Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Institute for Justice"
channel.
-
4
-
@ocsrc Thom Hartman called it: the dog has caught the car - now what ? Republicans are a victim of their own success, winning one battle and setting themselves up to lose the war. They have riled up their base on cultural issues (like abortion) for so long that they have to deliver for their base (neither R nor D elites WANT to have guns, abortions, LGBTQ issues EVER settled, they would run out of "reasons" why the base HAS to turn out for them, even thought they throw them under the bus for big donor interests (the SAME donors for both parties, certainly industries, often even the same companies or persons).
That rush to make it impossible in practic to get a legal and safe abortion may save the midterms 2022 for Democrats and activate YOUNG voters.
Republicans have hyped up wedge issues and pandered to fringe groups since the 1970s / 1980s. They used to be be party of professionals, the wealthy, small and large biz. Farmers was a mixed bag, the farmers of the Midwest secured the win for Truman in 1948 when everyone expected him to lose - not sure how farmers voted in the 1970s - likely Republicans.
Back in the day some Republicans were pro safe and legal abortion - not that they liked it but they disliked the results of unsafe, secret abortions even more. Republicans also hyped up fire arms to be all things patriotic, fReEDum etc. The notiion that the U.S. military or militarized police could be kept in check with firearms is ludicrous. Democracy and the rule of law have to be defended before that. On the streets with peaceful protests, voting, running for office, activism and in courts.
fire arms used to be a tool for formers / outdoors people until then, not a part of one's identity, not a political statement - and the NRA used to be a reasonable org.
With 1970s / 1980s Republicans one could have found common ground on gun reform. The conservatives in other first world countries know better than to attack legal and safe abortions.
But with money in politics both parties started to serve big biz more and more (Dems had not pushed for Money is free speech, in 1976 a reactionary Nixon appointee was crucial for that SCOTUS ruling - but they quickly saw the possibilites). Economic policies to serve the masses were not part of the platforms, the Republicans had been against it for idelogical reasons anyway - but had a hard time winning elections. Eisenhower learned from Truman's win in 1948 or had never been rabidly against the New Deal
Now Democrats also sided with big biz and threw unions, workers and their own base under the bus.
So in order to win elections both parties needed some issues to distract voters, issues where they can deliver because in the end the big donors do not care how that is settled. A member of the Koch family will get a safe abortion, and Jeff Bezoes has armed body guards, he does not bother to have guns, and if he wanted to, he could have them on his properties and no one would ever bother him.
Interestingly Republican politicians have toned it down with being against gay marriage, that area has been exploited and was useful, but it is time to move on. I think they realized there are too many gays (now that it safer to come out of the closet, Republicans may have been surprised how many of them there are, and often people they know and like). Gays / lesbians can be affluent and potential donors / voters. So now the cynical grifters single out transgender persons to rile up their base - there are certainly fewer of them than gay, lesbian and bi folks, and likely that idenitity is still more foreign / repulsive for regular conservative people - so they make good targets for the next culture war.
In the 1970s the Republican party realizedthat in order to get elected they needed to work the specifics of the U.S. system (gerrymandering, voter suppression to have low turnout) and they had to shore up votes from riled up fringe groups. They had a lucky windfall after racist Southern Dixiecrats were pissed off at LBJ. Until then it was hard for a member of the party of Lincoln (who had started the War of Northern Aggression otherwise known as American Civil War) to win elections in the South. The GOP could not resist the temptation to specialize in racism and dog whistles.
Before that the racists were evenly distributed among parties (voters and politicians).
Eisenhower won the majority of the black vote (in the North where they could vote) - only under JFK and then LBJ the minorities switched to the Democratic party.
The alternative to riling up people over issues that do not cost the big donors money - would be economic populism. Delivering for The People which built the American Middle Class but reduces profits and gains for the big donors.
The Republican party has always been against the New Deal / Social Security since the 1930s. (Truman's opponent also ran on ending the New Deal, the white farmers of the Midwest had gotten help under FDR and they associated Truman with that. That lost the Republican the election).
When it comes to the presidency New Dealers (or men not opposed to it) were in charge from 1933 - 1968. Nixon also did not rock the boat. Economic populism won the elections not only in the U.S., also in Europe and including in countries that had a center right government most of the time like Germany) - Eisenhower had other economic policies, he was a New Dealer, at least to a degree and told his party that it was unpatriotic to be against SS, and he also did not push for lower taxes for the rich and highly profitable biz. They stayed high.
92 % top marginal income tax rate for more than USD 400,000 (I think that is 2.2 million USD yearly income in todays money).
4
-
DAPL pipeline. Not to forget the corporate media that completey ignored the peaceful mass protest lead by the First Nations / Water Protectors (and Obama, and the Democratic elites incl. E. Warren maintained deafening silence. Needless to say Trump and the Republicans were all for that travesty). The pipeline was built to carry crude oil for EXPORT (so not even energy safety regarding fossil fuels is an issue) and it is a project with major foreign investors.
They stayed clear of the white neighbourhoods and cities (Republican voting home owners would have put up a fight - and right wing media might have covered that. Likely not FOX - they get oil ad budgets and their owners are likely invested in the industry. But right wing radio, the likes of Alex Jones. And in that case left independent media would also have blasted it out, and they do have some impact together. Plus the enraged white homeowners might have whipped out their firearms.
So they rerouted ! and the pipeline goes over TREATY land (and some holy sites were destroyed in the process. Private security goons could assault peaceful protesters, unlike the mass BLM protests there was not ANY footage of misbehavior of the protests. Mainstream media just ignored the damning footage, and police let the private goons do as they pleased as long as they did not start a shootout. The elders of the First Nations had some rules: no firearms, no alcohol not drugs in the camps.
One man tried to provoque an incident showing up with a truck and a gun, the protesters (hand in the air and unarmed surrounded him). The private security goon knew he was being filmed by many people, he was not in a police uniform, if he started shooting there was a chance it would be murder charges - so he fucked off after he realized he could not escalate in that way.
The pipelines WILL leak, it is only a matter of time. (see whistleblower John Bolenbaugh). The pipeline also goes UNDER the MISSOURI River which is the source of water for millions of people downstream. The crude oil must be diluted with VOC chemicals, that is super toxic - and corrosive for the pipes. They could not pump the dense stuff without adding those chemicals, it is too thick (never mind the toxic quality of crude oil by itself). That is so aggressive that it will corrode the welding eventually, even if the welding is good quality (initially).
It costs a lot of money to shut down and repair smaller leaks, when they wait until they have a BIG leak insurance will kick in. - Guess what happens ....
Then the repair is for free, and they need to have and pay for insurance anyway. The clean up companies also belong to the providers / investors.
EPA is bought for and headed by lobbyists. And honest public servants can be sure to be fired and never work in the industry again (the people that must monitor the industries have specialized training / a degree in that field - for appearances they do hire folks that would be qualified to do the oversight)
If lower charges in the EPA make a stir - they will ruin their own career & life, it will impact their family and children (college fund, health insurance) AND the sacrifice will have been in vain, the agency just hires another more compliant staff member that knows when they are expected to look the other way.
2
-
For seizing land lower to middle income families are the prefered targets (bonus points if they are minorities) they shy away from the costs and legal risks - and from years of fear and stress. For a company it is one case among many 8and they CAN afford to lose). Low(er) income families do not have a lot of expensive insurance coverage (extra money goes into a college fund for the kids, or retirement savings) and do not have the savings that they can risk in years of court battles. Likely it will be easy to run them off for cheap from their property.
If it is a whole neighbourhood they can join forces and with luck media (that usually colludes with rich people, real estate speculators and big
biz) will not completely ignore them. But ONE or a few homes are easy game for the predators.
Local politicians that collude with the "developers" can hope to get away politically if it is only a few properties (and can cash in on their services). Chances are the peers of such families - if they feel safe from such attacks - will not stand up for them. people are busy, it is human nature to not care so much if it does not happen to people that are not LIKE you. That is intensified along racial lines: White folks will not protect black neighbourhoods - at least it was like that in the past. usually upper class white neighbour hoods are NOT targetted, the oligarchs know better than to shop for that trouble.
North Dakota DAPL they changed the plans for the pipeline, instead of planning it to go through white neighbourhoods and nearby cities, they planned it to go over treaty land. And the (usually white) citizens of ND saw nothing wrong with that. They (likely correctly) assume it will not happen to them. And in that case they are unable to see the much larger danger (the pipeline goes under the Missouri, and it WILL leak, the chemicals they have to add so they can even pump the crude oil are so aggressive that they will corrode the pipeline, even if they and the welding are high quality. If it breaks under the Missouri or nearby it will poison water for millions of people downstream.
It pays off that the oligarchs have brainwashed the public to be super individualistic (I got mine, I do not care about others - as can be observed now with vaccination and mask resistance) - only a crowd standing up for other people in solidarity EVEN if they think ! IT COULD NOT HAPPEN TO THEM could hinder the oligarchs.
The ruling class is NOT individualistic / everybody-is-on-their-own.
THEY leverage the power of government, never mind all the "small government" rhetoric.
Only the masses are told they should be ashamed to expect to get help from the government, the oligarchs know better.
A government Of, By and For The People would reign them in and help regular folks. Which can kick some behinds and make government be responsive.
Every 2 years the U.S. could fire ALL members of The House and one third of the Senators and and state legislators. Presidents, govenors have only 4 years, mayors 2 - 4 yers.
In theory it would not be hard for The People to make governmetn work for them and be accountable. It goes tho show the power of mainstream media and decades of brainwashing - and a population that likes to be tribal, is too lazy to be engaged, and eagerly accepts the brainwashing.
The oligarchs had to put up with things being run for regular people (at least to a degree). From 1933 till the 1980s when Reagan ushered in neoliberalism. The American Middle Class was built when government - at least partially - worked for the masses and not for the rich and big biz.
The oligarchs do not take their own propaganda seriously, they leverage the power of many, they have hoards of lawyers and lobbyists working for them, they have captured politics AND the Supreme Court. They bank of help by government to protect and advance their interests.
The unwashed masses are not supposed to realize they could as well make government work for them. Including local government that colludes with real estate speculators.
1
-
1
-
There are ENOUGH pipelines built to satisfy the needs (distribution of fossil fuels) of the U.S. population (never mind the need to switch to renewables and reduce fossil fuel use). These pipelines are NEEDED for EXPORT or to increase profits of players. Or in the case of crude oil they did not like that the Venezolans had a kind of monopoly on crude oil supply for the South of the U.S.(it is needed to mix to ligher qualities) which were processed in Texas. The Koch Brothers had built a special plant that can deal with oil from VZ.
But VZ asked for slightly higher prices than international commodity prices, which cost some (a little) profits. I suspect the Koch Brothers were incensed !! on principle that VZ used demand and supply in their favor. And it is not that easy to get crude oil from other sources. Possible but it costs (they likely have to ship / truck it in).
Dick Cheney GWB tried to get a coup in ? 2003 / 2004, but democratically elected Chavez was very popular, the masses took it to the streets, not even the military was fully supportive of the coup and they released the kidnapped president after 1 day or so - and got very lenient treatment for that.
In the book of the common American (slightly higher) oil revenue for VZ (and less profits for the Koch Brothers or other fossil fuel giants) is not a bad thing, it is not like that impacts fossil fuel prices that much. In biz a slightly higher sales price (but for large volumes) does not burden consumers BUT if the company can cut costs, the profits will go to a small group of people. Owners, shareholders, top management. So even small cuts that are not relevant for consumers or the economy (energy price spikes can be detrimental) become relevant for the profiteers.
As long as oil revenue was good (before U.S. fracking changed the global price situation), VZ used a lot of it to lift their poor out of poverty AND VZ also was in a position to accept migrants from other countries in Latin America. Which means less immigration pressure on the U.S.
VZ owned a gas station chain and even offered cheaper fuel during times of high oil prices to low income Americans (for heating, not sure about gas).
Not a bad PR stunt, but U.S. media was eager to gloss over it, and to not mention it. After all - if VZ does well using the natural resources of the land for the low(er) income people - that could give American voters ideas.
1
-
SCOTUS has ALWAYS been a tool for the rich and big biz - and the reactionaries among the elites (for the most part). Roe vs. Wade or gay marriage were excceptions. BUT after all is said and done it does not COST the ruling class / big biz money. Democrats AND Republicans like to concentrate on abortion, and trod that out in hearings. But that is a convenient distraction from economic issues that affect almost all of the population, never mind politcal leanings, age, gender or race.
making only abortion an issue also helps neoliberal Democrats that have abandoned the working class. Vote for us or the next Justice might be appointed by a Republican and reverse access to flegal and safe abortions. And Republicans play the other side of the issue. Both parties can use the wedge issued to motivate the base (abortion, guns, LGBTQ rights) that do not cost the big donors money no matter how they are settled
Whether it is a D or R candidate the hearings will NEVER take apart the labor decisions of the candidate or their overall pro biz stance.
Take for instance a truck driver that got stranded and could not run heat. It was FREEEZING cold. His company could not come up with timely assistance, repair, towing of the truck - because the company was cheap with the service contract. At some point he "abandoned" the truck (which is against the rules in his contract) to go to a gas station to warm himself up. (he couldn't have heat in the truck and of course the company also did not organize relief for that. Think a sleeping bag and a supply of warm food.
The lower courts confirmed that he was justified to abandon the truck and his firing was NOT legal because his health or even life could have been in jeopardy (for all he knew he might have had had to stay there for 10 or 24 more hours). But the higher court and that Supreme Court justice candidate saw it differently.
Shoutout for a company that treats their workers like that, the lost in the first round and CONTINUED. In a just world with a less corrupt judge they would have lost round 2 as well, I would not have betted on them. so they risked a lot financially.
The truck wasn NOT vandalized. Maybe they were JUST waiting for a pretext to get rid of that driver. Maybe they were really incensed that a driver would prioritize health and life over a potential (small) risk to their property (which they also failed to take care of - with their lame ass service contract).
1
-
1