Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Brian Tyler Cohen" channel.

  1. Remember that the large liberal networks called Trump presidential for the first time when he attacked Afghanistan and Syria. In spring 2017. They had slammed him all the time (often more over tone than policies) - and then they were fawning over him. The huge bomb on Afghanistan had no military value whatsoever, the deadly toy just pleased Trump. And the alleged poison gas attack of spring 2017 and spring 2018 "coincided" with the announcement of Trump / his admin that the U.S. would withdraw troops. Boom ! "poison gas" attack. Same script in Afghanistan btw: Withdrawal of troops ? the narrative that Russia put a bounty on U.S. soldiers was played up (they had prepared that narrative since last summer - they saw the threat coming that the U.S. might end the occupation of Afghanistan that had started in late 2001. In 2018 they started with chlorine gas attack, but someone figured out: that did not sound right. Even Americans know that chlorine is also a common household and utility (water) chemical, so literally anybody could have access, that made it harder to pin it only on the Syrian government (assuming there was even an intentional or accidental release of chlorine to begin with). The attacks were always blamed on the Syrian government - with no proof whatsoever, within days and before any investigation could be started. Trump the fool was not strong enough to reign in the war mongers (also in his own cabinet) or the covert financing of groups like of Al Qaida in Syra (even groups with conncetions to ISIS). To be sure that insanity had started under Obama, but it is not like Trump was able to stop it. Too dumb, too ignorant about foreign policy, at the mercy of his advisors, and getting the usual bunch of neocons (and some were especially bad - like John Bolton).
    1
  2. You have to give Republicans credit for FIGHTING HARD. USING. Every. Procedural. Trick. - and then some. They excel in blatant hypocrisy and in death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategies. - if ONLY Democrats would devote 50 % of that energy and savvy and on a GOOD goal. They would win in landslides. - You canot get your polittcal goals through w/o having power. Of course most Dems are spineless careerists and serve the same big donors that finance the Repubs - so they see no reason to fight.
    1
  3. The big donors like their Republicans to be fierce ideologues that can and do fight dirty and their Dems to be spineless pushovers. It makes for a plausible "good cop / bad cop" routine. That also explains why Corporate Dems are always so politely glossing over major R mistakes (even 9/11) and scandals and pretend to believe in bi-partisanship. No they don't - usually Dems are not stupid - the common big donors do not like to see the boat rocked in that way. Republicans go crazy all the time, while neoliberal Dems pretend it would be possible to work WITH them. Remember when Republicans were pissed about Obama winning ? Not all of them are racists (if he had run for them, they would have been fine). But they certainly do not mind to use racism of the base to discredit a D candidate.
    1
  4. Republicans fought dirty in 2000, also in purging the voter rolls in Florida, and hindering the recount (intimidating staff). Republicans excell in death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategies. 0.1 % of the vote her, and 0.1 % there, and it adds up to pulling off narrow win. Repubs never mind if they won by a good margin or by a hair. They got power and they are going to use it. They did when they went after Bill Clinton to impeach him. Before that they did invesitgation after investigation on him and also on Hillary Clinton. Now he and his wife had some corruption going on - but certainly not more than all the Republicans before or after him. The Clinton scandals did not match the Reagan scandals, and Bush 1 was a major part why the Reagan admin could pull it off. Bush1 was intelligent, capable and knowldedgeable, and was a former CIA director (so lots of connections). He did not only have 1 term - he had more than 2. (counting his time as VP of Reagan that run a lot of things in the background). They had one investigation after the next and the only thing they ever could find evidence for was that Bill Clinton had cheated on his wife with oral sex - and then tried to deny it. (he was impeached for lying about the affair, not for having it - Both things are not consequential for the fate of the nation and do not harm the voters or tax payers. Trump making up the lies as he goes, Cheney/Bush starting wars on lies - Republicans: Nah, we are good. The hypocrisy is staggering. If Monica Lewinsky had been smarter she would have told the investigators that masively pressured her when they tricked her into a meeting (and she was alone and not smart enough to leave immediately or to get legal counsel) to go pound sand and that she only made fun of her "friend" Linda when she told her about the details of the affair. Declaring it to be a prank. I do not see how the R's could have gotten through hearing with two women with very different stories. If Monica had been made of stronger fibre, they would have run into a wall. The "friend" would have needed to go on record with "I spied on my bestie". Naturally the question would come up WHY she betryed Monica while pretending to be her good friend, and if she sold out her friend why would that make her testimony trustworthy. Most likely Linda would not even have been willing to appear as witness, and that scandal would have faded away. The aides of Clinton realized that something was going on between Monica and him - or could develop - they removed Monica from her post, she got another job where she had no contact with the president and he could not call her in easily. Scenario in a hearing if Linda would have testified. Bestie Moncia would say: Nah, I had a feeling that there was something off for her pestering me all the time to give her the details (it was an improvised joke that got out of hand). I just made up more and more stories and she was lapping it up. It would have been a lie - but one that was inconsequential for the office of POTUS and Monica Lewinsky would have protected her own life. (She said she moved in with her paretns, her mother made her shower with the door open, they feared she would commit suicide. Republicans also do not mind ruin a young, naive woman with maybe a daddy complex to get their witchhunt to a final). The real scandals under Republican presidents Cheney / Bush admin: asleep at the wheel, ignoring the warnigns regarding 9/11. The Russians and the Mossad warned them too ! If that had been under a D president - they would not yet be done with the investigations and hearings and the outrage. Whatever imagined or real neglect had been going on with Bhengazi - it was nothing like the neglect of Cheney - and neglect is the benign assumption. Cheney had seized the monitoring of RAW INTEL, he devoted some time every days to go through it (that must have been at least one hour per day). Larry Wilkerson then chief of staff of Colin Powell: Raw intel is bull, I have seen raw intel before, it has to be aggregated, verified and put into a contect. That is of course the TIME CONSUMING work of EXPERIENCED agents not of the VP. Cheney was capbable but not a trained CIA professional. Cheney was looking for an nugget that he could take out of context to start wars - and the agents did their job in a professional manner and would not oblige him. Working with raw date is very time consuming - so either he wasted so much time on things the VP should not bother with and did not see the forest for the trees. or he intentionally ignored warnings, hoping for a big attack that would justify a war. And GWB was obviously useless. Cheney was a very competent administrator, and not stupid. GWB on the other hand ..... Reagan campaign colluding with the mullahs to hold back the hostages until after the election (to hurt the reelection chances of Jimmy Carter). Hiding that Reagan had Alzheimer's - for TWO terms. That was diagnosed (or other doctors than his personal doctor became aware of it) when he was assassinated 3 months after being sworn in into his frst term. I guess the family TOLD the doctors in the hospital doing emergency surgery what medication he was on, that was a life and death issue at that point. Starting a WAR against a tiny country that was not threat for the U.S. because their former stooge and CIA asset did not comply with them anymore. The CIA was hindered by Congress to fund terrorism in Latin America. So they arranged to have black budgets: the CIA helped to import drugs into the U.S. to make money. Those drugs weres sold in low income areas with minorities so no "Republican family values" were violated. The drugs were imported via an airfield in Arkansas - so it is possible that then govenor Bill Clinton was in on it, but that could never be proven. THAT may be something the Republcians should have invesitagated and if true impeach Clinton on. The U.S. sold weapons to the mullahs with help of Israel. (Iran under the U.S. friendly Shah had for years bought a LOT of U.S. weapons and military equipment. It is not possible to just switch, that would take years, so they needed spare parts, etc) I guess that money had also a chance to end up in black budgets to promote the death squads in Latin America to prop up right wing authoritarian oppressive governments that will keep their own (poor) population down.
    1
  5. He is a neocon - despite being Polish.
    1
  6. The Senate is the JURY. It is not upon them to decide IF Trump is impeached. IF The Houses hands over the case to them (and that happened and when Trump was still in office) they HAVE TO HANDLE the case. They can convict him or clear him, but the JURY cannot determine there will be no trial. Congress has that authority and Congress made the decision
    1
  7. So a mild mannered, eloq neocon that freaked out when Trump demanded favors to supply weapons. The Obama admin at least they had the good sense to NOT supply weapons. So maybe some small amount of sanity and not wanting to escalate it further. AFTER they had supported the regime change * in the Ukraine, financially and may have had something to do with the killings, or propping up the neo fascist(sniper fire opened at people at the Maidan: protesters AND police, these were not the police ruthlessy attacking protesters and these were not regular protesters either). But * the president was NOT correctly removed from office, he fled the country after the escalation (foreighg provocateurs, local neonazis ?) , they did not have the necessary parliamentary majority of 75 % (as required in the constitution). He had been reelected not long ago. Corrupt for sure (this is Ukraine after all) but "our guy Yats" that came after him - hand picked by the U.S., is even worse. Good thing the people of Ukraine voted now for a comedien, they are sick of all of them. I do not think that the national security interests of the U.S. have anything to do with regional ! conflict between Ukraine and Russia. I also do not believe Russia is a threat to the U.S. or even wants to be one, they react to the intense and increasing hostility. This has been going on since Putin was elected in 2000. Never mind the affairs of the Ukraine / Russia certainly do not affect the U.S. I also do not believe such quid pro quo is unusual, although Trump may not be intelligent enough to find more acceptable coded language to convey the threats of blackmail. Last but not least: Biden is corrupt, and handing his son that job was very bad form. Are there no U.S. oligarchs that can offer his drug addicted son an cushy no show job. Did it have to be the providers in a poor country and with a super high salary ? So digging som diert up on Biden would have been in order. Even if the president needed some encouragement. I object more to the fact that Trump was even willing to supply the weapons in the first place. Of all the shady things Trump did - this was certainly not the worde offense, and not the hill to die on. Vindman has a Cold War warrior mentality - he comes form the Baltic states. So Trump doing something that might not be adverserial to Russia freaked him out, so much so that he risked his career ? He was in the military and this shocks him ??? P.S. not a fan of Trump But imagine Trump being so stupid that he thought Biden was the man to take out. If he had succeeded, then Sanders would have blown him out of the water. Biden barely won - in the Electoral College. 45,000 votes in 3 states determined who would become president. GA, WI and AZ. If Trump would have handled CoVid-19 in a mildly competent manner, he would have EASILY won against Biden, he was THAT weak. (12,000, plus 20,000 and + 10,000 votes). In 2016 it was comparable. then it was around 70,000 votes in 3 states, if HRC had pulled that off SHE would have become president. if Trump had won GA, WI and AZ he would have tied Biden in the EC, and then he and Pence would have been picked by the House resp. the Senate. It so happened that the sniper attack was one day after the president definitely rejected the "trade deal" with the EU that would have driven a wedge between them and their most important trade partner: Russia. The Eu had no reason do even offer Ukraine a deal, and it had some very sketchy military clauses in it. That was the effort to to push Ukraine into NATO - which was / is ludicrous.
    1
  8. 2:30 Biden did not exactely "run" on canceling the pipeline - but he had it in the platform. (speaking of which - what about DAPL !!) That decisions is of course helped by the CURRENT low oil prices. Obama also made the decision to cancel Keystone XL (after a lot of environmental groups petitioned him for the longest time) - because the frackers reduced the oil prices so that project had become less lucrative for the investors. Same now - it would not be viable under current conditions anyway.  I guess the big donors will increase pressure on Biden as soon as demand for oil goes up and the oil prices recover.
    1
  9. Term limits would increase the influence of big money even more. The donors do not mind to have to select new puppets every few years, obedient shills that leave get a golden parachute. Done. - good candidates would sacrifice the time when others build a career or biz, win the uphill battle. Slowly get name recognition that others BUY with expensive TV ads, and friendly fawning of corporate media helps as well. When they are finally established and have stepped on the toes of powerful people (as is inevitable), they have to leave politics. Good luck with building a career in corporate world or a biz. Big biz has reasons to retaliate, if only to make an example of them.
    1
  10. Term limits make sense if ONE person has a powerful office especially if they have a role as constitutional safeguard (in Germany the president has a ceremonial role, same in Austria, both are one pillar of power. The government is run by the Chancellor, they have NO term limits. In a BODY of elected representatives it is not usual at all to have term limits. So occasionally there will be one MP that annoys the heck out of his or her own party, but they cannot get rid of the thorn in their side because the politician is well connected with the voters and very hard to unseat. One very positive side effect of term limits for the oligarchs: Time not the voters end the career. Even if a good candidate makes it against the odds, and does not get corrupted, the oligarchs need not fear: the problem will solve itself Getting corrupted can go fast, so term limits do not help, if they do not have time to build a deep connection (and frankly then have a secure career if the job is a good fit for them) they are all the more beholden to big donor money and must obey party"leadership".
    1
  11. Instead of McConnoll or Schumer there would be other shills. But Sanders or Senator Wellstone or even Ron Paul would have been eliminated. The big donors and the D establishment could endure Katie Porter, knowing she and her whiteboard will not embarrass big donors forever.
    1
  12. neither Senate nor the House need term limits. It is not easy to win the state wide Senate races. The problem is not age or being long in politics (experience ! the details of the sausage making, and all that happens behind closed doors). The voters should be able to discern if a candidate is STILL competent and able to serve, and if a person is so unwilling to part with the position when they should know they can't fulfill it anymore, the voters were wrong long ago to vote them in. If a Senator gets sick or dies - they have special elections.  (and age is only one factor). Being long or short in DC is not the most important factor. Manchin was a punk right away. And isn't that old. Sanders and Ed Markey score well with young voters and their interest for their issues spills over in policies for the future. A good politiican will have a knack for getting good staff. Sanders does not need to know all about the digital world, he only needs to be able to sniff out the grifters, careerists, bullshitters, ... Experience can help with that. His base nudged him towards UBI, he is not on board, but that is not important. He has heard of the idea (of course) and has thought about it and someone like him might change his stance. Ed Markey is a middle of the road democrat, but with a genuine concern about Climate Change. That helped him in the race against a member of the Kennedy dynasty. It paid off for him to move to the left, I think he took notes. Kennedy and mayor pete were / are popular with boomers. Markey and Sanders score with young voters.
    1
  13. Why would the president mess with the decision of private business ? Domestic sports games in other nations do not feature the national anthem. They play it in international games, Olympic games, etc. It is not really a good thingfor private biz to use patriotis for their marketing.
    1
  14. 0:57 hypocrisy much - * The blue mayors got orders from their donors to remove Occupy Wallstreet, the did so in a coordinated manner and it was not peaceful either (and with OWS there was no violence, vandalism, arson, plundeirng). Crickets from Mr. Hope and change. the donors of big finance. they are not used to being called out, and OWS was the middle finger to them, so to speak. And they all helped together to screw voters, so they feared the spark could take over.  it took him looooong the settle the situation in Standing Rock, of course he knew the Trump admin would push through the DAPL pipeline. I think the decision came in Dec. 2016, the police / "security" brutalized the protesters since late summer. In July 2020 a court ordered the pipeline shut down and emptied for PROPER environmental review. I hope it realy costs the "investors".  Before Obama finally could be bothered people were also brutalized (Native Americans too) - and these demonstrators were strictly peaceful, the elders led the camps and the actions. No drugs, no alcohol, no guns, no violence.
    1
  15. Joe Biden campaigned on nothing but: I am not Trump and will handle the pandemic bette r (and BARELEY won the Electoral College). And he and his cabinet can't be bothered to fight for anything that would help the masses now. The last failure was to fold regarding infrastructure. And IF something would get done (15 USD minimum wage, 2 trillion infrastructure bill) the Dems have always the "conservative" Democrats to "hinder" them even IF the voters give them decisive majoities. Even if the majorities are so decisive as under Obama, and the president wins after a historic campaign. These "conservative" Dems are the last line of defense to prevent economic populism and to make sure the interest of the big donors come first. This is why the Establishment will go after progressives - but they never show the same spirit against the roadblocks Joe Manchin, Kirsten Synema or Joe Lieberman (he and a few other "Democrats" killed the public option in 2009). No matter if Dems win in landslides and not matter the concrete ! campaign promises. Biden might not have gotten the 15 USD feder minimum wage in 2025 pas Manchin. But he could called him out. manchin and two other Dems also screwed the Obama admin and undermined the infrastructure bill. After R obstructionism (of course) the Democrats tried to pass a rule that would have allowed them to pass an infrastructure bill The big donors are also not interested in a voting reform, over the course of a few years progressives might get stronger and then how would those votes and their vote be suppressed. The cynical Biden strategy (What are you gonna do ? vote for Trump ??) almost !! backfired. Despite the 7 million votes more in the popular vote - it was way closer in the EC than is comfortable. It came down to 3 states that Biden won with + 11,500 - 20,000 votes more (AT, GA, WI). And then one has to look at the votes that the Libertarian got in those states. I guess she took some away from Republicans. If only 10,500 or 12,000 votes (AZ and GA) "secure" the win in a whole state and the third party candidate got a MULTIPLE of that difference ......
    1
  16. Russia SHOULD be part of the G8 !
    1
  17. Stacy Abrams is a smart cookie.
    1