Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
4:30 that confused / exasperated look of Emily ;) I give her credit for NOT yelling over him (as most rightwingers would have done). In a calm discussion, the facts speak for themselves, she did not have a lot to add (her ignorance was the talk in comment sections, science and facts are a left thing, the right has a very loose connection to them).
The U.S. oligarchs have never been a force for good.
ALSO not at home for the regular people.
Tthe only fit of wisdom grapsed them when they came up with the Marshall Plan. It was not absolutely necessary but certainly did help and bought them a lot of political goodwill and influence.
I also helped and more tha n the Marshall plan, that they lifted the restrictions on Germany, which was limited to 30 % of coal and steel production of the war times. THAT throttled their attempts to recover. First they had ideas to make Germany a poor agrarian society, without technology. However, they found out that Europe did not recover w/o Germany and the nations started to vote left.
Over the course of 10 - 20 years the Europeans and the Soviet Union would have gotten closer Europe needed fossil fuel and had technology and the SU was a logical fit and on the same continent.
Indeed after the death of Stalin in 1953 a thawing would have been possible - even earlier. Even ruthless dictators need to feed the population.
The price for being close to the U.S. (and getting economic help and US. companies did not flood the recovering European economies) ?
Taking sides in the Cold War that the U.S. elites were hellbound to have, and that continental Europe would be the site for a potential nuclear showdown. That never happened - but it was not all benign, there was a huge price tag attached to the U.S. help.
Although the Marshall plan was one of the smartest foreign policy moves of the U.S.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Cherry Bernie Sanders Holds Secret Campaign Meeting With 15,000 Working-Class Democratic Donors 10/29/19 - Text see below (I recommend going over to the site - link is in the next comment - just so that The Onion has the traffic):
DETROIT—Releasing bombshell evidence in the form of hundreds of cell phone videos taken during the gathering, numerous anonymous tipsters confirmed this week that Bernie Sanders recently attended a secret campaign meeting with 15,000 working-class donors from the Democratic Party.
“This damning footage shows Sen. Sanders clandestinely mingling with thousands of representatives from the nursing, food service, and public education sectors, many of whom were apparently chauffeured to the event aboard city buses and enjoyed fountain drinks upon arriving,”
said political strategist August Buckminster, adding that the event, which reportedly took place at a local vocational school, could prove problematic for the presidential candidate in his bid for the Democratic nomination.
“Sanders can be heard promising a highly underprivileged audience everything from a minimum-wage increase to healthcare access to educational opportunities—whatever it takes to get them on his side.
In one video, he explicitly offers a group of steel workers a quid pro quo of affordable housing in exchange for their votes.
If the senator wants to win the backing of the national party, he will certainly have to answer for hobnobbing with this room full of people at the absolute lowest levels of power.”
At press time, Sanders had received further criticism after documents were uncovered showing he has acted on behalf of a contingent of approximately 625,000 Vermont residents over a period of nearly 30 years.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@FrankJerkyRizzo It is like they had a brainstorm in their daily meetings: "The times call for some meaningless virtue signalling - of course we will not touch any issues that would improve the live of low-income people (many of them are minorities). ... So what story could we run and for cheap * and fast ?"
* (w/o the need to have journalists and a team on the ground covering protests, which costs money).
Or doing some deep dive into police misconduct (again costs money, doesn't produce a story right now, when the protest are "breaking news", so they cannot exploit the moment. And they need the cops, who inform them, so they would rather not offend them, except when the police brutality is so outrageous that they cannot help but cover the story.
But they want to come up with something and fast, so they are "caught acting" in the game of shallow virtue signalling.
......
easy target, has no power, the story writes itself.
2
-
2
-
It is a luxury problem / issue. The status quo works for 20 - 30 % of the population (upper class). And they like to feel enlightened - but it should not cost them anything (some policies that would actually be enlightened would cost the upper class, nothing extreme, but a little bit).
Humans like to feel smug and superior to other (groups), but people who struggle to put food on the table or if their company will move to China in 6 months or 2 years, do not have time and energy for those games.
The upper class people (or those who thanks for their education hope to make it into upper class) are certain that THEY will have a job, even if they get unemployed it will work for them in the long run. And of course they often have affluent relatives.
They were shocked in the GFC that it could hit them TOO, but if the parents have money they will not let the children get forclosed, they get an advance on the inheritance so to speak, to weather the storm.
I think there are a lot of working class people who do not value Trump as a human being, but they expect him to deliver for THEM, and they are not disturbed by his displays of racism, his business practices, the blatant corruption, and all the uncough things he does.
They also seem unfazed by the intentional, vicious, mean spirited family separation (Bush 2 and Obama stayed away from that clusterfuck, whatever else happened at the border then).
In other words: these voting class voters vote their self-interest / are selfish / do not apply moral standards.
Neither do the the wealthy pricks. They would be shocked if you tell them that they are more selfish than the morally / racially insensitive blue collars *, because those people have MORE FINANCIAL STRESS and may be one accident or disease away from bankrupcy.
maybe they also like to differentiate themselves a little bit compared to the (racially insensitive, somewhat uncough) working class people. They care about racial diversity.
* "I knew in 2016 that Trump was not great on etiquette, I WANTED a bull in the chinashop.I plan to vote for him in 2020 again."
A black man in Georgia. He must have a job with healthcare, separated families at the border, foolish foreign policy, repealing ACA (not a bad idea in itself) with no replacement plan ... all of that did not matter.
But it is not like the upper class party loyalists are BETTER informed, they just smugly assume that they are better informed.
That video was before the crisis broke, a WSJ video.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Good results on the state level in New Mexico (progressives replacing the establishment figures), and another primary race was also won in the last days in West Virginia. One of 4 the ladies in the documentary Knock Down The House won the primary for Senate and with 39 %. Richard Ojeda who is also to the left (kind of) got 34 % approx. - so the populist left killed it in WV in the primaries.
She lost her first race in 2018. Paula ? Swenegan, West Virginia "The coal miners daughter". So she would be a collegue of Republican Lite Joe Manchin if she wins in November. And then be in D.C for 6 years. Directly into a Senate seat !
Another one (the black nurse) is still in the primary race (also lost her first primary in 2018).
And I would hope the white lady that lost her daughter and is a dedicated advocate for single payer is also still active in politics (she lost in 2018 as well, only AOC made it in 2018).
The death of her daughter was totally preventable, an emboly - all hail the U.S. insurance system (that was still during the Obama era). They would not do imaging until the blood clot started moving from her leg and either got into her heart causing a heart attack or blocked her lungs).
I do not remember the details, I think the young lady was in between insurance coverage. May have worked after highschool and then she wanted to start an education in fall and then she would have had coverage (father is a veteran, mother either a nurse or a professional woman).
But because her insurance coverage status was at least dubious the ER ignored the increasing pain in her leg. THAT should have been the warning sign. Healthy 20 year old, no problems so far, and has a pain in the leg for no apparent reason, that gets worse and worse. - then you can always think of a blood clot, too.
Imaging would have found it, giving her blood thinner while monitoring her and help her laying down and not moving could have helped. That is all not high tech medicine.The bill would have been paid, imaging is not that expensive (it must not be, let's put it that way), and if they would have caught it earlier it would not have been intense care, or max. a few days.
In any country with single payer withholding those measures would not have happened for financial reasons. If the dcotor had suspected an emboly they would have rushed her to the next machine (fasttracking her and making other patients wait) to verify.
Maybe there are cases where the doctor would not connect the dots (not being good diagnostician - although even I as layperson know that) - but in that tragic case there was an additional obstacle additionally to the difficulties of medicine and diagnostics put between patient and doctors.
The ER staff is in an impossible position: supposed to provide care, while management orders them to cut corners with patients that may not pay. Even non-profit hospitals (that are not greedy) have to watch out for their budgets and can afford to have too many unpaid bills.
The thing is: in single payer countries people almost always have insurance coverage, doctors and hospitals know their bills will be paid (by the agency) and if the hospital (normally run by cities or states) do not have enough budet for one year they will get help. Typically they have realistic budgets, but there can be years with a plus or a minus. Think now with corona crisis.
It helps when doctors ONLY have to concentrate on the medical side - getting the diagnosis right. If they do not abstain from even dealing with her and hand her over to the nurses and she ends up with a painkiller prescription.
When you can go to a doctor even in a new town / city. Because there is no such thing as "out of network". An experienced general practicioner would also suspect this could be an emboly and would have started some fast action. A GP would be often the first to be contacted in case of severe pain.
The GP would make stress in the referal (and when ordering the ambulance) that this is urgent.
The mother was not in town to raise hell, she advised her daughter on the phone, and until she came her daughter was already in emergency care. She had left with the prescription but had to be brought in again. Then in really bad shape. She died the same night.
The mother grilled her newly elected Democratic neoliberal representative about single payer in a townhall. Got the usual nonsense - and then decided to run herself.
She does not strike me as someone who gives u after one attempt.
Over time we might end up seeing all 4 ladies of Knock Down The House being elected representatives.
2
-
Also consider voting for D members of congress, Senate even the shills. A mail telling them that they did not "earn" your vote, they are lucky to get it for your strategic consideration should help to keep them on their toes.
They are still better than the R's (especially if in their state a third party candidate did well in the general, they will smell the coffee they might consider working for the constituents occasionally). Or imagine in a state the downballot Dems get elected, but many voters leave the president blank, or vote for the third party candidate.
Would be even MORE impressive if a "safely blue" state is lost because of the third party candidate.
Let them howl over the spoiler - and tell them it is going to continue.
The Corporate Dems take the progressives for granted, it shows VERY clearly.
During an unprecedented pandemic: Dems - No you are not getting M4A - you crazy ? we just handed over trillions ! to Wallstreet (no one talks about the bailout that the Fed arranged for, they just create ! the money, 1,5 trillion for a start on March 12th.
that would be 4,500 USD for 330 million people. or 18k for a family of four. And the 1,5 trn were just the warm up act.
On the other hand they knot themselves into pretzels to court the mythical moderate conservatives (I understand - those voters go along with the big donor friendly neoliberal agenda). But anyway: so far the progressives have always fallen in line when told:
Nice little country you have here, wouldn't it be a shame if Donald Trump happened to it ?
(or Mitt Romney, or Ted Cruz, ...... the Democrats can always rely on the other wing of the one and only big donor party to come up with an even more terrible tweedle dee, tweedle dum)
If you get a shill in congress it is not THAT bad, they can be replaced after 2 years and they are members of a body, so they do not have as much power.
of course if there is a progressive alternative for a Congress and Senate seat - support them unless you think you'll hand the victory to a Republican (and you still care about them not having the majority in congress and Senate. The Republicans are terrible - and Democrats hardly better).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
5:40 another misinformation: natural immunity is by no means (consistently !) better than that of vaccines. It varies - much more than with vaccines (see factcheck org for a nuanced and detailled discussion). Natural immunity can be better - or not. It depends (When was the infection, it drops for both types of immunity. Was it an infection with the Delta variant ? 18 months ago or 12 months - both would be before Delta, but immunity will not be the same.
Important - for adults: Was the infection only with mild or hardly any symptoms ? As group they got an underwhelming antibody count out of that (and that count goes down more over time). Antibodies are the most effective and fastest defense our immune system has. It is also costly for our systems, so the protection goes down over time while in most cases some long time protection stays (for longer, sometimes decades). Long term protection is not as fast, not as efficient. But can prevent the worst.
During human evolution there could be surges of infections, but they did not travel that much. If the best (if costly) protection lasted for 6 months they were good. Some T cells just in case it ever hits again. That was a good evolutionary compromise between optimum protection level and what it costs the immune system to proved that and risk mitigation.
A person that had a mild case Dec. 2020, and a person having an uncomfortable week with Delta in July 2021 are not comparable. At all and for several reasons.
The recommendation in Europe is now for people to get ONE shot, if they have survived an infection. And to do so 4 weeks after the infection.
The Israeli study that is paraded around as backup for the claim that natural immunity is better than protection from vaccines (would apply only to Pfizer anyway) is kinda self selective (as is obvious by the gap that is too large to be plausible. Obviously the vaccines helped a lot in the begining, and we do not know such outcomes from other diseases, and the studies they did to get the approval did not show such a severe drop of efficacy).
The study is not (yet) peer reviewed. It likely is legit - but context and nuance is everything.
The anti vaxxers also omit the conclusion from that Israeli study that people that have natural immunity benefit from ONE booster shot.
I do not think the researchers had an agenda, and the flaws of the study that are now pointed out come with the territory. They cut off data at Feb. 2021 (got the vaccines until then OR had the infection until then.). So they compare:
1) the most vulnerable groups. Old / comorbidities (even when fully vaccinated) where immunity had the most time to wane (they got the shots first, and in Feb. even Israel had not fully vaccinated the population. By Feb. 2021 80 % of the over 60 year olds had been vaccinated, which was a world record).
That vulnerable group ALSO shows weaker results (antibody count) when they get ANY vaccine.
That said: Even if that group is more likely to get a breakthrough infection, and get more uncomfortable symptoms when they have them - they are still MUCH better off than without any vaccine. The virus is not completely new to their immune system. That is normally enough to avoid the worst outcomes. By and large the protection holds, also for them.
2) The other group are the SURVIVORS that are still unvaccinated - and from that group many of the most vulnerable have been removed by fate, because they have died - they got CoVid-19 before the vaccine was available. I guess survivors that did have risks were also more likely to take the shots in early 2021 - so they self selected to the other group.
Those two groups have a different risk to get ANY CoVid-19 infection (harmless or severe). And of course much more attention should be given to the severity of cases. Israel had a "lot" of cases (that peaked in August, dramatic and fast reduction the THIRD BOOSTER SHOTS work) considering their good situation (compare with number of cases before they had a vaccine and also compare the severity of cases !).
Bing nuanced is cruciial, and nuance and details (if they do not fit the agend) are always omitted by the people who argue ONLY to back up their bias.
Delta is MUCH more contagious and spreads globally since summer. That IS important, "spreads more easily" is a game changer in epidemiology and has huge ramifications for the number of people that need to be immunized to control an epidemic. The more cases, the more easily it is spread - the more the virus will "find" the vulnerable. Certainly among the unvaccinated - but also among the vaccinated.
Vaccinated persons with high risksare the RARE cases of breakthrough infections that land in the ICU. They are vastly ! outnumbered by the other Covid-19 patients fighting for their life. Persons with no obvious risks, and many age 40 - 50 now so younger than they used to be before. That majority that overwhelms ICUs in the U.S. (and are a worry in other nations) have one thing in common. They are NOT vaccinated.
"vulnerable" among the vaccinated with NO special risks means:
Vulnerable to get a - harmless - breakthrough infection. These infected / patients are still less contagious and the cases will be harmless, typically they sit it out at home.
That is not the ideal performance of a vaccine (we had better performance before Delta spread globally) - but good enough and still very helpful. Certainly during a pandemic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sjue316 you are factually incorrect. Lockdowns DO prevent spread. If they are done in a coherent, coordinated manner, and it helps if the population and the companies are not left to fend for themselves. - Look at the numbers of Europe. First lockdown (desperate measure, they delayed it until they had to yield). Italy scared the shit out of European politicians beg. of March. Rightly so, mid March 60 % of the European Union was in lockdown. the peak was 1 month after lockdown, fast or slow drop of cases (depended on how hard they were hit. France, Italy and Spaind needed longer to bring down the numbers considerably, than Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, ....
Better in May and June. July and August were good (open for tourism from travellers from countries deemed safe - so not the U.S. and also not Sweden and U.K.).
First worying signs end of August. Continued in September, but then one could have hope they still could turn it around.
October: Exponential curve of cases.
November: Lockdown Lite, Mid of Nov. emergency measures.
I am talking about Germany and Austria, but it is the same story take or leave 2 weeks in many other European nations.
Lockdown / travel restictions in Australia in spring / summer (their fall and winter). Then it looked good. Then they had another flare up (stupid mistake, people that returned, quarantine rules disregarded). Melbourne in lockdown again ! (in September). Now they are good - only recently there was a cluster in Sydney. I think they closed the mall and severe restrictions for a few days. Putting out the embers before they get a wildfire.
Australia has 30 million people I think (so 10 % of the U.S. population) they however mainly live in the densely populated areas, more so than in the U.S. their case numbers are in the double digits.
The lockdowns in Europe were the only thing that helped to stabilize the numbers and to break the exponential growth (stabilize them at high levels - much higher than in spring in some nations, especially in Germany and Austria). Lockdown was the only way to bring down R(eff) under 1, happened only slowly and is the condition for cases going down. You can see that development of R(eff) and case numbers in spring and again in late fall.
After the restrictions were loosened and the economy opened (still some restrictions) R(eff) went up again, over 1. If you have growth but based on low case numbers it is not that bad. Low numbers, some growth, it stabilized at the slightly higher level. A spike here and there. The numbers never went down (for that a lockdown would have been needed). Again stabilizing at a slightly higher level. That went on in June, July, August and then it got out of control.
I wonder if it could have been prevented with more strategic resp. mass testing since September. (it also costs money).
The problem is not that lockdowns do not work, it is what they cost. Money, companies going out of business, and also mental health / stress.
also interesting: this time and with help of strategic mass testing at the end of the lockdown (December) they could contain it faster: they let it escalate more than in spring before they accepted the reality that another lockdown was needed. They have a lot of hospital beds - many more per 1000 residents than the U.S. and also ICU beds - but 1 month after lockdown the use of those beds peaked. At 65 % in Austria.
If they had not put the lockdown in place 4 weeks earlier it would have been 100 % capacity at that point. or like Italy in spring: doctors have to do triage like in a field hospital in a war zone and decide who is left to die and whom they try to save. If the staff is overworked like that, mortality rates also go up, not only for CoVid-19 patients - for all patients that need intense care.
Intense care staff is highly trained they are the scarce resource (even more so than equipment). so that number cannot be increased.
Mask wearing was mandated all the time, but that did not help in September, October.
So if has only some (little) effect. To be sure I am still for mandating it, as long as no better tools are available. It impacts businesses less and is not expensive.
2
-
2
-
Sadly the aspiring (or so he said) organizer-in-chief dropped the ball when fate shoved an unprecedented challenge / opportunity in his face. - He did good in many respects, and maybe it is a litte much to ask from a 77 year old man, to save America from itself - but that was his call.
There was only HIM to answer to that challenge / chance to unite the masses and do so FAST. The oligarchs do unite, they use leverage, they move FAST, they are BRAZEN, they get the bailouts to the tune of trillions
And only bold and fast reaction of a trusted leader with a huge platform could have called their bluff. And the bluff of the Democrats and Republicans.
(the "stimulus" bill is a side show, someone should explain the masses about QE. The Fed creating TRILLIONS, with a snap of the finger. Well with a few key strokes and now backed up with the legal provisions of Frank-Dodd.
he had drafted himself to that task (or so he said, organizer-in-chief) and he had sucked up a lot of oxigen, and the ENGAGED among the young and many others paid attention, paid in time and donations and were ready to be lead by him.
And then he "retired" so to speak. When it would have been time to step up his game.
Many people were desperate for him to give the signal (they do not have his platform, so they can only play the smaller game) Others that just had given Biden the preference would have been in reach for his message NOW.
They no doubt also made marketing errors so they did not turn out the young vote as necessary (he has the engaged ! young = 18 - 40 locked down, and all that DARE to hope, but they could
If it had been clear, bold, calling out the crooks on both sides (incl. the Democrats, he gives them a pass, he criticizes Repubs but not the crooked Democrats).
To call a spade a spade - instead he hurried back into his safe corner and plays the mediocre game and returns to being the eternal underdog, that is correct on the issues, but never has any power. He does not WANT POWER. Not REALLY.
it is one thing to talk about being the president, it is another when that becames a possibility. Sanders showed self-sabotaging behavior especially after South Carolina and Super Tuesday did not go so well for him.
Maybe he lost his faith in his model (that he is able to turn out the young and non-voters). In my opinion he had a messaging, marketing problem - that could have been fixed. But again: maybe with his 77 - 78 years he is too fixed in his ways.
Now he is doing charities, before he did townhalls regarding corona - very necessary, but with reach only to the coverted. HE did the job of Biden (who went into hiding for 6 days). Sanders should have done one better, follow the Trump-media-baiting 101 and given the networks something to talk (huff and puff) about. that would have meant HE and his surrogates on TV, DRIVING the national conversation, which of course would have been the ideal opportunity to advertise the Sanders campaign townhall (which may be held by him or someone else - for instance his campaign manager.
Being SUPER prepared for TV interviews and killing it there, beats one townhall where he preaches to the choire. Corporate media did not mention the frantic activity (worthy of a frontrunner) and they very friendly glossed over Biden going into hiding OR the weird appearance he had when he resurfaced.
Even better: Sanders would have gotten the views for the townhalls and virtual corona related eventes - and more of them - and not all of the burden to conduct the townhalls would have been on his shoulders.
It would have elevated him to the status of leader in the crisis and champion for the people when it comes to pandemic response.
so now he is working at a platform with the Biden campaign, that is 101 of "DNC tiring out and derailing progressive movements). It isn't new - they were more brazen in the traumatic year 1968, they had the police brutally crush the protests outside the convention.
WTF - I guess this is his way to avoid feeling bad. Working hard and diligently (in the wrong arena) - fighting with the party establishment and the handlers of Biden for the promise crumbs. Crooked Nixon made concessions to the grassroots - but that needed mass civil disobedience and mass protests. Sanders leading THAT (there are things that can be done now) would instill fear in the hearts of Republicans and Democrats (the politicians) alike.
THAT would give them leverage. Not playing the game according to the rules. If the outsider play the game according to the rules of those who are dominant (and can flip the rules as they see fit, while enforcing them for the other party) they will LOSE. The way to win: refusing to play THEIR game and flipping the table on them.
2
-
2
-
Sanders should have played the big game, when the crisis manifested. - Incl. spelling out WHAT happens right now. - Handouts to the tune of TRILLIONS to the speculators on Wallstreet. The Fed created 1,5 trillion on March 12, 2020 for them. And that was only the start. Had nothing to do with the "stimulus" bill.
Dodd Frank (the huge complicated bill, complexity used to disguise the loopholes in favor of banks) allows the Fed NOW to do that FAST and w/o approval from Congress. In the first Obama years they had at least a debate about QE (even though it was never properly explained to the sheeple), and I think then Congress had to approve of it.
Then Fed chair Ben Bernake is on record: No, we do not rise DEBT for that, we enter some numbers in a computer.
With the right discussion that should have ended the "how are we going to pay for it" debate once and for all.
Programs that are reasonable and benefit the country (like infrastructure, education, childare, healthcare, going renewable) CAN be financed.
Of course the money creation must be matched by domestic production to avoid devaluing the dollar over time and potential ! inflationary tendencies.
The cure for that is of course domestic manufacturing.
2
-
Progressives (like Sanders, also AOC) could explain it to the voters:
"Quantitative Easing" is money creation to protect banks and speculators on the stock exchange from the consequences of their risk taking (for instance the fracking industry got a lot of cheap loans, many of the operations were not profitable, now they are not viable - and sure enough they ask for a bailout).
We could as well prop up the citizens and savers, let the crooks and their big shareholder pay the price for their reckless and criminal behavior - moral hazard, etc.
After they have gone under, we pick up the remainders of the bank, that are relevant for the real economy: Staff (their healthcare plans and pension plans as well), we restore savings accounts, keep the loan contracts, the buildings, equipment. And then we create a public fund and the communities, states, cities, staff own the banks.
Fed = board staffed by the too big to fail banks, chair appointed or left in charge by the sitting president). Can we expect THEM to use money creation (QE) to the advantage of the little guy and smaller businesses ?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2