not shuffling the papers. It is a lot of work to deny care. that means the unnecessary adminstrative staff could be used for other purposes (can be government funded or be supported by increased consumer spending). Libraries, youth work, childcare, staffing civil services, smaller city buses. Or training some of the former insurance and hospital adminstrators to switch to care if it is a good fit.
    1
  23. Older voters are misled. Some are nice and gullible. And utterly convinced that THEY are informed and "know best" (Yeah, great country you have set up). Many are of the (financially secure) complacent I-got-mine-screw-you type. THEY HAVE SS and Medicare, and they foolishly believe a party that has become the party of big finance will protect their SS. Or their Medicare - Old people naturally cause much more spending than young ones (it is VERY disproportionate). That applies to all countries with a more developed medical system. - It is not helpful if healthcare costs double of what it should cost. - Medicare safe ? (even before corona) - THINK AGAIN. btw: It would have been the task of the Sanders campaign to explain THAT to older voters. THEY think it is safe when Biden says: ? I will not fundamentally change anything. Sanders had a line prepared for a debate calling him out on that (well his team prepared it for him). He. Did. Not. Use. It.
    1
  24. The party establishment and certainly the big donors do not mind if Trump gets elected. sure they would prefer Biden (and his handlers) or any other neoliberal - paving the way for the next and more skillful wannabe fascist.
    1
  25. I think Sanders was subconsciously self-sabotaging. Or that he is afraid of becoming an outcast like Ralph Nader. If avoiding being criticized by the party hacks, sellout politicians and gaslighting media (millionaires doing propaganda on behalf of the billionaires) is your first goal - you will make fear based WEAK choices. When the situation AND THE ELECTORATE wants BOLDNESS and LEADERSHIP.
    1
  26. Trump didn't give a shit in 2015 and 2016, all the negative coverage did not harm him - because he HIT a chord. Enough voters were fed up with the status quo (created and presided over by Obama and his VP Biden, not to forget SS Clinton). I saw a WSJ piece (on youtube), they had a sit down conversation with black voters in Georgia. One man: I voted Trump in 2016 and plan to vote for him in 2020 again. I knew in 2016 that he was not great on etiquette. I WANTED a bull in the china shop. This was either late 2019 or early 2020, before the corona crisis became relevant for the U.S.) Sanders is much better imformed (Trump is lazy, does not care about details, knows nothing, and is mean, brazenly corrupt and a white nationalist narcissist). But even by PLAYING the populist plus appealing to lower instincts (immigrants as scape goats) - he could make political hay. He told people HE was not going to sign TPP and help companies outsource. He even paid lip service to healthcare, he was going to give everyone (read U.S. citizens) wonderful healthcare. In 2016 Hillary Clinton gleefully, almost triumphantly told a crowd at a smaller rally: This country will never ever have single payer (yeah, the cost efficient system that they have in all outher rich countries. Most got it or overhauled their systems directly AFTER WW2 - and it is not as if the economy was great at the end of the 1940s in Europe). That was after she had "won" the nomination.
    1
  27. Recently Hillarz Clinton demanded that the Trump admin should open the exchanges again, so that people that had lost employer bassed plans could BUY in (you have to sign up for ACA EVERY year, in January, and of course the Trump admin shortened the time when that is possible). That was her let-them-eat-cake moment: Fed St. Louis survey in 2019 (allegedly with a "good" economy then. 40 % cannot come up with 400 USD in an emergency they would have to borrow. The corporate Democrats are SO craven, so detached and useless that even a moron like Trump with his unrealistic promises, no details, no plans, can look good to voters who could be won to turn out for a D candidate: Blue collars, lower income people, non-voters. Not the mythical suburban affluent "moderate" Republican. Those are just embarrassed by Trump, they would be very much O.K. if Pence would have the same despicable policies, but just served with MANNERS. Or Mitt Romney or neocon warmonger John McCain. In the end they will protect their money and continue the I-got-mine strategy.
    1
  28. SS secure under Trump OR a Corporate Democrat ? Big biz / big finance is against SS and / or they want to privatize it. (Tea party fraction prevented the normal Republicans from taking advantage of a dream come true when Obama offered them the Grand Bargain. The secret working group to privatize SS in the 2nd term of Bill Clinton was dismantled when the Lewinsky scandal broke. Bill Clinton wanted to do his buddies from Wallstreet the favor - but he knew there would be resistance and he did not want to fight at two fronts. So he did a 180 and I think improved funding for SS ("saving" it - it never needed saving, first - it has been looted for the wars. Second it needed tweaks - higher contributions by those who can easily ay them. Let the strong shoulders carry more of the burden. Joe Biden undermining SS just comes with the territory, he just dared to be more open about it. Mind you: ON THE FLOOR. He sang another tune in interviews (usually). On the floor he courted Republicans to vote with bills (all of them screwing regular people). Even if by chance a voter saw the C-Span footage, and had second thoughts if Biden REALLY was the friend of the working class - what was that voter going to do ? Write letters to neighbours, family and church members how Biden wasn't as he presented himself in the interviews meant for the sheeple ? Corporate media covered for Joe Biden, they too never showed THAT footage. And Biden could be very sure that Republicans would not use the footage either for attack ads. Showing Biden grandstanding (to Republican lawmakers and his donors) as the BETTER Republican. THAT sure politicians like Biden and the media fawning over him, were that they had the control over the narrative and over the mind of voters. No one assumed the old footage from the archives could easily be accessible for ALL voters, that media and party establishement could not control what information voters get. That voters COULD SHARE the old clips. And watch them at any time. at home or on a small mobile device. Biden, too had a public and a private position. And he advertised the "private" position (the stance of a Republican that is not rabidly against abortion and wit a D to his name) in broad daylight - among fellow lawmakers. One wonders WHAT was the talk behind closed doors ! He was not shy at all to speak his mind knowing there would be C-Span footage. Again as a Republican of course Biden will undermine SS. That comes with the territory as well. They have been openly and then covertly hostile towards SS and Medicare since they were implemented (in the 1930s and 1960s).
    1
  29. the U.S. WANTED ISIS to grow in SYRIA- to threaten Assad. John Kerry on record Sep. 2016: “The reason Russia came in is because ISIL was getting stronger, Daesh was threatening the possibility of going to Damascus and so forth. And that’s why Russia went in. Because they didn’t want a Daesh government and they supported Assad. “And we know that this was growing. We were watching. We saw that Daesh was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, however, we could probably manage, that Assad would then negotiate. Instead of negotiating, he got Putin to support him.” Remember how the U.S. / Nato supposedly fought against the terrorists. Did you ever wonder how they (a small army !!) were able to terrorize such a large area, never mind the resources needed for their actions in Western countries. (Of course that the West LET them sell the oil from occupied oil fields helped a lot with finances. The brother of Erdogan of Turkey was in the middle of that game). I strongly recommend to read the article in the NY Times (and note what they DID not report shortly before the elections) and then read the article on (edit the link, I used the (dot) - I did not want to be classified by youtube as spamming) http://mondoweiss(dot)net/2017/01/watched-manage-leaked/ The Times gives some context how the audio came about from this informal meeting with the representatitve of the Syrian "opposition". The audio is on youtube as well. The Times and CNN did not think it necessary to bother the voters with ALL the information in the audio - not shortly before the election. (CNN foolishly had the audio embedded for some time on their website - and it was taken from there and uploaded on youtube. On the CNN site it was removed though the article was kept).
    1
  30. 4:26 excellent point
    1
  31. Fairy godmother to Corporate Dems: Chose between 2 scenarios They can win the midterms in a landslide (so they can do damage control on Trump), in 2020 they win the presidency and get a supermajority in the Houses. Then they can SHAPE policies and the Supreme Court. Undo the damage caused by Trump. They can save the country, partially even the world (Global Warming) Getting reelected is EASY, campaigning is mostly pleasant, grassroots efforts. Their jobs, the salaries and benefits as representatives are secure. Oh - and they MUST switch to publicly funded campaigns, and small individual donations and no SuperPac Money. MONEY OUT OF POLITICS: Important. Also restrictions on the Revolving door. It gets much harder to cash in on pro Big Biz votes after they leave office. (Other Western "democracies" still have corruption and the politicians working for Big Biz because of THAT). So they must be content with the pay they are getting. And work for their constituency - not Big Donors. ****************************
    1
  32. Fairy godmother 2nd offered scenario: They can KEEP the MONEY in POLITICS. They continue to get Big Donations for party leadership and individual campaigns. And the whole lucrative circus for ex-politicians continues (incl. them becoming part of the election game, in media, as strategists or consultants). There are higher risks involved, one can lose a seat - therefore it is important to have served the party leadership + the Big Donors loyally. Then they will provide cushy jobs and lucrative contracts for ex politicians. **************************** The Corporate Dems can choose only ONE scenario (with all pro and cons of the package)
    1
  33. Now with so much at stake - What would the Democratic party choose ?....... Well, scenario 2 - MONEY - OF COURSE. P.S: Scenario 1) is realistic (even the super majority). - If they would rally behind a Sanders platform in a BELIEVABLE MANNER they could win convincingly and with increasing numbers.
    1
  34. + Lady Hawke - HRC did exacely and successfully what the Big Donors pay the Dems for - keep progressives away from power. They are supposed to win primaries, the GE does not matter. The Big Donors win either way. - Now, HRC would have liked to become president AND in that case the Big donors would have prefered her as well, Trump is uncough, has no manners and is erratic. And he draws unwanted attention.
    1
  35. Bernie 2020
    1
  36. +TheMorbidAtheist When Trump suggests an anti abortion judge, the hearings will be in fall - that will activate the voters. It is the question how much rigging is going on now the Supreme court has helped them one more time. I am conflicted because the Dems do not deserve a landslide win, it only confirms their ideas that they can get away with being a tiny bit less worse. On the other side... when the shills that won against progressives in the primaries NOW get enough votes they can stall any appointment. With a LOT OF HEAT.... from the base maybe they can be bothered to do that. and maybe Sanders in 2020 and continuing to build name recognition for progressives for Congress and Senate. The win of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York rattled the establishment. You can see it from the coverage on ALL networks incl. Faux News. The think tanks have supplied the scrips. "Socialism" " 100 percent taxation. - Ana Kasparian had an appearance on Fox News - and CNN is only slightly less hostile and ridiculous. I envision secret meetins in smoke filled back rooms where Big Donors, Republicans (especially never Trumpers) and the Dems meet to devise a good cop/bad cop strategy of how to contain the damned progressives. Whatever happens - no left populism - they had to endure the New Deal for decades.
    1
  37. Mike as far as I know ALL spending in the U.S. is currently 3,5 trillion USD - 10,240 per person (according to Keiser) times approx. 325 million people. that aligns plausibly with the approx. 17 - 18 % of GDP of a total GDP of 20 or 21 trillion. Now providing mobile home care for the elderly and disabled is not covered in the current per capita healthcare expenditures. - other nations have 4,700 - 5,600 USD (France, Japan, Germany - that is a usual range for a rich country). so that seems to be plausible.
    1
  38. If Sanders manages to push through good reform (with provisions like they have them in every other single payer country) that makes the private insurers almost obsolete * within a few years. That would be a very tangible improvement even for people to the right. Cost efficient good services for everyone. That might give him the leverage to tackle other projects - like money out of politics. FDR had that strategy: first bank reform and deposit insurance, right when he came in. That worked (60 millions out of then 90 million people hear the speech of the president sunday night, so you can imagine). he made a good impression. Then he had to strongarm some Democratic "representatives" to support other bills that helped the desperate population. They gave in, so the president got even more popular because the population experienced tangible relief - and they got hope that this president would really work for them. That gave FDR leverage for the next measures, .... His motto was: the old ways led to the crisis, the Republicans tried to fix it with conventional wisdom, didn't work. Let's try new things and quickly. If it does not work out, we can try something else or improve it. That strategy does not always work (certainly not to overhaul an existing healthcare system) - but some economic experiment can be tried on a smaller scale before being ramepd up. FDR was not afraid to experiment, and have some failures. Some projects unexpectely became very popular: recruiting young (unmarried) men and have them work in the woods of the North and North West. Pale malnourihsed city boys got some food, wages, sun, fresh air and a work out. Replanting trees etc. - Former military leaders lead these camps, their relatives were glad they earned some money and were far from a place where they could get themselves into legal trouble or get a girl pregnant. Family men did not have to compete with them over jobs. * the insurers (private, for profit or non-profit agency) are always middle men. The U.S. healthcare insurance industry are glorified administrative middlemen - who have no interest in controlling costs or bringing them down (Wendelll Potter) and they have very high administrative costs - and cause dysfunction elsewhere (with so many different packages billing is extremely complex for doctors and hospitals). If the Medicare agency gets reasonable budgets so they can pay for comprehenisve coverage, the services (for which they pay doctors and hospitals) will be good AND the "insurance" will be cost-efficient. Rich people will have their arrangements (out of pocket) - but even the affluent will not have a reason to have private insurance (an upgrade = supplemental) if Medicare gets funding comparable to other single payer agencies. Right now they have only the most costly age group - plus 65 years, and they cannot even negotiate drug prices ! So the private insurers had the stage set for them: a cherrypicked pool (people 0 - 64), they could negotiate drug prices (but don't - the only agency in the U.S. that is allowed to negotiate them brought them down by 40 %, and more should be possible). ACA propped up the for-profit industry (incl. for-profit hospital chains) by directing lots and lots of subsidies towards the overpriced dysfunctional system. If Medicare becomes the major game in town they have a very strong negotiating position. No hospital and not many doctors will be able to make do without the patients covered by medicare. That strong position is very much needed: most countries have NON-profit hospitals and the American Medical Association kept the number of graduates down. (AMA was very much opposed to Medicare in the 1960s they almost prevented it from being introduced). Unlike the paper shufflers from the insurance companies DOCTORS are really needed for the system. Of course their time will be put to better use with a streamlined admin and no more time on the phone with the insurance companies. even nurses have to call them on behalf of their patients. With Medicare (single payer) the agency sets up a framwork what is covered (all that is worthy of first world medicine) and the doctors are free to use the tools as they see fit. Now, in most single payer countries the hospitals are also non-profits - so the doctors make these decision without any pressure regarding profits. On the other hand the rates will be shart and one can hope that many hospitals will get into local control - so they set a benchmark for the profiteers. Sanders also has the rule in his bill to outlaw duplicative coverage. Medicare will cover all that is medically warranted (incl. basic dental, hearing aids, ...). If they offer coverage for something (after 4 years for everyone) - private insurers cannot offer that coverage. They are restricted to "nice to have" or non-essential things (expensive dental, accupuncture, laser eye surgery for short sightedness, ...) That restricts the healthcare insurers to the fringes. People can of course go to a doctor that does not accept Medicare insurance But they will not be able to offer private insurance for payment if Medicare would cover it, it will always be out of pocket payment then. That is a deterrent for patients and doctors. It will reduce it to services like dental, ... - and only if the doctor is really good or has another unique advantage to offer (like accupuncture). A competent doctor with acceptable waiting times should be standard and not require that you have to go to a "private" doctor while paying out of pocket.
    1
  39. Given the shenanigans of Republicans - it should be a black and white issue. ALL get to vote. The vile criminals still will vote for candidate on the ballot (which in theory should not be a criminal). So what ? It does not make a dent when in total 250 millions have the vote. The really bad guys are not that numerous. But the millions of non-violent offenders would get representation. In the U.S. poor mentally ill persons have a very good chance to end up in the prison system. In other countries hey have humane facilities and provisions (supvervised housing for instance, or living at home but with a social worker stopping by) for that. These people maybe also would be taken care of in a better manner if prisoners in general would HAVE REPRESENTATION.
    1
  40. if your introduce a qualifier like "grave crime" it gets more complicated, bureaucratic, costly - and it opens the opportunity for Republicans to "mistakenly" purge people (fellons, ex-fellons) that would have the right to vote. Remember the purge of 58,000 alleged fellons by Jeb Bush in 2000 in Florida (that really paid off, it likely decided the election and the GE). Part of the court settlement was that the data company had to rerun the process but this time USING MORE criteria. Turns out ofthe 58,000 purged 12,000 were not ex-fellons - but they whole list was disproportionally "black" Veterans, activists found themselves kicked off the voter lists that day and could not vote - or were told in front of the line that they could not vote because they were ex-fellons. A VERY STRAIGHFORWARD rule cannot be abused by the Republicansas pretext to steal the vote (and elections). The 2018 ballot initiative passed hat ex-fellons should get the vote restored in Florida, I will have to check how that goes. But I would be VERY surprised if the Republicans would just go along and not create 101 problems and then some - so the will of the people can be ignored.
    1
  41.  @J10005  That was the price he had to pay so that the former and First Black president would campaign for him - he should have called on Nina Turner and Senator Sanders instead !
    1
  42.  TheVirusSoftware  Beto very clearly spoke out against money in politics, and did so at the END of the campaign (when Gillum weaseled out of Medicare for All). As Senator he has 6 years to establish himself AND he has nothing to fear when ALL politicians would have to make do w/o the many ads and big money. If anything it would give HIM an advantage. Imagine Ted Cruz and Beto without the big bucks. Sanders got more than 230 million USD for his campaign for 2016 (their initial budget was 30 million USD). I do not think he WANTS to spend that money. But under the current system it is necessary - The best a candidate can do is to raise it mostly from regular people. If a politician has strong support of the grassroots it gives them at least the possibility to declare themselves independent from the party establishment and the Big donors. That is if they are not willing to be corrupted once the come into office Tulsi Gabbard likely got Big Money as well. And support from the Democratic machine. But she is so confident in her ability NOW to hold her seat w/o them that she DARED to endorse Sanders. She voluntarily stepped down as DNC vice chair as to not have conflicts of interest. She knew she got herself on the Clinton blacklist. She called out the U.S. on funding terrorists in the Middle East. She went to Syria and decided to check for herself and went against the party and mainstream narrative as well. She is CONTENT with the life and salary ! of a member of Congress and gives a damn that the party fiercly dislikes her now for being so independent. And she is sure she NOW can hold her seat on her own. So like Sanders she can dare and afford to speak her mind. Presidential material if you ask me. As for Gillum - the party establishment pressured him to renege on MfA - Florida is a large state. If Florida does their own thing that would be a big deal. but it is difficult. They are still forbidden by FEDERAL law to negotiate prices. And healthcare costs money, and the transition phase is complicated. Gillum would have been an ally if that becomes ripe - also by using his public platform. I assume he has career ambitions and did not want the offend the pary right away. BUT: he is a fresh apple. When under strict monitoring of the voters it should be possible to keep someone like Gillum fairly uncorrupted. (Howard Dean is another sellout - he got a fat post in the Financial industry. Not a peep about regulation from him. Progressives being corrupted is a real danger. BUT - Gillum would have been way, way better than DeSantis. Plus: another hit for the party establishment. No, you do not have to be a republican Lite to win. It would undermine their rational how progressives can't win. They ALMOST won uphill battles - in Florida, in Georgia, in Texas. Not sure how Ojeda did in WV. More to come from these states. This mess has developed since 1980 (1976 Supreme Court Money equals Free Speech).
    1
  43.  Eidelmania  + David vospor Gore chose or got ! Lieberman, Neocon, Israel Firster and a Blue Republian (I think he switched to the Rs later) as VP. - I think Al Gore also spoke out in support of the Afghanistan and Iraq war (Afghanistan was prepared in SUMMER 2001. 9/11 was a convenient pretext - and that is the benign assumption. Al Gore had the connections. Of course he knew that in 2001, and also that D.C. was buzzing with rumours regarding Iraq in 2002/2003. He certainly was aware that the Cheney admin leaned heavily on the CIA to provide evidence. And they went after dissenters and the UN weapons inspectors). Al Gore would not have reigned in the banks - so they would have gone bust under him like they did under Cheney / Bush. He could not be bothered during the campaign in 2000 or after the "loss" to defend the right of voters when Jeb Bush purged them in masses. It was headline news in Europe well before Novermber. He and Clinton COULD have done something about it. D's purge voter rolls too, not as often and brazenly as the Rs and more in the primaries to get rid of blue collar FDR style Democrats and progressives. That is what the donors pay them for. So the Democratic Party usually does not make a fuzz about election stealing, they sit in the glasshose. The Big donors and the party establishment like the possibility that primaries OR general elections can be rigged. Good to have that in the tool box. Dems winning the GE is not necessary form the point of view of the Big donors. If Democratic politicians play along with the money interests they are handsomely rewarded when they leave politics or lose a race. Al Gore did not stand up for the black men of Florida, for the integrity of the elections in general, for the constitutional right to vote (you bet that emboldened the crooks in the GOP) - and he also showed little fight for his bid for the presidency. As if it was more an automatic logical career step after having been VP for so long. As opposed to REALLY wanting to become POTUS. To SHAPE things - against FIERCE resistance if that had been good for the voters or the environment. Party leadership told Al Gore to go quietly, the Big Donors did not want the unwashed masses to be activated and enraged. Dems wanted the presidency - but keeping the money and the Donors happy is even more important. The sheeple must not be alerted, question the "democracy" or detect their power if they organize in masses and take it to the streets. Plus it would have KEPT public awareness ON the stealing of elections and opened a way for the shocked voters to funnel their anger into powerful restistance. (The unions had offered help - Gore declined). Al Gore complied with the stand down order - and is very rich now ! The only good thing: he might have done more against climate change. But given the opposition of the money interests against any meaningful measures and his tendency to roll over before being pushed - not even that is certain. He might not have been asleep at the wheel regarding 9/11. Lieberman was happy with the Cheney / Bush war agenda in the Middle East. But it is possible the Al Gore had no intention to set the Middle East on fire. Again not sure if he would have withstood the war machine eager to create more conflict, a pretext for testing the toys and more spending into the pockets of the contractors.. Obama went along quite willingly with the Cheney / Bush war and regime change agenda (7 countries in 5 years - Gen Wesley Clark). Although Obama talked a different game on the campaign trail and did not chose an ideologue / war monger as VP). Come to think of it: Bush2 also talked "peace" when campaigning in 2000.
    1
  44. It is the other way round. Things must go swimmingly for the voters, after all they can't be bothered (O.K. 44 % of 80,000 people, it is not nothing, but then Nina has been in local politics and Brown is a newcomer tht is a crook. Also engaged in the local DNC org - THAT may have helped.  The black district of Cinncinati must be in great shape, that people can afford to completely ignore politics. - The oligarchs and their shills KNOW that they can spread lies about Nina Turner, she can have an ethics investigation. The sheeple stay at home and those that do go vote are more those that that stand to benefit from the status quo. I wonder if Republicans also voted in the primary. It was a few percent of likely 80,000 votes cast, but Turner fell short of maybe 3,000 - 4,000 votes. AOC was lucky that Joe Crawley had a close to date polling that worked under the assumption of business as usual (the same people, will turn out and he had a sufficient if not impressive lead. AOC changed WHO turned out).  It is possible that her on the ground game was stronger than Nina's. Only approx. 25,000 people voted in the 2018 primary in NY 14th, so her grassroots work had more leverage.
    1
  45. How to argue with "liberals": compassion, justice, fairness. With "conservatives": empathy isn't their strong suit, but loyalty is or pragmatic considerations (like saving costs, no more networks, being independent from employer provided healthcare, recruiting advantige for small biz, cost savings for those companies which already provide plans).
    1
  46. Hi Mike SERIOUSLY - GET a mail-list from folks - there is a reason the DNC would like to get their hands on the Sanders list - if you do marketing courses on the web you will hear that you need to "control the real estate" on which you build your biz. That means there is no landlord who can get rid of you. In any business it is necessary that no business partner can suddenly pull the rug from under your feet - suddenly pulling out the money or a landlord kicking you out when you developed the space. - patreon allegedly kicked out some right (or very right wing) channels from their site. - so if the establishment really wanted to hinder a Sanders run in 2020 - some sites might come under pressure. A good email list is an asset. If people are told to add you to their address list, your mails will come into the inbox not into the spam or "marketing material" folder. (marketers give those instructions very precise to the new receiver when they send the mail with the link to confirm the subscription (double opt-in) If you send only 1 mail a month to keep in contact people will not get overwhelmed (I have such subscriptions with very occasional mails). But in case the channel gets shut down on any other platform (youtube, facebook, twitter) you can alert people immediately. Over a medium that you fully control. (Occasional bonus videos in those monthly mails could keep people willing to keep subscribed. There a very low cost senders for bulk mail (Aweber is one of them). you cannot send those mails over your gmail account - you would be classified as spam soon. And you also cannot run your own mailserver. However some of them do not give you the mail addresses if you want to leave (I seem to remember that Aweber is one of them). such email service companies often include sales funnels. (The database is with them, when receivers change their data or unsubscibe they do that online with direct acces to that database). Mail sequences: That means if one mail is opened (or not) it triggers a certain sequence of mails being sent over a period of time (prepared in advance for the sales process). The intention is of course to to sell something. - so these varieties and options are not needed for a political channel and from that point of view a basic offer from one of the cheaper providers would suffice. It is more about being able to send a mass mailing via a company that is whitelisted by gmail, yahoo, etc. and also is well able to secure their servers. And can do a double opt-in - so you are legally safe.
    1
  47. So what ? if spending 1 or 2 million puts a strain on you then the insurers (a public non-profit single payer agency or a private insurance company) are the gatekeeper for you to get the medical services you need. Insurers are always administrative middleman. If an non-profit insurance agency gets the same budget per person and the pools are comparable ! (age, risks, no cherrypicking that the private insurers take only the "good" people) they always give you more bang for your buck. (that is systemic and applies in every country, but especially in the U.S. with their dysfunctional overpriced system). Most nations have non-profit public insurers that have contracts with non-profit hospitals (run by cities or states). And contracts with doctor practices (that are like small companies). Most doctors need the patients with the public coverage so enough of them will accept the contract. The U.K. did one better, the NHS is "insurer" (collecting money and taking care of the data base and paying the bills). And the NHS is ALSO provider because they run hospitals and doctor practices. That allows for unprecedented cost-effiency - but the NHS is seriously underfunded.
    1
  48. 2017 healthcare spending per person of nations (Keiser Foundation also see World Bank). The U.S. 10,260 USD for every person in the country on average. Most wealthy nations (usually with some form of single payer) are in the range of 47 - 56 %, the most common range is 50 - 54 % (Sweden, Finland, Austria, ....), Germany 56 %. France Belgium, Australia, Canada even below 50 % ....and then there is the U.K. with 42 % of U.S. spending levels. I looks like first world medicine with a certain age structure needs around 5,400 - 5,800 USD per person per year (level 2017). Or a little less if you are France, Belgium, Iceland, Japan .... If the NHS would get the proper funding (which would of course show up in the per capita healthcare expenditures of the nation) the U.K.would still be at the lower end of the average rich nation - and the NHS would run like a charm. Which would of course do away with all pretext why it has to be privatized or why they would need private contractors to make the NHS "better". The Tories have been openly hostile towards the NHS (foudned in 1948) in the 1950s, but they had to tone it down, because the voters loved it (incl. their own base, they cannot win with the vote of the affluent and rich only). Thatcher promised to leave the NHS alone to get elected but had of course other plans. Her inner circle implored her to leave the NHS alone (they should have let her !), they feared the backlash. even when run cost-efficiently (so as little private for-profit as possible) healthcare is 7 - 11 % of GDP in most wealthy nations, again the usual rate is 8 - 10 % (or 19 % in the U.S.). Even only 8 % is a large part of the national economy. The Tories have always found it very offensive that it should be mostly off limits for the profiteers, "investors" and the landlord class. The crisis caused by the banksters was a welcome pretext to have austerity and to defund the NHS (that had a lean budget to begin with). Running it into the ground was the necessary condition to "justify" more private contractors. Which do nothing to make things more cost-efficient, they add complexity, dysfunction and extract profits. And no doubt donate to the Tories and provide cushy jobs for former politicians.
    1
  49. Wages are easy to compare. Healthcare plans with unsure ! quality as part of the payment are much harder to compare. Or everyone has MfA no matter where they work. - Only when you desperately need a (employer) healthcare plan you know what they are worth. When everyone has the same coverage and gets it at the same providers there is maximum political pressure - of course even a streamlined non-profit insurance agency must have enough budget to pay sufficiently high compensations to doctors and hospitals (not the extortion schemes now - that would be much harder to pull off with one powerful agency) - but enough. Republicans would be on the war arth to defund it and the Dems are not much better. But if 328 million people all share the same system they can scare the heck out of sellout politicians. Companies avoid hiring older workers, smaller companies often fire a worker when he/she or a family member needs more costly treatments. So that the premiums are not going up.
    1
  50. The voters (that would vote for Sanders) by and large do not read the New York Times. But they give the shills the platform to show who they are. They just need enough rope to hang themselves. I was under the impression that the NYT agrees that the planet is warming and that most of it comes from humans burning fossil fuel and that leads to highly disruptive climate change. So .... what is their plan to do something about it ?
    1