Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "ABC News"
channel.
-
2
-
binaryruffian I also wonder what the fmr wife would have to gain from making up such severe lies. Divorced couples playing games and treating the children as pawns is not new, but INVENTING abuse (directed against mother and more importantly against the children ! and the teenagers) is another level. It is hard to plant the narrative with teeangers that they have been treated badly by their father, when that is not true.
Let alone when that father has an ongoing halfway decent relationship with the kids - and if not he has no business being the sole caretaker.
Teenagers can be incensed if one of the parents cheats and the marriage ends because of that - mostly for selfish reasons, it upends their world. (some teenagers take it upon them to scold the parent, and to be angry at him or her for causing the problem. Even more often the cheater gets a pass (more o less) and the howwrecker is mobbed. Teenagers can get quite creative with that. And a spiteful ex partner can fuel that.
Hell hath no fury like some teenage girls (some, not all).
Teenagers at that age can be very mature, and if they are - then a hostile mother cannot make them tell lies about the father. Especially when that contradicts 12, 13 years of experiences they made with that parent.
Maturity: meeting local news for an interview and staying under the radar for so long would indicate they are not completely childish, they for sure had access to a telephone on the farm if they wanted to. They did not call the father, or their school friends, or relatives)
The mother was able to get a divorce w/o makeing stuff up. She was the major caretaker of the children (probably even a stay at home mum), she would have kept custody. - Men do not always insist on contact because they want that contact or want the custody or the task tied to CARING for the children. (note how his sister had to move in so he could have full custody).
If he has full custody he saves on child support, I guess the sister (or the next woman) makes the household for free. Child support also finances to a degree the other apartment that the mother would need to live with 5 children (or that she can stay in the house, at least if they do not eventually need to sell it to split the money).
Moreover now he can sue HER for child support - which in effect means he can reduce what she gets from the divorce for the house and common properety.
Since the alimony also has a "housing" component, he will do better if the children are with him, at the moment he has the house anyway.
Never mind if he has any interest in them, or if he tries to find fast the next woman that has to play the step mum. (I watched that play out - and no that man had no interest to interact with the children. He insisted on visitation, but mainly the new wife had to take care of the children. But sued for custody, did not get it in that case - and his new wife had no intention of getting the many children into the house. He did not ask her if SHE was fine with that.
Bulldozed the mother of his children and continued to do that with the new wife.
The telephone message to the children is also revealing.
No: I miss you please ! call back. It was an order. if - IF - a father knows that he has not abused wife and children, if he fears that the wife tries to brainwash the children and teenagers ! against him, it would be an excellent idea to leave NICE messages for the children.
Also: the teenagers never tried to contact the father (after they went missing). They were willing to go on record confirming the claims against him. It is not unheard of that parents try to undermine the relationship with the other parent - BUT it is not that easy to achieve with TEENAGERS. And in a way the father that is not to involved with the child rearing has it easier to be the interesting and nice parents. Because the main caretaker is responsible for daily rules, and discipline.
If teenage girls are bitching around and clash with a parent, or if a curfew needs to be enforced, there is a good chance that the mother is the bad cop, while the father is more detached and remains the good cop. So there is no reason why the girls would be easily instigated against the father if he had been a half way decent father and not too much of a bully as husband.
Those girls were not in a cult, they were exposed to the normal world, so the influence of mother, of father was not absolute.
Have you ever tried brainwashing a teenager (as parent !). PEERS can have a lot of influence, but good luck with that if you are a parent (or even teacher).
The father seemed to do some things with the children when they were smaller, one would assume there was some bond (that he was not a completely detached father and the fringe of the family, at least not when you see the old footage).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Obama won Florida and Ohio twice, both states could have gone to Romney the result was not that decisive. BUT: With Ohio and Florida (29 and 18 electors) Romeny would still have had only 253 electoral votes and he needed 270.
Trump won them twice - with decisive margins btw, shows you how the D voters are fed up by the betrayal of Democrats (especially ! of Obama).
Trump improved in Florida from 1.2 to over 3 % (2016 and 2020) and won Ohio twicce with whopping 8 %. Yes, Democrats have pissed off their former base that much. They do not forget how Obama had bailed out finance and big biz and screwed the base, and how he had pushed for TPP. The cool president could somehow gloss over it, but HRC and Biden did not get a pass anymore (and it is well deserved they stand for the same neoliberal policies).
2012: Florida win of Obama with only 0.88 % margin Ohio in 2012: 50.7 % for Obama, but Romney had only 47.7 %, Libertarian Gary Johnson was one of the Indies that got some votes.
Both states were kind of hard to predict, they could have turned out in favor of Romney. But then he still would have needed to flip 1 or 2 other states. w/o the 47 % comment and Hurricane Sandy Romney might have had a fighting chance.
btw: his policies would not have been much different than those of Obama.
Obama described his policies and Reagan Republican style, he started many wars, and Romneycare and ACA are based on the same rightwing 1990s plan.
Obama ran like a populist in 2008, but he was and is a neoliberal sellout.
He was pro gay marriage, gun regulation and safe and legal abortions and Ronmey not so much - that is an issue that does not cost the big donors. Big finance and big biz do not care if Obama or Romney serve them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
It may have made a difference on which side you were. Maybe the company that had installed the facade had - at least - built in some sort of barrier at the corners of the building. - I saw that with a French high rise. 18 storeys, at the beginning of the video footage it is a fire on the balcony on the ground floor. 38 minutes later a stripe over the full height of 18 storeys on that side of the building was ablaze, but only in the area of the balconies. Within a well defined stripe. So there must have been some constructive barrier in the facade that prevented the fire from spreading - or at least slowed it down. It was a major fire, 1 person died, but the French firefighters still had a much better chance to get people out in time and to regain control. Which is difficult enough with that height.
One family in Grenfell Tower waited 4 hours and had called emergency several times. They were always told to wait for the firefighters. When their flat (somewhere betwee 10th and 13th floor) started burning (the fire came between the walls) the father decided to take his family down, despite the fumes and the smoke in the staircase and hallway. - 2 teenage girls, his wife 7 months pregnant with a boy. They were lucky they met a firefighter when one of the daughters collapsed. Wife and daughters were treated in hospital, and put into an induced coma, they were poisoned, but seem to be O.K. now. But they lost the 7 month old baby boy.
Have you seen the footage of the One and ONLY staircase ? It is a NARROW staircase, it looks hardly wider than in a normal family home. So imagine to evacuate 600 people, all going down, some maybe trying to get some possessions out in bags. While the firefighters try to go up in full gear and with equipment at the same time.
1
-
1
-
5 of 5 Trade deals enabling sweatshop production: those "trade" deals (also WTO rules of the 1990s) do not allow any nation LATER to reintroduce tariffs. (Well the U.S. can take some liberties as usual - as we saw lately).
When trade deals are officially abandoned, the rules of the "trade" deal still apply for the next 20 - 30 years.
And very important: Multinationals CAN SUE governments for damages and for profits which they could not make (at least that is the case with TTIP, TPP). Important: not only compensation for investments made in good faith - no, compensations for the profits they COULD have made
They do not even have to DO BIZ anymore to claim the profit !
Not sure about NAFTA, but it was a provision of TPP and TTIP: The cases not handled by a normal court (the system of everyone else !!!) but in a PRIVATE "COURT" system (arbitration), the cases handeled huge law firms (usually U.S. based) who are in the habit to decide pro corporations in 2 out of 3 cases.The law firms alternate the roles - so naturally there will conflicts of interests arise and of course policital pressure).
Governments, NGOs, unions, consumer protection agencies cannot sue multinationals in that private system - it is a one way provision. The costs are excessively high (so realistically smaller comanpies cannot use that system) and even if winning the government must pay for their legal costs.
It is an interesting business model for law firms too.
It is all set up to rob future governments (elected representation of the citizens) of any power to change the rules of the economic game later when the citizens have found out how they are being screwed.
Once introduced it is a one way street, creates certain realities, and sets in stone a new paradigm.
It is very, very hard to reverse that - only when major nations or powers - like the U.S. and the EU would agree at the same time - and when they really work in the best interst of their citizens, and are not driven by petty competitions or in the interest of their domestic special interests - that however is highly unlikely.
Trump has started renogiations of NAFTA, sure. I do not know how NAFTA is written, and of course there is the political power of the U.S.
One thing is: what the governments do with a "new" NAFTA - it remains to be seen if Big Biz can sue them later.
Trump tries to get advantages (for the U.S. special interests) on the back of Canada and Mexico.
As opposed to: A good deal - that would be good for the CITIZENS in all 3 countries.
NAFTA has been a disaster for small farmers in Mexico, U.S. big ag could flood Mexico for instance. So the small advantage of more industrial jobs (although not very well paid) is counteracted by small farmers streaming into the cities in search for jobs and income (often organized crime is seen as benevolent institution, THEY give them income and "work" - that is a very dangerous development).
Of course it works for the Mexican "elites". But not for Mexico at large, not even for the U.S. (undocumented immigration is increased by that). For that money one could subsidize U.S. farming otherwise and have them produce oil seeds (no palm oil plantations instead of rainforest in Asia) or hemp (energy, insulation material, clothes).
TTP and TTIP were dictated by Big Biz. They learned since NAFTA, and the Chinese Deal around 2000: they know it is unpopular. So they of course tried to leverage these "trade" deals even more to "create facts" and to introduce rules that make their legal advantage over everybody else (incl. the goernments) even stronger.
The new deals are designed to protect copyrights, make patent prolongations possible for pharma etc. - they have not much to do with "trade" or "tariffs".
If the U.S. and the EU for instance agreed (ever) they could of course change the rules. Even then however it remaines to be seen if the multinationals try to sue the governments LATER. Political power might play a role - Boeing hopes for military contracts - that might keep THEM from suing for instance. Even if they COULD.
Governments CAN go against the deals, sure. They can ALSO be made to pay "damages" with taxpayer money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Vidhur Yes, there are sources, his cook for instance (on the mountain in Bavaria, the house Berghof / Obersalzberg in Berchtesgaden). Hitler was not a full vegetarian, although he ate little meat. My source was in German. - The liver dumplings * (shaved liver with egg and some white bread as filler / binder, plus some spices) are still a staple in Austrian and Bavarian cuisine.
Not everyone likes them (one generation ago they, and liver in general were eaten more) but almost all restaurants have it on the menu, if they offer the usual range of local cuisine.
Easy, they have them in the freezer, and take them out and warm them up in soup as ordered.
* Leberknödel (or Leberknoedel, "oe" instead of "ö" if you cannot display that letter).
1
-
1
-
1
-
Members of the Kennedy DYNASTY have done hardly anything for the U.S. in the last 20 - 40 years. They had a platform in and outside politics. Which they did not use as members of the American aristorcracy. - Right now neoliberal big donor darling Congress man Kennedy III tries to unseat Senator Ed Markey (who is a solid incumbent).
Markey is pro Green New Deal, and pro worker's rights, and pro weed legalization. HE is not colluding with big healthcare, big pharma and the fossil fuel industry like Kennedy, who only recently could bring himself to be "pro" Marijuana legalization (= lip service).
Note to self:
police unions are an important constituency for Corporate Democrats: they are donors and have reach when they organize for or against a candidate. It is not like the Corporate Dems could get the enthusiastic support of grassroots, the best they can do is to get the help of corrupt police unions.
The last Corporate Democrat to get help of the grassroots was Obama - and this neoliberal sellout cynically used that, but the young voters have wisened up, mayor pete's gig did not work. The young in MA doe not support Kennedy, they support older Markey.
It is the ideas and not the age of the politician. They got that right.
That is why Sanders had the young crowd and mayor pete with the Obama 2.0 gig had the affluent boomers.
Boomers and pete fans: that is the segment of the population who profited from OTHER economic policies (that they know tell the younger generation are pie in the sky), they do not need policies, they can afford to only go after superficial rhetoric (pete was smart enough to keep it very vague. Like I said: does not work on people that are informed and do not watch fawning corporate media, and who NEED better policies. These voters are not in danger of faling for the mainstream propaganda on behalf of the rich and the politicians who serve the rich. They live the contradiciton between messaging and reality. They KNOW they are being lied to.)
So when it comes to the likes of Kennedy III - the unwashed masses will have to continue to put up with being prosecuted for petty drug crimes and weed possession. The police needs those jobs, pensions .... and of course qualified immunity.
corporate Democrats collude with the Real estate devlopers. the large cities are almost always blue. So if you collude with the epople who help to create the working homeless and a permanent underclass (people can't keep up with exploding rent and on top exploding healthcare and education costs, that are also on the Democrats on the federal level. ... Well then the sellouts of course need an oppressive police that shows the unwashed masses their place and polices on behalf of the maybe 30 % that do well in the cities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jerryg1692 30 % of pregnancies (likely more) end spontanously in the first trimester. that number tops the 60 millions by far. BTW: So many are up and in arms about the ONLY 11 million undocumented migrants * that are living in the U.S. Many of them are WORKING and pulling their weight.
* right wing sources sometimes give a number a high as 20 millions. Well either way 3,5 - 6 % of the population and all the howling about undocumented migrants.
How exactely would you take care of these 60 millions children / adults. What jobs would they get, where would they live, how would you fund healthcare or education for them.
Many of the 60 million aborted would be accepted and cared for by parents (under more difficulties). But many would be traumatized by unfit partents and / or a dysfunctional foster system.
And many of them would be SEVERELY DISABLED. Good luck with finding foster or adoption parents for them.
Imagine if the parents forced by the government to carry those pregnancies to term - would hand them over to the government to take care of them in a HUMANE manner - what do you think would happen ?
The U.S. does not even set up homes for disabled veterans in a way that they are treated well. A video went viral a few years ago. Either the home was for-profit and they extracted too much profits out of it to the "investors" to leave enough for staff, or they are underfunded and have to squeeze the staff.
If you have enough people to do the work and treat them with decency (that includes a decent wage) - you will find people doing the work with kindness and expertise.
Actually many would find it fulfilling.
But that needs funding, or even higher taxes. Which is much harder to come by than the nosy meddling of the protectors of the embry and the fetus.
The U.S. under Reagan kicked the mentally ill out of federal care and over to the "care" of the states. The money to take care of them in a good way is impossibly to find. Many of them land on the streets or in the prison system (which is expensive too, but hey at least no one wasted money on social workers, nice homes, having apartments for living on their own with some supervision and help, places where they can do easy work, get personal assistance, etc, etc.
Or simply the medical care and they can return to a fully productive indpendent life. (depression, psychosis, borderline)
Especially since the Reagan coup against the mentally ill, the reactionaries have preached about the right of the fetus and embyos and ignored the needs of those already born.
Those who ARE PERSONS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zacharymarentette5269 Well Trump was blocked by the SAME supreme Court decision, wasn't he ? And after the public outcry he DID ALTER the vile policy with an Executive Order (after having said a few days earlier he could do nothing because Obama ...Supreme Court ..... - and of course when that had been handled differently under Bush, Obama, AND the first year of his admin)
Under Bush2 and Obama there were occasional family separations. (the Supreme court decided that if you put the adult into jail - which was the exception NOT THE RULE - minors that have arrived with them, cannot be kept longer than 28 days in jail with them). at least they kept TRACK of the children.
However: under Trump's NEW policy EVERY adult was JAILED (new policy in early summer 2018). Under Bush and Obama they were only jailed when suspected to be offenders, not just for being caught crossing the border or for applying for asylum.
When the migrants / asylum seekers are brought into camps they can stay together, they cannot leqave, the parents can take CARE of the children (less costs), and if they are going to be deported later at least they can stay together.
Since the Trump admin closed down almost all places where people could come in legally and apply correctly for asylum they MUST cross the borders because it is dangerous for them to stay there.
The cartels and scum are preying on them if they arrive at a point of entry and have to wait a few days or weeks to be processed. Those ports of entry just accepted a few and told most to try again tomorrow, and the next day, and the next after that, ....
Knowing full well that vile criminals kidnap them to extort money from family in the U.S. or in the home country. if they cannot pay they are killed. (That was under the Mexican government before the election not sure if THEIR police and military can be bothered to do anything about it now.)
Speaking of sanctitiy of life.
Never mind the red tape for jailing everyone (and the COSTS) - that brought of course the problem _what to do with the children_.
So they had MANY more children to handle. The SANE parts of the admin had told them of the consequences and held against that for one year.
But Trump and his croonies decided
a) they wanted to signal to the base how tough they were - midterms 2018 coming
and b) that "being forced" to take children away from parents wasn't a bug it was a feature.
and the admin / agency was so incompetent that they did not even keep track and "lost" children. There are still children that could not be re-united. They were too little. If the caregiver is alive they are afraid to come forward.
Jeff Session on TV: this policy will make potential migrants / asylum seekers reconsider if they want to come
paraphrased
in other words, they will be so terribly treated and they can expect the Trump admin to kidnap their children - so some may be so scared they do not even try.
What Sessions choses to ignore is that those people already expose their cildren to hardship and danger. Either they are ignorant and lured by traffickers OR taking that risk is still better than staying where they are.
The U.S. has played a major role in creating the conditions for that - for over 100 years. See Smedley Butlers: War is a racket. He makes a list in how many countries he was acting as a gangster for capitalism, the majority was in Latin America. you can search for the quote.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not a PEEP about GLOBAL WARMING. Prof.. Mann had something to say about Harvey last year - interview with Democracy Now. Yes, hurricanes were always around. But now they are bound to get STRONGER and STAY longer, hurricanes on average last 28 hours when they hit land in the South of the U.S. They get weaker as they move on over land. Reason for that, they lose connection to the ocean that fuels them.
Well Harvey stayed stationary for 60 hours pouring down on the Houston area. Last year and this September the ocean water was unusually warm, it feeds the systems more than usual. so they are not cut off anymore, they rotate on the spot, there is so much more vapor = more temperature, more energy, more vapor, more energy for the wealther system.
the Jet streams (currents in the atmosphere) move the weathersystems (all of them high or low pressure) from the West to the East (in the Northern hemisphere, not sure about the other side of the globe the direction might be in the other direction. But there are much more people living in the Northern hemisphere).
the Jet streams are sustained/caused by distinctive temperature difference between the poles and the rest of the globe. Since the Arctic is warming (the waters, that is a HUGE reservoir of heat !!) that difference is less pronounced.
Therefore the Jet steams get weaker and their effect to move on ANY weather gets weaker. That is the reason for the extensive dry weather in Europe.
That effect - weaker Jet streams and how it changes weather patterns - was predicted by models and fits well with the models.
The costs of global warming and the climate change it cause begin to manifest.
1 cent in prevention saves 1 dollar in damage control. Wouldn't that be a very conservative point of view ?? The 1980s would have been an excellent time to start with that. That would be almost 40 years to change our infrastructure and the way we deal with energy needs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1