Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Fox News" channel.

  1. Woodward is not in the tribal Clinton camp. And he does not trash the president, he is very classy - but he SPOKE to the people of the inner circle - why to you think they were willing to talk to him ? I saw a few interviews - Woodward is very careful and thoughtful about WHAT he says, does not speculate when invited to do so by the journalists. He also said the recent New York Times op-ed would not meet his standards (too vague, no specifics). And that he does not do "off the record". Hiding the names of the sources - Yes, but not "off the record". It is a little bit like the public and private opinion of Hillary Clinton. Trump does not have the mental capcity to be president, never mind the rest of the qualifications. THAT was clear to see long before the book. And has nothing to do with Trump's political stance. it may be beginning dementia - could hit a well suited person as well. Even Trump respects Woodward as journalist - and would have given him a interview - at least he said so. Woodward played a record in a recent interview (he had the president's permission to record). Trump: I would have loved to meet with you, you were always fair to me. "they" never told me that you asked repeatedly for a meeting. Whom did you ask ? Woodward answers that - and also informed Trump that the book would not be on the friendly side. Now Trump may have deflected - but there is no doubt that Woodward is a legend. And you bet the people around Trump did NOT want him to meet with a smart journalist that has such a reputation (others can be dismissed - hard to do that with Woodward). The sane people clearly want to see Trump gone (which would get Mike Pence into power, holy shit !). There is a breakfast recorded this summer (before the Helsinki summit) regarding NATO. Sitting next to Trump, the ambassador to NATO (or envoy), Mike Pompeo and Kelly. Kelly could just about avoid a face palm. Watch the video and the body language of the people that are very influental in the cabinet.
    14
  2. 10
  3. 5
  4. 5
  5. 5
  6. 4
  7. 4
  8. 4
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. The deal under Clinton was not honored by the U.S. they did NOT live up to their side of the deal. And THEN came the Cheney/Bush admin in eager search of an ENEMY. Axis of evil anyone ? And then came the Afghanistan war (war prepared in summer 2001, 9/11 was the pretext to sell the invasion to the voters, the U.S. was in Afghanistan a few weeks later that would have been IMPOSSIBLE, war is a major logistic undertaking). In 2003 came Iraq - with a LIE. If Iraq had nukes - do you think the U.S. would have invaded them ? Hell, no. Then in 2011 "Gadaffi had to go". Then "Assad had to go". Funny enough in Syria the U.S. supports the same Al Qaeda (resp.their spin offs) that - allegedly - was responsible for 9/11. Now why would NK not want nukes. Or Iran for that matter. Because that is pretty much the only deterrent for the U.S. to go to war with your country whenever the U.S (or Israel pulling the strings in the case of Iran) fancies it. Iran has now given up - under a lot of pressure from the Obama admin - the ability to produce enriched material (they can have and handle material that is sufficient for nuclear reactors - but that is not nearly enough for bombs. as everyone incl. the war mongers and Netanyahu KNOWS. Iran accepted strict INTERNATIONAL controls on that. Enrichment for military use are not small or easy operations, they can be found and the UN inspectors were given opportunity to search - and will continue to search - unless the US destroys the deal. Which would of course deliver the pretext to villify Iran. As long as they accept the UN inspections it is hard for the U.S. to sell the alleged threat of U.S. they can tell that their dumbed down viewers but not justify Iraq on stereoides.. The war mongers (the Israel first crowd really) strengthen the position of the hardliners who always said that it was a mistake to try to negotiate with the U.S. - that is no coincidence. A more peaceful, modern Iran evolving towards democracy ? Israel, Saudia Arbia and the neocons and war mongers would be horrified. They would be stripped of any pretense to go to war with Iran, it simply could not be sold to the U.S. voters. On the other hand Iran MIGHT BE GIVEN nukes - if the U.S. continues on the path of insanity ans war mongering.
    2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. + Chester Inform yourself - the U.S. troops stay IN Syria. There were not enough of them to make a military impact (the Kurds did the heavy lifting on the ground against ISIS and THEY lost approx. 11,000 people) - but the US soldiers coordinated with the Kurds and were not in much danger at the moment. The Kurds with a little bit US support controlled the region - before Trump allowed Erdogan to run amock. BUT: the US soldiers were a political / diplomatic deterrent for Erdogan to start a genocide as long as they were in THAT place - and Trump conveniently moved them out of the way. The U.S. soldiers are not coming home they were moved just out of the way of Erdogan. Since the U.S. troops were among the Kurds until very recently Erdogan could not go after the ALLIES of the US in the fight against ISIS w/o unintentionally also hurting U.S. soldiers. Turkey is a NATO member. Erdogan did not dare to escalate the situation while the U.S. soldiers were "in harms way". - whatever reasons Trump had to clear the lane for Erdogan (hotels in Turkey maybe) - if several U.S. soldiers had been killed, Trump could not have avoided to slap Erdogan and slap him hard. Not with a war but with economic sanctions etc etc. - watch out the sanctions will be taken back right away - because Erdogan was willling to agree to a ceasefire - for five days. Trump got so much backlash that he had to do some symbolic gesture. Saudi Arabia did not dare invade Qatar in 2017 (and Mattis and Tillerson phoned up their counterparts in KSA to stop them) - there is a large US base, one of the largest outside of the U.S.. Same dynamic plays out in South Korea, the U.S. troops there signal to the Chinese or NK that any US president would have to retaliate hard if they harm them because they attack SK. It raises the stakes for everybody
    2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. That is a lesson for any nation - the U.S. does not bother to keep treaties, not even when their allies are part of the negotiation team (and signatory powers). The Iranian president does not have that much power, but Rouhani played his cards well. The Iranian hardliners - like their U.S. counterparts - did not want the deal. The Iranian citizen were VERY GLAD about the deal so Rouhani had some support from that corner. No wonder THEY were worried. I (living in a safe country) was worried the U.S. would go to war with them, the rhetoric a few years ago was like the war drums for the Iraq war in 2003. The U.S. had encouraged Iraq under Saddam Hussein to go to war with Iran in 1980 - that war was terrible, it ended with an impasse, up to 1 million people dead, the Iranians are very afraid to be dragged into another war. And they have been on the U.S. kill list for a long time - and they know it. - Despite that they are very friendly to Western tourists, there is no hostility against the Western civilians, but they fear the Western governments. Of course the position of Rouhani - who got the deal through in Iran - and who is more moderate than many other politicians in Iran - is underminded by the U.S. Instead of rewarding him for his cooperation and offering relief in sanctions - which would strenghten the position of ANY moderate in Iran the U.S. makes clear that they are not to be trusted. That they DO NO REALLY WANT PEACE. That it is futile to seek reconciliation with them. If a nations feels under pressure and fears attack it will circle the waggons - which helps without fail the more extreme, dictatorial forces in the country. If they would feel less threatened they could relax around the position regarding Israel. Maybe loosen the theocratic rules, the pressure they put on their population. The Iranian citizens are more than ready for a more ! secualar more modern society. Part of their leadership is not (yet). And the West does everything to assist the hardliners. Can't have peace and a powerful, prospering, modern Iran doing trade with all developed nations - what would be the pretext to go to war against such a nation. On the other hand Iran controls it's resources and uses a good part of their oil revenue for the well-being of their population (healthcare, education). They keep the economy more protectionist (like it was during the Economic Miracle after WW2 in Europe and the U.S.)  A more democratic, more secular government would not change that. So while PEACE with IRAN would offer a lot of business opportunities for Western corporations (and they could pay for it with oil revenue) they would not sell out the family silver to Western Multinationals. The neocons and neoliberals don't like that - on principle - it sets a "bad" example to resist the neoliberal economic principles.
    1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. Income taxes were raised under FDR (New Deal era since 1933) to 80 % (for the highest income bracket), when the US entered WW2 in 1944 to 94 %. SOMEONE HAD to pay for the programs, infrastructure and then the war. In 1932 - 1933 1 million people had joined the unions, strikes and protests all over the country and there was the example of the Russian revolution of 1917. This is how FDR "convinced" (partially unwilling) Democrats to vote for the proposals that helped the low-income people. As today the representatives were wealthy or even rich. FDR was very rich for instance. Due to FDR's populist left leaning economic policies the US unlike Europe did not go the rightwing nationalistic or even fascist route. Nor did they have an uprising or a civil war. The war let the economy boom. After the war the business community (having seen what that extra debt financed ! government war spending could do for the economy) were quite O.K. with continuing the Keynsian spending spree. The state CAN finance job creating programs boldly if - IF it is arranged that the money spent on those projects will soon come back to the state. The way to ensure that: Good wages (rising with productivity !) so consumers can spend and HIGH taxes. The jobs programs ensure low unemployment, that means good wages, that means consumer spending which further helps the economy. Tax evasion and outsourcing was not possible then. The US in 1947 had the highest (Federal) debt ever (it is measured in % of the GDP so the number alone - like more than 19 trillion in 2017 - does not signify). The taxes stayed in the 80 % area in the 50s and slowly declined, still around 65 % under JFK. With Reagan new policies were installed. Compare the outcomes !
    1
  55. 1
  56. Also in agriculture and water saving. BUT: a lot of military and surveillance technology. They have the experts - and can test on the Palestinians as guinea pigs w/o any legal protection. And if a country is so into the "circle the waggon mentality" they will eventually drift towards fascism, become authoritarian (also towards dissenters within) and economically rightwing. So in the only democracy in the middle east they now intentionally shoot journalists and do not even feel the need to hide it. And all the military spending and policing costs a lot of money - that is a drain on the economy. Part of the paranoia comes from the German prosecution - but the Zionist terrorist who were Europeans were giving the British a hard time in Palestine during and before WW2, they were not prosecuted, they dished out trauma. It was a terrible idea to send the survivors of the holocaust AND then many other Eureopen colonists in a country that did not belong to them. Because those zealots (Zionism initially did not have majority support among Jewish people) AND the survivors agreed: in this newly founded European COLONY they would be the dominant group. With modern technology and improved agriculture the land could have become a fit for the people who had been living there often for centuries under Ottoman and then British rule AND the newcomers. The new European settlers in Israel (with a Jewish background but no genetic ties to the region) had all the prejudices of the European middle class and bourgeoisie minus the anit-Jewish sentiment that was widespread then (even in the U.S., UK, France). So they looked down on the brown people of the land that another country (the U.S. that dominated the newly founded UN) had now given to them. And those brown people were on average less educated and were poorer (as the Jewish had been before the Nazis went after them). It shows by the way in the jokes and thinly veiled contempt about Jewish people with Arab descent. As they were Jewish - and those folks did have the genetic ties to the region they might be descendents of king David if that man ever lived - they had to be "tolerated" to stay in the country. Being brown and "Arab" meant that they were less than. (Read some "funny" stories by Ephraim Kishon). So the Palestinians - the natives living in Palestine - were the underdogs - in what had been THEIR country. The British ruled the protectoratebut they did not take away private property and kick people out from houses, from farms, or use eminent domain on the commons. Never mind their 2000 year old claim (or older) - genetic research (done in Israel !) showed that most of them are not even from that area. They are Europeans - and they look like Europeans, because they are. They were very assimilated in countries like France, UK, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, ....and if the moron Hitler would not have taken over (a minority government enabled by the Conservatives and the Industrial leaders of Germany no less) they today would live now almost undistinguishable in Europe.
    1
  57. + Jeanie Delgando Let me disagree: Iran is NOT irrational or insanely dangerous - why would they be ? Except that the MSM with an agenda always portrays them in this way - without ever mentioning WHY IRAN SUPPOSEDLY IS SO DANGEROUS - when have the Mainstream media outlets ever lied to us ?? The good people of Iran (and I mean it that way) stem from a very old culture - Persia. Now they have a very young OPEN population that has the bad fortune of being governed by a theocracy. Their religious leaders enforce crazy rules on THEM (they crack down on gay people, being gay can get you killed, but they allow transgender, if you would openly drink alcohol you are going to be punished - that is why the Iranians only drink in secret lol, or if you do not dress modestly or have sex outside the marriage.) The people of Iran however are lovely, everyone visiting them will tell you how curious and hospitable they are. I heard that from several different people who had been there. I read a story recently of a British women travelling by bike there. Alone, mostly in rural area (no hotels or restaurants). Her take: you come into the village and try to look thirsty and sweaty - not hard to do. Then someone will invite you to have tea, dinner, whatever with them. They were somehow wary about the role of the British government towards Iran, but they were all very friendly to her. One family would let her sleep in the prayer room (no hotel of course and no place in the family rooms). I assume Iran wanted to have nuclear bombs (like Isreal who is a rogue nuclear nation). Not for attacking - they are not suicidal they would be annihilated if they tried that - but as effective DETERRENT. They have OIL - a lot of it. So they have every reason to fear the U.S., NATO especially UK and France; and Isreal. Imagine Iraq or Libya would have had a nuclear bomb - would the U.S. have attacked them - I do not think so. Anyway, Israel bombed the Iranian sites that allegedly were only engaged in non-military use of nuclear power., assassinated their scientists. So they are not going to develop their own bomb. Although if the U.S. ever decides to overdo it, Russia/and or China might decide to give one to them. The nuclear treaty Iran agreed to (it was negotiated with Iran, U.S., Russia, EU, Germany had it's own envoy) places them under very strict control. That means it is impossible for them to develop a bomb without it being noticed. And it takes some time, so plenty of time for the U.S. to react. Remember how the GOP and Israel went crazy. The treaty guaranteed more safety - so why the long faces ? - Because it removed every pretext to invade Iran - after all the treaty is controlles by other large nations as well. So the U.S. cannot simply manipulate facts and make up stories as they please regarding Iran The Republicans never explained WHAT they did not like about the treaty. And the U.S. did not adhere to it's part of the agreement. If Iran kept the treaty the U.S. was supposed to LIFT the sanctions. to my knowledge they did not do that - w/o giveing any explanation. Well at least the EU is now starting to do more trade with Iran - so that helps.  So WHY would Iran be dangerous to the U.S. ?? If they wanted to block the Street of Hormuz the U.S., EU and likely China would go to war with them - because of the blocked oil supply. The religious regime seems to ressemble the regime in Saudia Arabia (which is even worse) - they are Shia Muslim however (so KSA whith their Sunni Islam - Wahabism considers them as arch enemy for religious reasons alone ). Iran had a democratically elected secular government in the 40s/50s until in 1953 the CIA arranged for a coup on behalf of British Petroluem (BP) and installed another secular but dictatorial regime. Iran had a peaceful revolution in 1978/79. (The Shah had the army shoot at protesters, but then the military refused to continue to do so and millions of people went to the streets. Peacefully. So the Shah fled the country. Unfortunately they then got the Ayatollahs and theocracy. (They did not trust democracy and secular governments anymore - the Western "democratic" forces had given them the brutal dictatorship of the Shah after all. Since they took the people at the U.S. embassy as hostages, the U.S. governments detest them since. Moreover Israel and Saudi Arabia, the allies of the U.S,. consider Iran to be an enemy - so there you go. No enemy of Israel is going to get a fair review on U.S. media. They have these demonstrations and slogans like death to the U.S. and death to Israel (while having a Jewish minority in the country). That seems to be an established rhetoric exercise. Jon Stewart was in Iran, as declared U.S. citizens - people were friendly with him. He was not treated as "enemy" - on the contrary. These "demonstrations" do not mean Iran would really go after Israel (who has after all a formidable military AND nukes). They are not crazy or irrational in that way (only with religious rules for their OWN people). I would not give up on the Iranian people. There is a saying in Iran: Under the Shah we drank (alcohol) openly and prayed in secret - under the Ayatollahs it is the other way round. There is a twinkle in the eye - while religion is important, and the sexual morale much more conservative than here, they do not take their religion that seriously. And they are not that much into martyrdom and converting other people / nations like the Sunni Muslim. Iran also has not started a war these last 100 years. They are a young, still poor country and I think they know to mind their own business. They can vote - but the religious leaders CONTROL who can get on the ballot (they had servere clashes over that some years ago - the people wanted to get their own candidates on the ballot. Unfortunately the U.S. is not really interested in a peaceful relationship with Iran. President Rouhani got through the Nuclear deal - against the hardliners within Iran. Since the U.S. does not live up to it's agreements it undermines the position of Rouhani - who is moremoderate. No democrat but better than other figures. The Iranians might turn their country around once more - if the U.S. does not act stupidly.
    1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. She said she had Cherokee ancestors - NOT that she was a tribe member, not that she would qualify as such. The campaign of the right wing media and politicians against Warren started when she STOOD UP to the BANKS and got them for ripping of people with mortgages for illegally forclosing them or other financial services. And the rhetoric ! is progressive. I think her heart is in the right place, but she is not strong enough. Interestingly Republican voter seem to support that slander for a minor transgression or wrong assumption. (She did NOT have any career advantages). After all that Trump did and said was fine ! Really ? Now, I would prefer Sanders to run in 2020, she talks a good game, but she folds to the pressure of the party machine, is invited to the fund raisers with the Big Donors. It is unclear what is going on, it looks like she prepares to run, but maybe Sanders signalled that he will likely not run - however in case she would have been willing to undermine a run of Sanders to serve the party machine - they attrackt the same kind of base , so it would split the progressive vote - I am fine with her candidacy being weakened. Not that that is necessarily the case. I also think that Sanders would do better with Independents. In a Sanders admin she would make a good asset in a consumer protection agency or something like that. Getting a progressive Senator voted in in her place of course. The hardcore right wingers are not going to vote for her anyway, those are gloating now. And the Democratic base and reasonable indepedents will not care. They are usually about POLICIES, not about nonsense. My respect to the Cherokee nation: for them a progressive president that cares about low income persons, healthcare, jobs program (also in areas where they are hard to get), decriminalizing drugs, fracking and pipelines on native and sacred land is more important than an erronous claim.
    1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. But the DEMOCRATIC elites do not lose. They realize that Biden likely will lose to Trump. They (and their big donors - who also finance the Republicans) prefer that to winning with Sanders. They just can't admit that. - the big donors finance BOTH parties. for the D establishment (and likely also Obama) keeping the money flowing in is more important than anything else - even winning the GENERAL. The big donors finance Corporate Dems to win PRIMARIES - against pro working class candidates. People like Sanders. (in all races) Then the ballot will offer the "choice" of a spineless Democrat vs. a fierce Republican (and both completely beholden to the donors). The party "leadership is there to maintain order on behalf of the financiers (in both parties). They have access to the big donors necessary to finance campaigns, not to forget the cushy jobs for ex politicians. Sanders was tolerated as Independent because he could win the races against Republicans and with little or no help. And Vermont is a little state with no major industries. Read: no big donors. (They would have eliminated someone like Sanders in largers states). I assume many older top dogs in the Democratic establishment now regret they did not throw money into the races right, left and center in the 1990s when they could have stopped him with a lot of effort. But no one thought the outsider could do harm - he couldn't have challenged them w/o the internet, and no one saw it coming that a candidate could work around the control of Corporate media about what information the voters get. Their control is still astonishingly strong.
    1
  72.  @ManzmussulFitness  There are Trump voters that are NOT in the cult. They may not be racist or like what is going on at the border, but they do not base their vote on that. They vote their self-interests. Keeping the manufacturing jobs. TRADE DEALS and HEALTHCARE are important - especially in the states that must be won back. Biden does not inspire hope that he will fix healthcare. he campaigns on that he can beat Trump (nope) and that he will return to the state of affairs before Trump. (what do they think why people voted for the orange clown in the first place ? if things were going well how come Trump could win this ?) Now the relentless disingenuous attacks of Corporate media may nurture scepticism about M4A, but all in all people see Sanders as Mr. Healthcare despite the smear campaign. Both Biden and Sanders do fairly well with the crowd that must be won back. Biden because Corporate media (who likes his service for big finance) manufactured the image of Uncle Joe, the friend of the blue collars and the elder Statesman that has the best chance to beat Trump.  (nope, no friend of the working class when you look at his record. Of course not: if you serve big biz and big finance you cannot be on the side of The people. Sanders does well in these states because he is perceived as authentic and has the VOTING record and the policy proposals to prove that he is on the side of workers and regular people. See the Rustbelt states. Biden might do better in Florida but Bernie would hold on to the Rust Belt (he is the only one who has no baggage with trade deals. Trump incoporated some business friendly TPP provisions into his NAFTA 2.0 deal - and Sanders is going to hit him on that as well. Sanders also has secret weapons for Florida: Nina Turner (for the black community) and AOC. She has kin in Puerto Rico (her grandmather lives there) and a lot of people of PR moved to Florida after hurricane Maria. They are super motivated to get rid of Trump - and if they have residency in one of the 50 states (and many went to Florida) they CAN vote.
    1
  73.  @ManzmussulFitness  Biden can be attacked on NAFTA, China, and TPP. (Of course: he has faithfully served big finance and big biz, Delaware is a tax haven to almost rival Switzerland, most large companies have mailbox subsidiaries there). - Bloomberg has major business interests in China. Sanders can go after Biden, Bloomberg AND Trump (his Nafta 2.0 is window dressing, minor improvements, included some TTP rules. Of course Trump and the RNC are getting tons of money, so of course it is business friendly). Biden performed intellectually better than Trump (when they both had their full "potential") Now Biden tries to deliver like in the past, but runs into these brain fog moments. (Trump knows better to avoid even going there). Over and over again, and he does not even have an intense campaign. (Both Trump and Sanders have a more intense schedule, even Trump despite him being a lazy president). Trump also knows better how to cope with his decline, he avoids mentioning details, specifics and names like the plague. And HE (but not Biden) is energized by campaigning and holding rallies and events. Biden had a little more stress and appearances than he is used to when he won (S.C. and when he did good on Super Tuesday). That is enough pressure to make him slip up again and several times within a few days. If the blackouts and malfunctions are only few within a long ! intense campaign season - IF a politician has an intense schedule - you can give it a pass. Lack of sleep, overworked. It has happened before that a politician does not even get it right where he currently holds his stump speech. But Biden has them on a regular base, and that is with his campaign doing a light schedule and also having as little interviews as possible. It seems Biden gets more often into trouble in the evening - that phenomen is called "sundowning".
    1
  74. Advise to E.Warren: Don't wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. - I assume the university found it convenient to have one more minoirty member, she went along, maybe it tickled her vanity to have this special heritage (her mother had told a family tale - many families have them, does not mean they are correct). - SO WHAT ? She was not accepted as student or as professor, she was obviously a very popular and accomplished professor. President bone-spurs is sitting in the glass house. If that is the worst they can find about her - must be - Big Finance and their shills in the Republican party hate her, the voters can be confident. No skeletons in the closet. Now if we compare that with Trump, Bush, Cheney, the Clinton's ..... or Brett Kavanaugh while we are at it .... (even w/o the assault - he was a brat at 17, lied under oatch in 2006, lied under oath in 2018 - then to defend the picture of the good choir boy. It is safe to assume that he is a conceited hypocrite. Not having a track record is not enough for to be a good president - see Obama the sell out. On the other hand the party of family values had nothing against neoliberal sell-outs, the have plenty of them, and they are even worse (on average) than the Democrats, which says something. And strictly speaking the family track record of the Obamas was good. No cheating, no porn starst, the girls don't do drug. No wife (number 3 - and he cheated on every one of them) that is a trophy wife and worked on a tourist visa before a sugar daddy arranged an Einstein visa for her. And her father was awarded citizenship although he has a criminal records. Seems he was corrupt in the old Yugoslavian days under Tito. Which neighbours noticed, he was much better off than them, and his position did not explain it. There was a criminal investigation and that record should have made it harder for him to be accepted. Slovenia does not send their best either .... And she speaks English well and is a lawyer of her own right. Michelle might even be able to speak more than one language, even though she does not brag. To be fair Melania speaks at least 2 languages, that we know for sure. She does speak English, just with a VERY thick accent and she is not eloequent. But who knows if she is eloquent in her mother language ?
    1
  75. 1
  76. Warren Buffet: My secretary pays a higher tax rate than me. The ratio of tax revenue versus GDP is pretty constant - what has changed is WHO PAYS them. In the Golden Era rich individuals and highly profitable businesses contributed much more to the tax revenue. NOW the contributions have been _shifted to the middle class and smaller companies. The very rich bribed politicians to pass laws and deregulate finance so they can evade taxes and the lower income bracket can impossibly pay more - people would become homeless, and / or they would have to severely restrict their consumer spending which would shrink the economy. The gap has to be bridged with more government debt - which means bonds with interests that mostly benefit wealthy people (countries usually do not take out loans). Those interests are an unearned income (not earned with work but with capital) which are subject to lower taxes than income from work or entrepreneurial activities. That is another way how wealth is transfered from the bottom to the top. Meanwhile the interest payments make up a noticeable part of government budgets. The haves like the safe investmennt, the lower taxed income from interest and AND they get their money back after the bonds expire. If they would pay more in taxes (like they did until the 1980s), that money would not be returned (it circulates and they may profit, but no direct return). And no interest on top of that either. So - surprise, surprise - the rich like the solution with more government debt in form of bonds much better. Never mind the hand wringing about the "exploding" debt. That is ONLY a problem when the debt stems form spending for the welfare of the general population. Exploding debt and high deficits for wars, for insane increased military spending * (for profit contractors) or because of tax cuts for the rich are fine. From 600 to 680 bn USD regular yearly budget - wars and letter agencies (like the VA) are extra. Russia has 60 bn per year (they reduced their budget from around 80 bn). A British government bond that was issued last year could have been sold 3 times over. The investors are very sure they will get their money back and that the interest will be paid, too Investing in manufacturing (also in form of shares) is not an option (sure stocks soar, but there is a finite volume, a lot of the increases are driven by stock buybacks financed with the Trump tax cuts). We have industrial overcapacities worldwide (considering the disposable income = total of wages that are paid in wealthy and developing counties) - so the unwashed masses cannot BUY MORE. So investing in "government debt" is one of the options. And the rich invest globally in real estate and price the locals out (most governments let them, San Francisco, New York, London, Paris, Sydney, Auckland, ..)
    1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. Public sector pays for military development, hands it over to the private sector once the tax payers did the heavy lifting, and shouldered and elimated the risks * of developing new technologies or medical drugs - PM of Israel goes on and on how this is the "free market". Sellling surveillance to China, too - right ! * Noam Chomsky describes that in the clip: "The role of the military is misundestood". All the spending under cover of military budget and all the research is meant to be taken over by the for-profit companies. That is why the MIT - then almost completely funded by the military - did not mind very much that Chomsky organized the Vietnam resistance out of the MIT. They did try to oust him, but he was a professor, had some international recognition - and their heart wasn't in it. As long as the military shouldered research for the private sector they did not mind too much Since Netanyahu studied at the MIT - he for sure learned that. Israel got a lot of well educated specialists from the Soviet Union (of Jewish descent) when the "free market" fans looted Russia and the other Soviet Republics. So THAT no doubt boosted the advancement of technology in Israel. They never had to train these people, but got them fully educated (and the Soviet or Russian education system is good). I heard an Israeli citizen comment that they let in these people form the Soviet Union to suppress wages for the people that had lived longer in Israel. Can't say that for sure. But the U.S. IT sector does the same with visa for Indian IT experts ("stealing" their educated work force which is a problem for the Indian start ups - they do not have enough people). "free market" ? - I do not think so.
    1
  83. 1
  84. For your info: Israel already IS a rogue nuclear nation. - You have no idea what the Iran deal does - Iran cannot enrich uranium - weapons grade material must be 90 % enriched - it is technically not possible for them to produce the material for a bomb. The foolish power point presentation of Netanyahu does not matter. The alleged intentions of Iran in the past, now or in the future do not matter. What matters is: WHAT they CAN do, what is POSSIBLE. They for sure have destroyed the equipment(UN inspectors confirmed it). Even if they started afresh it would take them minimum one year to get to a point where they would have material suitable for an atomic bomb AND there is no way this could go unnoticed when the UN weapons inspectors have full access and they can come unannounced. So WHO would want to THROW such a deal under the bus ? The war mongers who are lusting for war ! And it does not matter in the least if Iran is a danger or not. That is not the reason Netanyahu or the Saudis would like to lure the U.S. into another war in the Middle EAst on their behalf. Iran is in full compliance with the deal (which the Trump admin btw could not avoid to admit) - that is why the money was UNFROZEN by the Obama admin - it is THEIR money FROM THEIR accounts that had been frozen by the U.S. for many years. Now what do you think WHY would someone undo that level of security - if this was REALLY about security. Netanyahu is dying to have war with Iran - with the U.S. fighting that war of course - and with Iran being so obviously no threat it is hard to "justify" a war or sell it to the U.S. tax payer. Now the Saudis would likely even pay the U.S. to take out Iran for them - while Israel expects the favor for free. The Iranians are Shias and the rabid Saudis hate everything that is not their extreme form of Sunni Islam. Plus Iran is a large country and they - unlike the Saudis - do have a capable army. (never mind that the Saudis spend as much as Russia, the equipment purchases with which they bribe the politicians of the West do not make a good army). Israel is more sober in their hostility. They do not like any larger player in the region that is not completely under the rabid fist of the U.S. - and there is no way that they can grab Lebanon (or a part of Syria for that matter), as long as Hezbollah in Lebanon has the support of Iran and Syria. A war against Iran war would be much worse than the Iraq war. Are you going to enlist for the war for which the cabinet of Trump is so eager - this is not only about the deal. Trump may just detest if for petty reasons (Obama and Kerry involved so it must be bad) or maybe someone of the Israel-first crowd influenced him. but the men is his cabinet (Bolton, ... or now Pompeo) KNOW what is really going on. And why undermining the Iran deal is the first necessary step towards war with Iran. The Europeans and all other signatory nations - except the U.S. - convincing Iran to carry on with the deal would counteract the war mongering. I expect Israel to provoque more in the next time with assassinations and with air strikes.
    1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. Neither NK nor the Clinton admin completely honored the deal made under Clinton. - there came Cheney and GWB and talked about the "axis of evil". Instead of pushing for NK to comply and using the carrot and stick approach. Make it worth their while to cooperate. CHINA does not want nukes on the penninsula. Why do you think NK has nukes in the first place (I am sure they got some help from the big brother). The nukes in South Korea are NOT meant for NK - they point at CHINA. After all the hostile talk about the "Axis of Evil" there was Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, Libya and Syria (the latter two were/are secular countries, by no means as bad as Saudi Arabia AND seeking cooperation with the West also regarding the fight against Islamic terrorism, they had tried to cozy up with the West especially with the U.S. after 9/11, offering help. The fundamentalist terrorists were their enemies too. Did the U.S. wisely nurture those relationship ? Hell no - it was for-profit war (and then looting afterwards). Or that was at least what Hillary Clinton, UK and France planned (and as always when it comes to going to war, it had bipartisan support. It helps that hardly any policians or media people ever served and they have no relatives in the army). The Libyan gold reserves that were huge are gone, they have oil and water. (large aquifer, that is interesting for the French). Of course now the routes for the human traffickers smuggling African migrants to Europe are open since Libya has become a failed state. But these war mongering criminals/morons do not care. And Oliver Norton is one of the worst.
    1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. Trump "University" was a scheme that reeks of Trump making once more the front puppet for people with a plan to make a quick and big buck. And you bet they are also into online markeing, sales funnesl. There are characteristics which Trump University shares with hardcore online marketing sales techniques - they took them to the next level. (Trump settled with course members out of court, he was already president elect then). What is the connection between hyped up, often shady sales process of online courses, the online delivery of such courses - and Trump "University" ? If you google online marketing by email and sales funnel you will find schemes where trainer/guru offers training. It is usually about online marketing, social media skills, sales, and developing entrepreneurial skills, time management, avoiding procrastination, managing your motivation etc. For the entry level offers it is information material (pdf, videos, audio). (the cheapest offer may be 200 USD for the magical pdf - the information that will be the game changer for your business. Not). In order to get that money for often quite generic information - one needs a lot of HYPE and a sales process that works human psychology (also see the sales techniques on TV channels where they sell stuff). The courses are sold by people w/o expert status or name recognition. The sales process is with email, usually containing a link to promotinal videos, little or no personal interaction. It is quite an achievement - from a marketing standpoint - to make people pay 200 - 5000 USD for a training, they did not know they needed one month before. Especially when they are persuaded to incur debt to afford it. Sadly in many (most) cases they do not get what they were promised. not every offer is good (maybe 30 % - just my estimate) - and not every person is capable of making a course work for them, even IF the course is good. Many would be better off to get a job, have on the job training and work their way up. Well those opportunites are getting rare, the bachelor has become the highschool graduate, plenty of competition. Besides not every one is meant to make the 6 and 7 figure income, no matter what sleek marketers promise. THEY may make the 6 and 7 figures from the gullible clients - but not their course participants. How are the trainings designed - compare with TU Only the more expensive offers include some human interaction in the training. Selling a series of educational videos (online) means that if you sell more courses you do not have more costs for delivering the course (or the costs are insignificant, maybe a better offer from the company that hosts the videos). So you can really _leverage revenue and profit and the use of your work time._. If the delivery of the course includes a lot of human interaction - selling more courses means more costs for labor (your own time, or hired trainers). That can still be profitable, but there is only so much money one can make. Or a well known guru is the front man and the program includes human interaction but with trainers (which may be underpaid, or incompetent). The guru / the brand makes it easier to sell at high (often very high) prices - so needing some paid staff or even have real class rooms does not reduce profits too much. Now if the course members are lucky the guru is wary to maintain a good reputation: a good structure is set up for the hired staff, the content is useful, there is a lot of feedback and interaction going on (it is never about the information, but how to APPLY it. Many people KNOW the principles of good time management. The rules are SIMPLE but not EASY to follow.) The courses of Tony Robbins may be very costly - but it is possible that he would not taint his reputation with delivering crap. A good course would use peer pressure, friendly competition, motivation, and other tools to make participants change their BEHAVIOR / leave their comfort zone. If they can achieve that - it's not easy - even an overpriced hyped up course can be valuable. But that does not lend itself to get-rich-quick schemes. Setting up such a program would need devotion to time and resources, and expertise. Take a former financially successful real estate magnate who has no qualms to promote shady projects if he thinks that will be lucrative for HIM. Putting in what it takes would not be his thing (as proven by the many failed licence deals, no shame i). Or at least doing thorough veetting to find good partners - but that ALSO requires expertise, attention to details. Trump: Slap your name on a project somone else created, take the licence fees and run Online teaching - and the jump to in-person teaching Course is sold online, info by pdf or video, weekly / monthly Q&A calls (in more expensive programs) and a peer-group in facebook - monitored by a trainer. Online = less costs for those who sold the course. Honest and competent trainers can use these tools to create value and support while restricting demand on their personal time. Often they have the online offers (500 - 5000 USD typically) - and then try to recruit from such graduates for the high-end programs with more in-person interaction (10,000 - 100,000 USD). OR they start out with a guru and a lot of hype (w/o the lower programs as step stone). High end: people come together in real life (meetings), they get regular phone calls from the trainer (not the guru, a hired trainer, often former graduates), they send in their weekly reports for accountability and counseling. Only in the very, very expensive programs the guru will deliver services personally and interact. But they might be blessed to meet him or her on conferences. Now back to Trump university: As a celebrity that is allegedly a savvy in real estate/business man * he had enough hpye that he did not need to do the online course gig. (which would have been a little shady for a person in his position). He could jump right into the high end level - programs delivered with a lot of personal interaction - not by Trump but by people who are into creating and selling such programs. The teaching in course rooms and by trainers. Hence the name "university" used to make it sound classy. True to form they had his name all over the marketing materials, when in reality hired sub-trainers delivered the training. And Trump did not show up, not even for a motivational photo-op. Participants were promised that - they could pose with a cardboard Trump ;) In a respectable setting the guru would occasionally show up to TEACH or speak not for photo-ops. I do not think Trump would be even capable to develop such a training (he lacks the rhetoric skills, is not into details, and cannot process complexity - certainly not now - maybe that is early stage dementia and he was better in that before. But he sure was never one to be a teacher or develop a teaching program). It is not easy to train persons in sales, marketing, financing and managing projects, even IF the course is well designed and then delivered by very capable trainers. True to form Trump did not vet the course for value and good content and qualified staff. Instead he and the people that set up the scheme did a lot o hpye in order to make a quick buck off licence fees. in a sales funnel - online sales process - the recruiting of clients is done out of a mail list of let's say 20,000 recipients and upwards 10,000 is considered the minimum for a viable campaign if the list is high quality. The big names in the "industry" have access to 100,000 or more qualified email adresses (people subscribing to a newsletter, often free information is offered). Bought adresses would be useless.For legal reasons people must sign up - so the bait is usually a "freebie", and then you get a sequence of emails. That is how they can "share" lists with other sellers. They promote the freebie / course of another company. If the recipient finds that interesting they will follow the link in the email and will need to sign up for another newsletter to get access to the freebie (usually a pdf or video). Then the other trainer is legally allowed to send emails. Which they usually do ;) If you study that it can get real big, real quick. btw: I am convinced the people who used Trump as front for the "get-rich-with-real-estate" training used such email sales tactics to recruit course members. They targeted veterans, maybe they bought access to a list. If they get per campaign 20 - 100 clients out of that list, which pay 500 up to 5,000 USD per course (which is typical for the low - medium priced offers !). If they have (generic - often licenced !) processes and materials in place (for delivery online). If they do 3 - 4 campaigns per year - and promote the campaigns of other marketers which work in a related field (which means they share the profits) If they do not need to invest that much personal time to teach those 20 - 100 people. If they do not need to travel and can have a home office - then you can make good money of it. Such schemes were all the rage - they may have waned a little bit. They all follow the same patterns for selling the courses and they spam the inbox so it gets tiring if you study what they do.
    1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. Give to Cesar what is Cesar's and to God what is God's. That grifter did NOT want to switch to SAFE ONLINE services to spread the gospel and offer support to the congregation (likely it would result in less money donated). Paulus would not have endangered the congregation. Or risked to potentially harm people that do not belong to the congregation. One major breakout was in a church in South Korea last year, if people SING indoors they will spread the virus more (in case they are spreaders) because they exhale more. There was a choire practice in Seattle. Unfortunately a LOT of the 60 members go infected and a few died. Singing, a smaller room, they stayed there for a while, and the choire members were older on average. The church goers in SK did not deserve that, and it spread of course to outsiders as well, that is how authorities found out about the irresponsible actions of church "leaders". And the rule of Paul and Peter was to not give the authorities or the non faithful reason to speak badly about the faithful if that could be avoided. To not be oppositional and stubborn. There are ways to offer services while conforming to the rules of government (which in this case are even reasonable, at least the intention is benign). Spring is coming, people can meet outside, vaccines are rolled out. it is getting better. Maybe he saw the last chance to make a spectacle of himself and fundraise, before the chance to get "martyr status" oppose the public health rules "just because" was gone. The first Christians were supposed to give a good example.  I am not using the words grifter lightly ! - I assume he will fundraise off his "martyr status" now.
    1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107.  @roswellsatterwhite3906  Sanders was more to the left in the 1970s, and he knew they would find the footage. The Republicans will call any political opponent to the left of Attila the Hun a socialist (they do not understand the term) - so he did some political jiu jitsu in 2015. Sanders embraces the word and defines it on his terms. Democrats are supposed to hastily defend themselves and fold with a whimper when being labelled with the scary S word. in terms of political science: Sanders is a New Deal politician or a Social Democrat 60s and 70s style (in Europe before they sold out, they did good back in the day, they set up and consolidated the non-profit healthcare systems and a strong welfare system. Lots of public housing as well. It still benefits citizens despite the neoliberal assault). But neither Corporate media (millionaires doing propaganda for bilionaire owners) nor his political enemies (incl. many of the Democratic establishment) or the voters are into the details and correct use of terms according to political science. Sanders CAN beat Trump, I still hope he can eliminate Joe who is clearly in cognitive decline, never mind the baggage. The harder thing will be to beat the Democratic establishment. He needs a few good lines regarding scary socialism, it will come up in the next debate with Biden and certainly in the general. And some good lines for immigration. (Trump will claim that Sanders will invite the cartels to come to the U.S. to get free healthcare, something like that - so Sanders better have a catchy and assertive response to shut Trump up). Else he will mop the floor with Trump, if they prepare him well for the debates. He - unlike Biden or Trump - CAN still learn new things (concise ways to hit back at b.s arguments, and Trump will try to take it even farther than the lamestream media). Biden cannot attack Trump on trade (NAFTA 2.0 is window dressing it includes even TPP sequences). Or corruption or war (Iran, attempted regime change in Venezuela on behalf of the Koch Brothers). But Sanders can forcefully go against Trump, on MANY issues. Like his neglect to even bring drug prices down. Biden has no leg to stand on: the Obama admin did nothing, they did not even try. (Sanders cannot mention that in the primary debates, he needs the support of Obama and the voters who still love Obama - which is undeserved, but that's the way it is. As mayor from 1981 - 1988 he was pragmatic and worked with the Republican aldermen and the local businesses. he had ousted a long term mayor that was a big name in the Vermont party machine. The local Dems (especially the aldermen, most were buddies of the ousted mayor) did not like the Independent new mayor. To put it mildly. I think he can gloss over the Cuba and Soviet visit nonsense. The people complaining about it would not vote D anyway. A few dismissive words and back to The Issues. And the affluent D voter will have to make up their midn if they really want Trump gone.
    1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. i have a beef with Kerry on Syria - but GOOD that he met with leaders of Iran - and with European leaders, too. - How about the treason to put the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia (where Trump now has business interests) over U.S. interests ? and as always KSA buys weapons - lots of them - to buy the goodwill of politicians w/o integrity. Michael Scheuer warned years ago that Israel tries to drive the U.S. into a war in the Middle East (and I think at least beginning 2017 he was positive about Trump - well THAT may have changed). Scheuer: . "The interests of the U.S. have to come alway, always first". The U.S. wants to pull out of the Iran deal - fine. China, Russia, Japan, and Europe will be pleased to have the market for themselves. Will teach everybody (incl. the Europeans !) a lesson that the U.S. is NOT a reliable partner. if the U.S. tries to sanction European companies doing biz in the U.S. - watch U.S. comanpies being sanctioned in Europe as well. Two can play that game (same when the U.S. tried to place harsher sanctions on Russia in August 2017 - which they are of course entitled to do. But the U.S. also feels !! that Europe would have to keep those sanctions. Including many major energy companies that are planning a project together with Russia to bring Russian gas to Germany, France, Austria. the U.S. trying to interfere with that ? Well they can try to sanction those European energy companies - watch the retaliations. The Europeans reacted unusually sharp in August 2017.
    1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. Trump wants to ESCALATE. The polls are really bad, he has nothing to lose, provoquing citizens to have a reason for brutalizing them would make him look "tough" for his base. And maybe he finds even a pretext to implement martial law, that would help with voter suppression. The Republicans (Senate) cannot even get their act together to pass a bailout for The People (but the have showered big biz, Wallstreet. With TRILLIONS in the last bailouts). So that could mean mass protests soon, this time over evictions and economic despair. Do they really think they have enough wanna be brownshirts for that. do they think the army will side with Trump ? The veterans ? Federal overreach. Violating the constitution. IF they are even federal employees and not mercenaries They can ONLY protect federal property and only act in close proximity to that property. OR in normal times investigate individual matters, but thent they need to have plausible cause (think the FBI doing an investigation). The unidentified "agents" in Portland wandered off to other areas, so obviusly NOT to protect federal property - there wasn't any. They have no business outside federal property, this is city and local police authority. As per the constitution. The "agents" obviously and deliberately (= they had time to think, they were standing there, the protesters were standing there) attacked peaceful protesters. Several times several locastions. So this is not one mistake, it is a pattern. The Trump admin sends them in to CREATE trouble. In Portland there are more protesters now. Of course the locals are pissed.
    1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. Trump and son(s) appeared to be engaged in a real estate project in another state (not New York) - and made public appearances during events and appeared in TV ads to promote it and give the impression that they had a stake in the project. In reality they got licence fees, put their "good" name on it - many regular wealthy citizens associated the name Trump with being a rich successful real estate investor. - Professionals, real estate insiders did not fall for it - in New York he was notorious after his bankrupcies. Well the marketing did not target professionals, and insiders, they targeted consumers. And the internet had not yet become a major source of information. He did not get any money from the U.S. banks after his several major bankrupcies (or near bankrupcies they had to to make massive write-offs). That makes it plausible that he is now in bed with Russian banks / oligarchs or with other shady financial institutions and may have laundered money. No one (except a few people at the IRS) know if he is as rich as he claims to be, there is a reason he does not release his taxes. That project was in another state - not in New York where he was well known - and not in a good way. Meaning if he had targeted New York consumers the local press and media might have talked about his former shenanigans, so he would not have been a good front for questionable projects there. The country wide press and TV did not a thorough job on his failings. They liked the yellow press aspect (the divorces, the luxury life style, the weddings, the trophy wives, the TV show, the beauty contests, his flamboyance). Whatever they thought of him as business man - he was not very much exposed. Trump father had created the myth, Donald Trump could hold on to it as long as the market was good (and it was easy to make money). And he had the outgoing brash personality that made it interesting to report on him. So countrywide Trump could sell himself as good businessman when New Yorkers who were naturally more tuned in would have begged to differ. Wealthy unsuspecting people OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK fell for the myth - as they were supposed to. When he and Eric appeared on stage and in ads to praise the unvetted real estate project, potential clients assumed the project had his money in it, that he worked on it , and that the project was well vetted. And they assumed that the Trumps who continued to MANAGE projects like he did in the beginning. Trump does not build and finance, he mainly gives the name - well at least before he could exploit the office of POTUS, that helps big time with international deals - Malaysia, Argentine, Saudi Arabia, China (for Ivanka). Trump having a stake as experienced savvy real estate tycoon was exactely the impression that the people that pulled off the project wanted to create when they paid the Trumps for advertising for them. The scheme was unvetted, it went bust, the investors lost money. A professional investor would have wondered why the Trumps and their business partners would be raising money that way. With a savvy real estate tycoon on board any project would get cheap bank loans, no ? Being the sole investors with help of banks loans would mean they can cash in all the benefits and profits themselves and do not need to share. Large investors with a good reputation do get cheap money, it was certainly available at that time. Interest rates had been lowered substantially by Greenspan. The people that really were behind the project did not get bank loans, the banks had examined the business plan (and found it unconvincing) that was the whole point of collecting funding from unexperienced investors with Trump as front puppet. Trump did not lose money though - HE made a good profit of the project, he had extracted high licence fees / fees for advertising before they got bust (paid for with the downpayments of duped investors), THEY got paid - for the job of deceiving the investors. They had not stakes in the investment and no legal liability either. I am sure they had carefully crafted the statements so the investors could not sue. He was just doing an advertisement - while the people were led to believe he had more stakes in it. You must be a real crook and/or incompetent or greedy/desperate for money _ to not vet your licence projects better_ Verifying what your (allegedly) good name is used for. My take on this affair: they were really desperate to get their hands on money, danmed be ethical considerations. He must have good contacts with the media (then !) that he did not get more negative press. Well, in a legal sense he had his ass covered, and he had a reputation to sue as well. Some bribes to the management might have gone a long way. Going with the story of the flamboyant business man got ratings, exposing him would only in detail interest the "nerds" or "insiders" and might create legal problems ... so they did not bother. Trump continued to enjoy an undeserved reputation as savvy business man. Only in New York a broader audience (inc. consumers) was aware of his real track record.
    1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. I hope Kerry galvanizes the Europeans to stand up against the war mongers that want to dismantle a WORKING international agreement (under strict supervision of UN weapons inspectors). Netanyahu and the Saudis HATE the Iran deal - it makes it harder for them to let the u.S. fight on their behalf against Iran. - Not sure if Trump knows what is going on - but the war hawks and the "Israel first crowd" which Trump CHOSE as his advisors for sure know what is going on (Bolton or Pompeo come to mind) I recommend Larry Wilkerson, Ray McGovern, or Michael Scheuer for some perspective. If you are TRULY worried about the country and are not just partisan. Michael Scheuer: "The safety and the interests of America have to come always, always first." But there are a LOT of people out there who are either misled by the media (this clip is a good example how the obfuscation and the lying is done) - while others know full well what is going on and they put the foreign policy goals of Israel and Saudi Arabia or the interests of the weapons manufacturers over that of the U.S. as a whole. The Logan act is not very specific. Kerry might act in contradiction of the letter of that law (as unspecific as it is). But at least he acts in the best interest of the U.S. (in this case - not regarding Syria when he was part of the admin). The Trump admin will of course NOT prosecute him - it would give Kerry an even larger platform to make the case (although I think he tries to stay in the background. When the Iran deal passed Congress the Republicans WROTE a LETTER to the government of Iran - at least he is not so blatant/stupid/ about his efforts to counteract the actions of the government in charge). And of course the Iran deal was and is in the INTEREST of the U.S. the Republicans were throwing a trantrum in 2015 because a) it was Obama and b) they are paid and bought for by the Israeli lobby. The Dems are bribed by Aipac as well - but in that case they could hardly backstab their president. What Trump - under the influence of the war hawks and "Israel first" crowd does now - does damage to the U.S. beyond his presidency. think about the situation in the Middle East. Dismantling the deal is the first step towards WAR. Think the Iraq war was bad, upset the security of the whole region and was excessively costly in financial terms ? This is nothing compared to a potential U.S. war against Iran. it will not be easy, cheap of swift. Think about reliability regarding internationally negotiated deals. Where ALL partners agree that everyone kept their obligations - with the EXCEPTION of the U.S. - who now claims they deal is void and they want to have it changed - just because. Well not" just because" - Israel HATES the deal because it works. How is Israel - and Saudia Arabia - supposed to make the U.S. go to war for their crazy foreign policy objectives if Iran is so obviously NOT a threat.
    1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. Germany does not have many coal MINES (not sure if they still have any open), they definitely are not creating new ones. They exploit (and continue to do so) the coal near the surface. - Merkel started the Switch to Renewable and the abrupt fade out from nuclear not because she is for renewable energy (and you can see that in how the project is set up). She had a political problem in 2011. The former government had installed a plan for an orderly exit from nuclear power (there were some old plants with questionable safety standards, for instance no backup cooling cycle. Or no extra concrete hull. That saved the day in Three Mile Island for instance). She upset that plan and did the industry favors. Big favors ! Nuclear energy is controversial in Germany, but the population was assured that EXTENDING the run times (and with little investment !) was all safe. The industry uncorked the champaigne bottles. Not long after that Fukushima happened and the Conservatives lost a state which they had dominated for decades to a coalition of the Social Democrats with the Green Party. That was when Merkel (she has a Phd in physics) detected that nuclear power plants were not so safe after all. Then they did a hasty exit from nuclear (the "exit from the exit from the exit" was the folksy term for her flipping). Don't ask me why so many Germans vote for her. She does - an in that order - what is good for Merkel, then what is good for the large industries (incl. the banksters) and then the affluent citizens and medium sized companies. Forget about country, long term prospects, a plan for Europe or the not so affluent citizens or companies that are not exporters. So NOW when solar power (even in cloudy cool Germany) is on the brink of the economic breakthrough (for companies and w/o subsidies) - now the highly subsidized German coal industry got favors. And they implement roadblocks for using solar power (everything that is more than a small installation for homes and all installations for companies).
    1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. The claim of the NRPC guy is not true, not regarding costs and it is not "government" run : Single payer healthcare is in place in Europe, Canada, Australia, .... in most wealthy countries since the 1950s. (I live in one, Germany and also know the system of Austria: worries about healthcare insurance or treatment are non-existent. I mean people are worried about being sick of course, but not of the costs ide of treatment or the costs of insurance). People here that do not know about the U.S. situation would be genuinely perplexed. Everyone has insurance, everyone uses the same good facilities. The DOCTORS decide what is medically warranted. I mean - no one likes to get treatments so there is no danger that people would "consume" too much. And if a treatment makes sense (helps you to recover quicker, saves the life, prevents further damage, you continue to be able to earn a living or taking care of the family) - then it strengthens society to provide that. A for profit insurance agency cannot consider those ripple effects, a non-profit has to stay within the budget, but no profit for the middlemen (the "investors" or shareholders). And if they need more money and it makes sense in the larger pricture - they would have to argue their case. (That is theoretical - but if a treatment would be very costly but also beneficial - let's say a revolutionary cancer treatment - I can imagine such a discussion. And it would be a political issue. And either everyone or no one is getting it). There are constly consequences (like the impact of family and the future ability to work or live unassisted) that are not immediately obvious but still play out in the larger picture. The public non profit agency is kind of government related and apart from the wage deductions which are earmarked and go to the agency there is also tax funding. But governments come and go - the agency (agencies there are a few of them per state) stay the same. And neither the center left or the center right government would dare to not properly fund them. That would be a sure way to lose elections. All these countries (tiny Iceland with 300,000 people or Germany with 85 millions people) pay much less per person for healthare (all ! that is spent in the country divided by number of people = healthcare per capita expenditures). The mandatory "insurance" is a percentage of the wage (employers have to double that). It is known in advance !! it is affordable AND there are no unexpected payments when treatment is needed. Dependent family members are included, and also provisions for people w/o a job. Here in Germany it is per capita healthcare expenditures of 5,600 USD per person which is at the higher end of the European average - add about 65 % and you land at the U.S. level of 9,200 USD. Now, the population in Germany is on average older so the U.S. should beat Germany on demographics alone (I got the numbers from the World Bank - health care expenditures If I remember correctly the costs were 18 trillions BUT you have to consider that there are NO costs for private contracts. No co- payments. nd a public non-profit insurance agency (that is what single payer means) has no incentive to play games with the insured / the patients
    1
  178. Taxation means the mandated contribution for everyone in equal circumstances that helps to keep the system afloat. The very system that makes high income and profits possible. - and that mandated payment is equal for people in comparable situations (income bracket, etc.). Her proposal for the SYSTEM * (it is not only about funding government) is not debunked by advising HER (alone !) to act voluntarily in the spirit of her proposal. The action of a few do not make a dent. We do not suggest to people to drive reasonably and to no to drive at too high speed. ("After all we have all the goal to travel savely, with speed and to arrive in good health".) That does not work in large organisms of people. There must be some steering. In traffic it is laws and precise rules - and they are enforced. In funding the government spending it is a general framework of what income class pays how much for the infrastructure and for a functioning society. * and taxation is not only about money - and it should not be considered a matter of individual preferences. If we are asked on an individual level - we all would like to keep all our money. That does not get us anywhere. It is not a question what we like or what is "fair" - certain taxation and government spending policies have certain outcomes. If we chose the outcomes we have to shape the taxation and policy framework . No need to reinvent the wheel, the experiments were done over decades in all developed nation. Golden Era 1940 - 1970 in the U.S. (the oil crises were a disruptor in the 1970s), the 1980s were the start of a new paradigm In continental Europe it was with the mid 1990s. The era of neoliberalism, lower taxation, globalization (= outsourcing), tax evasion 1980/1990 - until now. How many major bank crashes, private debt, bankrupcies, middle class, job security, government debt, income inequality, influence of money in politics. How content, positve are the citizens ? Development of wages vs. productivity.
    1
  179. The usual reason to have an EARLY STAGE abortion (incl. the SECRET abortions of Conservatives) Economic reasons to not have (another) child, already being burdened with extra care (for a relative or a disabled child), poverty, no relationship and no family network, or a dysfunctional relationship, disruption of the career *, losing status for having a child out of wedlock *, not being able to pursue education *, non-life threatening defects of the child * * these are often the reasons for well-off CONSERAVATIVE women and men ! who purport to be anti-abortion to have their SECRET abortions. And like in the former days money helps them to get the abortion while maintaining the facade. Mothers accompagny their young adult daughters to Hawaii. They could have legal abortions in their home state. But there the Republicans make ALL women jump through extra hoops. Facilities far away, many must close down due to arbitrary and made up "safety" regulations. They must travel there several times (because of a mandatory waiting time). More and more PP are shut down, so there are the specialized abortion only clinics - which of course attract the demonstrators, who write up licence plates, take photos. And since the Republicans limit the number of facilites it is often clear: when a woman goes to a certain facility that she is getting an abortion. Planned Parenthood is more inconspicuous, most of their services have nothing to do with abortion (only 3 % of the treatments/procedures are abortions). But wealthy people do not use PP for regular women's health. If a young woman uses the services of a more expensive doctor (typical for her class) and then is "caught" entering the facility or is seen in the waiting room of PP - it is likely that she wants to get an abortion. Which could undermine her "reputation". Like carrying the pregnancy to term and having the child would undermine her reputation (never mind that these families could help her out financially).
    1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. The constitution also grants the freedom of individuals * . So mandatory waiting periods and being forced to have an ultrasound - no MEDICAL reason for that ! - violates the freedom of women. - it is expression of the view of reactionary law makers - usually men - who impose their religious views on women. They would prefer them to not have the abortion, and since they are unable to outright forbid them or punish the women and doctors - they for the second best option: putting up as many arbitrary road blocks as they possibly can. Which is remeniscient of the old times: when abortions are hard to get, they become expensive and out of reach for the low(er) income women. The wealthy woman can easily afford the extra expenses and money helps them to navigate the unnecessary hassle. Unfortunately the morning after pill was invented (it is a from of BIRTH CONTROL it is disputed whether or not it may in rare cases cause an egg that was already fertilized to be expelled). And then there is the abortion pill. Of course reactionary lawmakers earger to meddle with the private affairs (and private parts) of women are trying to concoct up extra obstacles to DENY women that independence, that accessible and affordable way to have a early term abortion. (it is not easy). I am convinced that having good and affordable and quick access to abortions gives a woman more time to think it through. Including the option to consult some pro-life advice (organized and informally within her network) whether to welcome the future child into her life. She can take her time when she knows she must not rush because it is so hard, costly, far away, and difficult to get the abortion - once she made the decision. The Republican lawmakers would of course outlaw abortions - but they still live in a modern nation with a Supreme Court decision from the 1970s. So they can't do that. (and it does of course not prevent them from secretely having abortions in their families, while making them out of reach for their low-income constituents). What they CaN do is BIG government INFRINGING on the personal life and the liberties of women. Red tape, extra road blocks, make arbitrary rules that makes it impossible to have abortions (facilities that had NO medical problems whatsoever, and could offer abortions at moderate costs). * except the SECULAR laws that the nation gives itself - like in approx 1973 the decision that abortions are legal. So then to force a women to watch an ultrasound picture of the fetus when she uses that legal right. There is NO plausible reason for that procedure that is FORCED upon her. Mandatory waiting times, at least 2 appointments before a women that decided she is going to have an abortion can finally HAVE it (as is her legal right). That is an infringement on her rights.
    1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 4:40 Sanders will not break the "party" in half. He would take the party BACK to its roots . He would brake up the funding for the party appartus and the cozy scheme for the servants of the big donors. That involves BIG NAMES or small fish (like the D.C. consultant class that hopes for contracts. And they get them, whether the Corporate Democrats win or lose elections). Under president Sanders a (New Deal) style Democratic party would need small donations, and that means policies that are good for The People, they would be useless for the Big Donors, who would only fund the Republicans). It also means the donors will not provide the golden parachutes for ex politicians, or the insane campaign financing. Active powerful politicians will not get the investment tips and lucrative real estate deals (around 3 corners so that they cannot be legally prosecuted), the jobs for family members. A Senator has 174,000 before taxes plus good healthcare. But they need residency in their home state and a place to live in D.C. (expensive, actually Paul Ryan and others slept in their office for that reason). That money puts you into the upper middle class. But many politicians have become rich while holding office (in both parties. That's the covert perks, they can promote their business activities - even if their partner of another family member runs it). Or think thanks that buy up their books by the truckloads. (some politicians have their audience, but EVERYONE and their dog writes a book when they are or were in politics, who buys or reads them all ? I am sure that is often a covert bribe that is possible even for active politicians. Now Hillary Clinton or even GWB or Obama have their fanbase. But mayor pete also wrote his obligatory book when he planned to run. Klobuchar has 2 and participated in another one). Sanders might have an impact on WHAT candidates are elected into Congress or Senate. Grassroots candidates beholden to the constituents. As opposed to Corporate Democrats beholden to the bid donors and to the power brokers in the party (if they are still around). They have the access to Corporate donors.
    1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1