Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Ring of Fire" channel.

@StretchinBack If that is true - the Biden admin can investigate this. Another impeachment trial just for good measure. If that can be proven - it would also be an argument for the Trump cult - but on the other hand they tolerated the fake charity for veterans (a judge fined them, ordered them to pay out the money that they had collected AND they are banned from forming a charity in New York. Well Trump moved to Florida).
6
There was this well known New York columnist that showed up in some interviews in ? 2018 or 2019 that Trump raped her (that must have been many years ago). She told her friends immediately (that is her claim, her friends did not go on record and media did not talk to them on conditions of confidentiality either) and they advised her to move on and not press charges. Weird story. But: she said she had the coat still that she wore that day, and it has traces of his sperm on it. And New York changed the statue of limitations for rape in recent years ...... That prosecuation would be done in New York not in friendly Florida.
6
I did not hear about humans preventing an ice age. But he stressed RATE OF CHANGE. After the last ice age it took 1000 = THOUSAND years for the glaciers to retreat (the north - Sweden etc. is still bouncing back, the land was pressed down under the weight of the glaciers and now it is free and rises again). The last ice age ended 10000 years ago. 1000 years is very QUICK in geological terms. Now we change the atmosphere and the climate at a UNPRECEDENTED rate. That means even QUICKER than those 1000 years. At the end of the last ice age plant animal and plant life drastically changed, many species went EXTINCT others were MASSIVELY REDUCED IN NUMBERS (search details if interested). You may not care that the wooly rhinocerus or mammoth did not make it and that there were less grass eating animals for predators and human hunters - but the rain and weather patterns changed, the FOOD CHAINS CHANGED DRASTICALLY. CO2 in the air INCREASED, part of it goes into the ocean: There were times when change came equally quickly - what followed we call EVENTS OF MASS EXTINCTION. During the times of the Dinosaurs the ocean levels were higher, there was no ice on the pole, meaning less land mass. When the ice on land starts to melt we are getting in trouble with the human settlements and agriculture nearby the oceans - in the developed and the deloping countries a LOT of settlements will be affected by rising water. A massive ice berg (size of Delaware) is about to break free in West Antarctica and will increase water levels by 10 cm. Two thirds of the planet is covered by water - 10 cm is a LOOOOOOT. Even worse this is not salt water, so the melting ice will change the salinity which CAN change ocean currents (think fishing industry, changing rain patterns and impact on the weahter/climate). Today - we are going towards 8 billion people in 2025 and 9 billion people in 2041 on this planet, we completely depend on relyable, predictable not too erratic rain and temperature patterns for our agriculture. Drastic change - not good. At all. Last year was an El Nino Year, something that is a predictable event. Torrential rains in one place causing flooding and draughts in other regions. And that is only ONE year. More energy in the system (warmer) means more water vapour means the system gets more erratic with "stronger" events. No rain when you need it and then it pours down unexpectedly. China and Pakistan and India have nukes, and a lot of soldiers - what do think will happen if their population gets into trouble because of insufficient food supply. And the poorest nations where the population grows the fastest are those with the more erratic weather patterns to begin with. The oceans take up a lot of the additional CO2 - the corals, every sea creature that has a Calcium shell is getting in trouble. And they have no chance to evolve and adapt - change happens just too quick. Sharks - the top predators (another very important part of the system) - are very, very sensitive regarding scent. And they smell or taste the different, more acidic quality of the water, even though it is only a small change if you measure it. Even that little increase of CO2 caused acidity messes with their sense of smell - it may interfere with their ability to find food. There are Great Whites before New Zealand (I thought they had no business being there, too cold for sharks). Calcium-shell- creatures react very, very sensitive as well. (Acid dissolves Calcium) The corals are in trouble. They were able to bounce back after other episodes of higher acidity or other drastic changes (in the history of geology) but back in the day they at least had not to deal with pollution (like today at the Great Barrier Reef for instance). These areas are were many fish procreate. Think fishing industry. Many people assume oxygen recycling is done by trees. Actually the algae in the oceans produce more oxygen than the trees. If they die off (and it has happenend in the past) we (and the rest of life on earth) are in deep trouble. we know of events when 80 % of all species died - including in the oceans. Which is weird because one would think they are so large, sure the temperature can change, or volcanoes spew out all sorts of gas and dust - but such a large body of water should even out a lot - well, no, not always. A scientist of the University of ? Wanitoba (a Canadian, it was a TED talk), said: The ice is for the ecosystem in the Arctic what the trees are in a wood. You take the ice away and everything changes. I've been going to the Arctic to do research for 20 years. We see the changes everywhere, in viruses up the whales. I am surprised how much has changed. I thought - the system the creatures will adapt. But no, we see a lot of change. This I read in a comment: there was a time when CO2 levels were much higher, when a very shallow huge ocean basin existed on the planet, allowing the existence of life forms that could acutally use that carbon thus creating a carbon sink. So that CO2 was eventually removed. That depended on having a shallow warm ocean - we don't have that in our time. And it would not work that quick. So that will not work in our favour either.
4
The good thing is that the neoliberal "religion" will in the end destroy them politically. There are not enough affluent people to get Republicans elected. Their base (older people) will not like it when they go after Medicaid. And people - even Republican voters - have become more suspicious. It would be almost fun watching the Republicans trying to sell that to that public if it wouldn't - literally - endanger the lifes of people. Well Paul Ryan DOES have good coverage thanks to the taxpayer. BTW: Bill Clinton wanted to dismantle or privatize Social Security and that he had a secret deal with Gingrich. Confronted with the Lewinsky scandal Clinton chose to avoid another battelground. Imagine 2008 with the SS funds handled by Wall Street.
3
The people that have to work several jobs can testify to that. Those underpaid jobs have to come from somewhere.
2
They still think they can get away with it, that people will forget. Not after the Sanders campaign.
2
Admitting officially that elections CAN and indeed ARE STOLEN just would not do - even if it costs a political party the current victory. This would instill in the cattle a sense that their "democracy" is at risk - they might do something about it. As we know from the leaked emails the Clinton (team) explicitely said something in that line - they do not want people become too engaged or too informed.Al Gore did NOT rock the boat in 2000, he "fell while already crouching on the ground" to paraphrase a German expression. There is a youtube clip where the Congressional Black Caucus asked for the formal support of 2 Senators to be able to start an investigation of the voter purge in Florida of 1999/2000. Not ONE Senator came out to support them, Al Gore !! headed that sesssion and cut their speaking time (I think the scene is from a Michael Moore movie ? 9/11 ? - the clip is on youtube). And no, Bernie Sanders was not in Senate then, he was a member of Congress in that year - one wonders if he would have stood up as Senator).
1
See the interviews with McAfee and former NSA technical director William Binney. There are indications that the Podesta/DNC emails were leaked not hacked. Craig Murray said he got the data on a thumbdrive in a park in Washington from a disgusted DNC insider (because of the rigging against Sanders it seems)
1
Admitting officially that elections CAN and indeed ARE STOLEN JUST WOULD NOT DO - it would be againt the "esprit de corps" of the ruling class - even if it costs a political party the current victory. This would instill in the cattle a sense that their "democracy" is at risk - they might do something about it.** There is a youtube clip of a session in Senate where the Congressional Black Caucus asked for the formal support of 2 Senators to be able to start an investigation of the voter purge in Florida in 1999/2000. NOT ONE Democratic Senator came out to support them, Al Gore !! headed that sesssion and cut their speaking time (I think the scene is from a Michael Moore movie ? 9/11 ? - the clip is on youtube). And no, Bernie Sanders was not in Senate then, he was a member of Congress in that year - one wonders if he would have stood up). No Al Gore did NOT rock the boat even though it cost him the presidency, he "fell while already crouching on the ground" to paraphrase a German expression. (I assume he was warned off and at the same time handsomely paid off as well.) ** As we know from the leaked emails the Clinton (or her team) expressed that sentiment, they do not want the voters to become too engaged or too informed. They want their vote.
1
Tucker Carlson had enough rope to hang himself. Dishonest debate tactics - if applied too much - give you away.
1
The political class and their supporting media (in the US Republicans and Democrats, but we can see that in other countries) have an almost instinctive abhorrence of the PEOPLE actively participating in the political system and process. As in a grass roots movement. No, the cattle should be coralled into a party system, must be "motivated" to cast a vote every few years (hopefully for your own tribe) and then let the politicians do whatever they (or the special interests behind them or behind the media) see fit. They see themselves as the "adults in the room". We have a "representative" "democracy" (democracy light) - and the establishment and ruling class likes it that way. Preserving that system and avoid the citizens getting upset AND more engaged is the most important thing, even more important than winning elections. It would not do to officially acknowledge that in the Greatest Democracy on Earth people can be purged from the voting lists just like that (and Democrats do it in primaries too - see Greg Palast RT Redacted - so they are sitting in the glashouse).
1
Sure they (whatever political party) would like to have all the power - but even if they lose elections, a part of them are going to keep their seats and the rest (well all who have power within the structure) are well taken care of by the donors. If a party is crushed in elections (like Labour in UK) some pawns of beaten the party may be in bad luck and not getting provided for. But these people are as dispensable as the voters, the important animals WILL have nice jobs - in politics or related to Big Biz. Tony Blair made over 100 Million Pound AFTER he got kicked out as Prime Minister of UK. It remains to be seen if his CONSERVATIVE successor David Cameron who recently stepped down after the Brexit vote, will be able to beat him in that game. The donors/special interests honour their part of the contract - of course they do or the lot that still has legislative power would abandon the special interests. Of course the representatives in the US are also controlled by private funding of elections. The European elections are publicly funded and those politicians are almost as pathetic sell outs as their US counterparts. The problem is lobbyism, getting the lucrative lobbying or advisory or board member job in a Multinationional corporation AFTER the end of the political career. Or the revolving door, where the "elites" oscillate between public service and serving Big Biz.
1
Thom said in another clip that he is free to report whatever he wants. Now you would not expect to get unbiased news from RT when it comes to Russia and something in INTERNATIONAL politics that goes against their narrative. Since we can rely on mainstream media (in the US and also in Europe) to do a good job of Russia/Putin bashing we are well provided for in that respect. There is so much DOMESTIC HOUSE CLEANING to do in the US (and in the rich European countries - those who do have influence) that the RT reporters are quite busy with that alone. So the Russians CAN ALLOW Thom (or Lee Camp from Redacted for instance) to report whatever they want on US domestic affairs. Chances are good it will be shameful for the US (or Europe) and it will be true as well. It does not matter if the Russians are gleeful about that or not. Abby Martin was critical about Putin and the role of Russia in the Crimea. She said she could be openly critical (well note that she with her big following is now with Telesur - not sure if that has something to do with her stance in the Ukraine conflict). What she said then: "I am no fan of V. Putin, I do not even care about him. But as an US citizen i had to watch the crackdown on Occupy Wallstreet." - The Occupy Movement is what got her initially into "citizen journalism. - "If I as US citizen would like to be a reporter and would like to report the TRUTH there is no way I could do that in mainstream media. It is the sad reality that I have to use the platform Russia offers if I see that my country is in trouble and want to inform the public about it." (Paraphrased, the clip is on youtube). I noted that there are many good people on RT as reporters and also as guests - people and opinions and FACTS one hardly or never hears in mainstream media. The publicly funded TV in Germany, Austria and UK would be legally required to be neutral. It became quite obvious that they either blatantly promote NATO talking points (BBC directors getting fired for being against the Iraq war). Or they are walking on eggshells and avoid reporting on anything that goes against the US/NATO narrative. The publicly funded TV stations in Germany were slammed by the viewers for their obviously one-sided reporting on Ukraine / Crimea. I got quite fond of RT - knowing their limitations - and I like the 2nd opinion that they offer. If we in Europe had truly unbiased media we would not need them. The reporting on Syria was (another) eye opener - so what else is mainstram media just making up and selling us as facts - WHEN THEY DO NOT HAVE REPORTERS ON THE GROUND and have to rely on 2 man PR companies and Social media (Save Aleppo) - and of course political insider contacts that can be expected to be totally biased pro US/NATO interests and stories. We hear either about the "fall" of Aleppo or the "liberation" of Aleppo. The UN was involved in the handling of the surrendering rebels. Many cititzens of Aleppo or Syria - incl. Christian nuns and clergy men say that the "rebels" are/were feared, that the people of Aleppo are very glad the government's army and the Russian army drove them out of Aleppo. Now I would like to have a prestigious TV channel sending their folks with a relyable interpreter over there and check out with the real citizens of Aleppo what had been going on and if they are happy or unhappy about the governments victory. One Syrian citizen might be afraid or have an agenda - but if you ask 50 or 100 people you are getting an idea of the mood of population. Well Western Media retracted all their staff from Aleppo just when the story got really hot - and they did not even come in when it was SAFE to go there (RT reporters and other independant citizen reporters were on the ground). Could those independant reporters and long-term peace activists have an agenda? Lie ? All of them ? Incl. the Christian nuns and priest living in Syria who confirm their reporting (the Syrians refuse to be divided along religous lines, most of them are glad Aleppo has been liberated. The "moderate" rebels hold them hostage everywhere not only in Aleppo, there is no such thing as "moderate" rebels, they are all either extreme Islamists or (often foreign) mercenaries, the citizens of Aleppo (and elsewhere) are/were forcefully hindered to leave the battleground. So the government could not fight the rebels/terrorists/jihadists without killing/damaging civilians. The rebels were stockpiling food - they and their families (also living in East Aleppo) were well provided for, the rest of population (the hostages) were starving. The Syrian Christians are only interviewed on RT, mainstream media is not interested in what they have to say. Well the Christians in Syria clearly have a pro-Assad bias, they know what would be their fate if the "moderate" Islamic terrorists would win.
1
8 billion people on the planet in 2025 (9 bn in 2041). Some developing countries having nukes. Changing patterns in weather, rain, ocean currents - think agriculture and fishing industry (torrential rain, draughts, storms). What could possibly go wrong - nothing, if you do not mind war, misery, famine, or even events of mass extinction (those happened too if change came too quickly for most of the creatures to adapt). Mass extinction can happen by war (if nuclear it will not only affect humans) or by break down of the chain of food (again not only humans) - or diseases (for the third time - not only humans affected). But keep on being afraid of taxes. BTW the larges tax scam of all is the Military Industrial Complex. 620 bn per year normal US budget and trillions for the wars on top of that. Plus the Industrial Surveillance state because of terrorism caused by the U.S. wars in the Middle East. Oil and other fossil fuels are really cheap - if you dismiss the costs for the wars and for damage on the environment - and that is without Global Warming.
1
These people never bother to learn about the situation of the "others". They only know wealthy and rich people (or they quickly unlearn what they knew - Melania had a normal upbringing, unlike for instance Betsy DeVos). KNOWING about the plight of the lower income classes would just make them feel uncomfortable (it they haven't mastered the art of double-think or the art of the cold heart). This is where many of the clueless and deaf tone statements come from - they literally have no idea - nor do they want to. So if they come into a situation where they can or must comment on situations that are problematic (as every normal citizens would know - from their own experience or because it happens to people they know) the upper class makes one mis-step after the other.
1
Doesn't the Secret Service also protect him for life ?? Even w/o the current threat ? I get that he may like the invitations. I very much doubt they sleep on a couch, more like in a guest room. But what about the Secret Service ?
1
No, he has a staffer that works for Democrats ;)
1
The Alabama Senator was newly sworn in, so either Giuliani skipped a line on a list, or entered the wrong number (or tried to copy an entry and modified it or tried to). Old peole and technology. Or he has a staffer that is a mole ;) S is close to T so maybe he got Sanders instead of the dude from Alabama. And Sanders does not want to be named to not attract the attention of the crazies.
1
The South voted Democrat before LBJ pissed off the racist Dixiecrats (California likely was red then an maybe also New York). The Midwest surprised everyone in 1948. They had polled that the Republican would win against Truman. The R felt comfortable to badmouth the New Deal. Turns out the voters in the Midwest - who had gotten help under a Democratic populist president, incl. the farmers - did not like the attacks on the New Deal. Truman was associated with FDR and had to a degree held on to those economic policies. So the narrow win of the Republican in election night / early morning turned into a solid win for Truman as the votes from the Midwest came in. And yes, he won the popular vote as well. It is hard to say, because his progressive challenger Wallace might have gotten more votes if the system was not winner takes all per state.
1
Fun fact: of the North East Truman ONLY won Masschusetts in 1948. NY, CT, NH, MD, RI, NJ … and also VA - they all went red. Truman won in the South and to everybody's surprise the farmers of the Midwest also liked him.
1
Truman won the West coast states incl. CA - but not Oregon. In the middle of country there is a red row ND, SD, Nebraska and Kansas. - interesting results. VT used to be solidly red. and CA was red in the past. (they are to blame for giving the country Reagan !!)
1
the constitution gives Congress the most power (and the power of the purse) anyway so the smaller, rural states are STILL well represented. But the president should be elected by popular vote. It would mean that he needs to do / initiate more populist policies. And he needs the cooperation of the representatives often voted in by rural voters. so their interests WOULD be considered.
1
Bias and resentment beat intelligence, knowledge, having a staff that can support you. Not always but most of the time. If the emotional attachment is large enough it easily overcomes intelligence.
1
1:20 - plenty of Latino voters in California, Arizona, Nevada, likely also in Oregon - they have a socially conservative streak often - so WHY does the Republican party not think they CAN win their vote and win the popular vote fair and square ? The R votes that are now cast in CA, WA or NY also go to waste. Oh that's right - if they do not incite Latino voters with abortion (many are not single issue voters, but it works on some of them) regular income Latino voters are being screwed in the service of the big donors. Like all other regular people. And Democratic elites are hardly better than the Republicans (they serve the same big donors), which explains why Joe Biden's win is way too close for comfort. Trump did better with every demographic / gender - except for white males, especially those without a college degree. The very group that had prefered Trump in 2016 (Sanders also did well with them). In other words, many of them had voted for him on economics (and were not overly concerned about his rhetoric or whether he might be hostile to other groups. They also believed Sanders that he would do something for them, that is why he did well with them). Trump had not delivered and those that are not in the cult but voted their self interest with the hope he might shake up things (and in their favor for a change) realized that Trump had not delivered. Not even before the pandemic. Yes high employment rate. Lots of McJobs and the good manufacturing jobs (that these white working class men could rely on in the past) continued to be outsourced. AFTER Trump and the Republicans had given them the tax breaks. BTW in CA this time 5 million people more voted for Joe Biden than for Trump. And Biden NOW (= end of Nov.) has a margin of 6 million votes more in the popular vote and if you only look at the EC numbers it looks good too. Not so much when you know that of the 4 states that were nailbiters 125,000 votes more in total made the difference between losing and winning them. In 2016 it was the other way round: Trump won 3 states with only 70,000 votes more in total (in Michigan with 0.23 % margin). And I think he needed to win at least 2 of those states to become president. Biden needed at least two of the 4 to pull off a win (at least a narrow one, the two states with the lowest number of electors - AZ with 11 and WI with 10 - would have been UST enough. 270. It should be noted that in a year w/o pandemic and if the Republican is not such and idiot, AZ and GA might not be in play. And if Trump won a state, he won them with solid or at least O.K. majorities. In other words: HRC and Biden now managed to lose Florida and ohio and it was not close, and there are no other states that have gone "purple". it comes down to PA and WI in the future. Holy shit. And THAT result against Trump after the country could watch him 4 years in action. In a year with a pandemica and a very bad response. But even the largest of these 4 states (PA with 20 electors) would not have been enough, if Joe Biden would have won ONLY in PA. The result would have been 269 electors for Biden = the states decide and there the Republicans have the majority. 269 would have been a nightmare scenario for Democrats and for the country. The Repubs would of course steal the election, they have preemptively cast doubt on the mail vote in case they would be lucky enough to end up with such a scenario. So that they can gladly ignore the popular vote result and hand the second term to Trump. On the other hand any combo of at least 2 states would at least have given Biden 270 electors (still not very safe, because an elector or two could go rogue and ignore the will of the majority in the state. I do not know if that elector would commit a crime. Likely not in all states. There are states that have laws that require them to be "faithful". And other states w/o such laws. And even IF the elector(s) would later be prosecuted (and then pardonned by Trump) or by the govenor (most purple states have R govenors) - does that mean the result of the vote of electors is invalid ?? That would be a major constitutional crisis too. . A LOT of Biden's win in the popular vote comes from California (he is close to 65 % there). He had 1,2 million votes more in New York, too.
1
Smart but evil is a thing. Both went to Ivy League universities.
1
At this point I wonder if he has a hostile staffer. How does a wrong number land on his phone? Or doesn't he know how to enter numbers and type in names, or did he get another person with a T or S, he was unable to get the line right when scrolling for the number ?
1
Yep - NEWLY sworn in Senator from Alabama - so probably rUDY rIDICULOUS or someone else had to enter the new number or he used a list and skipped a line.
1
Security is very high, so if they had a lot of objects to return to a lot of different places (think 1 or 2 per museum *), it would be easier to let staff return it and NOT do a security check on the staff of U-haul. That said: if the things had any value - why not wrap them up. I would not even carry a 100 USD framed Ikea poster like that. some carton, bubble wrap, there you go. * it is possible that MANY museums are eager for the possibility to lend out art to White House staff and the sitting cabinet, and that many offer their objects - after all they are in contact with persons in power, that could translate to some donations or support with fundraising later. Like a PR move from museums. Then it would be good form by any admin to consider not only one but many offers. And if they have a lot of museums and one or two articles per museum it makes a lot of sense to let staff handle that, it makes security, handling much easier and usually there should be much less risk that the objects disappear while they are being transported. So loss insurance etc.
1
I disagree, if they have a lot of different destinations and 1 article per museum - using a moving company would be more complicated. packing it, the paperwork, insurance. Reliable staffers get the thing and every one of them drops it off and turns in the receipt the next day. Done. (they unlike third party staff would not steal the Lincoln bust). If the picture has any value it should not be carried openly. I think technically if a head of state gifts something to the president or other people - those things are investigated by the SS (the ball that Putin gave Trump in Finland) - there could be a microphone in it. Not really the Russians know it is going to be examined. And then the things are part of the government property. Although they might no keep it all. Some things are unique and valuable or memorable - and others would just collect dust. One way to handle it would be to have an auction and use the money for a good purpose.
1