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

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 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. 1
  7. 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. 1
  10. 1
  11. 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. 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. 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. 1
  21. 1
  22. 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. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 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. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 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. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 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. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1