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

  1. Montana VALUES - is that REPUBLICAN values - because they are sure not CONSERVATIVE values. Gianforte gets asked about the CBO report and healthcare, (feels obviously uncomfortable about that issue - well how do you sell that to the voters before the elections ?), snaps and assaults an British reporter before a room of witnesses. Never mind decency, maturity and respect for the inistitution of the press that asks questions on behalf of the citizens (and hopefully hard hitting questions). HOW DUMB CAN HE BE to do that when the race could get close. - He is not only a brute - he clearly lost control - and audio, likely video AND live witnesses (3 shocked FOX news reporters no less) to prove it. That billionaire likely is surrounded by Yes men and women and not used to be held ACCOUNTABLE.
    1
  2. Before the letter of the rape case was read in the court room, there was a letter read from the victim of a case of domestic violence (Chinese immigrant woman). A Professor from Stanford who has worked on rape cases and obviously accompagnied the victim of the Brock case said that this letter was just as powerful as the letter of the rape case that went viral. That Chinese woman's English was O.K. but not too god. There were horrible photos shown, she was totally beaten up. In her letter she also statet her dissatisfactio with the light sentence (her husband got a weekend in jail). The judge tried to rush her statement and was just dismissive to her. That was the moment the professor realized that Brock would get of easy as well. I just watched in on Democracy Now (long interview of 38 minutes, it is around minute 20, Title of interview "Before Giving Stanford Rapist 6 Months, Judge Dealt Another Light Sentence to Domestic Abuser". Looks like the judge is not too concerned with violence against women.
    1
  3. Russia wants to rebuild the Empire ???? With taking the Crimea, with a referendum no less, The crimea has a strategic port for Russia, which is why they always had an naval base under a treaty with Ukraine of course. The US: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya (bombing "justified" with atrocities of the gov. army - which turned out to be wrong - WMDs in Iraq anyone ?), the regime change in Ukraine, now bombing Yemen together with Saudi Arabia, the intervention in Sudan, regime change in Honduras, the role they played in Haiti. Hardly a year in it's existence without war ! But Russia wants to build an empire - right - they have the bad taste of having their borders in they way of NATO expansion. Russia is ENCIRCLED by NATO, and China is encircled by U.S. bases. And they also stand in the way of U.S. regime change (they did not help Libya when it was attacked by the U.S, UK, France - quite foolishly and shortsightedly - Libya was effective in fighting Islamic terrorism as a secular dictatorship AND when Libya became a failed state it opened the refugee routes from Africa to Europe. Now, i wonder WHO tries to play empire - quite haplessly - but that they produce blunder after blunder unfortunately does not mean they cannot proudce a lot of misery, death and suffering.
    1
  4. 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
  5. 3/3 Of course US enforced "renegotiation" of the treaty would offer an opportunity to inject conditions and language that are reasonably unacceptable to the Iranians - and when they reject - as the U.S. government, Israel and the neocons can hope for - then that would be the pretext to further villify Iran and to declare them a "rogue" nation. That deal had POWERFUL enemies - just revisit the hysterical reactions of the Republicans after it was signed, the rogue letter some representatives (without any authority in foreign affairs) sent to the Iranian government. In that letter they announced in advance that - in case a Republican president would be elected in 2016 - the treaty would be considered void. Good example of international diplomacy - way to present yourself as civilized nation (we will break any deal - negotiated with a host of major nations, most of them allies - when we feel like it later). That infamous letter sort of backfired with the U.S. public, even with Republicans, who did not appreciate to undermining of their sitting president before the international community. Also: The invitation of Netanyahu by Congress to fearmonger. And I think he had his day at the UN as well to continue the fearmongering.
    1
  6. 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
  7. + 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
  8. + Jeanie Delgado As for the poison gas attack of August 2013 (blamed on the Syrian gov.), that may have been a MOUSETRAP for Obama to drag the U.S. into the war - see a video with former CIA officier Ray McGovern (he briefed presidents): The inside scoop into the Middle East and Israel. Despite the title it is about: How PUTIN HELPED OBAMA OUT of the MOUSE TRAP set up to drag the US into Syria with boots on the ground (necessary to impose a no-fly zone). Obama had foolishly (or intentionally ?) given the Syrian rebels a cue how they "secure" the help of U.S./NATO,  when he "drew the red line" at the use of chemical weapons in August 2012 during a press conference. One year later in summer 2013 the rebels were losing and they obviously thought they could use more direct help (apart from weapons supply, funding and training and letting them deal with oil without restriction). UK intelligence, (chemical analysis) * showed that the chemical attack could have been done by the rebels to frame the Syrian government. * it did not match the military grade stuff of the Syrian army Also the components might have been supplied by Turkey to the rebels - a Turkish MPs testified in parliement to that effect). In summer 2013 "rebels" were caught with a small amount of Sarin. The CIA is aware of the fact that Al Qaeda (in Syria Al Nusra) works at getting or developing chemical weapons.
    1
  9. I recommend The Real News: Col. Wilkerson (Chief of Staff under Powell) - search for Trump Admin's talk sound like Bush's pre-Iraq War. - A reasonable assessment of someone who is not a war hawk (and does not automatically put the interests of the neocons or the current hawkish Israeli government over the U.S. interests
    1
  10. The money belonged to the Iranians. - Kerry has some influence as a DIPLOMAT. So I hope he helps to unify the Europeans to stand up against the war mongers in the U.S. and israeal and KSA. Europe, China and Russia have an interest in the Middle east not becoming even more unstable. they also KNOW that the Iran deal WORKS. - It is of coruse possible Kerry has ALSO financial interests - the European politicians have interests of their countries - but no personal interests. I will give Kerry the benefit of the doubt. What he does is in the best interest of the U.S. and he might do it even without having any financial benefit. I recommend Larry Wilkerson, Ray McGovern and Michael Scheuer for some perspective.
    1
  11. If the continued shaming of the extended family is even true - I assume there were some customers or bystanders who sprang into action. - NOW - if you associate yourself with an admin that is so divisive - expect some backlash. - If the mini demo happened at all - it means enough people are pissed off so that people willing to join in the public shaming can be found on the spot and in the evening - and this is not in the middle of the big city ! So no matter who arranged what - THAT would give me pause if I was the speaker of that White House.
    1
  12. She should not have dignified Trump with reacting to his childish remarks, he would not pay to charity anyway.
    1
  13. Cute ! These outsiders have no chance, the level of discussion is mind boggling, but oh well. AOC is going to win the primary and the general in a land slide. If - IF - she was ever in the slightest danger of not winning both (and she would not be as careless as Joe Crowley) she could call in the troops: Sanders, many of his surrogates, many of his volunteers. (Hint: Sanders has more than 1 million volunteers and MANY of them would come to NY 14th.)  Not that I think these competitors would make that necessary. (the two Republicans need to win the R primary first). She won comfortably in 2018 when outspent 10 : 1 - against a heavyweight of the Democratic party. She had increased turnout by 68 %. As for more turnout I guess she meant ALL races. I also do not think that people do not "know" her - and if so the outsider and Republican Scherie Murray has not a snowball's chance in hell. Add some lies about the Amazon deal - New York dodged a bullet - but that was not the achievement of AOC. If a deal could fall apart (negotiated with the govenor and the mayor) after one or a few tweets of AOC.....
    1
  14. Well police in TN a few days ago watched a man drown while he begged them to help him out (footage is 7 - 8 minues) and they did not even try to throw a branch, a lifeline or spare tire to him and in that case they could have done something. Well, they did something, one of them mocked him. The police would need to go in to gather evidence. We all know how much evidence tampering and false testimony the police comes up with if it suits them. So .... One case that will not be solved. May have been an accident, family quarrel. ....
    1
  15. Do we even know that someone was violently killed (as opposed to suicide).
    1
  16. he was endangering the congregation AND society at large. Good they got to him, that will discourage the others that think they are so special that the rules to do not apply. btw: you will not have Catholic priests undermining public safety that way.
    1
  17. I guess fundraising works much better if people attend in person, that is why he did not switch to online services. Plus: if he has elderly members that are not tech savvy pastor and wife would have needed to resort to labor intense methods (calling the faithful on the phone, writing letters, email, personal visit, but keeping a distance and meeting outside. Admitted in Canada it is still cold ....)
    1
  18. 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
  19. I live in wealthy european country that has had single payer since decades. (All European countries started to have those systems after WW2). - Not only are the per capita expenditures MUCH lower - think USD 5,600 vs. 10,000 of the U.S. (and NO hassle for the insured, patients) - the outcomes are better (life expectancy, infant mortality - the latter number is a good indicator if the system works for the low income citizens).
    1
  20. +Panzer it is very well possible that former admins were very sloppy about the safety of unaccompagnied minors.(and the media should have slammed Obama and Bush for it). These minors however were already alone (and not so small !) No one before Trump foolishly and cruelly and intentionally started separating families when that does not have ANY advantage. Zero Tolerance = always prosecution = separation of families that ARE together = dysfunction, more harm, more hassle, more costs for the U.S. more danger for the children, more harm for the parents - they know they might get deported but they do not expect to lose their children. lose/ lose / lose
    1
  21. 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
  22.  @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
  23.  @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
  24. 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
  25. so now it is about politics hopefully (well there is still be claim that Russa "hacked .." I must say that Trump DID foolishly add to the fodder (not that I think they had a strong case anyway but why did the fool make some regards). and on a side note: the Republicans would of course never, ever start such pointless "investigations" only aimed at hindering a president they do not like to see in office - would they ?
    1
  26. 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
  27. No it is not treason - and the Logan act will not be used against him anyway. - Remember when the Republicans WROTE A LETTER to the government of Iran directly undermining Obama the sitting president and his then active secretary of state Kerry (Kerry now at least works behind the scenes and does not put things in writing. PLUS HIS EFFORTS ARE REASONABLE while the Republicans were just throwing a tantrum)
    1
  28. These days everone has a smartphone, surely they would have filmed it, no ? (it would be legal btw when done in public space, FREE SPEECH). even IF there was a mini demonstration - frankly I do not believe the Red Hen owners did organize it for the Huckabee family. They had their business open. Usually restaurant owners do not "disturb" each others business. It is usually a friendly live and let live. So why would they CAUSE a hassle for their neighbour business ? And how would they even know ? running after them while they have THEIR guests waiting for service ? - does FOX really assume their viewers are so uncritical and believe everything ?
    1
  29. Stephen Colbert about Republican values: Life begins at conception and it ends at the Rio Grande.
    1
  30. Separating children from their parents was a feature, not a bug. a) looking tough, message to voters, midterms are coming b) we do it differently than Obama (and Bush), that is a virtue in itself c) we hope it will scare potential other people (with children) coming - Jeff Session said that as defense d) blackmail the Dems into voting for the border wall (I read that not sure if it is true) - it sounds true to character
    1
  31. Trump will have pressure from all sides: the Evangelicals will want their man (whoever that is - and it will be a man). GOOD - that will activate the Democratic base like nothing else.
    1
  32. 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
  33. you do not understand the concempt of democracy, do you ? AOC (and other people that support the Green New Deal) were ELECTED. If you disagree with that and their proposals, work to get them voted out. - What you advocate for is tyranny with help of a militia or military coup.
    1
  34. 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
  35. Remember when the Republicans WROTE A LETTER to the government of Iran directly undermining Obama the sitting president and his then active secretary of state Kerry (Kerry now at least works behind the scenes and does not put things in writing. PLUS HIS EFFORTS ARE REASONABLE while the Republicans were just throwing a tantrum)
    1
  36. it is UNDEMOCRATIC. and the Gates foundation does have a chilling effect on other charities and NGO's if they disagree for instance they do not dare to speak up, for fear of consequences.
    1
  37. Looter in Chief Trump discussed the taking of resources of other countries (who cannot resist that - would a war situation or occupation count as "emergency" too). Afghanistan minerals recently. Taking Iraqi oil during his campaign.
    1
  38. Some years ago students proved to a major newspaper (Washington Post ?) how EASY it is to to hack voting machines. Ohio refuses to activate the "paper trail" safety feature on their machines (it never was active).
    1
  39. where is the VIDEO FOOTAGE. The testimony of other customes, some of them would be Repulicans and Trump voters. These days everyone has a smartphone, surely they would have filmed it, no ? - frankly I do not believe the Red Hen owners did organize a mini demonstration for the res tof the Huckabee family. They had their business open, and usually restaurant owners do not "disturb" each others business. It is usually a friendly live and let live. So why would they CAUSE a hassle for their neighbour business. And how would they even know ? Running after them while they have THEIR guests waiting for service ?? I assume - at best - some customers sprang into action (if there was even such a thing - there is no evidence). NOW - if you associate yourself with an admin that is so divisive - expect some backlash. It does not matter who arranged for the demo (if there was one) - enough people are pissed off so that the people can be found on the spot and in the evening !
    1
  40. 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
  41. Good thing Donald Trump didn't play the military system, or the draft .... oh wait
    1
  42. + Felicia you are into "alternative facts" - in more recent history in the late 60s and early 1970s the Dixiecrats were joining in masses the REPUBLICAN party. After the Civil Rights legizlation Southern racists and former Democratic voters (incl. people with sympathies for the KKK) found their home with the Republican party. Have you ever heard of Nixon and the "Southern Strategy" ? (The Republicans btw apologized many decades later for having used the Souther Strategy.) It was the effort to invite the Racist Dems of the South to the Republican party for political expediency. People that were pissed off that segretion ended and blacks could now vote. the Republican party did not think they had good ARGUMENTS to make people vote for them - so they chose the appeal to racism. Where do you think the KKK fans were more likely to be found in the early 1970s: in the party that was responsible for the Voting Rights act etc... or in the party that developed the "Southern Strategy". It is true that the KKK (some years after the Civil War !!!) was founded by people that were members of what was THEN called the Democratic party (of the South). That had little to do with what the Dems were - and wanted to be - in the Civil Rights Era, in the 1960s.
    1
  43. Cretins that want to sexually abuse children SNIFF it miles against the wind if a child has no protection. No parents, no relatives - and the "authorities" lose track - and find nothing wrong with that. I wonder if ICE even had the INTENTION to give the children back to their parents AFTER the decision had been made. The likely !! outcome is that MOST of the parents will be deported. And ICE knows that. So ...HOW did they INTEND to reunite parents with their children ? How did they MAKE SURE that could be administrated - in ALL cases ? They essentailly banked on it that the parents would be forced to LEAVE without their children and with no chance to get them back IF the children had not been placed with relatives or in a home (run by a for profit company of course) Even caring and good foster parents might have a hard time to assist the reunification with the complete administrative screw-up. And even if well meaning relatives get the child - the child does not KNOW them - and will be in shock. How does the U.S. know what those "foster"parents do with the children ? Have they all been carefully vetted ? The whole way the admin and ICE handled that screams of negligence, even contempts, and not giving a damn. The migrants could not know how evil and cruel and negligent the U.S. would be - are they supposed to leave their children behind when they make an attempt to start a new life ?
    1
  44. 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
  45. Putin cheats during the Olympics. He shoots down airplanes. And he poisons Skripal because ......he has not enough money to pay the agents of the Secret service - well at least that is something we have not yet heard and Vladimir Putin is a busy man
    1
  46. Lies, misleading information, not a CLUE what communism is (it is not that scary, but that is beyond the point because AOC is a Social Democrat, countries run under such principles are just doing fine - see Germany, Belgium, NL, The Nordic countries, france, Italy, ... Canada, NZ).
    1
  47. Sorry - but your father fought on behest of big biz, ideologues and the U.S. war machine and the U.S. empire. Against a FAR AWAY country, that was poor, no threat to the U.S., no military power and no economic relationship with the U.S. Truman had decided that they had no right to self determination. good thing that the French monarchy was there to help out the American revolutionaries when they wanted self determinations.
    1
  48. Even U.S. WW2 generals were SHOCKED at the utter destruction the U.S. waged on Korea (in the South and North, in SK it could not be talked about, the U.S. installed dictatorship did not allow an open discussion, only since the 1980s, early 90s they got rid of that regime, but they are still a military colony of the U.S.). Oh and Eisenhower threatened to nuke them. I recommend Gen. Smedley Butler War is A Racket, the pdf is online, it is not as long. Btw: the Republican rich industrialists were pissed off when FDR was voted into office (he started in 1933). they wanted to topple him and install a fascist regime - maybe with FDR as figurehead. They adressed Butler (Eisenhower and MacArthur had helped teargas veterans demonstrating before the White House for their benefits some time before - so they needed a general that was in the good books with the veterans to pull off the power grab). Butler was a patriot, feigned mild interest, tried to learn more about the scheme and informed the elected government ....
    1
  49. Remember when the Republicans WROTE A LETTER to the government of Iran directly undermining Obama the sitting president and his then active secretary of state Kerry (Kerry now at least works behind the scenes and does not put things in writing. PLUS HIS EFFORTS ARE REASONABLE while the Republicans were just throwing a tantrum)
    1
  50. + Scott Rance It would have been futile for Obama to bother to react to the Republican letter in 2015 - and the public did not appreciate it anyway, so the Rs gave up on the nonsense - THEN. - The Republicans in Congress (and also the Dems !) are almost completely in the pockets of the Israeli lobby and their large donations. That was one of the main reasons for their resistance (in 2015 the Dems could not help but stand by their president and had to "neglect" their Aipac donors). And another big motivator for the Republicans was that they were on principle against anything Obama did (a lot to criticize - the IRAN deal is one of the few things he got right). The Iran deal is GOOD for U.S. interests and security - no matter how much Israel and Saudi Arabia HATE the deal - exactely because it IS WORKING - meaning with an intact deal it would be much harder to make the U.S. go to war against Iran on behalf of Israel and KSA. And of course such a war would need to be "sold" to the U.S. public - hard to do that when the UN weapons inspectors and all the other signatory countries confirm that Iran does not have and cannot make the material necessary to build an atomic bomb. Hard to paint Iran as a threat in order to "justify" another terrible war. Fox shamelessly promotes those war mongering efforts - against the best interests of the U.S. (not that the other networks are much better).
    1