Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@stephenpmurphy591 What protects a grassroots politician from being derailed by Corporate Dems, Republicans or Corporate media ? Name recognition, and also some experience. That comes with time. Some are political talents like AOC (that has its own pitfalls), but most need more time to get really established. Sanders had a suprise win in the early 1980s, that was an overnight wonder that was 10 years in the making. Campaigned 10 years for a small Independent left party in the 1970s.
And that suprise win was 10 or 18 votes more for mayor of a city with now approx. 40,000 people.
Mayor Sanders would not have been possible in a larger city.
8 years and 4 terms. (same problem, if higher office would not have worked out, his career was over, and he did not do favors for bigger biz in Vermont, so they would not coddle him. Which is why often business owners run for mayor. They set things up nicely for their biz, and then return to it.
And while being mayor 3 more ! runs for higher office.
In 1990 it finally worked out and he won the House seat. I think he was not that well established in the first 2 terms (he voted against gun regulations, in hindsight I think he feared that could cost him his seat come next election). Vermont knie him as mayor and I think he did good, but they did not necessarily see him in the big league.
Only then he beccame a household name and his seat pretty safe. And that is in tiny Vermont.
3
-
3
-
3
-
on VOX I read 2 articles about the NV caucus. good thing: there will be paper used (as backup, so in 2 - 3 weeks it should be settled). They have early voting and instead of 2nd round realignment they do ranked choice (people can give 3 - 5 choices).
They planned to use the Shadow app for reporting and to do the calculation (that contract was initiated by NV, at least I read that claim in the VOX piece, and the app was then recommended to the Iowa state party. If the party chair is the same as 4 years ago it is a shame that she did not fall onto her own sword. The IO chair has stepped down.
They wanted to use it also to report the early voting results to the precincts where the people are assembled on caucus day. To FACTOR them in there.
That gives me real clusterfuck vibes.
I would think all early votes could be handled as ONE precinct which would make things much easier, the whole box is kept safe somewhere and the ballots are counted before witnesses.
a) Nevada state party ? WHO keeps the early ballot safe ? Those crooks ?
b) that sound complicated and my B.S. meter goes off big time.
c) they will not work with the Shadow app (go figure).
They install a tool on iPads and every precinct gets one (so preinstalled which is better than the app that was not a fit for every smartphone.
The tool includes helps with calculation, usually one would call that a web app, but volunteers are told to NOT use the term app :) The reporting will done on a google worksheet, the calculation can be done with the tool, or on a sheet of paper.
(NV has done it on paper in the past, no app on a phone or online like this time. Iowa had the same Microsoft phone app like the Republicans in 2016, and that had worked).
So what became of the early voting reports ? Do they keep that procedure or are the early voting reports kept separate ?
The party is tight lipped (like Iowa when some people were critical before caucus day). The press gets information from volunteers that report from trainings.
If persones do the calculation (threshold, and then the delegate count) with the tool will there be a screenshot ?
It would depend on the other volunteers being like hawks observing what is done.
After the stunts they pulled in NV in 2016 in broad daylight.
Voice call which is a method to decide a vote when a clear minority shouts and then the majority. They save time, because if one group is 10 and the other 60, 70, or whatever ... no one cares, no need to count. They can move on quickly.
They claimed that the HRC side was louder, the Sanders people disagreed, I think the rules say count, they didn't. Even if the party chair could make the decision to ignore the people at the convention (I think it was the 2nd round of the caucus process so not on caucus day, but weeks later).
What kind of person ignores the volunteers and the base like that. It is always good form to have the appearance of fair play. if the people pro HRC would have been indeed in the majority (sound can be misleading, but on the other hand inexperienced attendees like many Sanders supporters might not have known they should have shouted at the top of their lungs).
Counting ! would have settled that controversy once and for all (I think the Harry Reid party machine represented by the party chair was in doubt if HRC had the majority so that was the reason NOT TO RISK a count. People hade smartphones they would have filmed, what could they have done if they would have a defnitive result pro Sanders ?
When the Sanders people protested, they threatened to call the police, and the lie was spread with help of the media that they had been rowdy, violent and that chairs had been thrown.
They shouted, but there was no footage to back up the claim of violence and chair throwing. But he party was afraid that could escalate and so the media propaganda machine was activated to make them in the wrong.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Edd1148. as a business man Yang knows the concept of bench marking. Most nations have their own kind of single payer - most expanded or installed it after WW2 - and they don't do PUBLIC OPTION (opt-in /opt-out / Medicare for those who want it etc).
On a superficial level "giving the choice" does not look like an unusual idea - so there must be a good reason why they don't do it.
Cherry picking of pools would be one of the most important reasons TO NOT HAVE A PUBLIC OPTION. In a single payer country the for-profit insurers only have a small portion of the healthcare "market". (Some countries do not include basic dental care in the public coverage, or think travel insurance).
So the private insurers never developed SYSTEMS to screw the insured / patients and they do not employ the bean counters to deny care or to purge people from the pool. It would not be worth the effort. Never mind they are much better regulated in that environment.
But in the U.S. the private insurers excell in the art to purge, they kicked out patients or did not accept them for coverage before ACA (resp. the offers for people with higher risks got were prohibitively high).
They continue to harrass patients and refuse to pay (fully) on a regular base. So doctors, patients, and nurses have to make many calls to get treatments approved. (a major inefficiency).
See a 2019 interview of Wendell Potter whistleblower on the industry: now they start to purge whole companies - if employees or their family members (if they are covered) have costly and ongoing treatments. (either premiums go up and make the company cancel the contract or they have to addecpt worse conditions for all - less coverage, higher deductibles. Or they fire the employee right in the beginning to avoid all of that.
The for-profit healthcare insurers screw the consumers every chance they get and have honed predatory practices. They have the systems, departments, skills and software already in place.
Are they going to kick the most costly / risky patient to the public pool and keep only the young and healthy ?
To answer that question you should know that 10 % of the patients cause 90 % of the spending. So if they do the purges right they can make lots of profits. For the young and healthy they can make offers that SEEM to be reasonably priced - but are still way too expensive considering the 10 : 90 rule. That also undermines solidarity between the insured, allows politicians to make hay by using divide and conquer tactics. The public pool is stuck with the high costs and will look bad - and it will be easy to villify it and to defund it.
Are their lobbyists going to make sure the law will allow them to make different offers according to risk / age / gender ? Will the Corporate media that gets so many ads from the industry gaslight the audience about the little details of the bill that will set up the overhaul of the system for failure.
Even if - IF - the insurers and to a degree the hospitals would not have unethical practices - Private insurers have costs that public non-profit agencies do not have: Sales staff, marketing. the administration and billing remains complex because there are so many different versions of "coverage", co-pay etc. Streamlined admin and billing is a major cost saver.
The costs to chase after unpaid bills. The people that do not have good coverage and therefore avoid going to the doctor until their conditions worsens or tehy show up in the ER (which is much more costly than going to the doctor in time).
The insurers have to process the applications and check them for risks.
Almost all wealthy single payer nations have HALF the spending per person compared to the U.S. (Thailand has less but you cannot compare teh wage levels, these are important for healthcare costs).
Most are in the range of 50 - 54 % of U.S. spending per person - and you should note that the average age is usually higher than in the U.S. (Europe, Japan - not so much in Australia and Canada which are traditional immigration countries). An older population is a major disadvantage, age is a huge driver of spending.
3
-
@Edd1148. So hundreds of millions of people in many nations, on several continents and for approx. 70 years - they all do MUCH better (not only regarding costs but most beat the U.S. regarding outcomes like infant mortality or life expectancy).
The MANDATORY contribution is paid by employees and employers (all of them) It is a percentage of the wage usually with a yearly cap.
That is part of the model and the MANDATE for a modest contribution is a NECESSARY condition for a cost-efficient healthcare system. No opt out. *
In practice there are minor exceptions. I know the system of Germany and Austria very well. For instance that certain professionals like self employed architects or lawyers have private insurance (full coverage).
In Germany they (and civil servants and some other groups and people with high income) are allowed to opt out. So 10 % of the population is fully privately covered. and in Austria archtects and lawyers cannot opt-in into the public pool (the total number of people with full private insurance is much lower). So Germany has public option for the well-off. But these are quirks of historically grown systems, it does not add to cost-efficiency - on the contrary. But it is not that much distortion that there would be enough pressure to change that.
Despite the cherry picked pools (people that are even allowed to chose - only a small segment of the population - will of course opt for the public pool if that is more favorable for them - there was a discussion in Germany in recent years to do away with that.
Even with all the favors for the industry (have a little bit of the market - and get a hand picked consumer base that is more affluent) or the doctors / hospitals (higher rates) and people with high income (it is tax deductible) - the costs for the older privately insured are rising steeply.
even though they are protected, the 90 % create a cost and inflation benchmark, the insurers cannot kick them out or not pay (if the public coverage includes it, they can offer more but not less). But once a person chose private insurance it is almost impossible return to the public pool.
That mandate also constitutes a RIGHT TO FULL COVERAGE (incl. for dependent family members). And there are little to no costs later when treatment is needed.
There are provisions for people w/o a job: either they have coverage for free or they "self-insure" for very low costs.
To make the mandate politically acceptable the contributions are modest, the insurance agencies get additional funding from the government (can be federal, state or local level), or there are subsidies for hospitals etc. Hospitals are usually non-profits run by cities and states.
One effect is that doctors and hospitals rarely have patients w/o coverage - and if they are covered they have FULL coverage. No chasing after unpaid bills, no hassle, no approval of the agency if and what the patient can get. The agency sets a framework (for instance that airlift with a doctor on board is "on the menu". The doctors use that option as they see fit. profit does not play a role, so the decision is purely according to medical considerations. If airlift gets you better results in severe cases (like survival or better / full recovery) it makes obviously sense to have that in the tool box - and either every patient can potentially have it or no one (for free of course).
So like in the U.S. there is a lot of government funding. But all the money goes into a cost-efficient STREAMLINED system in which all the large players are non-profits. (Exception pharma industry, but they have standardized internationally comparable products - that helps the agencies in the price negotiations).
With HALF the spending per person compared to the U.S. there is obviously plenty of room to pay less: The governments pay less in subsidies per person compared to the U.S. And companies and the citizens pay much, much less.
I call that a life experiment. To emulate it - no need to reinvent the wheel or to come up with tweaks like offering the possibility to opt out.
you would think that all the Democratic candidates that take a piggy ride on the brand of Medicare for All - which is a specific bill - try to understand the principles of genuine Single Payer Systems.
a) all the mechanisms of "free market" competition, consumer choice do not work for a service like healthcare (or natural monopolies).
For free market all actors in the market must have the same power. With healthcare the consumers are the weakest actor - and even well-intentioned regulation can protect them.
If for-profit is the first goal of a company and the consumers cannot avoid to buy / use the service they will be exploited because they can be exploited.
On top of that healthcare is complex - that always favors the profiteers and makes effective regulation impossible, the profiteers will always be 2 steps ahead of regulators and consumers.
Also: first world medicine costs a lot even if delivered in a cost-efficient manner (total spending per person roughly 5,500 USD - for every man, woman and child in a single payer nation - on average. Versus 10,260 in the U.S. - see Keiser Foundation, numbers for 2017 - or the numbers of World Bank).
b) the less for profit there is in the system the lower the costs and the less inefficiencies, unfairness and red tape
c) it is impossible to let the insurance companies or for-profit hospitals have a major role in the system and then try to mange and monitor them in all the complex situations. (medical diagnosis, treatment and billing). The only way not to lose this game is not to play it. The single payer nations did not let the private insurers or other large profiteers play a role. They took the ball away.
d) private insurers are glorified middle men - but with much higher adminstrative costs and a lot of toxic incentives to game the system. They bring nothing to the table, and there is no private system that can compete with the public non-profits (all conditions being equal. Age of the population, wage levels, no cherry picking allowed.
I know of Switzerland (only private insurerers 78 % of the U.S. spending. regulation works to delivery of care - the patients insured are not screwed - but it cannot contain the costs.
Taiwan: not comparable regarding wage levels and the population is much younger. Besides their spending has been rising steeply in recent years.
3
-
@somerealnews6312 Types like Krystal Ball were window dressing for the "liberal" networks, fitting the zeitgeist of the Obama campaign in 2008. And she did not fully realize the game until the 2015 / 2016 election. Usually the token progressives quickly switch to the dark side (money, career, healthcare plan).
But some resist or do not always toe the line. Kystall gave a "rant" in 2014 where she urged Hillary Clinton NOT to run. That got her an appointment with her superior and she had to submit anything she said about Clinton for approval from then on.
The show I think was cancelled - or only Krystall was let go. So she had her heart in the right place, but it was also luck that she made this one misstep, or that the show was cancelled. Rachel Maddow would have to resist 30,000 USD per day (which she gets if she sells her journalistic integrity) - and she did not rise to the occasion.
Maddow could start her podcast or youtube channel, be a firebrand attracting a lot of views, she has enough money to last her for life. Maybe run for office later and kick some behinds. To be sure she has a large support team, it is hard to finance that.
Chris Hayes remembers his former more progressive self from time to time.
Velshi and Ruhle: Velshi is Canadian and he asked Sanders some reasonable question in an interview. Being used to having single payer helps to not be idiotic about it. I think they let now the female Ruhle cover healthcare (expect the same biased and sometimes idiotic questions as by everybody else on the U.S. networks).
Cenk Uygur had his successful internet outlet TYT and then he was hired by MSNBC. THAT did not go well for long, the administration (meaning Obama) did not appreciate his critique and let management know - which let Cenk know. He had good ratings, in the end they offered him better pay for a slot on Saturday with much less visibility. Bribing him into oblivion and into being irrelevant. - He declined.
Gotta love the "free" media.
btw people that have shows on RT have full editorial freedom. To be sure they cannot slam Putin too much, but since most of them want to report on the U.S. or U.K. anyway the internal scandals or corruption of Russia are not a hindrance to maintain journalistic standards.
In the U.S. and U.K. you can have a career with the liberal networks if you do not challenge the neoliberal economic status quo, the insane U.S. healthcare system (or for the most part the warmongering and imperialism). The right wingers or conservatives find a home in Fox News (same with local news stations, they are bought up by large players and have an agenda).
But the lefties have nowhere to go. RT does not even have to recruit talent, they just have to pick up the good people after they were purged.
In a very weird twist RT has a lot of genuinely left progressive hosts. Chris Hedges, Thom Hartman (before he left, in good standing and he confirmed his editorial freedom). Afshin Rattansi in the U.K. (fired because he was against the Iraq war).
Firebrand Abby Martin that become know from being a part of and reporting on Occupy Wallstreet. No chance to get a job with TV - ever. (She switched to Telesur later), Lee Camp, ....
Ed Schultz after he was fired - he later commented on the reason he suspected for the termination: that he was friendly with Senator Sanders. He also said that he had more editorial freedom with RT than with the former network - NBC I think with the Ed Schultz show - most people thought they fired him because he was openly against TPP, that might have been another reason of course).
He wanted to cover live the announcement of Sanders to run in the primaries (end of April 2015 in Burlington). Some "observer" must have seen the camerateam and the respectable crowd on a fine day. Alarmed the Clinton campaign which intervened with management. He was called 5 minutes before starting (they had coordinated with the Sanders campaign) and ordered to stand down and repeat coverage of something else (from the day before). Ed was fired 40 days later.
Mind you: no one incl. Sanders and Jeff Weaver thought he had a shot to win the nomination. They planned a grassroots campaign with 30 million USD in small donations so Sanders could talk about the issues. But Clintons campaign thought he could do well in early states and that would diminish the momentum for Clinton. But they - media and Clinton campaign) tipped the scales from day one.
So Sanders knew from day one they were going to play dirty. Getting frequent and friendly coverage by Ed would have been a god send for such an outsider campaign.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The CITIZENS will be pleased about president Sanders. Not so sure about the politicians, sure they want Trump gone, but a type like Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Biden (run by his handlers) or Klobuchar would be more to their taste.
Taxing the rich, catching the tax dodgers, decisive action to get out of fossil fuels, jobs guarantee, strengthening unions, reigning in the banks and big tech ..... If that works (and if the U.S. means business it could work especially regarding taxing the rich and multinationals) ...... their citizens might be getting ideas.
In many wealthy nations they have much better welfare systems and public services but they are also experienced the neoliberal assault (not as brutal as the U.K. or the U.S.), defunding by tax dodging, and the ageing population increases spending (retirements, healthcare, ...)
while the rich and highly profitable businesses pay less and less tax
The citizens of Europe, Canada, Australia, ..... are not into war - but some of their governments are, especially the former colonial powers U.K. and France get the imperial itch from time to time. Also Canda, funny how "liberal" Trudeau is involved in Venezuela.
They can act upon that imperialistic desire in collusion with the U.S. war machine (and interests of U.S. oligarchs and the deep state). NATO gives them cover for wars they could not sell to the population on their own: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, ... Also covert missions in Africa (France has a lot of interests, mining, ...)
Their ruling class likes war as much as the ruling class of the U.S. and it is often also about advancing the interests of the national oligarchs (mining, water companies, big ag, ... Lithium see Bolivia).
One could hope Sanders would also stand up to the Military Industrial Complex (he mentions that in his announcement video of 2019). Of course that would be a huge and frankly dangerous position, so it remains to be seen if he would dare to stand up to the war machine.
Larry Wilkerson: President Obama said to me. This city (D.C.) really likes war, with SS Kerry right on his side, and a general present.
(I forgot the name of the general).
I think that might have been in 2013 when Obama (covertly) retracted from enforcing the red line in the sand - Obama blamed immediately the Syrian government for the Sarin gas attack in late August 2013 - more than 1000 people died.
It was a Sarin gas attack no doubt in that case. But after a few days the U.K. laboratory in Porton Down confirmed that the Sarin used in the attack did not match the stocks of the Syrian government. The jihadists would have had a good reason to get the U.S. involved, while the military advantage of the government to use the gas was not clear. At all. And both parties were fighting each other in the region so Obama was foolish - or got misleading intel - to put the blame on the government and army of Syria before there was ANY investigation.
Obama never took back his accusation or his expressed will to start a war about it, but with the help of Russia he worked behind the scenes to avoid war. The solution: letting Congress vote on it - that bought him time. (I think they were in recess at the end of August, and in September he did not get the votes - as was to be expected).
Russia negotiated with Syria that they would hand over all their poison gas stocks, they were destroyed on a specialized U.S. ship. Ray McGovern, fmr CIA analyst: Putin helped Obama out of the mouse trap the war mongers had set up.
Ray McGovern: The scoop into the Middle eEast and Israel. This is the title of the video, and despite the title - this is about Syria and the narrowly avoided _open_war against Syria in 2013.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The grift of Corporate Dems is to not give the voters anything, and scare them with lesser evilism. [Insert name of Terrible Republican of this election season]. All that Biden offers is: not-Trump
The donors finance Corporate Dems to beat Progressives in primaries. And Dems like to sheepdog their base in the general. (The donors also would not like it if the Greens would have 20, 25 % of the vote. The sheeple could be getting ideas, that there is something to build on.)
Corporate Dems like to win narrowly (the big whigs are usually placed in safely blue districts, states). Then they can blame the Republicans when they never get anything done. Some blue dogs will do the dirty work, if some citizen friendly bill could pass and they would have the votes. See Obama admin in 2009 / 2010, they had the White House, Congress, Senate, and in spring 2010 a filibuster proof majority for 60 days. Then they passed ACA, then they could have passed a LOT.
With good legislation and putting up a memorable fight, they would have WON midterms Nov. 2010.
(Blue wave 2006, sensational campaign of Obama in 2008, it is not like the voters have become too stupid to vote. People sensed that Hope and Change did not happen, not for them).
The legend has it that Obama could not get anything done because of R opposition. The racism of the birther movement, the hostility of FOX, and the rabid Republican obstruction really helped Obama.
The base rallied behind him, no questions asked. And he could pull off his neoliberal betrayal.
You can still hear that he could not anything done because of Republican obstructionism. Not true, he did not ever bother to fight against Democratic obstructionism.
Obama had promised the public option, Joe Lieberman the Senator with a D to his name and a few like him killed it (a weak second best to single payer anyway, but not even that did the insurance industry allow). Of course neither Obama nor Biden did anything about the "Democratic" defectors (it was an important campaign promise after all).
Those Senators (they have elections only all 6 years) that run and can win as Republican lite are very important, they are the defense to derail bills.
They are always allowed to "dissent" with D bills, no one complains when they vote more with Republicans than Democrats. But all hell breaks lose when progressives dissent.
When voters do not obey anymore OR have a choice the business model of lesser evilism (Good Cop / Bad Cop ploy) does not function well - for Dems. Sure in the short run the donors will take care of well connected shills that lose elections (all the more reason for the little fish to earn that status too.
Always voting the donor-friendly way. repeating the talking points of the lobbyists, and obedience and deference towards the party "leadership" that runs the party machine for the big donors.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@arnoldtrogman most states are either safely blue or red, please vote an alternative party cnaidate or Independent there. Will not make a difference in the EC - BUT makes a difference regarding opposition to the 2 party duoply.
And especially the Dems hate it if they cannot shame insubordinate voters into obedience.
It undermines their business model.
That the Republicans come up reliably with an even worse candidate. So that potential D voters that care * and stand to lose something (so UNLIKE the Dem destablishment) have nowhere to go.
* care about the country, the Supreme Court, Trump in office, winning the general, Dreamers, migrants, potential war with Iran and Venezuela, Climate change, ...
The big donors finance Corporate Dems to WIN PRIMARIES against PROGRESSIVES. The ballot will then offer the "choice"
A) neoliberal spineless D or
B) a fierce R
and both completely beholden to the Big Donors.
Most Democratic politicianshave to forgo winning popular and populist economic polixiwa that could give them electoral wins w/o having to suck up to Big Donors (see New Deal era).
They may even have to risk losing elections (barely pulling it off), not having a winning platform, being a weak Republican Lite is not very attractive.
Voters will often go for the real not the kinda Republican (that is for gay rights, gun regulation and for allowing abortions).
Losing elections does not matter: well connected shills will get a golden parachute.
All the more incentive for the little fish to suck up to party "leadership" and to fall in line, not only to avoid being primaried, to get campaign funding and to have the option for a future secure and lucrative job.
And then there is the professional resistance-to-Trump / Republicans / NGO / consultant class. They are getting contracts whether Dems win or lose.
The Greens at least deserve the vote, even if you do do not fully agree with their platform, does not matter. They are not going to rule after Nov. 2020. ;) -Maybe there is a surge for a better candidate / party next time, or a better Dem is running in the general. You can always switch back.
But it is important to have ORGANIZED and ACTIVE opposition, they have an uphill battle, so a respectable result that get's them federal funding (plus 5 % of the popular vote) boosts morale and improves their resources.
The Green party for instance is eager to get on the ballots for presidential races (which is not easy and it costs) - so a candidate with fighting spirit that runs in a D primary CAN get on their ballot and continue in the general if the establishment screws them.
Trump threatened to run as Independent if they would cheat him out of the nomination. He would have had the money - or so he said, his campaign was rescuied by billionair Mercer in late August. (I think he could have gotten small donations, and maybe even from some D affiliated big donors ;)
The Republican party establishment took him seriously because he COULD make that threat (and they knew he would not care almost certainly handing the presidency to Clinton).
The Green party offered Sanders the slot TWICE, 2016 and 2020. I understand why he did not take it in 2016, but in 2020 he should have considered it. Taking into account how cavalier and compacent the D party is, how sure they are that they do not have to give the voters ANYTHING. And then demand their vote on top.
If Sanders would muse about going third party if Biden does not make concessions, there would be a REAL discussions (well they would go nuts, which would be FREE AIRTIME when Sanders is on TV to make his point).
The D's are so sure they can blackmail voters that they confidently tell the voters what they will not get (Biden: I have no empathy for young people. or: I will veto M4A, ...)
They are determined on not giving voters anything.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Run as populist, make an arrangement with big biz, insurers and Wallstreet on the campaign trail already, get therefore greenlighted for friendly reporting by the owners of the media networks, put citbank in charge of the pool to pick appointments from *, govern as a corporatist, betray unions and Occupy Wallstreet, be a war hawk and regime changer, get the big bucks from big biz after you leave the White House - and oppose an actual populist.
- There I fixed it for you !
* citibank mail from October 2008 - so before Obama was even elected. See Podesta emails in the Wikileaks database.
you will note the the list had groups of minorities or qualities. Disabled, vet, African American, Native, LGBT ....
the author went the extra mile and even made a list of females, that obviously had not been requested.
- Every identity group - as long as citibank felt they were no threat to their industry or big biz in general. also on the list: Eric Holder who carefully avoided to prosecute (even when whistleblower provided evidence - see J.P. Morgan and Alayne Fleischman). But good thing he was an African American.
3
-
@cybrhunk333 Lucy Flores concentrated for her last appearance on stage. Joe Biden approached her from behind (which she did not notice, WHO does that during a hectic campaign event ?). He put his hands on her shoulders , and gave her a long kiss on the top of the head (and she had the impression he sniffed her hair).
Weird does not even begin to describe it.
That would not even be a good idea for a husband, seconds before going on stage is not a good time to "surprise" people with shows of affection, when she tried to CONCENTRATE.
Flores and Biden hardly knew each other - he and a few celebs helped out with her last campaign event.
Cultural norms:
The more senior / older person CAN touch someone that they do not know well, but there are "neutral" places for that. The hand, arm, shoulder.
And you approach them upfront where they can see you coming, not sneaking up on them from behind.
so Biden coming from she can see him and giving her a reassuring pat on the arm or shoulder, would be O.K. (But it would be weird if a staff member would do that to the CEO - the CEO on the other hand CAN take that liberty. It is "paternal" behavior which means the person dishing out assume the position of more power).
these are little power games he is playing, with an erotic note. And he plays them with girls / teenagers as well.
It is very telling that he never dropped this behavior, you would think his team and his wife would tell him. If only for political reason, the look is not good.
He was hands on with Obama (but coming from where Obama could see him, and Obama is above him on the food chain. Might have been his way to "reduce" the status of Obama. or they were completely confident. But he did NOT sneak up on Obama, when he prepared for a speech.).
3
-
3