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

  1. Nina Turner !
    1
  2. Energy Transfer Partners: (214) 981-0700 U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers: (202) 761-0010; (202) 761-0014 Department of Justice: (202)-353-1555; (202)-514-2000 White House: (202)-456-1414; (202)-456-1111 TO DONATE: http://www.ocetisakowincamp.org https://www.paypal.me/OcetiSakowinCamp http://standingrock.org
    1
  3. The Bush Cheney adminstration was so bad because they did not have ANY OPPOSITION in important matters from the democrats - remember HRC voted pro Iraq war (when she could have known the whole thing was fishy, Washington was buzzing with rumours at that time). You know who extended the Bush tax cuts and made them permanent? Obama. Which party governed when NAFTA was introduced and the de-regulation of the banking sector was completed? Bill Clinton was lucky to have had a - seemingly- good (although not healthy!) economy. Under his command the buildup for the big financial crisis started (Reagan had laid the foundation). Not to mention the dismantling of US manufacturing because of NAFTA and the agreement with China. The ruling classes of US AND CHINA made huge profit on the back of Chinese and US workers. Read about Syria and Libyia and the role the US in destabilizing these countries. The regimes there were/are not worse than the Saudis - how come they are so unbearable to the US and the former colonial powers France and Britain.? (hint: follow the money and the interest of US multinational corporations). US citicens can thank Monica Lewinsky. Clinton wanted to privatize/dismantle/curb Social Security. Because of the scandel he abstained from that controvesial topic. Can you imagine how privately managed pensions funds would look like after the financial meltdown ?
    1
  4. You are getting relevant ads (dental clinic and I saw an ad for a shaving cream before a Jimmy Dore Clip (Washington Post has a 600 million USD deal with the CIA and never discloses it - or when a Saudi lobbyist writes opinion pieces).
    1
  5. Yes, but the president is a figurehead - boss of the unimpressive military and safeguard in case of a constitutional crisis (like Austria and also Germany had in the 1930s).
    1
  6. Willful ignorance: Homo Sapiens is a very social being, we have a built-in sense of fairness and compassion. Which is directely opposed to our selfishness. Now under the watchful eyes of our peers ! and in small groups where everyone knows and needs everyone we are well behaved, cooperative, generous, charitable, empathic and social. The punishment for NOT being that way goes from loosing status to social shunning or even being cast out of the tribe. Even the "softer" measures (like being shamed) were VERY effective to secure peace and cooperation within the group. That worked for tenthousands years of human development. It is very difficult for humans to treat another human (perceived as "like us" or "one of us") unfair or unkind. Or even to witness unkind treatment. It makes us feel very uncomfortable and is at odds with our need to perceive ourselves as "good" "decent" "social" people. There are different solutions for conflicts of empathy vs. complacency or selfishness or fear of negative consequences (if we help someone): 1) We can grow numb, we can get used to withstand our social impulses (reaction to extreme povert in countries like India). 2) We can avoid meeting those whom we wrong or those who are poor (delegate the dirty work to others, live in gated communities). 3) Define those who are wronged as the "others" and then the "thugs". It is done every time in war. Another example: 12 year old Tamir Rice was shot by the police within seconds after their arrival. Even the most bigotted person "senses" that it would not do to smear an innocent unarmed 12 year old. However they eagerly and quickly found out that his mother had dysfunctional relationships before and it was reported on TV. The life of the mother had nothing to do with the execution by the police, but it helped disperse and deflect the natural empathy. This was not a child shot dead by the police, this was a member of on of those families, a thug in the making. 4) Use of words: "Police reigns in demonstrators by using tear gas" or "Oil police again throws tear gas at water protectors". These two sentences convery a completely different realtiy. Sentence 1 sets the stage for more police brutality without risking the protest of the public. 5) Stay ignorant, do not become aware of your own double standard. 6) Last but not least use your fabulous brain to come up with some mental gymnastics justifying selfishness and leaving others behind. That has been the role of mainstream academia and think tanks in the field of economics (Austerity, Trickle Down Economics, Tax Cuts for the rich will create jobs, "Globalization", "Fair" "Trade"). Complete disregard for the lessons of the economic policies from the 1930s until the 1970s in Europe, the US, Japan. This was a massive economic experiment: austerity in Japan and Europe vs. New Deal in the US before WW2. After WW2 in the US Debt-financed government spending with high taxes, good wages, a good deal of protectionism, finance and banks strictly regulated. The same in Japan and Western Europe (They took out less loans than the US - they were the beneficiaries of some of these debt-financed programs of the US = Marshall Plan). Post WW2 economic polies were pretty much the opposite of current ecnonomic policies - so how did that work out ? And how come Academia and mainstream media is even capable to sweep these economic experiments and their results under the rug when economic policies are discussed. (Hint the current narratives serve the interests of the ruling class. It would not do to implant doubt in the mind of the public that completely different policies were successfully implemented some decades ago.) Ideology-driven narratives are very common in the field of welfare, health care and education. Every area that is about "who gets what share of the pie" and how to shape the future citizens the establishment will have to deal with.
    1
  7. The Palestinians do not recognize Isreal - they will if they get their own state. And besides Israel DOES not need their recognition. They have nukes and are armed to their teeth.
    1
  8. Note how constantly the word interference is used. The Russian "interference" was either a LEAK or a hack into the DNC, and if it was a hack maybe a hack ordered or done by the Russian government. Resulting in the publishing of emails that were embarrassing for the Clinton campaign. Maybe even damaging (though I doubt it, many of those who followed the revelations were those who had no illusions about Clinton before, the email confirmed what was already known especially to the Sanders crowd. Many of those will still have voted for HRC with gritted teeth and holding their nose). If interested search for: DNC leak, Craig Murray, McAfee, William Binney (former technical NSA director.
    1
  9. To be fair to Canova - the Jewish voters in his district usually identify heavily and uncritically with the agenda of the state of Israel. And he cannot offend them if he ever wants to be voted in. So he is already triggering the real Zionists. (DWS is Jewish - the first in her district and that helps).
    1
  10. The Army Corp of Eng. is playing dumb. They very carefully avoid to aquire on-the-scene knowledge or to educate themselves. If they are just did NOT know the law and the situation then no one can accuse them of breaking the law INTENTIONALLY. Don't look into the treaty of 1851. You might find out that the Native Americans have a legal right to the land and water - and WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO THEN ? This unspokesperson has been instructed to run for cover so to speak - if he is a good little sheep he does not even need to be told what NOT to do and what NOT to be informed about. They all hope that the Native will give up that the dust will settle and some good little sheep will be rewarded (or may at least keep a comfortable position as is). Obama and HRC will cash in big time no doubt. I watched the interview where Obama says we will let this play out for some more time. Yes because going openly against the First Nation could be counterproductive before the elections. Going against the oil interest is couterproductive for the "post-White-House-income-goal". The Clintons have raised the bar to 150 mio. If he wants to beat them in this game he better not annoy the donors.
    1
  11. Beautiful poem at the end - listen to it - greetings form Europe !
    1
  12. Sounds like good news - I would assume he gives the Dems enough rope to hang themselves - or to produce some evidence that they are capable and wiling to reform (which is not going to happen). - Whether he runs in 2020 * or whether he wants to make the next candidate - he would not want to have a second term of Trump - and for that the vote of the crowd proclaiming "Russia did it" and "everbody's fault but Hillary's" is needed - at least a part of them. Many of them despise him (the hard core Hillary fans do). And you bet the Dems will come up with their establishment candidate as well. So The Dems - which I think are beyond reform - must be given plenty of opportunity to discredit themselves. So that the Democrats that do not follow politics that closely and have some loyalty to the Democratic Party can be separated from the cabal. If he had run as independent after the Democratic convention in summer 2016 and NOT won (and with Hillary splitting the vote that could have happened) the shitstorm would be relentlesss. They still have hit-pieces on Sanders even though he endorsed HRC. I saw a change(dot)org petition recently to get Sanders out of the Democratic Party - whopping 1000 signatures. They wanted to ask Schumer and Perez to make Sanders leave, after all he is NOT a democrat (that seems to be very important) and he did damage to the party (as if they needed help for that) - I assume the Hillary feminists are angry that he made their hero look bad. Looked like an arranged action. Mostly wemen signed it - I would assume a mail went out to the lower charges of the party organization "encouraging" them to sign and with some suggestion for comments many were not very original but they were plenty. ("Please do comment, if gives the petition more weight with the party leadreship). I had to agree, I hope Sanders eventually breaks away from the Democratic Party. - And I wondered how many signatures a "Draft Sanders" petition on change(dot)org would get - certainly more than 1000. * And b efore that there are the elections of 2018 - which are important because the Dems could refuse to confirm a Supreme Court Judge when they break the majority of the Republicans).
    1
  13. How do children learn best ? Mission based, age desegregated, group driven problem solving.
    1
  14. Slate article Ashley Feinberg - gotta check that out. And why did Emma not credit it with a link in the description box ?
    1
  15. That is fortunately not true in an economy sense - although the death cult would put up massive resistance . - I remember a story where even the Pentagon leadership did not want more tanks (or a certain type of tanks). They got them anyway. (I guess they are now rusting away). Now IMAGINE at least half of the budget (of approx. 1,8 TRILLION) would be SQUANDERED on the wellbeing of the unwashed masses. Think GOOD basic education and childcare, free trade schools and nursing schools, (College is a scam in itself, you do not need 40 % of the population college "educated" !). Good healthcare, rebuilding infrastructure, throwing money at research for storage solutions for renewable energy (cheap production is not the problem, that we have figured out - storage is). Corporations working for the M.I.C. (Military Industrial Comples) are usually very specialized and tend to be larger. And they already bought their way into politics. If the money was spent otherwise it would often help non-profit actors. Teachers, nurses in non-profit hospitals, cost money - but no one is making a profit here. Then they spend their wages into the economy - which profits all kinds of businesses. When paying a part of the salary in an Alternative currency that would be a boost for DOMESTIC production. Repairing schools costs money, as well - and is done by local construction companies. So the beneficial effects would be spread all over the country and not necessarily go to the usual suspects (large companies, large donors). And citizens as wage earners (gov. employees) or small biz - or worker owned co-ops - would have a chance to get a good chunk of the pie as well. If the budget is used for state employees, it is not the case that few players can monopolize the budgets and have their profits publicly funded (like is the case for GE, Westinghouse, or all the subcontractors that work for the surveillance state. Snowden got his very good salary from a for-profit contractor.) The beauty of the surveillance and IT schemes is of course that they can practically write their own orders and budgets. - If you order tanks that is something the public can understand and you can calculate the costs per tank. You can know and understand the costs for the uniforms or food for 100,000 soldiers. it would on principle be possible to avoid a complete rip-off for these tangible products and services. But "surveillance" is completely intangible and they can on top always hide behind "secrecy" and "protecting sources and methods". You bet the military IT subcontractors are making out like bandits. And if their services are completely useless - who would be able to find out ? With another ship or more airplanes you can at least still have a public discussion. The military budged was around ? 580 bn under Obama - it was INCREASED by MORE than RUSSIA spends in a year (that was passed with the overwhelming support of the Democrats BTW, directly after the narrow downvote of the 3rd attempt to repeal Obamacare, it is easy to find 60 or more billions for such increased budgets, but completely impossible to do something about student debt or healthcare) I guess it is now around minimum 650 bn now. Add to that 1,2 TRILLION per year for all the agencies (incl. VA). Willian Binney former technical NSA director was involved in the beginning of mass surveillance. He had a plan to a) make it conform to the constitution (data would be collected, but could not be accessed - the idea was it would still need an court order to access the data - Binney: Snowden could never have copied all the data, we would have noticed immediately - well then Snowden would have had not reason to blow the whistle in the first case) and b) he wanted the NSA (not private for profit contractors) to develop the software solutions and hire the IT workforce. The problem: the technical solution would remain the property of the NSA and no one would make a profit of the whole operation. So naturally his proposals were dismissed, and he left the NSA. Also Larry Wilkerson (see his appearances on The Real News) when he managed contracts for the Pentagon. He was told the volume of the order was too small. It should cost much more and it should be spread out to many more states or it would never pass. Congress and Senators are of course bought off by corporatiosn and spreading the jobs over the country means the representatives are pressured by their constituency to make sure these for profit corporations get the LUCRATIVE orders - or the people will not have jobs. And these are the few niches left in industrial manufacturing, that pay well and will not outsource (not when they have military technology). Of course all countries have considerable industrial over production capacities (compared with the disposable income workers = consumers have). This is now the case with consumer products and since decades in industrial production of military equipment. Many of these corporations are very specialized, they need to do a lot of research, they need to be able to keep their well trained workforce. And since every country wants to be independent, they always had huge overproduction, they always sold to very questionable actors/nations (with the nod of their "democratic" "peace" loving governments). See the latest contracts of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia does not need those U.S. and UK weapons, and they have the reputation that their military could not put the systems to good use, anyway. But the Royal House of Saud buys the goodwill of Western governments - and that of their corporate owners - with these orders (while the Saudi population has to put up with cuts - not everyone is wealthy there).
    1
  16. She hit the jackpot, she can sue them now. If they had let her in chances are she would have left money there. They will continue to employ people with prejudices BUT after it cost them they will train managers to not fuck up in such an idiotic manner. As a consumer in this superficial encounters you are not exposed to racism if they are forced (by management) to behave themselves. I read a story of an FBI convention / training and a group of black agents showed up at a restaurante that belonged to a chain. They refused to serve them and just ignored them for a long time. So ... a group of witnesses ;) Bad idea. After the lawsuit was settled that chain made sure to train their staff. (and other chains ALSO took notice that it could cost them too). Prejudices also come from lived experiences and over time it gets better - the members of the (former) discriminating class do not even think like that anymore, and the oppressed do not put up with it. The racists of the South went beserk over the idea that kids would go in the same schools. School (and military) are equalizers. Hard to maintain the disctinction of class / race - if they all grow up together and are supposed to be treated the same. The Charly Brown comics started to show a black kid that interacted with the white children. At the beach and later they were shown together in school. The comic was not syndicated in the South anymore although it had been popular before (that was in the 1970s). A school teacher had written to the artist and suggested him doing that (after Dr. King was killed).
    1
  17. +Don Child - 1/ 2 how DARE Jordan demand to take a firm stand - and Jordan (or the non-violent counter protest movement) are really intimidating, after all they have the U.S. army and all the agencies at their disposal to start wars with hundreds of thousands of victims - just as intimidating as the Cheney/Bush admin were when Bush said that "you are either with us or against us" line about other NATIONS. (And with no good reason - the admin did not want to use diplomacy (North Korea), backed a failed coup of a democratically elected head of state (Chavez in Venezuela in 2002 ) and were working the mood of the crowd because they were hellbent on starting wars in the Middle East, like in Afghanistan and Iraq (and the U.S. citizens were not sold on it). - end of sarcasm And yes Trump CAN (well he COULD if he would not condone the sentiments if not the most outrageous violence) denounce the racist movement. Even the SENTIMENTS. Torch march in the night to the Confederate statue (and intimidating the peaceful organization and prayer meeting of the counterprotesters IN a church ? - the counterproteter had not intention to engage with the Right in the night (they did not know about that march). So what business had the Racists intimidating THEM at that night (they expected of course to meet them on the streets next day). KKK anyone ? These male white racists (it were only men from what I have seen) have the constitutional right to march with torches. (I would have prefered the city to ban them, they can do their torch march elsewhere in the landscape). And the rest of the country especially the President has the duty to CALL A SPADE A SPADE. They they revive the KKK. The problem is that there are deranged people on the brink (like the car-terrorist), and the betrayal regarding the economy (by the GOP and the Corporate Democrats) does not help either. That young man lived with his mother - like many young adults are forced to do now.
    1
  18. everybody - please go to info@berniesanders.com and beg the campaign so that Sanders does NOT play the surrogate FOR Biden. He breaks the heart of the most informed, passionate supporters - I am not hyperbolic At this point I am not sure if Sanders even WANTS to WIN. Or if he VALUES his personal relationships with "my friend Joe" over getting REAL POWER so he can CHANGE things for the masses. People like the ideas of Sanders, "but later, now it is time to beat Trump". * They vote for Biden over Sanders because they think and are constantly told by mainstream media that Joe is a) a nice guy and b) he is BETTER or WELL able to beat Trump. see: * To Defeat Trump, Biden Recruits Sanders Supporters — And Finds Some Are Game | MSNBC Ari Melber in a diner in Queens (of course a carefully selected audience of older voters and local "leaders" = party machine). And Sanders CONFIRMS THAT instead of pointing out why he is the candidate with the most stamina (that has frontrunner status) and why he is the best to beat Trump for many reasons. THAT is the CASE he needs to make - not "defending" Biden. Biden can do his own interviews if he is able to pull it off. It is maddening to hear to the Senator how he props up his opponent - when he should truthfully tell people why is the much safer and stronger alternative. Joe is my friend = "nice" and also "Yes he can beat Trump, of course he can". So people like Joe they also find Bernie O.K. - but even Bernie says Joe is a good choice. No other candidate does that, it must meant that Joe is in reality the BETTER or an equallly good choice. No Biden is a very weak choice and Sanders is MUCH better. It is the DUTY of Sanders to tell the TRUTH to voters. Their SS will not be safe under Trump or Biden. Nor will Medicare or Medicaid be safe under either of them. Trump already said he wants to cut SS and benefits even before the election. And Biden has pushed for cuts, or no increases (= cuts, only less drastic) or privatization for decades. (Bill Clinton had a secret work group, they gave up on the project because of impeachment. Bill Clinton expetced some backlash about SS, and he did not want to fight on 2 fronts). Being for SS cuts or privatization comes with the territory, Biden has Big finance as major donors. Had them in the past, has over 60 billionaires NOW. Healthcare is expensive even if delivered in a cost efficient single payer system. (5,300 USD for every person in the country take or leave 400 USD - that will cover the overwhelming range of wealthy nations. Kaiser 2017, also see World Bank. The U.S. in 2017: USD 10,260 and here "average spending per person" includes uninsured people, or people that get help too late or go bankrupt. It is all that is spent on healthcare in the country, divided by all people - who may or may not get TIMELY care and who may or may not have sufficient ! coverage). OLD people cause the most spending in healthcare in ALL wealthy nations, people over 60: 5 times more than the people age group 20 and 30 (I seem to remember that - in that range). So on top of those conditions - that are true for all first world nations - It is NOT helpful at all when the U.S. spends DOUBLE for a service that is crucial and expensive anyway. The U.S. healthcare system will collapse under its own weight at some point. If things are O.K. you can do incrmental and adjust here and there. If it is a BIG MESS you need BOLD reform and you must be willing to end the status quo. Medicare NEEDS a lot of government support (that is the case in all nations, the mandated payroll taxes are intentionally kept modest so they are no burden to citizens and companies. The rest comes from general tax revenue). Only a BOLD reform can ensure the cost-efficiency and streamlined admin. Sanders says: We won on the ideas. That is true at least among Democratic caucus goers and primary voters M4A and 15 USD minimum wage poll very well. Guess what ? Biden already signalled that he will veto M4A (even if it would make its way through Congress and Senate. He will as gladly ignore what the citizens WANT as Hillary Clinton or now Trump. Progress is made when strong movements push for change and they have an at least mildly supportive president. The last BIG STRIDES were made before Big Donor money hijacked politics. With a president that is hellbent on NOT doing anything that annoys the big donors (Trump, Biden) it is an almost unsurmountable race. 1 step forwards, 1 step back. 2 step forwards 3 steps back. 4 steps forward in an epic struggle - 3 steps back. The powers that be are good at wearing people and movements out and in using institutional power to defeat them. Sanders should know from the Civil Rights and Anti war movement. Only MANY young people dying and YEARS of resistance and whistleblowers risking all could bring Nixon to end the Vietnam war. But he hit back
    1
  19. Both paties despise the third party voters much more than crossover voters. 300,000 Dems voted for Bush in 2000 in Florida - but legend will have it that the Green Party is allegedly to blame for the loss of Al Gore. (The myth is still perpetuated after all the years ! - I heared Bill Maher say it).
    1
  20. The dog ate my homework ....
    1
  21. An aspect is often overlooked: Restricting the Revolving Door. Politicians that serve their constituency cannot avoid stepping on on powerful toes. The interests of the rich and Big Biz usually do not align with those of regular people. The rich and Big Biz can well take care of themselves - so it is the population that needs backup by elected representatives. But when politicians are eager to get lucrative jobs AFTER they leave politics, then they will sell out even if the election campaigns are publicly funded and the parties get some public funding as well. If it is harder to cash in on voting for special interests - then the job will rather attract more honest players that are in the game to shape the country and who are content with the pay and the benefits they are getting as representative. In which case they have all the reason to get themselves reelected and stay in the good books of their constituency. Holding connection, fighting ! for policies that help the masses. (you cannot always win, but the unwashed masses appreciate if at least an effort is made. The Democrats could take a page out of the book of Republicans. If they had only HALF the dedication the Republicans show when they stonewall - and would direct that effort to a worthwhile cause...... In the U.S. young careerists are implanted into Congress (with help of the Big Donors), it is a necessary step on the way to becoming a highly paid lobbyist, "consultant", (much more lucrative than being a politician). And of course there is the possibility to lose elections. Or your own party undermining you if you do not serve the Big Donors well enough. Even if a politician is not greedy - they are usually sheepdogged by the party leadership which IS GREEDY) - in order to keep the gravy train for the party machine and to secure cushy jobs for ex-politicians. Another example: the Tea Party fraction funded by the Koch Brothers (Big Money) primaried more moderate Republicans. So the whole party shifted even more to the right. The Big Donors have assigned the task to Corporate Democrats to win primaries against progressives / left populists. It is not necessary to win general elections - the ballot will show a fierce Republican and even in a very progressive district a spineless sellout Republican Lite (aka Corporate Democrat) The Big Donors always win. At least it was like that until now.
    1
  22. The VIRAL VIDEO (Trump bashing does not help, ISSUES) is on Facebook , short clip under 2 minutes, 9,4 million views - let's make it 10 million https://www.facebook.com/ijrresponse/videos/2009625975960624/
    1
  23. Phonebank, door knocking, spread it via social media (it might get her donations or helpers if you can't chip in).
    1
  24. Medicare for All ? - You have to read into her blogs to get that she is for raising the minimum wage **, I found that as a side note of the end of an article (but no specifics !!). Minimum wage on the federal level ? on the state level ? What is the miminum wage in Florida and what does she think it should be ? She thinks that alone does not enough for the middle segment of wages and suggest an ?extra tax cut for businesses (when they pay wages it counts as business expenditure anyway, no tax on that). Nothing against functional ! tax cuts for businesses especially smaller ones - but that is not the tool to get good pay for the middle segment. ** Finding a good healthcare solution would lift a burden from smaller not highly profitable businesses. And the money they spend could be funnedled more to their staff and less to the healthcare industry. Plus they can compete with big biz for talent - they have no disadvantage regarding the healthcare plans they can afford to offer. It indicates the thinking of a Republican to me - or that she uncritically accepts the neoliberal framing and the thought stopping clichés. She does not have the economic insight of a FDR democrat. Did she ever look at the New deal era and try to figure out WHY it worked then. The admission on her site that she has to dig further into it before commiting to a number regarding the minimum wage but is on principle for rising it, would be fine, too. A politician must be intelligent, able to process nuance, have integrity and a spine, and be willing to inform him or herself on the issues. And change positions. No need to figure it out all and right from the beginning. And when elected they usually have more access to expertise (although that might be influenced by - cough - special interests - cough and lobbyists). And they can exchange their opinions with collegues, challenge them and be challenged. But they should get SOME basic and very obvious things right (like Medicare for All - or any other form of European style healthcare system - they are functioning since WW2. Or the toxic consequences of Money In Politics (incl. the revolving door). I was interested in her positions regarding Medicare for All, campaign finance reform, free public college or trade school and college debt. Couldn't find anything. I am a quick reader and took 5 minutes - on a well made site it should jump at me in the first 30 seconds. Not so progressive on second glance ! I mean she is a good candidate for a Democrat. She runs a grassroots campaign (no Big Corporate donations ? no SuperPacs ?). Is she on principle against big money in politics ? I did not see that commitment on her page, and I think she did not EXPLICITLY SAY so in the interview. So: when I have name recognition, and be voted in I will gladly take the big bucks ? Democrats are expected to fundraise for the party,... that is going to be interesting for all the progressives that win under a D ticket. Sanders as Independent also helps raising money (but not with expensive exclusive dinners, or Wallstreet speeches, and dialling after dollars - he has of course a platform so when holding a speech or giving access to the mail list - that is a valuable contribution he can make). She certainly is a better candidate than the big money candidate and is very likeable and being a woman of color and a veteran is an advantage. Maybe some "conservative" soundbites (fiscal responsibility) and not to ruffle Republican lite feathers with "unheard of" progressive economic ideas is necessary to win in the GE. That said: Cenk should grill her more on the issues.
    1
  25. Glad to hear that Sanders uses innovative and new voter activation strategies (that one can only launch with massive and genuine grassroots support).
    1
  26. Please, PLEASE watch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSBGmxERNVU&t=605s RIGHT NOW and plaster it on the social media outlets of the Sanders campaign ! It looks like Sanders is ready to give up. - He can't (Nomiki Konst worked with Sanders, her appeal is touching and I couldn't have said it better). I fervently hope Sanders takes off the gloves - then he could turn this around. But he. must. take. off. the. gloves - (the video is only 10 minutes or less, do check it out).
    1
  27. It is as if he is scared of his own courage - self-sabotaging. Well he can step down after his strong and principled VP and a good cabinet is established.
    1
  28. On her site she talks about: fiscal responsibility. Now, that standard Republican soundbite might resonate well with unenlightend voters. (It sounds good, it has merit in personal finances, it usually indicated that someone does not really understand how "money" and government financing works ? (Stephanie Kelton deficit owl speech). btw: Even if we take the term uncritically and at face value - does that mean: no tax cuts for the rich, or less welfare for military contractors. Or the insance costs of 24/7 mass surveillance. Cutting the subsidies for Big Ag in FLORIDA ?? No more wars and regime change ? Cutting of SNAP, welfare, school funding, slashing the budgets of the EPA ? Or does she buy into the thinking of scarcity, the doom and gloom scenarios of government debt, defictis etc. etc. She migth want to check out Debt and Interest Free Money creation by Dr. Richard Werner. (clip youtube) Or Money Creation in a Modern Economy - a pdf published by the Bank of England. Or check out MMT proponent Dr. Stephanie Kelton (advisor of the Sanders campaign). Dr. Kelton is longer, the other two sources are shorter to explore and easy to understand. All of them are highly recommended.
    1
  29. Josh Fox is only half-informed - Russia is NOT in charge of the Ukraine - maybe he misspoke - only the Crimea (a penninsula that went from Russia to the Ukraine in the 1950s - it was all the "Soviet Union" then, so it mattered so little, that historians do not know WHY that even happened). Russia had an agreement with the Ukraine that allowed them to have a very important naval base on the Crimea. If the State Department did not EXPECT Russia to "secure" Crimea they are dilettants who KNOW nothing. The popular uprising was likely helped a lot by the U.S. state department (the ousted corrupt politician had been recently reelected - to get rid of him was of course a good idea but the next crook - this time a U.S. friendly version - is likely even more corrupt).
    1
  30. To be fair: Cenk would need to explain 2 hours * what MMT is, common wisdom is that taxation and debt (usually bonds) fund government budgets (and in my opinion we can keep it - for the most part - that way). The system that is known to most people * worked reasonably well during the times of high employment, good wages and high taxation for rich individuals and profitable companies in the "Golden Era" after WW2. Sure it still gave an advantage (access to capital and to loans) to those who started out with money, so improvement is certainly possible. * 30 minutes to explain the concept, 90 minutes to do some exorcism of common economic wisdom that has to be unlearned
    1
  31. While I am at it: in 1940 (more than 70 years ago !!!) the U.S. implemented the 40 hour work week. Europe was war torn - so they got the 5 days 40 hour work week in the 1950s. At least in industrial production that meant a LIVING WAGE with ONE breadwinner in the family Until 1970 the wins in productivity were given to the workers in form of higher wages 1947 - 1970 average hourly U.S. wages adjusted for inflation plus 97 % = purchasing power almost DOUBLED. Productivity wins in the same time: plus 112 % So a lot but not all of the productivity gains went straight into the pockets of the employed. 15 % in such a large, ever expanding economy and for relatively few people - entrepreneurs, shareholders - was still a lot. That said: the workers got the lions share - which meant the ever increasing OUTPUT of goods was matched by disposable consumer income which mostly comes from wages. (1970 - 2013 wages only plus 8/ 9 % !! - Productivity + 69 % the power balance had obviously changed !) From the 1970s on the further improvements in productivity should have been given in more free time with the SAME wage (adjusted for inflation). So the living wage with 38, 35, 30, 28, .... hours. As behooves a civilization with our technological advancements.
    1
  32. + Matt hoarding of real estate must be tackled by law (in Berlin foreigners are not allowed to buy real estate if they do no live there. I know such regulations also from touristic regions. Another way is to impose high taxes that hit only people with real estate where no one lives in. The gov. can also use eminent domain, right of first refusal to provide enough apartments. It is not perfect, tricks and evasion wil happen. But it prevents the investors form completely taking over. Most of the time however the mayors side with the real estate developers. And the wealthy who already own property that will rise in value. 13 % of London area belongs to Qatar allegedly (incl. very prestigious locations). Gold is not relevant. A modern currency does not need gold backing. (It mades sense back in the day, Latin was the lingua franca, and gold and silver where the universal currencies. The Romans used salt to pay the troops stationed away from the ocean. Dr. Stephanie Kelton: see her interview on Democracy@Work, she called the "gold standard" the strait jacket of the economy. If you hold a part of your fortune in money (or bonds) it does not really mattter for taxation purposes what the currency is. Sure under our current system the USD fortunes could "flee" to Switzerland, or into the Eurozone. Well those economies could impose negative interest on large amounts held by foreigners. Else it would drive up THEIR currency. That happened to Switzerland some years ago, it made Swiss export products and holidays in Switzerland more expensive for foreigners. Then the Central Bank intervened for some time. But they COULD have made their country less attractive in other ways. They chose a) not to rock the boat by doing something so unconventional and b) the banks would not have liked it. Money is a highly virtual thing and billions can be created with a few key strokes. Gold has not too many technical applications. (Gold mining is an environmental problem, but if we further reduced gold reserves - than there should be enough gold around for technical purposes.). Phosphor is a much more valuable element. Technical use and FERTILIZER. Land is the most important restricted resource that is a target of hoarding activities. Water may become more important.
    1
  33. Filibuster by Warren - and why did Emma no follow up ?
    1
  34. either 1) that story is a fabrication and whitewash OR 2) Warren has very poor instincts and does not know how to play the political game at all. 1) So .... Warren gives away her OWN power (to build an even stronger support base, there was a Run Liz, run draft campaign going on, she could have run for a few months to become a household name to become a check on Clinton. Instead she tries to become the influencer behind the scenes. So what exactely would make Hillary Clinton KEEP her promise once she has all the spotlight in the media and her friends in the media block Warren out. (which is the easier the more time had passed since the GFC and since Warren had wagged her finger at the Wallstreet CEO's. And what does it say if you have to work so hard to keep a candidate straight. I get why Warren would not WANT to run - but then why does she run now. - Sanders coordinated with Warren in 2015, and when it was clear she would not run Sanders announced. He planned with 30 million USD in small contributions, he wanted the platform in order to shape the discussion. I cannot remember Warren having shaped the discussion much. Did she have financial regulation discussed ? I honestly do not remember, but I remember that Sanders was very vocal about it, got attacked, hit back etc. How about healthcare. Crickets by Warren. DAPL. Deafening silence by My-Family-Tale-Says-I-Have-First-Nation-Ancestors. Now, I think that is a whitewash because she now realizes that her calculation then hurts her (that she sat on the sidelines while Sanders went for it). I would not hold that against her so much - but that she did not even have the courage to stand up at Standing Rock is very telling. To not annoy the Fossil fuel industry and Wallstreet investors - still angling for a cabinet position, Liz ?? in fall when it seemed clear that Clinton would win the presidency. So we are supposed to believe that she would have held Clinton to account or that she had leverage over Clinton. I do not see any indications for that influence, nor did Warren shape the disucssion much. Sanders did ! Warren remaiend SILENT. - The Clinton campaign gave progressives the middle finger as soon as Clinton had the nomination in the bag. Again I cannot see any good influence of Clinton ! Warren's boldness was not even sufficient to take a stand on the DAPL protests ?
    1
  35. Guess he did the routines at home with her ;) So she would be good at rehearsal.
    1
  36. So WHERE was the rest of the Democratic Party. - you bet if that had happened to a Republican the Repbulican president would have found the time and opportunity to do something about it. - a spineless, useless lot they are - and that includes the former Wallstreet saviour in chief - or overlooking the criminal actions of Wallstreet kept them so busy they had no attention to spare. And btw: where was the outrage in 2002 - this is not only about a Democrat not getting the office he/she won - no the voters are betrayed first and foremost. But then 2000 went so smoothly for the GOP with the Dems rolling over oblingly - so surely Alabama could not pose a problem.
    1
  37. The trolls against Sanders are out - no new arguments though (the usually shittty ones).
    1
  38. In the anti vaxxer regions the healthy children will be fine, they almost never have complications and luckily also get good immunity even out of cases with very light symptoms. The problem: as long as the adults keep it spreading the children are also part of the chain of infections, the problems is not that they get infected, but that they pass it on. BUT there are children that have higher risks - when anti vaxxer prevent herd immunity to indirectly protect them, it is good that at least those children can get vaccinated. Else it would be better to nudge / coerce all adults (who do have higher risks IF they get infected) to get the shots. And to use the still scarce resource (vaccines) where it disrupts most chains of infections. With adults ! nudging / pushing all adults in the U.S. (numbers would drop and even unvaccinated children would not spread it anymore. children are NOT the ones keeping it circulating). And then getting the vaccines into developing countries - for their adults - instead of squandering them on children in first world countries who do not neeed them and do not land in the hospitals (and bring them at breaking point).
    1
  39. The most important thing for the Democratic party is to NOT lose the donations of the Big Donors and to keep money in politics. That is more important than winning the GE. The role assigned to the Democratic party by the Big Donors is to win the primaries to keep progressives away from power. "Progressives" have grassroots financed campaigns or are at least open to campaign finance reform. They pursue causes that help the regular people - so they have a chance to win elections even if the votes are not bought with the help of massive advertising. THEY are not as afraid of campaign finance reform like the donor puppets. The interests of regular citizens very often collude with the interests of the Big Donors. Sanders recently embarrassed Jeff Bezoes on a daily basis - surprisinlgy Amazon NOW raised the wage of Amazon workers (even part time even associates from temp agencies) to 15 USD. Progressives can do such things - not one of the run of the mill Democrats would have DARED to inconvenience Amazon / Jeff Bezos. Even if they do not get money from that donor directly. Democratic politicians (incl. fairly progressives ones) also must dial after the dollar for the party - so they cannot annoy potential big donors - and the party leadership is keeping a tight grip on the party in order to make sure the donors are kept happy and every politician falls in line. Of course if more Progressives are voted in it would embolden the whole group - they are not beholden to donor money in the same way like the rest of the lot. So either they can be bribed - but if they do not sell out - over the course of some years the cozy and lurcrative arrangement would be in jeopardy. It is not only about getting money when active in politics. The Big Donors / and their shills in the party establishment also provide cushy jobs for ex politicians. That is a very important aspect that is often overlooked. Mainstream media profits from insane advertisement spending in elections. They collude with the parties and the donors (who are often also regular advertisers). 1) They will not alert the citizens about the dangers of money in politics and 2) they also provide some jobs for ex politicians 3) they eagerly take up the talking points of the think tanks (financed by the Big Donors). Meanstream media is OWNED by rich people = Big Donors. Election circus with big money: that is PART of the GRAVY TRAIN. It provides the employment opportunities for obedient ex politicians (strategists, consultants, mainstream media also helps out, they hire "experts" and hosts - after all they get a lot of the budgets of election campaigns). The big mistake of the voters (people who DO pay attention) was to treat each election as a separate emergency * = we cannot dare to NOT vote Democrate THIS time because then we will get a Republican. And that emergency has been repeated for DECADES. The Republicans can always be relied on to come up with a boogeyman. That works like a charm for the sellout Democrats. They do not have ANY competition on the "left" or even the center. Progressives ARE competition, so they are held down. The Corporate Democratic Party are a right political party: pro war, pro neoliberal economics, pro surveillance state and censorship. Big Donor friendly - as concession to the base and to differentiate themselves from the GOP: with gay rights, abortions and at least lip service regarding gun regulation -positions that do not cost the donors anything. While the Republicans occupy the FAR RIGHT - and they utilize gay rights and abortions as well - to motivate their base to vote for them. Plus dogwhistles and now scapgoating immigrants, going after the "other" is the oldest strategy wo win the support of the masses. That can be turned to a lucrative business for some of their donors (for profit prison complex, those who run detention centers and get their revenue guaranteed, etc.) So both wings of the one and only Big Donor Party have their strategies to get the masses excited - and the Big Donors always ! win. Again progressives would undermine the "We all scratch each other's back" game. Keeping the money of the Big Donors is even more important than winning elections (the party establishment and the Big Donors will take care of obedient shills if they lose seats or want to end their career. Especially in Congress: some careerists see Congress as a point in their resume on the way to a lucrative career in D.C. as lobbyist. They do the beauty contest with the Big Donors, get elected with their millions, then follow orders when casting their vote in Congress. They use the talking points and legislation proposals of the think tanks. That saves time, they have to spend a LOT of time to raise money and to meet with the donors - so it is a good thing they just follow orders and do not need to do their own research. They build their rolodex - and then they move on to other lucrative careers.
    1
  40. Berlin did something to stop gentrification (I guess it has to do with who is allowed to buy real estate there - thus pricing the regular folks out in the interesting cities and touristic areas).
    1
  41. Please, PLEASE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSBGmxERNVU&t=605s - watch this touching video RIGHT NOW and plaster it on the social media outlets of the Sanders campaign ! It looks like Sanders is ready to give up. He can't (Nomiki Konst worked with Sanders). Obama was behind at that time by 300 delegates in 2008. Sanders CAN turn this around, but he MUST start to take off the gloves. Joe is not OUR friend he is LESS electable than Sanders, he might be in cognitive decline (there are polite and fair ways to contrast the one year intense campaign of Sanders with the light schedule of Biden (for the whole 12 months). And Sanders weathered stunt surgery after hearth attack in 2 weeks Or long issue rich speeches (35 - 40 minutes) compared to 7 minute speeches of Biden. never mind the BAGGAGE Biden has (Iraq war and trade deals for a start), and that Trump would drag him. Trump is good on the stage as long as it is not about facts and issues. there are many issues that Biden better not mention - and if he does it will be "pot calling the kettle". That put offs voters that do not see anything in it for them (100 million people that were eligible to vote didn't do that in 2016, you have to give them something to vote FOR). Sanders could kick Trump on corruption, family nepotism (Biden better not go there) and healthcare promises. And the student loans that are now 1,5 trillion USD (more than subprime mortgages in 2008). Biden pushed for the bankrupcy bill that was instrumental for that situation and Trump did nothing about it. Sanders can and MUST criticize Biden hard on it (mentioning the bankrupcy bill is not enough, he must SAY what the outcome was of it). And later he can kick Trump for not having done anything about it. Biden will not do anything about healthcare and pharma prices, and the stock prices (healthcare, pharma related) went UP after he became the frontrunner. Looks like the "markets" are very confident that Biden will be good for their profits. What does that mean for voters ? Sanders needs to tell voters that their SS is not safe under Trump or Biden (his history over decades - and Trump already said he will cut it). Medicare in its current form is not safe either - at some time the system will collapse under its own weight and dysfunction. (and that is w/o the corona virus). Under cost efficient single payer a nation needs 5,300 USD per person per year (take or leave 400 USD - Kaiser 2017). Almost ALL wealthy nations are in that range. So even under the best of circumstances it costs plenty. Modest mandatory payroll taxes (no burden for citizens or companies), streamlined admin, because every one is covered and has the same comprehensive coverage (so no hassle for doctors and hospitals). The rest for the budget (so that the non-profit insurance agency can pay sufficient rates) - like in the U.S. - comes from general tax revenue. But the subsdies per person are not quite as high as in the U.S. (All save if it costs half: government somewhat, and citizens and companies a lot). For the U.S ? add 5,000 USD ! 10,260 for every person in 2017 That is what is already spent on in all of the U.S., no matter who pays divided by ALL people - whether or not they have insurance, go bankrupt etc. Healthcare spending is always MUCH higher for old people, that is everywhere the case. It is not exactely helpful when healthcare spending in general in the U.S. is double of what it should be. The U.S. system will collapse under it's own weight if there is no BOLD reform. No need to reinvent the wheel: Just using the blueprint that all other nations have used for the last 70 years (the crucial principles for single payer, I see them reflected in the bill of Sanders and of Pramila Jayapal). Obama tried the establishment approach: let's not rock the boat too much. In 2009 the PREDATORY for-profit insurers were ALLOWED to REMAIN the DOMINANT actors in the system. (all other wealthy ! countries have limited or strongly limited for-profit actors in their systems. Especially the insurers. they have done so for 55 - 70 years. That's why they spend approx. HALF per person). The premise of Obamacare: the predators stay in charge but there will be regulations so they will behave themselves. How did that turn out ? The insurance companies had 10 years time to prove themselves. ACA was passed in spring 2010. Same for the pharma industry that got concessions and favors under Bush, under Obama and under Trump. Still: 10 times the costs for insuline compared to Canada. Opiode crisis ? Epi Pen (developed for the Iraq war and with gov. subsidies. For use in 1991, mind you). The HIV drug Truvada for which the U.S. agency - I think the CDC - does not enforce the patent, and Gilead that produces it has extortion prices. In the U.S. NOT in other countries. They get the well negotiated prices for a drug where the U.S. tax payers invested a lot to get it developed and tested. No cost control.
    1
  42. Maybe Trump is a good negotiator after all. He knows that the media and the DEMS !! will thankfully jump at emotionally charged issues. while carefully avoiding things that Big Money does not want mentioned. They COULD during every interview they give about the latest outrage ALSO mention that he tries to get away with other things. (Like Sanders always mentions Healthcare For All, no matter what he is interviewed about). But those sell-outs are all too glad that they have something - ANYTHING - to talk about. While generously overlooking the issues that they ALSO could talk about if they would not give a damn about what the Big Donors want. The giveaway regarding pesticides ALSO helps their donors. Monsanto also donated to the Clinton foundation (that "charity") and no doubt bribes Democrats as well.
    1
  43. ** Her proposal that businesses should get extra ? tax cuts for giving bonus to non-executive staff. The claim is that the minimum wage helps only those at the bottom. Well no, it has ripple effects for those above the minimum wage. It "ripples upwards". The problem is not so much that the jobs in the middle are not well paid - There are not enough of them, and healthcare costs and childcare and college debt eat away from the salary. AND: RENT and exploding house prices (social housing financed with Debt and Interest Free money - Dr. Richard Werner, also Dr. Stephanie Kelton). Communites should not allow the international rich investor class buy up real estate (London, Sydney, New York, Auckland, ...). No one lives in those houses and apartments, but they drive up the costs for everyone living and working there. THAT would solve problems - not a tax law. Outlaw those purchases of people who neither do business nor do they live in the buildings - and put heavy taxes on those who have unused investment property. (Giving out vouchers in alternative currencies for everyone LIVING/renting in the city would offset the burden of taxation for those who actually live there. Else the investors place a "fake" renter in the house. If the compensation for the tax (alternative currency) must be spent in the local economy (or for utility bills) it becomes unattractive for Chinese or Russian financiers. But it protects the locals from the burden of such taxation. [that is a tricky proposal ... the law of unintended consequences] I am afraid that employers would find a way to discriminate against some workers, withhold the bonus from some etc. - And it reduces tax revenue (under the current model to fiance state expenditures - see MMT Stephanie Kelton). Someone HAS to pay for the state expenditures. When a company MUST pay good wages because they cannot find employees, then the profits might not be that high so they are not going to owe much taxes. The medium segment that is employed by smaller companies is often freelance work. So they do not employ the accounat or the assistant (office, marketing, IT) - they contract them. These people profit from the fact that good wages are being paid for EMPLOYEES. So a freelancer - taking more risks and having less protection - can not be pressured into working for pennies. (see Craigslist, IT, marketing, design) On the other hand the employees do not know WHAT they are going to get. On the one hand the employer wants to keep the profit (as compensation for entpreneurial risk) on the other hand the employees would depend on the FUTURE profits to know what they will make - of course only 1 year into the future. And not when they leave in the middle of the year or get laid off. Usually they do not have much of a say in the decisions. Having a fixed salary (unless you work in sales where the personal performance can be measured or in management) is fairer. And people will have the money right away. Such a tax law could only make an impact if it would find WIDE application. And I can see a LOT of troubles with it in that case. If a company makes money hand over fist after paying decent wages - and that applies more to Big Biz - they know 101 ways to not pay taxes already. 60 % of the economy are dominated by multinationals and very large companies. A huge part of the economy are service sector workers and they definitely will profit from a minimum wage. And it will eat into the profits of WalMart the Fastfood Industry, Starbucks. etc. How did good wages work in the past ? - see next comment
    1
  44. He might be a good politician (the Democratic party gladly promotes bland candidates if they are no danger to the gravy train and are well connected ) - but the question is if has the ability to WIN elections - espcially since he does not get big money. Beto in Tx is good in campaigning and can overcome the disadvantage. That is sad - the country might miss out on good lawmakers and honest fighters who UNDERSTAND what the voters need. I think for instance that Sanders is not a particularily good speaker (the speeches in the big rallies, or in the time restricted mainstream TV interviews) He comes across as thoughtful in longer interviews - when it is a friendly atmosphere where he does not have to battle b.s. talking points and he has time to elaborate you'll notice that he was in the habit of THINKING about politics and policies for decades. That he formed his own opinions and the did not get the talking points from the Big Donors. it does not matter that Sanders is not the most eleoquent speaker, and he is no fashion icon either. His hair is hardly better than that of Trump ;) Voters sensed how unusual he is and that he means what he says. Screw eloquent and polished. That said: he campaigned in the 1970s with a small independent party and they reached around 5 % as best result (they participated in the large races, govenor congress). Sanders left that party and around 2 years later won the race to become mayor of Burlington (majoritiy 10 votes) - that provided the platform to create name recognition in tiny Vermont and to have some achievements (as active politician, in that case as mayor in a town of 30,000). He was mayor from 1980 or 81 to 1989 - and from that platform he launched at least 2 more races. Only in 1991 he became a member of Congress. So it took him a while.
    1
  45. She comes accross well, she has a future in politics. - you should check out the Sanders "election" history. And when she works for wolf Pac she builds networks and name recognition.
    1
  46. You cut off the very latest frames, after she kisses him he still stays on the stage, and then she says "Joe" [Honey now it is time to go off the stage ...] - when they attempted the virtual townhall * last week he wondered off and out of camera focus. So I guess they had told him to stay put. And his wife had to unfreeze him. * 1 hour delay. First question he looked in the camera. They had to let him receive the questions on a smartphone which he held. (That was improvised, they wanted to receive the Q's differently, but that did not work.)  he held it but answered the question "freely" only he had to correct himself 3 -4 times in one sentence : Along the lines of: I will pass a healthcare bill, but it will take 2 years, excuse me 1 year, till Nov. actually till January ... - well I guess he meant he can't do anything before he hasn't been sworn in as president. Duh ! Next questions must have been something about the environment. He looked at the screen all the time, answered in a lower voice then he started walking sideways, never once looking up .... Grandpa gone ...
    1
  47.  @masaufuku1735  I think he misgendered Manning once (and supported her case, so I think she would give that gladly a pass). Russiagate - no one is perfect. Strategic voting The Greens likely have the best chances to get over 5 % (it could be hard, no exposure, Jill Stein had ? 2 % at max. and I think that was double after the last time). Splitting that small base even more is not strategic. I am sorry for Gloria La Riva (I heard about her for the first time), I think she gets her name out, get's experience, maybe she can build her career by running for state legislature.
    1
  48. 13 times "frankyl" - frankly he might work at that.
    1
  49. CNN interview repeats the LIE that Iran is an "existential threat" to Israel . NOT TRUE. Iran even if it had a nuclear weapon would never, ever use it for a first strike or to start a war on their own. Because the U.S. and Israel would annihilate them. But it would certainly raise the stakes even in a regular war. AND Israel (or another country, Saudi Arabia said they would try to get nukes as well if they thought Iran would get them) could certainly not threaten Iran with a nuclear weapon. Iran would hit back - Israel is a small country with the people living densely in certain areas. The hostility of the state of Israel - under the increasingly right wing governments that the citizen of Israel vote into power - is at least motivated by a clear profit motive (getting the land and the water of other nations). Saudia Arabia I think hate Iran just because they are Shia Muslim. Sure, Iran has a lot of oil, but the Saudis have more, and would it be worth the trouble to try and control that large country? The Saudi army is not good - their military spending is meant to buy the goodwill of Western media and political establishment. They cannot integrate the expensive hardware. - Russia gets a real army for the same (or even lower budget). But of course they produce their equipment in the country, they innovate ... they play in another league than KSA.
    1
  50. part 1 of 3 Clinton would split the neoliberal vote in the primaries. Sure she would attract the middle aged to elderly well off professional females. Some of that group are still pissed off that Sanders rained on her parade, it is hard to say how numerous they are in real life, they are vocal in Social Media, but that may be a paid for operation. He polls well, so I do not know where the angy Clinton fans camp out. The interviews when the book Shattered was promoted (spring 2017) were very telling. 2 authors / journalists were given access under condition of confidentiality during the campaign. The staff and strategists were clueless about which ideology to "chose" and tried to come up with a framing, a slogan, a core message, a "postioning". An ideology would be something that has to do with convictions is backed up by some emotions, even passion, evolved over the years. It is not something a focus groups provides for you after they had a weekend retreat to find it. fromt he top to the foot soldiers of the Clinton machine and the campaign they are careerists. Lacking any convictions or passion other than for their own wellbeing they were completely unable to read the signs on the wall. That includes the alleged smart guy Chuck Schumer. Bill Clinton was uneasy about the Rust Belt states - well he was the only one that acutally WON elections. Clinton was placed in a safe district in New York, her primary opponent dropped out (or got the hints to drop out else not more funding now or in the future). Meanwhile Sanders talked on the campaign trail like he had done for decades, he did not need consultants (many of them at least) to find his core message. He had a core, thank you very much. He could refer to his old record, he continued to write the speeches (at least part of it). But since he was so consistent it is not as hard to come up with the speeches. Or make the additions that make one speech more interestingfor this or that audience. It is not like a bunch of opportunists had to find an agreement about what a) was important and b) what would "sell well". The big spending on campaigns also supports a jobs industry for party loyalists and former ex politicians or their relatives. These careerists do not have convictions (at most they have preference - see Obama) so they obsess with polling and strategy and consulting. They try to "create" a brand - like they do for other consumer products like shoes, garments, food,... Even with consumer products that sleek approach has somewhat worn out - authenticity has been detected by the big branks (so they work with bloggers. Anyway: who is fit to hold enormous political power is not quite the same as creating some delusions about breakfast cereal (too much sugar) or whitewashing Nutella. If Sanders OR Elizabeth Warrn run in 2020 both should wipe the floor with her AND Sanders definitely can do that with Trump in the GE. The trick of the Clinton machine of putting the Southern states first will not work this time - NOW he has name recognition too. Now he polls very well with Black voters. Elderly voters have died or do not vote anymore, young people have come of age - THAT helps Sanders. Jeff Weaver the campaign manager was asked this summer in a C-Span interview: In hindsight what mistakes did they make ? Weaver said they had planned with a budget of 30 million USD. Had they known they would get 230 million in donations they would have started out much stronger, have a stronger groundgame.
    1