Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Jamarl Thomas" channel.

Imagine Sanders doing a 13 city tour ......
12
Got a 5 minutes ad for Whiskey - Scottish landscapes and how Single Malt is made. - you are welcome
11
Noam Chomsky: It is futile to want to have "good" politicians. They are going to be mediocre at best. The citizens should not wait for good politicians but constantly hold those to account who are in office (or elect new ones into office that fear the electorate more than the puppets before them). I am sure that there are a lot of idealistic potential candidates out there. But if they get elected and rise up and stay longer and longer in power - it seems almost inevitable that they are getting compromised or that they sell out to some degree. Chris Hedges talks about Kissinger and Nixon: both stood at the window watching the thousands of anti-Vietnam war protesters before the White House. Buses had been lined up behind the fence in case the masses would break through. Nixon to Kissinger: Henry if they come for us they are gonna kill us. This is what ended the war. Not the ethics of Nixon (horrible) not his insight (again horrible). He FEARED the people, wanted to stay in power and likely got heat from his party that feared he would reflect badly on them. Nixon passed the Clean Air and Water Act - he certainly was not an evironmentalist. No he thought that could help him stay in power. Bush / Cheney made the fracking industry (Cheney !) excempt from it's regulation. (How is that even constitutional ? Other industries like steel have to abide by these standards. Of course if you plan to set the Middle East ablaze you better have alternative sources of energy even if a part of the population is damaged because of the extraction). Imagine the public had gone ballistic over that favour to the fracking industry. Bush/Cheney would never have dared to do it. Imagine the Democrats had fiercly opposed that weakening of the regulation - maybe out of insight - maybe because they could gain easy political points. Whatever works. FDR introduced completely new economic policies. They included HIGH taxes to pay for the programs that helped the struggling people in the Depression. Not every Democrat then LIKED this revolutionary ideas (campaigning on helping the poor is one thing, but acutally doing it ???). Like today the majority of representatives were wealthy people, in most cases they did not come from a poor background. They may have been not too thrilled that the country was in bad shape - but in the end they could resign themselves quite comfortably to the fact the the poor would just have to suck it up. FDR actually made THEM (the wealthy class) pay for the relief. So some representatives resisted. And had a "heart to heart" talk with the president, which helped them to discover their "inner progressive". So they voted for the measures in the end - willingly or through their gritted teeth - but the proposals were passed. For the people it did not matter with what attitude they voted as long as the president / and / or enough representatives had their back. Of course it would be better to have representatives that are ACTIVELY and ON THEIR OWN acting for the good of the citizens - even when the citizens are not watching them constantly. Realistic is the following scenario: Vote in good people, some of them will remain halfway decent folks even if they have power for a long time. Watch them like hawks, kick their behinds on a regular basis. That will keep ALL OF THEM on the edge. And it promotes bipartisan support on reasonable policies (and get money out of politics - for the campaigns that is pretty simple - not easy but simple. And stop the revolving door. Or that ex politicians go after cushy jobs with big biz. That is what keeps them doing the biding of big biz instead of the biding of the voters in Europe - even though the campaigns are publicly financed, the air time of ads is limited and it is easier for new parties to emerge on the scene. The politicians are still very aware of the fact that they should NOT offend the big players - or their political party).
6
Since the world (except for the U.S.) stands behind the deal - OF COURSE Israel ramps up the violence and provoques even more. - Wouldn't be surprised about some false flag terror attacks - or chemical weapons maybe ?
4
Well it is the toxic FORM of masculinity - I do not think it reflects badly on masculinity per se or on males.
3
Bay of Pigs invasion was likely a blunder of the CIA. (and they did not intentionally lie to JFK then just in office). But he fired the head of the CIA nontheless.
3
Sanders does not need to TELL the Dems that he could run in 2020 - they KNOW it anyway. - And although he does not openly oppose the Russia nonsense - he does not lose time on it either. If you watch his interviews - whatever the original question and topic of the interview is (including what he thinks about a possible impeachment and the role of Russia) - he deals with it quickly and in a diplomatic manner AND always adds his elevator speech of healthcare, childcare, maternity leave, student debt, etc, etc. Citizens should meanwhile have absorbed the message that "The US as the richest country on earth ....." (can you finish the sentence). The media and both parties colluded for decades to not have any meaningful fact-based discussion of these issues - and he has broken up the "opinion and information cartel". That alone is a historic achievement. As for his elevator speech: It is good marketing technique ("The broken record"). Repeat your message, again and again and again. Preferably in easily digestible soundbites. The neoliberal (or neoconservative) think thanks and their politicians have used that technique for the longest time.
3
The idea that Sanders was threatend is not completly impossible - see a remark Larry Wilkerson made about the danger of being assassinated for a president that works against the status quo - the video is on youtube on The Real News channel, upload spring 2017: Wilkerson: Practically Everyone Opposes Trump's Reversal of Obama's Cuba Opening That remark came more to the end of the video (it is worth listening till the end of the video - well the whole thing if you are interested in the Cuba situation) - Usually TRN has transcripts on THEIR site (and the youtube video is embedded), but not in this case so I made a partial transcript in the comments below the youtube video - I found it highly relevant ! Excerpt from the transcript Larry Wilkerson Chief of Staff to Colin Powell: Obama might have risked being assassinated if he had chosen an anti-war, anti deep state stance. Wilkerson: ...If I call President Obama for anything, it was his timidity, and his lack of courage. His lack of courage with respect to politics, and his lack of courage with respect to particularly his last three years in office. Where I know from talking with him personally, talking with him in the Roosevelt Room, that he understood. He said [to me] there was a bias in this town towards war, with his Secretary of State sitting beside him. He said quote : "There's a bias in this town towards war" unquote. Well, he went on for another 20 minutes to elaborate on that. Well, Mr. President if you knew that - why didn't you start doing something about it ? I mean, he could have done a lot more, if he'd had the political courage to do it ..... I think it's because, first you get trapped in that environment, and you want to make lots of money, and you wanna be very happy, and you wanna be very satisfied when you leave that office, especially if you're as young as he is. And you realize that if you start these fights, if you start these battles, not only might you be assassinated, you're probably going to leave without anything like the dignity, and the honor, and the emoluments, and the fortune that he left with. And I don't say that lightly, that's a very difficult decision to make, when you stand up for principle, when you stand up for the country, when you are a true patriot, you usually are punished, not rewarded. the complete transcript of that comment (only) is under the video (on the youtube channel of The Real News) - usually they have a complete transcript and the youtube video embedded on their website - but in this case there is no transcript on their site.
2
He also covers some conferences where Lawrence Wilkerson spoke (and also Ray McGovern I think). That is how I noticed the channel recently.
2
As for Sanders not necessarily SAYING all he KNOWS: He also had Stephanie Kelton and Bill Black as advisors of his campaign. Black has a TEDx Talk (highly recommended, 18 fun and very instructive minutes). "The way to rob a bank is to own one". Bill Black was part of the prosectuation of the Savings & Loan scandal in the 80s and has strong opinions on the last crisis and Wallstreet regulation. Kelton is known as expert on MMT = Modern Monetary Theory (on youtube I recommend her "Deficit Owl" speech). If you do not know about MMT - it will shake up everything you thought you knew about money, the economy, deficits, debt, government budgets. "Money does not grow on trees" - well actually it does - sort of. A government that controls their own currency (as opposed to for instance the countries using the EURO) can create money and use it WISELY and for the common good, if the politicians know the concept and are WILLING to use it. Preferably for smaller projects spread out over the country to engage citizens and a lot of (not too large) corporations. That increases accountability, transparencey, and reduces "playing the system" and corruption. Kelton describes that she often explains the somewhat "counterintuitve" concept of MMT to decision makers and politicians. She said (I paraphrase): "There are so much claims about money, the economy etc. out there, and these claims are very persistent. But then there is the moment when they UNDERSTAND, you can clearly see it in their face. And they do not dare to admit it." Politicians shy away from MMT (and similar concepts) - they seem to fear what the unwashed masses would demand from them if the excuse/pretext of "We do not have the money" is debunked. There CAN BE enough money (within a certain reasonable range) to finance projects for the common good (bridges, streets, sewage systems, education, childcare, mental health care, healthcare, green energy, medical and other research, addiction treatment, ....). (Taxation is another way how the government can finance such projects - and needs to be considered of course. But it is not the ONLY way to fund a budget). The only problem is: it would be clear that we do not need the money of rich investors to get anything financed. And that kind of economic system would benefit the regular people much more than it would profit the very wealthy or rich. (For instance well funded public, non-profit childcare, colleges or social housing would dry up some very lucrative "investment niches" for the haves). The Big Donors would not like it. At. All. Note that Sanders did not talk about MMT on the campaign trail - although I assume he understands and knows the concept (so does Jeremy Corbyn of UK for instance). It is not THAT hard to understand, but one most unlearn some myths that are widely used and have been propagated for decades, and it is not possible to introduce the concept in 5 or 10 minutes. So just mentioning it would offer too many opportunities to misrepresent and ridicule the idea - there are many people around EAGERLY waiting for their chance. Sanders' statement on the possibility to break up the banks during the primaries (interview by a panel of journalists) was misrepresented for instance. Not that he said something wrong, but they were ablo to put that spin on it. Bill Black as expert set the story straight - but he appeared on the independent media on the internet only. The major newspapers or the Clinton campaign who ran with the claim ("Sanders talks about breaking up the banks and has no clue.") did not bother to retract their misleading statements and articles. Hillary Clinton continued for a short time to use it (her donors gave her the marching orders no doubt - you bet they do not want a substantiated debate about "breaking up the big banks" and "regulating Wallstreet". And of course Sanders could not devote too much time in his campaign speeches to explain the details - he just stated that it was necessary. So as long as not a higher percentage of the population has at least a basic understanding of the concept of MMT, (and similar concepts and related issues) it does not make sense for a politician to make him or herself a target. Come to think of it - Jill Sanders mentioned the idea of "QE For The People" after "QE For The Banks" (trillions were created for them in the U.S., UK and Euro zone) in her rare and rushed TV appearances. John Oliver whom I usually like, immediately jumped at it and ridiculed her for it. Which is funny since he is British and the Bank of England published information about the issue (see pdf: Money Creation in a Modern Economy) and so does the British non-profit positivemoney(dot)org. If those two (Kelton and Black) would advise a likely future president (Sanders 2020 ?) - Wallstreet and the establishment in the Democratic Party (and additionally the leeches of International Finance) would shit their pants / run amok.
2
14:00 General Wesley Clark - 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and finishing off Iran.
2
To compare it with international politics: Russian - and sane, level headed other heads of states (China, U.S., France) never MENTION the option to use a nuclear bomb. If the Russians want to step up their game - they still do not use the outright term and threat. Sometimes SAYING something is a game changer. For Sanders saying that he would go third party would be the equivalent of the nuclear option (I think I would be among many being THRILLED). However: I think I understand the game that he is playing. And that he choses his battles (and maybe the timing) wisely. Make no mistake - if he would go third party do not expect to hear one reasonable word about ISSUES either from the mainstream media or the The Dems. They would not like it of course (to put it mildly) but you bet they would treat it as horserace, circus - it might even replace Russia, Russia as main tool to deflect from talking policies. The Dems (and their donors) hopefully already shit their pants - while hoping fervently that Sanders will NOT run in 2020. I noticed that with Sanders: he has the "diplomtic" language thing nailed down. He is very diplomatic with WHAT he says - they are getting a warning shot from time to time (the Titanic remark in spring 2017 for instance). He is not outright threatining them with going third party. Not - YET - burning the bridges. They KNOW he could do that - he does not have to tell them. And he would not need their infrastructure, money, connections, not even their grip on mainstream media. I is a small satisfaction to imagine how that must drive them crazy. It might be necessary at some point - to utter the threat. Or even to do it. Maybe he will never have the courage, or the heart to risk a loss (due to a split in the vote). Or he fears for his life or the safety of his family - that is not as crazy as it may sound * see Larry Wilkerson spring 2017, the Real News on youtube, title: Practically everyone opposes Trump's reversal of Obama's Cuba opening. - see my next comment
2
Don't put your hopes with ANY person, they can sell out, die, be assassinated. See them as tool of the voters and chose those who are likely to be responsive to the voters.
1
* The danger of being assassinated for a president that works against the status quo - see The Real News video of spring 2017 on youtube * Wilkerson: Practically Everyone Opposes Trump's Reversal of Obama's Cuba Opening Excerpt from the transcript Larry Wilkerson Chief of Staff to Colin Powell: Obama might have risked being assassinated if he had chosen an anti-war, anti deep state stance. Wilkerson: ...If I call President Obama for anything, it was his timidity, and his lack of courage. His lack of courage with respect to politics, and his lack of courage with respect to particularly his last three years in office. Where I know from talking with him personally, talking with him in the Roosevelt Room, that he understood. He said [to me] there was a bias in this town towards war, with his Secretary of State sitting beside him. He said quote : "There's a bias in this town towards war" unquote. Well, he went on for another 20 minutes to elaborate on that. Well, Mr. President if you knew that - why didn't you start doing something about it ? I mean, he could have done a lot more, if he'd had the political courage to do it ..... I think it's because, first you get trapped in that environment, and you want to make lots of money, and you wanna be very happy, and you wanna be very satisfied when you leave that office, especially if you're as young as he is. And you realize that if you start these fights, if you start these battles, not only might you be assassinated, you're probably going to leave without anything like the dignity, and the honor, and the emoluments, and the fortune that he left with. And I don't say that lightly, that's a very difficult decision to make, when you stand up for principle, when you stand up for the country, when you are a true patriot, you usually are punished, not rewarded.
1
Young / able bodied males are the most dangerous group in an oppressed population - for the ruling class. The females are not considered as dangerous so the backlash and the attempts to show them their place are typically less brutal (openly brutal). The killer cop ENJOYS having Floyd on the ground and subjugating him while he BEGS for his life. The cop (and his helpers) know that they are filmed. They do not mind. The bystanders and the police (incl. the collegues that helped him contain the bystanders) KNOW the police can kill Floyd and any of THEM if they try to help (doing more than filming or saying something - which does not deter the blue thugs in the least). And there is a very good chance cops will get away with it. They (and many other cops) haven't played that game for the first time. It is just that the brutalized, HUMILIATED man did not survive, that there was good footage, and the country was tense already. Black armed men showed up in the halls of the State Senate in California (1970s). They did nothing illegal. they just showed up, while bearing arms and as an obviously organized group. That completely spooked the gun liberty supporting Republicans then. They immediately passed laws to outlaw that (citizens being armed in the building). Of course they could not help it - they had to make it illegal for all. Have you ever noticed how the headline is: unarmed black man shot by police etc. often times, the person could have legally carried guns. The 2nd amendment was also created to prop up militias, going after slaves that had fled. and to have the forces (and fast) if there would be slave revolts. They could not wait for the military to fight the slaves on their behalf. Transportation took some time, meanwhile a lot could happen. If a white nationalist group had showed up armed, some decades ago in California - no law would have been considered necessary.
1
the shill is Robin Young (went to the website, but read only the summary, looks like Tulsi held her own as she always did in those hostile situtations). her bio: Robin Young brings more than 25 years of broadcast experience to her role as host of Here & Now. She is a Peabody Award-winning documentary filmmaker who has also reported for NBC, CBS and ABC television and for several years was substitute host and correspondent for "The Today Show." .....Robin was born on New York’s Long Island, attended Ithaca College in upstate New York and has lived and worked in Manhattan, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, but Boston is her hub. Yep, she represents the interests of the top 10 % and likely has that background. And for them the status quo works, fine, war and military contracts are lucrative and THEIR kids are not enlisting. Plus: their taxes have been cut time and again since the 1980s, so they are also no paying for the war adventures. the country needs to take out loans from private investors (= offering bonds). Instead of paying more taxes, they like to use those bonds for investments. At the end they get the money back AND interest on a yearly base. THAT finances the wars and the military spending.
1
Sam has Dr. Stephanie Kelton on (MMT), and also Dr. Richard Wolff. So that is their redeeming quality. Sam is a good debater when it comes to libertarian nonsense. I view them randomly - I am under the impression they use Jordan Peterson and also Jimmy Dore as click bait - which is pathetic.
1
Trump fears impeachment - this is to make a deal with the Democrats. If he leaves the Clintons alone Congress will not ask for his tax returns. The Clinton machine is still strong and the Clinton's are thick with the Big Donors.
1
Just downloaded a 18 minutes video about Brazil from Majority Report which is highly interesting ** - Michael Brooks has Brian Mier, the Editor of Brasil Wire on. According to him imprisoning Lula was a complete sham, there is no evidence whatsoever that he was corrupt (I would not be surprised if he was, the narrative is that almost everybody in Brazil is, if they get a chance. That certainly includes the people who impeached Roussef or now convicted Lula). ** Jimmy Dore CLUELLESS on Brazil youtube.com/watch?v=gWzQLml_T10 In that video Michael later also plays a clip of Jimmy Dore who comments on Brazil and seems to be on the wrong side of the issue. Michael asks him to invite the othe side (his guest for instance) to an interview / debate. So that is fine, Dore should show the other side or admit that he could be wrong. Except that the title was Jimmy Dore Clueless On Brazil, - they would have gotten me on "Brazil" - maybe using "Jimmy Dore" helps to attract more viewers ? - Kyle Kulinski and Mike from Humanist Report or David from Rational National seem to do just fine w/o such tricks. It detracts from the message and does a disservice to the guest which is articulate and knowledgable, and would deserve to be advertised in a classy way. I have seen video TITLES from MR that are more click baity for a cause that is less deserving. And I do not get the Jordan peterson bashing either. JP is NOT the problem (and he gets it right on some issues - like freedom of speech and is at least interesting on others. All in all not that relevant). I usually tune out if they start the voter shaming and the shaming of the green party voters or the too demanding purist progressives. * I downloaded the clip because of sound volume issues and have yet to hear it undisturbed and till the end - but what I heard in the beginning was very interesting, I reccomend it, another angle on Brazil.
1
The laws are made by white males (for the most part) they are the most important power brokers. Also among the DONORS (who really call the shots). - Not to forget the black female VOTERS (and males too) that vote for someone like Biden. - Sanders has turned out to be a disappoinment, but he would be a much better option compared to Biden. There is no organized resistance of progressive politicians ! to the covert looting by the ruling class (stimulus bills). I do not know if the sitation would be different if Sanders would be the clear frontrunner: if he would have organized the masses to get good stimulus bills, and if he would have the moral authority to beg the masses now to keep it non-violent. (while he would dare to kick some behinds rhetorically - the Democrats in Minnesota dragging their feet. They can't arrest or at least detain the thugs. Were they arranging and coordinating their stories and strategy ? - they could arrest the CNN team just fine, and it did not take them long either). Non-violence was a smart political strategy of MLK and the Civil Rights Movement. There was no deflection from the just cause possible. The cops, the racists, the politicians looked terrible and the Civil Rights Movement never did them the favor to be able to deflect.
1
The white underclass had to be made to "depise" the slaves. Or they would have soon figured out they had more in common with them than with the white upper class. And the white underclass was needed to keep the slaves down, there were not so many white affluent people that had slaves. That is also the reason why respectable unions between white and black people (marriages) had to be outlawed. And if there was free floating anger about the hard life for some and the good life for others, there had to be a target to direct that anger and contempt ! to. The disparity of wealth could never be the issue but people needed something to hate (or to feel superior to) to feel better. Not white men having sex with black women (often rape) - but respectiable unions and recognizing the children from such unions had to beimpossible. and the sexualized hysteria (if a black man as much as looked too long at a white woman).
1
For plantations you ideally have cheap labor. In the beginning it was indentured poor migrants from Europe (had to work for free for years to pay for passage) but if they survived, then they had to let them go. And people would rather work their own small plot, or try their luck in other places and industries, than slave away for the rich aristocrats from Europe that tried to increase their fortunes (or restore them) in the colonies. In Europe servitude was fading out and there were simply not enough people to match demand. They tried to create a supply with harsh laws (the British sent poor people as serfs of the criminal system to the colonies, a lot to Australia, they got deported for next to nothing). But the pretense had to be maintained: that the CITIZENS had done something "wrong" before. There were not enough people to take over the land and fast with volunteers. This is also the reason for generous laws regarding religious freedom in the U.S. The Spanish insisted on colonists being Catholic. The British were much more pragmatic, and it helped them to get more people. Although anti Catholic, anti Irish, Italian, Polish * .... and anti Jewish sentiment was gladly and often used in political campaigns in the U.S. in the 19th century. * also class: many POOR people came from these countries and the work force was pitted against each other. The country was large - white serfs could flee, it was easier to have a grip on people of color who stood out. The crops that could be planted in the South and in the North were different. The farms in the North were a fit for the family farm, but for tobacco and indigo, cotton and sugar they wanted the very cheap labor for large plantations (typically set up by people that had been rich in Europe). This was not the family farm model. The French, British and Spanish went to war with each other and killed each other - but they did not enslave each other. The Catholic Church did not allow that, and it would have been frowned upon in Protestant culture too. So the wealthy in Europe could not just kidnap their own poor (or prisoners of war in an occasional war) and exploit them in the new land. And the workforce standing out (optics) did have advantages. In case they tried to flee. Plus it was easier to "other" them if they looked different.
1
The interviewer works on radio, and is a media veteran - and does not use her voice very well. Too even, a fake "soft" voice (like now other younger females procude "voice fry", that is supposed to sound sophisticated or grown up, at least the interviewer does not do that, she went into media before that became a thing). Contrast that with the naturally pleasant sound of Gabbards voice (if a person does breathing exercises and is grounded (maybe some yoga), usually their voice will sound good, they do not have to "force" their voice. The well rounded personality and having "presence" will naturally express itself in their voice. On top of that Gabbard uses intonation and her voice / delivery shows lively expression. So it is easy and pleasant to listen to her. I think "making" her voice soft and even has been a strategy of Robin Young to appear neutral, sophisticated and level headed / rational. If content is not your strong suit you have to work with the packaging (in this case the voice and how you deliver speech).
1
Since Bush2 PBS (Petroluem broadcasting according to Noam Chomsky = lots of KOCH donatations) and npr fear for their funding. Many media jobs were lost, and I guess they have decent or even good contracts - that are secure IF they play nice and now they also need the donations of big biz. npr and PBS are a prize, it is logical that the powers that be also try to hijack them because they had a reputation of being informative and neutral. so if PBS and npr now shill for the neoliberal / neocon status quo that is extra helpful. They can try to dupe even the viewers that are more into the details.
1
a few corrections: Tamir was not yet 12 years, he was ELEVEN. No one knows if HE removed the orange piece. His mother did not allow him to have such a toy, he borrowed it from a friend. Who knows who removed or lost that orange piece. Never mind: the shooter did not have time to check out anything. Was this a real weapon ? The size of the person ? (Tamir was tall for his age, but of course did not look like an adult or a older teenager). The car had hardly time to come to a standstill. They approached the scene fast, it is not like they crept in. the man on the passenger seat hopped out and shot immediately. No time for assessment, not time to order the boy to raise his hands, nothing.
1
The video of the CAMERA FOOTAGE is online, check it out. the level of unprofessionalism is breathtaking, it looks like a mafia style execution. not like a police operation. Even more disturbing: the prosecutor led the Grand Jury to clear the shooter cop (they know how to do that, and they also know how to eliminate people from the jury, that are educated, and are confident in their views). The shooter cop had caused problems elsewhere before. They got rid of him there. The way they TYPICALLY do that: he is allowed to step down, then he doesn't have a file and the next police department can and will hire him.
1
The shooter and the driving officer LIED. they made up the story how other people were in the park, they thought they were in danger, and so shooting immediately seemed to be necessary. - The morons did not realize there were cameras in the park. There wasn't one other person in the park for 20 minutes or so. they had no time to check out IF there were people in the park. Tamir was alone all the time, waiting for a relative to pick him up, and idling his time away while holding the toy gun. Now, the shooter was the target of a criminal investigation and might be allowed lie to save his ass (they can do so in a trial), not sure if that immunity applies if it is an investigation about the conduct of a police member. But the driver was a witness: if they did not plan this ahead, then HE was not implicated, he could not have hindered his collegue, it was going way too fast: opening the door and lethally wounding Tamir in less than 5 seconds. Again - watch the footage. And if a witness lies to protect the target of an investigation that is a criminal offense. No consequences for that either. They were busted with the camera footage, but in the end THAT did not matter either. The driver might still happily work for the police. The killer does not work for the police (most likely) but is free to enjoy his life and work in another profession. Likely police union got him a job in security related biz.
1
@annawest7626 Why are you LYING about the Tamir Rice incident ? Again watch the footage. No one ordered the kid to drop anything. There was no time, and they for sure did not park the car at some distance and used the megaphone. The car approached the scene FAST.
1