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

  1. 3
  2. 3
  3. 3
  4. 3
  5. 3
  6. 32:00 HRC on healthcare then (as First Lady) and 2015/2016 (it was directely before the Iowa caucus) - she passionately and almost gleefully stated "that Sanders' plan will never, ever pass" - watch the folks they had placed behind her (organizer, volunteers), some nod, they start applauding her. That is what blind tribalism (and misinformation) can do to people. - HRC however must know that his plan would be BETTER for the people (even if politically hard to realize- and I do not know why she would have assumed that - at that time she was confident to become Potus and hopefully the Democratic representatives would do well in Nov. 16 as well - so WHY the PESSIMISM ? ). Sanders - not she - had the large rallies. She was offended that HE had the well liked proposals (incl. healthcare) - never mind the often desperate citizens - so SHE felt compelled to put down his proposals (those which she did not imitate). It was always about her, her and that she looked better than everone else. I guess the initiative in the 90s as First Lady was also more about scoring political points (it was not as easy as she and Bill had imagined). Because if she had the same PASSION as Sanders has had for DECADES that folks should have good and affordable healthcare - she would have continued to champion good healthcare after the FIRST defeat in the 90s. (Sometimes it takes time and several tries). And she would never, ever have made that statment. Not with those words, and not in that animated style and tone. And not with the misleading argument his plans would impair what people have right now (as flawed as ACA is). Expressing concern it could be too difficult to pass, looks and feels different. She was offended Sanders was stealing her thunder - plain and simple. And had some sheeple applauding her.
    3
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. She dropped out of highschool when she got her first son at the age of 18. (Neither GED nor diploma is really of any significance, and frankly also most college degrees. Nor does a training in law or medicine make you a reasonable person. See Ted Cruz or Paul Rand). Now, a kind reasonable woman with some common sense that has graduated from the university of life & struggle could be an excellent representative, never mind diplomas and degrees. Cori Bush was homeless - that is worth 2 degrees when it comes to representing The People IF she learned the right lessons from that. Which is an issue of compassiona and character, not intelligence, knowledge or passing tests. Dropping out from highschool would not matter and Boebart could stand by it - even if she had held unimportant jobs and then been the mother of 4 boys and homemaker. Instead of the many hustles she and her husband tried. George Galloway who was a MP in the British parliament never went to university, almost all MP's NOW have a degree. It shows, the people that made a career through the unions (like George) are sorely missed in politics. But he is a SMART and knowledeable man, never mind an excellent orator. The right and the neoliberals in the U.K. tried to frame him when the scandal around the Oil for Food program in Iraq broke, and some member of Congress picked up on it Harsh U.S. sanctions under Bill Clinton. Officially only food could be bought, and of course there was a lot of corruption and U.S. companies in the middle of it. Galloway is married to a Muslima and engaged in charities and one of his most generous donors was in the middle of the scandal. A very rich "investor" form the Middle East. That was all the connection Galloway had with the scandal. But Galloway kept the charity squeaky clean (and if not out of honesty then because it was predictable that the rabid right and U.K. media would come after a leftie, he is not stupid, like Lauren and her husband). He published all donations on time, full transparency - and he dragged the U.S. Senators in the hearing. It was quite unusual to order / invite a British MP to a hearing - and they got more than they had bargained for. It was epic how he dressed them down - while being the one that was "interrogated" - by U.S. Senators with a law degree and a staff to help them. She got her GED w just before she entered the race. A smart person that never got around to it (and never needed it) would not even bother. An imperfect resume can be a strength - if she is smart and only circumstances prevented her from getting the diploma. Imagine she had built her own biz, got a child early on - and had better things to do. No one would care, if she had been a sassy woman that made an impact one way or another. Imagine she had only taken care of her 4 boys, had a struggle in the first years as teenage mother (no doubt she got some handouts either from gov. or parents, now she is running her mouth, how she and her husand would never take money from the government). I she had had simple jobs, had later run mildly succcessful restaurants in CO. That is nothing to sneer at (if you consider she is mother of 4 boys age 7 - 14 in Jan. 2020) and gives valuable real life experience for a representative. In which case she would have stood by being a highschool dropout. Getting the GED just before entering the race is kinda lame.
    3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. FDR did bring big and bold change - and quickly - it did not take years and years (and he had to strongarm the Democrats to support him, especially in the beginning. (Let's be real he had to to pander to the Dixiecrats, and other racists to ge the policies through - that showed unfortunately). Then the citizens were even more DESPERATE than today (some people were starving to death), I think 25 % unemployment, 1 million people had joined the unions in 1932, the Russian Revolution was not so long ago (1917). The haves and the establishment got nervous. That gave FDR some leverage - representatives then were wealthy and came from a wealthy background - many even of the Dems would have easily resigned themselves to a sceanrio where the masses would have to suck it up. Instead the regular folks got the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, Social Security for old people, employment programs for millions, 40 hour workweek in 1940, bailouts for farmers - and those who were still doing well had to pay high(er) taxes, first it was around 80 % top marginal income tax rate, that was raised to 94 % in 1944 (WW2) - and that was for a yearly income of more than 400k - today that would be 2,7 million USD). So FDR HELPED the people and made the wealthy and rich pay for it. And was not afraid to incur government debt - in 1947 the federal debt was the highest EVER - the ratio of debt to GDP, absolute USD numbers are meaningless even if you would adjust for inflation. Debt after WW2 was so high because of New Deal programs, lots of after war programs to assist the tansition from the war to the consumer economy, and of course the enormous war costs). Within 10 years that high debt was substantially reduced - with full employment, that means good wages and a base for tax revenue and and for business sales - and still HIGH taxes on the top segment of the income segment. No tax evasion, no outsourcing. And taxes for the haves stayed high for many years, Nixon and JFK in a presidential debate discussed about an effective ! top marginal rate of 74 % (for a yearly income between 2 and 3 millions - look it up, taxation history in the U.S. or income taxes in the U.S. on Wikipdia, scroll down, there is a table). FDR used radio to circumvent conservative possibly hostile media (media then that was the press and radio) who had of couse an incentive to badmouth and misrepresent his new ideas. See Fireside Chats. Of course once he implemented measures that brought immediate relief to the suffering plebs, it gave him even more leverage as the populist president. Even so the Dems had a mind to not put him on the ballot for his fourth re-election - the sitting beloved president - this was in 1940. They also objected to his progressive VP Wallace - which is a shame, Wallace after FDR's death would have handled the end of the war likely differently and the relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union would have remained better (Stalin died in 1953, that was definitely a window of opportunity - well not for those who WANTED an U.S. empire and who wanted to profit of the Military Industrial Complex and the Cold War) The U.S. leadership after WW2 was drunk with its power, imperialism and the Red Scare and Communism hysteria were the was the pretext to get rid of peace loving and left leaning movements and parties and to some degree the unions. Truman and Eisenhower in the 1950s started these terrible imperial wars (but there were many imperial U.S. wars / invasions in the late 18xx and early 19xx, FDR ended the constant intervention in Latin America on behest of U.S. Big Biz for instance). In the 50s it was the catastrophic Korean war. Many MILLIONS ! of Korean civilians were bombed to death by the U.S.- the whole intent of the war was to stick it to China and the Soviet Union. In North Korea not one intact larger settlment was left. (U.S. generals bragged about it, some were horrified - there is a reason NK is so paranoid).
    3
  29. 3
  30.  @dustinlerch9272  It is a reminder to judge people on their actions as they unfold AND to not be EMOTIONALLY INVESTED in a candidate and hope what a candidate would do - even if you work your behind off to get them elected. They still might disappoint (Sanders, the Squad). You have to go by words if you have no major track record. There is no possibility to avoid being lied to if the candidate is smart. Or conflicted, kinda schizoide between his activist self and the political insider (Sanders). Some red flags if they use certain language (Obama in 2008). But Tulsi did not use think tanky jargon and she was not motivational but vague. Nor was she afraid to do controversial things. Endorsing Sanders, kicking some behinds (HRC, The view) when they accused her of being a Russian asset or useful idiot (for having a strong anti war message ). She had been principled when she stepped down from the vice chair position of the DNC and endorsed Sanders. She is an interesting and complex case. Obviously not only a calculating careerist. I guess she saw things in the DNC she did not like and had it with the lot. And not afraid to act on it. I give her credit for that. If she had played nice with the Democratic party elites, she would be set up for life with a cushy job whenever she would want to leave politics (likely they would have arranged a media slot for her). It is possible that the long distance flights to Hawaii got to her over time (it is a problem for those representatives), or she did not think she could win her primary - but if she had been a good party soldier no problem as incumbent. And a golden parachute if she wanted to leave politics. Flying from Hawaii to D.C. and back once per week is not like D.C. / Florida or North Dakota or California. I think theflights to Hawaii might also be in higher altitudes than the flights that do not last that long (health impacts, radiation). Tulsi ticked several boxes for the Democratic party: Veteran, female, woman of color, Hindu, eloquent, smart and attractive. Bonus points for being a surfer. They would have found her a cushy post if she wanted to leave politics. She was a quota woman in the DNC - she was not long in politics, young, and had no powerful connections. But she could have exploited her combination of desirable traits to make a good and comfortable living. She did not do that. I guess she has some strong convictions, realized that she would need the left to get anywhere in 2020, and crafted her message in a way that did not offend lefties, while also pleasing the right.
    3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. Medicare for America it is a public option. Now when there is Medicare already - WHY would there be ANOTHER program, also a public non-profit but it is NOT Medicare for ALL ? (rolled out as mandatory contribution for certain age groups Answer: THAT construction allows the private insurers to keep a part of the market of people younger than 65. They will only accept low risk, and likely develop 999 ways to get rid of patients when they cause higher costs. so the public offer will have all the high risks (they do not get the GOOD insured of ONE age group). the private offer will appear to be reasonably priced while being way too expensive (purging the right people - and the number must not be that high in younger age groups - can dramatically lower prices). And Medicare (plus 65 years) and the public option will get all the costly patients (either age or risk - both are major factors that determine the costs of the pool). There is a DIVIDE AND CONQUER GOING ON. It will be easy to badmough the public agencies because they appear to be so "expensive". It will be politically much easier to defund the public services. Creating thus the NEED to buy supplemental insurance from private insurers. The moment profits are a goal (well THE ONLY GOAL) in the "healthcare insurance" in creates toxic incentives: 1) Denying to cover people: insurers purge whole companies now when they in total have too high demands, that can be from family members of staff. They cannot officially deny coverage under ACA, but they can rise the premiums so high that the company cannot afford it. Either co-pays and deductibles rise for workers, ot they do not cover the family members anymore or the company has to stop buying from them, because they cannot afford coverage).  2) or denying to pay for treatment (when people had thought they had coverage), or the premium is only "affordable" with high deductibles and co-pays - so de facto ALSO no coverage. Another important thing: having a very streamlined SIMPLE admin. that goal is undermined when having parallel structures of co-exiting full private insurance. 1) it is more complicated even if no one wanted to maximize profits on the backs of patients, the doctors and insurers have to handle the billing, there is need for marketing and a sales staff. and 2) there are labor-intense ways to make things intentionally opaque and complicated which help the for-profit insurance companies and hospitals to PROTECT THEIR PROFITS. Sellers (no matter the product or service) hate completely transparent markets because it massively reduces their profits. The diversification is not only to meet different tastes and needs - it also helps to protect the profits. Which is O.K. with consumer goods. But not with an inevitable life and death service where One Size Fits All is a GOOD thing. With garments or cars we want different offers. But what about the broken arm, the gall bladder surgery, the chemo, the early born infant in intense care ? Which "variety" of treatmetn would you prefer ? Well none being necessary to begin with - but if is is necessary then the one hat helps the best in the opinion of your doctor. That is NOT a matter of taste or preferences and it should not be a matter of what you can pay. That is a MEDICAL ASSESSMENT. People want to get the RIGHT kind and extent of treatment, not too much and not too little. No one would WANT an extra round of chemo or another x-ray just because they have a "platinum" plan. But IF it makes sense to have treatments and tests they should be available for everyone. This is very different for consumers goods. Where having varieties is a good thing, not everybody always want strawberry ice. plain vanilla can be good - or many other varieties. We also accept that some people cannot afford certain goods (or the better verson of them). Think houses, cars, phones, vaccations, brand clothes, food, dining out ..... But what about the expensive chemo you need, or the transplant for a family member ? These are not items where you can say: we are a down to earth family that must stay within the budget, and we cannot afford that. Cost savings from STREAMLINED SIMPLE admin is possible if everyone gets the same COMPREHENSIVE GOOD coverage and treatment at the same providers. No healthcare questions for instance when signing up: only wage determines what you pay (a percentage of wage), so no red tape there. That saves a LOT of administrative costs. If one person can on principle get a certain treatment - everyone can get it. (if a doctor ideally w/o for-profit motive decides it is warranted, for instance doctor / hosptial should not make money from the drugs like chemo which can be very pricey). A public non-profit agency will not even be consulted. They provide a framework, they do not deal with individual cases. The individual cases are complex, there the patients could be exploited, and it is a good start if at least their insurance is a public non-profit. If all citizens are MANDATED to pay a modest contribution form their wage or income AND that gives them the RIGHT to FULL coverage - allmost ALL citizens will use it. Most doctors and all hospitals will need to accept the contracts with Medicare (or they do not have enough patients). So they cannot discriminate against Medicare patients. If they do - it would create a major backlash, ALSO from young and middle aged people (so there would be a lot of political power. Even more than when someone with SS does not go rihgt). Of course Medicare will need to get enough funding to pay enough to doctors and hospitals (the latter ideally being a non-profit).
    3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. + Jeff W excellent point - Maybe he is smart enough to choose his battles wisely. Political Jiu Jitsu - lol. I would say there is no need for HIM to declare it the litmus test, the Progressives will take his cues and do that for him - while he does not need to get involved with petty discussion over semantics * and can keep the appearance of goodwill with the Dems. * Example: The British media and Labour establishment attack Jeremy Corbyn, the progressive party leader all the time, and there was the same obsession to make a fuzz about some superficialities and to reframe harmless comments and actions. Plus a great willingness to "misunderstand" and misrepresent him and his statements - anything, ANYTHING to avoid the discussion of the real issues. If Sanders ever goes independent he will need the goodwill - not of the Dem establishment - but of the people who used to vote Democratic. Considering the vile comments he gets now while he is "diplomatic" (too diplomatic for my liking), the allegations that he harms the party (as if they needed help with that), and that it is HIS fault that HRC lost (or the fault of the Bernie Bros if they are generous in their accusations) - consider the huffing and puffing if he would call a spade a spade. When he says that it is not a litmus test, but that in the futue it will be hard to win for any democratic politician not supporting Medicare for all, he avoids all the hassle. One can of course claim that his assessment is incorrect - but even the most zealous hillbot or underhanded politcal adviser will not find that statement good material for another snarky or critical attack on Senator Sanders. They will not be able to reframe THAT to be: Another Harmful Transgression Against The Democratic Party By Senator Sanders (who is not even a Democrat !! )
    3
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. The U.S. always wanted the Cold War more than the Soviet Union. (The U.S. economy could cope better with the strain on it and the U.S. had often the better, more innovative toys). The Soviets had a considerable army and nukes. Stalin had offered around 1952 to retract from Eastern Germany if all of Germany would become neutral (instead of Western Germany being a NATO member). After the thawing of the short Chruschtev era the U.S. could have seized the chance to losen tensions. Instead they were ramped up (U.S. missiles in Turkey much too close for the comfort of the Soviets - that was BEFORE the Soviets placed their missiles in Cuba. And Castro was sick and tired of the constant attempts to murder him or to start a counter revolution or the acts of terrorism the U.S. had enacted in Cuba (like bombs on ships killing workers when unloading freight). Reagan again was on the war path. Abel Archer maneuvre. The Soviets ACTUALLY believed the US and NATO would use the cover of that maneuvre to attack the Soviet Union. Eventually Thatcher learned about that and phoned up her buddy Reagan. You do not want your opponent with nukes become too nervous. Dont't bring them in a position where they think they have nothing to lose where they can as well strike first. In the 60s some generals thought there was such a thing as a winnable nucler war. They urged JFK to allow the launching of a first strike in the Cuba crisis ( they assumed that they had an advantage, which may very well have been correct and they also assumed the S.U. did their best to close that gap within the next years). JFK resisted that advice - but I suspect that such advice was also given on the other side. And we can assume that such crazy advisors are still on the loose.
    2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. Someone who was in the business of spinning the truth and serving the powerful - and NOW he thinks the vulnerable must be protected ?? So he has seen the light - OR it is masterful propaganda*. 3:35 "Fake news MUST be adressed" - why ?? Before Trump must be fought. The real tin foil hatters do not impact elections. Sanders said he would cooperate with the Trump administration whenever it was good for the people. Now imagine someone wanted to install censorship in an icremental and stealthy way - and there was this god damn Senator with a huge platform. Even persons who disagree with his political views and solutions usually concede that he is a honest person. This election has shown that this is what the electorate craves: honestey, the intention to stand up for citizens, giving voice to their concerns. Now let's say that hard to control Senator would vocally oppose the intended censorship. He already failed to play along with the "Russia election "hack" hysteria". Instead he said that the Democratic Party lost the trust of the working class - he put the blame on THEM and refused to play the deflection game. Problem is, he could rally up the Progessive, he is especially liked among the young (1968 anyone) and - unlike many other Democrats - he could even reach Republicans that do NOT like Trump. (Trump supporters are at the moment not likely to go with the "fake news" agenda, they consider it an attack on THEIR guy). Sanders opposing "fake news" censorship (1st amendment and stuff) would give legitimacy to throw the topic to the garbage can. He might even suggest, that the legislators and especially the Dems should worry their heads about the fate of the 99 % instead. * at least it is good propaganda - not as insulting to our intelligence as many things we heard since the elections
    2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2