Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Rebel HQ" channel.

  1. blowing them kisses and waving friendly also works - for instance if they flip youoff or show you the middle finger. - And: if you need someone to let you drive out of a street into main street - begging them like a child with the please please gesture (both hands brought together). . dudes might not bring themselves to do it ;) - One relative told me a truck driver had used that trick on her. She laughed - and waived him in. Other females of the family have used it too (passengers can do it too). It works.
    13
  2. McCain was one of the few Republicans that did not try to leverage racism, you can tell how embarrassed he was by his base.
    12
  3. + Reignfyre67 One thing is more important to the Dems (and their owners and financiers ! ) than the Dems winning - it is keeping the progressives from winning. If some INFLUENTAL ! Dems lose their political seats in the process of losing - so what - the donors will provide the cushy jobs for them. The donors - who finance D + R - want strong Republicans and weak Democrats. If there is ever a progressive movement, the Democrats are supposed to soak up that movement and to prevent it from becoming really dangerous (for the donors). So they have their place and function as well, that role they can fulfill better than the Republicans (who are preferable when it comes to tax cuts and deregulation of industrial production safety standards). Dems are also useful to undermine the unions for REAL. Bush could not get NAFTA passed. Bill Clinton was able to dupe the unions, break the promises the unions were given and get it passed. Nothing like the fake left to really screw the working people (Gerhard Schroeder in Germany or Tony Blair in UK performed a similar gig).
    10
  4. Let me quote Greg Palast: The Republicans steal General Elections, the Democrats steal primaries. (RT Redacted, Lee Camp had him on several times, Greg already worked on the 2000 Florida voter purge).
    10
  5. That hasn't happened the first time to her. She is a female & black. No doubt had plenty of occasions to train (or to wonder in hindsight what she should have been done).
    9
  6. The Clinton campaign did that with Obama - they thought they were subtle about it. Obama had visited a foreighn country in Africa or Asia, and I think when he was already a politician. The reception of the visitor often include that they either take part in some local folclore or traditional fun activities (Trump and the sword dance in Saudi Arabia) or they wear some local garment as a nod to the host country. The visitors show that they are good sport, and it is a sign of politeness. So the Clinton campaign found such a nonsignificant photo of Obama in a kaftan (not even sure IF that had anything to do with a Muslim culture - but it might look like that for the unenlightened). They either handed it to Republican channels or used "their" media to bring it into circulation. The facade of inclusiveness and racial fairness crumbles quickly when finances and power are challenged.
    8
  7. It shows how clueless they are. Making complete fools out of themselves.
    8
  8. "Organizing locally but not with the same message everywhere". Right: that is how FDR, Clinton, Carter, Kennedy or Obama campaigned (in the case of Obama I mean "campaign" as opposed to what later acutally happened). Anyway: Now it is: "don't even PRESENT a big vision". The donors and the party establishment would like you direct your energy at things that are valid in YOUR small, inconsequential community. Don't try to find the common denominator that make life difficult in ALL these communites for the regular folks (even though the trouble may show in different form). Good healthcare is not organized "locally". Jobs: sure it looks differenct in N.Y.C. than in Detroit. But a party that makes policies (and trade deals) that hurt people in Detroit will not take good care of the folks in N.Y.C. so the people in N.Y.C. SHOULD care what is going on in Flint - if they do it to Flint they will do something like that to them as well. Just a matter of time. They can as well find the common interest with the little people in other regions. And a politician with a vision knows that. Another reason why it is regionally important what happens in another place: the taxes that are earned in a prosperous part of the country can help maintain the more rural areas (like subsidizing healthcare, education, etc.) Also progressives from are very supportive of the progressives in other states when they challenge Republicans or Corporate Democrats.
    7
  9. please go to info@berniesanders.com and beg the campaign so that Sanders does NOT play the surrogate FOR Biden. People like the ideas of Sanders, "but later, now it is time to beat Trump". * They vote for Biden over Sanders because they think Joe is a) a nice guy and b) he is BETTER or well able to beat Trump. - and Sanders CONFIRMS THAT (Joe is my friend, and yes he can beat Trump, of course he can). - It is not even true. - I very much dispute that Biden can beat Trump unless the economy tanks completely. Biden is likely in cognitive decline, at the minimum he has much less stamina than Sanders, he does a light schedule, many "gaffes", not to mention how much BAGAGGE Biden has. Sanders should say: I am better because I have proven myself in a rigorous LONG campaign, and there are many issues where I can drag Trump, but Biden can't go there or is vulnerable (Iraq war, and trade deals, plus family corruption, the Biden family made hundreds of millions). Biden is status quo regarding healthcare and NO cuts to pharma costs and Trump is not better. Trump didn't hold his promise regarding healthcare. THAT should sway some of his supporters (or keep them at home). Studies (how to persuade people): People that lean to the right do not react well to appeals on empathy (so the separated children are not a reason for them to not vote for Trump, also no empathy for dreamers, at least not enough to overcome their perceived self interest). But right wingers appreciate holding promises and LOYALTY. Sanders CAN hit Trump on that, Biden can't ALSO: Sanders IS the stronger debater.
    7
  10. You are a troll - right ? ... Are the Tories running scared ?
    7
  11.  Fact Checker  Nope, incorrect on many counts. The largest group are NOT unvaccinated Americans. The group most fiercly opposed are white Republicans and Evangelicals (ture they might have some black folks).
    7
  12. Despite all the hype it is NOT PROVEN that is was a hack, let alone a hack ordered by the Russian gov.. More likely a LEAK. William Binney former technical director of the NSA working for a solution for 24/7 total surveillance: If data travels over the net there is a track record and there is NO way the NSA does NOT HAVE it (if someone remote accessed the DNC and then extracted the data they would be sent over the web, there is no other physical possibility). And it would be SAFE to show the evidence - it would not reveal methods or sources - there are claims like that and they are false (from a mere technical or IT point of view). So if they have the evidence they could present it without any disadvantages, they did so immediately after the SONY hack (this I know from a McAffee interview, on ? RT) - so why don't they just show the damn evidence. Julian Assange on the other hand explicitely said: it was a LEAK not a hack. Craig Murray former ambassador of UK, kicked out because of his integrity (reg. brutal dictator of Uzbekistan). He works now for Wikileaks, he claims that he got the data in physical form (USB stick or something like that) from an disgusted insider of the DNC in a park in Washington. When the data is saved internally on an USB-stick and then handed over in person of course there are no tracks about this web traffic the NSA could show to us.   NSA are usually the ones that have the experts for hacking and they help out the other agencies like the CIA (again I heard that from Binney) - and they were the only agency that had "medium" certainty that it was a hack and ordered by Russia (see the report from all agencies from January 2017). All other agencies had "high confidence" . The comprehensive report of all agencies speculates about Putins psychological motives for the alleged hack. The also state the "negative" fact that RT (yes Russia Today the Russian sponsored successful TV station) reported about fracking, hosted Third Party debates and repeatedly mentioned Wall Stret greeds. All these subversive activities intend to incite dissatisfaction within the audience (I am paraphrasing, but it is true, the report OBSESSES with RT and their reporting on the aformentioned topics. It would almost be funny if it was not so chilling. Monthy Python material. This would not be the first time the agencies carry the water for powerful politicians - and their networks and donors - the Hillary canp and that includes many corporations are pissed off that she lost. They instinctevely sense that establishment politics with all the lobbyism, cosy jobs, networking inside the bubble, the revolving door, the safe seat because of gerrymandering and/or the lesser of 2 evils - all that will be challenged now (because of Sanders, and partially because the Trump success shows the extent of dissatisfaction among voters). They LOSE CONTROL ABOUT THE PUBLIC NARRATIVE. (Erdogan of Turkey found that out a few years earlier). Politicians, think tanks, the Military Industrial Complex, corporations, Israel above everything else AIPAC, the top 10 % have a tight grip on the networks and news papers (many of these players are major shareholders). Potential Democratic voteRS do not get their info from Fox News - so it does not matter for the Democratic establishment what they air. RT, however is more and more watched as alternative source of information. And they have the young and potential Democratic voters (especially if they are interested in progressive causes). So the (Democratic) Establishment GOES BALLISTIC.  Now it does not look like Trump will really "drain the swamp" so they can relax on that front (taxes, regulations). But it looks like they lost TPP and a lot of people are unhappy about the danger that the Cold War 2.0 might end as well. Lots of reasons for them to discredit Trumps presidency with allegations of Russian interference - as if he needed help with discrediting. The things that are really bad are for instance the Wallstreet guys and other rich people in the cabinet, the hostile attitude towards Iran, and that healthcare may become even worse etc. And that is nothing the Corporate Dems want to dwell on.(Obama , Clinton anyone ?). Better complain about "he won unfairly with help of Russia, which is BTW supposed to be the US arch enemy". Better avoid the dangerous topics.
    6
  13. Divide and conquer - my cause - your cause is not my concern. I would argue there is just ONE cause: justice, being circumspect with and to think long term about your vital ressources like water (a conservative value as well). Not to give the wealthy and business the precedence over the wellbeing of the population. To INSIST that there a boundaries to what the police is allowed to do. I do not think that Native Americans have the ressources to further the BLM cause, they are a miniority not only in economic and political power but literally in numbers. Latinos and Blacks are a very considerable part of the population which is an advantage when fighting against injustice.
    6
  14. The DNC cheated the country of a decent FDR style president. - nancy pelosi let transpire - if they get the majority in November they will go "easy" on climate change. Well Climate change might not go easy on us. - Did the dinosaur (pun intended - no offense to dinosaurs) not get the memo of a closing window of opportunity ??? we have -12 more years to NOT cross the point of no return of runaway Global warming. Sure it will not show all up at once - and she probably does not expect to suffer it in HER lifetime. And maybe she is deluded enough to think that the heaps of money can protect her family and the coming generations.
    6
  15. Greenspan was in charge when the bubble built up. and he was part of the effort to cursh on anyone that wanted to go against no oversight, no deregulation
    5
  16. + LB - I feel you - they sense they fight a losing battle. - P.S. I live in Europe, the healthcare IS good here - and no, government does not run things, there are no death panels, and the waiting times are reasonable - and immediate care functions. Who cares if you have to wait one month more for your hip replacment or have to accept to go to a hospital that is not the nearest (so the visitors have to drive longer). I was shocked to find out how much more cost efficient the systems with the public non-profit insurance agencies are (take the German or Austrian per capita expenditures, then slap 65 or 70 % on them and you are at the U.S. level - source world bank 2014, the U.S. had per capita expenditures of 9,200, Germany and Austria 5,600 resp. 5,400. Note that the population is older on average, which is much more expensive. The U.S. is meanwhile at over 10,000 USD per capita in 2016, but I do not have the current German data. But of course even at the German price level (Germany is at the higher end of the average for a wealthy European country - they are usually between 5k and 5,5 k) - that means plus 22k per year for a family of four. That is much for low income families. So the solidarity principle means that people if they have a job pay a percentage of their wage, the employer pays the same, and on top there is tax funding. Risk and family size does not matter, only your income. And no more payment when you need treatment. HOWEVER: All of that means that the upper middle class pays more (if they and their family are healthy, if they have a preexisting conditon they will still save money with the streamlined cost-efficient system). And it requires some tax funding which again hits wealthy and rich people more. Also it limits the profits of those for-profit players that are even allowed in the system. (like the pharma industry, the family doctors - they are independent small businesses, or church run non-profit hospitals, that have a contract and cannot charge what they want. They do not send the bill to the patient but to the public agency - so if they wanted to play games - that would be their opponent. And the worst: it violates the article of faith the the private market is always better and will magically fix all things.
    5
  17. What kind of an idiotic question is that. 2 months to defeat the pandemic ? Huh ? Reporter should watch Dr. Fauci some day. As Biden will be fact based the 2 months timeline of course was never discussed. With luck the infection spread is already somewhat hindered. Unfortunately now there are more contagious mutations, so the increase in protection will be eaten up by that.
    5
  18. airplanes are flying with the messages - true. He signed a contract to not live in the club - true. He owes (at least) 400 millions to foreign banks / entities - true. And they will call those loans. You bet, it is widely assumed that he is broke. That is a very plausble assumption. He wants to sell his DC hotel - true. There is a word "Schadenfreude" - and many have it right now - also true ;)
    5
  19. btw those airplane messages are covered by free speech. and it is also true that the company had a loss of business as long as he was president, because then the airspace needed to be secured at all times (they also clear the airspace for Airforce One other machines, also commercial planes cannot even come close for security reasons.
    5
  20. +User2718218 China can get it's oil from Russia, Brazil, Venezuela, Iran - or any of the other large supplier countries. I agree with the former comments - you are a paid poster for the oil company.
    4
  21. Another note: Europe get's almost all it's oil from other continents. It arrives at seaports and then is distributed with trucks and on the rail - and one never hears about these horrible accidents like in the U.S Hint: it helps if the infrastructure (streets, railway) is kept in good order. Europe is much more densely populated (520 millions approx. but has only 67 % of the land mass of the U.S. who has a population of 323 million). So there would be naturally more resistance to a pipeline, using up ground, going through or nearby settlements etc., the landscape is more varied - mountain ranges in the way of a direct line - and these are the areas where land is especially valuable. These are also touristic areas, so the locals are naturally more protective of the environment and would not be happy with a oil pipeline. Gas (from Russia) is transported in pipelines. So the transport of oil is done on wheels and it works well and is safe HERE. It is possible that they also use shipping on streams - but a spill even though bad would be manageable - it is only a certain amount that can spill, it will not leak unnoticed by the population for over years and people are getting poisoned without knowing it. Usually not the complete load will run out and emergency measures can be taken to avoid the worst (like barriers downstream, siphoning off etc.). And then the streams are not meant to provide drinking water (although they are very clean at least in Germany, Austria, Switzerland). The drinking water in the countries in the moderate climate zone (read: enough rain) comes from wells and aquifers and vehicles transporting oil have to avoid the "protected water source areas" if that is possible, even if the route is longer.
    4
  22. I had a good laugh - clickbait, sour grapes or the scared establishment paying for a hit piece ? I noted the "author" ... professor at Mercer University - is it THAT Mercer ? - the one that financed Trump from summer 2016 on, delivered staff incl. Conway and Bannon and got him into office ?
    4
  23. So WHAT is the advantage of having the Democrats in charge ? That they are a tiny bet less evil.
    4
  24. There are the "cowards" who take advantage of a situation just because they can, but would not have the guts to assault a women and drag her from the street behind the bushes. Some scum bags resorts to rape drugs because they shy away from the physical fight to FORCE themselves on a woman. If she cannot stir, he does not have that problem, and there are - seemingly orderly - men out there who think it is no big deal as long as they do not brutally beat up the woman or force her at gun point. Rape culture means that the only definition of rape is the evil stranger (completely unlike everyone from your aquaintance) who does terrible things. The reality is that in most cases the woman is acquainted with her rapist and that gives her a false sense of security (when accepting the ride or the invitation - she knows the "evil stranger hiding in the bushes" narrative as well. If she KNOWS his name and maybe friends and where he lives - he would not even THINK of it or DARE to force her into having sex, would he ? So a slimey man who is on a power trip (rape is not always about sex !) or just does not know how to get laid, assumes that he is "not one of them evil criminals". He is not a rapist when treating himself to sex with a woman no matter her consent, or the situation, or her inability to consent because of alcohol etc. Education against rape culture would protect such men from becoming rapists and destroying their future let alone that of the women they assault. They may lack morale but at least they would be aware of the potentil legal troubles. If a man gets drunk would that excuse another man to TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION and to anally rape him ? And if a woman consents to having sex and then the man does things she does not like - at which points does she become his slave and loses the right to her body ? And demanding of him to stop ? A man is NOT a victim of his hormones. He can always jerk off - it is just that many guys don't want to be bothered with that restraint. And they are getting the message and permission that they DO NOT HAVE TO CONTROL THEMSELVES WHEN THEY REALLY WANT SEX. That there are situations where he is ENTITLED to get sex from a woman. If you really think that - it is Saudia Arabia and the Burka. Forget about a modern society and female participation in the workforce. Those backwards cultures also ! think that men have this overwhelming sex drive and cannot be expected to control themselves. So the women are not allowed to go out on their own AND their attractiveness must be hidden under layers of clothing. Men just can't take a smartphone or a car just because they desire it -society demands that self control of them if they want to be considered GOOD and law abiding citizens - but they get a morale pass when they TAKE a woman. If in doubt - leave the woman alone and help yourself. - You can always try to seduce her the next day when she is sober or after you have clarified the situation.
    4
  25. + Thomas E.-F. good analysis - and even if Ossoff would have lost with a progressive grassroots campaign, that effort ! (as opposed to money) would not have been wasted. More information about single payer out there, talking about money out of politics. Sometimes it takes TIME, there is a lag until voters react. Sanders ran 4 campaigns (Governor of VT, Congress, Senate) with an Independent progressive party. Never more than 5 % of the vote. A foolish endeveour - or so it seemed. Then he won the race for mayor of Burlington(with 10 votes). Some years later he ran for Congress, in a race with 3 parties he narrowly lost, the next race he won (the Dems gave up in VT and found a friendly agreement with Sanders - makes sense - in progressive matters they could always count on him and for the neoliberal projects like trade agreements or war they always found enough obliging Republicans - when Obama was all for TPP he was NOT opposed by the Republicans - that alone should raise red flags.).
    4
  26. +Robe Spier - the whites have invaded the land that for thousands of years belonged to the natives - what is your point ?
    4
  27. 1:15 on a side note: The son of a FOX producer got a job as reporter at the White House. He totally got that job by pulling himslef up by the bootstraps, after working his way through college, ... He wonders of meritocracy.
    4
  28. The two oil crises in the 1970s (doubling oil prices with 18 months etc.) triggered rising unemployment in combination with high inflation. The "haves" finally, finally could hit back against the New Deal. From then on they took over media, academia, politics. Raising interest rates soon enough after cyclical downturns were used "to discipline the workforce" (Alan Greenspan). Later trade deals cost so many jobs that the fear of job loss was ALWAYS present. From then on interests rates could remain low = cheap money for the speculators, real estate developers, .... It meant undermining the negotiating power of the workforce with a residue of unemployment even in a good economy. They could easily be fired and replaced (with many McJobs)- so no fighting for their fair share anymore. That helped with suppressing the wages, letting folks make unpaid overtime, etc. etc. Even under a good economy and fairly good employment ** the workforce was kept on their toes. ** "employment" (in the survey done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) means 10 hours and upwards (of course also way beyond 40 hours) No one asks in the phone survey if the person would like or need to work MORE hours, the current "low unemployment" does not lead to increasing wages (adjusted for inflation) - so there must be many people that are underemployed or feeling _ job-insecure jobs._ Else we would see wages rising. (If your company can pack up tomorrow, even though they have good business it will lead to the desired meek and fearful workforce. Job insecurity was intentionally created using "free" "trade" agreements that made outsourcing possible, safe and lucrative. Bill Clinton"achieved" a lot of it (of course with bipartisan support of bought and paid for Congress). And the presidents after him did not even dream of challenging that "legacy". Under Bush1 NAFTA did not get passed. Bill Clinton duped the unions with promises - he needed them to get elected. A few years later he made favorable tariffs for Chinese imports de facto permanent (an Executive Order handed the decision over to the State Department instead of having Congress approving them on a yearly base). And around 2000 came another agreement with China).
    4
  29. everybody - please go to info@berniesanders.com and beg the campaign so that Sanders does NOT play the surrogate FOR Biden. People like the ideas of Sanders, "but later, now it is time to beat Trump". * They vote for Biden over Sanders because they think Joe is a) a nice guy and b) he is BETTER or well able to beat Trump. - and Sanders CONFIRMS THAT (Joe is my friend, and yes he can beat Trump, of course he can). - It is not even true. Sanders has given several interviews recently where he decisively confirms that Biden CAN beat Trump. (Ari Melber or Jack Tapper)
    4
  30. Again - if the campaign HEARS from many supporters they might be willing to change the messaging. (I wrote them a mail - use a CATCHY reference line, so it stands out. Sanders can keep it classy, the truth suffices, but he must take off the gloves. And there is no need that HE confirms that Biden can win against Trump (WHO does that even from a marketing point - and it is not even true).
    4
  31. Even Ted Cruz supported his initiative in January 2017 - while Cory Booker, fake liberal - and about 13 other Democrats defected. With a few Republican extra votes the bill could have been passed. Booker was "mentioned" by Sanders (didn't like that - came up with a lame excuse about "safety, not yet granted, but he would of course gladly support any bill once that objection was overcome ..." - maybe wants to run in 2020), if think some other Dems were also named or the awoke progressives ciruculated the list of shame. Some might have gotten the townhall treatment or backlash on Social Media.
    4
  32. Whoever wanted to get into the car could crawl in from the passenger side. I would do it, what is the point of disrupting working people (whether they are professionals or volunteers that rented a car). I wonder if they had asked before to move the truck and the workers ignored the request, and that got her angry (to give her the benefit of the doubt). If the driver is not so agile, she could enter the car from the passenger side, and move the car forwards until there is space to open the driver's door.
    4
  33. Sanders run for higher office in the 1970s, several times and very unsuccessfully with a left independent party (they all never did well, it was about the agenda - first anti war, and name recognition). He worked gig jobs and I think was rather poor. But he had an unlikely win in the race for mayor in 1980, THAT jumpstarted his political career at the age of 40. It still took 3 races until he made it to Congress (Jan 1991). But that he could run those races from the platform of being a well known mayor, and with the wage of the mayor. Sanders the Socialist won in then still fairly conservative Vermont, at the same time when Reagan won so despite Burlington being a small city (30 - 40,000 people !) in a small state - he got some attention. He had an interest in foreign policy, and continued to get more attention that other mayors in such small cities.
    4
  34. Evidence ? I know that most studies show that the minimum wage does not affect unemployment negatively. (slightly positive, neutral, in a few case a smal increas in unemployment) - in short a higher minimum wage is a safe bank especially when introduced gradually. Inequality: in the time when wages rose WITH productivity - and that included also constantly rising minimum wages - inequality was at the minimum. The graphs look like a bowl. High inequality after WW1 and into the Great Depression, then it plummets in the New Deal era and the Golden Era after WW2 and a steep rise from the 1980s on.
    4
  35. +The Technocrat78 your are not only a U.S. patriot - you clearly have an agenda to spout nonsense about Europe - Are you sure you have ever left the U.S. ?? No doubt the U.S. has good care for those who are lucky enough to afford (although that good care also comes at a higher cost than comparable care in Europe). - There is a reason the U.S. does so badly in life expectancy and infant mortality. No one - NO ONE in the wealthy European countries would trade the European non-profit systems for the U.S. system. Wealthy people will do fine in the U.S. - well you can always buy an upgrade in Europe as well. Although generally there are less options for upgrades - there is just not the market for them, they are not needed. If a person needs an organ transplant or has a stroke they are getting treatment in the facalities for everyone. And those two are not radicals - they have just experienced a system that is way better for the people. - I remember an U.S. expat in Japan in a video She told - in a very comical way - the story of how she left the hospital after giving birth (she needed a C-section) and how incredulous she was that they would not bill her - anything. it's called civilization.
    4
  36. I think many do not even know there are other options. The experience argument baffles me - Reagan and Trump got in - and "experience" is an issue. Cuomo for sure uses his talents and experience for being corrupt ? Experience in how to work for the real estate developers. Instead of working for the regular people who pay high rent (while "investors" buy up real estate, do not live in it and price everyone else out of the market). The commander in chief does not need to know everything, they should be smart and good in evaluating the character of their advisors. Do their homework so that the advisors cannot bullshit them - and Nixon clearly got into the details of policies.
    4
  37. Canada you could have had him as PM !
    4
  38. As Cenk says: the Donors want weak Dems and strong Republicans. - Then it does not matter which party holds the seats. The Donor's will is going to be done anyway (it is - as we can see from the Princeton study for instance). The Dems prefer to win, BUT: they will not all lose their seats (so many will still have a nice salary and good benefits). And the donors will take care of those shills who lose elections or want a change of careers. At least the big shots in the party can rely on that. And the small party soldiers have to play really nice with the party machine and the Big Donors and try to advance on the ladder. The cushy jobs for ex-politicans and/or the later contracts are often MORE LUCRATIVE than the political position. Especially Congress has become a stepping stone to a more lucrative career in the insider club. A point in the resume and an opportunity to develop an insider network and the Rolodex for 4 - 8 years.
    4
  39. The good ole days when they knew their place ... or they were lynched. - But shouldn't you be in a Klan meeting ?
    4
  40. + Jacob Martin Obama had a mandate like FDR, the voters DID want HOPE AND CHANGE and still wanted that in 2016. Obama unfortunately was no FDR - not even close ! He was and is a careerist and sell out and Wallstreet shill. - and he is no fighter - well why would he fight if he does not have strong convictions to FIGHT FOR ?
    4
  41. + Jacob Martin The reason why the Sanders endorsement / help with campaigning did not help HRC much ? No matter what "progressive sounding" talking points Hillary Clinton's strategist made her say - many voters (which she would have needed to win) did not believe her economic message. And that was a realistic assessment. Sanders could get the masses to HIS rallies. After the convention when he did rallies with her that was over (must have been a blow to her ego). She and her campaign were not smart enough to court Progressives - the ones with the ENTHUSIASM for CHANGE, who would have campaigned door to door and phonebanked and encouraged their peers on Social media to VOTE (see the snap election in the U.K. in 2017 where Labour in 8 weeks turned things around by activating YOUNG and non-voters. Part of that was an ORGANIC and AUTHENTIC social media peer to peer persuasion: register to vote, do vote - and "Jeremy is the man". Voter turnout was increased from 43 to over 70 % in the group 18 - 25 - or 30 years). I assume she did not make much use of Sanders - SHE was hesistant because she did not intend to facilitate any meaningful change as POTUS. And Sanders like Trump was a CHANGE not a status quo candidate. She knew Sanders would repeat her phony promises in her name - and later hold her to account for it if she failed to deliver. So it was better to not to rely too much on his support - so she would not "owe" him or progressives later. Nor would the campaign make good use of Nina Turner or Tulsi Gabbard, who could have helped with the black and minority vote and female vote - but it was more important to sideline them as punishment for having supported Sanders.
    4
  42.  @trl2828  ??? I live in a country with single payer - it works in nations with 300,000 people (Iceland) 3 - 4 millions (Denmark, Norway), 7 - 10, 30 millions. Or approx. 65 million (Italy, France, U.K. - the latter do not have even HALF the per capita expenditures of the U.S. - the NHS of the U.K. is underfunded, however. But for 55 - 65 % of the U.S. expenditures per person a nation can have a well functioning medical system for everyone - worthy of a first world country - see Germany, France, Austria, .... Germany has 85 million people, Japan 125 approx. - the per capita part you can scale up and dow as you need. per capita = everyone in the country and _ healthcare expenditures_ everything that is already ! spent IN the country._ It does not matter how it is financed (out of pocket, subsidy or by a insurance company). The per capita = per head in the U.S. of course includes the people that have no or insufficient coverage, go bankrupt, get treatment too late or no preventive care In all other countries those "heads" do have coverage - meaning FULL coverage.
    4
  43.  @trl2828  Interestingly the "economy of scale" does impact healthcare expenditures once a certain minimum size is reached - maybe 100,000 people - Iceland is doing fine (and blows the U.s. out of the water). Being a larger nation is not exactely a disadvantage but not an advantage either (as one would expect). having a market of 325 million people instead of 3 or 30 or 80 is usually not considered a cost driving factor. The cultural make-up does not matter. A broken arm or diabetes needs the same treatment and costs the same. The European nations traditionally do not define themselves as immigration nations - but they have become that since the 1960s and 1970s when a lot of migration workers came. It just does not show up because it is not such a hassle, expensive and a long process to get citizenship. What has crude oil production to do with it ? U.K. and Norway (it has only 3 or 4 million people) are the only nations that have oil - it is fading out in the U.K. That a country might have higher revenue (from oil, or other revenue) to finance programs - has nothing to do with the fact the the serivice is delivered in a MUCH MORE COST EFFICIENT MANNER. Even the relatively expensive Norwegian care costs less per person than is already being spent in the U.S. per person - but in Norway everyone is covered and their outcomes (infant mortality, life expectancy) are better. Both nations (U.K. and Norway) are outliers regarding their expenditures: Norway happens to have high per capita expenditures USD 8,400 (approx.) and U.K. ONLY USD 3,900 - which is less than half of the U.S. but the NHS has been defunded over the course of the last 10 years. All other European nations have NO oil and also no or little gas. See France, Belgium, Italy, Austria, Germany, .... So it is a good thing they have organized their healthcare cost-efficient with a public non-profit insurance agency and many (or solely) non-profit public hospitals. Hospitals are usually run by cities, sometimes by states / provinces. Either way - Big Pharma is the only large and powerful for-profit actor in the system. The doctors with their own practice and and pharmacies are private SMALL companies who have a contract with the non-profit agency - which drives a good bargain with all of them. (The doctors and pharmacies have professional organizations - comparable to a chamber of commerce that represent them, they are all getting the same contract). Luckily Big Pharma has very standardized, comparable products - that makes it easier to negotiate. So Iceland can compare prices (if only behind closed doors) to make sure they are not being ripped off because they are a tiny nation. Hospitals and doctors have a certain number of people they can realistically serve - so that can be scaled up and down according to the population size and the population density of the region (Norway might have a disadvantage here - they will have to offer more smaller units so that driving distances are not too long - or they will need to offer more helicopter transports). Now the costs of living in Norway are higher in general - that means also higher wages which affect the costs of healthcare (which include of a lot of labor costs). The systems finance the DELIVERY OF CARE and not the profits of the shareholders of private for profit insurance comapnies and chains of hospitals. So the 8,400 USD per head seem worse than they are - still Norway is NOT in the 5,000 - 6,000 USD range - like he overwhelming majority of first world countries (most wealthy European nations - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, ..... And then there is the U.S. with USD 9,200 (source World Bank, data 2014 - meanwhile they should have come up at least with the 2016 data you can look it up - or be content with the general idea - the gap cost-wise will not have changed much..)
    4
  44.  @burnthemachine1021  European style healthcare IS MORE COST EFFICIENT - see my other comments in that thread. - And her remark was regarding healthcare. As for the Green New Deal - the Pentagon is planning for Climate change triggered by Global Warming. They will have to move bases - and then there is the prospect of massive migration and of course war. THAT is not cheap either.
    4
  45. It is testimony to the dysfunction of the U.S. system that the voters have the choice between Trump and Biden. It is almost like a parody movie.
    4
  46.  Fact Checker  The majority of black Americans are NOT registered to vote - D / R / I - never mind. Actually fewer of them are registered to vote than other groups, and fewer of them do vote. - it is true that those that are registered and do vote are Democrats.
    4
  47.  Fact Checker  As for the whole vaccine discussion. Nucance, and a certain willingness to be precise, to get your claim right (if in doubt fact checking them) and to use words correctly would be imperative for a discussion and correct assessment. Oh well ......
    4
  48. So there are no lies and also no "hatred". Not one bothers to hate on Trump, that would be a waste of emotional energy now that he is a has-been. But plenty of Schadenfreude. And it get's better as Giuliani and Sydney Powell are sued by Dominion for libel (over their voting machines). 1.3 billion USD, I hope they ruin Giuliani.
    4
  49. You want your property rights respected as land owner ?? You think the treaty of 1851 should be respected. Know these - the ancestors of this - or other tribes owned the land - all the land - since more than 10.000 years. You (your ancestors) came later.
    3
  50. +Holypikemanz The vacation Lake house at Lake Champlain (not a fancy affair but it is beachfront property, hence the price) they got in summer 2016 for 600k. They financed it (at least partially) with the sale of the house in Maine which Jane had inherited from her mother. And yes they have 3 houses now, 1 regular family home in Burlington (where he was mayor), and a row house in D.C. (seems to be a usual solution for long time representatives, he is in D.C. since 1990 or 1991). I can relate to the Sanders' family cherishing the ability to meet and enjoy modest lake summer vacations in a 40 minutes driving distance from their home. - I read about Sanders' first "real estate" when he was a young man. It was an off the grid cabin (nearby Burlington if I remember correctly), no water, no electrictiy, no floor. He lived there with his first wife. Well she might have been less enthusiastic about it, the marriage did not hold. It can get cold in Vermont, not sure if the former sugar shack was well insulated. He bought the property from his inheritance when his father died. - Being from N.Y. he was VERY IMPRESSED with having his OWN REAL ESTATE ... "I stood up in the morning and these were MY TREES. I thought that was awesome". He does not splurge on cars. He does not spend a lot of money on fashion, luxury restaurants, boats, and likely also not on luxury vacations abroad (he hits the road a lot, so spending time in VT is his chance to meet the grandchildren). And his hairdresser isn't getting rich of him either ;) This desire to have a private retreat where they can spend uncomplicated family time in summer and fall seems very down to earth to me, and it seems to be the one thing they splurge on. As mayor and then especially in Congress and Senate he got paid good salaries, I hear his books are selling well. He does not need the help of the Democratic Party, some donors, think tanks, or SuperPacs, to sell them. Lucrative book contracts are the only legal way to bribe politicians WHILE THEY ARE STILL IN OFFICE. If a SuperPac buys truck loads of the books of a politician (and the publisher knows that in advance)... If I remember correctly in the leaked Clinton email someone thought it "appropriate" to remind the Clintons or their staff of the help they have gotten in organizing a book tour - like the Clintons owed someone. Can you spell "pay for play" ? - Anyway: Sanders isn't doing that, he sells his books on his own. He took a risk 2015 and 2016, and it was a lot of effort and energy he put into the campaign. People reporting on the campaign were impressed with his energy. Plus he still puts a lot of effort into getting good healthcare for the country. It is not like THAT will get him some financial profits. It is not like the pharmaindustry or Wallstreet is going to reward him the minute he retires. (no Obama style 400k speaking gigs fro HIM). There is no way someone can unseat him as Senator of Vermont as long as he desires to hold office. He could as well take it easy. Actually if he was willing to sell out more (Howard Dean anyone ? ), the DNC would provide him - or his wife or another family member - with a lucrative position and be glad to shut him up. - Instead he travels the country and annoys the heck out of the corporate Democrats. And he is not doing that because that effort will get him some extra reward (well it might improve book sales because he builds a fan base, but that is hard to calculate). He believeably says that he cherishes the time he can spend with family, especially the grandchildren (teaching them sports etc). Well at his age one thinks about: "How many good years are left to me". He could keep the job as Senator, play a quiet and relaxed game. He knows the rules of the circus and when you do what the Democratic Party establishment orders, there is not much time needed to inform yourself. Doing your own thing, forming and arguing your own opinion is time consuming. His collegues use 30 - 40 % of their time for fundraising, he does not need to do that. Another time consuming task of a politician is to hold contact with the voters at home. Well he could do that easily, while enjoying to spend time at home in Vermont. In short he could earn the nice salary and the benefits (incl. healthcare) of a Senator quite easily and with not too much effort and investment of time - and enjoy his old age and family. He does not do that. Instead he tries to comfort the afflicted - and it looks like he afflicts the comfortable as well - and he has not even taken off the gloves. (Still hoping for him to take off the gloves.)
    3