Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Damage Report"
channel.
-
16
-
14
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@IbizaPlay But we do know the side effects of Covid-19, incl. now the Delta variant. Death, ICU stay for weeks, organ damage. Long Covid. Also quite common: weird problems with smell. People do not only lose the sense of smell (which leads to weight loss and can lead to malnutrition, smell is very important for TASTE). But it is worse they smell wrong unpleasant things.
Think rotting onions, sewage stink, or the smell of smoke.
They want to eat something and it gives them the experience of rotting food, although the food is fine, and the air around them smells nice.
They have founded self helf groups for that. it is not life threatening, but it is quite annoying and bad for quality of life. Sometimes it gets better (fast), but some still have it months later.
As the new variant is so contagious it WILL find unvaccinated people and it looks like it leads to more complications now with YOUNG people. That is anectodal but doctors and nurses say they did not have the many young folks in hospitals and the ICU one year ago.
Younger people got infected in 2020, too but most of them could sit it out at home, and if they needed a hospital stay it was short and in most cases - luckily - no ICU.
THAT has changed, the virus has improved its performance, it is more contagious AND it hits younger people harder .
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@cynthiadraughn8944 No, Republicans win many races with only 45 % or even less % of the vote (gerrymandering). Congress and state legislature. (Senate races are state wide). If a smart and decent president would do a FDR 2.0 (incl. twisting arms of unwilling D politicians) they would be screwed. Higher turnout could overcome their voter suppression strategy and even gerrymandering.
They are fishing everywhere for the fringe vote and the strategy since the 1980s is to rile up people. Guns, abortions, gay marriage, the war on Christmas, ...
And they use voter suppression. They have death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategies. A little bit here a little bit there, it adds up. But: mail voting can undo many of those sneaky strategies that they have worked on for years.
Closing polling stations. Allocating old (more often malfunctioning) voting machines to low income areas. Some states have the option of offer mail ballots. or machine voting. Well they can run out of mail ballots, can they ? (that is ridiculous, when they start printing, producing the double number of ballots does not cost much more. Once they have the template and the machines set up to run. Economy of scale. The paper ballots could be the backup for mal functioning machines (well, no).
If people order their absentee ballot (which could be done online, only elderly persons would call so it could be very cost efficient) they would notice that they are not registered. of course people should be able to see IF they are registered. So no bad surprises when a person shows up to vote and finds out they are not registerd. They could fix that. So if the Republicans do some sneaky purges a LOT of people would find out in the month before and that would also get more attention.
If voters have a paper ballot that they fill out at home Republicans cannot create long lines in low income areas thanks to the machines (that are the bottleneck for in person voting).
Georgia sets the record for black voters: 4 - 6 hours in some areas. (not in 2020, but Stacy Abrams mentioned that in 2018).
People can even drop off their filled out ballot in the polling station on election day if they want to make sure it is arriving where it should and on time and fear the processing by postal services.
It also undoes the effects of closing polling stations. One can give the ballot to a trusted family member to post them or drop them off * (if the person cannot leave the house has no postal office nearby), that makes it easy for the elderly or people with little childrren or w/o car or inflexible schedule to vote anyway.
* Repubs also hate drop off boxes. It also makes voting easier and the drives shorter. And people can help others to deliver the vote.
There is a reason Repubs have hated on mail voting in summer 2020. Voters experienced that it is easy and comfortable and the share of mail voting has gone up considerably, there is a chance they are getting used to it. In rural areas it is also cheaper to hold the election by mail vote.
"Mistaken" purges. making it hard to register or register again. Exact match rules (if the voter registration differs in one character to SS data, and that could be a dot or hyphen, it will be sorted out.
Georgia excells in those strategies, they could teach Florida a lesson.
The voters that the state "suspects" of having moved must be notified that they are about to be kicked off the voter roll.
On a card that is printed on paper that the machines of the postal services cannot well handle. Most are O.K. but more are misplaced. The adress field is normed. A company that would like to get out a mailer that grabs attention would use a design that gets attention. And the adress field would be nicely centered to make it easy for postal service machines to process them.
Not in Georgia: the mailer is as inconspicious as possible. And the adress is printed close to the borders just within, using the tolerance so to speak.
One can shave off 1 or 0.5 or 2 % of the registrations that way.
It delivered Florida in 2000. And the presidency.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
These people want to be part of the middle class and they style themselves as being for law and order. Now it has danwd on them that they could lose their job and some neighbours and family members will give them the look. - It was the same with the KKK - once they got the visits by the FBI * they stopped being that bold. They were only brazen if there were no sacrifices and they could harrass and even kill others w/o consequences.
* Missisippi Burning - not only the film the FBI mission had that name.
Local law enforcement and KKK had killed 2 Civil Rights Activists in a sleepy town 1960s. During the FBI search it turned out this was not the first person that was killed and the body dumped somewhere - but they thought they could get away with it. No bodies no crime.
The FBI sent in the troops and turned every stone, they also found other bodies of lynched persons, when they looked in obvious locations. Like rivers.
I think the FBI (then still under Hoover) even sought help from the mob either doing interrogations or intimidating folks. Someone told them where to find the bodies of the Civil Rights Activists. It would have been impossible to find them, they were on the property of the richest man in the state, buried under a dam or something, there was construction going on. They must have gotten information by a person that had at least witnessed the crime, and was scared or the person had not expected it would end with murder (beating them up) and the person felt guilt.
The many agenst that were in the area (and they stayed for a while) visisted known KKK members. And visited again. At home, at the workplace, ....
so they felt monitored and if they did not get scared - their wives for sure did.
In the 1980s - Johnny Lee Clary was a high ranking KKK member (he was their PR person, so he did not hide his allegience). His fiancée took his little notebook with the name of secret donors and supporters and gave it to the FBI. I suppose they had dirt on her or she worked as an informant for money.
The Klan assumed he had ratted them out. He was ordered to a meeting, but got out of it with 2 guns. (yes, you can kill me, but I will take some of you with me). The FBI worked with the names and made a point of visiting those pillars of the community and well respected persons at their workplace. The KKK was classified as terrorist organization then.
he also said the Klan had a lot of supporters among the LA Police. No wonder, they hired a LOT of recruits from Alabama in the 1950s / 1960s. No doubt those white Supremacists established a certain culture. - Some of those recruits were still employed at that point - and had seniority, so they could pass on the torch.
Clary left the Klan in the late 1980s, befriended a black pastor that had impressed him against his will (the way he countered their harrassment attempts with wit and courage in the past), he became a Christian, pastor and an advocate against white supremacists and right wing terrorists.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Global warming (the average ! yearly ! global ! increase of temperature) triggers disruptive Climate Change. It IS warmer on the globe (that means MORE energy is in the system, so buckle up) even though Texas is freezing for a week. At the end of the year 2021 Texas might well have record setting high average yearly temperature: a too warm spring and a summer heat wave can easily compensate for a bad week in February.
That's the thing with AVERAGE higher temperatures. It does not mean there will never be snow or cold areas or seasons.
We just have the "balmy" temps in the Arctic (well, for the Arctic winter !), the recent more erratic distribution of heat is a little inconvenient for how we set up our settlements, and our needs for temps to be as usual (or many parts of our technology can malfunction), rain, agriculture, how much rain we can handle before we get flooding and mud slides, etc.
Texas could also have gotten roofs caving in because of the snow load, try rain on snow, then more snow, refreezing it all. in exteme cases that can cause problems in regions that do have cold winter.
That to all the cavalier people that say: "I do not believe it is getting warmer, but even if - so what ? I like it warm."
No ... we are very dependent on stable and predictable conditions and our high level of technology exposes us in countless ways to components malfunctioing and little things going wrong. Then you have a cascade of failures and have a state of emergency. the same event would not have caused problems in Michigan or Vermont. But in Texase they are not used to. Likewise Michigan might get into trouble with unusual heat waves (that would make a Texan shrug their shoulders). it is what he planned for and set our systems up for. The "normal" (with a known range for extremes) changes.
A nuclear power plant had problems with "instruments" and they shut it down. One of two in Texas - and those are alway LARGE providers.
WTF.
3
-
3
-
That's in general a Repubican thing: unless it does not AFFECT THEM it is not valid. they cannot extend their compassion to the abstract other, and a pandemic that is not tangible for them is no problem.
To be fair it was like that for me when I heard about the problems in China, or even Italy - I currently live in Europe.
China is FAR AWAY. The dictatorship had obviously covered up something, not responded fast enough, the local healtcare services (of European countries) are of first world countries, .....
There had been former epidemics, pandemics - and Europe and the U.S. had always been lucky (in hindsight, one warning shot after the next)
It hit Asian countries more and then the outbreaks were containined. Just about - SARS-Cov-1 of 2003 anyone ? Must have been slightly less contagious, or the incubation period and how contagious people are when they are unaware that they are infected must
be different. so it was possible to contain that with a serious effort.
We were lucky with MERS (another corona virus, 2012 or 2013), that is nasty, hospitalization and mortality rate high - but it is not very contagious.
Even when I heard that Italy was increasingly worried / in trouble I still was detached, cavalier.
Most European countries dragged their feet too, I mean WHO wants to shut down the country and demage the economy. But then they got into overdrive. France was from "wash your hands" to "you need a good reason to be seen outside" within a few days.
When nations all around the globe go in shutdown it is time to update.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
How many guns were confiscated ? - Well how many (better: ho few !) persons were even searched ? - If they went away, cops let them gladly go. Very few arrests were made AT the ground. Almost all were made later and after analyzing footage and likely the interrogated ratting each other out.
An intruder determined to use guns later on legislators, would not necessarily show them before. Why would they, police let them roam the building for the most part.
In DC there are strict gun laws, so I guess they knew that they had to hide them.
That was the mistake Ashly Babbit made. Police in soft uniform let them get beyond the perimeter, let then later run in the building no guns drawn. Other police was in riot gear at strategic points, with shields and maze - but they also did not draw their guns.
When she saw that officer so close, only separated by a locked door with large glass panels, he was pressed at the left side of the ward as to not be an easy target from afar of the other side of the ward, and he had the gun drawn - she should have paused. After all she was an airforce vet.
This officer behaved differently.
Instread she cast a short glance over to him and continued to eagerly crawl throught the hole in the glass they had just broken. There was the door in the middle, the fixed panel at the sides, almost instictively they broke the glass in the right one of the fixed panels. The one the "farthest" away from the officer.
Many rioters did use weapons - but if they had started using firearems in the crowd it would have become a blood bath. Police was afraid to use firearms - they should have shot at legs before and very early on when the first trespassed the perimter. We have seen that some waived them through, or at least they stood down and gave the intruders no trouble whatsoever.
(Police can concede ground in Portland for instance w/o jeopardizing public safety, but NOT the building where they house a major part of the U.S. government !).
Maybe a few warning shots (non lethal) would have deterred most of the crowd.
If some of the rioters would have started shooting, police would have answered the fire.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ Zooma Well if these are voters that are easily convinced and just lack information ("low information" voters) how come the Republicans do not have a blast with simply pointing out their record of service for most of the population ? .......
Low information also would mean: it is easy to come in with new and extra information. The arguments better be convincing though, and the message straightforward. People would need to see the advantage of voting for Republicans.
both parties serve the big donors. Of Republicans I know only Ron Paul that was a honest actor (ideological for sure, I do not agree with many of his stances, but at least he was acting in good faith. And he had his own line on the War on drugs on regime change wars, the Patriot Act etc. he was no big donor puppet. Needless to say the party did what they could to derail his run for president.
His son on the other hand is a sorry example of a politician that knows better, but has been captured.
the Democats have a few good people that are not bought and paid for shills.
The Left that you are against are the honest players in the game. They must join the D party, the 2 party system does not allow them to be Independent or to run under another party, it would be even harder to win elections against the Big Donor candidates.
It does not matter if you agree or disagree with a politician, it is a BODY OF REPRESENTATIVES. There should be diversity of opinon, and experiences.
As long as they are not plain stupid, are not too ideological (they will come from their point of world view and that is good: it REPRESENTS a part of the population, so some ideology is fine).
The most important point: they should be content with what the taxpayers pay them for their work and not chase the donations of the big donors. Or the cushy jobs for ex politicians (an often overlooked but MAJOR toxic incentive for elected representatives to betray their constituents).
2
-
+ Zooma As for the well informed voters, that have wisened up to the Good Cop / Bad Cop routine of D and R on behalf of the big donors: Those voters know that the most important elections in the U.S. are the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES (held by a private organization the Democratic party, that can override the will of the voters, cheat and break promises btw - see law suit regarding the 2016 primary).
Corporate Dems and Republicans have the same big donors. And serve THEM. Those interests rarely align with the well being of the general population, but the big donor interests almost always take precedence (and if not, it takes an epic struggle of grassroots).
Low information voters of both parties have not yet understood the good cop / bad cop routine.
I get that many affluent and rich people vote Republican, they protect their interests even better than Corporate Democrats. If a person has no patriotism (no, I do not mean the fake display, you cannot declare to love your country when you do not give a crap about the people in it).
Affluent voters that are only motivated by selfish interests, that care about their family and inner circle but no one else, and do not give a damn about the country (or the well being of the troops for that matter) will be well represented by Republicans.
These are not enough votes to win elections, it is one reason the Republican party since Nixon started to specialize in all kinds of fringe groups, actively attracted racists (the former Dixiecrats that were pissed off by the Civil Rights legislation). The Republican party got more and more fringe in the process, too. With voter suppression and gerrymandering and a strategy of death-by-a-thousand cuts in voter suppression they could hold on to power.
Of course a New Deal style Democratic party that would not constantly betray their own base could easily defeat Republicans. (but the Democratic leadership has betrayed their base in 1968, and in 1968 and 1972 undermined their own candidate in the general because they were not lusting enough for war ... so nothing new here. And that was before money in elections totally captured U.S. politics.The Corporate Dems also use voter suppression - in the primaires. Same tactics as the Republicans use on a larger scale in the general.
The Corporate Dems would like to win the general too of course. But keepint the donors happy and keeping their money coming in is even more important. If a candidate does not "get that" the party leadership will straighten them out (and use their excellent and incestuous contacts to the Corporate media to derail their campaigns).
The big donors pay the Democrats to win primaries, not necessarily the general.
The big donors had it with Trump though, this time they cared who would win the general, Trump is just too uncough, unpredictable and inept for their liking and also drew too much attention of the voters (the big donors do not like the unwashed masses to vote or to get organized. Lower income people not voting and not paying attention to politics and giving up on politics suits them just fine).
After the primaries the ballot will offer the "choice" between a spineless careerist Republican Lite (aka Corporate Democrat) and a fierce ideological Republican. Pro or against safe and legal abortions, gun control, gay marriages, ..... whatever.
The establishment of both parties is riling up the base with issues that do not cost the big donors profits and the donors do not care what comes out of it.
The base is supposed to get all riled up about guns, abortions, LGBTQ rights (One or the other side of the medal). Last but not least Identity politics (white nationalism and right wing grievance messaging is a version of that (War on Christmas anyone ?).
The Dems have a different version of identity politics. The masses are supposed to be happy if they are screwed by a person of color or a female.
All those wedge issues that the donors allow their shills to run on, are supposed to make the base forget that almost all politicians work for the special interests and constantly screw most of the citizens in their service for the big donors.
2
-
Joe Biden has been a faithful servant of Big Finance. - his paymasters also like for-profit healthcare, fossil fuel industry, WAR and wasteful military contracts, cutting SS and / or privatizing it *, weed being illegal also to accomodate Big Pharma, and out of control costs for for-profit college education for which the bankrupcy bill (a project of Biden) was a blast.
Needless to say he was for every damaing "free" "trade" deal ever.
Currently open student loan debt over 1,2 trillion USD - like the mortgages BEFORE the bubble burst, and it is almost impossible to discharge that debt.
He shored up the Democratic votes for the Iraq war in 2003 (no wonder he gets along well with war monger Dick Cheney).
** Bill Clinton had a secret group to explore how to privatize SS - but he expected some resistance and then the Lewinsky scandal broke and he decided not to fight on 2 fronts.
The nation can thank the intern for having unintentionally protected SS - can you imagine the Great Financial Crisis with privatized SS ?? Sure the Obama admin could also have "printed" money to save it like they did for the banks (QE to the tune of one TRILLION! - that was after the bailouts). But be assured they would have acted on: Never let a good crisis go to waste and weaved in a lot of provisions to undermine SS (at least for the future, it is a pet project of the Republicans since SS was introduced in the 1930s, and the Corporate Dems will also oblige their Big Donors. These ideologes find the idea offensive that there is a big government (!) program that serves the low(er) and regular income people. Wealthy people do not need it, but have to help finance it.
And it does cost some money - that could be used for more tax cuts for the rich, welfare for Big Biz, more wars, more military spending, etc.
Obama was willing to worsen SS for future recipients (likely he would have avoided the battle wit the CURENT recipients - or there would be massive electoral backlash) in order to get a infrastructure investment package through. The offer of the Grand Bargain would have helped the economy right now (it would have been a reasonable project in its own) and Obama would have looked good (a FDR style president would of course have pushed for that without selling out the future recipients of SS).
A dream come true for the Republicans - but their Tea Party (Liberty) caucus was so hellbent on not giving Obama an inch that not even that sellout found "bipartisan" support. And they are not afraid to put pressure on their party (unlike the Black Caucus for instance), they were willing to burn bridges and create lose / lose scenarios to drive home their point. (While the Corporate Dems always can count on the more progressive wing to be reasonable and to grudgingly accept the "lesser" evil choices the party establishment forces down their throat. You have to give it to the Republicans - they DO fight - if only they would do so for a GOOD cause !)
Not sure if the likes of Sanders during the Obama admin (or under Bill Clinton) could have raised hell to prevent undermining of SS (or privatizing it) from happening. you bet the media would not have reported on the downside of a Grand Bargain. They would have lauded privatization in the late 1990s and they would have lauded a Grande Bargain.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The sad thing is - I do not know that Biden would perform better than Trump. - Only in America - (I do not like Hillary Clinton, but she must be fuming if she looks at these two idiots). Biden likely used to be more intelligent and mowre knowledgeable than Trump when they both were at peak performance. Which is not a high bar.
Biden was also lazy (performance in law school, plagiarism in law school and laters stealing speeches in his presidential bid in 1987).
Biden has always taken his directions from the lobbyists, throughout his long political career, so do not expect any sound knowledge, that he built organically: be it on economics, healthcare, finance, or foreign policy. Or climate change.
Being a progressive is harder, because you have to do the research and come to conclusions. That costs time.
The servants of the big donors get the drafts for the bills, the talking points. They save time that way and conflicts with their conscience. What is the point of being well informed (which takes time and effort) - when it is clear how you are going to vote and what bills you will push no matter what. you need just to know the superficial details and a few phrases (thought stopping clichés) to sell them in media interviews.
Some hurray patriotism stands in for foreign policy knowledge. And support for the bloated military budgets and Israel - no questions asked.
That is why Putin runs circles around them, that included Obama btw. Who is intelligent, was a ferocious reader according to the CIA person that lead the team that briefed him.
That does not help if you have a bias and believe in American mythology. As opposed the real role of the U.S.
And not even an intelligent diligent president could match someone like Putin who is also intelligent, also reads a lot - and has decades of experience. In the case of Putin the training as KGB officer as well. They do not take dummies and they need to do their homework.
Bush 1 may have had comparable knowledge, maybe Eisenhower (but tainted by being ideological). Zbigniew Brzezinski the adisor of Carter. Or Henry Kissinger (evil - but knowledgeable, no doubt about it).
The state legislator and first time Senator Obama had no special interest in foreign policy. and did not need, it until he became Senator. And then he went more or less with conventional "wisdom" - in D.C. circles that means U.S. imperialims and support for the M.I.C. - it shows in the foreign policy of Obama - despite his intelligence.
Sanders is one of the few that dared to have his own opinions (he is carefull not to rub the insider circles the wrong way. The occasional nugget reminds of the mayor that invited Noam Chomsky to Burlington).
Ron and Rand Paul, too. The Progressives a little bit.
2
-
The only downside (except for reduced efficiency) - you can adjust for your legitimate ! needs or your whims discreetely. No one will take notice how bravely you stand up for your fReEdOm. Next thing you should start a crusade against wearing seat belts and traffic lights. Also introduced to get better outcomes for all, to increase safety and reduce costs (healthcare, sick leave, breadwinners dying) - but red lights and seat belts infringe on what you can do, resepectively you are told what to do and expected to comply (under threat of consequences).
How horrible
And zoning codes (the latter might be a worthwhile cause).
Oh, and women having a legal abortion but they are made to jump through hoops, are burdened with unnecessary costs, and the whole thing takes much longer than medically necessary because she needs 2 appointments with a few days inbetween.
Imaging imposing on another person or family the duty to raise a (disabled) child, or one that they cannot afford or simply do not want.
That beats your grief with the mask - which you could easily evade by wearing the mask so you can breathe more easily if you wanted to (if you are legitimately very uncomfortable wearing it).
And yes the law allows abortions, whatever your view is regarding the rights of a fetus (the anti masks crowd is usually also anti abortion and howls how it is a "baby" that is being "murdered").
Think imposing a vaginal examination and an ultrasound that is not at all medically required. On the woman and her doctor.
Construction codes for abortion clinics that are a complete overkill. No clinic has it because it is not necessary - which is the beauty of the whole law. Only hospitals need such wards (or other large institutions - think malls). so no one that has built a clinic or rents a place will meet the tyrannical demands, because they do not make sense from a medical or practical standpoints.
So republicans can shut down the clinic for "violating" building codes.
Abortion providers do not need the wide wards like a hospital, they are not handling the many visitors, and they do not need the width to allow two lanes for a rolling bed. They do not even need one lane. they do not have infirm patients.
Clinics doing plastic, eye surgery do not have those requirments (and they have more complications than abortion clinics that migh require an ambulance picking up the patients. Abortions are very safe procedures performed on younger women - especially early stage, which are over 90 %). The wide wards are not needed and in case of a fire they do not have to evacuate many bed ridden patients fast.
Counseling that you do not want to have.
Your doctor being forced to show you the fetus. But you are allowed to not look there if you do not want it. At least that freedom you have.
And you can't make an appointment, get checked (for any safety or medical objections) and then have the abortion.
Hypocritical / tyrannical right wingers and busybodies (the same crowd that now huffs and puffs about wearing a mask) impose unnecessary mandates.
That a woman must have the first appointment, all the unnecessary procedures dreamed up by evangelicals because they can't help it, that abortions are legal in the early stage of pregnancy (like in ALL first world countries).
The Republicans do not mind big tyrannical government acting out in THAT area - it only drives up costs for low income families and only for those families the long driving distances matter. The affluent fly to their appointments (so the evangelicals hanging out in the area around an abortion clinic do not film their car, or film them).
THEIR daughters and mistresses (or wives should there be a severe defect) can always get a safe abortion. If need be in another country. Mother / daughter expeditions to Hawaii are a thing, it is an inconspicious destination for a a short "holiday" for affluent people, and I assume in Hawaii they can offer it in public hospitals so evangelicals cannot film and bust people. Like they hang out in front of specialized clincs elsewhere.
The Southern Belles showing up there, could visit the hospital for a number of reasons and an early stage abortion does not take long. She could as well get a cut fixed or a sprain ankle checked.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In the Golden Era most productivity wins (they come from technology, automation, new marketing and communication methods) landed in the pockets of the workers. Sure inflation was somewhat higher but wage growth BY FAR outpaced that. Purchasing power of average hourly wages in the U.S. almost doubled between 1947 and 1970, that is in 23 years. It was plus 97 % (again that is after inflation). While productivity rose by 112 %.
Hourly average wages adjusted for inflation - economists also call that "real" wages and it means the purchasing power you get from 1 hour of paid work.
The owners and shareholders got a smaller piece of the pie of 112 % average productivity growth (that is across industries) . Still good (it was a large and growing pie and not that many people that are owners). But they had to give the workers the lion's share - and they resented it.
The oil crises of the 1970s meant the oligarchs could - finally ! - hit back after labor and regular folks in the U.S. had a good run for 25 years. and then they started pushing their politicians to pass trade deals that made outsourcing lucrative and safe. And they defanged the unions. So they could pit the domestic workforce against the workforce of poor countries.
Before that the companies needed the domestic workforce and unemployment was not high enough to put pressure on wages (or to refuse to give the raises). If they were not willing to pay the good wages, they were not able to stay in business, and would miss out on the profits that could be made. Some other company would gladly step up.
With the advent of neoliberalism and outsourcing
Even with high employment - like in the 2018 and 2019 - real wages were not going up (not if you factor in inflation). The manufacturing companies that are still in the U.S. will threaten to just leave the country - and politicians made sure they can do that.
Manufacturers only turned their back on the domestic workforce, they still need the domestic consumers. So the permanently low import tariffs make planning easier, they can move the factory and invest the millions. It is not like another admin that is pro labor could raise the tariffs on imports for garments, or plastic products, or shoes. The "free market" advocates made politicians remove all risks for them when they move production to othe rcountries and make the substantial investments.
Trump did change tariffs to a degree, but trade wars can last 3 weeks, months or 2 years. So companies will not move production back to the U.S. based on that.
After all the theatrics - NAFTA 2.0 brought very little real improvements. GM closed the factory in Lordstown, they moved - after they had gotten the Trump tax cuts (companies also profit from making investments abroad, that is tax deductible).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Russian may have given some illegal or unbecoming help around the fringes to the Trump campaign. If you think THAT is or was the problem you are missing out on the big picture. The Facebook ads were inconsequential - 100,000 USD or so was spent. That is TINY (Clinton raised 1 billion USD, Trump 500 millions, even Sanders plus 200 million).
The Russians have trolls. So do both parties. The CIA has been infiltrating major news outlets for decades. They pay off journalists. What else is new ?
The Facebook ads may have been an attempt to make money of controversial topics and not at all politically motivated. - see next comment - Those click-baiters cater to the right wingers (potential Trump base) because that audience jumps to their clickbaits. And yes, Russians may be eager to make bucks of it as well.
There is no political motivation - they just work with the audience that is most likely to gives them the ad revenue (providing GOOD content that attracts followers is hard work, some people have a natural talent for bullshitting - see the link).
But if a Sanders or Trump meme or controversy is getting them clicks - they will use them as well.
I read a piece about a fake news creator - highly recommended.
As for trolls - yes I strongly assume the Russians have them. The Democrats had "Correct The Record" in the 2016 campaign. Think tanks that are pro Republican or pro Trump have trolls too (they were out in force under a CNN report over voter suppression in in Georgia. Now Kemp alleges the Democratic party had been discussing vulnerabilities of the election system in emails. They have indeed - after Kemp (who is responsible for the elections) was notified (AGAIN - lots of vulnerabilties detected in 2016 !). He failed to act for 2 days.
He acts now as if the Dems had plotted to exploit those vulnerabilities. Well anyway: the trolls were lame, the video explained it well, there were just too many comments of people who obviously had not watched the video or lied straight about the content.
In short - not only the usual pack of unwavering Trumpists - these were TROLLS. Youtube considers the likes AND the dislikes and every comment counts when they decide if a video is engaging he viewers. So even negative comments help that the clip will be suggested to other potential viewers.
Yes vote Democrat even though many of the D shills do not deserve it - and then continue to kick the ass of of Corporate dems.
With paper ballots hand count and publicly financed campaigns and LIMITS how much can be donated - _no one could rig the elections - the process on election day OR the campaigns. Neither domestic NOR foreign actors could jeopardize the integrity of the elections. the DEMOCRATIC party NEVER tried to fix it when they were in power. And they do not use the public platform. Voter suppression in Georgia is an exception - they really want to win that race. The voter suppression of Native Americans in North Dakota gets little coverage - not by Dems not by the media.
Screw Super pacs, screw Citzens United and the original Supreme Court decision of 1976 that money equals free speech.
1976: a Nixon appointed right wing judge was the deciding vote. That appointment really paid off for the 1 %. The Democratic politicians did not fight for that agenda and decision. But once the Supreme Court slapped that insanity onto the country - they immediately saw the potential FOR THEM. They could have the gravy train as well !
The Republicans had always been the part of rich people and big business. They could hope for lucrative jobs when they left politics (if they had voted for the money interests). NOW money was coming to the Democrats as well.
The insane amount of money spent on elections keeps the media in line. They will not challenge Big Pharma,they help BOTH parties by avoiding a meaningful substantiated about European style healtchare, they ALWAYS cheer for war.
Media (and both political parties !) completely ignore the issue of EASILY hackable voting machines - recently two 11 year olds were abele to hack such machines in a competition - and that is not the first time, a newspaper did a test with college students years ago.
Why aren't at least the media screaming it from the rooftops ???
Well they get a lot of the campaign donations in form of expenisve ads. The mainstream media outlets also hire some ex politicians from the side of the Corporate Dems. In the election circus a lot of strategists and consultants are hired. More job opportunities for obedient ex politicians (D or R - both do it).
And of course lobbyism. Some careerists get their seats bought by Big Money. They network with party establisment and Big donors and vote as they are told. It is a necessary step to a much more lucrative career - becoming a lobbyist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The younger base (that does not vote) and people that are not rabidly tribal will be touched, representatives do not need to be superhuman. Commmon sense, some spine, integrity, diligence, intelligence and - very important - good intentions will do. And that the official salary and benefits are enough.
Some cabinet members and Secret Service made sure that Nixon had no access to firearms in the last days before he resigned, and I think he drank a lot in these days. FDR was most of the time in a wheel chair after he had survived polio. The press was polite. He could stand for a short time, and he often sat at a podium, or was photographed sitting.
It was not completely unknown but the fact went under the radar, that he was disabled.
Clinton had an affair and was impeached over it.
McCarthy was an alcoholic. I wonder if some of his paranoia came from that.
Hoover was maybe gay and a cross dresser. - it would have ruined him if that had come out, people kind of knew it anyway but not "officially".
These flaws / challenges did not hinder any of them to yield a lot of power.
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, it was not engineered, I do not think anyone could have predicted HOW bad the U.S. response (and that of Brazil, same mindeset among politicians) would be, also the mindset of politicians and electorate that became apparent. But the nations that the empire in its last stage tries to dominate - like China and Russia - will appreciate that the U.S. revealed their weakness.
We (mankind) dodged the bullet (severe pandemic) several times in the last 25 years. It was a question of when not if. Epidemiologists have warned for years, but were ignored (being cautious harms economic interests, at least of some groups).
At least now they have done mass culling on mink fur farms. There was a SARS-CoV virus (another corona virus, from animals) and this was a mutation that could be passed on from the animals to humans. Not sure if it can * be passed on from humans to humans. Then you can start to getting scared. If on top of that it has a sneaky way of transmission - being infectious before the infected has symptoms, and a fairly high rate of mortality and complications like SARS-CoV-2 .... you have the ingredients of a major pandemic.
* They think this mutation has vanished, so the culling worked.
If a virus of animals starts having effect on humans or the other way round it is often bad (monkey can also get very sick if they catch a virus from humans, even though the virus is harmless for humans. Crossing over to another species - not good.
See MERS that camels caught from bats, and now a mutation of that corona virus can jump from camels to persons that have contact with them. Luckily it is NOT easily transmissible between humans - so far. We are lucky it isn't very infectious (much less than SARS-CoV-2) because at least 30 % die that get infected (if treated in a first world country, mind you). since it emerged for the first time, there have been cases after the first "wave" (it was not very bad, not many were infected in total, but those are screwed). But the virus is still around. They could not eradict it.
NOW they did not tempt fate anymore. They detected that mutation on the mink farms and took action. Likely they found out when workers had symptoms but testing showed another corona virus. I guess some experts had a "Holy shit" moment (and: 2020 sucks !).
One year ago the governments would have dragged their feet and not wanted to hurt businesses. Now they killed the animals (poor suckers) in Denmark, Italy and another country (I forgot).
I am against those furs being used, so that is a silver lining. And it is good that they got it under control with swift and far reaching measures. Likely that mutation has vanished. A virus is not alive, and since they killed all potential carriers were culled. A virus that is on a surface or grass or soil is becoming inviable after some time. Not like bacteria or funghi that "hibernate" and can get reactivated.
A correct response to a potential pandemic will always look exaggerated. Because you can ONLY catch it in the very early stages. And you notice the economic fallout (that is 100 % certain), but if you are lucky you never even realize what you were spared. What it could have become.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Democrats (on behalf of their donors, the SAME that finance Republicans) ALSO do not want high turnout. In the PRIMARIES. Corporate Dems are supposed to win those, the donors then will get a ballot where the voters have the "choice" of a spineless careerist D versus a fierce ideological R. Both beholden to the big donors.
In case you have wondered why the Dems have put up with it for DECADES, have maintained deafening silence on many things - and also do not shout it from the roof tops that the voting machines are hackable. That in some states it is on principle not possible to verify the machine results because there is no paper trail.
Dems also use voter roll purges, they too steal elections. They steal primaries and the Republicans steal the general.
Of course the D candidates would also like to win the general. They are not allowed to run on populist policies though. only the issues that do not cost the donors either way (gun control, abortion, gay marriage, ....)
But keeping the big donors happy and keeping to get their money (the candidates but also the whole party machine !) is even more important. And if a candidate does not comply, the party machine will throw their weight around and mobilize their buddies from Corporate media to derail a campaign. Or a reelection. Even Ed markey a middle of the road Democrat was declared dispensable. The party machine threw their weight behind the lame Kennedy. Way more neoliberal than Markey.
Markey had co-sponsored the Green New Deal, so the first negative points.
And Kennedy is the better fundraiser for the party. Long time incumbency wasn't important (all of a sudden).
Thankfully he is not even a good speaker, did not do well in the debates, and was stupid enough to be against weed legizlation (a young man). His argument then: it would make it harder for police to search cars w/o warrant. (if the officer claims he smells weed he can hold the driver and either demand to be allowed a search or order the dog team. The dog can be easily made to give an alert. That creates also a tool to harrass citizens that the police does not like.Even if they never find something, they can hold up a driver for hours. Even w/o dogs, in some cases the car was picked up and put apart. Still didn't find anything.
He had won a Congress seat (I think 2 times) only on name recognition. No Kennedy had ever lost an election in their state. So he confidently attacked an incumbent long time Senator (more clout and 6 years instead of 2) and I think for doing so could not run for reelection for Congress either. Ooops ! He was the first Kennedy to lose in Massachusetts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Soviet Union did not lose the Cold War (Cuba and North Korea are still going on despite economic troubles caused by SANCTIONS as well), the Soviet rulers had much better conditions to hang on to their old system: the military, nukes, fossil fuels and many other resources and minerals (also timber and the rivers to have cheap electricity). Plus uranium to fuel nuclear power plant.
A functioning aparatus to contain even a disgruntled population. Lots of people, and despite 2 devastating World Wars they had made massive progress. (Indeed the State Department in the 1930s was worried about their progress - and that was under the grim rule of Stalin).
Imagine a country like India or Mexico, add major wars (The Soviets lost 27 million people during WW2, and they fared badly in WW1 as well, that was the reason the czar was toppled in the firs place).
There were also plenty of poor people in Europe or the U.S. in 1917 - but it was worse in Russia (and still worse in China). In Russia they were behind compared to other nations by 100 or 200 years. Russia being behind in its development has been going on for many centuries. Czar Peter I and later Czaress Katharina (seized power in 1725) were the important reformers - but they had to fight an uphill battle against the ancient structures.
In the 1960s and 1970s the Soviet rulers had manage to house, transport, educate, clothe and feed ALL of their population. Had achiements in sports and science (1953 Sputnik shock !). Provided literature and concerts and ballet in the larger cities. Good mass transportation, too.
Sure life was not sparkling, the housewives did not have it easy with chasing after household goods, they had enough to eat (but not always what they wanted or meat). They had to live modestly and the TV program and availability of consumer goods were subpar. Plus of course no political freedom. BUT: no one was homeless, unemployed, starved to death, and of course they had healthcare for everyone (incl. basic dental !!).
So they did better than many people in the Philippines, India, Latin America, Africa, Asia at large, ....
Considering the desperately and illiterate peasants of 1920 that were the majority of the population in the empire under the czars, they had come a long way (servitude had been officially abolished in the mid 19th century, but of course that does not mean it stopped in reality in remote areas).
Gorbachev may have wanted to serve his country - and trusted the West too much, who of course did NOT hold their promises. In order to enable the German unification the Soviets left Eastern Germany and took the nukes with them. So Germany could merge AND they remained a NATO member state. The pomise was that NATO would not expand an inch beyond the German border.
On Wikipedia there is an animation (NATO member states. A map and the succession of the states joining NATO) - now NATO is camping out on the doorsteps and the backyard of Russia. Mind you: Russia did not throw tantrums when the promise was reneged on Poland (very important see WW1 and WW2 in both wars the Soviets were invaded via Poland). The Baltic states, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, some states of ex Yugoslavia, ...
Putin became president in 2000 and asked for NATO membership - and was rejected.
In 2008 NATO (read the U.S.) pushed for NATO membership of Georgia and Ukraine - two more strategically important neighbours of Russia.
Crimea had been transferred from the Russian Republic to the Ukrainian Republic (within the Soviet Union) in the 1950s, historian do not know for sure why. Gorbachev ALLOWED the Soviet Republics to secede !! (no civil war !). Ukraine then could keep Crimea but had to hand out the nukes and maybe chemical / biological weapons that were stationed in their territory. (Which the U.S. very much approved of, no one wanted nukes and other WMDs spread out over many fledgeling new nations).
Crimea has very important (your round ice free) Russian naval bases, and Crimea is historic battle ground - no way Russia would let Crimea become part of NATO territory. Russia paid for the privilege to have those bases (Ukraine got a discount on Russian natural gas for instance).
When the U.S. backed coup in 2013 happened in the Ukraine, Putin did not hesitate. The troops that were already there in Crimea took over the Penninsula. Very much in agreement with the ethnic majority there (Russians). And the soldiers of the Ukraine did not fight, they were persuaded to hand over the keys (so no casualties).
Creating trouble with Muslims in neighbouring countries (Chechens for instance - Saudi Arabia gladly helps out to send over some djihadists to stir up trouble, the Reagan Afghanistan blueprint).
With Georgia and Ukraine in 2008 Russia drew the line in the sand.
2
-
2
-
You have to work on your strawmen. She said nothing like that. Poverty breeds crime, bad health, increases addiction (diseases of despair, used to be alcohol, now also drugs). That is not only in the U.S. the case but globally, and not only in recent decades.
There are many studies on that.
The only exception: poor communuties where people know each other well (and not a lot of influx of drugs). There is not much to steal, and social control works.
But in our economic system people need to flock to the cities. They must, there are the jobs. Bipartisan ! trade deals lead to outsourcing (Corporate Dems, Republicans but NOT politicians like Sanders or AOC). NAFTA 2.0 is hardly better. the car manufacturers have outsourced some more. Carrier did not create the jobs - Trump did just some grandstanding in 2017.
Outsourcing made rural flight into the large cities worse, the manufacturing jobs could be in less densely populated areas, wages earned there was spent in the local economy, so they also supported the service sector there. But the service sector jobs are concentrated in the urban areas.
2
-
2
-
2
-
AOC was not alone one staff member (a man she refered to as G) was with her (in the next connected office). It was around 1:10 pm. She went online to order lunch, saw they were marching on the Capitol, and a part of the Trump supporters had arrived earlier on the grounds. Around 1 pm The DC Police chief asked the Capitol poice chiefs and sergeants in arms to call in the National Guard, they said they had to run it up the chain.
AOC and her staff members got texts warning them (from friends but I think also from an alert system of Capitol police). Someone banged on doors loudly, after that there was yelling: Where is she. Then a man - probably police - entered their office immediately after that.
To be fair we do not know for sure that HE yelled. Or banged.
but if it was not him does that mean a group was already in the building ? Did he distract them ? Or was he sympathetic to the cause of the rioters but not to the degree that he wanted politicians and staff to be assaulted or killed, so he sent them to a safer place - it sounded like he was either unprofessional and too upset to keep his cool. Or he enjoyed scaring them.
The man that scared both of them seemed to be police, but he wore a beanie, was alone, and behaved almost in a hostile manner (AOC said she second guessed that impression because she was in shock, but her staff member also perceived him to be angry / aggressive / hostile. So they did not ask him any questions, and he for sure did not try to calm them, they just run, because they were not sure, if he was safe for them.
He told them to go to the other building but did not offer to escort nor did he give them a reason why not (have to hold the fort here, but they are not yet in the ward and the other building be quick). Nor any specific insructions how to be safe.
He enterd the office saw her staffer first who also tried to hide, who called on AOC to come out from hiding - but he did not identify himself as police or Capitol police and he was alone (which is also unusual). And he was almost aggressive with them, told them to go to the other building and she and her staffer found hims so suspicious that they just run (in shock) and only on arrival they realized that he had not told them WHERE to take shelter specifically in the other building, the location was floor level.
They saw / heard the mob outside and felt like stitting ducks. She knew where the office of Rep. Katie Porter was, who shelterd down with her staff and they allowed them in.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
And what have your criticism on the strategy of AOC to do with the fact that she has a target on her back, and she and her staffer were scared - and rightfully so. Plus the fact that former trauma from a sexual assault was activated. That she chose to share that (her personal experineces - as opposed to regular politics).
I find her stream to be relevant, and there are practical questions, too. it adds to the question why the Capitol police is not trained to evacuate the Capitol in case of any emergency in a calm and professional, reassuring manner.
Or the man was not even police - so when did the first rioters show up in that part of the Capitol ? Someone banged on doors and shouted: where is she, where is she ? That was either unprofessional police (searching for her to evacuate her ??)or already rioters. Or worse: police colluding with them (but they did not want politicians to get killed, they just wanted to enable the spectacle and a show of force).
A soft knock and identifying himself as police and they would not have feared for their life. Telling them exactely where to go (not only "the other building"). If he did not know more, he could have asked her if she knew anyone that was likely in office over there and could have reminded her to exchange her heels for flats if she had them. (or at least to take them). The staff of Katie Porter helped her out with sneakers, in case they would have to run.
The "police" man behaved in a weird manner, something does not add up. Either unprofessional or he is a sympathizer. Not to the degree that he would not do his job to evacuate the offices or that he wanted them attacked or killed - but that he enjoyed seeing them scared and did his best to have them scared.
Or he was not even police, he wore a beanie, was alone, did not identify himself at least not before entering the office, and her staff member also perceived him as hostile.
2
-
2
-
2
-
There are constitutional problems with that, a judge is not going to sign a restraining order. She cannot carry a firearm they have detectors if they enter the chamber (likely she could carry one in the Capitol building). A restraining order is never "can be in the same room, but always with a certain distance to the person that asks for the order". If there is a restraining order at all, it needs to be an adress and a few streets around it that she has to avoid.
She has an office and might meet Pelosi by coincidence.
And she MUST be allowed to carry out her duty, and for that she must be in the Capitol and in the chamber (with Pelose chairing the session) if they have a vote. Except if two thirds of The House vote to remove her. With good reason they need that - it should not be easy to remove an elected representative.
If Republicans had any decency they would ALL vote against her. Then the Trump / Greene fans could not turn against any specific Republican. What are they gonna do, vote for a Democrat ? At most they would sit out one election, but not even that would be so bad if they cannot concentrate on one politician.
That way the R party could handle their crazy base (that THEY egged on, that has been going on since new Gingrich one could argue since Nixon finetuned the Southern strategy), they could avoid too much electoral damage AND get rid of Moronic Marjorie.
But many have been grifters for many years, the end justifies the means, they have been riling up
voters to make brownie points, now they just took it to the next level with pretending since summer that mail vote is unsafe and after the election that it was stolen.
They cannot let go of the craven practice now.
Many of the cynical, disgusting behavior has to do with positioning themselves for 2024 when some of them want to run for president: all those wanna be presidential candidates want to inherit the Trump base to win the primaries with them.
Lots of competition for the basket cases among the voters.
So it was not likely they would go the path of decency and have a unified front - if they would be decent they would not pretend to believe that mail vote is on principle rigged, would not have pretended to believe that the election was stolen, and they would not have delayed the stimulus package in fall.
She is elected. it would be upon the party leadership to discipline her, or even better to remove her (it begs the question why they allowed her on the ticket) but they will not do it.
Likely the founders did not anticipate that level of cravenness.
Legally a primary is NOT an election but a selection process of a private institution (a party). They do not have to respect the outcome, there are court rulings about that. They could have chosen the second best in the primary for GA 14. (First round 9 candidates, she got 44 % with 44,000 votes. The next R was 23 %. Almost the same number of voters in round 2 for her which then amounted to 57 %. 44,000 voters is not much, the GA REpublican party could have done something).
But the 2 R Senators that lost their races ;) courted her for her endorsement. Parts of the GA Repubs noted her online history and were secretly worried (but shut up to not draw unwanted attention when they were also a little concerened about Biden and the GA Senate races. Others most likely liked her for it. So they could not be bothered to do something when it would have been relativeley easy. Pouring money into the runoff to help the other candidate that made only 23 % in the first round. He had 43 % in round 2 so that was not impossible to win with improved turnout.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Under Yeltsin and the assault of unfethered Capitalism which he allowed to happen (incl. privatizations - more like fire sales) the GDP of Russia shrank more than that of the U.S. during the Great Depression. Putin took over in 2000 - Yeltsin endorsed him and in exchange he was not prosecuted and could keep his loot. Putin btw won against a crazy far-right nationalist - it could have been worse !
The West was initially relieved. Under Yeltsin it had gotten so bad, the military and the pensiosn or wages of civil servants did not get paid anymore. The mafia had quickly gotten a stronghold, Russia got drugs, prostitution, theft, human trafficking and much higher crime rates. And homeless people, incl. many children and teenagers (if their parents could not cope with the difficulty life).
During that time birth rates plummeted and life expectance dropped (especially for men, they have a MALE culture of drinking too much anyway, so when times got really bad especially men drank more than usual. it is frowned upon that females get drunk, so that effect of the depression showed more with males).
At the end of the Yeltsin reign the West feared weapons grade uranium, plutionium, chemical and biological weapons could be sold off by people in the military.
Of course Putin was not just a sober Yeltsin, turned out he is intelligent, strategic and pushes back.
He stopped the privatizations, especially selling off the natural resources of Russia. So that did not endear him to the predatory investor class especially in the U.S. he also made sure that the pensions were paid and order restored within the military (and they got their money).
There is a reason why he is still popular in Russia - not with all but many and despite the economic problems caused by lower oil prices and also the sanctions. Those problems are nothing compared with the Yeltsin era.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Dems and Repubs serve the same big donors. A few brazen Republican Lite defectors have always defended the interests of the big donors, when the voters had given the Democrats too much power, so they would have run out of excuses why they did not deliver for the constituents.
That is the reason the defectors are gladly tolerated, even if they occasionally take it that far that they undermine the presdent that REALLY wants to get something done. Or a very popular campaign promise (the puplic option).
No one steps on their toes. They come either from red states or are very well established, or represent a small state with a lot of affluent voters.They have 6 year terms, so they can easily risk to sell out the regular people.
Manchin and the 2 others cost their collegues in the 2014 midterms and one could argue that with a stimulus package passed in Nov. 2013 (just in time to show some effect for the midterms 2014) the Rustbelt states would have voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
She snatched defeat from the jaws of victory to be sure, but that is and additional reason for the D own goal.
She needed WI, MI, and PA (as she lost Florida by 1.2 % and Ohio by 8 %) - and Trump to everybody's surprise won all 3 (and needed only one of them, no matter which one).
But the margin in favor of Trump was 70,000 votes in ALL 3 states. With all 3 states called for Hillary Clinton (so 70,000 votes - and then a few more to avoid a Florida 2000 scenario - in the other direction) SHE would have won. With 273 Electoral Votes. Not impressive, but she would have won.
"We did not have the votes to get a bill passed" often means: The blue dogs took one for the team. Of course this was not in the middle of a depression in most cases, and in the past it was easier for mainstream media to control the narrative for them.
Republicans misbehaving (for instance under Obama) was intentionally conflated with them hindering the Dems from getting things done. If letting the Repubs participate is presented as necessary; they (both big donor serving parties9 can always water down the D proposals and the Republicans play the role of the bad cops. And the Democrats have someone to blame. No one talks about why Dems do not eagerly go for passing bills with a simple majority. (at least not in the past).
Obama let the Republicans "negotiate" (in bad faith) regarding healthcare reform and after 1 year of a lot of watering down by Republicans and removing a lot of regulations that would have helped with cost control - not ONE of the Republicans voted for ACA anyway.
It should be mentionen that some blue dogs then too worked openly for the big donors. Some "Democrats" in the Senate killed the public option that was a campaign promise of Obama.
Obama did not invite them to the White House to "discuss" this (FDR would have twisted arms).
The Democrats then passed ACA with NO R votes in spring 2010 during a filibuster proof window of 60 days (R Senators retiring or something like that), they could have passed ANY bill. then 51 votes were enough (and they should have had a few others ready to go on the shelf).
They let the Repubs make the (not too good origianl proposal) much worse and gave them enough time to fearmonger and deceive the public.
Remember death panels ?
In the end the D candidates that were up for election in Nov. 2010 ran from the reform and distanced themselves from Obama when they were in a purple state. One in Tx did not want to say if she had voted for Obama.
voters do not appreciate cowards.
Midterms went badly and then the Dems REALLY had it hard to get anything done (that would be good for voters. They found the Repubs cooperative with some issues. Military spending, Patriot Act, subsidies for big biz. And trade deals.
Obama made the Bush era tax cuts permanent.
Did Repubs reciprocate for that. Of course not.
I am not even sure the Democratic establishment and Obama regretted losing the midterms 2010 and not having all 3 branches of government anymore.
Good shills that lost the election, but were useful for the big donors will get a golden parachute. If Republcians hold either congress or Senate Dems can complain that Repubs do not let them do anything.
That is the base for their demand of the base to vote for them and to fall in line. So that they can do a little more for the voters in the future. Or so they say ....
Next round in the game of Fool The Sheeple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At the end the Comey discussion: I think he is a staunch defender of the deep state and by extension also the police. He does not want their authority to be undermined, that is a reflex. He would be hurt if the FBI would look bad (likely not in this case) but he is also protective of police. - Sure the FBI warned about right wing domestic terrorism, and they offered help before Jan 6 (that was declined), so it was not the FBI that dropped the ball.
Except they could have secretly warned the incoming admin, or Schumer and Pelosi. But then it may not be good form to sideline the Capitol police that is supposed and certainly equipped to deal with such challenges. The head of the FBI was a Trump appointee, and the lower ranks did not stick their neck out. Likely assuming Capitol and DC police could not possibly fail at that obvious task and knew what they were doing.
Likely the FBI would not look bad in an investigation - but types like Comey are deeply uncomfortable if the police would be proven to be a) incompetent
b) complicit and maybe much more than we know and at the highest level, of police. (military ?) And cabinet members. Who are - after all is said and done - Club Insiders (in the sense of George Carlin).
The POLICE (and maybe the military) being undermined by white supremacists, as they were undermined by the KKK.
Types like Comey do not even like strictly peaceful mass protests for a just cause. They get nervous when the peasants get too uppity, nevern mind peaceful protests, the Constitution, .....
The FBI under Hoover targeted many Civil Rights activists (Dr. King was the most prominent) and war opponents later. Police, FBI, CIA see themselves as supportive of the ruling class and the oligarchs. They know best and ssume they have the AUTHORITY - nothing undermines that more than injustice paired with incompetence.
Comey cringes at the idea that the police could be exposed even more. That they are even more rotten (aside from killing people of color) another argument why part of their budgets should be switched to social workers, etc. (= less authoritarian leaning actors that naturally are protective of the upper 30 % of society). Or the notion that they should be held more accountable, no more qualified immunity.
It may also implicate high ranking people in the Trump admin.
After all they made the R Gov. of Maryland wait NINETY minutes for the authorization to deploy the MD National Guards accross state's lines to help at the Capitol.
Trump obviously delayed it (he probably would not have given it at all and was sidelined at some point), but there was the secretary of Defense and down the chain of command. THEY should have sidelined the president immediately - that could have gotten them favors with the incoming admin.
Governor Logan hat gotten an urgent or frantic call from D Steny Hoyer, high ranking Democrat in Congress, with Senate minority leader shouting from across the room. Logan likely knew better than the legislators (who were in session and did not know what was going on outside) that trouble was ahead and had the National Guard ready to go. But he needed federal authorization. The president, the Secretary of Defense, his deputy, .... or down the chain of command.
That would come up as well. the failure to have the NG there already, and the dealy.
It is my understanding that Mike Pence who was evacuated first around 2 pm STAYED in the Capitol in a secure location, Pelosi, and Mcconnell were evacuated next. There are rumours that he tried to reach the White House to send help. Some of the intruders wanted to hang him, so he should have bothered.
Well, if so that was a failure. He should have returned to the White House (if that was possible) where HIS security did not bind additional forces and should have raised hell. If necessary adressing the nation. that president and SoD refused to allow the National Guard from MD (and likely it was the same with VA) come in to help secure the Capitol.
High ranking members of the cabinet (incl. Mike Pence) should have gone public and shamed them into immediate action. Comey and the cabinet are in the same club. He may be pissed at them, but he does not want to see them exposes. It is like the tribalism in the military if there is wrongdoing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No - with growing total population (now 330 millions and a lot of young Latino voters that were born in the country and have joined the ranks of voting age population) you have of course higher absolute numbers. 80 million yes - when he was the ONLY alternative to Trump who got effing 74 million votes. And underwhelming results downticket.
btw: 65 or 68 % in such a high profile and controversial race is bad turnout. In all other first world countries such an election would see over 80 % turnout. 85 % would be quite possible.
There was NO alternative to Trump so the 80 millions votes were not so much FOR Biden as against Trump. Not even the most loyal older Democratic voters that have known Biden for decades found Biden's campaign inspiring.
The 6 milliions votes MORE of the popular vote look good BUT - a lot of that came from the large solidly blue states. The EC is the law of the land, and that is not going to change anytime soon. On that front it does not look good in the future. And it is way too close for comfort.
Biden needed 2 out of the 4 nailbiter states to win the presidency (and Biden won those 4 with a total ! margin of only 125,000 votes). The minimal combo would have been AZ and WI 11 + 10 electors would have meant at least 270 electors in total.
PA alone would NOT have been enough (20 electors) so only 269, that would be a nightmare the Republican STATES would decide in that scenario. That is what they prepared the "mail votes = cheating" narrative for. So they could justify handing the presidency to Trump if they would be lucky enough to have very narrow wins in some Rustbelt states. In 2016 the narrow margins worked for Trump - he won 3 Rustbelt states with only 70,000 votes more, and I think he needed at least 2 out of the 3.
I also noticed that Trump won with a solid margin if he did win a state. At least the larger / more relevant ones. Ohio !! Florida !! Texas, Virginia, West Virginia (that should be a D stronghold). Dems also lost Tennessee as usual and by a wide margin (Gore used to be a household name. GWB won the state in 2000, Gore jr. could not win the state that his father and he had represented in in Senate for so long.
THAT was one of the real reasons he did not become president. But they could not blame Nader for TN, so that was not talked about. (an inspiring VP pick instead of Republican with a D to his name Joe Lieberman would have been helpful. And letting Bill Clinton campaign for him. His role in NAFTA - defending it on behalf of the big donors - was also not forgotten in the Rustbelt).
Last time I checked Nov. 27 or 28, Biden won those 4 states with a TOTAL of 125,000 votes. Did I mention that he absolutely needed 2 out of the 4 to win ? That is way too close for comfort even though the EC numbers NOW look good on the surface because he pulled off in win in all 4 with a slim margin.
BUT: if Trump would only have been slightly more intelligent and if his narcissism would not have made him undermine himself - he could have won this easily. 125,000 votes in those states is not much to make up. Biden would not have had a chance, and even Sanders (a genuine left populist to counter the fake populism of Trump) would have had a hard time if Trump with the incumbent advantage would not be so extraordinarily stupid and narcissistic.
I think with another candidate for the Republicans (Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio - or a more intelligent white nationalist / right winger with populist rhetoric) AZ and GA would not be in play. In GA the suburbs put Biden over the finish line. I was under the impression that the WHITE middle class in GA found Trump so uncough that they voted for Republican Lite Biden. This time.
Maybe I am wrong and there are a lot of black suburban voters that got engaged. Good for them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, there is massive lack of leadership by Democrats, and sadly also by Sanders. - The big donors finance the Corporate Democrats to win primaries against progressives. Corporate Democrats are opportunistic neoliberals, (so why would they FIGHT ?) - Republicans are fierce ideologues. Both are beholden to the big donors. Which like those traits: fake empathy by the opportunists versus the fierce Republicans.
Sure Republicans initiate the tax cuts (more or less covertly supported by Democrats), they dod the dirty work that the Dems cannot do openly and are more open in their support for big donor interests: tax cuts, cuttin public programs, deregulation, war.
But a part of the electorate is out of reach for the Republicans. Who knows what these voters would do if left to themselves. So the Democratic party is supposed to sheepdog them into the fold of big-donor-friendly politics.
Keeping the big donor money and the donors happy is even more important for the Democratic establishment than winning the general elections
The big fish will get a golden parachute if they lose elections or want to leave politics.
The big fish also get "safely blue districts".
That may backfire because progressives NOW have a fighting chance in those districts, and if they win the primary not even the Republican opponent can help out the Corporate Democrats in the general. You bet the Democratic leadership would have prefered a Republican winning once AOC had beaten Crowley in the primary.
The won primary means the progressive will almost certainly get the Congressional seat. See AOC, see Jamaal Bowman. That works better for congressional race, where you have a district - and "safely blue" usually means low income and minorities. These voters are receptive to progressive politics, as soon as they learn tht there is an alternative. Neither Eliot Engel nor Joe Crowley had competition. Hardly anyone dared to challenge them in primaries and the Republicans had no chance to win.
Primaries not the general must be won - explains why Corporate Dems do not adopt highly popular stances so they will blow the Republicans out of the water.
1: campaign money
2: the party might shower a big donor friendly candidate with money if they stray. Stances that are good for the voters almost always cost the big donors profits. With the exception of abortion, gay marriage, ....
3: the big donors and the party leadership will not take care of them, when they leave politics.
If they lose as moderate Republicans that do some virtue signalling and are pro abortion, gay marriage and gun regulation - if they were obedient and worked to build connections they will have a fine career after politics. Only the rookies (first term), and first time candidates that lose - people with no connections are left to fend for themselves. All the more reason for them to suck up to party leadership (the job of top Democrats is to hold the party in line). Elected Democrats who manage to carve out their little niche and do the networking, can hope to get taken care of even if they lose a race. .... Races that could have been won with their already existing name recognition and some good policy proposals.
democratic leaderhsip and individual candidates hope they can pull off a narrow win, with virtue signalling, with giving the voters nothing but "See how bad Republicans are" and working the same wedge issues as Republicans: guns, abortions, LGBTQ rights. Just the other side. Issues that do not cost the big donors either way. And are supposed to rile up the D or R base.
Democrats prefer to have narrow majorities in the House and Senate. There are some oldtimers that are well established in more affluent liberal areas and will take one for the team - and prevent good bills from being passed even if the Dems have all 3 branches of governent. see 2009 when Joe Lieberman and a few like him killed the public option a campaign promise of Obama. Needless to say, Obama did not say anything. He was no FDR, that's for sure.
They are neoliberal opportunists. of course they do not bother to go fiercly after Republicans, it is not fear of being seen as uncivil. They have the claws out against progressives. But not against Republicans, they are not paid for that task.
The big donors want a ballot with the "choice" of a neoliberal Democrat agains a rightwing Republican. Neither will ever work against big donor interests. So they do not really care who wins - they own both.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fire the "leadership" of the Capitol police. Rank and file were on their own, unless they are known to have assisted and waved the insurrectors in, they can get a pass. That officer on the staircase ? It did not matter if he would have resisted or not, they would have overrun him. And he did not know who of them carried a firearm. The "leadership" allowed the mob (potentially armed with guns) to be where they were because they did not bother to prepare, when preparation was obviously needed.
i think some people wanted a riot / spectacle / intimidating show of force - it just got too much out of hand (which only shows how stupid they are).
Trump cannot even fire the head of police in DC / Capitol police. He could in theory fire the head of the National Guards (I think he can) - but Biden could reinstate them 2 weeks later if they do their duty and Trump is pissed off at them for doing their duty. The president was eventually ignored, someone - not him - FINALLY called them in after the spectacle had escalated.
If D.C. police at the beginning of January would have asked for help from New York, Austin, Seattle. Los Angeles, San Francisco etc. - they would have gotten it. The president elect could have made some promises the cities would get budgets for that, as the lame duck president had abdicted his responsibility. Then they would not have needed the National Guards at all, and could have evaded needing an order by Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stoney2732 it is possible to follow the chain of infection of HIV. Very specific conditions for transfer (body fluids must be exchanged). HIV is not inhaled, and does not spread through air.
It is hard to PROVE with high probability that a reckless person gave the infection. you could be in the same room with a reckless person but not being infected. Then you go shopping, staff abides by all the rules, other shoppers are circumspect - but you catch it there).
Sadly it is not at all suited for legal prosection. That is why these idiots (usually they aspire to be orderly members of the middle class, are all for law and order (as they interpret it), and have property or want to get wealthy. That kind of people do not risk being sued for damages but they sniff it out that they are not going to get into trouble over this.
So it is I got mine, screw you.
Groom, bridesmaides, .... correctly assume that most likely they will not die and also not end up with long term negative effects or a hospital bill IF they get it.
A good dose of cognitive dissonance over giving it to their elderly relatives.
Being cavalier about intangible riks as long as things are normal for us is a human trait. (hundreds of thousands of years ago life was short, risky and disaster could hit at any time. Humans leaned on the optimistic side as long as things were O.K. - worrying correctly about the almost inevitable bad events that were going to hit them or loved ones and likely within a few years, did not help with survival.
It would have only paralyzed them and put them into an even more vulnerable position. We have not evolved to be "realistic" about intangible risks or bad influences that build up over time. We are made to react to the very obvious stuff that is right before our nose. a wildfire, hunger, the sabber toothed cat, a person that looks threatening.
The human brain is also not made to "get" statistics. We can "handle" statistics with help of maths (which is a tool). We do not "get" it in an emotional sense (and it is emotion that drives behavior - not ratio).
We know that people (other ! people) get cancer diagnoses or have strokes or severe accidents all the time. But if life is O.K. no one expects that to happen to them (the feeling). Emotions not intellectual insight DRIVE and FUEL action. Ideally a person has insights from their frontal lobes processing information in an unbiased manner. And they can leverage the power of emotion (from the older parts of the brain !) that gives them the energy and drive to ACT on it (or to forgo a pleasure. Short term pain for long term gain. Conservatives claim they are good in that. Well, no).
1
-
1
-
But many have been grifters for many years, the end justifies the means, they have been riling up
voters to make brownie points, now they just took it to the next level with pretending since summer that mail vote is unsafe and after the election that it was stolen.
They cannot let go of the craven practice now.
Many of the cynical, disgusting behavior has to do with positioning themselves for 2024 when some of them want to run for president: all those wanna be presidential candidates want to inherit the Trump base to win the primaries with them.
Lots of competition for the basket cases among the voters.
So it was not likely they would go the path of decency and have a unified front - if they would be decent they would not pretend to believe that mail vote is on principle rigged, would not have pretended to believe that the election was stolen, and they would not have delayed the stimulus package in fall.
She is elected. it would be upon the party leadership to discipline her, or even better to remove her (it begs the question why they allowed her on the ticket) but they will not do it.
Likely the founders did not anticipate that level of cravenness.
Legally a primary is NOT an election but a selection process of a private institution (a party). They do not have to respect the outcome, there are court rulings about that. They could have chosen the second best in the primary for GA 14. (First round 9 candidates, she got 44 % with 44,000 votes. The next R was 23 %. Almost the same number of voters in round 2 for her which then amounted to 57 %. 44,000 voters is not much, the GA Republican party could have done something).
But the 2 R Senators that lost their races ;) courted her for her endorsement. Parts of the GA Repubs noted her online history and were secretly worried. But shut up to not draw unwanted attention when they were also a little concerened about Biden and the GA Senate races. Others most likely liked her for it.
So they could not be bothered to do something when it would have been relativeley easy. Pouring money into the runoff primary to help the other candidate that made only 23 % in the first round (assuming he was not a certified moron as well). He had 43 % in round 2 so that was not impossible to win with improved turnout.
1
-
FDR kept the (fairly active) fascists at bay with economic populism. The Democratic party has to follow that (with Sanders it would have been much easier, the Biden admin gave some mildly positive signs so far but for instance they promised voters to give them 2,000 dollar cheques, these were explicit promises in the so important Georgia Senate races - and now they folded. USD 1,400 (and all of a sudden counting the former 600) that is duping the voters. They should have compromised at 1,800 if anything. (and kicked Sinema, Manchin and a few others into submission to vote for the removal of the filibuster).
The R politicans are hopeless, they need to be ignored and sidelined (and for that the Dems would need to win solid majorities and get their own defectors in line. FDR twisted arms - of Democrats.
The Republicans under FDR could only hope to be an obstacle.
The R voters ? Enough could be won with economic populism. Back to the New Deal policies that buil the American middle class. The basket cases need to be dragged along, if the economy is doing good they would likely at least shut up. The younger ones might come around, and the older ones will die away.
The Democrats need to turn out the base better, 68 % turnout in a historic eleciton is not enough. In other nations that would be 80 - 85 %. Affluent and old people vote much more (affluent AND old have the highest rate). With more turnout some of the red states could be turned.
And going after right wing rabid grifting churches and stripping tax excemptions from them if they do political agitation (and nothing but). Those areas are not won by Democrats they can as well piss of the wanna be cultists.
The black churches would also have to abide by that. But the good people can now organize online, so it is not as crucial as during the Civil Rights Movement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No a THINK TANK came up with the question - there where some really hacky gotcha framings going on (and people have been doing research of WHO the people are that are doing "HIT"-jobs.
Another point: these were Harvard students. They are not a grace for that institution. If they had pestered him on data to healthcare or foreign policy.
Instead they stooped to Fox News levels of disingenuity.
(My family fled from the Soviet Union why do you want to introduce that system in the U.S. I am paraphrasing. Even if you fiercly disagree with his policies - being a Harvard student you owe it to yourself to do a little better than that.
Sanders is for Universal Voting rights - mainly for the non-criminal voters who are deprived of their chance to vote in many sneaky ways (especially when they are minorities and/or poor). One ASPECT of this issue is what to do with people in jail (before any conviction), when they are in jail or prison, or what to do with felons after they were released. - leave it to this student and on the next day the media to find the most sensationalist, yellow-press style framing for a serious problem in U.S. voting system - the intergrity of the elections. (hackable voting machines, closed down poll stations - only in poor areas, mail ballots and registrations to vote thrown out, against court orders. Voter roll purges where serious "mistakes" are made, etc, etc.) But lets clutch our pearls if the Boston bomber would cast a vote.
For whom do they think he is going to vote ? In theory the candidates an parties on the ballot are not criminal. And how many votes do they think he would have (in 2016 250 million people had the vote in the U.S.) The Boston bomber is not a superdelegate.
At least 50 % of those in jail or prison are there because of non-violent crimes.
See https://www.prisonpolicy(dot)org/reports/pie2019.html
Approx. 2,2 million people are locked up (end of 2016), estimated 19 million ex-felons live in the U.S., there are no numbers kept (some of them have the vote, a few states allow it). Now that is not going to swing elections.
BUT: A very simple rule would adhere to the constitution (the right to vote is derived from citizenship, which after all is not revoked - not even for vile criminals). And it is also cost-efficient and a stop to Republican shenanigans: if everyone keeps the vote it avoids a lot of red tape, and it prevents the Republicans from kicking normal citizens from the voter rolls (see what they did in Florida in 2000).
The 14th amendment gives the states the right to decide over that (which is not completely logical because the right to vote - finally for all - was and is tied to citizenship.
Voting is not a privilege or treat.
It is a RIGHT and another way to see it: it is a civic duty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
you had "wonderful" healthcare ?? I assume that meant an affordable individual police - or paid for by the employer. If you had your own police you never realy needed that healthcare - in the private for profit syste you never know what you have until you desperately need it.
If it was affordable then you bet it did not cover all. (ACA outlawed the "chunk" policies that scammed the consumers).
If the company paid enough to subsidize the way too expensive system - well no one keeps them from doing that NOW.
The healthcare industry extracts even more subsidies now (with the help of ACA) the industry before could throw people out when they got sick or they were refused because of pre-existing conditions.
20 % of the insured cause 80 % of the costs - in that area, the insurance companies got rid of the potentially expensive patients, and the also expensive elderly were covered under Medicaid.
So in that way they got a sufficiently purged pool - they should of course then have offered highly competitive rates. But that did not happen. It just was enough to cover up for the way too high costs, the purged pool allowed them to maintain the red tape and the high profits and it became not too obvious. as long sa manufacturing was still in the U.S. the employed had the protection of the employer, the insurance companies could not play the insured, the company might have supported them. But jobs got outsourced, medicine became more capable and also much more expensive.
ACA allows not anymore to deny coverage for preexisting conditions. (They have of course developed tricks but on principle). So now the plans for the "good" customers are getting much higher reflecting more transparently the high price levels. That is especially the case in the states that refused to take the federal money for the system - just because. (Georgia is one of them). So middle class people that have no good income but earn too much for Medicaid are screwed and of course the industry extracts subsidies from the government like never before.
Healthcare is 17 % of the GDP in the U.S. and 7 - 10 % in all other wealthy nations.
The per capita costs are typically 5,000 - 6000 USD - versus 9,200 in the U.S.
I read that approx 65 % of healthcare expenditures in the U.S. are paid for by the government.
The affordable healthcare for everyone in other nations ALSO needs subsidies (or it would not be possible. the wage deductions are only a percentage of wages with a cap, and must be matched by the employer, no matter the size of the company). That is all that is to pay, no unpleasant surprises later. And the health status does not matter. You are legally in the country have a job (or not ! there are provisions for those people as well) - you got the very same insurance coverage as everybody else.
The system is not meant to make a profit for shareholders it leans very much towards non-profit, the countries at least have a major non-profit public insurance company.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Good thinking ! the death penalty is proven to NOT prevent murder - but let's try refusing them the RIGHT to vote, that will make them think twice ! - Historically: even vagrancy (or suspected vagrancy) was used to lock up people, the authorities were never shy about doing that to the poor.
Of course in jail / prison people are even more fed up and they might have time to think. So if they had in theory the possibility to vote before, they might be even more inclined to use it.
First order of the haves and the comfortable:
strip them of their rights and of their vote and dehumanize them.
I mean in the U.S. all people had the right to vote - only in the South it wasn't. - It needed massive demonstrations, political upset, international headlines, the National Guard to get the vote for ALL people.
(and there was massive backlash from pissed off whites, incl. acts of terrorism and bombing churches. Murder of peaceful activists with help of the police, beating up peaceful protesters, harrassing a demonstration of children with police, dogs, water cannons).
And the party that was finally shamed into doing something about it (in 1965 voting rights act) was punished by the white voters of the South by abandoning the party. Before that time the racists were spread out evenly over both parties (with regional clusters no doubt).
After the Civil and Voting Rights Act the Republicans detected they could get racists voters from the Democratic party - so they have specialized in more or less subtle racism ever since.
1
-
Those committee assignments are sought after, maybe it is currency with the lobbyists, or they get extra pay. (And some good people think they can work done for The People). But she gets the salary of 170k before taxes anyway, that is not tied to extra work, and not all members of Congress can get a seat on a comittee.
Of course she would be supposed to read the bills, inform herself, coordinate with other lawmakers, talk to experts even lobbyists (if only to know what they are up to) .....
I am sure there are many lazy members of Congress or Senate that just do and vote as told by party and donors and someone provides them with the lame talking points.
Preparing for interviews, and of course fundraising.
"Working for Trump" is HER fundraising, the big donors will evade her, the party leadership is kinda schizophrenic about her. But if she rides the Trump wave and sucks up tohim she can fundraise for 2022 just fine. She better start now to fill her war chest, who knows what will become of Trump.
He fundraised 600 millions on "stolen election". that super motivated his base because they thought they could turn the election outcome around. His base (that is STILL dedicated to the degree that they donate) may be limited, but if he has 20 million ardent followers. and each of them continues to give let's say 20 bucks. That's 400 more million USD.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am sorry, but that sound like a very "liberal" thing to say. There are mass protests against police brutality. This hasn't just manifested in Jan 2017 (and it goes hand in hand with economic inequality).
Obama could have united the decent part of the country.
690 counties voted for Obama once or twice (2008, 2012) and then went for Trump. On the other hand HRC got less than 5 counties that Obama never won (making inroads with the mythical moderate Republicans).
But Obama was a neoliberal sellout (highly criticized by the other wing of the one and only big donor party. They do have their disagreements even if they serve the same industries often even the same individuals).
So he paved the path for someone like Trump. The country is lucky that Trump is such an idiot. there have been competent right wing authoritarian nationalists in the past that took advantage of the elites messing up the economic prospects for the majority for a long time. If they were smart enough to adopt some populist economic measures they had a blast.
Think Mussolini or Hitler. Or now the dictators in China, until the 1990s the dictators in South Korea, in Taiwan. Even Putin. Western and Russian oligarchs plundered Russia under Yeltsin, the puppet of the West. The army was in disarray (no wages paid), the pensions and wages for publicly owned companies and agencies were not paid. When Putin came into office in 2000 that changed. Many Russians remember that.
Imagine Trump would have been smart enough to push for single payer. Widespread investment in infrastructure. Dams, streets, bridges, ....
While expanding voter suppression, doing the trade wars, pushing for war with Iran / Venezuela, going after migrants and dreamers and enabling the white Supremacists.
But some of the policies would be actually good for the masses.
Imagine a Trump that would have pulled his head out of the sand and handle the crisis more competently.
Biden would not stand a chance in the polls.
The U.S. was lucky that FDR proved to be a left leaning populist. In Europe the right wing dictators made it. Many were or promised to be economic populists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Coordinated nationwide lockdowns are a highly disruptive measure - in a positive and negative sense (the latter for the economy and for the mental health of the population). Disruptive for the CHAINS of infections they are the most effective tool to combat the pandemic as long as we do not have vaccines for all and not even a highly effective treatment drug. See data from the recent lockdowns in Europe: in combination with strategic mass testing * they brought the case numbers down. (after they had unsuccessfully tried - and for too long - to stem the tide with other measures)
Fast regaining conrol - much faster than in spring. To be fair some countries (Germany, Austria for instance) also let it escalate much more than in spring. All the more impressive how fast they got a grip on it - but ONLY with a nationwide lockdown. Curfews, mask wearing, earlier closing hours for bars and restaurants, rules for travellers did not help once the numbers started to snowball. Only lockdown helped at a certain point of escalation.
A kinda sloppy lockdown in some U.S. states while getting the reinfections from states that do not even that is not gonna work.
It is a pandemic = a global epidemic. Each U.S. state doing their own (unwilling, half-baked, poorly financed) thing is not going to combat a global phenomen with high growth rates.
It is like there would be a wildfire (either the threat of it growing to a large event or it is already out of control) and each district or state in California or in Australia would do their own thing. With more or less budgets, convictions and efforts. At some point they might get the military involved (in AUS).
Inconsistent, and compartmentialized is not going to work.
Wildfires and pandemics / epidemics are both phenomens with HIGH GROWTH RATES.
* more discipline in the population and mass testing and contact tracing in place at a large scale and all the time may be the reason why the Asian countries fare so much better. It helps that they are younger on average, but that did not spare Brazil or Iran.
A younger population means lower death rates, but the infection numbers would still be high, and high growth rate at some point beats lower mortality rates. China, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, .... also do not have the high case numbers !
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the Democrats serving big donors cynically chose to run on Trump bad (in 2016, and AGAIN in 2020) and that almost backfired. EC too close for comfort, 4 cliffhanger states with a total of 125,000 more and Biden needed at least 2 of them (WI, PA, AZ and GA). WI and PA should be a homerun, not limping over the finish line.
Obama thought it necessary to run on Hope and Change, and that was a landslide. The racists had to invent birtherism no one cast a doubt on the fact that Obama had won convincingly in 2008.
Biden has 7 million votes more (60 % in NY and 65 in California help with that) - but his win of the EC took too long, he should have wrapped that up on Nov. 4th.
A comfortable lead of 3 - 5 % in (former) blue strongholds (NV, MI and also PA, WI) - that would have shown in the predictions before election day. Biden head a higher lead in the polls (shy Trump supporter is a a thing, they do not admit when called that they vote for Trump).
So a 5 % net win would have shown as leading with 8 - 10 % in the polls before election day. That to would have lowered expectations and would have prepared them for the loss.
Such a comfortable margin also manifests soon ! in the mail ballot count.
Biden limped over the finish line. Slowly expanding his lead to 0.1, 0.2 and 0.4 etc. etc.
Idiot Trump likely would have been a sore loser no matter what - but the grifting Republicans would have seen no point in playing that card. Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley etc.
if the networks had predicted the Biden win on the next day (incl. FOX) based on a projection of the strong showing in the mail ballos, the Trump cultists would have skipped to mourning stage right away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrlpolk tell them that they will get ALLIES in the younger participants. 328 million people will use it. And all will get potentially the SAME treatment. all get something or none. That creates a lot of political leverage (one reason all thepolitical parties in single payer countries support and would not dare attack it. The old will have the internet savvy young on their side fighting for the SAME cause.
The U.S. pays double of what it should pay. Really ! Plenty of opportunities to save money - once the transition phase is over and the backlog has been dealt with (think currently untreated diabetes !)
Healthcare (insurance and practicing medicine) is systems, procedures, protocols. It is not rocket science.
So if Medicare (or any other public insurance agency in another country) cannot help facilitate good care for everyone there can ONLY be 2 reasons for that:
1) not enough budgets - solution is massive political pressure from a population where ALL are in the same boat.
2) lack of good management - that can be easier solved than for consumer products and it shows: all non-profit insurance agencies beat the for-profit insurers in the U.S. (and Switzerland) - it is not even close !
as for 1)
The affluent cannot opt out (no "choice" no public option). If they are mandated to pay a wage / income related contribution (and more than others) they can as well use the Medicare coverage and get treatment free at the point of delivery.
With the Sanders plan the for-profit insurers cannot offer coverage for things that are covered by a very comprehensive improved ! Medicare coverage (duplicative coverage is forbidden). So affluent patients could go to private doctors but they always have to pay out of pocket. Insurance is paying once and be done. It is a psychological deterrent. They will try doctors with contracts with Medicare.
And I cannot imagine hospitals that can afford to not have a Medicare contract. Where I live - Austria - maybe 20 % of the doctor practices have no contract with the agency (often for expensive dental, basic dental is covered, or for specialities like accupuncture).
But there are no hospitals that are for-proft. All hospitals are non-profits, most are run by cities or states, some by religious groups. They all have a contract with the non-profit public insurance agency. There are enough hospitals spread out over the country to take care of the needs of the population, but there are not too many of them. The insurance agency and states and cities see to it that the hospitals complement each other, they do not "compete" (competition and free market does not work with healthcare).
private for profit hospitals could open (but no chains) - but they would have a problem to get enough patients.
Nothing helps with ADEQUATE funding and prudent use of the funding (quality of management) than having the affluent citizens use the same services and getting the SAME treatments and waiting times as the low income people.
Services WILL be good and reasonably / sufficiently funded - if a two class system is discouraged
2) As for the other potential flaw in a system - good management of the resources / budgets (or lack thereof)
That issue can be adressed (and more easily than for other products) and has been very successfully solved in all other countries.
There are several factors that ensure cost-efficiecy and good quality in the absence of the usual "free" market mechanisms (which do not work at all for healthcare).
Even cost-efficient healthcare is expensive (think USD 5,000 - 5,500 per year in a first world nation for every adult and child in the country on average. Versus 10,290 in the U.S. - data 2017 Keiser foundation).
Companies and workers are mandated to pay a modest (= affordable and politcally aceptable) contribution, the rest comes from government funding (often all levels of government).
So all in the country have skin in the game.
It is a service that is very tangible. All populations groups need it and often they feel very vulnerable at that time. So flaws in the system are well noticed. Moreover the population is getting older and medicine has become much more potent but also much more costly. The demands on the system are increasing and it creates a natural push to make good use of the resources.
Other (consumer) products/services are much harder to get right.
Sure the individual treatments and sugeries are complicated but that is what the well trained experts = doctors are for. A company that has good experts - for instance engineers - and a functioning product can still land a major flop and get themselves into trouble. They did not envision the consumer preferences right, their marketing or sales strategy sucks, or there are unexpected technical problems.
(think recall of cars, even Toyota which is well known for quality had to do large scale recalls).
To adminstrate healthcare (a lot of that work is done on the side of non-profit insurers) and to set up a structure for delivery of care (doctor practice or hospital) is actually easier to get right (if you follow the blue print) than providing a consumer service.
the human body has the same medical needs everywhere, consumer preferences do not play a role and people must be not be convinced by skillful marketing to want treatment if they are sick.
There are "blue prints" how to manage a single payer system - and Medicare (Single payer for all over 65 years) functions after all. It is not their fault that they do not get SUFFICIENT FUNDING so they can pay for all that is MEDICALLY WARRANTED. (yes that includes basic dental ! glasses and hearing aides).
Therefore people have to buy upgrade packages.
organizing the insurance for healthcare (* collecing money, negotiating the contracts, paying the bills which are very streamlined, looking out for prevention ) is EASY by comparsion - they just have to follow the
blueprint and keep the clockwork going (see Medicare agency).
All the private insurers do beyond that * does NOTHING to improve the delivery of CARE by doctors and hospitals or to serve the insured better.
The private insurers are those who drown in red tape and show predatory behavior - not the "government
agency". They have hordes of lawyers, beancounters, need the staff to deal with the countless phone calls of doctors, nurses and insured asking for approval of treatments or fight with the insurers so they will agree to pay for something (yes even nurses have to intervene on behalf of the patients - I read a comment of a nurse, she does it a few times per day).
Which of course is waste of time of medical staff - and it does not anything of value. PROTECTION of the PROFITS of the private insurance companies makes it necessary that staff and patients jumpt through many hoops and are constantly frustrated.
It is a lot of work to cherrypick, to deny care and to kick out / harass the insured that are not so profitable.
Before ACA the for-profit insurers purged citizens from the pool if they needed costly treatments. NOW they purge whole companies ! (see a Wendell Potter interview this year - I think it was Chris Hedges On Contact who had him on - or TheRealNewsNetwork).
Let's say an employee or a family member of an employee needs long, costly treatment. They raise the premiums and worsen the conditions for the company plan until the company quits. On the way to it the company and
their staff have to accept higher co-pays, deductible or the plan cannot include family members anymore.
Which is of course an incentive to not hire older people or to fire employees the moment they or a family
member gets seriously ill.
1
-
1
-
@chrlpolk The people who have or soon will get Medicare should make no mistake: the drain on the economy if the highly wasteful for-profit healthcare system is continued WILL also manifest in future cuts of Medicare funding and the quality and range of services Medicare CAN PAY FOR.
Non-profit systems and actors (hospitals, insurance agencies) are ALWAYS much more cost-efficient than the public non-profits. HALF the spending per person (that applies if you compare the U.S. with Germany, Canada, Belgium, Australia, U.K., France, .... - not Thailand and not less wealthy European countries like Poland or Hungary - they have single payers systems as well but play in another league when it comes to wage levels and / or age of the population.)
There is -not one example in the world where private insurance or hospitals (for general care * ) beat the non-profits. Not with costs and not with quality **.
** You have to compare apples with apples of course. Thailand is a developing country - with universal healthcare - but it would not be legitimate to compare them to Germany or Australia. The population is younger, the costs of living / wage levels are much lower (wages are an important cost factor in healthcare), and last but not least the services might be slighly better in the first world countries.
* sure a few prestigious for-profit or private non-profit (foundations) hospitals in the U.S might do ground breaking surgery or treatments. In which case they deserve the profit because they actually bring something to the table (the hospitals ! Never the insurance companies which are glorified paper shufflers). Those prestigious hospitals cannot serve the need of the whole population, they often deal with rare cases and diseases.
For the general population and the healthcare outcomes of the nation (think infant mortality or life expectancy) access to family doctors, preventive care and the quality and funding of the smaller hospitals that deal with the bread and butter issues * are relevant.
* giving birth, care for pregnant women, diabetes, broken bones, fast intervention in the case of strokes, heart attacks severe accidents. Rehabilitation, .... ). A spectacular surgery on conjoined twins makes headlines but does nothing for the healthcare outcomes of the nation. And the skill of that surgeon cannot serve millions of people (even if money is not an issue).
Paying double for an essential and expensive service like healthcare is a huge drain on the national economy.
Wealthy single payer nations typically spend 8 - 11 % of their GDP on healthcare. The U.S. spends 19 % of its GDP. And not even everyone is covered, and there is a backlog of untreated conditions (like diabetes) that will require MORE EXPENSIVE care in the future. It is not only the suffering and preventable deaths - on top it is an economic damage (which does not bother the shareholders of course).
DOUBLE SPENDING per PERSON. Part is wasted on profits, lobbying, marketing, top managment, political donations, and now on fighting against the necessary reform. Lots of ads to bribe Corporate media. A lot of the money is wasted by unproductive work to protect these profits - think purging of unprofitable or less profitable insured and the daily hassle with doctors and patients.
Like I said: it is a lot of work to harrass the patients, make them and doctors jump through hoops and SKILLFULLY deny to give coverage or to pay for treatments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2016 Trump won 3 states (MI, WI and PA) with a total of 70,000 votes, he needed at least 1 of them no matter which one. The Hillary Clinton campaign built on the so called (former) blue wall. Not anymore a blue wall when she narrowly lost them in 2016, and Biden cannot even pull of a decisive win in 2020 (margin for Biden: 0.63 % WI 1.16 % PA - and that is with the pandemic).
At least Biden did win Michigan with an O.K. margin.
HRC would have needed to win all 3 states and would have gotten 273 Electoral votes - embarrassing but she would have won. it was doable with 100,000 more votes in total (to be on the safe side) in the 3 states .
Did I mention this used to be blue territory ??
That is how badly the Dems have treated their traditional base.
TPP for instance. After Nafta and after the Chinese agreement (that was signed by Bush 2 but prepared by the Clinton admin) - what did Obama, his cabinet do ? let the lobbyists write another trade deal and negotiate it with the lobbyists of the EU. Bought and paid for Congress voted (very bipartisan on that issue) to fasttrack the legislation.
Obama and Hillary Clinton lauded it. Clinton backtracked after Trump and Sanders found a lot of resonance with their opposition. HRC then said: She did not know what was in it. Well if that was the case why did she praise it as "the gold standard" before she knew the details:
That is nonsese anyway. Of course SHE could have a copy. Only the citizens, unions, NGO's, environmental groups and consumer rights advocates are kept in the dark.
There is a reason Ohio left the Demcorats - after they had betrayed the voters of Ohio.
Oh and the Flint water stunt of Obama. Gaslighting the core base of the Democrats by drinking half a glas of water and telling them now they were good. That might have cost HRC Michigan in 2016, not that it should ever have been close for her.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He is not even smart enough (and also blinded by his narcissism) to realize that he should not make that test an issue because the bar is so low - in that interview for instance: "I regret that so many people seem to think that Biden outperforms me, frankly I do not agree. But you do not measure the mental capacities of a person by polling ... Now let's talk about my achievements" -
but a person having the mental flexibility for that would have some achievements to talk about, and the rest of the world would not scratch their head, how the heck did a no-nothing idiot with the vocuabulary like an underprivileged teenager get elected. What is wrong with the U.S. electorate ?
What is wong with the Democratic party that forced an alternative on the electorate that was so unpoplar that she was able to lose to Trump ?
Hillary Clinton's 1,5 - 2 % more of the popular vote are nothing to brag about, if you consider whom she ran against, and that she had raised double the money. (Trump's campaign was saved by billionaire Mercer in summer 2016).
Max. 60 % voter turnout are nothing to brag about.
690 counties voted once or twice for Obama - and then for Trump. (Obamas neoliberal policies paved the way for a fake populist - even an idiotic one - but HRC supports the same policies so she deserved to pay the price for what Obama had set up.
If she had believeable adopted populist positions and signalled that, she would have won comfortably. Trump won 3 states with a total of 70,000 votes more - and he needed to win all of them. With more attention to the Rust Belt and the pledge she would not sign TPP - she would at least have pulled off a narrow win.
It was obvious in the 2016 campaign that he was stupid / in mental decline, also when you compare with interviews from 15 years before. he was never very sharp or knowledgeable, so he did not have a high level to decline from - but there is a difference. The same is true for Joe Biden.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sanders said he wanted to be the organizer-in-chief if elected president. Well turns out he is more comfortable with being the eternal educator / underdog / dissenter / kinda movement leader, if they do not really rock the boat - . When a crisis offered a huge chance and he was CALLED (by fate so to speak) - he chose to play nice and safe with the establishment.
Sadly neither Sanders nor the progressives were willing to throw an EARLY fit about the conditions of the stimulus bill. Starting with the fact that it was tied to the handout to big biz.
There was no reason for that, only that Republicans held citizens and small biz hostage.
Someone should have called that out - with exact those words.
It was clear where the "stimulus" bill was headed, when Pelosi insisted on "means testing". Never mind the Republican shenanigans that were even more open and brazen.
So the servants of the corporate overlords "made" the progressives work their behind off that they could "secure" 2 crumbs for the peasants (and a bone) instead of only 1 crumb.
I think that placates also the conscience of the feckless, timid progressives - at least they got a little bit more and they really DID fight (in the wrong arena) and then did some grandstanding on the floor (see AOC) - too late when the vote was imminent, when they could not leverage the only power they really have.
Trump had a problem HE WANTS to win the election, he needed the stimulus bill as well.
Public opinion, people willing to do something. They are scared, all at the same time having the same problem. THAT is the ideal time to organize, because voters have so much motivation. I am sure many voters were just waiting for some leadership to being OFFERED. Instead the feckless progressives played the little game and scrambled to secure crumbs.
How about turning the tables on the servants of big biz (of both parties !). Who also did some grandstanding and window dressing, and then they all arranged for the bailouts and handouts for the big donors, no strings attached.
Strings, means testing, are for smaller biz, and normal people. And THEY shouldn't be spoilt by getting "too much".
Sanders should not have done virtual townhalls or participated in the negotiations of the bill as usual (I guess usually they do not leak the details to the press while they are making the sausage so to speak).
Instead he should have trolled them ALL, the word "general strike" should have been floated ("general strike now or later, or partially, with what we can do now") believe me Corporate media and their overlords would have gone nuts, and Trump would have paid attention.
Of course thy would have called it irresponsible. So what ? That would have been a discussion starter. The negative coverage of Trump did not hurt him -he struck a chord with people.
Sanders and the progressives were on the right side of the issues and there was historic precedence. 1932 - the united left have FDR the leverage for the New Deal. (and frankly nudged FDR - he and the New deal were the lesser evil for the oligarchs then).
Any coverage would have helped the cause.
Sanders should have called a spade a spade, asking voters to call their "representative", asking for civil disobedience. (protests IN CARS to practice social distancing. organizing rent strikes).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Affluent voters or rural folks (who tend to vote red) likely weathered the crisis better. In affluent areas they also get elecrticity back sooner - well, that may have been a mixed blessing, if they had a variable rate.
Some of them likely have some outdoor, hunting experience. Propane gas cooker, etc. They have the space for a gas generator (maybe have one because hurricanes). Camping and BBQ equipment was very helpful too, they often have or can arrange for a fireplace, chimeny, woodstove.
affluent folks likey also have the 4WD vehicles (torsion control) to help with driving and the new cars with the new tires.
They can store food, wood, water (space), and also can insulate their home - it is theirs. Or having solar panels, and batteries. Insulating pipes if the are the outside of the wall or install a heater - of course then you need a generator.
1
-
1
-
In the Golden Era most productivity wins (they come from technology, automation, new marketing and communication methods) landed in the pockets of the workers. Sure inflation was somewhat higher but wage growth BY FAR outpaced that. Purchasing power of average hourly wages in the U.S. almost doubled between 1947 and 1970, that is in 23 years. It was plus 97 % (again that is after inflation). While productivity rose by 112 %.
Hourly average wages adjusted for inflation - economists also call that "real" wages and it means the purchasing power you get from 1 hour of paid work.
The owners and shareholders got a smaller piece of the pie of 112 % average productivity growth (that is across industries) . Still good (it was a large and growing pie and not that many people that are owners). But they had to give the workers the lion's share - and they resented it.
The oil crises of the 1970s meant the oligarchs could - finally ! - hit back after labor and regular folks in the U.S. had a good run for 25 years. and then they started pushing their politicians to pass trade deals that made outsourcing lucrative and safe. And they defanged the unions. So they could pit the domestic workforce against the workforce of poor countries.
Before that the companies needed the domestic workforce and unemployment was not high enough to put pressure on wages (or to refuse to give the raises). If they were not willing to pay the good wages, they were not able to stay in business, and would miss out on the profits that could be made. Some other company would gladly step up.
With the advent of neoliberalism and outsourcing
Even with high employment - like in the 2018 and 2019 - real wages were not going up (not if you factor in inflation). The manufacturing companies that are still in the U.S. will threaten to just leave the country - and politicians made sure they can do that.
Manufacturers only turned their back on the domestic workforce, they still need the domestic consumers. So the permanently low import tariffs make planning easier, they can move the factory and invest the millions. It is not like another admin that is pro labor could raise the tariffs on imports for garments, or plastic products, or shoes. The "free market" advocates made politicians remove all risks for them.
Trump did change tariffs to a degree, but trade wars can last 3 weeks, months or 2 years. So companies will not move production back to the U.S. based on that.
After all the theatrics - NAFTA 2.0 brought very little real improvements. GM closed the factory in Lordstown, they moved - after they had gotten the Trump tax cuts (they also profit from making investments abroad, that is tax deductible).
1
-
1
-
1
-
USD 17 - may be a hefty fine in a developing or emerging countries. Think the equivalent of several hundred or thousand dollars (max) in first world countries. The high fines for serial offenders, I know that they put people in prison at least for a short time in Australia because they were serial offenders. you bet that will be a hefty fine, even if they are not imprisoned for longer time.
Normally people that are such idiots do not have a lot of money, but at least they serve as a warning example. One lady did not like the restrictions and requirement to quarantine after she had gotten a special waiver to fly to another territory in Australia. Well try prison for restrictions, and no fun.
Quarantine (at least of persons that had tested positive) was controlled by police here (Austria). The routine for people that suspect or know that they had contact or if they have symptoms:
They call the hotline, get an appointment for a test right away, do the test often get the result within 20 minutes or max. a few hours, test might be repeated after a few days.
It can happen: first test negative, because it is too soon. and a few days later they test positive.
After the test it depends: they are free to go, or they have to quarantine (just in case, maybe with a repetition of the test. That is covered by paid sick leave btw if they cannot work, either because of the symptoms or because they are well but they cannot work online).
Or they test positve with the first test already. Then they will be included in the stats (case numbers = tested positive and still under quarantine), also paid sick leave of course.
AND randomly the police will control if they are at home. - If they can weather it at home, most people do not need the hospital.
Happened to a friend.
His retired parents have a weekend house nearby where he lives so he left his home to not endanger family. Friends delivered groceries to the doorstep and he has internet there, so he could even work, he had fever in the first few days but nothing dramatic.
It is much harder to observe all the necessary rules of hygiene if the infected lives in a household with other people. Even IF the house is large, they can reserve one bath and toilet only for the infected, etc.
Police showed up unannounced at the regular address of residency. They were told where they could find him, not sure if they bothered, the explanation was convincing.
Now they do random mass testing on a national scale (after another lockdown that has ended on Dec. 6th).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelshigetani433 she had a history of being a staunch anti Iraq war activist. (Which at that time may have been genuine.) Was associated with the Green party, I think she even ran on their ticket once. I think she is a lesbian, that would of course make her a Democrat in AZ (in the past). A progressive lost the primary in 2018 against her, and even though there were some red flags (too much talk about bipartisanship during the campaign) one could have a reasonable expectation she would be a middle of the road Democrat, not too bad, maybe a little better than the average. And certainly better than the Republican in the race.
Meanwhile in Germany: They just voted on Sep 26th, 2021: they have around 7 parties in the race that will get seats in the parliament (more on the ballot, so the Germans have their pick among outsiders and opposition parties).
Sinema - is a brazen and completely shameless sellout. Her brazenness is indeed outstanding, voters did nothing wrong, she is much worse than the usual lot.
Plenty of sellouts and cowards - but most do not have the nerve of Sinema or Manchin.
The bipartisan talk could have been a tactic to win over voters in a red state leaning purple. Affluenct voters that style themselves "moderates": read voters are embarrassed by the current Republican party and vote their economic interest.
I saw a video about racial discrminination in a high end neighbourhood in California. Household income averages 240,000 USD, they voted over 60 % for Trump.
In 2020.
No one runs around with the MAGA hat that would be uncough, they just vote for the guy. Consindering that 1980s style Republican Biden was the other choice on the ticket.
1
-
Details on the choice voters have in other nations, they don't have to pick between one (hopefully not too bad) candidate like Sinema (some red flags in 2018 already) and the awful Republican (which is even worse than Sinema - still after Sinema shows her true colors the alternative to her in the general election would have been worse - only no one expects better). In other democracies voters have options and established parites have competition. In Germany any progressive would have voted for The Left or The Green Party (ahem !), or strategically this time even the Social Democrats.
They vote for parties(and the lists of ranked candidates although that is not legaly binding. If a party wins fewers seats than expected and a candidate got a good position of the list to placate some fringes of the party - they often get shoved to the bottom. Or at least the party establishment tries to do that. The party darlings were placed behind them with the expectation that it would not matter, there would be enough seats for everyone. If that is not the case the concessions to the party fractions (female, environmental, digital natives, younger voters, ....) and the candidates that represent such voters are often obsolete - the knives are out, ....
Well the voters have an option for that, they ALSO and additionally can vote for certain candidates in their districts. Which can alter and shift the results somewhat. There is nothing the party can do. The system does not encourage that the districts vote for certain persons (instead of giving the party a general mandate to appoint the members of parliament).
name recogniton usually does not play a role unless it is for the top positions. Ad spending in campaigns (especially on TV and radio) is strictly limited. So candidates NEED the party / unions OR they have a grassroots organisation. If they have a good candidate and / or a cause that resonates with voters, they can get in, and that can happen within a few years.
There are examples that parties popped up with 4 years. The far right - but also digital natives, and in Germany a center left minority party got one seat. They are excempt from the 5 % hurdle for parties (5 % of the popular vote) because they represent an ethnic minority - Danes ;) in Northern Germany. They often only run in local elections, but this time they participated in federal elections. Occasionally they were (or could have been) the little hinge that swings big doors).
Name recognition CAN help and it is not easy but also not impossible to get it. big money- as in ad spending - cannot derail them. With exception of the newspapers who are still kingmakers to a degree - that goes mostly against The Left, and to a degree against the Social Democrats unless they have a leading candidate (potential chancellor) that is sufficiently in line with the neoliberal economic order, finance, weapons exports, and NATO establishment.
Chancellor Schroeder knew he needed the right wing trashy BILD ("image") to win, they could sway a few percent if they were hostile, and deny him the win. And he undermined labour - what the center right under Changellor Kohl could only dream of getting done (they feared it would help the Social Democrats then in oppostions) - he (with help of a colluding Green Party) could pull it off.
Like it needed Bill Clinton to sideline the unions and get NAFTA passed and the China deal prepared. And he finalized the deregulation of finance, which not even 10 years later led to the crash.
1
-
Sanders said he wanted to be the organizer-in-chief if elected president. Well turns out he is more comfortable with being the eternal educator / underdog / dissenter / kinda movement leader, if they do not really rock the boat - . When a crisis offered a huge chance and he was CALLED (by fate so to speak) - he chose to play nice and safe with the establishment.
Sadly neither Sanders nor the progressives were willing to throw an EARLY fit about the conditions of the stimulus bill. Starting with the fact that it was tied to the handout to big biz.
There was no reason for that, only that Republicans held citizens and small biz hostage.
Someone should have called that out - with exact those words.
It was clear where the "stimulus" bill was headed, when Pelosi insisted on "means testing". Never mind the Republican shenanigans that were even more open and brazen.
So the servants of the corporate overlords "made" the progressives work their behind off that they could "secure" 2 crumbs for the peasants (and a bone) instead of only 1 crumb.
I think that placates also the conscience of the feckless, timid progressives - at least they got a little bit more and they really DID fight (in the wrong arena) and then did some grandstanding on the floor (see AOC) - too late when the vote was imminent, when they could not leverage the only power they really have.
Trump had a problem HE WANTS to win the election, he needed the stimulus bill as well.
Public opinion, people willing to do something. They are scared, all at the same time having the same problem. THAT is the ideal time to organize, because voters have so much motivation. I am sure many voters were just waiting for some leadership to being OFFERED. Instead the feckless progressives played the little game and scrambled to secure crumbs.
How about turning the tables on the servants of big biz (of both parties !). Who also did some grandstanding and window dressing, and then they all arranged for the bailouts and handouts for the big donors, no strings attached.
Strings, means testing, are for smaller biz, and normal people. And THEY shouldn't be spoilt by getting "too much".
Sanders should not have done virtual townhalls or participated in the negotiations of the bill as usual (I guess usually they do not leak the details to the press while they are making the sausage so to speak).
Instead he should have trolled them ALL, the word "general strike" should have been floated ("general strike now or later, or partially, with what we can do now") believe me Corporate media and their overlords would have gone nuts, and Trump would have paid attention.
Of course thy would have called it irresponsible. So what ? That would have been a discussion starter. The negative coverage of Trump did not hurt him -he struck a chord with people.
Sanders and the progressives were on the right side of the issues and there was historic precedence. 1932 - the united left have FDR the leverage for the New Deal. (and frankly nudged FDR - he and the New deal were the lesser evil for the oligarchs then).
Any coverage would have helped the cause.
Sanders should have called a spade a spade, asking voters to call their "representative", asking for civil disobedience. (protests IN CARS to practice social distancing. organizing rent strikes).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lincoln D a few thousands ? for ONE special * treatment in the U.K. - TRY a few thousand for EVERYTHING in the U.S. before your insurance kicks in.
* which you might get for free on the continent, if need be you could get a job in Germany, Netherlands, Denmark or France or Sweden and work there for a few months to get that - well before Brexit.
A few thousand USD is the default deductible in many U.S. plans. If your income is low enough that you cannot afford the out of pocket spending for THIS treatment in the U.K - you would likely have one of those plans with at least 5,000 USD deductible if you lived in the U.S. A plan with better conditions would be too expensive so you would have to take a gamble and hope you are not one of the unlucky ones that get hit by it.
And if your employer even offers coverage (the number of employers that do goes down every year) there is a chance it is not good or gets worse every year. Employers change the plans at will (often forced by price increases or to save money, and every time the conditions, co-pais the "network" changes).
To the point that smaller companies would rather fire people if they or their family members need costly treatments (especially ongoing).
The insuers now "blacklist" such companies. They either end the contract or they send them a new contract with inferior conditions, the contracts are valid for ONE year. . Some companies accept the worse conditions for all of staff because one staff member costs the insurance more money than the statistical average (or a family member gets expensive medication, etc.). Then it might mean they cancel the insurance coverage for family members, only staff members are covered from now on.
Or another typical "adjustment" to keep costs acceptable for companies is to have higher co-pays and deductibles. A company insurance plan does not mean you get services "free at the point of delivery". And heaven forbid the ambulance brings you to the "wrong" hospital while you are unconsious. An Out of Network hospital for your plan. They will slap you with a bill. It can change every year what is in and out of network (even IF the conpany stays with the same insurer), so consumers can easily go into that cost trap as well.
Going to the right hospital can also mean a longer drive. Danger of medical complications because of delay, but also the costs for the ambulance. You guessed it; ambulance drives are often also not included, even in decent plans, and they cost money. Easily 1000 USD if the transport is longer.
A mayor of a small town said she had to cancel insurance for family members, they could not afford anymore to have family of their staff on the plan as well. Likely they had a costly event and reacted with a drastic price incrase for the town employees. The small hospital in town closed. They have a program for low income persons in the U.S, but if most patients in low income , rural areas have it, the rates are not sufficient (they might be good enough for a smaller rural NHS hospital, but not sufficient in the U.S. for-profit hopspital system.
All hospitals have to finance a highly complicated system of billing (software and especially trained staff) even for the relatively few parients that have good contracts that they can "milk" in poor area. That and the profits for shareholders and marketing and sales staff costs extra money. Drugs are also much more expensive.)
If the employer accepts a downgraded contract - for instance staff only, no more family members covered (the staff has no say in that) the citizens have to buy insurance for family from the "marketplace". Under ACA - hello high deductibles.
Not many jobs offer good and comprehensive coverage as benefit (and if you work in a comparable good job in the UK you CAN afford a few thousand). If you work service sector in the U.K. you get much better healthcare coverage by default and treatment "free at the point of service" than the other regular folks in the U.S. - low income to lower middle class.
The deductible does not mean only a once in a lifetime expenditure for a treatment that does not seem to be mainstream but for everything, even the most basic generic medical treatments. A deductible of 8,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 USD means you have to pay ot of pocket every year again until the "insurance" finally kicks in. That screws especially people with chronic conditions that need ongoing medication or treatments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Dems and Repubs serve the same big donors. A few brazen Republican Lite defectors have always defended the interests of the big donors, when the voters had given the Democrats too much power, so they would have run out of excuses why they did not deliver for the constituents.
That is the reason the defectors are gladly tolerated, even if they occasionally take it that far that they undermine the presdent when he REALLY wants to get something done. Or a very popular campaign promise (the public option).
No one steps on their toes. They come either from red states or are very well established, or represent a small state with a lot of affluent voters.They have 6 year terms, so they can easily risk to sell out the regular people.
Manchin and the 2 others cost their collegues in the 2014 midterms and one could argue that with a stimulus package passed in Nov. 2013 (just in time to show some effect for the midterms 2014) the Rustbelt states would have voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
She snatched defeat from the jaws of victory to be sure, but that is an additional reason for the D own goal.
She needed WI, MI, and PA (as she lost Florida by 1.2 % and Ohio by 8 %) - and Trump to everybody's surprise won all 3 (and needed only one of them, no matter which one).
But the margin in favor of Trump was 70,000 votes in ALL 3 states. With all 3 states called for Hillary Clinton (so 70,000 votes - and then a few more to avoid a Florida 2000 scenario - in the other direction) SHE would have won. With 273 Electoral Votes. Not impressive, but she would have won.
"We did not have the votes to get a bill passed" often means: The blue dogs took one for the team. Of course this was not in the middle of a depression in most cases, and in the past it was easier for mainstream media to control the narrative for them.
Republicans misbehaving (for instance under Obama, or now) is intentionally conflated with them hindering the Dems from getting things done. If letting the Repubs participate is presented as necessary; they (both big donor serving parties) can always water down the D proposals and the Republicans play the role of the bad cops.
The Democrats have someone to blame. No one talks about why Dems do not eagerly go for passing bills with a simple majority. (at least not in the past). Which they CAN DO with a simple rule change with 51 votes (no more filibuster).
Obama let the Republicans "negotiate" (in bad faith) regarding healthcare reform and after 1 year of a lot of watering down by Republicans and removing a lot of regulations that would have helped with cost control - not ONE of the Republicans voted for ACA anyway.
It should be mentionen that some blue dogs too worked openly to proetct the big donors. Some "Democrats" in the Senate killed the public option that was a campaign promise of Obama.
Obama did not invite the blue dogs to the White House to "discuss" this (FDR would have twisted arms).
The Democrats then passed ACA with NO R votes in spring 2010 during a filibuster proof window of 60 days (R Senators retiring or something like that), they could have passed ANY bill. The Democratic votes were enough (and they should have had a few others bills ready on the shelf).
They let the Repubs make the (not too good origianl proposal) much worse and gave them enough time to fearmonger and deceive the public.
Remember death panels ?
In the end the D candidates that were up for election in Nov. 2010 ran from the health insurance reform and distanced themselves from Obama when they were in a purple state. One in Tx did not want to say if she had voted for Obama.
voters do not appreciate cowards.
Midterms went badly and then the Dems REALLY had it hard to get anything done (that would be good for voters. They found the Repubs cooperative with some issues. Military spending, Patriot Act, subsidies for big biz. And trade deals.
Obama made the Bush era tax cuts permanent.
Did Repubs reciprocate for that. Of course not.
I am not even sure the Democratic establishment and Obama regretted losing the midterms 2010 and not having all 3 branches of government anymore.
Good shills that lost the election, but were useful for the big donors will get a golden parachute. If Republcians hold either congress or Senate Dems can complain that Repubs do not let them do anything.
That is the base for their demand of the base to vote for them and to fall in line. So that they can do a little more for the voters in the future. Or so they say ....
Next round in the game of Fool The Sheeple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronjohnson4678 It's a good post - but can you edit it with a few paragraphes ? would make it much easier to read. - as for the wood planting program, that turned out to be one of FDR's most popular programs. they wanted to invest into infrastructure, but that takes time for planning. FDR was always for trying out things and implementing them fast, they could always tweak, correct or end the experiment.
The forests had been ravaged (droughts of the 1930s). so unmarried men were under the leadership of fmr military officers and did logging and planting.
The family men stayed in civilization and had less competition for jobs.
Some pale city slickers got a work out, fresh air and sun. and potentially also better food. Also: the devil has always work for idle hands as the saying goes. I guess their families were glad they were gone where they could not get into grouble with law enforcement (this was the time of prohibition, the mob, so jobless young men were often recruited by them), and they likely could not get a young lady pregnant either.
The families of these young men likely were glad they had an income, more space at home while they were away, and kept out of trouble. That improvised program was very popular.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I currently live in a country (Austria) that has doubled down on a strict measures recently : Loosening of masks mandate was reversed beginning July I think. That was to deal with some mass break outs, but it looked good. And the numbers were low, despite some clusters here and there. Mid June to August looked good in most European countries, so they allowed travel and tourism bounced back - but I think that set them up for the wave of fall. First bad signs end of August, but then it grew from a low level, so there was some hope it could be contained.
Then shorter hours for night bars and restaurants, then a lockdown Lite (but fewer kinds of shops and businesses closed and schools stayed open, so less severe than in spring), and then the very recent emergency measures that will end soon. They shut down again all non-essential businesses and shops and schools (but emergency services if parents have to work).
And now also a curfew from 8 pm to 5 or 6 am, but you can leave the house to take a walk, or to jog, and of course for necessary trips (commute, visiting relatives that need help) - with the curfew they can outlaw gatherings of more people after 8 pm.
It worked the R(eff) numbers are now down from the record of 1.5 (that means 50 % growth, and sadly growth at a high level of case numbers) to approx. 0.9 so the number of cases is finally dropping.
Last time I checked intense care units had 40 % free capacity. So worrying, and record level in Austria, but not yet catastrophic (like Italy in spring !). That situation improved and will continue to improve.
You can assume that 1 % of diagnosed cases (positive test) will die (other countries have 1.5 % sometimes 2 % or even more if they are in bad shape) Somewhere between 1 - 2 % seems a realistic number for most first world countries - I checked out several nations, it depends how they test, and some nations got a lot of their deaths in spring so that may also skew the numbers because testing was not fully deployed.
Here they plan to reopen on Dec. 6th and to save the Christmas shopping season - and to have mass testings for approx. 65 % of the population (voluntary). So right after the shutdown they will try to catch as many infected as possible. These persons should be able to leave quarantine just before Christmas :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
Death-by-a-thousand-cuts voters suppression strategies diliegently and consistently put in place over many years. All of that could be undone in one swoop if voters use mail ballots a lot. Plus: there is a paper trail - in case there are voting machines in place w/o backup with processes that on principle cannot be audited. It used to be in Ohio and parts of Texas.
Voting by mail also makes elections cheaper, especially in rural areas.
Drawing attention to that form of voting and making it widespread may have been the secret blessing of the pandemic. It was necessary for safety reason - but not wonder Republican politicians and president reject freaked out and badmouthed it.
In Georgia they introduced mail by vote years ago (and committed AA voters avoided it for fear of their vote being stolen or disappeared). GA had generous mail by vote laws as long as they thought that would help with Republican turnout. But in 2018 when Stacy Abrams almost won they freaked out already. Now they are in full swing of voter suppression.
There are lots of sneaky measures to put the less wealthy on a disadvantage when it comes to voting. (Note: Democrats also do not want them to vote - in primaries !) Republicans have worked SO HARD to put them all in place, they shave off a little here and there, in the end 0.1 - 0.5 % is enough to win elections (or 537 in Florida in 2000) even if that advantage is the result of 10 different voters suppression strategies, that have to be diligently ! and consistently ! carried out.
Mail ballot undermines all these strategies very easily. If people get used to it, they also do not fall for the typical blunders. Not signing on the outside, or if your state demands the signature of a witness.
If you have been secretly purged from the rolls under the assumption that you had voted in another state last time (nope that was a person with the same name). Then you ask for your mail ballot to be sent (or better it is possible to do that online), that will become obvious.
Then you can at least prove that there are people (dead or alive) who happens to have the same name, sometimes even the same birth date, but they are different people. Or you are "not on the ballot" because of a mistaken purchase. Democratic primary in New York in 2016.
40 % of people of Korean descent have the last name "Kim".
African Americans often got the names of their plantation or slave holding family. Therefore the name base for AA is not nearly as diverse as for people of European descent (Italian, French, Czech, Polish, English, German; Spanish .... names).
There will be more people with the same name among black and brown people. Especailly if the country has 330 million people.
Republicans let tax payers pay for the lawsuits when they are challenged by NGO's and the work of voter disenfranchisement is done by people that get their salary from the taxpayer. Sure it is an ongoing effort - but they get paid for it and if pays off in electoral wins, so why not.
It is hard to register, easy to become the victim of a very targeted purge, it is harder for people who do not have a passport (can't afford international travel) and do not have a driver's licence (young, poor, elderly while low income).
it is a hassle if you come from another state and there is a tiny difference between SS data and driver's licence.
They can close down polling stations and / or allocate voting machines to the low income areas. That way one can plan for loooong waiting times for the people that they do not want to vote.
Who do not have white collar jobs and often less flexibility to come later one day. Nor can they afford the babysitter because they are gong to vote and that can take anywhere from 1 - 5 hours.
And it does help if elections are on a work day. In combination with having 1 - 2 hours waiting time - that can suppress 0.2 or 0.3 % of the total vote.
To be fair more often that not Democrats do not give the voters much to vote for and the experience of having waited long LAST TIME (and the only mild motivation to make such sacrifices) is an effective deterrent. Let's say another 0.1 - 0.2 % of avoided votes for Democrats.
1
-
Democrats * are financed by the SAME big donors as Republicans (certainly industries, often companies or even individuals). They are _paid to win primaries against New Deal type_s - and there they use the same voters suppression tactics as Republicans if challenged by a grassroots candidate (not as widespread, maybe not quite as brazen most of the time - but they do.
* well, most of them, and not all fully, they are not as much beholden to the big donors, but it is bad enough
The D establishment and big donor candidates get remarkably resourceful and put up a spirited if sneaky fight. One would not know they have it in them, if you only watch them interact with Republican competition.
Just in case you have ever wondered about the deafening silence in the past, let's say the last 20 years. Some complaining about voter ID laws, but crickets on hackable voting machines or election results that on principle cannot be verified.
Or Operation Crosscheck of 2016, Greg Palast contacted the DNC, the Sanders campaign, I am sure offered the story to the "liberal" outletsand would have pleased to appear.
No one would violate "decorum" to question the integrity of U.S. elections. Greg Palast is a long time investigative journalist, got noticed with his reporting on Florida 2000, but was reporting on the (nuclear) energy industry before. He is not a wild quack, so WHY was HE so widely ignored in 2016 - a database of millions of "ethnic" names of 16 R run states with voters who happened to have similar or same names and had voted in past elections.
Republicans insinuated the crime of double voting in the past (A person with a certain name had voted in the same election twice. Must have been double voting, sometimes defying the laws of time and space. Could't possibly be that in a country with 330 million people some persons share the same name in the same or one of the other 49 states. They did not use the birth date to differentiate between the entries, which is odd because that would have drastically reduced the number of "suspicious" case. There have been cases where a person had the same name - think some Robert Brown or Mary King or another generic name and they even had the same birth date. But such coincidences are rarer. That would not have produced more than a million names ready for purge.
Republicans did not prosecute they were very secretive about the operation and also did not include D run states in the effort to find the alleged criminals - no, they just intended to purge them.
Greg Palast is well known for his work on election integrity in the past, someone leaked the database to him. There are some coders that have to work on such aprogram, it is not hard to make a copy, and one of them was obviously not O.K. with it.
So it is all the more astonishing how much he was ignored in 2016. Not even the Sanders campaign dared to go there, so I suspect there must be strong pressure to not go as far as openly and boldly call the Republicans stealers of election.
Well, Trump has readjusted the norms - also in that resepct. And Dems will hopefully abandon the stance of sophisticated fecklessness now.
Stacy Abrams was a pleasant surprise, she acknowledged that Kemp would become govenor, but she did not concede. Usually Democrats are supposed to roll over with a whimper when an election was stolen from them. Also surprising: that Corporate media even reported, that she was given some airtime on national TV. The anti Trump sentiment, the desire for a Blue Wave in 2018 was strong enough, the "liberal" networks wanted Dems to have a strong 2018 midterm outcome, and a Democrat winning the govenor race of GA would have been a welcome addition.
Likewise in 2020 Biden and the Democratic establishment wanted enough to win and they knew only with mail ballot he could turn out the Democratic base (that took the infection risks more seriously) in sufficient numbers. it was way to close for comfort anyway, it came down to a total of 43,200 votes in 3 states (AZ, GA and WI) and Biden needed to win at least ! one of them. If we take PA for granted - which was the 4th state that took so long to call, but at least Biden won there with 1.2 % margin. But PA alone of the 4 nail biter states was not enough. Biden needed 2 out of the 4 in any combination - or Trump would be in charge.
I think they have an inkling that mail ballot could be crucial in the future to be able to win the general while the Republican party drops all pretext - so they are not at least giving it an effort to pass HR1 of 2021. And R voter suppression tactics are getting a lot of attention on mainstream media now. Good !
The big donors do not want the masses to be alerted, their Democrats are not supposed to rock the boat - at least that was the rule of decorum in the past. Sure in the general (especially in the House and Senate or state legislature races) they might lose against Republicans that play the same game at the next level. BUT: in the large scheme of things NOTHING is as important as pleasing the donors (and keeping their money coming in for the party & the chance intact to get a cushy job for obedient ex politicians).
Not even winning the general is as important as pleasing the big donors.
The job of Corporate Democrats is to eliminate candidates in the primaries that would put the interests of The People over the interests and profits of the big donors.
For the big donors it is the same if they have a spineless opportunistic Democrat or a Republican that is a fierce ideologue. It is important that the voters are restricted to not really having a choice, either candidate will be beholden to the big donors, and a back and forth of power gives the voters the illusion of difference.
I am painting with a broad brush, many Democrats are better than that - but there are always enough Manchin and Lieberman types that side with Republicans to derail the efforts of the decent crowd, that would serve the voters better. But even the better Democrats have to stay within the limits set by big money and the party "leadership" protecting the intersts of the big donros.
In 2006 the DCCC under Rahm Emanuel saw a Blue Wave coming - and they and big finance pushed Wallstreet Democrats in the primaries.(as if they had an inkling the bubble would burst and they would need their devoted support in the House
1
-
She won the primary with 44 % and approx. 44,000 votes and the next best R had 23 %. That was the first round with 9 candidates. She won then the primary runoff with 57 %. That would have been the time to kick her off the ticket. Thankfully Republicans (also in Georgia) are cowards / craven opportunists. She will not vote differently than a normie Republican (they are all useless), so no damage in that regard for Democrats and she cannot take a gun to the floor.
But she is going to damage the Republicans in Georgia and on the national level, activate the D voters there, eventually she is going to crack or slip up.
It is an attractive district, solidly red, that is why 9 run in the primaries. her online game likely helped her to fundraise, to leverage up her message. She started running in another district, but switched when the incumbent of GA 14 retired (it is a safer seat. A halfway decent R would keep that seat for life, if he / she wants to).
She built her fan base with inflammatory videos, before she ran for office. For instance when she harrassed David Hog (survivor of Parkland shooting) on his way to testify in Congress. Alex Jones style clickbaiting / grandstanding.
She won the general with almost 75 %. It is a solidly red district, and the Democrat that run against her dropped out, they had another Democrat in the race then, but he got only 25 %.
The GA Republican state party knew she is nuts, or at least some realized it: I wonder if they could be bothered to check her out when they accepted her as candidate in the primary. Probably, her opponents must have googled her (opposition research) BUT I guess the order was not to anger HER base.
The 2 Republicans that run for Senate both courted her for her endorsement once she had won the primary. - good thing those 2 are gone. I'll trade their lossess gladly for the new Congress woman. She is so out there that it is better she is in the spotlight. And she will damage the Republicans, while the 2 new D Senators are crucial for the Democrats to score (hello, midterms 2022)
The new D Senators from Georgia have 6 years to build and cement the support from their base, it is easier than for members of Congress that have only 2 year terms.
The state party kept silent, especially since they were a little worried about Biden and the Senate races.
:) - they could as well have done the right thing :)
They did not want to draw attention to the fact that a moron had won the pimary for GA 14 and was set to win the Congress seat in the general. I assume most voters that are in the R camp vote R by default and local news or Fox are not going to inform them. Not sure if "liberal" media picked up on her after the primary, the Independent media for sure did.
I guess the state party could have refused to nominate her. But Georgia Republicans did not want to infuriate the Trump crowd, Moronic Marjorie is just what the Trump cult likes. Like I said: they were a little worried Biden and the D Senate candidates could do well in their state.
Legally speaking: Primaries are NOT an election, they are a selection process of private organizations. They can promise the base it is a democratic process and then override the will of the base, or rig it covertly w/o consequences
(See court ruling when Sanders supporters sued the DNC to return donations, because the DNC rigged the primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton and acitvely tried to keep the campaigns of O'Malley and Sanders down).
1
-
Lincoln D FAST mass rollout would be done like the other FAST mass vaccination progams of the past. Would need some budgets of course. and some intelligent adming. Also offering the producers money (purchasing the doses) that allow them to invest into the manufacturing plants.
Only they did not have the tools of computers, databases and smartphone apps when they managed to vaccinate a lot of people in very srot time (such schemes usually included that not only docotrs but also nurses and even trained lay persons could give the shots. All healthy young people line up to get the shot from the trained soldier or social worker.
The babies and people with preexisitng conditions or if there are any questions are getting the shots from doctors. Ideally most questions are settled already in online counseling or with help of a telephone helpline (staffed with doctors, if need be they could hire retired doctors and nurses for that, they can work form home so no exposure for them).
People get a QR code on their smartphone, or at their desktop computer. The digitally challenged are instructed to write it in orderly ! neatly spaced letters down on a blank sheet of paper. (so the QR code would be displayed as a structured series of numbers. People can get that read out loud (robotic voice) so they can double check once they have written it down.
Very few would show up with only the SS number. (the QR code can contain additional info for instance the date of appointment, or if a 50 % dose - young and healthy - is enough for them. Or if they have any risk factors. That speeds up things at the vaccination site). The mass vaccination site would have a scanner to provide them with their print based on their written note.
staff with scanners can easily keep track of everyone that has registered to get a vaccine and did come (or not). And then enter all that got it (in some cases it might not be deemed safe). Speaking of lines, people could get an appointment (show up between 1 and 2 pm). That could be updated online so people see that they can come 30 minutes earlier (if they can make it) or there is a delay of 2 hours, their group is delayed. That would prevent having lines.
I do not know how the nations handle the admin (I am not in a risk group) but that would be a workable scenario. And if this would be about war spending they could find the budgets and manpower for it, no problem.
If the authorities have the vacciness, getting people vaccinated fast and in high numbers should not be a problem at all. They did it in the past with much more primitive and time consuming tools of adminstration / keeping files.
It's been a while since the UK ploughed throuth the blitz and WW2, clearly they had a more competent government then. And maybe also a more cooperative population.
1
-
Biasannd tribalism beats intelligence most of the time - they are supported by much older parts of the brain. That is ALSO the case for all other humans incl. "liberals" and lefties. Just have a discussion with hardcore Hillary Clinton supporters. The hubris of her tone deaf 2016 campaign is a proof for that, too.
Those experienced, highly paid people were unable to read the signs on the wall. Michael Moore got it - he had his ear on the ground and his future lucrative contracts did not depend on ignoring the plight of the masses so his conscience would not bother him.
Once you must ignore part of reality to have peace of mind while pursuing your selfish interests you by necessity lose contact with reality to some degree. One cannot ignore reality that selectively. Fooling yourself in some areas spills over. Clinton could in all seriousness enthusiastically be for TPP. Bush1 could not get NAFTA passed, but her husband could fool and trick the unions (he needed them initially to get elected). She must have noticed that. Then she could watch live the devastation caused by NAFTA also in Mexico. Followed by the desaster of the Chinese tariff agreements. Around 1 million plants closed in the U.S. ! after that was pulled off. So in what alternative universe would a person allegedly for the little people and the workers be pro TPP ?
She could not square her service for the big donors with the sales pitch to the voters. Later her strategists told her it would sell better if she would declare to be against TPP - she could watch that with Sanders and Trump - so she followed that. Not that the voters were fooled by it. But I think SHE and her consultants really thought the masses would buy that marketing gag. The double think they have to pull off (we claim to be for the little people PLUS what we really do is to work for the Big Donors) messes with their judgement.
people can do that doublethink for many selfish reasons - not only for financial gains. Racial and other prejudice can be very satisfying for the ego. Being judgemental, keeping some people out and BELOW, messing with the rights and freedoms of other people (like the abortion debate or gay marriage, or drug use).
More people join the scapegoating EXCLUDING crowd if they think there is not enough for eveybody (which is a result of neoliberal economic policies since the 80s). Wanting borders and insider/outsider gropus is a personality trait. People that did not have a loving upbringing are more prone to being spiteful and willing to scapegoating.
People need to improve their EQ. that is not a subject that can be taught in school - if anything that could be TAUGHT by the example of parents and teachers. In the meantime government should make sure the economy works for everyone, that parents do not need to work so long hours, that there are after school activities so that children and teenagers are supervised.
They would need to give reasonable, decisive help and support for underprivileged communities (it is not only about money !! prison reform, drug reform, gentrification, ... school reform, fighting addiction, reforming foster care, etc. - it would be an ambitious 15 year program to turn things around).
We can assume there will always be a group of deplorable. When the economy works for everyone and crime rates are low etc. - it is possible to shut these people up (the whites that resisted the Civil Rights Movement in the south were not under economic distress - they were just plain racists).
1
-
Yep, Amazon would have delayed negotiations, fought the result for years (they can stall a lot and they can afford the lawyers) and then closed shop and opened trhe warehouse elsewhere. Only the Biden admin signalling that they will step on their toes big time if they try to pull that move might have made a difference. Or even better: promising Bessemer other jobs and an employment program IF Amazon leaves AND announcing it will have consequences for Amazon (or Walmart or any company that pulls such a move).
The wife of the govenor of AR - Hillary Clinton - was at the board of Walmart. That was cheap. True, the govenor of AR has a measly salary. That is expensive for the voters.
Amazon (but also Walmart) are so large that they can do that (and afford the costs) never mind that they will blackmail (and find) other politicians that give them a lot of tax dollars to compensate them for the move. It is even worse with Amazon, Walmart at least has to be close enough to the consumers.
But Amazon can punish Bessemer. The whole city ! - they used to have steel but the city has lost a lot of jobs, so NOW Amazon is the biggest employer in town - and can DICTATE the conditions. No doubt local politicians collude willingly with them.
See how a governor threatened the VW plant workers a few years ago IF they would vote to unionize, he told them that the state would withold subsidies for VW in that case. so that VW would have an incentive to go elsewhere. (he did not say that part out loud, but the threat to withhold subsidies IF they would unionize was a clear statement. Let that sink in a politician in a poor red state that needs the working class to get elected. It is possible that ).
I must say the European voters are not quite as subservient, no matter the mindset of a politician in Europe they would not dare to be so oppen in their contempt for blue collars and about the level of collusion with big biz.
Walmart closes shops when they cannot prevent unionzation. In Canada, too mind you. And there they came back after a while to resume biz, wouldn't want to give up a good spot, would we ?
Now in Europe the competition of a large retail chain would be ecstatic, they would be pleased to take that biz. Not in the U.S. or Canada where obviously competition in retail has been reduced to a degree that they can close the shop just for the heck of it - and to make a point how they will crush worker's representation.
In Europe they would also be dragged for that move (also by media).
That is why retail - and Amazon - is unionized in Europe (resp. they have elected worker's boards). While Bessemer was voting down the union, some Italian distribution centers had just finished a short strike to enforce better conditions (time for hygiene because of CoVid-19. Amazon did not need long ! to give in, they did not want the bad press and missing out on biz. And taking CoVid19 not seriously does not fly in Italy, not after what they went through in spring 2020). I know that German warehouses discussed (or had) strikes in the busiest time (before Christmas) a few years ago.
Certain employment practices do not fly either. Like the idea with robots prompting the workers all the time, the pace is also very high there, but they cannot make humans part of the robotic chain, where the humans become cogs. Or people show up to work and then they are told whether or not they are needed. And on the other hand 10 hour shifts.
That too does not even make sense from a biz perspective, productivity goes even down after 8 hours and certainly after 10 hours with an intense pace. people can grind for a while or a season, but if that is ongoing they are worn out. Well, that is when Amazon spits them out.
There must be some psychopathy going on and a certain mindset be cultivated. if it is even against business interests to show and express their contempt for the working people that much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jnb756 to be fair Dems also do some riling up (see Russia, Russia stole our election) but Dems are mild compared to the animosity cultivated by Repubs. Repbulicans are fierce and take no prisoers when they have majorities, and expect Democrats to roll over when they have a mandate. Sadly Dems (the spineless opportunists) often go along.
There is much more hostility from one side than the other. The monster got a life of its own: owning the libs became almost a policy.
I read a story of a town in the South and some scandal intrigue in their fairly fundamentalistic church. The new pastor (hired as aide) tried to get the job of the established pastor and spead romours that he was "too liberal". The poster then was very connected to the church and considered the pastor to be a friend, so he started to ask friends, what they had heard.
It was never specified what too liberal meant - and his source could not tell him any specific accusations. He added: In our church that is a kiss of death.
See The Victory Channel (Jan 8th, upload: Trump will have a second term he is god's chosen one, Biden is the toll of the devil / evil):
Republicans have started courting Evangelicals also in the 1980s (before they were not nearly as in your face religous and had reasonable views on abortion. Or guns. Some did not like abortion, but disliked the outcomes of backalley abortions even more. A Republican would not dare say that today ).
so the disgust / hate / contempt was cultivated, it was part of the stratagy to rile up people. Winning is everything, and it helped them to win - with fringe groups.
But you have to increase the dose if your strategy is based on negativity, exclusion, adversity, and contempt.
Now what they gladly tolerated (also against Obama) because it was politically convenient, starts to backfire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iyeball7792 Trump wants issues to rile up the base in the hope they will overlook his completely inept handling of the crisis. Wearing masks has become one of the wedge issues. He is too cowardly to openly say: "Do not wear one, refuse to."
Trump seems to be sufficiently intimidated by the expertise and reputation of Dr. Fauci, or at least by the polling that he enjoys a lot of trust in the population despite the underhanded attacks by the admin. Trump let his stooges (Peter Navarro and do the work, to have plausible deniability.
enough that he did not fire him, even though Dr. Fauci has publicly if politely contradicted Trump).
But Trump is all over the place instead of leading by example. Most importantly: He is too vain to wear one. If he had done that and early on he could have united the country and shown leadership (as soon as the agencies recommended wearing one, which they did AFTER they were sure they had enough for medical staff).
Trump must not tell his base to refuse to wear masks, and do make that about their fREedOm he makes the half baked contradictory uncommitted comments, his cabinet does the rest of the heavy lifting to rile up the base. Boom.
What should be a scientifict question (and we learn as we gather more information, the novel coronavirus is unchartered territory) has become an ideological question and an expression of identity, ....
the virus does not care about party affiliation.
I would not mind Trump fans being infected at much higher rates if they chose to be cavalier. But: they spread it in the community. To other people. To family and friends and co-workers that are not willfully ignorant and eager to be controversial (on THAT issue, no less).
Last but not least: essential workers and even more so all medical staff (doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, ...) have higher risks. It is not only catching the virus, or not. It is about virus load. How much you catch. And time of exposure. Low level exposure over long time, while being overworked and sleep deprived (not good for the immune system).
There is a chance that pregnancy is also a risk factor. So pregnant young healthy healthcare workers died. Not all of them are spring chickens. Think age 40, 50 .... so higher risks to get it and to have severe or very severe symptoms. Not all that survive to wall aferwards, some have lung damage, young people get blood clots, they get diabetes 1, ....
They are longer time in buildings with higher load, they have ventilation in those buildings (that moves that around, that is how whole choires or bars got infected) and they have the looooong time of exposure.
Wearing PPE does fail, it also failed with ebola and you bet they were super cautious with that. But it is hard to wear all day every day (nothing like shoppers for 30 minutes), you have to stick to a "protocol " when you change out of it when you had high exposure - I assume there most of the accidents happen. Being stressed and overworked does not help with being super aware and cautious all the time.
If you contribute to the pandemic spreading even more - even if YOU recover well and at home - there is a good chance that you spread it to more people, if you do not wear masks. Not even for a short time.
If infection nubmers are high enough it will inevitably hit vulnerable people, and medical staff is at the top of that pyramide and not in a good way (and meat plant workers).
Remember that long before that crisis many professionals had to wear a mask in their line of work for a whole shifts. If they were lucky only the simple ones that we are supposed to wear now (those that give more protection when you work in construction, or remove asbestos are more uncomfortable to wear. But the workers MUST wear them or they have considerable risks).
Surgeons and nurses assisting them. Medial staff occasonally (in some departments or with some patients). Staff in the food industry or when sorting garbabe. Farm workers working in those overcrowded chicken stables with the terrible stink and bad air (from the concentrated poop, the germs because of the terrible unhygienic condition of the birds - the mask is the least of their discomfort).
But we see adult middle aged persons (interestingly often women) throwing tantrums like toddlers if retail staff or fellow shoppers ask them to wear a mask to support the common effort: to get a grip on the spread of the virus, and to protect others.
1
-
@iyeball7792 The other issue that is glaringly obvious: Trump wants to escalate, it is supposed to help him get reelected. Either violence on the ground, or at least creating division, controversy and propaganda (with help of Fox and the rightwing outlets. If it bleeds, it leads). His goal is to create a narrative of Us Versus Them - and him as tough leader.
Federal government should have stepped up to handle the pandemic. Trump and his cabinet refused, they still refuse to have a coordinated response, acooperation between federal and state government (all states - he instead dunked on the "blue" states in the beginning).
That was their place and their responsibility. Not meddling with the affairs of Portland.
Law abiding citizens and law abiding police (don't we wish) versus the "mob".
An attempt to make Trump look "tough" - screw the constitution and the rightful ROLE for the federal government - and where they should NOT meddle.
The protests of Portland are the business of the local elected government, the constituents, the business community (if they disagree they can seek mediation or controversy with the protesters as they please) and their local police.
Talk about "big government" overreach.
Big government would be needed to handle the PANDEMIC (that means a global ! epidemic). But there the Trump admin messed up. Spectacularly. He let the states fend for themselves (they cannot create money, but the federal government can - and does. QE to the tune of TRILLIONS).
Many R govenors are ideologically blinded morons (and usually puport to be Trump fans) - but to be fair they got nothing in promises of support from this admin. Nothing In the early stage. When it would have been crucial to get general support (population, business community) for the necessary measures. The kind of general support like they have in almost all other rich nations.
De Santis of Florida cowardly left it to the mayors to order shutdowns (spring break !). - In other countries they also have the approach to handle some pandemic responses NOW on the state / province or even city level. But of course no one tries to stir up controversy, they still coordinate and cooperate. And help each other out.
btw: Germany took in patients from France and Italy. Austria took in patients from Italy. China got medical staff from all over the country into Wuhan (when they finally took it seriously they really stepped up their game). Set up field hospitals within 10 days.
Other nations helped each other. But no cooperation between the states in the U.S. - it was "every state is on their own, don't expect help from the federal government. Good luck to you"
Trump did not kick the behinds of Congress and Senate (both beholden to the big donors, with a few exceptions)
Fed / treasury bailed out Wallstreet on March 12, 2020 with 1,5 TRILLION USD (QE) - there was not even discussion about a stimulus bill at that time. That money is outside of any stimulus bill, of course no strings attached. Of course Trump cares about the stock exchange (and finance). They got help and FAST.
Also no decision then if even testing would be free (never mind treatment). So low income people took a gamble if they had symptoms that could be CoVid-19. If they were young THEY likely would survive. They could not afford to forgo the wage, and they did not have the money for testing or hospital. so they went to work and spread it further.
Also no ramping up of testing capacities - as per mid July 2020 one gets the test results after 7 - 10 days in Florida.
What ???
Meanwhile other countries reopened, they try to keep toursism going (but not from the U.S.), have low case numbers, even those countries that were hit hard in spring (before the U.S. so the Trump admin could have learned from their warning examples) are back to fairly normal.
You bet they have their FAST testing in place, they watch any flare ups like hawks. To nip it in the bud. They did not catch it in time in early spring (February) - but that is not going to happen to them again. It took lockdowns of the whole country to get to where they were in early March (but now with PPE, testing in place, and hospitals prepared). They certainly do not want to have to repeat a lockdown, so every effort is made to keep case numbers down. Wearing masks. It is a no brainer..
You cannot fight a pademic with half baked, inconsistent measures. Too little too late. If you are not bold enough you undermine the gains you made. That is what happened in the U.S.
U.S. states could not dare to share resources with other states - they would only dare to do that if they trust that if they are in trouble in 1 or 2 months, they too will get help. The other states may not be able to reciprocate, if they are still overwhelmed (No one knew how this would end, the example of Italy was scary. The novel corona virus was unchartered territory. - Italy were the first to get a lot of cases outside of China in a country where you could trust the numbers, they did not catch it early on- The only chance you have with an epidemic or wildfire - contain it in the early stage or suffer the pain.
ONLY the federal government has the power (incl. the power to create money !), the authority to invoke and USE the Defense Production Act, the options of diplomacy and international cooperation, the resources to assure the states that they will get help if it is their turn. No matter how bad it may get.
So the states would not have to hoard material, and resources, federal government could incentivize staff (with money) to help out in other states (that means higher costs of living, travel expenditures, costs for pets. Part of making it easy for staff to move would be money, but part would have been help to organize that. Travel, housing, practical solutions for pets they have to leave behind, ....
That could be shifted around where they were needed the most at the moment. Which means there are not that many unused reserves (just in case) - the existing resources and reservess ! are used more efficiently.
There is a place for regional / state response to CoVid-19.
Not in the beginning though. Not in March.
Then it was all hands on deck in other nations (the U.S. fumbling around incoherently). Representatitives of federal and states government met and COORDINATED. See Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Italy, Greece, Australia, Canada, ...
In the U.S. governors would have had to tell their business community and voters that it was scientifically warranted to have a shutdown. But no idea or promises about help. If, when, for whom, what speciifically, or to what extent. - ANY help ?
the governors met with Trump - they returned empty handed.
New York, California, Wahsington are rich states, so they had some wriggle room to handle it on their own - as this admin was Missing In Action.
Meanwhile the Trump admin for show invoked the Defense Production act - but did not use it. That would have meant stepping on the toes of the big donors.
The Trump admin did not step in as central buyer of PPE - so the states had to bid against each other, bidding up prices to get PPE, which federal government also had failed to stockpile (undoing what Obama had set in place after ebola in 2013).
The big donors (that had showered the RNC and the Trump campaign with money) loved it. Profits !!! Screw the country.
1
-
1
-
@iyeball7792 Of course Trump wants to CREATE controversy. Wants to have MORE police overreach (if these are even agents or police) - when that is the reason people protest in the first place.
Let that sink in: in absence of lasting achievements - Trump tries to win on that. He had a chance to really shine since spring . Oh, well ....
Trump and his cabinet would hate it if the local police and the city of Portland would come to an agreement about police reform.
One that is meaningful and satisfies the protesters. They would hate it if the protests would end.
Painting a picture of the "scary others" and trying to pose as tough is all Trump has left.
He does not mind that he creates division.
He would do everything to get elected. Screw the country. Doesn't care about unnecessary deaths.
The big donors want the serfs to return to work, they got bailed out but they would hate a bailout for the masses. So they want to force schools to open. if there are no open public schools, it would look really bad for the Trump admin to not support parents of children, so one parent can stay home. they have no intention to invest that money. Schools open signals: normalcy (whether that is true or not).
It will mean hundreds of thousands of more deaths. (Schools are hubs, many cases with no or very light symptoms with children. and they connect the generations. The kids will suvive - but they bring the virus into the families.
They (Trump admin, their donors) are also not willing to invest the money to make "return to normal" at least somewhat safer.
All other countries watch their LOW case numbers (achieved after a determined lockdown) like hawks and do strategic testing whenever they have, or suspect a cluster.
Trump in July 2020: Testing is overrated.
Testing makes his handling look bad. That is all that matters to him. Screw the country.
At some point the virus will fade out or there will be a vaccine.
Even the bubonic plague run its course after devastating countries (for some years, it returned after 5, 10, 15 years).
The Spanish Flu ended after 2 years by itself: 50 million dead (600,000 in the U.S.) It killed young(er) people up to the age of 40 for the most part. Many children, too.
1
-
1