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

  1.  @masterofalltrades999  I agree - the heart attack was a set back - the media already thought they could endlessly discuss that. But he bounced back, strong performance at the debate and the spike with the endorsement. Also it cannot be dismissed (if they had known that he was going to have health problems ...)  - if the heart muscle was not damaged because of lack of oxygen (likely not considering his speedy recovery) he will now be BETTER off. He got a check and his fuel rods were cleaned. The other arteries are free - and he did a rigorous schedule while already feeling the effects of the blockage. (he said that he noticed that he was easier fatigued and did not sleep well - he is known for having lots of energy - that manifested in the last 2 months. He said: "I was dumb to not pay attention and go to the doctor earlier". Jane nodding in the background. Now he is getting the full oxygen flow again. He looks good, feels already well and likely will be at it with a slightly reduced schedule.
    1
  2. ? Lite ? He is a Republican that does not yell to end abortion.
    1
  3. + sockPuppet80 Beautfully put
    1
  4. Sanders also does not fundraise, may be one reason he is an Independent, after the convention he immediately left the Democratic party which he had joined for the primaries.He gives support as HE sees fit by holding rallies, maybe he is willing to send out a mail on behalf of a candidate asking for funds (his people organize that, the DNC does not get the mail list).  AOC can run as Independent next time if she continues to build her profile. She is no lawyer and needs the help of others to form the agenda into a legal text anyway. Usually the lobbyists give them the texts - well that is not an option if working For The People. There are already enough bills and laws. Voting against bills can be as important as creating MORE of them. Most do not help the people anyway. She can give the insider info, alert the voters of what is going on while they do not pay attention. With the attempted ACA repeal it came down to TWO dissenting votes ! She could have talked in 2009 about how in the Senate hearing only the industry was invited, not the nurses, no experts on single payer. Obama got a pass for being first black president, for hope and change, and because the racists attacked him.  Sanders was the one vote that gave the Dems the majority in the Senate ! The "Freedom caucus" = the Tea party wing forced the Republicans to shut the government down, literally. AOC can get a lot done as part of a progressive caucus (they have one - but in name only). About time MORE progressives come in. And she can make the other shills make look really bad. In short she will not get bills introduced or passed BUT she can be part of the minority opposition that annoys the heck out of the establishment. That too is an incredibly important role. So if the Dems - again - show a willingness to use SS as bargaining chip to placate the Republicans and to do the bidding of the Big Donors (which finance both parties) AOC can scream it from the roof tops. Which in turn puts some pressure on the Black and the so called Progressive Caucus. We have the video clips of Sanders being the lone voice of dissent (literllay almost all seats are empty). No one thought these C-span recordings would be watched later.
    1
  5. The party wants to ignore AOC because she does not fundraise = kiss the ass of rich donors ? they can explain that to the VOTERS. (Who are not for Big Money in politics. D + R - screw Money in politics). in the noon breaks most "representatives" wander to nearby offices rented by the party. the aide has the list with the potential donors plus some small talk info (children, dog ...) They also call the donors of the other party. (We see you gave the Rs - maybe you could consider us as well. Translation: It is always smart to bribe both sides. 5000 for the Rs means 2000 for the Ds) They call it the cubicles of sweat and fear. the aides keep the "representatitives on track" in this hated work. at midday chances are best to reach the big Donors. They do not waste time on small donors. Of course not. So they literally play nice all the time with rich people and listen to their agenda. The fundraising dinners might be nice sometimes (I assume even that gets boring over time) but everyone hates the CALLCENTER part. They spend 30 or even 40 % of their time to chase the donations (that is not only dialling for dollars of course). This is time when they should READ, THINK, have conversations with the voters or with experts. And RELAX with family and friends to recharge the batteries. Or READ the bills with the aides to fully understand them. Like any sleazy sales operation the parties show the best sales person of the week or the month, and who is on track with the target etc. (A secretely filmed video showed a chart in the hallway). A Republican congressman gave info in general AFTER he left politics (or had at least made the decision and no doubt secured another cushy job). With a hidden camera they made it into one of the callcenters (I do not know if D or R). The policians have to pay RENT for using the fundraising facilities - they are forbidden by law to call the donors from the House. Meanwhile Sanders could wander to the laundry station - maybe even talk to regular people. Read, think, eat a meal to recharge. I think in order to become a politician one must have some ego and some alpha personality traits (or wanting to be a teacher - like Sanders). So it must really suck to having to kiss the ring during fundraising. Who goes into politics to beg people on the phone for political parties. Good lobbyists or course mastered the skill to make the politicians feel comfortable with them and NOT like the sellouts which they are.
    1
  6. has anyone seen Sacha Baron Cohen fool Republican elected representatives (Congress and Senate !) and one radio host and former politican . It does not get any more stupid than that (He once met Tony Benn (UK) while being disguised and recently also Sanders under the disguise to be a disabled vet - both appeared to advantage, especially Benn was charming. it helps if you THINK for yourself, are not rabidly ideological, and it is not the party or think tanks who give you the talking points and tell you how to vote. AOC - if she never gets any bill introduced - will beat these guys simply by showing up.
    1
  7. Maybe she should run as Independent just to spoil it for the Dems - it worked for Sanders in the mid 80s, and for Trump in 2016 (if the Rs would cheat him of the nomination he would run as independent). In a 3 party race the Republican won and Sanders was second. So the Democrat was the spoiler. And the potential voters KNEW they would not "waste" their vote - that he actually had a chance to win. Next time the Democrats did not run a candidate, they saved the money. And Sanders won. (Congres 1991) The agreement with Sanders was that he would caucus with them. Which was a good fit anyway (so he could become part of a committee). The only problem is that Sanders then did not pose a threat to the power structure - now they will not allow any successes of newcomers - to stiffle other attempts.
    1
  8. You forgot the tooth fairy !
    1
  9. Dr. Mike Hansen did a video when the second independent autopsy report came out. (he is qualified in intense care, internal medicine and pulmunology). Excellent communicator, check it out or refer people to it if they doubt what Floyd died of.
    1
  10. I noticed that - we count our blessings (not too many) The DemoCraps reached their goal. The house but not too much power - they would run out of excuses why they do not better for the voters.
    1
  11. + Novusod I think it was a political project for her, something that would benefit the reputation of her husband and build her brand. Nothing wrong with that - although real passion for the cause would carry you farther (especially when there is stiff oppostion) and might achieve a better deal for the little people. She and Bill came from the tradition of working with the insiders, the "machine". Making deals, talking to powerful people. Maybe to get things FOR the unwashed masses, but not to achieve it WITH the plebs. I think she did at least some speaking events, maybe a tour. (and she had the assistance of Sanders then, who was in Congress). Now, the powerful special interests were not about to roll over meekly. They attacked her - unfairly - and pandered to sexism of course. Everything they thought that could distract from the message and undermine her credibility or sympathy with the public. And the media gladly assisted by not having a substantiated debate. And in the 90s it was much harder to circumvent them. Well I guess Clinton could have made her own Radio show, and build public support over time - that would have been the strategy of someone with a passion for the cause, willing to play the long game (as opposed to go for some seemingly low hanging fruits and pull off a politcal win). She is ambitious, so I guess the defeat hurt - but that is nothing compared to the harm done to the voters. Empathy and passion could have given her the energy to pursue that topic longer. - That alone would have secured her the presidency in 2016. She got defeated, pulled off some programs for kids (at least that) - moved on and never looked back. She and Bill continued to be powerful figures in the party - but they did not touch the issue anymore. "This country will never, ever have universal healthcare ! " Clinton in 2016 when the concept became more and more popular and KNOWN. She said that with a lot of emphasis, almost in a triumphant manner. (Expressing regret or worry that the U.S. might not be ready for what the rest of the wealthy countries have, would have sounded differently). Maybe it was the frustration that Sanders stole her thunder all the time - that he had the issues that really interested and moved people - and which forced her to react to it or to amend her message. And maybe envy that HE could be able to pull off where she was defeated in the 90s. Considering the tone and the body language of that "outburst" - this was about her and her bruised ego - never mind the people who are worried, desperate, lost loved one due to lack of coverage or timely treatment. It was not the statement of a person who really, really wants their fellow citizens to enjoy the benefits of good healthcare like the citizens of all other wealthy nations.
    1
  12. If only all Gary Johnson voters had voted for Hillary Clinton (never mind he is now an Libertarian and was a Republican before)
    1
  13. A traditional responsible parent (stay at home mum) would watch what the kids are eating and offer healthy meals (homecooked). Now that family and lifestyle model does no function anymore. Kids stay a major part of their day away from home, and eat the food they get there. And let's get real: junk food and sweets etc. DO HAVE APPEAL*. If not, there would be no need for responsible parents to watch the food choices of their kids. - So that dumb Fox speaker a) states that many people do "take" unhealthy "choices" like donuts and b) HOW DARE Michelle Obama infringe on the "freedom" of immature kids to eat unhealthy stuff (because if the healthy food is all that is available, there is a better chance kids will end up eating THAT instead of the unhealthy stuff. The effect could be even better if the kids have cooking classes.) I saw this video of a Canadian doctor: It's Definitely Not "Just One", And You Can't "Just Say No" on YouTube How Big Food (Nestle, Coca Cola, ....) bought their way into school activities. "Our kids cannot as much as bend a grass blade on the sports ground without being "rewarded" with some prize they provide, like a pizza, or a burger + some softdrink, some sweets, .... We train them that rewards come in the form of unhealthy food. Kids go to the movies to see "Frozen" at 9.00 a.m. in the morning and the parents are asked if they want to take "advantage" of the special offer (something unhealthy, very sugary). in what position does that the parents put who DENY their kids that extra junk food. As he said: "My daugther was excited to go to the movies INSTEAD of class, there was no extra incentive needed" and also "We do eat snacks and fast food etc. - but it should not be presented as the only incentive, it should be the exception, not the rule - and you should have to go out of your way to get the stuff. Right now it is the other way round: Companies with the help of trusted teachers bombard the kids with the unhealthy stuff and kids and parents have to go out of their way to get the healthy stuff. The food industry co-opts the schools, charity fund raising for children hospitals, even JUVENILE diabetes is supported by selling cookies at retail stores. They sponsor reading incentives, school sports events. They have their lobbyists quite openly at the board of official committees which decide about guidelines for nutritions. It is very CHEAP PR for them, trusted persons of authority help them (for a little contribution to the school budget) to make impressionable kids customers for life. And if that is going on in Canada it is likely worse in the U.S. And then we BLAME the population for eating unhealthy. There is a biological allure of fat and sweet food, that can be consumed without chewing it properly (and without the fibre content). And the industry does everything to promote that over healthy choices. Such food is the easiest anti-stress measure people can take to unwind (exercise would be healthier but needs more INITIAL effort and of course more time). It is not that we make bad food choices, we live in a weird food environment that makes it very hard to resist. We have it hard to stay and eat healthy despite the coordinated efforts of industry and government to the opposite effect. Another thing that doctor said: "We try to live and eat healthy, we object to many things that most teachers and parents seem to accept without thinking much about it." (like the constant sponsoring using unhealthy sugary food) And that makes US almost the weird ones. It should be the other way round. sometimes you do not want your child to be the outsider (with the "weird" food, while everyone else has the widely accepted unhealthy snacks and fast food). There are only so many Nos a parent has, they are a powerful tool, we should not be forced to waste them on the unhealthy food temptations that constantly surround us.
    1
  14. 1:55 I am pleasantly surprised by Tom Perez (sure he made a pivot to the centrist candidate later, but he SAID Medicare for All). Tom Perez: "She ran a fantastic campaign, the role of women leading the charge ...." (it IS true that many of the non-traditional candidates ARE women, the call of Sanders for grassroots candidates encouraged women ! who did not "see" themselves as candidate material)
    1
  15. Good ! - if that entitled spoiled prick born with a silver spoon in her mouth EVER wanted to run for any office - the outburst is on record and can be used against her. - She wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for her last name. The (mediocre) education her wealthy background bought her did her no good - or she is intentionally untruthfull and misleading. No Venezuela was not the 5th wealthiest country, maybe she meant in Latin America- well that is a low bar in the 1970s and 80s - if IF it is true. Venezuela had a severe economic crisis with a lot of protesters killed by a right wing dicatorship in that time. Never mind extreme poverty. Whoopi won an Oscar, and had a career (she made something of her comedic and acting talent). Sunny has poise, she is an elegant lady and is a lawyer. Compare that to the proverbial arts degree that MM holds. In another video (an interview) she also admits that she was not interested in economics when on college and that she cannot comment on economic matters. Joy is a no nonsense woman, with personality and life experience (although she talks nonsense from time to time. The other blonde seems to be genuinely nice. McCains jobs seems to be abrasive. She is not very good when she does the apologizing for the Republicans ("both sides do it") or when she delivers the usual think tank lines (it is the same old same old - no original thought or formulation).
    1
  16. 35:00 paying down the debt worked fine after WW2 - 30 % of GDP in the early 1970s versus 119 % in 1947 (war debt). But that was not accomplished wit austerity, on the contrary. Lots of gov. spending and high taxes for the rich and profitable biz went back to the government. Part of it was spent, part nulliefied the debt resp. they did not have to give out a lot of bonds. These days the rich buy bonds and get that money paid out with interest. Back in the day they paid taxes and that was it.
    1
  17. Stephen Colbert: Life begins at conception and ends at the Rio Grande. That was in summer 2018 because of family separation at the border. Which Shapiro has mecilessly criticized I am sure. - That: or he wants to stay relevant wants the rating, and an abortion rant is always good for that (in the U.S. maybe not. In Poland they have now a reactionary government, but even they backed down when the women were furious about the planned restriction of the already restricted access). The Democrats use the same tactics btw: both parties are financed by the same donors. They have no intention of giving the voters anything that would cost the Big Donors. So gun rights/regulation, abortion, gay marriage. Both parties try to get the the base excited and try to look different to them. As long as it is not about issues that would reduce profits. So the Republicans do racism (gotta scratch together the votes somehow), the Democrats have other forms of identity politics and now they work with "Nasty Trump".
    1
  18. Amazing how many clichès you throw around. Isn't that the wrong channel for you, you should hang out with Fox News or the likes of Ben Shapiro.
    1
  19. Citizenship is NOT a privilege, voting is not a privilege (that btw has been confirmed by the Supreme court). Unlike a drivers licence for instance which is privilege. Now the 14th amendment leaves it to the STATES if they want to deny prisoners all of sudden the right to vote - but in the same sentence they also deny all Native Americans the right to vote - so that provision might be a little outdated.
    1
  20. The priority was the right to vote * that would include automatic voter registration * and the issue touches also on the question of voting for ex-fellons or fellons. - Which in turn led to the most sensationalist, stupid, yellow-press style framing: Should the Boston Bomber be able to vote (assuming he kept citizenship, he was naturalized just short before the attack, they may have had legal grounds in THIS case to revoke citizenship). But of course there are other terrible people that can distract from the fact that mass incarceration is racially charged, and that many people are locked up for small offenses and NON-VIOLENT crimes. But why care about the implications it has when millions of black men cannot vote for life - versus the relatively few vile criminals (few compared to 250 millions that have the vote). It was one of many gotcha questions for Sanders as well. - restoring voting rights for the incarcerated is a side issue. That was used for a hit job. What this is really about: to deprive the Republicans of a pretext to kick people (that ar NOT ex-fellons or fellons) OFF the voter lists. It won them Florida in 2000 (58,000 people were purged off the lists under the pretext that they were ex fellons - there is no indication btw that the ex-fellons tried to exercise the vote, they just were on the rolls. Part of the settlement of the court case was that the data company had to rerun the selection but this time considering MORE criteria. Then they found out 12,000 out of the 58,000 people had been DENIED the right to vote - and indeed many Floridans that day who voted on a regular base found that they were told that they could not vote. Remember GWB "won" with a few hundred votes. https://www.thenation(dot)com/article/how-the-2000-election-in-florida-led-to-a-new-wave-of-voter-disenfranchisement/
    1
  21. A fail-proof way to make sure no one can vote more than once etc. and that people are registered automatically at age 18 and that dead people are removed all of that would make voting EASIER for citizens. And a RIGHT to vote would also have ramifications for spending (so no broken outdated voting macheins to the poor areas. When they malfunction it only keeps poor people waiting for hours - that is another excellent way to suppress the vote. And it is hard to PROVE the criminal energy behind it. Having the right to a technically functioning election system (best case - paper ballot, and hand count, that is very ROBUST and unhackable technolgy) would make voting easier. or that election day would be a holiday.  (so again no PRETEXT for purges, when there is a nation wide SYSTEM in place). Voters are purged (in Republican states) simply because someone did not vote for some time. Even if the person did not check out, and moved, and registered elsewhere and votes there - so WHAT ? In the times of computers it does not matter if the lists are longer. The only problem would be if people would vote in one place and then at the place where they used to live. WHO is going to do that - out of 250 million that do have the vote ?? Of course assigning an unique number to each and every person would easily SOLVE that issue (and again deprive the Republicans of a pretext to get millions of people with ethnic names on a purge list. See Crosscheck 2016. A Robert Brown voted in more than one state in the same election. That must have been someone voting double, no chance that there could be more than one Robert Brown in the U.S. And of course they did not include middle name, SS number or birth date into the comparsion. Because then it could become VERY obvious that these were different people. An unique number would put an end to such criminal efforts to steal the vote from citizens. Then they could make sure immediately if someone is registered double, if a purge was done it could be done according to where did the person VOTE in the LAST 2 elections. (I mean they could run the numbers after each election, not problem in the age of high performance computers and fast processors). Tiffany Trump and some admin members still had old registrations. That does not mean of course that they voted double, they just did not check out, when they moved. State governments before purging inactive voters have to pay lip service to the law: they send out very bland cards with warnings to inactive voters that they would be purged under the assumption that they had moved or were dead. The DESIGN of these mass mails was to be inconspicuous. So there was a good chance they would be overlooked by the citizens as irrelevant advertisement. Then the voters would not respond and - hooray would find themselvea hindered to vote on election day. Needless to say these are the same states that do not have same day registration (it would undo the whole point of kicking SOME demographics off the voter rolls). That of course would be very much disliked by Republicans - it would rob them of any pretext to do voter roll purges. Republicans steal elections, Democrats do voter roll purges in primaries - Greg Palast. That explains btw also why they were yelling Russian interference but could not be bothered to do anything about hackable voting machines or Ohio were the safety features have never been acitvated. In case of a progressive "emergency" it would be good to have those tools of voter suppression. After all the Big Donors FINANCE the Democratic politicians so that they keep the progressives down. For that they must win primaries - but not necessarily the GE.
    1
  22. imagine the stubborn, childish, selfish people that make that worse, the U.S. could have been out of the woods since early summer, because it has enough vaccines and had them very early. If everyone that can get vaccinated would do so, it would be much, much better. They would have some breakthrough cases in the hospital, same close monitoring, oxygen to help them out (which is not intensive care, they can do that even at home or at care homes), after 5 - 7 days they are released, no ICU necessary. Even with Delta - the vaccinated are not as good spreaders. Delta can somewhat undermine immunity but it might have run its course w/o the many willfully unvaccinated. 30 - 40 % of the people over 12 vaccinated is just not enough to stop the infection chains for a highly contagios disease. I get concerns about teenagers - but all the better vaccination morale of adults has to be.
    1
  23. Meanwhile Joe Biden stumbles from one gaffe to the next.
    1
  24. In the Hamptons they have a problem finding service sector workers. the Mexicans can't come because of the pandemic they do not get work visas. In the service sector workers were not paid enough to make a living THERE (rent is very expensive). Now they got some unemployment benefits OR work for themselves and maybe in another area (Louis Rossman talks about it). Rich people want to throw a party but can't find a caterer not even if they pay more. They could have paid more all along and that would have allwowed the people serving them to live a little better, but it is perferable that they barely scrape by and struggle. And that they have to work a LOT (or have a long commute !), then they are too busy to get ideas. And the rich and the companies are MIFFED. They told the workers they can work elsewhere if they don't like it or that they can leave - and the the workers did that.
    1
  25. AOC said it beautifully: I do not want to alter the party as they say - I want to bring the party home. (in an event in Iowa for Sanders).
    1
  26.  @thesummerland6165  Interesting that you felt the pollster tried to sway you. Usually they should be super neutral (voice etc.). - But we should not be all to surprised if it comes out that they masssage the polls in some ways. Polls to shape not to observe public opinion. I read a comment that someone was called and Sanders was not even on the menu (Buttigieg or Biden). Likely a campaign paid poll and they use it for propaganda. The polls of cable TV, newspapers and universities should be up to standards. Of course even correct phrasing can be biased. M4A will lead to payroll taxes - do you approve of it ? Technically correct but incomplete.  btw: if you were called on the phone and they sounded like American - there is a good chance that a prisoner does that work. for a pittance.
    1
  27.  @thesummerland6165  as the saying goes: Never believe a poll that you didn't massage yourself.
    1
  28. .
    1
  29. Denmark, Sweden kept their currency (and the poorer countries like Hungary etc, because their economy was not strong enough). greece#s was not strong enough either (and they are a small country with 10 million people) but they were allowed in.
    1
  30. On the other hand: Warren took out Bloomberg. I think Sanders stood in his way. it is as if he self sabotaged. And of course the skillful operation "Obama" they saw their chance and they seized it.
    1
  31. fishing for single issue voters !
    1
  32. Maybe you could tell your family in 1 or 2 weeks (see I am fine) you never know maybe someone else also got secret shots already. And telling them: I hope I am not the only surviving memer of my family might snap them out f it.
    1
  33. Jeff Weaver (campaign manager of Sanders in 2016) in an interview in 2017: We planned with 30 million USD from small donations. (Thanks to the generosity of people we got approx. 230 million USD). - Of course they did not expect that they would get that far and could acutally give Clinton a run for her money. And Sanders waited and coordinated with Warren BEFORE he announced. He would not have entered the race if Warren had run - but Liz did not want to offend the Clinton machine. (and she stayed silent and on the sideline during the DAPL protests). Warren could be prez now - Sanders would have been an enthusiastic endorser and surrogate. Warren would have been attractive for many women that liked Clinton very much - and they could not leverage the "sexist card" against her.
    1
  34. TWO restaurants and they made 242,000 net loss in 2018 (with a reported600k income in 2018, I guess that means revenue).The widely reported food poisoning case one year before likely did not help ;) He spent time in jail (indicent exposure and domestic violence, both date back to 2004 when they were already dating - she was in the bowling alley where he showed his penis to several women - really smart. And he struck her). Eviction / home foreclosure in 2010. How does a man that now allegedly is worth repeated 460 k contracts fail to make enough money in 2010 to hold on the a house. (2019 and 2020 - note that she must have contacted the donors before she officially entered the race in Jan 2020, so in 2019) He used to work as an oil well site supervisor. That is not a 400 - 500 k position / qualification. A supervisor in the oil industry makes enough to keep a family afloat if the wife knows how to hold the money togehter even with 4 boys. Even with some boom / bust cycles if they put money aside in case he should be let go. But a supervisor / foremen position dooes not pay that much. The restaurants (2 and both gun themed) were opened in 2013 and 2016, looks like someone would actually have to take care of them, if he is not interested in working as supervisor for the industry, that could be his job. I can only imagine the 4 boys (age 14 - 7 in Jan. 2020).
    1
  35. @Daniel James It came out that the Trump admin put pressure on the U.K. government to have a hard Brexit (even under May) and to allow the privatization of the NHS (Corbyn showed the documents). - In case some voters at the doorstep tell you about British sovereignty. Johnson would be the bitch of the U.S. special interests and a hard brexit would set up the U.K. in desperate need to get into the good graces of the U.S. admin and the oligarchs behind it. In essence that would make the U.K. the poodle of the U.S. government and the oligarchs behind it (if a Republican or standard Democrat becomes president). So much for "we take back sovereignity". I guess a soft Brexit that allows to take railway, water back into public hand would be the best, negotiated by Labour of course after they win. Ideally with a president Sanders sworn in in January 2021. The U.S. insurance industry and the for-profit hospital chains prepare for the worst - that Sanders (or another progressive) can push through a real reform and private 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, any deal) to sell out the NHS. On the other hand president Sanders and PM Corbyn might quickly find common ground (also on Middle East policy) - 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. and the pound to) 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 it, and reasonable costs because of 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.
    1
  36. The Hill article was a right-wing hit piece. Info about the author: Kristin Tate is a libertarian writer and author of “How Do I Tax Thee? A Field Guide to the Great American Rip-Off.” - she even included the silly trope "he was kicked out of a hippie commune for being lazy". Nope: the allegations are that he interviewed members of a farm commune and the "leadership" did not like it, thinking he kept them from doing their work. Let's assume that that is even true - it was not HIM that was lazy. And no one who watched the Senator kicking into townhall mode again right after the election Nov. 2016 - at his age no less - can accuse him of being lazy. well he is not going after the Big Donors, in that resepct he is guilty of all charges. But he may compensate that by THINKING himself about proposals, or meeting with constituents. He was certainly not good coporate, cubicle 9 - 5 employee material, but that does not make him lazy. On the contrary he showed remarkable committment to his political visions and the principle to not take money from Big Corpoarate donors. The many races in the 1970s looked like a fools errand and the race for mayor of Burlington in 1980 was a long shot as well. As for being diligent: he has a reputation as amendment king (he and his staff are not getting the finished drafts from the lobbyists of the special interests. Which usually also tell the politicians what talking points to use, it is a little bit more work for him ! He must form an opinion and do the homework !) That may explain why Sasha Baron Cohen could fool Republican lawmakers so easily. Those fools never think for themselves, the party leadership and the lobbyists tell them what to do and how to vote, and provide the drafts. And the think tank tell them with what soundbites to defend their positions. Of course they fell for the alleged former IDF / Mossad member that offered firearms for toddlers. They likely hoped for some donations along the way (gun industry, military connections, Aipac).
    1
  37. + Aerial NO it is the other way round: Crowley was protected by the very safe seat ! He could live outside the district, not connect very much with the base, did not learn Spanish, he could favour the real estate devolopers (big money, big donors, that's what this is about, the Speaker in Congress in the current system must be an excellent fundraiser, and he was "Speaker in waiting") He ran unopposed, did not matter if he served his base = low(er) income people well. They were not going to vote for a Republican, not matter what he did (or negected to do) for them. It was political dreamland. ........And then he got kicked out.
    1
  38. Senate candidate lost only by 30,000 votes considers a recount.
    1
  39. I know MMT - and Sanders explaining how he would use it, would be a really bad idea. For a start he is less convinced than the two of us. But even if: it is impossible to discuss it reasonably. I currently live in a single payer system. One has to look from the outside to realize how abyssmally bad the discussion about healthcare is. And there IS a blueprint: 4 continents, 70 years, many countries, cultures, lifestely risks, average age of population. The overwhelming majority of these countries (all doing their own thing but observing some crucial principles) spend between 49 - 54 % of what the U.s. is spending per person. One would think there would be a lively debate whether to follow the French, Canadian modell - or rather that of Sweden or Japan ? If not even with that overwhelming evidence a rational debate is to be had - there is a snowball's chance in hell that MMT can be discussed fairly. They would just use it to smear him, and he is smarter than deliver them ammunition. (see Jeremy Corbyn when he ran in 2015 for leader of Labour. There is no magic money tree. A search with Yvette Cooper, Jeremy corbyn, leadership debate 2015 Magic Money Tree should get you the clip. cooper is a neoliberal within Labour (so technically she should be for the little people), big finance trained her on the talking points. And that would be the friendly reception. It is necessary to make things SIMPLE. Or the voters will be overwhelmed. I also am worried about Sanders now introducing a plan for childcare. Not that it is a bad idea. BUT: people have been brainwashed into accepting that they can't have nice things, or good public services. Not even healthcare like in every other developed country. If (older or middle aged) voters are really bold, if they can be lured into hoping then they will be able to envision that M4A could be possible. But there is not point in overwhelming them with the good things. In sales there is an insight to not overwhelm the clients with the advantages of your product. That can backfire. At some point there is a scepticism in the line of: if it sound to good to be true it probably is. I think Labour made that mistake as well: they had bold plans in 2019, that would have cost, and they made sense. but it was not as coherent as the 2017 election, it did not compensate for other mistakes, it gave ammunition to the other side (promising the moon, completely unrealistic, unable to run a country they are dreamers etc). Sanders knows the concept of MMT (Dr. Stephanie Kelton 2016 campaign), he is not very convinced. I think he will need to use it. AFTER the election, no need to make it an election issue. But of course once he is in office he can apply it - if possible via the FED and w/o Congress. Using in in several regions, areas, cities as an example and to shut up the naysayers and then roll it out. (Public housing comes to mind, and of course GND investments, at least partially). Once some states get something of that, the others will be eager to get it too.
    1
  40.  @CAL-zq3dk  Yes of course. They are also "forced" to abide by hygiene standards and medical routines. If not - they can work in another position where they are not a spreader to potentially very vulnerable people.
    1
  41. As for inflation, and sectoral considerations see FlassbeckEconomics (Heiner Flassbeck a German economist).
    1
  42. Oh, she runs for Senate .... she lost the primary for Congress.
    1
  43. Massive MASSIVE economic help (which would not be more expensive than the occupation), strentghening of the civilian structures, in order to control at least in the more populated areas. And retreat after 10 years or so (the U.S. could be there if they had acted wisely). - Building streets (in Afghanistan the tribes in the mountains do their own thing - it has always been like that). Only when the remote areas interact more economically they will also become safer and the authority of a modern government will have more influence. An underground army (Taliban, or whoever) cannot exist when there is no support of the local civilians (they usually have at least an idea where they are hiding, on which moutain paths they are getting the smuggled ammunition and weapons. Stop the drug trade (it is said that the brother of the president is a big number in the drug trade, and also that the CIA earns some secret budgets in Afghanistan). Pay the farmers in the remote areas a much better price for their crops (the Taliban did that to stop the growing of poppies). Then they will have no reason to help with smuggling or joining the militants. There are only a finite numbers of weapons manufacturerers. The CIA and NSA could start spying on them. And on the supply of equipment in "third states". firearms, etc. could get an unique number - a number that is publicly available. So it would be clear which weapons had been sold, traded, manufactured where. And the West would need to play nice with China, Russia, India, Brazil so they do not try to deliver THEIR weapons to Afghanistan or whereever. Of course that is not going to happen: the short term profit of the weapons industry is above all considerations of foreign policy and what would be good for the wealthy countries in the long run (meaning the REGULAR CITIZENS). It seems the Taliban were WILLING to surrender and to have some peace agreement (they have procedures for that in the tribal culture of Afghanistan). The U.S. did not want to negotiate, to have peace (they also completely ingnored the peaceful resistance against the Taliban - the Revolutionary Women of Afghanistan for instance). When the Taliban noticed that they would go after them even if they DID return into civilian life, they returned to the weapons. also the U.S. started throwing a lot of money around in Afghanistan. If someone would betray a "Taliban" huge amounts of money would be paid. Guess what: old tribal bills were settled. The Taliban in Gitmo were almost amused when also their former enemies showed up in the camp. One alleged Taliban was handed over to the U.S. forced for secret extradition. His family retaliated - whoever they though was the traitor, etc. etc. And that is not even considering folks of gangs who just saw an excellent occasion to have the U.S deal with a personal or business opponent. And the U.S. paid well: 30k, 50k if the kidnapped person was allegedly important, maybe even 100k. Afghanistan has not had peace since the 1980s. You can imagine that it was already a dog eats dog society. Now imagine getting such huge sums of money for selling other people out ? (And of course even only 30k in USD buy much more in Afghanistan than in the U.S. - Did I mention it is a very tribal society ?
    1
  44.  @paddleduck5328  Good thing that Hillary Clinton was doing so well in rural areas, she was not urban at all ...... Oh wait !
    1
  45. Biden's generation had problems with vietnam ? well, not him: Biden received student draft deferments during this period, at the peak of the Vietnam War, and in 1968, he was reclassified by the Selective Service System as not available for service due to having had asthma as a teenager. He never took part in anti-war demonstrations, later saying that at the time he was preoccupied with marriage and law school, and "wore sports coats ... not tie-dyed ... Well always a folksy quote on the lips ....
    1
  46. Poll: 56 % * of those polled thought the economy was doing well or very well. But only 32 % of low income Republicans think the economy is working well for THEM. - These are voters up for grabs for Sanders ! - in other words people still accept a certain framing by mainstream media: that inflated stock exchange (stock buy backs, cheap money because of low interest rates **) low unemployment rates (they are always higher than reported but they have certainly fallen) and GDP per person are a legitimate metric to determine if the economy is "good". ** Trump leaned strongly on the Fed to NOT raise interest rates. In an allegedly booming economy. Economics 101: you raise interest rates in the good times to avoid overheating or bubles ! - then you have enough room to go down with interest rates (to prop up the economy) in the next cyclic downturn. Dr. Richard Wolff has the Ivy League pedigree as economist (Harvard - and also Stanford and Yale) and and he knows a lot of renowed people in the field - to the right and to the left. They do not agree on much but they agree that there has been nothing like this economy - and not in a good sense. It is a house of cards. Back to the poll: These citizens figure out that is must be good for someone - after all media talks about it all the time (and they are right: some a few are doing very well). But no one can sell these people the narrative that THEY are doing better. * could have been over 60 % - I seem to remember it was 56 % that agreed the economy was good or very good. Also not sure if that number also comes from Republican voters or the general population. Saagar Enjeti from Rising The Hill talked about Trump's chances to get reelected (he would like to see him elected again, and he thinks Trump should run on Make America Great Again like in 2016, and not on Keep America Great. Saagar is under the good influence of progressive Krystal Ball but he can't help his "conservative" double think: if Trump runs on "make-great-again" after 3 years it does not look good. people do not remember him fighting like hell for lower drug prices). BUT: he agrees with Tucker Carlson: the president that enables 30 year old people to marry and have children will become the next president. Tucker Carlson in that clip said: don't be so sure that Sanders would be easy to beat.
    1
  47. -
    1
  48. Big finance ALSO likes for profit-healthcare, big pharma - that is often overlooked.
    1
  49. So... they were told to have a lot of fun and if possible to mispronounce her name... that is highschool bitching level.
    1
  50. I think that Sanders could also appeal to moderate Conservatives - to avoid the word Republicans - he would be forgiven for not being against immigrants and being pro abortion - the same way progressives forgive him for not being strong enough on gun regulation and Israel/Palestine). - Real conservatives appreciate people having a spine, and his populist pro working class message could do the trick with them. (FDR was very popular in the conservative South because his policies helped not only employees but also small farmers and small business people. They had enough low(er) income people to experience the profits of his policies).
    1