Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Late Night with Seth Meyers" channel.

While wearing the jacket from a Vermont company.
9
@TigDegner All substance - no fluff. Among the influential people wearing designer clothes - that was also a statement. the jacket (from a Vermont company) retail price 600 USD was already an issue 2 years ago. It is a sensible warm, functional garment for a person that lives throught the winters of Vermont, but some rightwingers made it an issue that the "rich socialist" wore an "expensive" coat. It is wholesome to see a person dressed in a normal manner - the jacket costs because small companies usually have somewhat higher production costs and because of the function, quality. The optics of the jacket is very normal, no one could accuse it of being chic. The jacket is not fashionable - so it can well do with some personal touch. Like the funky mittens. He was not going to freeze his behind off - inauguration or not. He wears a suit in the Capitol and for TV interviews (I think more out of respect for the office, and I do not think they are highly expensive suits), he wasn't a suit wearer as mayor. Nor would he buy a warm, more chic and sophisticated long coat only for that occasion (cashmere could be very warm & elegant. But that is not a garment he would wear often). And / or it was intentional to promote the company that produces the jackets.The mittens he wore all the time during the campaign go nicely with it (the jacket is so bland it needs some pep. I agree with that satorial choice). I think he knew his outfit (so much in contrast to what most people wore at the inauguration) would get some attention - and he aimed for it (it is on brand regarding his personality and style) and he did it for the sake of the company. He just did not think it would blow up like that. Of course he continues to wear that jacket, so the investment for 600 USD pays off over several seasons. It was a gift from family members anyway. He uses it to promote people from Vermont. He shows appreciation for a TEACHER and for something that was recycled / upcycled with love. (not a business, she does that as a hobby. BUT: other solopreneurs are going to offer "Bernie style mittens" on etsy, so he did something for small businesses). He looks like everyone's grandpa wearing the quirky handcrafted gift bought at craft fair - or a family member (a grandchild) made them for him.
7
@hyzercreek Climate Change is a systemic issue. Sanders has a job that requires him to travel between DC and Vermont. Back in the day the law makers stayed in DC. - The solution is not that a few people that care forgo all comfort and technology while they are expected ! like all other to travel fast and far (and even if Sanders could travel by car or train, it would not even make an impact because most citizens do not make sacrifices, and do business as usual. ) The solution is that technology for the MASSES becomes sustainable. IF our society needs people travelling and commuting than we must have a general solution for that. Not a few outsiders doing their thing against the mainstream. There is no reason why our civilization cannot solve the need for transportation, heating, cooling, and energy for manufacturing in a reasonable, and sustainable manner. This is NOT a challenge that an individual can solve. People also don't do their own thing (by choice or necessity) when it comes to developing vaccines * setting up a military, or a justice / court system resp. the police. * lots of subsidies to make the CoVid-19 effort in research and early investment into manufacturing possible (before the vaccines were even admitted). Nations either developed vaccines (Russia, China). Or placed large orders even for vaccines that might not be fit for use. The "free market" and efforts of individuals or single companies would not sustain the war like effort to get vaccines (100 are in development, I think meanwhile around 6 are used). Many governments shouldered the economic risks. either a government agency develoepd the vaccine, or so for -profit companies could go ahead with a product. They would get the investments even if the vaccine could never be used. Solutions for Green energy: Mass transportation that is cheap, comfortable, safe and clean in densely populated areas. see Switherland (they have a lot of very costly tunnels through the mountains, that helps them reduce travel time, but these are investments for 50 or 100 years. So what ? a nation CAN invest long term. Higher costs for having a car - rural voters would need to be compensated for the NEED to have a car. There would be a strong incentive to have energy efficient cars and in rural areas they can have the solar panels and the space for batteries to charge those cars. The U.S. has excellent conditons to use solar energy, much better than for instance Germany. it is a cultural thing that renewables had much more support in Germany much earlier. They used to have flights also in the 1950s - 1970s but they were not that cheap, so people did not fly that much. Guess what, they had a good quality of life. It is possible to run an airplane of alcohol (the Russians did that for some of their fighter jets). If the plane ticket is cheaper than the train ticket - something is wrong. This is about political decisions and subsidies - it has nothing to do with the economics. (trains are cheaper to run in the long run, it costs less to transport a person that way and certainly less energy). There are a lot of subsidies for aviation and fossil fuels that make that insanity possible. In China they invested into bullet trains while the rest of the world was dealing with the Great Financial crisis. Those train rides replace domestic flights. That is an investment for decades - but of course it pays off, it is safer, more comfortable - more space per person is possible, Those trains can also be used by elderly people, and pregnant women, and they are not as easily impacted by bad weather. if the train can't drive anymore - chances are they had to stop air traffic long before. And it is much more energy efficient to transport persons that way.
6
@epilepticwizard4800 they would rather lose to Trump than win with Bernie. He is NOT their best chance. nothing, NOTHING is more important than keeping the donations coming in (and the elections media consultant circus going. the big donors will reward well connected shills with a golden parachute if they lose elections. and there are perks when they are in office too (real estate deals around 3 corners, buying up the books, employing family members, ...) They can live quite well with a 2nd term of Trump (keeping tax cuts, no one bothers the big donors that finance BOTH party, pharma, insurance, fossil fuel, big finance .....) media can clutch their pearls about the latest tweet of the orange clown (millionaires shilling for billionaires, I mean the pundits and owners of the networks). There will be war with Iran - the donors like that too (incl. big finance). and more good ratings for media. Bonus: the Democratic establishment will blame the loss on the Sanders wing of the party, making their case for lesser evilism (and Repubs always have an even worse candidate) Oh - and the IPCC givess 12 years to get our act together, and the next cyclic economic downturn is around he corner (It might be a big one), and big finance is still speculating like crazy.
5
@altrag She had plenty of primary opponents. they had TWO rounds ! and she also won the runoff with a good result. I think the Dem opponent had to drop out (or an R opponent) because her crazy supporters got so rabid. That is a safely red district (she even started a race for another district before and then switched when the Rep. retired or died. Did not matter that she was a carpet bagger). As usual those safe seats are very attractive for primary contestants when they are "fair game". They do not anger the party leadership by challenging an incumbent, when the person that held the seat had to step down, retired or died. Members of congress have to win elections every 2 years, and if they make it the first time, they are better off in many ways in a safe seat. Safely red or blue, means seat for life if they want it. Incumbency helps, once they had ONE term. It gives them a major edge in future primaries, IF they are even challenged by competition from their won party. Most aspiring politicians do not even challenge incumbents. In the D party the progressive challengers of incumbents are frowned upon, the contractors they work with, or staff are blacklisted. (we do not challenge our own - which means a corrupt big donor friendly Democrat can sell out their district as they please, and indeed such SAFE seats are a reward if the "right" people want to have a career politics. * Of course that does not apply if a neoliberal from the Kennedy Clan challenges a long time Senator from Massachusetts that is a middle of the road Democrat, but recently he earned himself a blacklisting by co-sponsoring the Green New Deal. And the carreerist Kennedy is the better fundraiser. The well established companies worked for his campaign and were paid by a SuperPac (wink, wink) - these contractors dared to work for the challenger of an incumbent because they knew that THEY would not be blacklisted for future contracts with the DCCC. young Kennedy had it planned it all: first the Congress races won on name recognition , certainly not on talent, policies or charisma as became apparent in the debates with Ed Markey - Kennedy is still a big name in MA. Then winning the Senate seat, that would give him the stature for his first bid for the presidency in 2024. No, Kennedy had ever lost a race in Massachusetss - until Ed Markey beat him in the primary, but Ed initially had reason to be worried. young Kennedy polled better than the incumbent Senator - but that was before the voters saw a lot of the upstart. The beauty: Normally it is a long shot to beat a long time incumbent if he or she is not terrible (and Markey had gotten popular with young voters recently). So feckless Kennedy risked his Congressional seat (2 terms = 4 years), he could not run for both, but he was sure he was going to win the Senate race. btw: the party leadership agreed, they endorsed him, which is highly unusual. He was visibly deflated on primary election night ;) Once Markey had won the primary - the general was a cake walk. MA is a blue state, and here incumbency (and being a decent enough Senator overal) helped. Plus the endorsement of Sunrise movement, AOC, etc. Luckily the young shill does not have the talent of Joseph or Robert, (and the times when someone like Ted can win by default are over) not the charisma and he made some dumb own goals: being against weed legalization, REALLY. One of his arguments: because then the police has it harder to search cars without a warrant. That is correct - and people critical of police think that the claim: "I smell weed" was often used to make a warrantless search (the officers saying he smelled it constitutes probable cause, they can ask for the dog team, and of course the animals can be made to give the needed alert). That scheme is also used to harrass certain demographics, to retaliate against certain citizens, or to support the highway robbery called civil forfeiture. THAT comment did not age well - in 2020 with BLM mass protests. As for the safe seats as rewards (as stepping stone or as a seat for lie). First Lady Hillary Clinton when a New York Senator retired. The logical successor was the stand in in the primary, as soon as Bill Clinton was cleared in the impeachment trial, that candidate had to stand down, I think Hillary had no D competition for that seat. And it was likely any Democrat would win, and she beat the R opponent in the general. New York has the big donors and prestige, just the right setup for her future presidential run .....
2
@patriciax3677 Seriously underrated comment !
2
@Brittan Beyl I think in a weird way the ugly racist attack helped Obama. Corporate media could concentrate on that. And the base rallied behind him no questions asked. As long as Fox carried the water for the birthers and criticized him in an idiotic manner for eating his hot dogs with dijon mustard and wearing tan suits in summer (like Saint Reagan) - no one talked about how he betrayed the voters. And did not even do things with Executive Orders or using the grassroots. He had the Rainbow coaliton. The had also already sold out in 2008 to the big donors (he got a LOT of Wallstreet money. The big donors did not mind the grassroots getting him into the White House, but then it was his job to deflate the energy. The big donors get nervous about a peaceful, well organized, enthusiastic mass movement with a legitimate agenda. That is the only force that can reign THEM in. Obama delivered - he neutered and distracted the grassroots. Some people - if they lost their homes and jobs - were more aware of it how little he did deliver, but I guess many did not connect the dots. Independent media on the internet was not yet as much used as source of information. On a personal level it may have been hurtful - but weirdly enought the Republica racism and rabid opposition (no matter what) helped him to pull off his service for the big donors. Many people still think "he could NOT do more the Republicans did not let him". And the Democrats of Corporate media of course nurtured that (wrong) impression. In spring 2010 they had a filibuster proof majority. They should have had the good bills ready. A president like FDR twisted arms, the Dems had solid majorities in 1933, but like today some Dems stood in the way of left economic populism. FDR did not mind to play hardball with his own party. of course once the first relief measures were passed that increased his popularity and it became even harder to oppose him (for Democrats. Republicans at that time only could dream of standing in the way, they were not needed). That is how FDR kept the fascists at bay. They were quite active in the 1930s - but unlike in Europe they had little room left to rile up the masses. FDR made sure voters believed government could and should do something for them.
2
it means the GA Republicans saw who had won the primary and at least some were worried - but they did not show leadership or a little courage. did not want to rock the boat. There was a fear that GA could be in play for Biden (Yep !) and they had 2 Senate races. If there would be a blue surge it would come from the suburban areas - and the party wanted to avoid to look cuckoo to those voters, or they would be more motivated to vote Biden. On solution would have been to act swiftly, decisively and take a calculated risk by eliminating the primary winner Taylor Greene. Not much risk because this is a very red district that she has won. The other solution was to be spineless cowards, to just tolerate her, and try not to try to much attention at her at the state, let alone the national level. Also: after she had won, the 2 GA Republican Senators courted her for her endorsement - did not help them though ;) Republicans in all of the U.S. and even more so in the South have made hay for decades by riling up voters. Since Nixon pushed the Southern strategy, and Taylor-Greene had just taken the cynical, ugly grift to the next (uncough) level. They hoped for the best and ignored their litte Georgia Mad Marjorie problem. They could NOT have let her run in the general despite the fact that she had won the primary (btw: she had started in another district, but then the Rep. retired and it is the seat that is even more red. So she is a carpet bagger. As always such safely blue or red districts attract a lot of candidates, they had primary candidates to chose from). The district being so reliably red meant the Georgia R party could have risked to offend her ardent supporters. primaries can elevate a candidate with a fringe but active and vocal base. What were the default R voters in that district do on the general - let one of them damn' libtards win ?? The parties are private orgs, the primaries are a selection process they are NOT bound legally to let the person with the most votes have the prize = the nomination for the general. Primaries are not like elections, and they can override the will of the base - never mind what they tell the base. See lawsuit of small donors against the DNC because they heavily tipped the scales against Sanders in 2016, and with the emails to prove it - leaked Podesta emails. DNC lawyers defense argument: we could chose the candidate in smoke filled rooms. Judge agreed with that.
1
Good point !
1
Almost all politicans have been captured by neoliberal politics. So only a few old ones like Sanders were in the spirit of the New Deal or what used to be genuine Social Democrats in Europe. - The Democratic Party was also very successful to tame the Civil Rights icons, which were long time members of Congress. If they had ever tried to rock the boat when they were younger and had the stamina - the D party would have had a hard time to derail them.
1
Reagan needed 3 runs to become president. But sadly - Sanders is too old for that. (Reagan was also too old, he had beginning Alzheimers). The Corporate Democrats and their big donors are safe. And Sanders was not fierce enough. May not be his style and making (shady / questionable) compromises may be the reason he even could survive in politics. He said he was almost in tears during the inauguration. Most that run for president have much more ambition and much more ego. The narcissists, careerists and psychopaths make it into the highest office - because they WANT it so much more.
1
Seth comes across as mild Sander fan - on mainstream TV - Shocking !
1
@roxyraccoon8856 interesting post - and I think hemp also grows in the moderate climate zone.
1
Sanders did a favor for a lot of people selling handcrafted products on etsy. Bernie Style Mittens will be all the rage.
1
He said he was almost in tears about the inauguaration of Biden - he never wanted the job for himself and for his own ego like most politicians do. Sadly that meant he did not go ruthlessly or even fiercly for it and that would have been necesary. Going after Joe Biden in the primary to make this clear after the first 3 states. Joe Biden with a lame half baked campaign and running on "Trump bad" was able to win the primary and then the general (even though that was too close for comfort). In the primary he lived of decades of friendly media coverage - of course he has always faithfully served the big donors so he always got very nice coverage. Add some Obama nostalgia and also a lot of fear mongering by media that tried to instill in low information voters that he could impossibly win the general (I think Sanders would have won decisively in the Rust Belt States thus not even give the Trump grifters the chance to spin a narrative. a 3 - 5 % win also shows in the polling before the election (the polling was better, so he would have lead with 10 % and really won with 5 %. Shy Trump supporters is athing - people do not want to admit they are going to vote for Trump. Or it is the people they can reach by phone for polls). The Sanders campaign likely also made some mistakes in reaching out to unengaged young and non-voters. They had a very active and enthusiastic crowd, but there were too many people not interested at all, and the Sanders campaign failed to activated them. The black old(er) voters of South Carolina cost this country dearly. Maybe Biden can be dragged to do a few things for the voters. But only bold left economic populism can keep fascism at bay. Corporate Democrats were lucky (and the voters were even luckier) that Trump is that stupid, moronic and inept.
1
@hyzercreek That is factually incorrrect. Sanders has started a lot in Burlington as mayor. he always did what was in his power. With the public exposure he had. As someone that was ignored by influental politicians AND corporate media. ONLY because of the internet he could get a platform that allowed him to circumvent the control by Corporate media and the party "leadership". They control WHAT information the citizens are getting and the way it is framed - and what the voters do NOT hear. NAME RECOGNITION is very important in politics. it helps to get elected (w/o the need to sell out to the big donors IF a candidate does not want to sell out) and it helps to get THE MESSAGE OUT even if the media tries to bury it.
1
@hyzercreek @Abcde Corporate media can do a lot to give someone name recognition, to push a certain positive image for a candidate, and they can offer a huge and FREE platform. Needless to say candidates that are getting all those favors (worth many millions of dollars - see pete Buttigieg) will not do anything about Climate Change. As Republicans they will deny it or downplay it. As Democrats they will pay lip service - and then turn around and do the opposite. Like Hillary Clinton. Promoting fracking, she reorganized the state Department to get that done. Like Joe Biden. Corporate media will certainly not do that for a honest politician working for The People. Mainstream Media is owned by rich people. They get a LOT of ad budgets during campaigns (interests of big donors) and get the normal ad budgets (big biz, ususally consumer goods. Although Boeng will also bribe them with ads. WHY ? airplanes are not consumer goods so that does not make sense and does not happen in other countries. BUT: Boeing is also a military contractor. Those budgets buy the silence of Corporate media on the insane military budgets). War means good ratings: If it bleeds it leads - some cynical owners of newspapers figured that out around 1900. The bias of armchair warriors, they would not join the military or expose their children to those risks - but they like to be tough from the safety of their studios. Last but not least: war and military spending is highly lucrative for the war profiteers. The owners of the networks almost certainly have stock investments and the special interests see to it that the media outlets get their cut. (see the Boeing ads on TV). U.S. media definitely has a pro war bias. A candidate that is slightly against war will be sidelined. Renewable energy is not good for the war agenda. A LOT of wars in the past were over oil or (also) over pipelines whether that was openly admitted or not. Even Obama said to Larry Wilkerson: This city (D.C.) loves war. That includes media. Corporate media will not help someone like Sanders to push for Medicare for All or for action against Climate Change. On the contrary. They only have Sanders on NOW because they can't ignore him. They did their best to hold people like him back. Occasionally such candidates are successful (now thanks to the internet) despite media's best efforts to ignore, misprepresent and silence them: Ask Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard (she is against regime change war and Corporate media LOVES war. War means good ratings. Or Bernie Sanders. or Jesse Jackson. Or even Ron Paul. Or Paul Wellstone. Even Howard Dean was finished off. He is not that progressive (and has sold out in the meantime , company boards, and gigs with MSNBC), but he was critical of the Iraq war before that became fashionable. That was enough to mock him and to derail his presidential campaign.
1
@hyzercreek Sanders is ONE person, and only since 2015 he has a nation wide platform to at least influence public opinion. Never mind having the necessary votes to pass bills (as the 13 D defectors regarding the effort to import drugs from Canada, even a few Republicans voted for that. Like Ted Cruz. it could have passed (the beginning of a process, they would not have imported the drugs right away). Sanders cannot make the shills (like Cory Booker) work for The People, he cannot even call them out very much (or they and media will come after Sanders like a ton of Bricks). But he stated his "regret" that the initiative did not pass, and he "mentioned" Booker by name. (it was known in Jan or Feb. 2017 that he most likely would run). Ooops ! Sanders was forced to be diplomatic - but the followers on social media knew it was time to slam Booker the sellout. And before the internet no one would have called out the defectors. Media colludes with big pharma (ad revenue) and Sanders had no platform. And the people that follow politics could not voice their opinion as easily. The U.S. is not a dictatorship where one person can determine what happens, not even the president could do something ALONE to start ACTION (as opposed to lip service) to deal with climate change. The Constitution gives Congress - a BODY of 435 elected representatives - the most power domestically. Plus the 100 Senators. Sanders was an unimportant member of Congress (1991 - 2006) from a tiny state, weirdly enough he got himself elected with no help of Corporate media or big donor money or support from the party leadership. And he is a member of Senate since 2007. One power a WELL KNOWN politician has (or someone with an office that gives a nation wide platform) - they can try to influence and change public opinion. The other way to shape public opinion: a politician has the money for a LOT of TV ads. The problem with that: how does a grassroots candidate get well known AGAINST the media ? he or she is lucky if they can hold their seat in their state, and if the party "leadership'" ignores them. The D party establishment did that in VT and that outsider Independent (that voted with them most of the time so he was as good as a Democrat, but needed no money from them) - but they only tolerated (and ignored) him because Vermont has no major industries and thus also no big donors. Else they would have poured money into the state in the 1990s to defeat thim before he became a household name in the state whose voters he needed to get elected. VT has a tradition of Independent candidates, and the voters are more open to outsider candidates. It is easier to counteract the effects of big money and TV ads with on the ground campaigning in a SMALL state. Sanders would not have stood a chance in Texas or North Carolina to get elected into Congress in 1990 - or later.
1
@hyzercreek Politicians that get the support of Corporate media or us big donations for TV ads will promote the agenda that is agreeable for the big donors, and that includes the fossil fuel industry, the frackers (and big fiance that is of course aligned with fossil fuels). - Only with the internet, and smartphone payment apps it is possible for grassroots campaigns to collect enough donations for the expensive TV ads: Supporters can now easily donate small amounts during a campaign event or debate (or an unfair attack from the opponents or media) - making those payments was not as easy so it meant it was only done with deliberation and not often per election cycle. It also means vorers can give a little bit of money to other candidates. Think 100 USD for Sanders, but also once 20 USD for Andrew Yang or Elizabeth Warren. The U.S. has 330 million people, it adds up. Back in the day people would write ONE cheque per election cycle and most of the time only for one or two candidates (or one donation in the primary and one in the general). That automatically was an advantage for mainstram and already well established candidates. Outsiders and newcomers did not stand a chance. Even IF voters later found out they liked a candidate, they already had given their budget to another candidate. And giving 10 - 20 bucks wasn't a thing - although if 100,000 people do that it means a lot for an outsider campaign. The spur of the moment small donations to express support did not happen. Masses of lower income people did not donate - more affluent people made a very deliberate choice to write one cheque for a somewhat larger amount (larger could mean 100 or 2,000 USD or whatever). The budget of the person for THIS election cycle was spent on one or two occasions - as opposed to 15 bucks here and 30 bucks there as they learned about candidates). Sanders could raise 200 millions in 2015 and 2016. Impossible in the past. They planned that campaign with 30 million USD.
1
@hyzercreek Sanders could raise 200 millions in 2015 and 2016. that was impossible in the past. They planned that campaign with 30 million USD. And then - when he did have a platform and larger than he had ever hoped for - Sanders used it to also talk about Climate Change. Always about healthcare and very often about Climate Change. Unlike HRC or Biden he not only talked. He did support the Water Protectors that protested against DAPL. Deafening silence from Hillary Clinton. And almost all other Democrats (incl. Warren btw, if she thought that would get her a cabinet position. She was wrong, HRC would not have considered her even if she had won in 2016). In 1990 or even 2004 it was unimagineable that a grassroots politcian could compete with the big donor money and the platform the TV ads could buy. Again: Sanders and Jeff Weaver assumed they could raise 30 millions. if he had stayed at that level media would have gladly ignored them. Like they ignored Martin O'Malley (he is not a progressive of course - but he too run in the 2015 / 2016 primaries). If he had anything important to say: he was as much sidelined (also by the debate schedule) as sanders and unlike Sanders he did not have the grassroots and the army of young people on the internet and the small donors that made it impossible to ignore Sanders. SUCH politicians (big donor friendly) also get a lot of friendly airtime on the media (see Joe Biden or now pete Buttigieg, it is NOT a conincidence that he is pushed again during the inauguration. The powers that be and the media like him, he is a well educated smooth talking neoliberal with ties to the CIA - just the kind of candidate they would like to see winning in 2024. One advantage of being a high ranking Democrat or Repulican or evne the presdient would be to have a platfrom to SHAPE public opinion. Well Sanders did use his platform (as soon as he had one) to shape public opinion. Note that the Independent from the tiny state with no huge industries (so no big donors the party was interested in) had NO platform. He had carved out his niche in little Vermont. he even made some splashes as "Socialist" mayor that came into office at the same time Reagan got into office. So he even played above his paygrade as mayor of a town of ? 40,000 people in the 1980s. You can watch the C-span footage of Congressman Sanders in the early 1990s. NOW. On youtube. Almost no one watched C-span back in the day. (that is why Joe Biden shows his true colors there. he knew Corporate media would not embarass him with showing these clips, and the Republicans would not use the footage showing him as being the more determined Republican. He was also hidden in plain sight. Sanders' very justified objections against a lot of things were "hidden in broad daylight". It was not necesary to censor C-span - the voters just did not notice and Corporate media of course never gave Sanders a platform (but they always covered the likes of Joe Biden in a very friendly manner. That name recognition over decades helped him win the primaries w/o even campaigning).
1
The Republicans with a D to their name have the task to UNDERMINE a majority even if the Dems win them. (and that is gladly if silently tolerated by the "leadership", it gives them plausible deniability). Then a few "Democrats" with good name recognition that can win their elections in an affluent district or a red state (Joe Lieberman, or Joe Manchin) will side with the Republicans. Those "defectors" provide the lame excuses. Like: We would have done this or that, or followed through on our campaign promises if only we had the votes. colluding media would just report that they did not have the votes (w/o elaborating), if asked at all the defectors would regurgitate the right wing typical Republican talking points (that are so popular with the big donors that finance both parties). Sure they have their spats over seats and elections but at the end of the day they serve the SAME big donors. Joe Lieberman and a few like him undermined the Public Option in the Senate in 2010 (not a peep from Obama, P.O. was a campaign promise). Sanders tried to start a process in Jan 2017 to allow the import of drugs from Canada. He even had the support of some R Senatators like Ted Cruz, so it would have passed (the first step on the way) - except for the 13 D defectors. Cory Booker was one of them. Sanders was mild in expressing his "regret" for the failed initiative but It was then already known that Booker likely would run for president - and Sanders mentioned him by name. So he got slammed on social media (citizens do not have to be as diplomatic with the D shills and the party as Sanders) and he came up with some lame excuse. In New York state the Democrats had the majority - in theory. Because some D defectors caucused with the Republicans, so good D proposals had no majority. Funny that. That went on for years and was gladly tolerated by "Democratic" govenor Andrew Cuomo. The grassroots mobilized (Working Family Party) and informed the voters and Cynthia Nixon challenged him on that in the debates in 2018 when she challenged him in the primaries (for the office of govenor). So Cuomo finally could be bothered to tell them to cut it out (no doubt with secret regrets), and in the next election not long after that almost all of them lost their elections to more progressive or at least "normal" Democrats. One of them (a Latina) had won her first election on a Bernie platform with grassroots support and the minute she came into office, she sold out. Well that did not pay off - for her political career. It is possible that her betrayal got her a reward anyway and it did not matter for her finances that she lost her seat. That she was rewarded with a cushy job for ex politicians. Not sure, usually politicians have to be a little longer than 2 years in politics to earn their golden parachutes but maybe her selling out was so valuable for the big donors that one term was enough. Or she miscalculated - if she had SERVED as she had promised in her campaign she would have won her reelection, and would have that job and income. It gets easier over time. The job and winning the election again (name recognition). She would have needed to be content with the pay and the benefits but that would be an increasingly safe job (not getting fired, not losing healthcare). it was good enough for Senator Sanders. The pay for a member of Congress or Senate is around 175,000 USD before taxes, and they have good benefits like healthcare: that pay puts them into the upper middle class - but with the need to have 2 residencies and DC is not cheap: Paul Ryan the former R Speaker had a sleeping couch in his office. They have a gym and a cafeteria in the Capitol, the shirts and other laundry can be taken home, and the suits are taken to a cleaner in DC (they might have a washing machine in the Capitol anyway. and politicians also have aides that would assist them with that). They usually fly home on Thursday to their home state, so if the office is large enough to allow for the sleeping couch and his bedding, and the lawmaker does not mind living a provisory life - that is a way to save costs. But most of them rent a space, at least a small apartment). The politician will have long hours, and also have to take care of the constituents in the home state (more work on Friday and probably also Saturday), so it is an advtantage if the spouse is a stay at home parent if they have kids - so they have to finance the upper middle class style of living with one income (incl. saving up for the college fund). They interact at lot with affluent, rich, and very influental people, so there is an incentive to keep up with the Jones. .
1
@Brittan Beyl Obama won Florida once and Ohio twice (it was closer in 2012, that was the last chance for the Dems. Well Obama pushed for TPP then, and HRC was all for it). Trump won Ohio twice and with 8 percent margin each time. In a way I think Obama is even worse than Trump - he paved the way for someone like Trump and it was with sheer luck that Trump is such an idiot. Trump could EASILY have won a second term. Even a good D candidate would have had a hard time if Trump would be smart and strategic.
1
@FrogsforjpRS Dems and Repubs serve the SAME big donors (with a few exceptions). The big donors like their Republicans to be fierce ideologues that know how to fight and their Democrats to be spineless careerists. it makes for a superficially convincing "good cop / bad cop" act and helps to dupe the voters and to distract them The Democrats ALSO do voter suppression and are not eager to have high turnout of low income people and minorities - in the primaries. That is what the donors pay them for: to win primaries, and to defeat New Deal Democrats, Progressives, grassroot candidates, those that would represent working people. Corporate Democrats can fight dirty, in a sneaky underhanded manner, using the protocols and procedures to their advantage - but they almost never use that against Republicans. Only when Republicans directly attack them where it hurts, they can be bothered. Watergate. Or now the attack on the Capitol. THAT has them rattled. The racism and obstructionsim in the first term of Obama, or Cheney / Bush being asleep at the wheel in summer 2001 - that is no reason for the Democrats to get into fighting mode. The Republicans would not yet be done with the investigations if 9/11 had happened under the "watch" of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. That is no weakness by Democrats: part of it is complacency and opportunism. They are not as ideological as the Republicans - they have no convictions, why would they fight ? And part of it is cynical self serving behavior, going along with the wishes of the Big donors is easy and is rewarded (even if they lose elctions. if they mange to have more than one term and were obedient they will get a cushy job). They agree on a lot of points with Republicans (service for the big donors and all that comes with it: economics and war). The only points where both parties "differentiate" themselves and they also OPENLY campaign on that: Identity politcs (white supremacy is a version of that), abortion, gun regulation, gay marriage. The big donors do not care what comes out of it either way - it does not cost them profits. They are going to have safe abortions if need be in another country, and the likes of Mark Zuckerberg or Sheldon Adelson do not carry a gun anyway - they have bodyguards. And private shooting ranges. Getting all riled up about abortion and guns It creates the illuion of the parties being different and of "choice" for voters and it keeps the sheeple distracted. There was a time when Republicans had reasonable opinions on abortion (they might not have liked it but they saw the terrible outcomes of back alley abortions. Guns were common in rural areas but that was not hyped up to be an almost religious issue. Newt Gingrich started a new era of Republican politics, they figured they would have a hard time winning elections so they had to rile up the masses about something, and to find and CREATE wedge issues. In the U.S. a lot of actors make hay from riling up people (churches, media, politicians, NRA) - it showed with birtherism, anti maskers, now Biden is hyped up to be the antichrist. Literllay, rightwing pastors doing open political agitation. That is part of their way to make money and to keep the faithful engaged. Riled up people come back for their daily dose of rage and adrenaline, and they are loyal viewers, voters or they donate. That is not the case in other nations. They have to run their campaigns at least a little bit on the issues churches would NEVER be as politically engaged (there are only very few established Christian churches, they do not have to outcrazy each other to get donations). The distracted voters are supposed to vote to end abortion or to make sure it does not end - and they are supposed to forget over all of that controversy that both parties give them nothing that would the voters economically and would cost the big donors profits. Biden was VP when the Republicans gladly tolerated birtherism and racist attacks on Obama. Not all Republicans spread it and were vocal (I assume that Obama privately got along well with R speaker Boehner, they did a comedy sketch together later) - but they did not mind using that to their advantage, letting it fester. Boehner might not be that vile - but he did not call out his party, but the Democrats are O.K. with THAT. No reason to get rid of the kid gloves over that. When John McCain spoke to his supporters in Nov. 2008 (concession during election night) some booed when he mentioned Obama by name the first time. Then he had the decency to ask them not to do that. I do not think he called out his party or Fox later for cynically leveraging racism to make political gains. NOW Biden babbles about healing and working WITH them ? He is either an idiot - and / or he plays dumb. Certainly playing dumb. He and most Democrats do not really WANT to fight Republicans. Except on the few issues that the big donors allow them to "fight" about. Like gay marriage (and Corporate Dems only engaged in that cause after it became politically safe, because the grassroots had done the work to change the mind of the potential D voters). I think LBJ was the last Democrat to take a stand (Civil Rigths Act and Voting Rights Act. I think he too knew how to play the game of power and was willing to do it. Needless to say neither JFK nor LBJ would have spent political capital on the cause of the people of color if the Civil Rights Movement would not have forced them. JFK may have had sympathies for the cause of blacks in the South - but he was not going to risk the support of the Dixiecrats (he very narrowly one the first election). LBJ saw the writing on the wall - and then he used his ability to play hardball to get it done. Then with the support of some Republicans of Northern states.
1
5:00 the people in her district elected her - yes, but she votes for the most part on bills that affect ALL of the U.S.
1