Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Bernie Sanders" channel.

Respect: Danny DeVito is a patriot. voting for higher taxes for himself so that the country (and the world can do better). - also liked the self irony when toppling over the box she he could reach the mic at the stage - for his announcement: I feel the Bern.
1
The DNC did not do the usual get out the vote activities in the primary season in 2015 / 2016. they intentionally restricted the number of debates - they did not want too much involvement of the base. The Plan: HRC was a household name already, name recognition is very important in elections. so she was going to wrap this up by default, it would be a quiet affair. Any "excitement" in the primary would potentially help her two opponents much more (O'Malley and Sanders). - so there was a deliberate effort to tone things down and that included ! no voter activation. After the convention the state organisations BEGGED for money and resources. But didn't get them. The tactic Schumer announced was that they would get two moderate Republicans for every blue collare they lose. He was quite positive about it. That was the strategy for the Rustbelt. People there assumed that Hillary Clinton would do another 180 regarding TPP as soon as she was in office. I think that is a realistic assessment.
1
so the people of Wisconsin voted their self interest, Trump could at least be bothered to pay lip service to blue collar issues. 250,000 people that normally vote Democrat did not turn out in 2016. These voters did not like Trump enough to vote for him, but they saw no point in gracing HRC with their vote. - that hurt of course down ballot. On top voters were told before the election that Hillary Clinton would win this for sure, likely in a landslide. The voters certainly were not inspired ! by her - so they did not bother. Wisconsin was lost by 23,000 votes. And the neoliberals have the nerve to blame Sanders for HRC losing. She did not even bother to campaign in Wisconsin after the convention. Voters were taken for granted.
1
the popular vote in the general was not that far off - but the Clinton campaign was clueless about how to navigate the requirement to also win the Electoral college. Btw Trump and also GWB in 2000 had prepared for the case that they would win the popular vote but not the EC. THEY (especially Cheney/Bush) would have tried to influence (likely bribe) the electors. Along with a fierce PR campaign how the electors could ignore the result of their state. The failure to consider that they ALSO need to win the EC and neglecting some states (taking them for granted) is reminiscent of Al Gore in 2000. Never mind Florida, he also managed to lose two states he should have easily won (TN his home state by 1 %, and New Hampshire - by mere 7000 votes). Of course it might have backfired that the vote count of the U.S. machines in many cases (states or districts) cannot be verified, so in some cases like the whole state of Ohio one has to believe the results as they are reported, there is no way to audit the election. A jugde in Ohio in 2016 refused to accept the case of a citizen group which wanted to force the state of Ohio to ACTIVATE the safety features on their machines for the first time. ("Come back when you have proof something is amiss". - Duh !!) And no, it would not be the Russians or Chinese that would manipulate the numbers. (not even necessary. Interested parties can attack the machines in certain district, no alternation needed, they just have to cause long waiting times. Especially in poor areas (on a workday) that can be useful to suppress the vote (in Georgia African Amercians have the longest waiting time of all states. Up to 4 hours. They also do not like to use mail ballot. Countless shenanigans possible for the Republicans in charge to sort those out. Exact match is one of them. They feel their vote is safer if delivered in person - well ..... Assigning old and outdated machines to fewer and fewer polling stations can also be very helpful to suppress the vote.
1
The Republicans have a whole system of voter suppression / stealing of elections, it is death by 1000 cuts. - The Corporate Dems keep deafening silence on that (almost all of them) - they have to please the SAME donors. In a "populist / progressive" emergency the Corporate Dems use those tactics as well. (Greg Palast spoke about mass purges of poor Latinos in New Mexico so an establishment candidate would win the primary. Or the preemtive purge in Brooklyn targetting Sanders. It would have been devastating for Clinton if she would have lost New York after she had been Senator. The role of the Corporate Dems is to win primaries and keep progressives away from power, so they steal those not so much the GE (that is a Republican speciality). Now when it comes to defeating Sanders the establishment of both parties might cooperate (in the primaries AND in the GE). You bet Pelosi, Mr.Wallstreet Schumer, the Clinton machine, .... would rather have 4 more years of Trump than win the presidency and down ballot with Sanders. They and the corporate "liberal" media would not admit that of course. Ratings for the media clutching their pearls (Trump bad, Russia, Russia), big donations rolling in as usual, the big shots in the party keep their seats in elections or get a cushy job provided by the big donors in case they lose. All can keep the Trump tax cuts, there will not be the moment of truth where Democrats would have the power to undo them (but won't). If the Republicans run the show they can wring their hands. And do nothing else. The ideal scenario from the point of view of Corporate Dems is to have the presidency and both houses but only with a tiny majority. There will alway be some (very gladly tolerated / encouraged) blue dogs who vote against the party and the interests of common people and with the Republicans. That was exactely the situation when Obama purported wanting to do "bipartisan" regarding healthcare reform - despite having a majority in Congress and Senate and a resounding mandate by the voters (and that Republicans did not look good after 8 years of Cheney / Bush). Never mind Republican members of Congress and Senate immediately had voiced their intent to NOT let have Obama any successes (so they fiercly opposed ACA, which is version of Romney Care, and like Romney Care based on a 1990s plan of the Heritage Foundation, which is a right wing think tank. HF developed that plan to counteract the initiative of Hillary Clinton to get healthcare reform - her plan would ALSO have let the private insurers have a major part of the "market" so it wasn't that good either). Obama had sold out on the campaign trail already, it was his role to deflate the energy of the movement (the big donors are uneasy about organized mass movements). They did so by dragging out the process to get to a reform and letting the Republicans participate in developing the bill - but of course they only watered down what was an initially weak proposal. And still did not vote for it. That effort of Obama on behalf of the big donors was succesful. Dems passed ACA (not even with a public options which is a very weak reform anyway - NOW it is sold as "alternative" to a genuine reform - 10 years after the Dems kiled it from the ACA bill). ACA was passed despite fierce Repbulican opposition (incl. shutting down the government) when they had 60 filibuster proof days in spring 2010 - then they could have passed any bill - even a GOOD one.
1
b
1
@tuckercarlson6204 they (Germany 85 million people, France plus 60, Austria plus 8, Netherlands 30 millions) have lots of people with benefits. starting with child benefits (no means testing, so it is like UBI). Think 150 USD and 12 - 14 times per year per child (Germany, Austria) Everywhere: healthcare free at the point of delivery. It costs per person 49 - 55 % of the U.S. spending per person, it is much more cost efficient because the profiteers are kept at the fringes. The mandated payroll tax is modest (good for low income people and companies that are not very profitable or just started out). The rest comes from government funding, so that must be generous. NOT as much per person as in the U.S. of course, but still .... Free higher education (not only university, also lab technicians, massage therapists, ... ) Students get the child benefits longer (still not means tested but they must be enrolled in education / professional training). Students from a low income background (that is up to lower middle class) get extra help (means tested). Maternity leave, with payments to the partents. Then rent subsidies for low income people, very affordable childcare (run by non-profits, usually the cities or towns).
1
@tuckercarlson6204 Germany took in more than 1 million migrants / refugees within a few years (wars the U.S. has started). When Libya was transformed into failed state (no military or control of borders) the routes from Africa to Europe opened for the traffickers. That is additionally to the many regular migrants, chain migration etc. Sweden has also gotten a LOT of migrants BEFORE the crisis and especially when so many came (as SHARE of the population).
1
@tuckercarlson6204 Broken promises of Trump: 1) Good and affordable healthcare for all. - Repealing ACA ? Good idea. But ONLY with a backup plan ready to kick in, and a good one at that. 2) Lowering drug prices - nothing happened in 3 years. That would be an easy one. Overhauling the whole system is a big project, but cutting drug prices would be the low hanging fruit. Would be also politically smart - as very tangible success of his admin, 1 in 4 or 5 persons ration insuline. The exact same brand and volume costs 10 times more in the U.S. than in Canada. That also hits Trump supporters. BUT: we wouldn't want to offend the swap creatures / big donors, would we ? 3) Promise: tax cut for the middle class not the rich. 80 % are for big biz and the rich - and that tax cut has added more than 1 TRILLION to deficit and debt already - more than expected deficit, mind you. The cuts for big biz and the rich are permanent, but not those for the regular people. Many people had even a tax increase - if they have a regular income. The local taxes redued the federal tax burden. Of course NORMAL people get something back when their community has tax revenue to spend: streets, libraries, fire fighters, youth programs. communities that ask middle class citzens to chip in to help good LOCAL services are punished, those voters are punished. 4) No more regime change wars. Meddling in Venezuela ?? I thought the general idea was to NOT have more refugees and migrants and upset in Latin America - so that people stay home and to not migrate to the U.S. foolish attacks on Syria (Trump said: get the troops out - I'll give him credit he tried "sort of". BOOM "poison gas attack" - and he folded, in spring 2017 and 2018. In other words he was unable to stand up to the war machine. 5) the faiulure in Puerto Rico 6) Mexico will pay for the border wall (no they don't not even if the wall collapses in the wind and falls on their side). 7) bring the troops home. in Syria late 2019: Shuffling the troops AROUND in Syria, doing favors to Erdogan - moving them out of his way when he intended to attack the Kurds. - the ALLIES of the U.S. - they NOT the U.S. contributed to defeating ISIS in that region. plus sending U.S. troops to Saudia Arabia as human shields - the Saudis are unable to defend their oil fields from drone attacks. 8) draining the swamp. he FILLED the swamp with more swamp creatures - different than the former set, but they are even worse and brazenly open about their corruption 9) the outsourcing has not stopped, after a little bit of grandstanding the companies are not bothered anymore - not even those who get lots of government contracts ! Some waited until after the 2018 midterms to announce they would move plants, to Mexico for instance. Trump does not annoy the donors - he wants their big donations for 2020. 10) there was not much investment in the U.S. (the narrative was the tax cut would prompt investement - Trump supporters might naively have assumed that refered to the U.S.), either stock buybacks OR investment in Asia and Mexico 11) no the companies do not pay better wages because of the tax cut, on average they have hardly kept up with inflation. A few large companies have raised the wages to 15 USD per hour (Disney, Amazon), unions, striking workers and Sanders made that happen, not Trump.
1
Classy outfit - it does not have to be "sexy" to be attractive.
1
Yes, and that is a feature and not a bug. The Democratic BASE does not care, and the Independents and even conservatives like that he "isn't even a real Democrat".
1
Vermont used to be a hardcore red state. They had an influx of hippies in the 1970s, and the state has a conservative but also independent streak (they have lots of Independents running in their races, that is a traditon in VT). The Democratic machine of Vermont did not like Sanders for a long time. At.All. He unseated one long time mayor that was a big whig in the state party (more a Republican Lite, which was the reason the Republicans did not even have a candidate in the race. There were 2 or 3 Independents and the incumbent running - and then one Independent = Sanders won). Then he became a very popular mayor, and ran from that platform for higher office, always in races against a R and D. Until in 1988 the Democratic candidate for Congress became the spoiler who handed the Republican the victory (the R had over 35 % closely followed by Sanders and the D had over 20 %). So that did not endear Sanders to the state party, but the DNC agreed they would not finance candidates against him anymore if he would caucus with them. Independent Sanders handily won the next race against a Republican in 1990 and was sworn in in 1991. Vermont today is a blue state (but they do vote for Republicans too, which tend to be moderate though) - and Sanders is a major reason for turning VT blue. The voters do not mind one bit "that he isn't even a Democrat". The D Dinosaurs have left state politics and the younger Democrats in the state now get along just fine with the popular Senator and he fundraises for them.
1
@salazarpayne3784 Actors are performers and artists - or did you not know that when you watched a movie or series ? That they PERFORM. That the actor playing the murderer may not be like that in real life.
1
It is good in a way that Biden and he are in the race. 14 resp. 5 months younger than Sanders. The media people talked about the weak performance and the likely cognitive decline of Biden behind the scenes , but they talked him up on screen. Bloomberg is likely mentally sharper - and as long as the media tries to sell these two as "good" candidates (since recently Bloomberg, he is their dream come true) they cannot concern troll about the age of Sanders. And when they would start later it would be too obvious, they will pass the point where they can start the conversation and it makes an impact. Biden hyped up, bloomberg hyped up - if Sanders leaves both in the dust in 1 - 2 months it will be hard to argue how old age is a reason to worry all of a sudden. Sanders has uncommon energy and is not overweight - so I do not think Trump will attack him on that. I used to think it was good that narcissist Bloomberg is in the race, that he splits the moderate votes. It applies: be careful what you wish for. Bloomberg's polling numbers because of spending 3of 50 millions on ads are rising too much for my liking. Are people really that gullible: he airs a lot of ads - and boom. - or it is just because his name is familiar and they are generally clueless and go with whatever name they heard often when the pollsters call. They might oversample old people who get their news from TV (it is almost built in, the landlines are easier to reach).
1
@Polio Nine Candidates / politicians like Sanders were systematically weeded out from the party. There ARE NO YOUNGER people like him in office, the party establishment made sure of that. The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement were quickly elected into office once black people in the South could vote - but they have arranged themselves more or less with the system. And they are even older than he is. It was with luck he could have a political career. - Sanders somehow could carve out his niche in Vermont (and survive there while in the country the New Deal was dismantled and neoliberalism took over). The state is tiny, they have no major industries (read: Big Donors that would interest the D.C. insiders). In Texas, New York, California, .... a Bernie Sanders would not have become or stayed member of Congress. They would have thrown money into the races against him left right and center Because VT is so small a transformative mayor of the largest city - of 40,000 people - could win national races with grassroots back in the day (before the internet and independent media). And he had enough integrity and stubbornness to never sell out. Many arrived shiny eyed in D.C. but usually they were brought to heel or they feel for the incentives. Fast. See Howard Dean. Or Elizabeth Warren. AOC said she expected pressure but it was even more impactful than she had anticipated. It gave her new appreciation that he had withstood the pressure to conform for so long. The independent oddball was able to win if a Democrat was not the spoiler in 3 way races. So the DNC ** decided they would not run / finance Democratic candidates against him anymore to avoid unnecessarily losing the seat (his willingness to run third party gave him leverage). Their condition: that he would caucus with them The DNC made the state party fall in line with that decisions. Surly the Democratic establishment in D.C. could tolerate him - what could he do, even if he wasn't in sync with the status quo and ignored how the game was usually played in D.C. ? That was after the Nov. 1988 election: the Democratic candidate had handed the Congress seat to a Republican. Who won with approx. 35 %, Sanders as Independent with a grassroots campaign not far behind, the Democrat had in the low 20 %. Sanders won the next race against a Republican in Nov. 1990. ** the state party (the machine, not the base) continued to not like Sanders for many ! years. Now they get along well and he fundraises for them.
1
The last video with the truck driver was a good example (natural language - as one would talk to friends and family - not as if professionals have developed the text - the gay veteran had to read the complex text from a prompter. I am sure he means what he says, but I think it works better to use everyday unsophisticated language.
1
Imagine that man (and his victim) had grown up in a nice neighbourhood (even if the mother is entangled in dysfunctional relationships - the kids do not end up committing crimes). He grew up in a very violent neighbourhood, lost 5 friends / relatives to crime before he was 17. Holy shit ! That has an impact on a child / teenager.
1
How has this only 6686 views !
1
Harry Belefonte ? Noam Chomsky ?
1
I forgot Jimmy Carter. Iris Appelbaum, too (to mention a lady, she is a fashion icon, yes at her age).
1
The contrast to the "Be Best" / I don't care Do you ? * First Gold Digger in the White House ** ! * Melania Trump wore that low price jacket (normal retail, it was not custom made) with that print on the back (something she would never wear normally) when she entered the plane to be flown to the separated families and the children at the border. She decided that "charity" visit was a good time for her to deliver a "snarky" defiant message to whoever criticizes the admin that was hellbent to make the border crisis worse. (while the Bush and Obama admin avoided processing ALL migrants / refugees through the jail system - only when the migrants were thought to have committed a crime apart from the misdimeanour of crossing the border. For pragmatic and humanitarian reasons and to avoid the mess of what to do with children and teenagers if they separated them from the parents !)
1
** or not even that, there are claims Melania Trump is living in a House not too far away most of the time, she will of course have to do some appearances with Trump and be IN the White House from time to time).
1
@neilmartin99 Brushes stand no chance - but you should see his hair in old videos of the 1980s (mayor). - I guess they will need some hairspray or gel or whatever helps temporary in airforce one and the oval office to tame the old lion's mane.
1
I assume that man voted for Obama - and Obama sold him out (like many other Corporate Democrats - and they are STILL utterly comfortable to "improve" ACA and to misrepresent M4A). The first order for the "reform" in 2009 was to keep the insurers (and also the for-profit hospitals) happy. Not to forget big finance: Wallstreet loves for-profit healthcare as well. All other nations have taken the for-profit motive out of the equationmany decades ago (especially with "insurance coverage" and hospitals). They set a benchmark and regarding spending they all blow the U.S. out of the water, it is not even close. Some people testified in 2009 about the advanatages to follow THAT highly successful long time tested model. Obama and the Democrats ignored it. so the reform was based on a completely corrupted (in more than one sense) foundation and was bound to fail. As years go by, people do not only have "coverage" the need to USE that coverage manifests. So the flaws of the system became apparent within a few years. Single payer: 4 continents, 70 years, different age structure (Japan the oldes nation, Iceland relatively young population, and outlier in Europe. Many cultures, lifesstyles (diet, alcohol, nicotine, ...) and countries. All developed their systems nationally and independently often grandfathering in existing solutions. BUT: adhering to some very basic rules, and the interesting thing that the overwhelming majority of wealthy countries is in a narrow range of spending per person 49 - 55 % of what the U.S. is spedning (which was 10,260 USD per person in 2017) I see these basic and crucial principles reflected in the bill of Sanders and of Pramila Jayapal - all other candidates have flip flopped and violate at least one crucial condition for a successful reform.
1
She called Sanders when he still was in the hospital to tell him she would endorse him. (Warren adn Sanders campaign were in contact with her for some time, she held back - but ofter the hear attack: I had a gut check. - I think he was very pleased.
1
So ..... Obama inspired with "Hope and Change" and "Yes we can". Biden did poorly in 2008 but became the VP pick to put white "moderate" voters at ease (and the big donors from Wallstreet and big biz). But now it is all Pie in the Sky ?
1
4:19 fabulous hair when he won the mayoral race of Burlington ;)
1
The DNC also has been ignoring all evidence that Republican governed states did a massive voter purge (Operation Crosscheck). The Democratic Party has the same big donors as the Republicans. The financiers do not want the unwashed masses to start questioning the legitimacy of the election process (it is abyssmal, there are states where the U.S. process is more like that in a banana Republic). Corporate Dems (and especially the party "leadership") take their marching orders, a little complaining about ID laws and gerrymandering - but not a peep about easily ! hackable machines. About whole states where it is impossible to VERIFY the results. In Ohio the safety features of the machines have never been activated. And the exit poll data are secret as well. The raw data must adjusted - but it would be interesting to see HOW they are adjusted. If that would be public, statisticians could see what is done and if that is plausible. you have to believe that the vote that you enter at the machine and see on the screen / on the print is the same as the data "in the machine", and that the data is also not altered after being sent to the tabulation center. If there is a print there is at least a chance to do a recount. Still inferior to paper ballot, pen and hand count before witnesses. There is NO way to verify w/o paper trail. That is unthinkable in other democracies. - many states are won by 1 % or less - and it is possible to manipulate the exit polling so it could not be detected when the vote count would be manipulated. But even if so - it would be still impossible to prove that the election was stolen, only that result and polling are statistically implausible or impossible. It would be much harder to pull off in a landslide victory because than the discrepancies would be glaringly obvious - provided the mainstream media would chose to report on that. (they might not when ordered by big donors / big advertisers / rich owners to not rock the boat. They all fall in line when it comes to war propaganda). Deafening silence of the Democrats on hackable machines and potential (and untedectable) manipulation of the numbers (the change of numbers would be done with the smallest margin possible to not trigger a recount - in order to remain as near as possible to the polling results in order to not raise suspicions). Greg Palast: Republicans steal elections, Democrats steal primaries. (He did not even refer to 2016, but to a primary in New Mexico: in order to help a neoliberal, Latinos were kicked off the voter rolls in droves). The Big Donors assign to the Corporate Dems the task to win against progressives in primaries (and in an "progressive emergency" the ability also of Democrats to CHANGE the tabulation would come in handy. That might explain the silence of the whole Democratic party on election results that cannot be verified. Of course Dems and Repubs prefer to use methods that are less risky. Voter roll purges by "mistake", or under the pretext to remove people from the lists that have "moved". Or closing down polling stations at universities or in poor areas.
1
No special mentioning of the CROSS PARTY BALLOT (yes the staffers said it, but the Democratic party tricked MANY in 2016, in many polling stations they did not allow the poll workers to inform the voters. (thats correct if the poll worker knew their shit and had the impression the voter might not know - they were forbidden to mention it. If a voter asked specificially ! he or she would get the right information (hopefully !!! - many poll workers did not know and they even got the wrong info at trainings). But if uninformed voters showed up they just were given a provisional ballot (in this video: when Bernie's name is not on it, don't fill it out.) Exactely. Greg ballots calls them "homoeopathic" ballots - these are ballots that are almost NEVER counted. they had LOTs of them in 2016 because supporters did not know the NPP proceedings. The party machine knew that Sanders attracted many NPPs the Clinton loyalists tended to be registered Democrats.
1
How CAN you LEGALLY volunteer ? Or do you contact expats in the UK to make sure they vote in the primaries ?? you cannot donate to the campaign or buy merchandise - it is not legal. And you do the campaign no favors if you do something that is not legal under U.S. election laws (the expat situation might be different). Because that could hand his enemies ammunition to smear him.
1
I came across a blog of Hillary fans in 2016, and they intensely disliked Sanders. The comments were about the "illegal" donations the campaign had gotten. (the campaign has to sort them out and return them. They do quarterly FEC filings, and they also have to make sure that no donor gives more than the individual max. USD 2,800. If the credit card is not from the U.S. if the address is not plausible, the money has to be returned etc.). If I remember correctly Canada was the nation where most donations came from but also Europe, Australia, ... and there were hardly any over 200 USD, most even under USD 50. So clearly a sinister plot for world domination - just the white cat was missing. The mainstream media did not even pick up on the story (then !) because it was so obviously harmless. The ladies (I assume it were ladies) were incensed about that and a lot of other perceived sins of Sanders. Did not cross their mind, what it meant that people from many other countries had followed the campaign and were willing to give a little bit.
1