Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@greathingsaregold 2018 "exact match" laws used in an attempt to shelf 50,000 voter registrations in the race where Stacy Abrams gave Kemp a good run for his money (Kemp was in charge of elections as Secretary of State in a race where he also run). - For instance: One hyphen is different in birth certificate / driver's licence and/or Social Security data.
Forget about data like birth date that would strongly ! back up the plausiblity of the application
(Often people move between states and habits how to enter a name, or what the interface allows a civil servant to enter can differ. And it's been a while since the birth certificate was issued).
In GA: your voter registration is out if one blank or hyphen is not EXACTELY where it should be. If Republicans would get their way.
If you have to enter a user name or password you also have exact match, if there is a blank you must enter it, and if not you can't have one. If it is a hyphen, it must be that, not a blank, not 2 hyphens, not an underscore.
With "exact match" if you have one letter "different" you cannot get access. Whereas the documentation for a human being follows fuzzy logic and plausibility. Street or Str. means of course the same, the person is not someone else because Street is written in different manner in 2 different sets of data.
Those exact match laws were struck down before (when they were a rule), so they had to process the voter registrations. So the state legislature made it a LAW.
In 2018 "exact match" law became a reason for a court battle again. A court forced Kemp to allow those newly registered voters to vote, at least it was said that they could vote when bringing additional paperwork, the court battle came late, because first the NGOs had to detect that Kemp intended to not process these registrations. He had them "pending" for months, it is not like he advertised his intentions. He knew the grassroots would sue him - AS ALWAYS.
Not sure if voters that had been caught up in that measure (one of many) were given a provisional ballot. (Greg Palast calls them placebo ballots, they are almost never counted, but the voters are not upset, the public is widely ignorant of the fact that they are duped with them most of the time. Provisional ballots were invented under Bush 2).
Those tactics are typical - he was super motivated because this was HIS race - but he could have done that in every other year as well, it is very much in character with R voter suppression in Georgia. They could teach Florida some tricks by now.
Kemp would rather deny 50,000 people the vote than "risk" the very, very low probability that someone with almost the same name (and conincidentally the same birth date, and some other history that ties them to THIS county, district, state) would "impersonate" another person. (one with and the other w/o the hyphen).
Plus somehow the cheater would also need to know the SS number, and have a fitting driver's licence to back up the plot. That is almost impossible to fabricate.
- and WHY would someone go to such lengths. I would get it, if someone impersonated another person, and forged ID's, birth certificates, and tried to match them with existing documentation to attempt cleaning out a bank acccount, there is a potential reward for the risky effort.
But for ONE more vote ?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@b1bbscraz3y On the other hand I cannot fathom WHAT could be possibly that complicated. Even if they have to go back to the basics, pay a few data typists and urge all the precint captains to call in with all the results again. Would be a data base of maybe 30,000 - 40,000 lines (at most).
That can be done in 1 or 2 work days, and it must not cost that much, small change compared to TV ads. They can grant the approx. 1680 precinct captains (volunteers !) a bonus for their trouble while they are at it.
Then they can publish the whole finished dataset on a website (maybe aggregated per precinct so they do not have 30,000 lines or whatever, so it is easier to navigate for users). That must not be a complex operation, if the database is not interactive (finished result).
They can offers some filters (all results for a candidate, or a certain precinct, or areas, or all that got at least 15 % in the final round .... if they want to be fancy).
If they do not try to massage the numbers (and I can't see how they would think they could get away with it) - WHAT ARE THEY DOING ? Are there no coders around ? People that know how to work with a database and people who can mangage the collection of data for it ?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@trixiess364 Joe Biden might be nice in person. That is human nature, evolution made is behave in our group of peers, and politicians must try to appear "nice" in public anyway *. But politicians usually arrange themselves with the lobbyists, the party "leadership" (they too want the big donations) and the big donors.
* Klobuchar has one of the highest turnovers of her staff, a reputation as horrible boss, threw staplers at staff members and prosecuted an easy target (black teenager 16 years) on the flimsiest of "evidence".
To further her career and have a record of successful convictions. - one would not know that from mainstream media coverage or the way she presents herself to the public.
The DUTY of an elected REPRESENTATIVE would be to be able and WILLING to EXTEND his or her caring and empathy to the not so tangible constituents - and they would need to be content with a salary of approx. 174,000 USD before taxes plus benefits like good healthcare (pay for a senator)
The constituents (330 millions) are an ABSTRACTION.
65,000 preventable deaths in the U.S. per year because of the current healthcare system (recent Yale study) - that is ABSTRACT.
(an older study had that number at 30,000 people, that was under Obama, but several years after the introduction of ACA. Remember Biden was VP and claims credit for ACA, a reform that ignored 70 years of experince of all other wealthy countries that have HALF the spending per person that the U.S.). But the Yale study claims they may have underestimated the negative effects.
The first order of the "reform" was to protect the private insurance companies (and big pharma) and to KEEP them as dominant actors in the system.
The protection and needs of the insured were secondary. It shows. Cost control does not work. At. All.
High deductibles muddy the water, it helps them avoid cost transparency. Else there would be higher costs for all (but no high payments for the unfortunate later). Then half ot the country would riot because of the costs and half would drop coverage and be in despair because they can't afford good coverage. They can't afford the deductibles either, but that is a gamble that not all lose right away.
The U.S. as country pays double per person already ! compared to other first world nations. (per person means, healthy or sick. insured or not). In other countries the government pays somewhat less, and companies and insured pay much, much less.
As human you do not get brownie points for wanting to help a person that you SEE badly injured or suffering. Or your wish that a child that you know gets cancer treatment. That is instinct: hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution.
2
-
@trixiess364 Politicians have so much power and in theory they should serve many millions of people. Our human social INSTINCTS are not enough in the modern world to counteract greed and selfishness, complacency and the willingness to conform (to whatever the other politicians are doing, and it is always easier than doing the right thing).
That would require a moral core, a strong dedication, using your frontal lobes to expand the natural instincts to Empathy For All.
Sanders at a rally: Look around you. Can you imagine to stand up for someone you do not know.
Has become an informal campaign slogan.
So a typical politician like Biden might be shocked in individual cases of cruelty of the health"care" system. Usually the people that do not want to change the system (because it would upset the DONORS and conflict with their selfish complacency) avoid OBSERVING too much on the PERSONAL LEVEL.
They keep it abstract - or they couldn't sleep. But humans are also good in double think, remaining in their bubble and in suppressing what they prefer to not know.
The natural selfish impulses of humans are well controlled by our social empathic nature but that works only in groups in which people interact with each other and know and need each other (that was the setting in which humans evolved).
A politician would have to be content with the salary and benefits they get, do the uphill battle to fund their campaigns with grassroots support. Then they would be free to SERVE the somewhat abstract "millions of constituents".
There are many perks (bribes around 3 corners so it is not against the law. wink, wink) even for active politicians. Their pay and benefits would get them into upper middle class, but many have become very rich while holding office (if they are well established in the party hierarchy. That applies to BOTH parties).
The (no-show) jobs for family members, their books being bought up by the truckloads by think tanks. The lucrative investment deals or real estate development projects (their partner gets it so it is "legal"). The safe investments tips.
Last but not least: the cushy job for ex politicians.
They CAN afford to rather lose to Trump than winning with Sanders.
Not all are going to lose their seat in Congress or Senate, and the well established OBEDIENT servants of the big donors will be rewarded.
The big donors honor that "obligation" or the still active shills would get nervous and seriously consider if they would not be more secure if they started serving their constiuents instead of the big donors.
These days one CAN finance campaigns for reelection differently.
Less high profile "representatives" have less protection. All the more incentive to suck up to party "leadership" and big donors.
All of that appeals strongly to the selfish nature of humans. On top it is the much easier thing to do when you are in D.C.
2
-
2
-
@trixiess364 If the economy gets bad enough for many people ** the pendulum swings to the left (that was FDR, Occupy Wallstreet, or now Sanders) or to the FAR AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT.
Tea party, Trump and his cult following - it will get worse. And it is not only in the U.S.: Brazil, Bolivia, Philippines, India, Russia, many European nations, the "mainstream" right parties in Canada, U.K., Japan and Australia move more to the right.
The Iran deal would have streghtened the more moderate (relatively speaking) forces in Iran but the handlers of Trump were successful the hardliners are now stronger in Iran (out of sheer self interest the U.S. should lift the sanctions and help Iran, the virus can easily be "exported" to the U.S.)
** for instance the Great Financial Crisis. In future the next cyclic eocnomic downturn, maybe a pandemic, more trade wars, the many effects of climate change .....
Historically speaking more often the authoritarian far right PREVAILED.
If gets really bad economically: It ends with fascism. Andwar.
Regular citizens are not doing well in this allegedly "good" economy, and there is a cyclic downturn on average every 8 years. The last one started in 2008, the recovery was drawn out, that explaings some delay - Do the math.
It is only a question how bad it will get (from mild to really bad). With or w/o pandemic.
Biden (his cabinet) or Trump will "solve" that on the back of regular people and in favor of the Big donors. That is what Obama did for the big donors.
FDR was an aberration. In Europe the Social Democrats (types like Sanders, he is no radical in that context) got their chance - but only after World War II.
But that needed a World. War. (without nukes available for many nations).
Not only Germany went the fascist route after prolonged economic troubles (it was bad after WW1 in all of Europe, then a light recovery and they got hit again when the Great Depression spilled over from the U.S. in 1930).
They had democracies and elections (in many countries for the first time).
Because of Word War I.
The comfortable (upper) middle class and above (aristocracy) were highly irritated that the unwashed masses had a say after the end of WW1 (Nov. 1918).
The political climate was polarized (a lot had to do with the hostility of the right, and the "elites" - they did not want to give an inch) - and if in doubt the financially comfortable and the conservative pillars of society will rather side with the fascists than with even center left forces that stand up for low(er) income people.
2
-
@trixiess364 Many in the Democratic establishment NOW would rather lose to Trump than win with Sanders. No, Sanders' policies would not harm the country, if he gets single payer rolled out over 4 years, and GND investment (jobs) he is lucky.
But for that to work, the policies would need to be FOR The People - and the profiteers and big donors can go pound sand.
Which would end many of the cozy and highly lucrative schemes of the politcal elites, and consultant / D.C insider class.
In this critical situation - the Democratic establishment (many) would not mind having another term of Trump. They would of course never admit that.
You and many Democratic leaning voters may passionately want Trump gone - well the Democratic establishment (incl. the consultant class, the professional "resistance") can arrange themselves well with Trump (there ARE even advantages to Trump over Biden - for THEM).
"Trump must be defeated" is a stick to beat the base into submission once more for Vote Blue No Matter Who. That is why there were immediately retractions on that as soon as they feared Sanders had a good chance to win the nomination.
Beating Trump is not all that important after all.
The problem:
Climate change does not give us time for the games of the rotten party establishment. The health "care" system may become unviable, it is just too expensive. It will take some time until costs go down significantly after a reform and it must be bold reform, not some half-measures that leave the predators in place.
But 6 - 10 years later, the U.S. could reap the rewards of single payer big time (if rollout is 4 years).
That is certainly not possible, if they meddle around the fringes because the big donors will not tolerate more.
if the going gets rough, if the "elites" and the upper class have the perception that there is not enough to go around for everyone - they will retreat to the gated communities and play nice with the fascists. Mass surveillance, militarized police and all.
FDR was a lucky aberration. He could keep the far right in the U.S. in check because of his bold populist policies. - There was a NAZI rally in early 1939, 20,000 people in New York in Madison Garden, that stopped after WW2 started in Europe in Sep. 1939. The KKK was strong throughout the 1920 and 1930s.
It wasn't all that clear that the U.S. would not also go the authoritarian route.
President Hooverhad the police with help of the military crush the March of the Veterans in 1932 (after their earned bonuses were cancelled). In a year with a presidential election !
Some Republican industrial leaders had ideas of a coup against FDR later (see Smedley Butler) to stop the New Deal (minimum wage, higher taxes for them, unemployment benefits and SS) but for that you need the army or the veterans.
FDR was not as stupid as the former Republican to piss off army and veterans. Rank and file of the active army in 1932 could see what the cannon fodder of WW1 was worth to the Republican leadership. They did not like it, even if some of them were ordered to help crush he March of the Bonus army.
In Germany the Nazis could not have seized power w/o the "Conservatives" helping them dismantle the checks and balances of democracy all the way. Or w/o he silence of the pillars of society. It wasn't a violent coup, but it took them only a few months (end of 1932 till srping 1933).
The army and former officiers (WW1) had a lot of standing in society, they tended to be conservative but many did not root for the Nazis or Hitler. People like that (or rich people and the churches) could have prevented the power grab. (the presdient was on his deathbed in spring 1933)
They didn't. The political right and the industrial leaders thought Hitler would get rid of unions and the left parties - and then they could take it from there.
The Nazis had won an election with 35 % of the vote in fall 1932, at the same time FDR won the presidential race.
They had at least 5 vialble parties then in Germany, that split the vote - in an unfortunate manner. Not one party wanted to enter officially a coalition government with the Nazi party
But the conservative president gave them the chance to try and form a government, to find a coalition partner (he thought they would fail, he did not like the left parties, but also not the Nazis).
The election of summer 1932 had given the Nazis 45 % (afther the end of a center left and center right coalition) so just shy of the 50 % they needed to have a majority in parliament (else it is very difficult to govern, especially in an economic crisis).
So repetition of the election in late fall, and first a sigh of relief, this time the Nazis got "only" 35 %, but the vote split among the other parties in an unfortunate manner.
The Nazis surprised everyone by forming a minority government. Which would normally be unworkable if you only have 35 %. I guess the rich conservatives and industrial leaders had a backroom deal. The center-right party did not go into an official coalition (the base was better than that, the rhetoric was ugly already, even if no one knew how bad it would become).
Hitler as chair of the Nazi party became Chancellor of the minority government.
people in Germany after WW2 KNEW that, the industrial leaders were treated VERY nicely by the Allied forces that occupied Germany after WW2. But they and the conservatives pillars of society (incl. the churches) had to shut up for a while.
They did very well in the recovery after war (modelled afer the New Deal) but they had lost the moral authority, and the intense hostility towards the left (even center left) was gone. Likely because the country had to pull together after the catastrophe of WW2.
That dynamic - that the conservative forces had to put up with unions and left parties and it pissed them off to no end, had played out in all of Europe after WW1 and before WW2
The center left parties in all of Europe used their chance after WW2. And pushed for a strong welfare net, single payer healthcare etc. So good it withstood even the neoliberal assaults for the most part. It helps that these nations did not deindustrialize, they kept quality manufacturing (high technology, components etc.)
Germany had a center right government many years after the war (they were more often than not in charge or leading partner in a coalition government since 1945). Did not matter a strong Social Democratic opposition kept them in check, they could not stray from the Social Contract or they would have lost the next election.
But like I said all of these concessions to the little people were only possible in Europe (or Japan) AFTER a world war. In the U.S. an united Left (parties, unions) gave FDR the leverage to push for the New Deal. Enough of the oligarch were reasonable, they remebered the Russian Revolution in 1917. In the U.S. it "only" took a massive economic crisis.
And in WW2 they did not have nukes - only the U.S. and only at the end.
2
-
Progressives and New Dealers (and Labour UK) take notice: the establishment neoliberals are RUTHLESS. Democrats are not feckless and weak, the pretend to be against Republicans. Because that helps in the service for the common big donors. - No point in playing nice, that will not be replicated. Ever. On the contrary any concessions will be abused to give them more leverage.
Sanders unseated a Democratic mayor, the Republicans did not even bother to run a candidate in Burlington which is the largest city of Vermont, they were quite happy with him. Sanders had a "complicated" relationship with the D machine of Vermont for many years (now they are getting along just fine.)
I think 3 Indpendents and the long time incumbent (running for the last term he could have) were in the race. Sanders pulled it of with 18 more votes - or 10 votes more after the recount.
"Some funky stuff going on during election night". (quote from a Sanders ally from back in the day)
Sanders was ahead in the count, than lost his lead (in areas where they expected him to do well), his supporters threatened to kick in the door if the civil servants (of course associated with the mayor) would not come out and count in the open. Which they did ;) after they had been asked so nicely ;)
Rural scenes ....
but again: they will not shy away from ANYTHING to "win".
Sanders was the mayor had the support of 2 - 3 alder persons - that was not even the veto power.
There were some Republicans, but mostly they were supporters of the former mayor who were not pleased about the outsider ousting their man.
So first thing they fired the secretary of the mayor. And Sanders could not hinder them, he did not have the veto power.
The first budget was made with volunteers at the kitchen table.
He did what he could, the voters saw the shenanigans and he stayed in communication (which is easier in a small town, Burlington has maybe 40,000 people now). So the next election of the aldermen/women not long after gave him more supporters and he had at least the veto power. And he started to work with the Republicans of Burlington on a case to case base to get things done.
The relationship with state Democrats stayed "complicated"
Well, he ran as Independent for higher office (Congress, Senate) and in the 1988 Congressional race the Democrat was the spoiler that handed victory to the Republican. He got in the mid 30 % range, closely followed by Sanders and the Democrat had over 20 % (plus the usual selection of Independents). The "left/liberal" vote could have easily won that Congress race.
So Sanders travelled to D.C. and made a deal with the national party. They would not support a D candidate (and lean on the state party) and if he would win the seat against a Republican (which he could easily do) he would caucus with them in the House.
In the years between 1981 and 1988 Sanders engaged in all the races that might have been of interest for any ambitious Democrats. he had done so already in the 1970s running for a litte Independent party but then with little success. Once they won close to 10 % in a race (not sure if it was Sanders) and de facto spoiled if for the Democrats. It was so close that the governor or state legislature picked the "winner" - handing over the win to a Republican.
But as mayor he had more clout and was on the rise. Slowly but steadily.
In 1990 it was Independent Sanders, a Republican and a few smaller Independents (that's a Vermont thing). Won that race and was sworn in in January 1991.
2
-
You also do not have a say with single payer healthcare (in the U.S. Medicare for All) - and you will not miss that one bit, single payer coverage is supposed to cover ALL that can be medically warranted in a first world nation - and all nations do it in a very cost-efficient manner. I live in a single payer country and people have a fish-in-water experience.
The mandated contributions (payroll tax, matched by companies) must be very affordable (for companies and staff) so no one resists them. The rest comes from general tax revenue. Signing up is very easy (5 minutes on your first day in a new job), no healthcare questions (risk does not matter, only the income), dependent family members are included for free.
The coverage is also not subject to the whims of the companies, no difference for the staff of smaller companies or start-ups (that is recruiting advantage).
There are provisions for people who do not work (jobless, disabled, retired, students, stay at home single parents, ...)
People are of course worried when they get seriously ill or injured - but not about having healthcare insurance, or bills later.
In all nations healthcare insurance is the de facto gate keeper to access to treatment unless you are rich.
(even in a cost-efficient system the costs can be very high)
Here people get that from a non-profit insurance agency and non-profit hospitals that are (also) funded by all levels of government, would react to public pressure, and have to serve the common good and make healthcare happen for everyone.
2
-
union negotiated healthcare insurance is STILL way overpriced (not only for the culinary sector, the healthcare plans of large companies like Boeing, GM, Microsoft - whatever the plans cover - they will be way too expensive for that. Not one of the companies or unions has the NEGOTIATING POWER of a national single payer agency !
In a single payer system these insurance agencies are set up to have almost a monopoly position.
for-profit monopoly = exploitation of consumers.
But as a public non-profit that works for the common good they are a very much needed counterweight for the disadvantages the consumers have - the insured / patients are by far the weakest participant in the healthcare system (which makes a "free market" "choice" competition etc. impossible).
Single payer agencies invariably get better rates from doctors and hospitals, and have enough power to get a good deal from big pharma. And if almost all is billed to them (and all patients are entitled potentially to the same treatments) it makes billing very easy. The doctors and hospital check your insurance card, if you have coverage - you are full in. the doctors can from then on concentrate on the medical side.
As long as there are also many private insurance plans with countless different provisions (who gets what covered or has what exclusions) - that cost savings potential of a streamlined admin is squandered.
In areas where many people would have private insurance (a large company like GM is nearby) or a lot of wealthy people are in the area - good luck with finding doctors that will accept those with "only" public insurance (private insurers cannot negotiate the rates as hard - even if they would bother, so the doctors would like to make to with "private" patients only. In single payer nations most doctors and all hospitals must accept the contract of the single payer agency and the patients under that coverage - or they do not have enough patients. That also curbs discrimination.
There is a reason no other country does public option with an opt out (for those who are young and healthy or for company/union plans). Also: the company can change conditions, and when you are fired you are out.
Nataline the girl that was the (last) reason for Wendell Potter to quit his position as senior PR executive of Cigna did not have a "Cadillac plan"- she was covered by a Mercedes plan - literally Mercedes (via her family employer insurance).
The insurance refused to cover the liver transplant (even though transplants were included in the plan), the doctors who were ready to go ahead with the surgery had to give a pass on two livers (which would have been a good match).
Finally Cigna gave in to public pressure - but then her organs had started to shut down, she died a few hours after the green light had been given by Cigna (that was in Dec. 2007 or 2008).
Wendell Potter mentioned in an interview in 2019 that the insurers now also purge COMPANIES (same tactics as with individuals: they drive up premiums OR the co-pays and deductibles).
btw: when in small to medium sized companies a staff member (or family of them) need costly and ongoing treatments that can "jeopardize" the plan or the conditions for all of staff. Either conditions worsen - until the company gives up, or they fire the employee to avoid the trouble.
Does wondes for the employment of elderly people in non-unionized sectors (in the companies that still have plans, that number is constantly going down).
Potter: the private insurers have no interest in cost control - it will become unsustainable if we do not get Medicare For All.
What they want is to drive up the deductibles so that they can pass on the costs to the insured. A mayor from a town nearby where Wendell Potter grew up: we had to exclude family members from our employees from coverage, we do not like to do it but we can't afford it anymore.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sore losers does not even begin to cover it. Republicans have been pulling shady stuff for decades now in elections and THEY have the gall to cast doubt on the results ? Good thing: Biden idiotically talked of how he was going to integrate Republicans in his admin and reach across the aisle during his "campaign". Doesn't he remember the stonewalling of Obama ??? - If Repubs throw one fit after the next, his idiotic stance is exposed, he will have it harder to integrate Kasich in his cabinet.
Biden is a 1980s / 1990s style Republican with a D to his name, and has been serving the big donors for many years. The big donors had a normie Republican and a lunatic on the ballot (that caters to right wingers). One hell of a Republican ticket in 2020. Big donors do not care about abortion, gay marriage, and gun regulation. These are the wedge issues that do not cost the big donors anything, no matter what comes out of it. So the parties are "allowed" to use them to rile up the base, but not economic populism.
One reason they did not like Trump, he spoke the language of economic populism (plus in the far right version always combined with nationalism, othering, and xenophobia).
Dems should lawyer up and ignore the idiots (when they do not give some short but strong worded truth bombs). Biden was very lucky - w/o the pandemic Trump would have won. Trump won 3 states in the midwest with a total of 70,000 votes. Biden now is ahead 92,000 votes in 4 states that ARE CLOSE.
Michigan, and NV are not that close - in 2016 Trump got lucky, now it is the other way around. Dems were sore losers with blaming Russia (and the Bernie crowd, susan Sarandon, and Jill Stein), but they did NOT undermine the process per se.
Many of the battleground states have a Republican legislature, that means Repubs are in control of organizing the vote (GA, AZ, not sure about Michigan but that is a safe bet anyway, and Wisconsin. And the PA and Wisconsin difference is not that flimsy anymore. Repubs have won with 0.7 % advantage in the past and never complained about it.
And btw both candiates could have pulled off a decisivie win - if they had offered the masses economic populism. Trump is so idiotic, incompetent and narcissistic that he single handedly shot down his own reelection.
It is not all bad for stanard Repubs, if HE had won the next 4 years would be so bad that the Repubs would be blamed by their own base.
the 4 states with a close Biden lead are
Georgia (0.3 %)
Pennsylvania (0.7 % have improved since Sunday when it was 0.6 %, they are well over the threshold of 0.5 for a mandatory recount). Wisconsin 0.7 % and
Arizona 0.5 %.
The votes they are still counting (AP shows 99 % of precincts processed) are mail in and expats /military so if anything Biden might get one or the other zero-point-one advantage here or be put over the margin of a mandatory recount, making if from razor thin to closer to a one percent difference (WI and PA). Which is fairly normal in U.S. elections.
As for the popular vote: Trump poo-pooed the 3 millions of HRC and now Biden is 4.9 million votes ahead. To be fair a lot of that comes from 3 large / solidly blue states (NY, CA and WA, I guess the small east coast states were decisive as well). Not to forget Vermont ;)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@supremeheavenlydeity5742 Trump didn't mean to incite violence (wink, wink). Let's assume we believe that. The riot was on the news, did the president not know what was going on (while the world was watching) ? He let HOURS pass before bothering to send a tweet to his followers to tell them to go home.
Meaning the police was for hours in a combat situation and the legislators, their staff and families, Capitol staff were hiding or sheltering in an office - Governor Logan had to wait NINENTY minutes before someone gave him permission to deploy the National Guards across states lines. (The Army Secretary finally called - Logan did not expect it from him. Outside the normal chain of command - but whatever, he was glad he got that)
Since we have no information that the president was passed out, or the Secretary of Defense (and his deputy) were passed out - how come they did not bother to take the calls of Gov. Logan or to return his calls. And what happened to the rest of the cabinet, or down the chain of command.
Almost as if they WANTED that the riots to CONTINUE ....
Almost ...
Of course tribal people that put the cult over country and constitution will play dumb over that, too. Do we KNOW that Trump realized how serious this was. Do we KNOW for sure he even knew right away ? Maybe the president is an idiot and no one bothers to inform him about anything important that is going on, and he also just happened to not watch TV. Maybe he took a long nap ?
Now we only need to find also a lame excuse for the Secretary of Defense, his deputy, down the chain of command.
Also the Secretary of Interior.
At least when it comes to giving govenors the permission to sent the National Guard to help out police.sure Trump could have fired them in retaliation - but only after the fact. he would have actively needed to reverse their orders - but then he would be on record.
Biden was not going to keep them anyway, and no one in their right mind would expect that Trump really could hold on to power (he does not have the support of the military). They could as well have done their duty and looked good.
And yes we can KNOW INTENT for SURE because of what happened after the riots started (or better what did NOT happen), is an argument that the Democrats made.
They did not speak about the press conference of govenor Logan to my knowledge (they just had to play the pres conference he gave 1 - 2 days later - he was incensed. But how long it took Trump to find the will to send a half assed tweet to his followers. (We or I love you, you are special, go home in peace).
but he (or his team) sent a tweet CRITICAL of Mike Pence - 5 - 10 minutes after Pence had been evacuated. The president must have been told Pence was evacuated. Trump never commented upon
that, or modified his tweet (due to current circumstances, I want to clarify my tweet from 5 minute ago .....)
it was a continuation of the ongoing pressure campaign on Mike Pence (the last chance of Trump to manipulated procedures). Trump called it lack or courage and unwillingness to "do the right thing"
Trump wanted him to seize unconstitutional powers and to disrupt the session where they certified the vote. Pence had told Trump at least 12 times in the run up that he would not do that.
On Jan 6th, morning was the last time Pence made clear he would head the session for the certification of the vote as the constitution required him to do (respecting what the STATES had certified).
In a public letter.
Trump had a pressure campaign going on for weeks, and was not shy to tweet about it. And did so again AFTER Mike Pence had been evacuated. Because the sitting president would not be informed about such an unusual event ?? !!
So even if the give Trump every benefit of the doubt and then plenty - that he did not mean to incite violence against his VP or incite the mob to storm the Capitol - he certainly did not bother to tell THAT his loyal supporters.
2
-
@Jack-uy7ie (R) Gov. Logan called the White House to get URGENT permission to deploy the Maryland National Guard (he had received an urgent / frantic call from Steni Hoyer and Chuck Schumer). The Secretary of Defense did not take the call of Logan nor did he call back, nor did the deputy, or anyone down the chain of command.
He had to wait NINETY minutes. And then it was the Army Secretary. (Oh well, whatever he could get).
Logan gave a press conference 1 - 2 days later. he was obviously incensed !
After he had told them about the details of the situation - a journalist asked him:
Do you think president Trump should resign ?
Logan: Obviously it would be better for the country if Mike Pence would be in charge in the last days for the peaceful transfer of power. Yes, the president should step down - or be removed from office.
Of course all of them (Trump, OR one of his cabinet members) could also have gone on TV, radio (remote interview, can be with a phone), or TWEET, that the governors of Virgina and Maryland are allowed to deploy the National Guards and are called to coordinate with the Capitol Police and police of DC.
That they (and especially Logan who had already asked for permission) were allowed to deploy them across state's lines to go to D.C. While also IMPLORING * the rioters to go home, that they had MISUNDERSTOOD the president, he never MEANT them to do STORM the Capitol, enter the building etc.
(* if only to cover his ass).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@graywalkerjoin3rdparty74 if you are retired you will stay in Medicare (or soon get it) - the improved version. It is a question of funding - and with the SAME budgets per person you get more bang for your buck with a single payer agency (that is in every country the case, private insurance or union/company negotiated plans cannot compete, the agencies have more negotiating power and other cost advantages - no marketing, sales, streamlined admin is possible).
Sure government agencies can be wasteful and inefficient.
The reason the healthcare insurance agencies are doing a good job globally: healthcare - and the admin around it, like insurance - is (or can be) very standardized, they can follow a blueprint, creativity, marketing, sales skills are not needed. It is very clear what the consumers want (that is not the case with consumer products, you can have a solid good product - but the consumers are not interested. On the other hand Solid "boring" healthcare is a good thing.
The service is also very important to citizens, all ages and income groups use it.
It is usually a stressful time when they need treatments, so they pay attention to the experience.
On a systemic level - if they patients / insured have reason for discontent there are only 2 possible reasons : the management of resources is inept - but that has been weeded out over time due to public reaction to flaws (because the users are so likely to react - much more than with other public services). Or the system is not sufficiently funded - again the cure for that is public pressure.
Public healthcare insurers blow for-profit insurers out of the water everywhere - and luckily the U.S. already has a non-profit set up with (internationally) low administrative overhead: Medicare.
When everyone gets potentially the same treatments it creates a lot of political leverage (one of the reasons it would be political suicide in most countries to attack or underfund the system - I hope the Tories pay the bill on Dec. 12th for their 10 year defunding of the NHS in the U.K.)
On the other hand the U.S. system is ideal for Divide and Conquer tactics. Citzens are busy with their life and people are self-centered.
When I would learn that a neighbour or collegue would not get a treatment that should be standard for a first world country (I live in a country with single payer) - it would be time for the pitchforks.
My family or friends would not get it either. (everyone gets the same, so all are in the same boat. The wealthy are made to participate in the same system, at least they pay into it - so they can as well use it. And they will use it because it is good and reasonable funded (that means the country spends half what the U.S. is spending per person).
No one is "lucky" because they work in a large company that offers good benefits - and the others = majority would have to suck it up with inferior or hollowed out coverage.
The universality and that all citizens have skin in the game means also that no political party dares to touch the system (the Tories in the U.K.: Hold my beer).
Rollout for Medicare for All: more age groups will join every year and the young are just waiting for their turn. Those who come in later will strengthen the system, younger people cost much less (spending goes up very much with age) - but they provide the numbers in form of payroll taxes and political leveage (and are an online and activist army if necessary).
Over time the U.S. system should get to the point of efficiency of other countries. it will take some time - the obsolete administrative staff will need employment initiatives or retraining (testimony of how inefficient the current system is). There will be a backlog (untreated diabetes for instance - that causes more costs later) and no other country has the disadvantage of an opiode crisis or has to deal with for-profit hospital chains.
On the other hand prices for drugs can go down right away. The cost savings for a more streamlined admin should also manifest within a few years.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2