Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Hill" channel.

  1. Ideally the centrists all remain under 15 % and cut into each other, in states that VOTE Sanders would get ALL the delegates.
    4
  2. Issues Sanders foolishly / cowardly ! never raised about Biden. There I fixed it. Brihana can't say it of course. - As much as Sanders did good - he fell short. - And he and Progressive politicians dropped the ball in an epic manner. I think he sees himself more as an educator, opposition figure, movement leader (but not with any real power) and I think he selfsabotaged. Sanders - unlike the morons, fools, liars, careerists (Obama) and psychopaths - has second thoughts about fighting for, having and leveraging POWER. As for progressive politicians and the "stimulus" bill - it must be a combination of foolishness, lack of historic understanding (I am getting 1930s Germany vibes) and plain cowardice.
    4
  3. It pains me to say that but Biden won because Sanders is mentally not prepared (scared of) really TAKING POWER. - Sanders invokes how much the oligarchs have screwed the country and how dangerous Trump is - but telling the truth about his "good friend Joe" ? That would go too far. He would rather keep the moral highground as HE defines it (not going negative in the ads or on the stage) than really getting power on behalf of the screwed masses. The theory of Jimmy Dore: Nothing is more important to Sanders than NOT becoming the next Ralph Nader that is (incorrectly) blamed for the loss of feckless, inept, all too willing to-go- away-quietly Al Gore. (Cheney Bush wanted the presidency also more than Gore, and it showed). So Sanders was beaten into submission and being timid when he should have been bold and asserive - and FIERCE (I mean look at the state of the country even before corona, the brazen bailout, the way 9/11 was seized to undermine constitutional rights).  The thing with self sabotaging. You can in good faith put in a lot of work and do well for quite some time. But when you get within 70 - 80 % of your goal you start acting in a confliced manner. Sanders quickly, quickly glossed over "Do you think you would have won against Trump" questions in Nov. 2016 (after the loss). He SPARED the cheating DNC and Hillary Clinton the post mortem. At that time I was very willing to find rational explanations how he was being diplomatic and smart and did not want to alienate the DNC. Or the Clinton base in case he would ever run again. No good deed goes unpunished. They still blame him because that is the CONVENIENT thing to do. they do not have to admit their ineptitude and do not have to admit how much of a failure neoliberal policies are (if you really want to win elections - as opposed to be the "opposition" that also ! keeps the Big Donors happy). Everyone latched onto the Russia, Russia narrative (oddly enough still no one could be bothered to talk about easily hackable voting machines, voter roll purges by the millions by Republican states in 2016 (Operation crosscheck) or that there are states where the safety features on the machines have never been activated (Ohio). There are states and districts where you have to believe the results as published, there is no way to verify if the count was changed IN the machine or during transmission or after transmission when it has been tabulated (by R run states). Another red flag regarding Sanders: he was informed by Greg Palast in 2016. It is clear why the Democratic establishment and Corporate media maintain deafening silence on that. It suits the interests of the ruling class that elections can be rigged (worst case, not only "accidentally" purging voters and closing polling stations and demanding ID's and shortening early voting times - but in an "emergency" also outright rigging the count. On the other hand in an "progressive" emergency (in a PRIMARY) all those strategies to rig the election are also useful for Corporate Democrats. They are not going to call out the Republicans, they sit in the glass house (and their common donors do not want the sheeple to get upset, they want quiet in their empire). Greg Palast (Investigative reporter): Republicans steal general elections. Democrats steal primaries (then he refered to a primary in New Mexico with mass purges of poor latinos to help a Corporate Dem win the primary. In New York they preemptively purges the rolls in Brooklyn. By "accident". In a Sanders stronghold. It did not decide the primary, Clinton would have won N.Y. anyway. BUT they could not know that, and they were not taking chances. They did what they could (death by a thousand cuts) to undermine the 2016 Sanders campaign. Literally intervening on day one: Sanders officially announced mid May 2015 in Burlington. Ed Schultz knew Sanders well, and would have given him friendly coverage. A godsend for a small campaign that planned a 30 million budget coming from small donations. Ed Schultz wanted to cover the announcment live, he had a prerecorded short interview to play after that. The Clinton campaign intervened with top managment, Ed was ordered to stand down 5 minutes before start despite his protests. (and it was not because something important broke). 40 days later they ended his contract and his show. No one at the time thought Sanders had a chance (incl. Sanders btw, even if they did not officially say so). but Clinton had an Iowa trauma when Obama did so well in 2008. They figured that IO would be good campaign ground for Sanders, and NH was a neighbour state of VT - so he could have a good start as outsider. They were not taking any chances. Hillary got glowing coverage from Corporate media but she could not allow the small outsider to have any consistent friendly FREE airtime on MSNBC (Ed Schultz knew him well, he would have continued to report, and he had some reach). Nothing screams strong candidate like having to be so petty towards an alleged unimportant competitor right from day one. Being an experienced politician he should have known better about the lame excuses and shenanigans of media and DNC, I am sure he watched closesly what was going on in 2000. He was a member of Congress then. Or when they finished off Howard Dean a moderate but he was against the war (because of an excited scream). These bad faith actors are NEVER afraid to play dirty. As Sanders should KNOW, better than anyone.
    4
  4.  Simon Sieverts  Did Krystal inveriew someone from the oil industry ? When she handles 5 to 10 minutes segments and talks about the GND and Climate Change she can't handle everything around it (like DAPL for instance, or oil spills or Deep Horizon etc.)
    4
  5.  Simon Sieverts  Donzinger is a civil rights / corrupt justice system issue. And of course big biz abusing their power. Not sure IF Rising has covered that at all - do you know, do you follow all that they publish ?
    4
  6. team hillary had the bestest best people: IT people, campaign strategists, even the fashion advisors .... The staff member who set up her "private" server in the basement was hilariously incompetent. Just able to set it up that it worked, but not enough to keep it secure. Later (when the private server had become an issue) he posted on a Reddit forum or an IT forum if there was a way to change the date or recipient / sender of existing mail messages. In a way that could not be detected. For a very VIP person. Answer of the pros - they were not aware of any way to do that. And if there was one - he would certainly not be able to pull it off considering he asked such questions on a help forum. He used a certain user name. He had the same user name at another, unrelated forum. and there his clear name could be found out, because there his mail address was available. And sure enough - the poster was a male staff member of Clinton. Someone should have told the guy about searches on the internet. Or throw away mail adresses. Or using different user names. Especially when you do research that is not harmless. But he was loyal. and if you try to avoid the official way, you cannot have the competent professionals but have to make do with the loyal staffers (and pray). She could have had the wizards of the agencies at her disposal (and rightly so: the Secretary of State of the U.S. is a prime target for hacking, even for her private mail communication. Which btw is at least also security relevant because she might reveal in it that where she and fmr president Bill Clinton are going at what time. Bill Clinton has Secret Service protection, like every fmr president. So there is no "private" mail correspondence that you could sever from her position as SS - at least not when it comes to the requirement of securing it from attacks by hackers. Never mind - I think she had the secret server to hide office related messages that would be subject to and available for Freedom Of Information Request or at least to inquiries by Congressional oversight committees. If she had followed procedures. They could prove that some work related and classified communication was exchanged via that private server (and likely it was much more).
    4
  7. American meritocracy ;)
    4
  8. part 1 of 3 People "lose" their private healthcare all the time - when they are 65. They are happy when they are eligible for Medicare in its current form. Even though now people have to shop for upgrade packages for really good and comprehensive coverage (Medicare Advantage). Which is always a sign that the funding is not enough to pay the rates to doctors and hospitals and to include ALL necessary treatments. That means it is already a disadvantage for low income people (on of the packages is for drugs). To make things worse these extra packages are NOT offered by Medicare (with low adminstrative costs), no that part was handed over to profiteers. so that is the trick how to keep Medicare from negotiating drug prices that part was taken away from them, so if people cannot afford that package they have high out of pocket costs.
    4
  9. part 2 of 3 Medicare OR private insurance companies are both "intermediaries". They do not give treatments - doctors and hospitals do. - Medicare (like all public non-proft healthcare insurance agencies) "buys" medical services on behalf of the insured. So if sellouts do not hinder them (forcing complicated rules on them, or they are not allowed to negotiate drug prices) they SERVE the insured with little adminstrative cost. The private insurance companies are glorified middlemen with a LOT of administrative and other costs (marketing, sales, lobyying, profit, ...) who extract as much profit as they possibly can on behalf of their shareholders.
    4
  10.  @orionsghost9511  Representative democrady feels like monarchy and aristocracy only with choosing the overlords (kinda).
    4
  11.  @emileconstance5851  Yes, but many say it without slimy intentions and NOT in deceptive ads. (Acting as if the plans of other candidates would not ALSO include free trade school etc.) College IS not for everyone and frankly a lot of people go there because that is done in their families (if family is well connected it might even serve the purpose to be the gateway to a good job). Or they are going to college only to get office jobs, that they should be able to fill after highschool. - and companies should hire them after highschool. Meanwhile if you apply to Starbucks (at least in New York) they'll ask you for a college degree, else you have no realistic chance to be hired - for being a barista, mind you (not a good office jobs with chanced to get ahead). Prof. Richard Wolff (economics professor, see Economic Update and democracy@work) overheard such a conversation when a young woman came in and asked for the forms to apply. (may have been in 2017). The manager immediately asked her if she had graduated from college, and when she said no (she had dropped out and it seemed to embarrass her) he kindly said: Here are the forms, and I will submit them - but I have to tell you that HR will not consider your application if you do not have a degree. Dr. Wolff: "Pushing the buttons on a coffee machine does not require a degree, never has, never will. So why does Starbucks ask for it ? - Because they can !" The U.S. has deindustrialized so other paths to well paying secure jobs are not open anymore. For some time the youth was kept busy in college, they did not flood the job market immediately, and no one had to admit that the American dream is dead. Remember: AOC worked for the campaign of Sanders and before that for Senator Edward Kennedy (which were not high paying jobs either and did not lead to a lasting career) but most of the time she worked in restaurants and bars. AFTER having graduated cum laude (economics and international relations), a 2nd place in a science fair project in a good high school (as reward they named a star after her). And we know she does not lack ambition, determination, dilligence or the ability to present herself. So how come she did not get a better job before her campaign ? - because a degree by no means secures you the good jobs anymore. It is a default condition and then you need luck, an ivy league degree certainly helps or your family has connections.
    4
  12.  @michaelmcclure3383  what makes you think the "batshit crazy" identitarian lefties (that you think should be called lefties) are not a) a small but very vocal group and b) are anything else but part of the neoliberal party machine OR are groomed via some NGO's , and have no qualms of colluding. Typically these people call themselves "liberals", not lefties and also no progressives. I think this may be about feeling superior regarding moral issues - but no clue or interest in the economic issues (that are the issues that do have morale implications). I read a blog of a female that was pissed about Sanders in 2016, and a few commenters that agreed with her. Couldn't figure our why. these women (methinks part of academia OR part of the election consultant complex) could say nothing specific against Sanders apart from the fact that he had stolen HRC's thunder in the primary (that was before HRC lost the general) and I am sure if asked they would be vocal about all things gender, feminist, race related. That people purport ! to care about MeToo, race, gays or whatever can also by a very clear, cynical, self serving calculation (Alyssa Milano comes to mind, and her husband who works for Hollywood. Rose Mc Gowan a rape victim had some interesting things to say about her engagement about MeToo when it came to Kavenaugh, as opposed how she was treated, as opposed to how she reacted to the Tara Reade case). what does "identitarian left" even mean. The defintion of left is being left on economic issues. And then some. Any decent person would care about gay rights, racism, discrimination against women, disabled persons, certain religions. That is supposed to be part of the package when economically left - sticking up for the underdgog not only the economic underdogs.
    4
  13.  @debbiedogs1  UNIVERSAL programs are very hard to dismantle, even sold middle class people would break even - and they and lower income are the majority. That is why the upper brackets do not like such programs: How are they supposed to villify "those" people who get it, when everyone gets it.
    4
  14. I live in a single payer country, P.O is a very weak plan. there is a reason no other wealthy country has it. There is a reason it is plan B of the insurance industry now.
    4
  15. The RNC knew that Trump would run in the general as Indpedendent if they would cheat him. THAT gave him leverage. Sanders was willing to do the same in the late 1980s until the DNC made sure that no Democrat would run against him. (In 1988 the Democrat had been the spoiler with only 20 %, handing the Republican a Congress seat with approx. 35 %, closely followed by Sanders. The Democratic machine in VT did not like Sanders to put it mildly, but then he travelled to D.C. and the arrangement was as follows: he would likely run again in 1990, could obviously win this, there would be no D candidate (at least not with the support or money of national or state party) and he would caucus with them. The DNC likely thought the oddball could do no harm even if he did not play the games as it was usually played in D.C. They did not have to help him with money and he could win (and did win) and for them he was almost as good as a Democrat (when he dissented regarding war, trade deals, they usually found partners in the crime across the aisle. But he had his vote when it got tight). So they did not bother, the state is tiny and has no major industries (read big donors). Did not endear Sanders to the VT Democratic party (now they get along well, and he fundraises for them). BUT: being willing to run third party was the reason he got that agreement, it was the base for his political career (he did not want to stay mayor of Burlington, it was well known that he aspired for higher office, and they have term limits anyway - 4 terms I think = 8 years). As for being the spoiler in the Presidential race Of course Trump does not care to hand the victory to the other party, if he is on a revenge mission. - Sanders cared - so he supported HRC the ungrateful narcissist in the general. No good deed remains unpunished. On the other hand THAT prevented open war between him and the DNC. They made him outreach for the party (even though he immediately returned to being an Independent after the convention in July 2016). Sanders could not have been of use to progressives within the party hierarchy. After the shock of the Nov. election the party wanted to "signal" to the younger and progressive voters (signal as opposed to REAL concessions). So he became "outreach" for the party. No formal power BUT the only position where he was able to leverage his strengths. AFTER the election he got more interviews and they were less hostile than when he was a candidate. He put that opportunity to good use. In EVERY interview (whatever the issue was) he ALSO mentioned healthcare. Usually 2 - 3 other issues as well - but ALWAYS healthcare. In case someone had awoken from a coma and had not yet heard that the U.S. spends twice per person but with worse outcomes ..... The DNC might have intended that as a bone thrown to the progressive wing and as a way to get the support of the Sanders fans by proxy (and maybe he would share his maillist eventually ?) w/o giving him or the lefties any real influence. Well that backfired, he used this opportunity in a very smart manner. (the interview situation changed once it became clear that he would very likely run. His status changed from "harmless, could be useful to placate the lefties" to "must be contained" again.
    4
  16.  @rayrayandthem2995  those 600 USD will not help workers in the long run, on March 12 the Fed created 1,5 trillion USD (that was outside of the "stimulus" bill, happened before that was even discussed - and was only the beginning). For the speculators on Wallstreet . Dodd Frank allows that, the crooks = lawmakers made sure under Obama they did not even have do ask Congress for permission in the NEXT bailout. No discussion = no public attention and they can move FAST. No. Progressive. Calls. That. Out. Trump NEEDED the bill. Democratic party needed to not be seen as the sellouts that they are. Progressives HAD UNIQUE LEVERAGE. And the dropped the ball. In an epic manner. Sanders should not have played the game to fight for crumbs - and having to fight hard for that little. He should have organized the progressives in Senate and Congress, used a unified message and called out the abomination of bills - as they were developed. not when they were up for the vote but as the insane provisions were discussed. Pelosi asked for means testing right away. Someone needs to aks her publicly if she has lost it - of if she has ANY idea how normal people live. (she has become very rich while being in office). means testing = delay of payout plus more civil servants staff needed to make it happen (when they should be home if possible). They could let the IRS means test via the tax code when the dust has settled. And that would not be a lot of red tape. But then the idea is floating that the wealthy need to be taxed and Pelosi and her donors don't like to have that on the to-do list. NOW she asks for MORE tax cuts - for the rich / big biz. Of course ! 1,5 trn (only of March 12th) divided by 330 millions = 4,500 per person or 18,000 for a family of four (you would divide it up differently, less for kids, some for smaller biz, etc). Strong words should have been used: crumbs for the regular people, they are being held hostage, general strike, walk outs, civil disobedience, not even in an election year they bother to care for The People. The GOP Senators look to me like a Kabuki theater performance: they play the bad cops and the Progressives are kept busy and can SHOW OFF their little success. At least the Republicans WANT to win an election. VOTERS are scared. they have ALL the SAME problem and many of them are unemployed already (so they have time). In other words: MAXIMUM LEVERAGE. The package does not even include healthcare related to corona. Trump who wants to win and who has a better instinct for the moment talks about medicare-for-corona (for the uninsured). LAME - too little and he'll probably not gonna do it - but that is better than what Democrats even suggested. That package SHOWS what they think of the voters (unorganized, gaslighted, in desperate need of leadership), the U.S. media (millionaires shilling for billionairs, they will not call out the robbery in broad daylight). And the complicit corporate Dems. Who also tried to figure out how little they could give the people - and get away with it. Plus the feckless Progressives that cannot see the forest for the trees or do not have the guts to FIGHT when it is time to fight. not in the committees of bought and paid for politicians, and not in grandstanding speeches on the floor. I saw a hysterical performance of one young Congresswoman (do not know her name). using her time on the floor = 1,5 minutes to laud medical workers. In a quite dramatic fashion and she even got a time extension for her little act. Cute - obviously producing footage to be shown for reeelection on Social media. And the act of AOC on the floor was also quite dramatic - only she STILL does not call out the "democratic" leadership in their role that the bill turned out like it is. After a little token resistance of Pelosi. She can thank medical staff and frontline workers on another occasion. If she does grandstanding speeches (1,5 minutes) on the floor - she can talk about something that CAN CHANGE things and can INFORM the voters beyond what they already know. You would think ALL Democrats would riot on behalf of The People and thus create maximum PUBLIC ATTENTION. Or at least the Progressives - thus showing the other Dems for the sellouts and servants of big donors that they are. "No fundamental change has ever come from the top down - it was always the grassroots that made it happen". Right, Senator Sanders - and this moment was tailor made for activist movement. I cannot say it is 2009 all over again (and then later QE to the tune of trillions to further prop up the banks - then approval of Congress was needed, it was around 2010 / 2011). The ruling class LEARNS - this assault happend much faster than the last one and they are much more brazen. It worked out for them in 2009 - and now they expect to get away with it and that no one will call a spade a spade. Sanders should have rallied the masses (protests in cars, voters calling representatives, walk outs in companies that still work - also for protection, Amazon does not even clean the facilties properly). Not even corona related healthcare ? Hell, no !
    4
  17. if the citizens would be rational - starting by not voting for idiotic politicians and informing themselves - then he would not have needed to navigate a minefield since spring. coddling the clown-in-chief and trying to nudge him into the right direction. Correcting the claims of Trump w/o getting fired - which is an impressive diplomatic achievement in itself. Not many have contradicted Trump (repeatedly) and are still in their position. All of that should not be part of his job - but it is. Sadly.
    4
  18. Democrats I think have on average an older guard in congress and Senate than Republicans. MANY could self-eliminate in the next years. Progressives need to run NOW even if they likely lose the first race, it is about building name recognition.
    4
  19. Factual claims please. vaccinations do help to reduce spread (before Delta they even prevented spread - and the ZA variante undermined that to a degree already but that was not on the rampage in the U.S. Delta has improved its ability to evade existing immunity - also natural immunity - but it STILL gives some protection. From getting sick at all, from getting severe sympoms and to be a spreader. The risk to be infected is 5 times higher and the risk to die is 29 times higher for the unvaccinated. That is some very real protection. (very recent data, when the breakthrough infections have "found" the most vulnerable the risk wil be higher for the unvaccinated (as per statistics). Culling the high risk patients will end because it is a small group. Unfortuantetly the virus finds the vulnerable since it is widespread and highly contagious and these are people that have an weaker response to the vaccine AND cannot afford to get infected, for them every attack on the immune system is a big deal. The spread among the unvaccinated and their much worse outcomes (need the hopsital more, clog up the ICU) causes CONSIDERABLE costs. The breakthrough infections are harmless for almost all people, people sit it out at home, there is some damage for the economy (sick time, loss for employer or loss of wages and disposable income for the employee) but on the other hand they should - finally - get to a status of good immunity. Some immune systems are slow learners, but the 1 or 2 shots are enough(for most except the very immmune compromised) that the pathogen is not COMPELETLY new, the immune system has a head start and can contain the virus. So then: three times' the charm
    4
  20.  @Shane-The-Pain  the polls were correct for the popular vote (she did win with 3 million more votes), they just did not get the STATES right. Trump won 3 Rust Belt states with a total of 70,000 more votes (and some voter suppression and voter roll purges, see Operation Crosscheck). - The Democratic base did not come out and some narrowly flipped states were enough for Trump to pull it off. As incumbent he has an advantage of course and his campaign will be better organized this time. (Robert Mercer the billionaire rescued the campaign in summer 2016 with money and with staff).
    4
  21. Dr. King was early on against the War in Vietnam (so early it cost him symphaties and support, but in spring and later in 1968 people came around to his point of view. Or at least they were disturbed by the costs and loss of Amercian life if nothing else). And he wanted a Poor People's Campaign (white AND black resp. all races, religions, ...). He was in Memphis to support a strike
    4
  22. MLK likely was much more of a danger than Fred Hampton. It was much harder to paint him as a scary figure for halfway decent white folks. The racists of course hated him, but the divide and conquer did not work with him as leading figure, at least not on white people that had some decency. (and of course the FBI ended his protection in 1967 as retaliation for speaking out against the Vietnam war. After the history of the U.S. of assassinating leades. Be it Lincoln or not long ago JFK. Plus I am not convinced at all that was a "lone" wolf that killed him. Or Bobby Kennedy).
    4
  23.  @overthecounterbeanie  the U.S. is one of the few nations that has the power to counteract moving money (not assets) overseas. They could deal with the tax havens (Bermudas or Bahamas or Panama would not last for one week w/o fuel, food, access to the internet or the possibility to clear USD). The U.S. twisted the arm of Switzerland already to amend their famous bank secrecy law (only regarding U.S. citizens living in Switzerland). Allegedly the NSA has a backdoor to the SWIFT code.
    4
  24.  @greathingsaregold  They make it easy to be purged from the voter rolls under a lot of pretexts. and hard to get back on. They have one of the longes ! waiting times for black communites (HOURS), that is a VERY effective strategy of voters suppression.
    4
  25. @73151cb FDR had to twist some arms of elected "representatives" in the Democratic party. As today many of them were rich or wealthy and could have arranged themselves easily with the misery of the masses. (A united left gave him the leverage: left or far left parties, unions. Union drive to recruit 1 million new members in 1932, the U.S. had then just shy of 90 million people. Strikes and demonstrations, in 1932 the march of veterans on Washington for their promised bonuses had been brutally crushed, with help of the army. Under the republican president, FDR campaigned then. Some of the oligarchs and politicians remembered Russia 1917, that was not so distant past - and FDR seemed to be the lesser evil, New Deal, higher taxes for them and all. FDR was not so foolish as to alienate the army (the lower ranks) and the WW1 veterans, might have spared him a coup attempt. (interesting story about Smedley Butler and his testimony before Congress when some oligarchs tested the mood for that). Of course once FDR got very popular bills passed, he got even more support by the population (the president makes good on his promises) and it was even harder to oppose him. He also evaded the press leaning to the right (owned by rich people) and radio was partially right-wing as well. He did fireside chats (on the radiao) to inform the public about big projects. FDR also strongarmed the Supreme court. Which was right wing, activist, the court that had "found" even before the crisis broke that it was unconsitutional to outlaw child labor. The court overturned one (popular) bill of the New Deal, and it was clear they could dismantle it bill by bill. FDR mused about court packing, the voters were furious - and the Supreme Court got the memo. One of the next decisions was about the minimum wage: it was found constitutional. These hacks can reverse engineer their legal arguments from the desired outcomes (and that is still the case).
    4
  26. 1:00 we had the same thought. This is what Sanders should say. (He shouldn't have dropped out in the first place). "so you want me to drop out, you want my endorsement, you expect me to activate my voters ?" What is your best offer.
    4
  27.  @dariusevans9096  ? the Castro comment was from 1980s and he stood by it (and he was correct on the issue). Never mind Obama said the same many, many years later. I assumed people care about what happens in THEIR life. The 1960s called they want their red scare back. Older people are brainwashed by media. Younger people in general do not care, they likely do not watch the "news" on TV, maybe they fall for Yahoo etc. Some of them are engaged - and then overwhelmingly for candidates like Yang, Gabbard, Sanders - if they are on the left spectrum. (And others are on the right and equally engaged). you cannot b.s. them with Harris, or Booker or Buttigieg.
    4
  28.  @mayc8674  That is nonsense ! The Trump campaign has lost almost all their their court cases and the 1 or 2 that they won do not matter and certainly do not change the outcome. I guess the Republicans cannot waste time on investigations when they do not get the Senate majority. Trump and his cronies carry on for the purpose to fuel the fundraising. And it is easier on the ego of Trump to act like he did not lose.
    4
  29.  @cyberbob19  write in may invalidate a vote - better to vote for an opposition party - which will be the Green party in most states for the presidential race (it is HARD to even get on the ballot). with plus 5 % of the popular vote they get funding, it pisses off the Democratic establishment and their media, and it rewards the uphill struggle of people who have to do it with no financial rewards andlittle money.
    4
  30.  @tylerhackner9731  I read an article about Obama: He does not have convictions he has preferences. - preferences and being self serving explains of course that he could not be bothered to fight. - if the cause would require you to put up a fierce fight it would be very necessary to have convictions.
    4
  31.  @awakenthelight  Bill is an a$$hole protecting his tax cuts. the assumption is of course that Biden must be the nominee ? How so, I remember plus 20 candidates were in the primaries (and they are not yet over). But if Biden suspends his campaign the next strong candidate - who might do well in the remaining states is Sanders. And WHAT would be the official rational to NOT pick the candidate with the second most delegates ? Why chose on of those who dropped out after the first 3 states, who were too weak to compete even there. or to annoint a candidate that did not even compete. Andrew Cuomo gets a lot of airtime, but he did not run, he had second thoughts about the strong showing of Cynthia Nixon, she dragged him on his Republican friendly stances. Of course the D elites want Biden to be the nominee they avoid that problem - and they do not really care if Biden wins against Trump.
    4
  32. As govenor I iolated the first amedment (free speech) by not doing business with companies not doing business with Israel out of proinciple or supporting BDS.
    4
  33. It is not "pragmatic" it is insane to prop up one-dimensional (untested !) technology fixes for proprietary technology - for a problem caused by the mindset of the very "invesotr class" and the economic system (profit and externalizing costs over everything). By propping up the very actors that got us into the mess. I can see them taking the subsidies for continued extraction of fossil fuels AND for "carbon capture". There are humble, common sense methods of carbon capture, and energy efficiency - they work, they do not need "new tech". But they would "only" solve the problem, while providing a living for a lot of people (and having other benefits like restoring soil and water, and more nutrient dense food) - but no one would get rich of it. So obviously THAT is not up for debate. As the common sense solutions were not enacted the last 40 years - when it would have been much easier and cheaper. The reason is the same - the ruling class would not stand to profit. We are not only threatened by global warming and it is the mindset that is destructive and leads to unsustainable practices - not only with fossil fuel. Propping up the destructors, confirming the idea that there is no major ideological problem (that now threatens our civilization and long term peace) and rewarding them for their insanity and greed ? I don't think so. It is also telling that the humble, low tech READY to USE solutions that would need human labor and allow people to make a decent living in the rural areas is not even discussed. - see my other posts - regarding Terra Preta, regenerative farming, water management, forestry.
    4
  34.  @joschwan89  Assange did NOT break the law if he published. Only if he helped with a hack. He didn't Manning delivered.
    4
  35.  @beneficent2557  Remember when Fauci (AND the epidmemiologists of Europe too) did NOT lie about the masks ?
    4
  36. and more automation is a good thing - if you have the right policies going with it: in the Golden Era (in Europe the 30 - 40 years boom after WW2 were called the Economic Miracle) automation paid for good wages that built the middle classe. Most of productivity wins come from new technology and automation. - Likewise most of the gains of migration went to the general population (incl.the migrants). Unions giving workers leverage was PART of the political consensus that the lion's share of the spoils went to regular people.
    4
  37. The Hill is pretty progressive for a conventionally financed network - I wonder if this is an attempt to lure in and sheepdog progressives ??
    4
  38. On the contrary let them shave off a few votes form the other centrists, I had hoped pete would stay in until after Tuesday (even a few % can help). The Bernie friendly crowd among Warren supporters might switch to him, they should be more into politics than "identity".
    3
  39. Watch a beautiful fan video that was just published: Bernie: The Times are a-changing. (with the song of Bob Dylan, scenes of rallies and Standing Rock etc. and some sentences of Bernie inbetween, really inspiring.
    3
  40. John Kerry: I have to step off the board of Bank of America to make sure Sanders does not win the nomination. Also J.K. in Sep. 2016: We wanted ISIS to become stronger in Syria, that would weaken Assad. (I guess tha audio would have become wider known, if he really had entered the race).
    3
  41.  @lisasimpson3832  ? Let's assume he did say something offensive (unintentionally or even intentionally). In a private conversation. That was in Dec. 2018. Warren wants to win in a crucial election. She has not given a hint that she is at odds with him for one year, she is perceived as ally to the progressive agenda, and positions herself as such. The meeting in which Sanders allegedly ! made the statement also sealed a deal that they would not attack each other. And so far they had both kept that. Then - when she is behind in the polls - and days before the important Iowa debate and the important caucus THEN she brings that up ?? If it had bothered her - why didn't she settle that with him under four eyes and much earlier ? And if you listen to the debate: he did not say she was a liar. He said: I did not say that (which would leave room for offended sensibilites, misunderstanding, expressing himself in a clumsy manner etc). In the grand scheme of things: she is running for president. between 30 and 65,000 people die because of lack of healthcare, 500,000 are homeless, Climate change etc. etc. What was it good for that she brought up that issue at all ? Let's assume he said it - why was the public supposed to know what had been said in a confidential conversation ? To paint him as sexist ? That does not rhyme with what the public knows about him and about his RECORD for decases. In the end it does not matte what HE believes about her prospects (or that of any woman in the race), that does not hinder her in the least to win the primary or the general. Her open mic moment after the debate was seen as an attempt to bait him into saying something that she and media could use against him. Did not work, he is too smart for that. If that wasn't a cynically planned move (my assumption) if she is really THAT sensitive - and childish - she too has no business running for office. Before that she would have to debate Donald Trump, remember. When Sanders was asked: "Did you say that" - and she thereafter - she could have deflated the whole thing and said: "Maybe we had a misunderstanding, I guess Bernie and I will have to talk about that, right now we were both busy with campaigning. Let's put that to rest - let's talk about the issues." But with such a mature stance, she would never have started the whole thing. And if her campaign started that w/o her knowing: she could have deflated the whole thing days earlier - before it snowballed. The media jumped at the controversy and she stoked the flames instead of putting them out. Did not work out, it did not get her more votes, it just cost her sympathies with the Sanders base.
    3
  42. And Germany
    3
  43. Only 20 counties in Swing States decide the presidential election. There are lots of rural areas in the U.S. that do not matter anymore than the urban areas count (also in "blue" states). And Congress has the most power domestically (of course president and most of Congress serve the big donors, and Trump serves himself. he is a donor that cut out the middleman).
    3
  44. They get kickbacks. I think real estate deals are a common way. or being offered lucrative investments. If they are discreet about it is hard to prove that the home was sold to them way under value and a fried of some oligarch (can be a lawfirm or other company that works for them) bought up the home later for way beyond value. One guy had the expensive wedding of his daughter financed by a company. He was kicked out of office, but the court found this was not corruptiion. They did not have any written or spoken proof that the payments (we are talking 100,000 USD in that range, could have been more) were tied to any favors. So he did not go to prison. If the big donors know a project is planned they can let them in. If he already has a biz he will get contracts (kind of like Hunter Biden now sells his "art" for 500,000 per object. He can't even pretend to run a biz). If they are not too greedy about it a lot is possible with insider information about the stock exchange. Lucrative jobs for spouses. Although the conservative women often are home makers (well and handling the side line like flipping homes). Then they can write a book and it will be bought up by the truck loads. They bring advertiser and networks a lot of budgets, so I guess there are also favors possible (maybe later, or jobs for children).
    3
  45. It is handsomely paid to tell the voters they have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Some may like the job, the 170k before taxes plus good benefits pay is not too shabby, especially if they are well established and know they willwin the next election. If they do not have long flights (Hawaii is not good), after a few years they know the drill. It is easy work, the lobbyists write the bills and come up with the talking points to defend them.
    3
  46. The bully pulpit. - Intelligence can help with double think. and Obama and wife certainly must practice that a lot.
    3
  47. this is nonsense, no nation does it that way. - and it is not going to bring prices down. Jeez !
    3
  48. I honestly doubt they are so eager to do well in the 2022 midterms, they would run out of excuses. They serve the SAME donors as Republicans do.
    3
  49. Chomsky in 2008 (he saw right through Obama) Vote blue ONLY in swing states, vote third party (Green Party) in safely blue or red states, - which are the majority of states). His reason: even small differences and being marginaly less evil adds up to big differences over time in a country as powerful as the U.S. And voting in masses for another party also signals to the cynical Dems that the voters have woken up to their plot. with 16 % or so the Greens would be hard to exclude from the debates. Jill Stein got 1 % of the vote, Gary Johnson got 3 % ! Chomsky referenced that advice in 2012 when he told people AGAIN to hold their nose firmly and to vote for Obama not Romney - in Swing States and Green Party everywhere else. (and down ballot the most left version, down ballot the D primaries are the most crucial elections). I find it interesting that NC does not mention that NOW, maybe he has lost faith in the intelligence of the electorate (I would not be surprised). a) a sufficient number of voters listen to NC - than the no win situation would not occur, The Greens would have gotten 20 % in the last election (Ross Perot got 18 or 19 % in 1992, allegedly w/o costing Bush Sr. the reelection, looks like Republican voters are smarter, or he activated a lot of non voters) b) it does not matter, what NC says of has been saying for decades. Because voters are to effing stupid (in sufficient numbers) to play the "long" game. They gladly go along with the lesser evilism plot while the oligarchs folllow through with your moves for decades. Chomsky has been getting it for decades. The voters have to catch up, and the people that listen to NC or The Hill count as "choire" that gets to hear the sermon. btw: the strategy of Chomsky is simple enough, but neither TYT nor Rising dare to mention it. Voters seem to be oblivious that the "How can you dare to not vote Biden given the "alternative" does not even apply in most states because they are safely red or blue.
    3
  50. the DNC would gladly lose with Biden - as long as they do not win with Sanders !
    3