Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
@SplotPublishing Then (a few days before Christmas 2016) it became safe to go there and to check out the situation, also Christian groups went to Aleppo and Syria. Gabbard had cleared her visit with the ethics committee (not her group meeting with Assad, that was arranged on short notice).
As far as I am concerned - it would be a good thing the next time they meet, Tulsi Gabbard represents the U.S. as Secretary of State.
The UN had negotiated an amnesty and the busing out of the various groups of jihadists in December. They had to give up their arms, they were driven to Idlib (then a stronghold of the moderate terrorists), so the Syrian government "concentrated" them there.
Each group had held a certain area of the occupied part of the city, those groups only loosely cooperated, the "financiers" (my guess Saudi Arabia) did not want them to unify under one leadership and rivalries would have prevented that anyway. Most took the amnesty (the government forces were spared the house to house battle so it helped them too) and the civilians were spared as well.
Only a hard core of 3000 fighters refused to take the amenesty (hard core Al Qaeda, even ISIS, their leadership did not LET the fighters go, and brutally punished defectors or even people they suspected to defect). That was the reason the citizens could not leave for the government controlled part of the city (not even if they needed medical help, the jihadists would rather amputate then let them leave for treatment in the hospitals that were open in the other side of the city). If they bribed the jihadists at one roadblock they didn't get far until they reached the next one. The jihadists could get out but not the citizens.
2
-
@SplotPublishing Gabbard cannot disclose all she would like tell us - a lot of it is classified (although the public would need to know it). The regime change against Syria was planned much longer, it had been decided in early 2002 (a dusted off plan of 1990, the same people were at large under Bush 1 and Bush 2).
It is interesting how the agenda is carried out no matter who represents the special interests in the White House.
7 countries in 5 years. The famous clip with Gen. Wesley Clark came up in a recent interview on Grayzone. They had Larry Wilkerson on (fmr. chief of staff to Colin Powell, also when he was Secretary of State from 2001 - 2005, I think Wilkerson left in 2003, but he was in the middle of the push of war against Iraq. - Recently he compared the situation with Iran to the former push for war. (the same kind of lies, but under Bush they lied better).
Aaron Maté of Grayzone played a clip of the interview with Democracy Now of 2007: Clark recanting what he had heard a few days after 9/11 as visitor in the Pentagon (We will go to war with Iraq. - are there any indications that Saddam had something to do with the attack ? No, but we have got a good military and they don't know what to do about terrorism. If you have only have a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail)
A few months later, so early 2002 Clark learned of the extended plan when he stopped by again by the same source: Are we still going to war with Iraa: we will take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan finishing off Iran.
Wilkerson: I have not seen that memo General Clark refers to, but unlike him I had security clearance, I was part of that admin and I saw the preparations against Syria.
Just to remember: in 2000 Assad had taken over after the death of his father, he did a charm tour to Europe (maybe also a visit to the U.S. not sure about that). There were hopes the secular government would become more moderate and open up to democracy, at least the political analysts had them (who knows what was plotted behind closed doors).
After 9/11 Syria (and even Libya) offered help in the fight against the Sunni (Saudi sponsored) jihadists. Which were also a threat to their secular authoritarian governments.
At that time Syria was humming along (the big draught had not yet hit them, and Syria or even Libya were certainly not as bad as all the theocratic extreme oil monarchies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
6:00 Seth Siegel, author activist: Orangy County (a very wealthy area) built their own filter system. They did not wait for the EPA (well of course not - and screw the rest of the country) Having high quality filtered water costs only 60 cents per person per week, so 30 USD per year, the is the best system you can have, they have excellent water ..... so that would be 120 for a family of four per year.
The rich retreating once again into their gated communities instead of using their leverage to improve conditions for all.
Heck in Michigan Republicans forced water on the community in Flint that leaked lead out of the pipes. The water source they had before was better it wasn't as aggressive, and the lead stayed in the old pipes.
Then Republicans (who rule the community because the city is bankrupt, never mind elections) forced a new (cheaper) water source on them. And some profiteering and privatization played a role, it was not only ideology, the people doing that had connections to the govenor.
When the water got visibly polluted, stank and what not (all the old sediments and dirt being released - which should have been a red flag when it suddenly starts all over the community) and the consumers complained - we know best "authorities" that had taken over could have installed a filter that costs USD 500 a day (for the whole community) so likely costs would have been less than 60 cents per person per week.
Edit: 500 USD per day = 3,500 per week divided by 0,60 = approx. 58,000 residents. Flint has 97,000 people. And maybe switching back to the old good water source would have been cheaper anyway.
But THAT filter did not get installed. Not even when a pediatrician sounded the alarms. She had to organize the testing against the resistance of the govenor.
Moreover Orange County likely has an up to date pipe system, so the contanimation does not come from pipes but it is fertilizer, bacteria, medication that comes from urine (from animals and humans) etc. It might cost more when you have old infrastructure - and it needs to be changed anyway.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Only in the U.S. ! - In other countries when parties / candidates lose: we regret it, we did a good job as governing party /oppositionm ,had a strong message/ platform, etc. .... but we could not communicate it well enough. We must get better in communicating with the voters, better in understanding.
They do not even blame voters when they lose a lot to the far right.
They may not mean it but I have never, ever heard one of them "blaming" voters. Turnout in important elections is often 75, 80 even 85 % (the 2016 race of the U.S. would have gotten 85 % in every other democracy).
So blaming a lost election on low turnout does not work anyway. and there is no concept of "wasted" votes if you have popular vote in a parliamentary system (in the U.S. ranked choice voting could help, the Democratic party would be in for some surprises).
Also: voting is EASY, it is unheard of to not be on the voter rolls, when you show up, elections are on a Sunday or holiday, and everyone beyond 15 minutes (usually 5) waiting time would be highly ! unusual.
If they get lower turnout in some races (EU parliament elections for instance, or a race at the state level). they also do not dream of blaming the voters. We must bet getter in motivating voters.
In state / provincal races they might deflect that they got hit by proxy (the population is fed up with the top echelons of government and the discontent is expressed in another election. It can happen). But that is also stated as a form of explanation (and will have consequences or at least wild fighting within the party), there is no connotation of "the voters are wrong".
It is more like: our leadership let us down and the voters punished that - and we were on the receiving end, because this election happened to be the one on the schedule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nickpeterson8659 It is probably a good thing when Sanders outperforms the polls - think HOW STUPID it will make the media look. (the recent poll in which he leads by 3 % (27) next is Biden with 24 % (I think in Iowa) was with 50 % mobile phones. That's more like it - but the people with landlines (older) are easier to reach so usually they have more of those.
And with candidates like Biden, Warren, Buttigieg (older supporters) asking landline participants is not going to skew the picture as much.
If the Sanders campaign wins with an eclat in Iowa (start beg. of Feburary) - while he was stuck in the Senate with impeachment and then in New Hampshire they will really start getting nervous.
It will give voters the "permission" to go for Sanders (he is not so unelectable after all).
Being stuck with impeachment in the Senate 6 days per week is not as much as an obstable when you have such a strong
groundgame. In the last weeks it is about turning people out, knocking doors, phonebanking. The volunteers (and the staff that leverages the power of the volunteeer army) do not need Sanders for that (on the contrary: many rallies in the state also bind resources.
As for Nevada; Sanders has a not so secret weapon: AOC.
And the teachers union. That is good: they know how to organize.
Polling problems
The last poll (one week before primary in summer 2018) showed AOC at least 16 points behind, likely more (I forgot the number). Joe Crowley had outspent her 10 : 1 (3 million USD versus 300,000). Crowley thought he had it wrapped up. That was a good thing, or he would have unleashed the full New York party machine.
One problem that pollsters have, is that they work with "normal" in the past (younger voters and low income people do not vote as much).
AOC: "We worked at changing WHO turns out." She increased turnout by 68 % and she won comfortably. The polls were wrong in her case, and they were wrong for Sanders in Iowa in 2016, and they were far off in Michigan (by 20 %, Sanders won that state in a surprise upset).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The ATLANTIC is not the government and unlike the president does not have the agencies and the best experts at their disposal. They do not get the behind the scenes info from the letter agencies (like the CIA). Nor can they put diplomatic pressure on China to come clean (if only behind the scenes !)
If Trump admin had abstained from making this a campaing issue ! - China might have been more forthcoming. Earlier.
Initially (before corona crisis broke) Trump planned to use China bashing in his campaign, he tried a little bit of that corona related but that did not help him, other issues became more important. China bashing might work with the dedicated base, but not for the other voters he would need to pull off a win in Nov.
Even w/o the corono crisis, seeing the relations with China under that self serving angle of using them as boogeyman for an election campaign is highly unpatriotic.
(Corporate Dems do the same with Russia !)
The relationship with China (or Russia to not let the Dems off the hook) is obviously highly relevant for the safety and economy of the U.S. So whatever goes on, government fights it out behind the scenes first, and should not abuse such important issues as political football.
with a COMPETENT U.S. government it would not matter, that the Dems specialized in Russia bashing since 2016. A competent government would not have let the important Reagan era military treaties and agreements expire.
If for the sake of public health you have to make concessions to another country (face saving) - as to encourage them to share the TRUTH, a reasonable U.S. admin would have done that.
Sure, China dropped the ball (again after 2002 / 2003, they should have learned their lesson). So what is the U.S. going to do about it. They will never officially admit it, they are not going to pay reparations, and the
The willingness to make cheap points with the help of important issues shows also in the half baked travel ban. Trump was right to have one, only it shold have been the one the experts recommended. For ALL travellers, the virus does not care if a person has an US passport.
so Trump started with an experts recommendation and turned it into something to stick it to China. And to avoid any economic inconveniences (which a real travel ban would inevintably cause).
For the same reason Trump later ignored the advice to have a travel ban for people coming from Europe. Again: the industries (donors) would not have liked it. And he wanted to project the image thateverything was fine. Using highly unusal and inconvenient measures (if only to be on the safe side) would have somewhat tainted that picture. It could have triggered the overdue correction on Wallstreet. He did not want that either.
Both decision (only half measures reg. travel ban China and none for Europe) were not driven by public safety concerns.
Big biz interests and the image of "The economy is good, all is normal" were more important - and it gave Trump an opportunity to annoy China.
2
-
2
-
I do not even think this is about identitiy. whatever works in their opinion to damage Sanders - and Warren plays along. The DNC / Clinton machine painted him as sexist, racially almost insensitive and his supporters as the mean Bernie Bros last time. That did work to a degree (at least in certain circles, not the majority of voters).
So they might be tempted to revive true and tested strategies.
It is true that these types gravitate to fabricate a sexism claim because that is really bad in these circles.
(Ignoring of course that Clinton was able to lose against President pussygrabber so the electorate incl. many women were not overly concerned with sexism.
On the other hand the Democratic leadership does not want Warren to win the general election either, that is not even necessary, she could be bought with a VP or cabinet position. (Nor would they worry if a Biden/ Warren ticket or any other combo loses. Although they will not admit that, at least they can keep the tax cuts and can clutch their pearls 4 more year. Backstabbing The People on every turn and of course they could wag their finger at progressives, that would be blamed for a lost election when Biden, Warren suppress turnout).
I guess: The DNC, their favorite media stenographers, and Warren's Hillary / Obama Staffers and maybe team Biden met in smoke filled rooms and made a ruthless calculation.
What could we throw at Bernie ?
Wine, wife and song - or corruption is not an option. Going after his fashion sense and hair is also not an option. Anti-semitic ? only the right tested the waters. This election season. One try was in 2016 by a "liberal" but it went nowhere.
Some rightwingers did so THE DAY AFTER Labour lost in the U.K. (if it had worked so well in the U.K. we should try it against Sanders as well).
DNC is not ready for that. Yet.
I assume they would try Russia, Russia before anti-semitism.
So they activated the narrative of the mean Bernie Bro. and rounded it off with a healthy dose of sexism.
Warren: "Sanders sends out his volunteers to trash me" - this is a quote and of course no evidence for that. She does not mind insulting the army of volunteers while she is at it. People that are instructed to not even compare platforms and to not even mention the names of other candidates. As she could have found out if she had checked out the website or the quiz for the training of the volunteers. Or she could have called Sanders.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Austria - your example: company with 200 employees, max. contribution per month 40,000 USD from the employer and the same amount from staff (if all 200 employees have 5,000 USD per month before taxes - which would be rare).
It is 3,8 % of the wage and the cap is for a yearly wage of 60,000 so that is max. 2,400 per year for each party
That contribution is a mandate (small and large companies) and for every staff member that has more than 500 USD per month. (so that would be monthly 19 USD for each party if you have only 500)
The mandate also constitutes the right to FULL coverage (like everybody else) incl. for dependent family members (at least till age 18, stay at home parents or spouses etc.).
Signing up when new in the job: 5 minutes. name, address, SS number, and the same for the dependent family members (if both parents hold a job one or the other includes the children. Does not matter, it is ONE pool).
If the main breadwinner pays the maximum and the wife has a side job and the teenager a summer job - they all pay according to wage. (Yes the wife would be covered via her husband, but if she has a wage she too must contribute - if only a little bit.
If you hold serveral (well paying) jobs you can ask for a refund if you come over the 60,000 per year salary threshold. The companies cannot check that, the insured must settle that with the insurance agency. One of the rare cases where you have to do with them.
They work quietly in the background, no one "loves" them, they are expected to do their job and help to make healthcare happen - and they deliver.
Now a person with only 500 USD per month will hardly make a living with that wage. But let's say a single mum takes a sabbatical (children are over 3 years so no coverage or benefit via maternity leave). She has savings and has an apartment that belongs to her so lower cost for housing. - So she can do that for one year or two - but she wants of course healthcare insurance.
If she is not covered by any other program - and then usually for free (maternity leave, or unemployment - but that does not rhyme with sabbatical, disability or because she pursues a recognized form of education) - she could look for a side job that pays more than 500 USD per month. Then she has automatically insurance with full coverage (for 19 bucks) and that includes the kids.
Kids would be covered under ALL circumstances.
2
-
the principle of single payer is to have everyone covered so the contributions must be modest. No resistance to the mandate and it is easier for companies to come up with the money.
Employees of small companies have the same coverage as those of large companies, or retired persons (it is one pool). So that is a recruiting advantage.
The mandated contribution is not nearly enough - the agency gets max. 4,800 USD per year per employee, less for many. Austria spent around 5,500 USD per person on healthcare in 2017 (54 % of the U.S. spending per person, which was USD 10,260 - most wealthy nations are in the range of 49 - 55 %).
Many persons have no wage / income so the agency gets no payroll taxes for them.
Think children, disabled persons, stay at home parents / spouses, students, ...
So there must be generous additional subsidies - like in the U.S. - coming from general tax revenue.
The Austrian government still pays less in subsidies per person compared to the U.S. government. And citizens and compnies pay much, much less.
Another angle of: if it costs double of what it should cost, there are many parties (gov., citizens, companies) that can save money while comprehensive services for all are offered.
The services are good. And (almost) free at the point of delivery. (co-pay for drugs, but all very modest).
The subsidies come from general tax revenue: like for instance income tax, or VAT (10 % for staples, else 20 %). Which is offset by many benefits and public services.
VAT is especially offset for families with children: till age 18 there is an universal child benefit of approx. USD 150 per child per month. It is like UBI per child. (After age 18 - 26 it is paid if the young adult pursues some form of education or professional training. No means testing but it is conditional. Persons that hold a regular job do not get it anymore).
General tax revenue:
it includes taxes paid by wealthy individuals (income tax) or profitable companies. So indirectly companies may pay more for healthcare than payroll tax of 2 x 3,8 % (although the larger companies are also good in tax dodging) - but if a company just started out or is barely hanging on - they are not burdened beyond the payroll tax.
The broader shoulders have to carry more of the weight.
All the money (payroll tax and subsidies) goes into a much more cost-efficient system, with no large ! for-profit players (except big pharma) and there is much less red tape (streamlined billing, no chasing after payments).
The doctors do not consult with the insurance agency regarding treatments. A framework is negotiated, and the doctors decide with the patients which medication, surgery etc. they will have.
Rates for doctor practices (they are like small businesses) and hospitals (non-profits) are sharp but the bills get paid reliably and on time.
Hospitals are non-profits. For-profits are not outlawed, but they cannot exist w/o the patients covered by the public insurance. The agency has contracts with the non-profit hospitals that are run by cities, states and in some cases churches. So there is no need for more hospitals and they would not get a contract.
Enough hospitals but not too many. (they have been established in the 1960s, 1970s at the latest).
Time for the U.S. to get M4A = genuine single payer. Not Public Option. (= medicare for some maybe sometime. Some can opt out to "keep their plan")
Let alone the plan that lobbyist Phillip Longman blabbers about.
From the experience I have with single payer and the necessary factors to make it a success (mandate, comprehensive ! coverage, covering everyone, incl. migrants especially if they work and are producitve, no duplicative coverage) - the plan of Senator Sanders is the only one that grants a successful refom.
In the US the predators and for profits are so well established, plus the influence of money in politics - so any deviation of single payer principles will undermine the reform. Would likely slowly undermine the well established systems in other countries as well (think Public option). In the U.S. it would not be a slow erosion, the reform would be undermined before the transformation has been achieved.
The M4A bill shows that the issue has been dear to his heart for decades AND he had never the lobbyists in his ear while he developed his stance. He could allow himself to UNDERSTAND.
It is not that complicated. Many nations have developed their national systems based the basic principles, most have single payer (with some variations) for at least 70 years and it is interesting that almost all wealthy countries end up in a certain range of spending. There is a blueprint that works on 4 continent and in very different cultures.
It is only complicated and hard to "get" if you have to protect the interests of big donors while pretending to serve the constituents. Then it becomes an elaborate exercise in double think.
2
-
2
-
2
-
comments like this prove why Dr. Fauci and other experts can't bother the public with too much information (it is especially bad in the U.S.) It does not matter at all for outcomes what his estimates on herd immunity are. (they were always in the plausible range, of course he is a renowed expert). It also did not result in harm that he changed his assessment on masks and mask mandates (like other Western epidemiologists !) in April.
it did not even matter that he had a different opinion in March, they would not have had the masks to pull it off anyway.
It was crucial to let the healthcare workers have the limited rescources.
Telling the public there would not be enough for them even though there could in theory be a small benefit (only with enough masks for ALL of the general popultion) - that was NOT an option. It would have caused a run with CATASTROPHIC results for the healthcare workers. it is disputable how much effect the mask mandates of regular people bring - but it is clear that we get much more protection and avoided infections from healthcare workers wearing them.
As for the insightful population (that voted for Trump in significant numbers !)
See Toilet paper craze. The sitting president and his admin downplaying the situation for political purposes. Or the hydroxychloroquine stunt of Trump and his cronies.
The general estimate for herd immunity (for many contagious diseases) is 60 - 90 %.
80ish sounds about right, considering it is fairly contagious but not as bad as measles.
If you have listened to the video. Some factors of how much herd immunity is needed can be influenced (government providing the vaccines and making it easy and free of charge to get the shots, and population using the offer).
The efficacy of the vaccines and how long the protection lasts - there is an element of luck. If the vaccineS (there are 4 about ready to be rolled out globally) do not trigger a strong immune response with almost all that get it - more people will need to participate to compensate for that.
Or the U.S. does an excellent job, but Mexico and Brazil not and new cases are imported from there. That too would require higher herd immunity in the U.S. to suppress ALL cases.
Taiwan, Singapore and China, or Australia and New Zealand do a good job to suppress the spread even now - they can get away with a lower herd immunity and will see the benefits already at much lower levels (although they should aim for a higher rate, just to have a margin). It is not only the infectious capacity of the virus, it is also the behavior of the humans, and the situation in the country or continent, that determines how easily it can spread. And that is one of the factors that influence how much herd immunity is needed.
I am only surprised that Dr. Fauci was even willing to give an estimate beyond the very generic 60 - 90 %, "we will see, and will aim at higher herd immunity anyway".
I assume he does a lot of modelling - he mentioned that he did calculations (there are a lot of factors so if you change the criteria you get other predictions) and his nerdy side got the better of him. Poor doctor thought if he said 70 - 75 % some months ago, and 80 - 85 % now (with some new insights, the damn thing is even more contagious than we thought) that the public would "get it".
Nope, there are lot's of people that want the population to work and die so their profits are not affected. There are limited resources of highly effective treatments (giving antibodies) and the likes of Trump and Giuliani get it. Politicians and rich people know they are not going to die or get severely sick, not even if they are in a high risk group. They do not mind a culling.
Dr. Fauci's recommendation are in the way of those ruthless actors, so he became a target of rightwingers and their media shills.
The same crowd that send out their mouthpieces (Republicans on FOX) to tell the elderly audience that the older and high risk persons should sacrifice themselves for the good of their children and the economy (read: we the rich, and some biz owners do not want to pay higher taxes and we do not accept lower profits. We want you to work and consume as always.
Your children should go to work and if you get infected indirectly we do not care. Actually it is an advantage because the person will not get SS and Medicare. Affluent older people can easily shelter at home, pay for delivery services, and their adult children do not work in retail they likely work from home, so less risk to catch the infection. AND: in case of an infection they can try to get the VIP cures. Low(er) income people do not get them, they cannot afford them and there would not be enough of them anyway.
Of course if lower herd immunity is enough to stop spread (the vaccines are ideally effective) then the positive effects will manifest earlier and return to normal will be possible faster.
If he had accounted for bad faith actors and clickbaiters (like The Rising) he just would not have given them anything to misrepresent them.
Rachel works for a rightwing think tank. She was always easy on lying stupid grifting Trump (no pearl clutching at all) and of course does some faux concern trolling about harmless inconsequential remarks (herd immunity) or actions that were perfectly justified, reflected the knowledge of the time, and saved a lot of lives (masks and change of assessment of Fauci and other scientists in other countries about mask wearing and mask mandates).
Not surprised about Rachel Bovarad's stance.
Shame on Krystall for playing the "Gotcha game" over nothing.
2
-
Andrew Yang in the New York Times interviews of 2020 candidates. What broke your heart: Yang paused a second and then said: Barrack Obama. - which was a remarkable and courageous thing to say. He qualified it then - downplaying the betrayal of Obama, and how it was not realistic he could have done what he promised. No, he could have, at least he could have given it a good try.
Pulling off an FDR (communicating with the masses. And: then some Democrats were the problem as well. FDR twisted some arms. He would campaign agains them if they would not vote for the bills of the New Deal.
Then the Democrats too had the White House, Congress and Senate.
Imagine Obama "being caught" by the U.S. voters - fighting for them (respectively he would have made a point to STAY in communication). They would have turned out for a March on Washington, for peaceful protests and in the midterms 2010 to give him a more cooperative Congress and Senate.
But he never had the intention, it was always the plan to serve the big donors.
Obama likely would not mind doing things to help the citizens - if that would be very easy and meet no resistance of the big donors. (the people that now make it possible for the Obamas to buy mansions in the Hamptons). But intelligent people like Barrack Obama or Michelle must have realized that the interests of big donors and the population hardly ever align.
That is why both were happy to latch onto the cause of gay marriage. The grassroots had done the heavy lifting. there was no political risk to being pro gay marriage (the potential Democratic voters were at least for giving that freedom, even those that they are not too all too positive about gay people).
Gay marriage signals "progress" and is his "legacy" and the big donors do not mind either way.
Republicans also latch onto such issues (LGBTQ rights, abortions, guns) they try to rile up their base and the Dems do the same on the other side of the issues.
These issues are cheap they do not cost the Democrats politically as soon as grassroots have changed public opinion, they do not cost the big donors (their common donors) anything.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2