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

  1. 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.  @johanjansson2723  the wedding photographer has the option of being evicted now or later with piling up debt, literally not having any money (not even for ramen, eggs and milk) having water, electricity cut off, no gas for transportation, the car (with a loan on it) being seized. Or losing the home, the healthcare insurance (can't pay for it anymore). Or losing the biz they built over years and with hard work. On the minimum missing out on money they cannot easily forego. So they just go there and hope for the best.
    2
  3. Turn off autopay ! make sure your bank must inform you before getting a larger amount.
    2
  4. That may be even a good idea in a desperate situation. If there is a still fairly good response, giving it to more people fast could do more good now. Maybe they need 3 shots or maybe the second dose will fix this with very little difference in outcomes after the second shot. Outcomes = good immune response for those who got 2 shots. They did tests with 2 doses and the first was only half. (that started as mistake and they madea test group out of that). They had an even better result than other test groups with two full doses. Compred to a 50 % / and later 100 % protocol. Result AFTER the 2nd shot that was with the full dose - but they also had younger test subjects for the first lower dose. Young persons tend to have a better immune response, so that is inconclusive. The 2nd shot is alway given to IMPROVE the outcome - let's say from 65 to 75 % immunity. Or 65 to 85 (the effect you would expect is in the range of 10 - 20 % improvement). That means full immune response of people that got vaccinated once resp. twice (as far as immune respone can be tested, so if folks have immunity but their bloodwork does not show that, in the stats they are counted as "for them vaccination does not work", for ethical reasons that is not tested by infecting them). Immunity may be improved for some persons (while others would be fine after the first shot already). Or the 2nd shot covers those that did not respond to the first shot at all. So getting some lower immunity throughout the population but for more people might do more for public health while not being good for some individuals. That do not enjoy the higher or full immunity already from the first full shot. It stil might result in more harmless infections (which would of course also give immmunity). At least it could buy the government and the producers more time to produce the vaccines. 1 - 2 months would make all the difference. Or they give the half dose only to young healthy people that have more exposure through work. They can be expected to respond on average fairly well to a half-dose-followed-by-a-full-dose protocol. Unfortunately it is not clear so far if a person that is immune can 1) still be a carrier or 2) not. Both scenarios are possible. I think with measles it is 1) might be one of the reasons why it is so contagious. (the worst ! or among the worst)
    2
  5. Speaking of phantasies - what about Melania ? - I assume she will file the divorce papers (soon). Maybe that would be some leverage, if he does not leave and embarrasses them even more Melania will not observe the polite time to wait until she is off into the sunset.
    2
  6. When did the Democratic party or ASSOCIATED groups send out fundraising emails calling Trump or Republicans or the Trump base terrorists ? CITATION NEEDED
    2
  7. a manager of Trump was the deputy chief and the crazy doctor lead HUD, this scam was pulled off during the Trump admin.
    2
  8. Transfer of wealth, if this person has ANY assets - they are lost. Any intergenerational wealth - lost. It goes to the top. (and employs many adminstrators with useless - well damaing work). Sanders had a townhall, where a woman told him, that her husband had comitted suizide after a cancer diagnosis. It would have needed intense treatement, the prognosis was not too good - and he did not want her to lose the house.
    2
  9. The right wing grifters and the think tanks just found out HOW STUPID the base is and that even the others (that are not quite as biased and stupid) will give them a pass. They can claim black is white - and will get away with it. Neoliberal media and D politicians will also lie but at least they try to do it with a little more sophistication. They do not insult their base with that brazen / stupid lies, and would be called out. Those lies often include omission or "the intel agencies told us" (see Russia stole the elections, hacked and what not - we have to take their word for it, but the base certainly cannot fact check. They could be better informed but that would reuqire a little effort.
    2
  10. They are "manufacturing consent". Big biz are scared the left could get more influence, Biden might go along with their proposals (if only to win 2022 and 2024). Time to unleash their attack dogs to shape public opinion. Making the Squad also seem a little looney. And the sedinionists and craven opportunists are only "mischivous" (that is a word you use for a slightly naughty but kind of cute child. Or for a person that intends to prank someone). The word is an insult to the progressives who told their constituents what they stand for and fought an uphill battle to get elected. And more uphill battles to get something passed. And it is way too kind for the morons on the other side.
    2
  11.  Luis Monsanto  Of course there is no comparison between Melania and AOC - I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy - Can you imagine if such nude shots existed of Michelle Obama ?? - I do not even find them so outrageous - it is sort of "classy nudity" (she was young and needed the money) - but the "party of family values" would have destroyed any other WIFE of a high level politician if such - relatively harmless - photos existed.
    2
  12.  @CoolNala  There was a staffer with AOC that can back up her story. She secondguessed her impression that the "police" officer seemed to be hostile - but he confirmed that impression. - btw I am not sure if the man wore the uniform of a police officer. He wore a beanie (inside the capitol, not the usual way police dresses) and he behaved in an unusual manner. Plus he was alone.
    2
  13. 3:50 You get cheques with help of the post office ? Are they engraved into clay tablets. Or more modern with papyrus rolls. - They should try electronic transfer some time.
    2
  14. one of the "representatives" who use congress as stepping stone for a more lucrative career (cashing in on their faithful services for the donors). maybe he wanted to earn points with future employers that hate AOC.
    2
  15. The pilots would totally throw away the elite status, the expensive training, good pay. the annual yearly risk to die of a car accident is 1 in 30,0000 to 1 in 25,000 in a wealthy country. The risks for severe effects of the vaccine are much lower. And I gues being a fighter jet has some risks too. Somehow I trust a badass pilot would not be too much of a coward and petulant child to shy away from a vaccine. Pilotes (like all soldies) have gotten plenty of vaccinations (and sign on to that) - and they got probalbly more if they are on duty in the tropics or a country like Iraq - a few years ago the small pox vaccinations were picked up for the military (civilians do not get them, it is viewed as almost extinct. BUT the U.s. military feared the almost vanished virus could be leveraged against them after the former generation that had gotten the vaccination left service and younger people do not have immunity. So they had vaccination campaigns as to not give adverseries even ideas.
    2
  16.  @CoolNala  Plus that AOC has grilled a few people in hearings. Was well prepred. And she can also speak intelligently, coherently off the cuff.
    2
  17. 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
  18.  @jnb756  I read it ;) but you might add some paragraphes to make it easier to read. - Also: I think many Democrats and especially progressives do not "hate" Republicans. They despise their policies. If they would go along with economic populism Progressives would gladly co-exist.
    2
  19.  @jnb756  Riling up people is rewarded in the U.S. Going low can get you donations, votes and views, riled up people come back for their daily dose of rage, and they will not demand policies. Republicans have started to go that route in the early 1970s when they started to specialize in racism to attract the pissed Dixiecrats. Finally the party of Lincoln and the War of Northern Aggression (aka the American Civil War) could win in the South. They could not resist the temptation to go low. Then Newt Gingrich - he changed R style Then the attacks on Obama. Claiming he was a Muslim from Kenya (or more francy to have "concerns" about his birth certificate) was as unfounded as "The 2020 election was stolen". The later claim was just more consequential. Since McCain had conceded and Obama won in such a convincing matter (it was clear at 11 pm election night) they had a hard time to claim all the votes were forged. So they did not pull their stunt in 2008 / 2009 to refuse to certify the election.
    2
  20. 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
  21. It was outside of session, not sure if they can. the non-apology gave plausible deniability to the Republican "leadership". And the grandstanding is for the base. he did it in earshot of the reporter. Either he lost it, or he WANTED it to be heard and reported on.
    2
  22. Do you have a griddy plan ? - luckily many people have a plan with fixed rates or at least a cap. For sure it will be higher if you run heat by electricity ? - I would be more worried about a water damage. - Wish you all the best and vote them out.
    2
  23. They are incapable of finding a job (so it is easier for Mitt Romney he is a trustfund baby). The same crowd of people that tell regular folks to not wait for any handouts - like "socialized" medicine - comparable to the nice healthcare the legislators get paid thanks to the taxpayers. And the constituents should pull themselves up by the bootstraps. And they will gladly pass all trade deals to make sure people lose their jobs. But if they fear for their political career - that is different. Not all are that well connected to get their golden parachute. Normally the big donors would hold their end of the bargain - but at the moment they are a little miffed because one wing of the one and only big donor party has taken it too far. The oligarchs like quiet in their empire.
    1
  24. 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 is in a country that slowly escalated the response, the current lockdown / curfew will end Dec. 6, they did that to save the Christmas shopping season and to have low case numbers again when people visit each other during the holidays. The situation in the hospitals improved and will continue to improve. Comparable action was taken in other (most) European nations. Australia did a drastic lockdown, especailly in Melbourne. That was in September or October, then it did not look good in Europe but they still hoped they could get a grip on it without lockdown. Nope ! Australia had 1 or 2 new cases the last day. Their seasons are opposed to most countries (that are in the Northern hemisphere) so now they can open for tourism. And the Christmas shopping.
    1
  25. they are not "bothered" they are annoyed. It is a form of supremacy.
    1
  26.  @petersent123  No, her brand and what got her elected is being oppositional, edgy, they need a wedge issue. She is young and thinks she will be fine.
    1
  27. In Austria they let it escalate in October (only lockdown 2 with beginning of Nov. it ended on Nov 7th), but you could see that mass testing made all the difference. The cases must at least have been 2.5 - 3 times what they were in spring, but they brought it down faster this time with strategic testing (incl. mass testing at the end of the hard lockdown in the first and second week of December. They intended to open up for Christmas shopping in retail and to have a better base for limited xMas visits. so for now it seems to work and with some luck this is the last lockdown as they roll out vaccination.
    1
  28. Anything goes (lies, slander, deception, wild conspiracy theories, colluding with the enemy Reagan with Iran, and Nixon undermining Vietnamese peace talks ) with Republicans if they can score some points. AOC likely got that right: Nancy Mace wants the free airtime on Fox to win favors with the rabid wing of the base when she questions the account of AOC or tries to minimize her experience. The same kind of people where Trump found the recruits for his coup attempt. The people she feared not long ago. a few days later she wants to appeal to them by going after AOC. A decent human could have said: I was nearby at the time (was she?), I am lucky I do not remember that moment as so traumatizing. I was more worried later when .... Or she secretly wonders why that mad e such an impact on AOC - but she has the decency to abstain from commenting or minimizing. And then there is the quickly given information that she experienced sexual assault and that likely got retriggered. Better not go there, or express sympathy. This is a very personal account, it is not about policy. This is what a decent person would do, instead of making hay of the trauma of another person.
    1
  29. ?? Yeltsin was a corrupt drunkyard who handed over the country to the profiteers (foreign interests, the predators within the country that seized control over natural resources). Gorbachev might have wanted to serve his country - but Yeltsin definitely not. - and Yeltsin got elected with U.S. help !
    1
  30. 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
  31.    all comments but yours are reasonable. If you think the media gives you the truth (or speak truth to power) you haven't been paying attention. I recommend Noam Chomksy Manufacturing Consent. But despite doing that (manufacturing consent for certain economic policies, war, ...) they have now to deal with a truly populist New Deal 2.0 candidate and they are freaking out. It is worse than with Trump because Sanders does not invite those comments and does not say highly questionable stuff.
    1
  32.  rustydog0329  former Rep. Murphy was informed that his mail vote was thrown out. And no - he could not object to it. A poll worker had decided that his signature does not match. To be clear: only ONE person had voted under his name - it was him - no doubt he voted many times and likely in the same precinct (I am not sure if he moved I assume not). But all of a sudden he was thrown out. That kind of voter stealing is not even factored in. He is not an exception - it is just that he has the platform to shine a light. What would possess any poll worker w/o forensic training to make such a decision (with a registered Democrat - go figure). Is it possible that in very rare cases a person uses the mail ballot of another person and submits it. There have been maybe 10 cases over the course of many years - it is a crime. usually a partner still gets the mail ballot of a deceased partner and "uses" it. They tried a man - they found his DNA on the cover. But these cases are very, very rare. One vote does not change the outcome, but it could get you 5 years prison. On the other hand the Republican politicians are eager to throw out THOUSANDS of cast votes because with billions !! (literally - take the U.S. population and multiply with all the elections over the years) of votes there may have been 10 or 20 fraudulent votes. (Which should even out - in the last election a Trump voter went to the next precinct and voted there - and they found her out. She got her day in court. So while it should not be tolerated, one can assume there are fools on both sides and it will even out). In Georgia the court - once more !! - had to force Kemp to stop such a practice (one trick in the protocol of How To Steal An Election). The poll workers threw out mail-in ballots right, left and center because they "concluded" the signature did not match. opens the door for racists to exercise their bias if the name and address of the sender is not lily white. Stealing the vote from everybody who is not white and/or wealthy.
    1
  33. it would be a good exercise to do it. If you do not have any impairments * you should be able to reactivate that ability. I actually tried that 100 minus 7, when tired and it was more difficulty than it should be. I repeated that when in better form, but it is a sign I have to work on that. Use it or lose it. * I do not mean any disrespect. Some people have dyslexia and there may be similar natural disadvantages so you have a harder time to do simple calculations in your head. And some children are never taught to do them, so you have no default level ("I was able to do that ion the past") But if you ever were able to do them, and if you are a "normal" person (normal in the way your brain processes calculations in your head) - then you should be able to do that at every age and fairly fast. If not: ramp up your game, train in an area that you do not use in your normal life - if gives you mental reserves for the future to activate as many capabilities of your brain as you can. It is known that musicians suffer less from dementia (or ballet dancers that stay a little active in old age). Playing any instrument at a high level (or sophisticated ballet moves) keeps a large part of your brain busy. On a regular base. Those active areas get oxygen and sugar (more of it). Even if those people decline mentally, they do so from a high level. so it is less severe, at least they function better in their daily chores. It cannot hold up a severe case of Alzheimer's. but it makes a difference with other forms of mental decline. Likewise learning poems or doing calculations in you head can activate skills that you did not use since you were a kid. It all builds your reserves especially the things that you do not normally do in your daily life.
    1
  34. Another tip: if you cannot remember a name or certain phrases - sometimes you have it at the tip of your tongue - you can help your brain: SLOWLY roll your open eyes in a full (and extreme) circle - as far as you can. That could also improve your performance with doing calculations (it activates memory - but if it does not help with that - there are other benefits). (some quite intelligent people have that kind of brainfog - remembering names, or facts or terms - since they were young so that is not necessarily a sign of mental decline). One slow and incremental circle can last 15 seconds even 20 (if you are used to that exercise one smooth circle can last you approx. 10 seconds, but not less, or you are rushing through it and you do not benefit). Also make sure that you do not "skip" parts of the circle, omitting a part. That happens easily. Especially the "corners" top left and top right. Ideally it is a smooth movement, but that gets easier if you do it more often. Do not move your body or head. keep the head steady and only move the eyes. If you are seeing the fringes of your field of vision - you do it right. Always assuming your head is not moving ! 1 - 2 times in one direction and then the other. clockwise / counterclockwise should do the trick. it is a good exercise for you brain and for your eyes. Also some degenerative eye problems show in your field of vision (the fringes). ** That exercise does not only move your eye muscles - which is good when staring on a screen for a long time. And it uses the eye muscles in a way they are almost never used. So that is good, too. They eye movements activate the brain, the memory part. (eye movements are also used in a therapy for PTSD - it has to do with memory, in that case traumatic ones). If you have a name or term that you should know, but you have a brainfog moment - at least in 50 % of the cases it will be delivered by your brain after rolling the eyes: immediately or within minutes it will pop up.
    1
  35. ** some degenerative eye problems show in your field of vision (the fringes). ** using the AMSLER GRID TEST can help. Knowing your default capacity of vision from doing the eye roll exercise can also help to pick up on such developments. (if you are short/far sighted the vision when doing the eye roll will not be perfectly clear of course. That is O.K. unless there are sudden changes). You would notice any fast decline, especially since you use your eyes other than in your normal life. If that ever happens - drop everything and RUN to the hospital. You could lose your eyesight w/o immediate intervention. The Amsler test is done with one one eye while covering the other - because the healthy eye can compensate for the missing input of the other eye until it is too late.
    1
  36. puncing down for a cheap shot, against people that cannot retaliate
    1
  37. What is your take on Tulsi Gabbard ?
    1
  38. It has happeend in the 1990s - and who knows if the U.S. played a role in that.
    1
  39.  @purpleglitter9596  I think black older Democrats are quite "loyal". And sadly Obama nostalgia is a thing. If people get their news from TV I understand why . I look at compilations of his interactions on youtube (when he was relaxed, campaigning, appearing at shows, interactions in the White House) and I fall for the appearances. I have to remind myself that he was a sellout. That ability to engage with voters, to be a cool, witty president is a god send for every politician. if he had used that to engage the masses in a good fight - he could have been a great president. Considering that he paved the way for Trump - one could argue that in some respects he is one of the worst. Trump holds a space too, and of course GWB.
    1
  40. Even IF the filibuster is ended the majority is so slim that the "Democrats" (that usually vote with Repubs when something would favor the regular people) can control every single vote. Filibuster gone - they still need ALL with a D to their name and the VP as tie breaker to get anything passed. But they can if they have unity among themselves (not with Republicans !), and maybe then the Repubs would have an incentive to be more cooperative. Dems also could pledge to reinstate the filibuster after a time. The problem for the shills: There are a lot of GOOD bills that Mitch McConnoll has buried (Congress sent them over under Trump but Mitch the Slayer of Bills did not even allow a vote). So the legislation is ready to be passed, the details have been figured out, even if they finetune it, they could get a lot done. If the filibuster is gone, the next thing to vote on would be the 1.9 trillion relief package. Passing that would be a simple process. If the concern trolling, deficit minding (where were they under Bush and Trump ?!) "Democrats" then refuse to vote with the other Democrats they do so at their own peril. They will get national attention. And will have to come up with reasons (there are no good reasons). Congress could send them single issue bills and if they vote them down - they would be in trouble. The attack ads for D primary challengers and the Republicans that will run against them write themselves. Even mass demonstrations would be possible. Certainly later if / when the vaccines are rolled out.
    1
  41. Manchin played that game in 2013 too. The Obama admin tried to pass a bill that would allow them to get bills through with only 51 votes. The Repubs were stonewalling on infrastructure and had been rabidly obstructionist since 2009. BUT Manchin and 2 other "Democrats" blocked that. The bill would have been good for the Obama admin, the economy, they could have passed the Iran deal and immigration reform. Manchin could have fleeced the Obama admin to get favors for his state, but he was not interested in that. He also voted against better regulation of finance. He is not only in the pockets of big coal.
    1
  42. 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
  43. I guess it still can be uncomfortably cool, rainy etc.
    1
  44. civilians get only harmless laser pointers. It is not advised to direct them at the eyes - but still they do no harm. Whatever the military may have, the protesters have nothing like that. Likely the protesters wanted to distract the "agents" or mess with their short term vision by blending them.
    1
  45.  @Somber7  It is true that Denmark, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Belgium, Italy, ..... have mixed exonomies with STRONG SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC influences. (Germany more often than not had the conservatives in government BUT with a strong Social Democratic Party just waiting to take over if the conservatives annoyed the population. So they had to be centrist and they adopted the "Social Partnership".
    1
  46.  @Somber7  HOWEVER: Things that have been standard FOR DECADES in these countries with a mixed economy ! are denounced in the U.S. as scary "socialist, communist, unrealistic .... policies" that will ruin the coutnry. Not only the far right - HRC also denounced things like single payer healthcare (This country will never ever have Single Payer - well not as long as BOTH parties work for the for-profit industy and not for the voters - that's for sure).  Later she accused Sanders in a book to have promised a pony to the voters (in order to gain their support). - and let's be honest she is miffed that he stole her thunder. It was so bad that HE filled the stadions in the primaries (much like Trump the other populist candidate) and she could not even fill gymnasiums in schools. Worse: after he endorsed her and they toured together, the masses stayed away. Turns out Sanders is only attractive on his own and she is the spoiler. Now that must have been a blow to her ego .... Anyway: I happen to know the single payer systems in Germany and Austria - let me tell you the citizens there have had their pony for decades and like it - and they spend only 60 to 65 % of what the U.S. is already speniding (the average per person). With the difference that the spending in single payer ALSO means that everyone has coverage. the high per person average spening (per capita healthcare expenditures) in the U.S. include the persons that do not have insurance or insufficient coverage and do not get adequate care.
    1
  47. 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 R candidate that got only 23 % in the first round (I am 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
  48. She got 75 % in the general (in a solidly red state), one Democrat stayed in the race (after her D opponent dropped out), that D got 25 %. It is unlikely that the original D candidate would have won, but he might have fared better.
    1
  49. Good quote !
    1
  50. 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