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

  1. No they were NOT surprised. A part compalcency, a part we would not mind for some spectacle that'll show 'em "Defund the police" supporters (actually that supports the argument, they are useless when it mattes. DC and Capitol police is and MUST be well funded). A part stupidity. Plus lots of bias (if a M4A movement or BLM had called for a March on Washington - they would have had the officers, the tear gas the armored vehicles ready.).
    1
  2. The dog that was hit barks - the term Trum children concentration camp should go viral - with some references that THAT will be Trump's legacy. They would go nuts.
    1
  3.  Ms. Kitty Katt  the risk was also that the most important employer would move out and be rewarded for it on top of it. That shit does not fly in Europe, so Amazon has to treat them slightly better, the worst abuses are not possible and they are unionized. And have successful strikes.
    1
  4. They support candidates with money and connections (incl. I think men) over grassroots candidates (females), Laura Moser or Mosler one example.
    1
  5. No - with growing total population (now 330 millions and a lot of young Latino voters that were born in the country and have joined the ranks of voting age population) you have of course higher absolute numbers. 80 million yes - when he was the ONLY alternative to Trump who got effing 74 million votes. And underwhelming results downticket. btw: 65 or 68 % in such a high profile and controversial race is bad turnout. In all other first world countries such an election would see over 80 % turnout. 85 % would be quite possible. There was NO alternative to Trump so the 80 millions votes were not so much FOR Biden as against Trump. Not even the most loyal older Democratic voters that have known Biden for decades found Biden's campaign inspiring. The 6 milliions votes MORE of the popular vote look good BUT - a lot of that came from the large solidly blue states. The EC is the law of the land, and that is not going to change anytime soon. On that front it does not look good in the future. And it is way too close for comfort. Biden needed 2 out of the 4 nailbiter states to win the presidency (and Biden won those 4 with a total ! margin of only 125,000 votes). The minimal combo would have been AZ and WI 11 + 10 electors would have meant at least 270 electors in total. PA alone would NOT have been enough (20 electors) so only 269, that would be a nightmare the Republican STATES would decide in that scenario. That is what they prepared the "mail votes = cheating" narrative for. So they could justify handing the presidency to Trump if they would be lucky enough to have very narrow wins in some Rustbelt states. In 2016 the narrow margins worked for Trump - he won 3 Rustbelt states with only 70,000 votes more, and I think he needed at least 2 out of the 3. I also noticed that Trump won with a solid margin if he did win a state. At least the larger / more relevant ones. Ohio !! Florida !! Texas, Virginia, West Virginia (that should be a D stronghold). Dems also lost Tennessee as usual and by a wide margin (Gore used to be a household name. GWB won the state in 2000, Gore jr. could not win the state that his father and he had represented in in Senate for so long. THAT was one of the real reasons he did not become president. But they could not blame Nader for TN, so that was not talked about. (an inspiring VP pick instead of Republican with a D to his name Joe Lieberman would have been helpful. And letting Bill Clinton campaign for him. His role in NAFTA - defending it on behalf of the big donors - was also not forgotten in the Rustbelt). Last time I checked Nov. 27 or 28, Biden won those 4 states with a TOTAL of 125,000 votes. Did I mention that he absolutely needed 2 out of the 4 to win ? That is way too close for comfort even though the EC numbers NOW look good on the surface because he pulled off in win in all 4 with a slim margin. BUT: if Trump would only have been slightly more intelligent and if his narcissism would not have made him undermine himself - he could have won this easily. 125,000 votes in those states is not much to make up. Biden would not have had a chance, and even Sanders (a genuine left populist to counter the fake populism of Trump) would have had a hard time if Trump with the incumbent advantage would not be so extraordinarily stupid and narcissistic. I think with another candidate for the Republicans (Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio - or a more intelligent white nationalist / right winger with populist rhetoric) AZ and GA would not be in play. In GA the suburbs put Biden over the finish line. I was under the impression that the WHITE middle class in GA found Trump so uncough that they voted for Republican Lite Biden. This time. Maybe I am wrong and there are a lot of black suburban voters that got engaged. Good for them.
    1
  6. a private company got a 10 million USD contract to log the cases - but they take it away from the CDC.
    1
  7.  @KaeMcSpadden  Frankly if you got it in January you should have gotten immunity out of it. Ideally you would only now get a booster shot (for you it is a booster), to remind your immune system.
    1
  8. Yes, there is massive lack of leadership by Democrats, and sadly also by Sanders. - The big donors finance the Corporate Democrats to win primaries against progressives. Corporate Democrats are opportunistic neoliberals, (so why would they FIGHT ?) - Republicans are fierce ideologues. Both are beholden to the big donors. Which like those traits: fake empathy by the opportunists versus the fierce Republicans. Sure Republicans initiate the tax cuts (more or less covertly supported by Democrats), they dod the dirty work that the Dems cannot do openly and are more open in their support for big donor interests: tax cuts, cuttin public programs, deregulation, war. But a part of the electorate is out of reach for the Republicans. Who knows what these voters would do if left to themselves. So the Democratic party is supposed to sheepdog them into the fold of big-donor-friendly politics. Keeping the big donor money and the donors happy is even more important for the Democratic establishment than winning the general elections The big fish will get a golden parachute if they lose elections or want to leave politics. The big fish also get "safely blue districts". That may backfire because progressives NOW have a fighting chance in those districts, and if they win the primary not even the Republican opponent can help out the Corporate Democrats in the general. You bet the Democratic leadership would have prefered a Republican winning once AOC had beaten Crowley in the primary. The won primary means the progressive will almost certainly get the Congressional seat. See AOC, see Jamaal Bowman. That works better for congressional race, where you have a district - and "safely blue" usually means low income and minorities. These voters are receptive to progressive politics, as soon as they learn tht there is an alternative. Neither Eliot Engel nor Joe Crowley had competition. Hardly anyone dared to challenge them in primaries and the Republicans had no chance to win. Primaries not the general must be won - explains why Corporate Dems do not adopt highly popular stances so they will blow the Republicans out of the water. 1: campaign money 2: the party might shower a big donor friendly candidate with money if they stray. Stances that are good for the voters almost always cost the big donors profits. With the exception of abortion, gay marriage, .... 3: the big donors and the party leadership will not take care of them, when they leave politics. If they lose as moderate Republicans that do some virtue signalling and are pro abortion, gay marriage and gun regulation - if they were obedient and worked to build connections they will have a fine career after politics. Only the rookies (first term), and first time candidates that lose - people with no connections are left to fend for themselves. All the more reason for them to suck up to party leadership (the job of top Democrats is to hold the party in line). Elected Democrats who manage to carve out their little niche and do the networking, can hope to get taken care of even if they lose a race. .... Races that could have been won with their already existing name recognition and some good policy proposals. democratic leaderhsip and individual candidates hope they can pull off a narrow win, with virtue signalling, with giving the voters nothing but "See how bad Republicans are" and working the same wedge issues as Republicans: guns, abortions, LGBTQ rights. Just the other side. Issues that do not cost the big donors either way. And are supposed to rile up the D or R base. Democrats prefer to have narrow majorities in the House and Senate. There are some oldtimers that are well established in more affluent liberal areas and will take one for the team - and prevent good bills from being passed even if the Dems have all 3 branches of governent. see 2009 when Joe Lieberman and a few like him killed the public option a campaign promise of Obama. Needless to say, Obama did not say anything. He was no FDR, that's for sure. They are neoliberal opportunists. of course they do not bother to go fiercly after Republicans, it is not fear of being seen as uncivil. They have the claws out against progressives. But not against Republicans, they are not paid for that task. The big donors want a ballot with the "choice" of a neoliberal Democrat agains a rightwing Republican. Neither will ever work against big donor interests. So they do not really care who wins - they own both.
    1
  9. That might be a mercenary. or a federal agent. Not a cop.
    1
  10. That would be 3 New Yorkers in the rase ! - If Bloomberg gets a good whooping in the primary he will not run in the general. Billionaires have sensible egos too. - but you are right, Bloomberg should not be underestimated. - I think he already starts paying off superdelegates. It is good that Warren stays some more in the race, he is the ideal punching bag for her. That kind of gig got her name recognition when she scolded banksters in the first Obama term. She dressed him down beautifully, - she is not an ally for the progressive movement, but she did good nontheless. Sanders can kick him as well, calling him a Communist just makes Bloomberg look stupid. He has so much baggage. - even Biden would kick him - if he is still in the race Not sure if pete would kick Bloomberg. (he IS a billionaire, pete stepped down from his post of mayor of Southbend, and I am not sure he wants to be the token gay guy on cable TV).
    1
  11. Fire the "leadership" of the Capitol police. Rank and file were on their own, unless they are known to have assisted and waved the insurrectors in, they can get a pass. That officer on the staircase ? It did not matter if he would have resisted or not, they would have overrun him. And he did not know who of them carried a firearm. The "leadership" allowed the mob (potentially armed with guns) to be where they were because they did not bother to prepare, when preparation was obviously needed. i think some people wanted a riot / spectacle / intimidating show of force - it just got too much out of hand (which only shows how stupid they are). Trump cannot even fire the head of police in DC / Capitol police. He could in theory fire the head of the National Guards (I think he can) - but Biden could reinstate them 2 weeks later if they do their duty and Trump is pissed off at them for doing their duty. The president was eventually ignored, someone - not him - FINALLY called them in after the spectacle had escalated. If D.C. police at the beginning of January would have asked for help from New York, Austin, Seattle. Los Angeles, San Francisco etc. - they would have gotten it. The president elect could have made some promises the cities would get budgets for that, as the lame duck president had abdicted his responsibility. Then they would not have needed the National Guards at all, and could have evaded needing an order by Trump.
    1
  12. check out the Wikipedia article Storming of the United States Capitol. - it was CLOSER than I thought, there was a lone hero police officer who deflected the first group of the mob that had arrived on second floor already, while the doors of the Senate chamber were still unsealed. Mike Pence (as is the tradition) had headed the session and immediately after giving the floor to a Senator (so normal procedures, they were not yet informed about the breakdown of security) was taken away by Secret Service (his wife and daughter were also in the building). I think 5 - 10 minutes later they were in lockdown and the rioters in the holy halls and very close to the chamber. Holy shit ! I wonder what the insurrectors would have done IF they had gained access - maybe overwhelmed by their own brazenness - and they would have done nothing. But one nutter that is armed ... and that could have turned into a bloodbath. The acting DC police chief (he was appointed this January by the mayor, his predecessor had retired) resigned effective Jan. 16th. He lied that he was denied National Guard help several times. He must have some experience, but it was maybe not a good idea to switch leadership. On the other side that is a responsible position, and if he iscompetent to fill it he should have been able and willing to prepare. Many more officers / National Guards to secure the Capitol and it would not have escalated. Maybe unrest outside but not storming the Capitol (the first time since 1814, British troops burning Washington). The Capitol hill police chiefs, one for the Senate and one for the House, also resigned. Well - it is a start.
    1
  13. Yes, of course. If it is minimum wage it is a job where you need little training on the job or formal qualification or educaton to BE IMMEDIATELY PRODUCTIVE. so it does not matter if the person is 16 or 30. And if the 16 year old would not be fully productive they would not be hired at all. Or fired soon. But IF you can hire the 16 year old to get the job done, then you pay them the minimum (which also means that employers have a stake in helping young people to get productiive). Highly productive nations that export a lot do not allow to discriminate based on age. Seniority in a job often means higher pay, and if the company wants the more mature person for some softskills that come with age - they often will pay a little more (voluntarily). But they cannot go under the MINIMUM. That is the whole point of having the minimum.
    1
  14. Teenagers that work in a summer job must get full minimum pay in Germany or Austria for instance. The federal or the minimum pay as in the Collective bargaining contracts for their industry (those minimums often exceed the federal minimum). If a young person drops out of school and works all year in an unskilled job, they must get at least federal minimum pay. Only in apprenticeships the pay is lower BUT that comes with a lot of duties for the employer. They have to keeep the apprentice for 3 years (or whatever the time is for that trade, sometimes it is 3.5 or 4 years). They have to prove to the chamber of commerce that they have an educcation / training plan to teach them the trade. So they cannot abuse the young person for reptitive tasks at one place. Always at the warehouse or at the reception taking phone calls and a limited variety of administrative tasks. For instance at McDonalds preparing the food. That is not an apprenticeship. But restaurants will have short order cooks in training. It is not usual to send kids to schools where they learn to be a hair stylist or a "chef". Such offers may exist, but if so they do not cost nearly as much as in the U.S. and they are not common. The apprentice will also go to a public school (specialized for his or her trade) for 1 day per week during the usual school times. Or they do it as course in a boarding school. you cannot plan with the apprentice as normal staff member. It is more like they are an addition to the team and in the beginning the team has to carry them. The saying goes: in the first year they cost you (also nerves !) We ar talking about 15 years old that are shown a VARIETY of tasks. In the second year you break even and in the third year you profit from them. Then they graduate from school (that is a public school) and after that the company must keep them for a while (2 - 3 months) at full pay. That will be higher than the federal minimum pay, because now they are fellows, so they have some qualification.
    1
  15. as per one comment I read under another video: Obama was hostile to the nuclear industry and cut funding (aka subsidies !) - that was a major reason - you guessed it - for the Texas blackouts. Never mind TX has been run by Repubs for for ever and not being part of the federal grid was the trick to NOT be under federal regulations. So whatever was going on with nuclear (why should they as very established industry even get subsidies) - it had no impact on the 2 nuclear power plants in Texas. One of which could not operate for some stupid totally avoidable technical problem due to the intense cold. Except: El Paso. For geographic reasons they are part of the national grid (South West and Canada). Like all of Texas they were hit by the 2011 snowstorm and maybe their blackouts then were even worse than in most of Texas. But they LEARNED from them. And not too soon after the 1989 problems and TX had also an intense winter storm in 2014. Winterized plants. And the gas pipeline infrastructure. A new electric power plant was built. Usually it runs on natural gas. But just in case of an emergency and maybe shut off of natural gas (not a lot of storage) they also can run it on oil (likely diesel). Only 5 years after the plant was connected to the grid that feature shined for the first time. Did it cost more ? Of course. Technology and maintainance, they have to test it from time to time. Also the costs for having some storage for that fuel. Was it worth it ? You betcha. And as part of the national grid they are used to importing or exporting electricity. Not only the legalities, they have the powerlines to handle that much flow. So they could get extra power from a nucelar power plant in Arizona. Which was operational. While 1 of the 2 nuclear power plants in TX had to be shut down because some instruments were not working. considering how high standards for nuclear are supposed to be - that is ridiculous. That was a common occurence in 2011 btw which was bad but not quite as bad as 2021. some stupid malfunctioning of valves, or controls, pipe exposed to the cold .... often triggered the shutdown or major technical problems. Insulation, some sensors and added heat devices on pipes, placing instruments inside and not exposed, construction codes (no water pipes at the outside of exterior walls, at least not when the wall is not well insulated. That is a lot of small details to pay attention to and it does cost money in total. But they only had to work after the 2011 failures. A lot of buildings were made or renovated in the last 30 years. If Tx had updated their codes to demand quality insulation (also of homes) a lot of energy could be saved in summer (insualtion also reduced A/C costs). And the cold snap would not have been nearly as bad. The cold did not only hit TX but also other states in the south. Neighbour New Mexico. Oklahoma. Louisiana. - O.K. maybe it was not that bad in AZ where they could run the nuclear power plant just fine. and the powerlines connecting AZ and West Texas go over NM, so those were also functional. We also do not hear from the direct neighbours of TX. I am sure they had some problems. But nothing like the deregulated mess in Tx.
    1
  16.  @stoney2732  it is possible to follow the chain of infection of HIV. Very specific conditions for transfer (body fluids must be exchanged). HIV is not inhaled, and does not spread through air. It is hard to PROVE with high probability that a reckless person gave the infection. you could be in the same room with a reckless person but not being infected. Then you go shopping, staff abides by all the rules, other shoppers are circumspect - but you catch it there). Sadly it is not at all suited for legal prosection. That is why these idiots (usually they aspire to be orderly members of the middle class, are all for law and order (as they interpret it), and have property or want to get wealthy. That kind of people do not risk being sued for damages but they sniff it out that they are not going to get into trouble over this. So it is I got mine, screw you. Groom, bridesmaides, .... correctly assume that most likely they will not die and also not end up with long term negative effects or a hospital bill IF they get it. A good dose of cognitive dissonance over giving it to their elderly relatives. Being cavalier about intangible riks as long as things are normal for us is a human trait. (hundreds of thousands of years ago life was short, risky and disaster could hit at any time. Humans leaned on the optimistic side as long as things were O.K. - worrying correctly about the almost inevitable bad events that were going to hit them or loved ones and likely within a few years, did not help with survival. It would have only paralyzed them and put them into an even more vulnerable position. We have not evolved to be "realistic" about intangible risks or bad influences that build up over time. We are made to react to the very obvious stuff that is right before our nose. a wildfire, hunger, the sabber toothed cat, a person that looks threatening. The human brain is also not made to "get" statistics. We can "handle" statistics with help of maths (which is a tool). We do not "get" it in an emotional sense (and it is emotion that drives behavior - not ratio). We know that people (other ! people) get cancer diagnoses or have strokes or severe accidents all the time. But if life is O.K. no one expects that to happen to them (the feeling). Emotions not intellectual insight DRIVE and FUEL action. Ideally a person has insights from their frontal lobes processing information in an unbiased manner. And they can leverage the power of emotion (from the older parts of the brain !) that gives them the energy and drive to ACT on it (or to forgo a pleasure. Short term pain for long term gain. Conservatives claim they are good in that. Well, no).
    1
  17. Two thirds of The House could 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 (among voters) 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.
    1
  18. But many have been grifters for many years, the end justifies the means, they have been riling up voters to make brownie points, now they just took it to the next level with pretending since summer that mail vote is unsafe and after the election that it was stolen. They cannot let go of the craven practice now. Many of the cynical, disgusting behavior has to do with positioning themselves for 2024 when some of them want to run for president: all those wanna be presidential candidates want to inherit the Trump base to win the primaries with them. Lots of competition for the basket cases among the voters. So it was not likely they would go the path of decency and have a unified front - if they would be decent they would not pretend to believe that mail vote is on principle rigged, would not have pretended to believe that the election was stolen, and they would not have delayed the stimulus package in fall. She is elected. it would be upon the party leadership to discipline her, or even better to remove her (it begs the question why they allowed her on the ticket) but they will not do it. Likely the founders did not anticipate that level of cravenness. Legally a primary is NOT an election but a selection process of a private institution (a party). They do not have to respect the outcome, there are court rulings about that. They could have chosen the second best in the primary for GA 14. (First round 9 candidates, she got 44 % with 44,000 votes. The next R was 23 %. Almost the same number of voters in round 2 for her which then amounted to 57 %. 44,000 voters is not much, the GA Republican party could have done something). But the 2 R Senators that lost their races ;) courted her for her endorsement. Parts of the GA Repubs noted her online history and were secretly worried. But shut up to not draw unwanted attention when they were also a little concerened about Biden and the GA Senate races. Others most likely liked her for it. So they could not be bothered to do something when it would have been relativeley easy. Pouring money into the runoff primary to help the other candidate that made only 23 % in the first round (assuming he was not a certified moron as well). He had 43 % in round 2 so that was not impossible to win with improved turnout.
    1
  19. FDR kept the (fairly active) fascists at bay with economic populism. The Democratic party has to follow that (with Sanders it would have been much easier, the Biden admin gave some mildly positive signs so far but for instance they promised voters to give them 2,000 dollar cheques, these were explicit promises in the so important Georgia Senate races - and now they folded. USD 1,400 (and all of a sudden counting the former 600) that is duping the voters. They should have compromised at 1,800 if anything. (and kicked Sinema, Manchin and a few others into submission to vote for the removal of the filibuster). The R politicans are hopeless, they need to be ignored and sidelined (and for that the Dems would need to win solid majorities and get their own defectors in line. FDR twisted arms - of Democrats. The Republicans under FDR could only hope to be an obstacle. The R voters ? Enough could be won with economic populism. Back to the New Deal policies that buil the American middle class. The basket cases need to be dragged along, if the economy is doing good they would likely at least shut up. The younger ones might come around, and the older ones will die away. The Democrats need to turn out the base better, 68 % turnout in a historic eleciton is not enough. In other nations that would be 80 - 85 %. Affluent and old people vote much more (affluent AND old have the highest rate). With more turnout some of the red states could be turned. And going after right wing rabid grifting churches and stripping tax excemptions from them if they do political agitation (and nothing but). Those areas are not won by Democrats they can as well piss of the wanna be cultists. The black churches would also have to abide by that. But the good people can now organize online, so it is not as crucial as during the Civil Rights Movement.
    1
  20. At the end of his life he could become a beloved FDR style figur, build his legacy and get a book deal. He would not get the Wallstreet speeches, but he could make money from books. And they get a pension anyway.
    1
  21. It would be almost disrespectful of their audience - but the FOX shills assess the audience correctly, those sheeple do not notice.
    1
  22. The neoliberal / neocon status quo !
    1
  23. No a THINK TANK came up with the question - there where some really hacky gotcha framings going on (and people have been doing research of WHO the people are that are doing "HIT"-jobs. Another point: these were Harvard students. They are not a grace for that institution. If they had pestered him on data to healthcare or foreign policy. Instead they stooped to Fox News levels of disingenuity. (My family fled from the Soviet Union why do you want to introduce that system in the U.S. I am paraphrasing. Even if you fiercly disagree with his policies - being a Harvard student you owe it to yourself to do a little better than that. Sanders is for Universal Voting rights - mainly for the non-criminal voters who are deprived of their chance to vote in many sneaky ways (especially when they are minorities and/or poor). One ASPECT of this issue is what to do with people in jail (before any conviction), when they are in jail or prison, or what to do with felons after they were released. - leave it to this student and on the next day the media to find the most sensationalist, yellow-press style framing for a serious problem in U.S. voting system - the intergrity of the elections. (hackable voting machines, closed down poll stations - only in poor areas, mail ballots and registrations to vote thrown out, against court orders. Voter roll purges where serious "mistakes" are made, etc, etc.) But lets clutch our pearls if the Boston bomber would cast a vote. For whom do they think he is going to vote ? In theory the candidates an parties on the ballot are not criminal. And how many votes do they think he would have (in 2016 250 million people had the vote in the U.S.) The Boston bomber is not a superdelegate. At least 50 % of those in jail or prison are there because of non-violent crimes. See https://www.prisonpolicy(dot)org/reports/pie2019.html Approx. 2,2 million people are locked up (end of 2016), estimated 19 million ex-felons live in the U.S., there are no numbers kept (some of them have the vote, a few states allow it). Now that is not going to swing elections. BUT: A very simple rule would adhere to the constitution (the right to vote is derived from citizenship, which after all is not revoked - not even for vile criminals). And it is also cost-efficient and a stop to Republican shenanigans: if everyone keeps the vote it avoids a lot of red tape, and it prevents the Republicans from kicking normal citizens from the voter rolls (see what they did in Florida in 2000). The 14th amendment gives the states the right to decide over that (which is not completely logical because the right to vote - finally for all - was and is tied to citizenship. Voting is not a privilege or treat. It is a RIGHT and another way to see it: it is a civic duty.
    1
  24.  @strumbum946  He is not a Democrat is an advantage in the swing states (especially the Rust Belt). Ryan Grim recently about the party in Pennsylvania. They are rotten to the core, every city in its unique way. - would explain why Trump won with a high margin - they were just waiting for an "outsider".
    1
  25.  @luckygargoyle4881  you have been following AOC when she gives off the cuff comments, have you ? (Those vids go viral and in a good way, her base likes what she has to say). Of course you may be spoiled by the nuance, intellectual depth of Trump. Or Sarah Palin. Or did you see how Sasha Cohen Baron tricked Republicans regarding guns (people who are or were elected to office - shows you that they repeat EVERYTHING that is put before them). Sasha (who appears to be an introvert intellectual, a quiet soft spoken thoughtful man) also got a meeting with Sanders posing as redneck youtuber / radio host. (AOC was not in office yet) Sanders did not come out of that looking bad (it was funny but in a good way).
    1
  26.  @luckygargoyle4881  AOC is going to turn out the young vote (on a national level) - if you think the Repubs want that, you have no clue about politics and their election strategy which depends on supressing the vote or lower income people and minorities. Or people NOT bothering to vote (Admitted the Corporate Dems help with that, they do not give voters something to vote FOR. but watch her campaigning for Sanders in the GE).
    1
  27. in 18 weeks you cannot be working in heating and air - not qualified. 60 % of the economy is domintated by big biz - those companies are on the stock exchange. Stock buybacks are toxic. Good lock if your retirement depends on them. have a look into the high frequency trading just for a start. - that propsal seems quite complicated to me - WHO would be supervising it. (the lobbying act has a lot of loopholes and even so there is ONE employee in the DOJ - so oversight, not control, it does not even matter if there is a law or not).
    1
  28. you had "wonderful" healthcare ?? I assume that meant an affordable individual police - or paid for by the employer. If you had your own police you never realy needed that healthcare - in the private for profit syste you never know what you have until you desperately need it. If it was affordable then you bet it did not cover all. (ACA outlawed the "chunk" policies that scammed the consumers). If the company paid enough to subsidize the way too expensive system - well no one keeps them from doing that NOW. The healthcare industry extracts even more subsidies now (with the help of ACA) the industry before could throw people out when they got sick or they were refused because of pre-existing conditions. 20 % of the insured cause 80 % of the costs - in that area, the insurance companies got rid of the potentially expensive patients, and the also expensive elderly were covered under Medicaid. So in that way they got a sufficiently purged pool - they should of course then have offered highly competitive rates. But that did not happen. It just was enough to cover up for the way too high costs, the purged pool allowed them to maintain the red tape and the high profits and it became not too obvious. as long sa manufacturing was still in the U.S. the employed had the protection of the employer, the insurance companies could not play the insured, the company might have supported them. But jobs got outsourced, medicine became more capable and also much more expensive. ACA allows not anymore to deny coverage for preexisting conditions. (They have of course developed tricks but on principle). So now the plans for the "good" customers are getting much higher reflecting more transparently the high price levels. That is especially the case in the states that refused to take the federal money for the system - just because. (Georgia is one of them). So middle class people that have no good income but earn too much for Medicaid are screwed and of course the industry extracts subsidies from the government like never before. Healthcare is 17 % of the GDP in the U.S. and 7 - 10 % in all other wealthy nations. The per capita costs are typically 5,000 - 6000 USD - versus 9,200 in the U.S. I read that approx 65 % of healthcare expenditures in the U.S. are paid for by the government. The affordable healthcare for everyone in other nations ALSO needs subsidies (or it would not be possible. the wage deductions are only a percentage of wages with a cap, and must be matched by the employer, no matter the size of the company). That is all that is to pay, no unpleasant surprises later. And the health status does not matter. You are legally in the country have a job (or not ! there are provisions for those people as well) - you got the very same insurance coverage as everybody else. The system is not meant to make a profit for shareholders it leans very much towards non-profit, the countries at least have a major non-profit public insurance company.
    1
  29. + VikDR - the ttruck drivers that pee into bottles because they have no time for a toilet stop. Sounds like an attractive occupation. And of course that person will not be much at home. Just in case the wife or relatives would need help.
    1
  30. Well CNN was the war network in 2003, 2001 (Afghanistan), the illegal attacks on Syria in spring 2017 and 2018 (No there was NO evidence that the government had used chemical weapons - plus WHY would that be the business of the U.S. - as opposed the business of the U.N. ?).
    1
  31.  @schmeesmclaren1570  you should contact your lawmakers then to motivate them. Will be pointless if they are Republicans, but call then anyway to put them on notice. You can spare yourself the trouble if your representative is a progressive or a fairly decent Senator like Warren or Ed Markey. They are not going to stand in the way.
    1
  32.  @schmeesmclaren1570  Oh, and start out with calling the office of Sinema and Manchin, they protected Mitch the Obstructionist even from the threat of the Dems removing the filibuster. Other "conservative" Dems voiced their "concerns" about getting rid of the filibuster, but at least did not give McConnelll officially the go ahead for obstructionism. "They would not like to remove it, but if the Republicans stonewall .... " Those 2 traitors undermined the Biden admin right out of the gate by giving mitch the promise they would not vote for removing the filibuster under any circumstances.
    1
  33.  @schmeesmclaren1570  Why do you listen to the "sob" stories then ? I find the behavior of the police officer (if he was one) questionable / not adequate. Maybe he was stressed out and there are explanations. But ALL of the Capitol Police should be better prepared for ANY emergencies and evacuations. AOC's story was part of the puzzle. Other targets like Mike Pence and Pelosi or Mitch McConnell had fast and competent protection (under the given circumstances of letting the mob storm the Capitol) There are protocols of course (if both the president and the VP would be killed or unable to govern I think one of the Speakers would take the position of president. Probably Speaker of Congress). First they removed the VP (another person stepped in for him to chair the session, then the Speaker and the whip were escorted out of the ongoing session - this was when the legislators present in the Chamber realized something unusual was going on. Immediately after that police came in to warn them and they went into recess. (Sanders said they were the last to realize how serious it was, because they were in session. Likely they are not supposed to play around with their phones). AOC was one of the few that were prime targets AND had no special protection. She and her staff member had to fend for themselves. In the office of Katie Porter there were more people, but I am not sure police or security was present, they barricaded themselves and stayed there for a few hours.
    1
  34.  bruce basile  I have reported that user recently (for name and profile pic) - youtube is dragging their feet. - as for the USPS: postal services are among the few that are mentioned in the constitution. They would need to be upheld even if they would need subsidies. They had to put money aside for persons that were not even born, but would one day work for them.
    1
  35. They did not have a vaccine then !
    1
  36.  Emma Thompson  she reacted to a side note in an article - and she knows her tweets will get a lot of attention. Why not just give it a pass. - maybe it offends her how language is used (the aesthetics of it). anyway: they have other problems in the U.K. she should know better than get hung up on that.
    1
  37.  Emma Thompson  Also the article is about people that clearly are in financial difficulties so they need help to get hygience products, CoVid-19 crisis and stuff.And THAT is what JKR takes from the article. Not a good moment. since she knows how much attention she gets she better think about ther tweets. She isn't Donald Trump after all. If she wants to publish insentitive or ill thought out statemetns she has to do that in a private facebook group. Where she can be like us normals, and post dumb stuff w/o getting backlash.
    1
  38. they gave her the committee AFTER she got a lot of negative attention and after the storm of the capitol. The minority speaker had said he would speak to her, and a few days later flew to Florida to kiss the ring of Trump, around that time she got the committee seats.
    1
  39. Well said - it is an exercise in manufacturing consent. The gall to use the word mischief. Way too benevolent for the right wingers and not doing justice to the commitment, MANDATE (by the voters) and uphill battle of the Squad.
    1
  40. Automation btw is NOT the savior for ruthless employers. Automation used to be the base for unprecedented productivity wins that paid for GOOD wages after WW2. (in the U.S. productivity went up by 112 % between 1947 and 1970 and in the same time the real hourly average wages went up by 97 %. So the workers got the lion's share, and most of it came from automation, new materials, .... That was industrial wages but also federal minimum wage, and the salaried employees of course also got a good deal. "real" wages means adjusted for inflation, so purchasing power of 1 hour work almost doubled (just shy of 3 %). If ever the docile and subservient U.S. working class/ votrers wake up from their trance (before the country has desceded into facism) and demand their fair share - a good part of the possible cost recuctions because of automation will be taxes and very good wages for those who are still needed (and would work 30 hours in a reasonably set up society, not 50 or 60). Likewise outsourcing to developing countries is not necessary to have a technology driven, highly productive economy. The Golden Era (Era of the Economic Miracle is the term in Europe) had only somewhat free trade. Lots and lots of quotas, import tariffs and also technology for distribution and communications were not as advanced. Finance strictly regulated. Did not hinder the good life for a major part of the population NOR did it hinder businesses, did it ?There is a reason THEN the American middle class was built and after those policies were abndoned (starting with Reagan) the Middle class has been in decline ever since. The same is going on in Europe but it is not quite as bad as in the U.S. - not because their companies or politicians are more noble human beings. A lot of that shit does not fly.
    1
  41.  SCOTT WATSON  Get your facts right, recent CDC study Mail till July 2021 numbers - and even more recent North Carolina assessment. Of NC: 5 times higher risk to get infected and 29 times the risk to die for the unvaccinated. The breakthrough cases also include the normal number of people whose immune system is a slow learner. It is normal that any vaccine (even with high efficacy) fails around 5 % of the fully vaccinated. The virus has again ! improved and become more contagious. So it FINDS those vaccine failures because the infection is everywhere (thanks to anti vaxxers). The good news is: for them the virus is not completely new that head start they got is enough to give them an edge and they still have protection from complication. Their immune system is faster to react. Except for the unfortunate that cannot get vaccinated or they did get it but their immune system is compromosed and that results also in a weak response. (it is typicla for immune compromised people and the elderly to have a weaker response). So they tend to get only weak protection out of the vaccination AND cannot afford to get ill.
    1
  42.  Lincoln D  Are you for real ? Did you watch the last debate between him and Biden ? or his virtual events on the crisis ? his input on the stimulus bills ??
    1
  43. They hype up "unity" as important issue (with 2 parties in a 330 million people country, there are countries with under 5 million poeple who have 10 parties that have a chance to be in government). The "normies", the establsihment versus those who stray. Let's not get lost in any nuance WHY they stray. The big donors do not care if it is Jeb Bush or Matt Gaetz - as long as they do not get too uncough. As if that opposition to the establishment would be an important criterium. It is so ludicrous that it is either massive neoliberal bias or sophisticated manufacturing of consent. The use of the word mischieve is telling. Mischivous can apply to a prank or to flirting or a kid being naughty but in a cute way. It does not justice to the luncacy, and/or craven cynicism on one side and also does not justice to the uphill battle for the good of the people on the other side.
    1
  44.  @SplotPublishing  Interesting historical take - and of course the voter roll purges in Florida in 2000 that Jeb Bush did for his brother. AFTER the election the court ordered the company to rerun it - but with MORE CRITERIA. TaDa - they found they had removed 12,000 that clearly were NOT felons. (The stories then were that veterans, political activists, whole apartment blocks where ONE ex-felon lived, ....had been purged from the lists. Of course only in certain areas and minorites).
    1
  45. Good thinking ! the death penalty is proven to NOT prevent murder - but let's try refusing them the RIGHT to vote, that will make them think twice ! - Historically: even vagrancy (or suspected vagrancy) was used to lock up people, the authorities were never shy about doing that to the poor. Of course in jail / prison people are even more fed up and they might have time to think. So if they had in theory the possibility to vote before, they might be even more inclined to use it. First order of the haves and the comfortable: strip them of their rights and of their vote and dehumanize them. I mean in the U.S. all people had the right to vote - only in the South it wasn't. - It needed massive demonstrations, political upset, international headlines, the National Guard to get the vote for ALL people. (and there was massive backlash from pissed off whites, incl. acts of terrorism and bombing churches. Murder of peaceful activists with help of the police, beating up peaceful protesters, harrassing a demonstration of children with police, dogs, water cannons). And the party that was finally shamed into doing something about it (in 1965 voting rights act) was punished by the white voters of the South by abandoning the party. Before that time the racists were spread out evenly over both parties (with regional clusters no doubt). After the Civil and Voting Rights Act the Republicans detected they could get racists voters from the Democratic party - so they have specialized in more or less subtle racism ever since.
    1
  46. Those committee assignments are sought after, maybe it is currency with the lobbyists, or they get extra pay. (And some good people think they can work done for The People). But she gets the salary of 170k before taxes anyway, that is not tied to extra work, and not all members of Congress can get a seat on a comittee. Of course she would be supposed to read the bills, inform herself, coordinate with other lawmakers, talk to experts even lobbyists (if only to know what they are up to) ..... I am sure there are many lazy members of Congress or Senate that just do and vote as told by party and donors and someone provides them with the lame talking points. Preparing for interviews, and of course fundraising. "Working for Trump" is HER fundraising, the big donors will evade her, the party leadership is kinda schizophrenic about her. But if she rides the Trump wave and sucks up tohim she can fundraise for 2022 just fine. She better start now to fill her war chest, who knows what will become of Trump. He fundraised 600 millions on "stolen election". that super motivated his base because they thought they could turn the election outcome around. His base (that is STILL dedicated to the degree that they donate) may be limited, but if he has 20 million ardent followers. and each of them continues to give let's say 20 bucks. That's 400 more million USD.
    1
  47. Your post is good, but I recommend entering paragraphes if you can, would make so much easier to read.
    1
  48. Also: they infringe on the individual freedom of other persons to receive the shot. Not even rabid anti vaxxers have claimed so far that the vaccination that other people are getting are hurting them.
    1
  49. sadly also an explosion of cases in Austria, lockdown 2 ended on Dec. 7th and started on Nov. 1st, if they had implemented it mid October they could have curbed the exponential growth. with some dealy Germany did the same (so they were not "open" for Christmas shopping, so I think they are still in lockdown (have prolonged it).
    1
  50. Well we will see if he or Andrew are less welcome ....
    1