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

  1. 2
  2. 2
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. what it is about the 2nd amendment people? Nothing - your weapons cannot protect you from the government. The water protectors know keeping it peaceful is their only chance to win, it is so sad that they have to pay such a high price. MLK knew this as well. When nicely dressed, orderly, peaceful people were brutalized in Selma (and the whole country witnessed it) the white supremacists lost. The authorities - first and foremost the president - who would have liked to look the other way and to avoid the hassle (also within the party) were forced by PUBLIC OPINION TO ACT. As you can hear even so the police claims there is violence among the water protectors which "forces" them to go the brutal route. In Social Media people (paid trolls ?) claim Sophia got hurt by a "protester-built bomb intended for the police that went of early". The oil police would LOVE it if there was even the slightest sign of violence, then they could unleash all their remarkable weaponry against the movement. And Obama would sigh in relief. No one could expect him to support "those evil criminals and extreme protesters" and go against the biding of his donors (and his future sponsors no doubt). The strongest ally of the water protectors is public opinion and keeping it peaceful makes them unbeatable in that respect. And no doubt the oil companies will try to infiltrate trouble makers. Weapons and drugs are forbidden in the camp, with good reason. The assault on Sophia Wilansky gets some media coverage because it is sensational enough. Shows the sad state of affairs with the media.
    2
  6. 2
  7. George Pirpiris FDR was very rich - did not keep him from serving the poor of the country. Jill Stein cannot help having wealthy parents. She could enjoy her wealth right now,  she is a retired doctor. Instead she fights the uphill battle. So Jill Stein was in Moscow  and I think she was in the same room or even on the same table as Putin. The horrors ! And RT Moscow !! Hint: Red Scare doesn't work as well as it did some decades ago. Anyone who ACTUALLY cares for the plight of the Syrians (or the Libyans or the citizens of Ukraine) would do everything to promote a cease fire and peace negotiations. The US does not object to Dictators - it is just that they have to be THEIR dictators. Gaddhafi "had to go". Assad "has to go". When do the Saudis "have to go" Or any other cruel dictatorship friendly with the US ?   Is it now better for the Libyans ? Or for the world ? Is there less threat of terror (Hint: Libya was the cork in the bottle  for the stream of refugees, so war promoting UK and France reap what they sow. Libya became a failed state and a safe heaven for ISIS after the regime change - for oil and water. In Syria it is oil, pipelines and to get control over a nation that is friendly with Iran and Russia. The truth is that it is impossible to control one of these countries unless you send there troops for decades and invest a lot of money. Which you cannot sell to the US voters of course. The Soviet Union could not control Afghanistan, and as a dictatorship they had to consider public opinion less than the US. One of the reasons for their defeat  of course being the CIA and Saudi trained and armed and sent ! Muhajedins / terrorists / freedom fighters / religous extremists -  incl. Saudi Osama Bin Laden who led the proxy war for the US. The Soviet Union is said to have lost 50.000 soldiers before they left the country. After that the US found out they too could not control the monster they created. So in 2001 Bush (or more likely Cheney) decided it would be quick and easy to got to war with Afghanistan over the 9/11 attacks where a bunch of Saudis ! flew into buildings (which was supposedly organized by OBL from a cave somewhere in Afghanistan).  In case you didn't notice, Afghanistan is far from being a safe country, nothing is settled there  and of course it is a breeding ground for religious extremists / terrorists. You know how  long WW2 lasted? you know how long the Afghanistan war goes on ?
    2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. Alleged "coordination" of Trump campaign: No, embarrassing emails (of Podesta, and the Clinton campaing) were published - and they either were LEAKED from an insider (see Craig Murray statement that he got the data in person or McAfee or William Binney: NSA absolutely would have proof IF there was a hack and it would be safe !! to show the evidence !! - like they did right away with the SONY hack that was attributed to North Korea) Option 2: Someone hacked the DNC and got the emails. And that hack COULD have been ordered by the Russian gov. It is irrelevant IF people from the Trump campaign even met or had contact with the Russian government (maybe not legally, but not in a pragmatic way). Trump OPENLY DECLARED during his campaign that he wanted a changed policy towards Russia (that and no TPP are among the few good things that might come from that administration). The war hawks are running amok - the Cold war might be called off, the Syrian regime change (it does not work anyway) might be over. (Ray McGovern: the inside scoop into the Middle East and Israel - despite the title this is about how Putin helped Obama avoid getting dragged into boots on the ground an no fly zone by framing the Syrian gov. with poison gas attacks. How that war was avoided and HOW FURIOUS the neocons were). Honestly I don't care if Trump got hit by some wisdom (one should never lose hope) or if he does it out of financial interests. Or if hes "America First" attitude somehow alerts him to the fact that maintaining the empire is neither easy nor inexpensive nor uncomplicated. Obama, Clinton, Bush, Cheney took care of special interests and that meant Wallstreet and Big Health could rip off folks as usual, it meant regime change, and war - and all these politicians profited directely and indirectly - and their policies did not profit the US citizens. If the more reasonable stance towards Russia avoids another Cold War and if that is helped by the financial interests of Trump - at least he would be consistent. Go at it ! Of course a politician SHOULD be impartial and look at the interest of the country only. But if that is not possible (look at the last 20 years !!) give me Trumps Russia policy over Clinton's or Obama's every day ! Now if Trump would be reasonble regarding China as well .......
    2
  19. + Don Child 2/2 Enough well-off white people (often w/o college degree but still with a good income) were all for Trump, they LIKE the racist and white supremacy undertones. (As opposed to the people for instance in the Rust Belt who reacted to being abandoned and Trump was the molotov cocktail they threw at the "establishment" - that is why Trump even got minority votes). People leaning towards WHITE SUPREMACY witness now that the RULE OF THE WHITE RACE begins to slip (and that other caucasians do not care about pigmentation, are willing to get along with their fellow citizens not matter the skin tone, are O.K. with them having the good life as well, want to treat people according to their merit, and play around with the different cultural influences, like food or clothes). Seeing that THESE people [insert minority of choice] are getting more influence AND maybe even some wealth, ruffles their feathers (the distinction of the classes and the supremacy of the white race must be preserved !). I remember a story told in my family about a woman (in the generation of my grandmother) being annoyed that now the plebs could afford nice things too. She was from a large farm and the family had been comfortably wealthy for generations. The idea that other people - in that case also caucasians - could now enjoy some modest wealth TOO was too much for her, that triggered her envy/negativity. And she was no outlier - she was just dumb enough to say it.  - They are out there. And they are not going to change. Young people with unformed opinions SHOULD witness a strong counterreaction to WHITE SUPREMACY MOVEMENTS. And the racists should experience SHAMING when they utter their negativity (as freedom of speech allows them to do). Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from being shamed (incl. the President calling them out). - That is an evolutionary mechanism of Homo Sapiens - "unacceptable" behavior triggered shaming and being made to feel guilty. That was/is VERY UNCOMFORTABLE , and made people fall in line in those CLOSE-KNIT groups. *Group cohesions was much more important then than the freedom of the individual. * In our society folks evade that to some degree by getting moral support from their subculture. The right wing commenters are making up stories about how the terrorist car driver was attacked before by the left, and how the left is really responsible for what happened. They do not want associated with outright terrorism, they do not want to answer the question why this young unstable man got the idea to do that (instead of happily living his racism in Mom's basement). Humans resist/abhorr the sentiment of shame/guilt very much - it really gets to us. Now some of that shame to publicly admit your racism has been removed - much to the relief of the racists, who have been biding their time since the Civil Rights Movement. Also also some lost and/or deranged souls have gotten the message in the last 10 years that it was now O.K. AGAIN to show your racism more openly. The Clintons used subtle dogwhistle statements to make political points (welfare "reform", bring them to heel, also against Obama in 2008 - as much as Hillary dared to use, she was of course more limited than the Republicans). It started for real with the Obama campaign - and the GOP ran OPENLY with it, pissed off that they did not win the presidency. I am not even sure they are all racists - but they sure made good USE of the latent racism in the population to score points against Obama. (Trump with the "birther" conspiracy was one of them - remember ? ). The GOP openly works for the very wealthy, that would not get them enough votes (not enough wealthy and rich people around) so they must FISH at the fringes. So the base is an unlikely coalition of billionaires with reactionary people, they offer a home for the racists, for the anit-abortion, anti-evolution people, the fundamentalist Christians - and everyone profiting from tax cuts. Now, one can heavily criticize Obama for a lot of things - and it has nothing to do with the pigmentation of his skin. Him being black could have been a strength - as in activating a voter base to get a Congress and Senate elected, that supports the necessary course correction in the U.S. - he could have gotten money of of politics had he wanted to. - But he sold out for 30 pieces of silver, coward and neoliberal that he is. So in a sense Obama bears as much of the blame for preparing the economic environment that brought the ugly movements out in the open (again). There will be always be clueless, hateful, negative, discriminating people around. When the population in general is doing well, they are not becoming too loud and their opinions get little attention/public support. Economic stress brings the crazies and the haters to the surface - the haters are not necessarily the ones that experience the stress - they take advantage of the mood. If there is one lesson to be learned from Germany in the 30s - civil society MUST clearly denounce these movements. And make sure they do not get a foothold in the police, the army and the justice system. And they must be publicly shamed. Making a torch march in the night - what is next ? White sheets ? These people will not change, maybe they even feel strenghtened by getting backlash - it does not matter, they must experience resistance, and that they are a fringe group (and that is ALSO a display of free speech). And no one could accuse Trump of NOT TELLING us what he thinks - he is stupid enough to do it without the thin veneer, he does not master language or his thoughts like that. (that is what some of the GOP do not like, the sentiments were always there, they just masked it better and they had better "manners"). And yes the president should have a responsibility to think beyond his personal views what is good for the country. That he could not find it in himself to make a clear statement shows that he sympathizes with these people. He just would not go as far as killing people by using cars - that's a little bit too much. Like in Nazi Germany. Many "good" citizens were quite O.K. with the ideology. They were not going with the brownshirts and terrorizing other people - that would have been "uncough". Well they got a terrible war for it. For not being principled enough to take a stand when the first Jewish people were stripped of their civil rights. - They may have been somewhat concerned when it hit THEIR friends or acquaintances (like losing the job, the appartment, segregation - no Jews allowed here, do not buy from Jews, etc.) But they could not be bothered to resist it in general. Which is a very conservative thing. (You only take notice of bad things when they happen to people IN your bubble). The "good", orderly, often well-off citizens should have resisted long before the legal actions of the Nazis against some groups started, for instance during the campaign when Hitler and his stooges TALKED in a disgusting way about other segments of the population (Jews, all Left politicians, the press). It is not like the Nazis hid their stance. I always wonder if Hitler and the Nazis were SURPRISED about how much the orderly German population, the conservatives in the public administration and the justice system and police, or at the universities, the officiers in the army, the rich industrialists, the church allowed them to do. So they pushed further and further.
    2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. I think the good rank triggered the manager. She left her station. She is doing well for herself, and that does not compute. And once his prejudices were triggered he did not think anymore. Or had too much ego to admit that all scenarios where she was not who she claimed to be, were highly, highly implausible. a) she has a relative she could steal THREE ID's from and she looks the part and age - and is not shy to abuse a military ID (which could be a worse crime than abusing a civilian ID) b) the people that are with her must be in on the lie c) alternatively she has excellent (organized crime level quality) forged IDs. Getting 3 well matching IDs is much more impressive than only having one - and while having access to such assets she would be stupid enough to jeopardize them them for leisure time activities. Or the criminals equipping her would not have given her her orders how and when to use them. And they would be foolish enough to forge a military ID as part of her "persona" that goes against expectations (like a good rank for a young female). If organized crime had provided her with "good" forged ID's they would stay under the radar, and not make the persona "remarkable" in any way. Those IDs would be used in criminal activities, no need to trigger the incredulity of anyone. She could have a forged military ID but with a lower rank. Would give a criminal the "support our troops" bonus that could be helpful to pull off criminal activites w/o raising questions. A young female that is doing fairly well early on is easier remembered than a lower ranking black female. There are enough people in the U.S. that understand rank, so whenever using that ID chances would be higher that such a female would be remembered even after normal and generic encountes.
    2
  24. 2
  25. Well that could be easily solved - about time the U.S. retract its troops. Reduce the insanely bloated military budget (as much as the next 10 - 13 countries combined and many of those are allies !). The U.S. could for once take care of its citizens instead of starting wars and regime change everywhere. Sadly the former colonial powers U.K. and France are usually all in the middle of the ugly schemes as well. Well their elites, not the citizens. And the war mongers in UK and France could not sell the military aggression to their citizens if they had to back them up on their own - NATO provides a convenient cover for them. It would be a blessing if the U.S. military left Europe - especially the NATO troops right at the doorstep of Russia (along with the European countries crazy enough to partake in that show-off). If the Baltic States and Poland want to get crazy they can do so on their own cost and risk (part of the hysteria ihas to do with their history, part of it is distraction of their population from their neoliberal, or even right wing policies and the hardship they put on their population. Some anti-Russian hysteria is a very convenient distraction). It was a goal of the U.S. that Europe should never get too friendly with the Soviet Union / Russia. That Europe would never have their OWN independent defense (DEFENSE as opposed to playing the bully everywhere for the sake of multinationals and armchair warriors). That if there ever was a nuclear showdown, it would be Europe not the U.S. mainland in ruins. And the U.S. played their cards well after WW2 and are living of that bonus ever since. (and drunk with power after having made it through WW2 with the least damage and losses they made sure to increase tensions immediately with the very recent ally, the Soviet Union. At least after Stalin's death there could have been a thawing - but the U.S. did everything they could to prevent that. The MIC was much more interested to have the arms race, the Soviet Union was not so much into that, they had a harder time to keep up, but that would have meant for the U.S. to SHARE some power and influence.). During the Cold War, the wealthy "Western" European countries had about the same population size as the U.S. (but much less area) and certainly the same innovation power and capability to finance the military. And the U.S. gets good technical goods from Europe (especially Germany) for relatively worthless Dollars (which just can be created w/o the USD crashing in value - as it should given the debt and the huge import/export imbalance). Imagine the financial advantage of the petrodollar. It amounts to a non repayable loan the world gives to the U.S. every year. Russia and China challenge now the Petro Dollar to some degree. The U.S. punishment for that is usually war or regime change - that is one of the functions of the bloated military - only that does not work with Russia and China.
    2
  26. TRANSCRIPT part 1 of 3 Cenk: … the new Democratic nominee …what progressives hope soon-to-be Governor of Maryland, Ben Jealous. Congrats on your victory last night. …your victory breaks down into two parts and I think they are equally important and that's why we featured your race prominently on The Young Turks. One was the primary where it was a classic matchup of the progressive versus the more establishment candidate and you come from the Bernie Sanders wing you were a surrogate for Sanders, you come from the progressive "Can-do" wing of the party. Your opponent unfortunately came from the "Well let's not try things too much wing. I want to talk about the really important race you are having in the general election …. but let's just talk about the race that you just won. A lot of the Maryland politicians were on your opponent's side. They said: "Well, you're trying for too much change" and they imply that you didn't have enough executive experience, which I thought was a little offensive given that you lead the NAACP for five years and all the other organizations. Tell me about the dynamics of that race and why you think you won that race ? Ben: A lot of those long-standing leaders of our party had called me before they endorsed my opponent. They told me that they had cut that deal two years ago, that they had no choice and a few of them even said that they actually hoped I would win. We're a family here and we know each other, we respect each other and it's very easy to come together at the end We traveled to every corner of the state and we listened to people early on. And then from that point on we talked to people about what it would actually take to solve the real problems facing their families in real time, … finally fully fund our public schools. Talking about how we end mass incarceration and take the money that we save and use that to bring down the cost of college. …how we finally get our healthcare costs under control by simply doing what every other the Western nation has already done. It doesn't matter and if you're in West Baltimore or Western Maryland: Chances are the issues facing your family are the same. Cenk: I'd love to dive into the mechanics …so that the movement can learn lessons and can apply it to other races. So your race was neck-and-neck for a long time …you won by about 10 points which is a very comfortable margin. What do you think were the different things that you guys did in your campaign, whether it was volunteers, or how you raised money ? The decisive decision for us was to spend time very early on pulling in union after union, environmentalist group after environmentalist group, big progressive organization after neighborhood progressive organization - because we knew how to win. My campaign manager and I met when I was leading the effort to abolish the death penalty in the state and he was managing the effort to pass the DREAM Act. And I became co-chair of that campaign, too. We won those big victories, we helped pass marriage equality. We learned that year that the way to win in our state is to get as many groups as possible to declare the motto of the Three Musketeers: All for one and one for all. We knew from the very beginning if we just built a bigger, more robust coalition than anybody else, we would win. Now, the risk that we took early on… look man you're gonna raise money for a campaign, you're basically building a bicycle. A bicycle is gonna have two wheels: one of those are contributions that come from individuals, and they're gonna tend to be rich folks and they're gonna have a pretty high average donation. The other is corporate contributions.
    2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. Welder is genuinely rooted in the unions - that helps. And not having to bend over for the donations of Big Money OR the help of the party establishment. Plus they are more used to being watched, that does not exclude corruption later, but chances for them to keep their integrity are much better. They have to thank the grassroots ( ! not the mentors in the party or Big Biz) for their political career and wins - that forms emotional attachments to the CAUSE. For Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or Brent Welder the job in Congress (172k plus good benefits) in itself is something - and the pay is ENOUGH (like Sanders has been content with that sort of pay). There are enough corporate candidates who "do a few years in Congress" they absolve the beauty contest with the Big donors and the party establishment to get the nod of approval and the funding. When they win, they build their rolodex and network. After a few years they cash in on their votes for Big Biz and move on to the more lucrative "opportunities" for ex politicians. The Big Donors "honor" their obligations (for former votes in their interest). It makes the system work - else the other shills that are still active in politics are getting nervous and think they would be better off when they serve the voters not the Big Donors. In 2006 the Dems saw the Blue Wave coming - and made SURE to install as many Wallstreet Democrats as they could, progressives were left to fend for themselves, those who won primaries got no help in the GE. (better a Republican that a Progressive). Wallstreets bribes BOTH parties. The ushered in careerists could not hold on to their seats - they did not work for the constituents and had no connection. Holding on to a seat is not necessary - plenty of other stooges around to be recruited for the game - they came in handy to vote for Wallstreet after the crisis in 2008 and later For them it was likely a career step - not a conviction. It works for everyone - but The People.
    2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. "Even during the 4 months the majority was shaky" - yes because of the Corporate Democrats who could not be bothered to support policies that were good for the people (but not good for the big donors) !! - Obama being a neoliberal would of course NOT SEEK the SUPPORT of the GRASSROOTS to "bring them to heel". - Certainly not - that would have reminded the plebs of the power they have when united and engaged. The donors who financed Obama (also after he left office !) and who finance the parties (they bribe both parties) certainly do not want the SLEEPING GIANT to AWAKEN. In the last weeks 2 Republican Senators + McCain (the latter seeking revenge, public attention and likely a deal with the Dems) blocked the last attempt to repeal ACA. These 2 ladies were under considerable pressure (and so were the 2 males in Congress before). But they are up for reelection, and there was massive BACKLASH by the GRASSROOTS since beginning of the year. And now imagine the sitting president in 2009 would have urged the grassroots to support him. Or to give him a Congress and Senate he could well work with to get the good things for the citizens in 2010 !! Giving them specifics what he would DO FOR them - if only Congress and Senate was filled with the right kind of patriots working FOR their constituency ....... Now THAT would have rocked the boat. Believe me, the unwashed masses, the challengers at the ballot to primary the Blue Dogs would have shown up - big time. Obama COULD have forced the Dems to support good legislation, he could have gotten the occasional GOP vote. He never intended to do the FDR gig. - Gives you some appreciation of FDR who had to close down the banks (first thing when he came into office). They sorted them out in a 5 days (or so) bank holiday. And then he strongarmed the Democrats into supporting his unheard of policies (unemployment benefits, Social Security, introduce minimum wage - that was all new and INTRODUCED during the CRISIS!). Economic policies that were not mainstream then, that had never been tried on that scale. With all his shortcomings, he was a bold, decisive leader, open to new things (let's do something, if it does not work we can adapt it or give it up - like some public employment schemes, most worked as intended). He was certainly FIGHTING for the PEOPLE - the complete opposite of Obama. Many of the representatives (R and also D) could resign themselves to the outlook that the masses would have to suffer until things got better by themselves. Representatives then were also wealthy people, usually from a wealthy background. Many held the (unproven) idea that things would get better mostly by themselves w/o them doing much OR giving up something - like giving up money in form of higher taxes for those who were still doing well.
    2
  37. 2
  38. You must feed the cow before you can milk it ! Industrial mass production requires mass consumption that needs disposable income - which most people have from wages. In Seattle the minimum wages had very positive effects. (unemployment). Equality/inequality must be viewed under a longer timescale it has also a lot to do with housing. housing has to do with local politics. (are foreigners allowed to buy up property and price eveybody out.Are there social housing projects - so people can save up money for their own). FDR introduced the minimum wage (which was a completely NEW thing then). Unions were strong then (union drive + 1 million people in 1932, strikes, demonstrations everywhere). That gave FDR leverage - he was the moderate in the arena. No doubt some employers tried to undercut them. Not in the major industries though). I know countries with minimum wage, strong collective bargaining, they are strong exporters and they fare well, including unemployment. And the numbers may be less manipulated than in the U.S. or U.K. In Germany, Switzerland, Austria people do not work 2 jobs, and there are no zero hour contracts like in the U.K. (people have no idea how much they are going to work, they are often cancelled on short notice). Allegedly the unemployment is not high right now in the U.K. - well as long as people do accept such completely unpredictable feudal employment situations - there is no good employment situation. in the employment numbers involuntary unemployment is not factored in. You have a job or not (even if the job is zero to 20 or 30 hours -which is not enough and you never know). Anyway: that the bases are covered does NOT raise unemployment on the contrary these nations are very competitive internationally (strong exporters).
    2
  39. 2
  40. Testing the waters. Saying the quiet part loud. Culling the low income elderly would be liked my many (top income, political and economic elites), they just don't dare saying it openly - YET. These people vulnverable to falling victim to corona if they are forced out of social distancing would soon get SS and Medicare or they already have it. SS contributions from the payroll are not enough, and the plus 65 age group causes the most spending on healthcare. That is also not covered by the contributions, it needs support from general tax revenue. Imagine the many poor older (plus 50, plus 60 years) people with diabetes: if the pandemic takes them out quickly. People with diabetes at some point will need procedures. They are not the people that go on happily till 90 and then die quietly in their sleep. They have heart attacks, strokes, limbs that need amputation. At the minimum all the doctor visits and the medication, and checking the eyes on a regular base. More likely to need care as well. How much money could be saved.. If they die now (and no expensive hospital wasted on them, if they are left at home they will perish quickly. people only last 2 - 3 weeks when they in the ICU, then they might get better or finally die). More tax cuts (no support needed by the rich and profitable biz to fund SS and Medicare). The affluent elderly will retreat in their gated communities. I just do not know where they think they can get the gullible uninformed voters from that can be manipulated by FOX or the other networks. There are 100 million people that did not vote in 2016. I guess a lot of them are also in the age group of 50 and beyond. The rich and politicians do not need sophisticated plans. it is not "evil but genius" schemes. When you are at the top of the food chain you fail upwards, you can make every mess work for you, that short term approach worked spendidly for them - so far.
    2
  41. 2
  42. The blood is on the hand of apologists like you. The blood is on the hand of those WHITE MEN who march with torches to the statue. At that night they also intimidated the people of the "opposition" who were IN a church and did NOT engage with them. They prepared for the next day, prayer and organization). Did the aspiring KKK folks forget their white sheets for the torch march ?? - Now there is a free speech issue. - but they could have taken their rally to ANOTHER place. And given their OUTRAGEOUS positions and that they dare to show off the Nazi symbols and chant the Nazi slogans, they should get some direct backlash. (So how many people were killed by the opponents of the right, how many were REALLY hurt by them. ZERO ! Shoving people is not O.K., happened from both sides, but lets keep the perspective here). And I cannot remember the outcry when the free speech and demonstration rights in Ferguson or with NoDapl were underminded. The blood is on the had of people like you who stir up racial division, who make light of the history of CHATTLE SLAVERY - and then some deranged racist person feels encouraged to do the step, most of those wannabe Klansmen do not dare to take (yet) - commit lynchings, commit acts of terrorsim. I know that some of the attendents SAY they are only right wing or peaceful white nationalists or whatever. So how come they do not purge the NAZI flag bearers from their march. The guy can go at the end and separately if he must carry the Swastika around. Blood and soil - did you hear the organizers distance themselves from those lunatics - or the torch march - because I didn't. As for Blood and Soil - shows you how stupid these people are. If anything that would support the claim of the Natives who were the FIRST to settle in the Americas. They came on the continent DURING the Ice Age.
    2
  43. In one way he was NEVER an establishment politician in D.C. the stubborn way to not that money from big corporations - he worked long, very long on his career and he never took the easy route and took money from special interests (other than unions). - he ran with a small party in VT (Independents, left, anti Vietnam war) always for higher office, govenor, Senate, never won). Won an outsider race for mayor of Burlington in late 1980 (with plus 10 votes) when he was approx 40 years, which was his first well paying job likely. An uphill battle in the beginning (the Dems in the city council were the buddies of the longterm ousted D mayor and now hated his guts). BUT the next mayoral election 2 years later he won decisively The voters not too long after his first election had given him a council where he had at least enough supporters for a veto (before that the council fired the secretary of the mayor, so they did budgeting with volunteers on the kitchen table). The voters did not appreciate the shenanigans, however and with the new city council they could not completely block him anymore and he started working more with Republicans.He was well established as mayor and won the coming elections easily. From that position he reached for higher office again - and I think had to try 3 times MORE until he won the race for Congress and was sworn in in 1991. I can see how MOST people wanting to be in politics (even if tehy have convictions and are not just careerists or it is a steip on the way to becoming a lobbyist) would at some point fall for the temptation to suck up to money interests. The 2 races before the one he won in 1990 (one for govenor and ? Senate ?) were 3 candidate races - he did not too bad in the one and in the next the Democrat was the spoiler that helped the Republican win and Sanders did pretty good. Then the D party gave up, the agreed with Sanders that they would not support a candidate against him if he would caucus with them. He seemed capable of winning the state, that had been Republican, he did not need money from them, Vermont was little and had no important industries - surely there could be no harm for the established order in that. If the weirdo did not want to take special interest money (and on occasion voted against the grain) they could let it pass. The real bad shit always had bipartisan support, they did not need Sanders for that.
    2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2