Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Jesse Ventura Bodyslams Biden u0026 Trump, But Commits To Vote" video.

Vote for the Greens (especially in safely blue or red state). It does not even matter much if you agree with them (there are probably other parties candidates, so this would be about strategically supporting outsiders. They are not getting into power, so their stance on things does not matter that much. - BUT: having a viable third party is important. The Green party offered Sanders to run on their ticket in 2016 and again now. HE did not take that offer, but another outsider might, if the DNC continues to screw progressives. Or anti- war candidates. It takes time, efffort, money and consistency being on the ballot - so only by providing that option (and the possible threat ** to the so complacent, craven D establishment) only with that the Greens SERVE democracy. Bonus: it really pisses off the Democrats. Jill Stein got ONE percent in 2016 (doubling the 2012 result). Imagine they would get over 5 % this time. Sanders could learn from Trump. does not matter if they howl, as long as you hit a chord with the voters and there is a lively debate on TV. It rewards the efforts of honest players doing the uphill battle, and with 5 % they get federal funding. ** Imagine: Sanders would still be in the race, still be in campaign mode. Musing whether the Democrats REALLY want to win the general. Because they do not behave like it. And where is the leadership (or even taking up space in public appearances) of Joe Biden ? If beating Trump is the most important thing - why don't they behave differentely with the "stimulus" bill, and why are they hell bent on not giving the base and progressives ANYTHING. M4A is an electoral policy dream come true during an epidemic. So WHY don't they adopt that as signature policy and win the presidency and the Senate while expanding the Congress majority. it is almost as if winning against Trump is not The Most Important Thing. As if serving the big donors beats that. Sanders could continue to muse that he reserves ALL options, and he'll be damned if he is not going to try to get the U.s. citizens - finally - good and cost-efficient single payer. By all means necessary. Can you imagine the howling of DNC, Obama the media. He does not even have to mention he would run in the general on the Green ticket. It is legally possible.
2
@bobdobbolina8376 A hypothetical 35 % result of Greens ? you tell the haters not to worry: next time the Greens are going to WIN and the Dems are history *. You stop cowering and start welcoming their hatred. You are outspoken about putting blame where it belongs: media and DNC and Obama for propping up, anointing * (free airtime, Biden is more electable myth) and endorsing a candidate that is unable to win - and covering up for his cognitive decline. * You flip it back on them. Want to win elections ? How about having a WINNING POLICY platform ? We are not going anywhere, and while it is true that the U.S. never had more than 2 relevant parties - on rare occasions one party replaced the other. And that old party VANISHED. They chose and strongly promoted a LOSER for the SECOND TIME. They clearly don't know what they are doing, they have sold the older base a bill of goods when they told them how Biden was more electable. Being able to reach out to progressives is part of being "electable" if these voters are needed to win. The Green party getting a good result (or even 35 %) would NEGATE that. Engaging disaffected non-voters is part of electability, if you need them to win. If you can't do that because you offer nothing to vote FOR and the only offer you make is that you are not-Trump and that you return to the state of affairs that gave the U.S. Trump (and that was BEFORE the crisis), you are not even delivering the minimum. Beating Trump. Even only 5 % - or 10 would be a historic success for the Greens and reflect really, really badly on the Democratic establishment and the media on top of that. They would of course work overtime to deflect and to gloss over it. So it is the task of progressives to HIT BACK and correct the narrative. HARD. What they cannot order voters into obedience, scare them, shame them into voting as they are ordered ? So much so that the Greens have a HISTORIC success. THAT bad is the offer of the Democratic party. How about EARNING that vote ? The U.S. is technically speaking a democracy. (Ross Perot the right anti NAFTA billionaire got 19 % of the popular vote, Bill Clinton may not even have won in 1992 but for Perot, but not a peep of Hillary Clinton on that, instead she blames Jill Stein with 1 % - when HRC was able to snatch defeat from the jaws of success). * which they do, with the free airtime and the fawning over the establishment darlings., at the same time villfying Sanders or lying about his proposals. I currently live in a single payer country, you need to have experience with such systems and know how people use it (and take it for granted and are content with it) to really appreciate how dumbed down and corrupt the healthcare discussion is on MSM. that fawning effect is huge if you think what advertising would cost - and gullible voters think that is more believeable than ads. They still think they get "news" from MSM.
1
@quinndawsonosgood5261 The 1 % of the colonies had a falling out with the 1 % of the British empire and with the help of the French monarch they pulled off the secession. They needed the unwashed masses for the sure to come war (without the help of France they would not even have started the rebellion). And these educated men had been on the receiving end of government tyranny, they needed religious freedom just for practical reasons, and they knew the ideas of the enlightenment. Were somewhat impressed with that - but not so much that they would have given up slavery or would really let the plebs participate in the important decisions. But they had to motivate the under class. Who had been told they had to obey the king - so now they had to get used to obey the upper class of the colony. And for that privilge they would have to help them in a war (with the risk to be injured, getting disabled, losing their life. The usual economic problems of war, and on top likely little help for disabled vets and widows). The founders (not father) had to come up with a good narrative of freedome (from British rule mind you) to motivate the masses. How THEY would be better for the economy. Only males had the vote. White - and of those only 40,000.
1
@quinndawsonosgood5261 Wealthy English merchants had the aristocrats forced to let them have a say, they too had a two party system and I think THAT inspired the founders. Gridlock ?? The U.K. parliament was able to function - for the wealthy, and by and large it did that for centuries. The U.S. system was also intended to function for the wealthy and only people that had some property were allowed to vote (if they were white males). But having the right to vote did not mean they had a lot of influence on what was going on. Parliamentary gridlock ? There was only Iceland and Switzerland, and then the U.K. (not sure what was going on in Netherlands, maybe rich merchants there also had carved out their niche). TWO is good enough if this is the wealthy citizens getting uppity and making demands on the aristocrats. Two parties is enough if you do not really want democracy, if this is about a power balance between several moneyed interests. The U.S. system is set up to have not more than 2 parties and that worked out as intended. Sometimes one new party replaced another, but still ONLY 2 relevant parties. Some of the founders were highly intelligent men they for sure could figure out where the "winner takes all per district system" was headed.
1
@quinndawsonosgood5261 In a parliamentary system it is easier for the voters to RETALIATE if the established parties are letting them down big times. There is the normal, less than ideal sausage making in politics - and then there is the big stuff, like handling the corona crisis. Most wealthy democracies jumped into action and passed generous provisions. MUCH more generous than in the U.S. Need I mention that they also have a better grip on things, mass testing, etc. Even (and especially) those with conservative governments, that usually worship the balanced budgets. They know the populist far right and center left, the fake left (neoliberal), or in some cases even a genuine labor friendly left party are just waiting to get them. And they CAN get them. There is a chance to suffer consequences. In the U.S. the Dems by default will stumble upon electoral success every 10 - 15 years, they just have to wait until the Repubs mess it up enough. And in the meantime they will still keep a LOT of seats. Does not work like that in a country with 5 - 10 parties. A party can mess up - and never recover. Their voters just switch to the next best fit and never return if they do not get their act together. These countries have restrictions how much can be spent on elections. Restrictions on mass media spending (TV and radio so far, the ad budgets and ethical restrictions). all of that means that small parties have a chance because the groundwork is more important. An energized new party can compete with a complacent established party who got the votes by default, and by less than enthusiastic voters. Cultural norms for ads: Govenor De Santis showed his kids "building the wall" with lego etc. - not even the far right in Europe would show such ads. They would not be aired, but they would only get backlash for it anyway - even their base would be embarassed. Federal funding of elections, fairness rules for TV (if they make it on the ballot, they must get a chance to make their case to the voters). No derogatory ads are allowed. "negative" ads U.S. style are either not legal or at least culturally not accepable. You can hit hard (in debates speeches, ...) but you have to keep it classy, kind of factual, and deceptive editing is not allowed either. Especially in the mass formats like TV and radio. If a (center) left government is in charge and messes up a crisis response, the center-right, right, far right, greens, far left are just waiting for their chance to kick them. Big crisis: they feel the need to deliver. They know what would hit them, if they don't rise to the challenge. Their voters do have a choice. In a two party system each party can afford to sell out the voters. How are voters going to punish them ? - if both do it ? The Democratic party establishment: "Nice little country you have here, wouldn't it be a shame if Trump happened to it ?" If the U.S. citizens would have ranked choice voting - only that. The Dems would not DARE to have an offer that is only: "not-Trump" And now medicare starts with 60 years. How generous. If the Dems would know that the following scenario is realistic: 20 % of their vote would go to a center right party, 10 % to a Green party, 8 % to a pro weed, pro digital freedom, kind of libertarian party. 5 % to the far left. And these votes would not be wasted, the representatives would show up in the house. - The Democratic majority party would soon detect the value of giving the voters something to vote for. I have lived in Europe, if politicians lose elections they NEVER blame the voters. It is usually: we had a good program, but we could not communicate it well enough. Or: we have to listen better. Or: we must get better to turn out our base. Sometimes unlucky circumstances are blamed (economics. A scandal. Or the state election was overshadowed by dissatisfaction with the federal government and the performance of a certain party, etc.) These politiicans take it for granted that they have to earn the vote. Or at least that shaming and nagging the voters is not getting them anywhere.
1
@analyzerlx 10 % of the Germans have full private (regulated) insurance, 90 % are by mandate under single payer ! (Does not matter that there are several public non-profit insurance agencies - to all intents and purposes it is still "single" payer. Most nations have more than one agency, but they cooperate and coordinate within the country. (I suspect they also exchange information regarding drug prices behind the scenes among the nations). The German government determines WHO is even allowed to opt out of single payer to have full private insurance. It is the opt out for the few privileged (the wealthy, you need to have 94,000 EURO yearly income. If you have 90,000 and young and healthy and would see an advantage in "private". Sad day: you are single payer, you can buy supplemental insurance but not full insurane), certain self employed professions like lawyers, architects and civil servants and teachers are also allowed the CHOICE - they have a safe job and steadily rising wages. People can switcht to private (if they meet the legal criteria) but it is almost impossible to switch back. The insurers control whom they want as client by calculating their offers, so they get a cherrypicked pool. It is slightly different in australia. There the government pushes the affluent voters out of the public service, even if they would like to stay in that pool. Germany: historically evolved system since 1883, conservative government doing favors to the industry, their voters (affluent) and doctors (a single payer agency has more negotiating power and has better = lower rates). Australia: tug of war between the right wing government doing favors to the industry and in that case even private for profit hospitals. Labour holds against it.
1
@analyzerlx Germany is relatively high with their heathcare spending btw: 56 % of the U.S. spending. Neighbour Austria with a similar age structure 54 %, France 49 or 50 % ..... data Kaiser 2017. 100 % = U.S. spending per person USD 10,260
1
In all swing states (but one and there it was close) the ratio between Stein and Johnson votes was 1 : 3 (like the result of the popular vote in all of the U.S.: 1 % Stein, 3 % Johnson). In PE it was just shy of 3 times, and in several states Johnson got MORE than 3 times the votes of Stein. - If we even accept that framing - from a numbers standpoint it does not make sense either. Johnson was a Republican govenor, leaning libertarian. So how were Johnson voters owing their votes to HRC ? IF ALL Stein voters had come out and voted for HRC * then we can at least with the same logic assume that 33 % of the Johnson voters would have "owed" their vote to Trump (being more affin with the right / Republican). Which would have balanced out all the Green party votes theoretically going to HRC. And if ALL Johnson voters would have picked the Republican candidate in the swing states (Rust Belt, Industrial North, Florida) then Trump would have won with a wider margin (the result was quite narrow in some states). In the rustbelt states there was an unusually high number of people that left a blank, but voted Democrat down ticket. It is almost as if HRC just was a too weak candidate that did not make a good and convincing offer to the BASE. They bothered to come out, they agreed that Trump wasn't fit to be president - but they just could not bring themselves to vote FOR HRC - and they also had no interest in the third party candidates. it is as if Johnson and Stein would demand that the blanks should really have gone to them. The many blanks and downballot voting Democrat - that's not reflecting well on HRC. They were also too arrogant to spend on quality extensive polling for the swing states. (and they did not give the states money, even though they begged for it. The Consultant class does not like spending on lowly staff on the ground. Sure they might be effective, but no one of the beltway insiders makes a cut of that. The Clinton campaign must have gotten a warning by a poll. Obama and the whole circus did a big rally in the last days - either in PE or Ohio. If HRC had swallowed her pride and admitted: It looks closer than I am comfortable with - please, please do come out to vote. I think many pissed off voters stayed home in the blue firewall states, that were taken for granted. HRC could have assured the voters in the Northern Industrial states: No TPP is off the table, in that form and in any other form. Plus we will have a good look at public option. Let's take it from there, we will raise the age to 50, that more or less equals the first year of Bernie's idea * - maybe we can get single payer. I will have Bernie as advisor in the function of xx so you can be sure we will push for it. * Sanders introduced the bill mid 2017, he has a 4 year rollout. THAT could have helped her pull it off. But no .... her fans and supporting media were debating Win or Win in a landslide. Likely they too were confident to get a solid win. I am sure the typical Johnson voter might align with the mythical moderate Republicans that Chuck Schumer said in summer 2016 they would pick up. §For every blue collar we lose to Trump in West PE" (read we abandon our former base) "we will pick up 2 - 3 Republicans in the suburbs, and we can repeat that in Wiscosin, in Michigan, Ohio ...." I have not heard Schumer slammed for that "strategy". The philosophy behind it, and from the standpoint of WINNING. Somehow HRC or now Biden are entitled to certain votes - I wonder why HRC does not shame the Tea party crowd for not voting her in, it is about the same logic that they would OWE HER a vote, just because they belong to the 60 % that even bother to go vote - in a high profile election, no less. The presidential race of 2016 would have been 80 - 85 % turnout in every other democracy, just because the candidates were so controversial for the other side.
1
Third party in the safely red OR blue states. (Most are in that category). Hold your nose in the swing states. Help progressives down ballot. Strategically even vote for neoliberal Democrats in congress and Senate (let them know by mail, how lucky they are, they can expected to be graded in 2022). Get your yellow vest ready, whether Trump or Biden wins.
1