Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Damage Report" channel.

  1. 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. Sexual frustration might damage your health overal - not immediately but over the years. The too many orgasms was likely satirical. That kind of thing. Wilhelm Reich was a big thing back in the day. - And of course there was a lot of sexual repression going on, the idea that a woman (in marriage) should also be sexually satisfied (not only her husband) was not exactely mainstream. And then there was no counseling, not relevant books. I read into the articles and quotes a little bit. Some (slightly esoteric) hippie vibe, even over the top, but not gross. Not even unreasonable when you factor in it was the 1960s and 1970s.
    2
  3. They are one of the few services mentioned in the constitution.
    2
  4.  @dragonson72  Good, just remember NOT to got to the hospital and gobble up resources because of taking that risk. Stand by your choice AFTER you get consequences. you should be able to toughen it out at home, right ?
    2
  5.  @dragonson72  that is also nonsense, you have no historical record for that. family members and good Samaritans were brave. If they have survived the Black Death in the past they assumed immunity (they had figured out that people got some diseases only once in their life, but remember these were new plagues). - but NO one knew for sure. there were different variants (different lethality rate and symptoms), some even suspect that one version might have been Ebola or a similar virus, not pest (which is caused by a bacterium). And they FORCED unwilling people to do the work (think petty criminals, prostitutes, ...) The Church did not attack those people they were glad about everyone that was able to take care of the living and take care of the dead bodies. Taht was also very important. If a person had immunity that was seen as grace of god. The soietal upheaval and the fear triggered by these terrible pandemics (people were helpless and did not understand the disease) reesulted in hysteria about witchcraft, that w was a fallout (with some delay) and they turned on Jews.
    2
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. let me repeat the quote of + BlasterMaster "Lauren Duca shits on Bernie and other progressives constantly on her Twitter. In fact she still blames Bernie for Clinton's 2016 loss. She is a shill for establishment Democrats."
    2
  9. The ORIGINALAL post had gotten a lot of VIEWS - I assume mostly from the right. (Now also the left is watching for fun - although in secondary reporting - the original post was taken down).
    2
  10. They should be fined. They CAN protest of course and even inconvenience people (just not in front of a hospital, etc.). They could go to any location where a lot of people are around and protest that others are voluntarily getting vaccines. But where it is distributed - that should be punished as interference with a public health / emergency issue. These are craven attention seekers and people that like to be adverserial.
    2
  11. In a healthy economy wage growth drives up inflation (somewhat). They had that (good to have) "problem" after WW2 till the early 1970s. (the inflation spikes in the 1970s had to do with two major global oil price crises). That was the time when the American Middle Class emerged, the "Golden Era", in Europe they call it the Economic Miracle. Neoliberalism (with fear mongering about inflation and good wages) hit them later. They had their good run from the 1950s - mid 1990s. Except for the U.K. they followed the U.S. economic recipe.
    2
  12. 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
  13. No one needs to put bets on commodities. Not for a healthy economy. Large industrial players can have other contracts to buy and sell at reliable prices (so they can plan). They did not need that when they rebuilt the economy in Germany and Japan after WW2, and they were not allowed to speculate or only with much, much more regulations in the U.S. That has only explosed after Bill Clinton admin removed the last stops. You should know the story of Brooksley Bourne. it did not take them long to almost bring the global financial system down. The GFC was not only a massive real estate bubble with subprime loans - at least there was some substance even when owners bought at too high prices. But the banks that pretended to believe the repackaged loans were as solid as advertised wanted to have some "security" and there were plenty of actors who were willing to accept the bet - on the default risk of these loans. Until the risk manifested and more and more loans defaulted. and of course no one has to make a deposit for the maximum damage. a healthy economy needs some bets in form of insurance but that has to be strictly regulated. And large multinationals can have other tools as far as the REAL economy and legitimate concerns about future prices go.
    2
  14. you should also know about the open positions in 2011 - over 700 trilliion if memory serves (the U.S. GDP was maybe 18 trillion in 2011 to give some perspective). Those bets do not serve the real economy, they are pure speculation. I also assume that they constitute an indirect form of moeny creation.
    2
  15. ".....The right to bear arms in a WELL REGULATED MILITIA ... " What well regulated militia would that be in prison ? And they do not go hunting either. - the well regulated militia btw were the armed groups hunting down escaped slaves.
    2
  16. Usually Dems roll over. But not if their interests are impacted, and the storm on the Capitol (and Trump inciting it and then he and the cabinet going AWOL and DELAYING deployment of the National Guard from Maryland - and likely also Virginia) had them rattled. Steny Hoyer 2nd ranking Democrat in Congress called the Governor of Maryland (a Republican) to please send the National Guard, and Schumer yelled from a distance. Hoyers is also from MD and had the phone number of govenor Hogan. They were already hiding at that point. A lot of police were in a combat situation for 6 hours - and the Trump admin delayed the deployment for 90 minutes. They needed to be instructed and briefed anyway. But however long that took - it all came 90 minutes later. Senate minority leader Schumer was under the assumption that the govenor already had the authorization to send the National Guard across states borders. the governor likely had already observed what was going on in the hours before and had anticipated the need they might be needed (the lawmakers were the last to realize how far it had gotten out of control because they were in session). Larry Hogan said they were ready to be deployed and he was willing to act immediately - BUT he needed federal authorization. POTUS, the Secretary of Defense or someone down the line of command. Govenor Logan had to wait NINETY MINUTES. He gave a press conference later and was obviously incensed and when asked directly by a reporter said he though it would be better for America if Trump would step down or be removed from office and Pence would be in charge during the transition of power. It is very plausble that he and the leader of the MD guard were doing their best to reach someone - anyone - but their calls were not taken nor were they called back. After 90 minutes the Army Secretary called him and asked him if he could send the National Guard. Not the usual chain of commmand, but whatever. Schumer is not going to forget that.
    2
  17. Imagine working on your bad PR nation wide, giving people a real life bad experience, when you want to sell to LOTS of consumers. For every person that worked 1 month and found it horrible there will be 5 that hear about it. For every person that grinded for a few years and then was spit out by Amazon, 20 will hear what terrible employer Amazon is. Sure they try to set up the warehouses in areas where there is not much other choice. so if one towns knows how bad they are, because so many locals made the negative experiences .... But it is not contained, those people have relatives and friends living in other towns and cities.
    2
  18. Sure, take it out on the slightly larger cog in the machine. Instead of the people that set up and push that model.
    2
  19. That is why the Lincoln project Bush era types wanted Biden a) he is a 1980s / 1990s Republican with a D to his name and b) Trump would have inherited the mess from his first term and the voters would turn on the Republicans in 2022, and 2024. - now he will do the Obama era policies that will not solve the problems and they can drag Biden and stonewall.
    2
  20. I do not know the Norwegian details. BUT the death risk is also influenced by what vaccine was available for the first campaign for the oldest group. Because in that group naturally more people die and it is hard to distinguish between statistical tolerance and real effect. Especially if the absolute number of complcations is small. In UK Astra Zeneca seemed to be very safe. BUT: the (still rare !) complication seem to hit females in the reproductive stage and the old folks get more blood clots by default, so they could have missed cases among the 80 and 70 year old people. And if you have 2 million shots and maybe 50 cases and of these 10 or so die from a blood clot - overlooking 2 - 4 cases with an already feeble person has a major impact on the stats. In Germany they did not get the Astra vaccine right away (U.K. hoarded it) and when they got it they used it for medical staff. 1.7 million shots (if memory serves - maybe 1.8 or 1.75 in that range), many more females (nurses) and almost all females younger than 60 years. women have more blood clots in general (that manifest spontanuously) and being in the reproductive age matters (hormones make them morte susceptible. so after menopause the risk for females and males becomes the same. The risk is not high to begin with, but before menopuase the difference is very noticeable ). They had 31 people with a rare kind of blood clot in the veins of the brain (2 of them males) and I think 9 died. - but then the hospitals and doctors wisened up to that complication, if it is corredtly diagnosed it can be treated and reacts well to medication. since that is a weird phenomen they are pretty sure they can tie that to the vaccination. It is still much more dangerous to get into a car in Germany than getting the Astra Seneca vaccine, and the risk is even higher for a working age person. And the risk continues year after year.
    2
  21.  @rondiggity1677  the comment of Guenther makes sense IF it is the Russians that tried a manipulation. - Could be good old stock manipulation though. Or Astra Zenaca pushing for their vaccine - in the EU they do have the worst rep whether deserved or not. so a jab at Pfizer (BionTec is a German start up and got 450 million USD from the German government. Is Pfizer an U.S. company ?
    2
  22. Don't get caught up in the Red Scare. Disinformation, voter suppression, voter roll purges, closing down of polling stations, maybe even manipulating the vote tabulation and / or the machines. No foreign help needed. It is know for YEARS that the voting machines are easily hackable.
    2
  23. Have you ever wondered WHY neither Democrats NOR the media report much on all the shenanigans let alone HACKABLE VOTING MACHINES _ - the Big Donors (also advertisers) do not want the unwashed massed to be alerted to the fact that the U.S. is a banana Republic - that the integrity of the election procedures - never mind Big Money in the elections - has been undermined for the longest time. THAT is the greatest threat to democracy and it is intentionally created by DOMESTIC FORCES not by any foreign actor (Russia, China, whoever ...) The Russians are not needed to rig and steal election and to decieive the electorate - the U.S. politicians are doing just fine with that.  in 2000 it was headlines news in Europe - and some time before the election - that black voters were removed under a lame pretext (alleged fellons) from the voter rolls in Florida. So WHY didn't the sitting president and his VP do anything about it ????? Sure states are responsible to organize the elections, but the president still has the bully pulpit and can raise hell if he wants to, never mind his VP who was likely to be harmed. It was obvious Jeb Bush tilted massively the scales for his brother. The European newspapers also wrote that Al Gore had no convincing lead over GWB and likely would need Florida to win the presidency. Did the Democrats raise hell before or AFTER the election ? Sure Al Gore wanted to win - but not upsetting the Big Donors was even more important. The VP choice of Lieberman was another bow before Big Money and the neocons (Did he think THAT would attract elderly Jewish wealthy Floridans ? - well it did not work. 300,000 registered Democrats in FL voted for GWB). After the election was stolen from Al Gore he was warned by the establishment of the Democratic party to "go quietly" and not raise hell (the unions had offered their help). In Senate the Black (Congressional) Caucus asked for a investigation of minority voter suppression in Florida . Al Gore was heading the session. They would have needed ONE Senator to start an investigation. One black representative after the next went to the floor and and asked for ONE Senator supporting their request. Not ONE Democratic Senator could be found (Sanders was still a Congressman then - it would have been interesting if he would have dared to help them). The Dems for some weird reason could not be bothered - even though a few of these suppressed votes could have given them the presidency. (Michael Moore covers that in 9/11, one can see the C-Span video - of the black representatives - and of Al Gore heading the session). What the hell was going on ??
    2
  24. The Big donors finance BOTH parties. The role of the Democrats is to win in PRIMARIES (by all means necessary incl. voter roll purges and election rigging * ) and to keep FDR style Democrats and progressives away from influence. It is not needed - from the point of view of the Big Donors - that the Democrats ALSO win in the GE. From time to time the power shifts between the D and R wing of the Big Donor Party - to give the illusion of choice for the voters and to maintain the facade of democracy. * Greg Palast (Reporter investigating U.S. elections for years, he reported on the 2000 purge in Florida, headlines in Europe): Republicans steal general elections, Democrats steal primaries.  The Big Donors want a ballot which gives the voters the "choice" between a spineless corporate Democrat and a fierce Republican. They always win. THAT is the danger for democracy in the U.S. Now Stacy Abrams in Georgia is a no brainer compared to Kemp. Gillum already retracts on single payer and plays nice with the Democratic party leadership (appearing with Debbie Wasserman-Schulz - really ?) Beto seems to be a genuine progressive (still talking about the cancer that big money in politics is). In this midterms it is indeed necessary that the Dems take back Congress if possible Senate. and then it is essential that the voters continue to kick the ass of the spineless lot. Sanders encouraged a trend for new grassroots candidates. Many of them have been defeated in the primaries, needless to say the Democratic party and the Big Donors (becoming a little nervous) poured MILLIONS into the race against the modest campaigns. But 30 % or even 5 % against the heaveyweights in California is a respectable result. I do hope that the more progressive leaning candidates are successful, that may make the Big donation chasing shills in the Democratic Party afraid of the voters. About time ! Maybe they can be bothered for once to provide government / leadership of by and for the people.
    2
  25. 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
  26. Fascinating Read: We Tracked Down A Fake-News Creator In The Suburbs. Here's What We Learned : All Tech Considered : NPR www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs
    2
  27. journalism is supposed to go after the powerful and well known (unless the regular people commit a spectacular crime). Click bait and after a paramedic no less (she too riked infection during the pandemic).
    2
  28. As the right are useless anyway and will not vote for anyone with a D to their name, or any policy that would help people - it does not matter. I wonder if some grifting Republicans felt a little uncomfortable. Next time they claim decency, honor, integrity and fAMily vaLUeS one can shut them up.
    2
  29. If Rep. Tlaib would run for president it would matter. but I do not think she wants that, and she won her district just fine. And she and the grassroots helped to deliver her state for Biden. THAT is what counts.
    2
  30. 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
  31. NUMBERS: Biden underperformed relative to polling. Shy Tump supporters (do not admit in the polling that they will vote for Trump) seem to be a thing. IF Biden had won the states he needed to win with a CLEAR majority of 3 - 5 % that would have shown already in the count of the mail ballots on Nov. 4th. - Biden declared president elect by all networks on Nov. 4th. So the Repubs could not have started to spin the narrative. it might have been a blessing in disguise that Biden only LIMPED over the finish line, the Repubs could show how craven, and opportunistic they are. That is only a blessing if the Dems would finally do a FDR. Biden impressing soon and abandoning his neoliberal stances would set up the Democrats for wins in 2022. Then it would get easier to get things done. Even with the defectors.
    2
  32. MI and NV should have been a no brainer. It took a little. It was worse with PA and WI. Biden LIMPED over the finish line. They used to be solidly blue states. Not nailbiters. With 4 states they did not come up with a reliable result or projection because they were too CLOSE: PA, WI - and AZ and GA the latter 2 are not so relevant because no one could PLAN with them anyway. They were the icing on the cake and it was O.K. that it was a narrow win.
    2
  33. 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
  34.  @rsuriyop  At least two females (Harvard students) had Fox News yellow press style framing (never mind nuance, intellect,history, or political science. Or being honor-bound to show a little sophistication when you appear as Haravard student. Well, they may be LEGACY or Big Donation students. Especially the priosn question is so out of normal areas that I wonder if she came up with it by herself.  If she has a sharp intellect she has carefully hidden it). The "Why do you want to turn the U.S. into Soviet Union where my family fled from" (paraphrasing slightly) gal comes from a mansion in Silicon Valley and is in a "conservative" publishing group. They may be polishing the CV for right wing think tank jobs (or FOX NEWS) The girl who did the Boston Bomber hit job (Anne or Ann Carlstein) has hidden her social media account.
    2
  35. user +Lincoln D is all over the comment section making unsubstantiated wrong claims.
    2
  36. 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
  37. The lady that was second in command was a manager in the Trump admin, i do not think she is dumb. To be fair she may not have been involved. But the boss is responsible.
    2
  38. 1:04 what does it matter if he won or lost Georgia, Trump still would have lost the EC with GA.
    2
  39. She is a teacher - but honestly there are good people on etsy that will be glad to provide them. This is the functional (if bland) jacket that he was criticized for wearing 2 years ago. The retail price is allegedly 600 USD and his enemies declared that to be too expensive for a "socialist". Well frugal socialists, he is getting some wear out of it. Not gonna buy an elegant and warm coat that he is not going to wear much. the jacket was a gift from family anyway. And he graciously gave the Vermont company that procuces the jackets free exposure. but I must say it can well do with some accessorizing. the mittens are just the touch it needs.
    2
  40. He may be a struggling solopreneur ... give them a rest
    2
  41. Bravo ! hope they can reopen for the last minue xMas shopping to help retail. and reopen in general for tourism. Now, if you also could skip the wildfires you should be good.
    2
  42. 2020 is going to be the one of the hottest year on record (top ranks), did not get much attention. The old stats was that 1998 till present had all the hottest years on record. There was a record setting El Nino in 1998 (temps can be expected to be slightly higher, usually it is counteracted by the El Nina years that are slightly colder. Meanwhile they can't measure the effect of those cycles anymore it is masked by the effects of Global Warming). 1998 as an early record setting year is holding itself not too badly among those years - more to the end of the 20 hottest - but still. From a quick search online - must be from early 2017: Nineteen of the 20 warmest years all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record (source: NASA/GISS). Well then there was 2017, 2018, 2019 and NOW 2020. all of them in the top 5 range.
    2
  43. the first amendment covers if of course, but military rules ask that the flag be hung correctly and also not appropriated. For instance for garments. They likely would not mind a T-shirt, but things like beach wear, or posters where the flag is very much distorted, altered for artistic effects.
    2
  44.  @Jeice5  but they are often foundations that have a LOT of money to invest, but they are private "non-profits"
    2
  45. They will especially fight him IF he is right and tries to help The People (I am not hopeful, but maybe he has seen the light. a little bit). Some Repubs (and the big donors that tell them what to do) are not stupid. Some of their strategists likely fear that Biden could become a FDR Lite. Who won 4 elections in a row. Between 1933 and 1968 only ONE R president, WW2 big whig Eisenhower, and he too was on board with the New Deal. Maybe the only R presdint that ever defended Social Security. Kept the high taxes for the rich and big biz on the books as well. Ike was no dummy.
    2
  46. 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
  47. Yes, but the employees will then leave and go to a company that pays what is mandated. And if ALL in the area follow the mandate to pay minimum (or they can be sued) the angry or scared employer will not find staff to replace them. The boss will go out of business if they follow through (they won't). That is an angry employer making stupid threats. At best they have been convinced by propaganda that paying a living wage is ruinous for businesses and are freaked out. It is not bad for businesses. Has never been. If they have staff fro whom minimum wage is relevant - chances are that they work in the service sector. That is the sector that THRIVES if consumers have spending power. Coming from ..... wages.
    2
  48. 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
  49. I don't care - do U - they shopped for that rather cheap jacket (20 or 25 bucks, I think from Zara - something the illegal migrant, now firstlady would usually not wear. in that jacket she flew in Airforce one and waltzed over to the center. Melania worked under a tourist visa. Meaning she lied on later applications (for visa or citizenship). Deport her !
    2
  50. This is a white woman that triggered the idiots.
    2