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

  1. Well they DID get elected in Virginia - and it made an impact. Wait till they get the majority ! - The Republicans were hell bent on repealling ACA (which is not a bad idea provided they could be bothered to come up with something better and much more simple - single payer !). could not get it done even thought they control all branches of government. California and Vermont hold against abolishing net neutrality. They want to get an public bank in L.A. Jeff Sessions would like to start a war against weed. But the people get more and more of it on the ballots. So his hands are tied.
    1
  2. The company in Florida would be glad to get your orders. It would make Trump happy and the biz owner, too ;)
    1
  3. They are not even subtle about it - well, truth be told they did not announce her big time, she was "sneaked" it. They haven't yet realized that that shit doesn't fly anymore - with the web and with independent media. And getting google with youtube to demonetize the progressive channels (as well - it is not only right wing extremists that are hit) isn't going to stop that. In the long run it might be a blessing in disguise - they are all urging their fans so go to patreon etc. to support them. Donna Brazile encouraged people to "contact" her if they have questions. Oh, and she never stopped engaging for the cause, she continued to fundraise for the Democratic Party. (even when she was doing the appropriate "hibernation" time until being reinstated - well that it is all it is about - she might be a good fundraiser, Debbie W.-S. is good at THAT too. The party losing massively at every level of government ? Who cares).
    1
  4. the compromise in the Senate. 1,200 USD. ONCE for citizens. in a 2 trn bill !
    1
  5. Have you seen the change.org petition (around spring 2017) asking the DNC leadership to not accept Sanders anymore. A lot of really pissed off HRC supporters, mostly female it seems. - he is no democrat, he is destroying the party (one can dream). He should do his own thing, he is not even a Democrat ... couldn't agree more. I hope he is playing them as long as they are useful - and then goes and does his own thing.
    1
  6. Citizens like to be part of a BOLD and meaningful movement (of voters). They like to be part of CHANGE (again when it does not require more effort than go and vote). Many will go beyond that, share on Facebook or even phonebank. (That btw elated the Trump voters, they went voting expecting that it would be hard to pull off a win, and in the opinion of many they helped turn around the country in a positive direction).
    1
  7. He MADE it !
    1
  8. The shots are for a) ALL adults in the U.S. (if need be with nudges or coercion) and b) adults in developing countries and c) vulnerable children in first world countries. Healthy children have so little risks that it is not reasonable to squander vaccines on them as long as there are not enough for all on the plantet. A society gets more benefits out of vaccinating ADULTS. And if they have surplus resources they should rather give booster shots to high risk patients than to use them for healthy children. Poor countries cannot even vaccinate their adults. If all adults globally (only very few can't get the shots for medical reasons) are vaccinated the children will enjoy herd immunity (and the healthy children can take that gamble while we wait for that development, because their risks are tiny). If adults would be reasonable and get the shots, case numbes would drop and schools could open w/o masks. If case numbers drop it does not matter if children are vaccinated or not - but just in case they get infected, they will be fine. But that is not true for adults.
    1
  9. 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 meat 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.
    1
  10. 1:48 one side (THE global superpower) has a very capable airforce (and satellite intelligence) - in 2014 ISIS took over part of Iraq and the (US "trained") Iraqi army rolled over and after that ISIS were on their long way through the open flat desert towards Syria - and somehow the U.S. was capable to "overlook" them. - Just kidding - it was intentional. John Kerry is on record: The U.S. wanted ISIS to becomer stronger IN Syria, that would damage the government and Assad. (inofficial meeting with the Syrian "opposition" in Sep. 2016 in the Dutch mission in the UN) - the audio recording is on youtube - I stumbled upon that info in a video of a female presenter on the Alex Jones channel (don't get upset about the Alex Jones source, they were just reporting ! and I have not found it reported anywhere else, there was a reference to a blog conservativetreehouse that reports on that nugget - you can search with that if interested). That very shortsighted, vile intention explains of course why ISIS got stronger and stronger as long as the U.S. / NATO "fought" against them. And why they could occupy Syrian oil fields, extract the oil and sell it (to Turkey) - and they were never bothered. ISIS then had the reputation to pay their mercenaries the best wages (not everyone is in the game just for ideology !) and of course they could finance the global social media campaign and their Toyota cars, the drugs for the fighters, the weapons. Social media of course also targeted Europe. - Only when the Russian airforce emerged on the scene the cozy oil trade and major (independent !) income stream was interrupted. Can you believe the LUNACY of the West. (Make no mistake the leadership and secret services European powers UK, France, Germany MUST know what is going on - if not they need to step down for being clueless and unfit for the job)
    1
  11. Last but not least - it was a SURPRISE to everyone * that Trump even WON the elections. It is very possible that there were inappropriate contacts with the Russians - the Russians would have done that - just in case. But how would they have built a STRATEGY on such a unlikely winner like Trump - how would they know that Clinton and her campaign would achieve the almost impossible: winning against Trump. A tiny bit less arrogance towards the Sanders people and SHE would be president. I think they also did not put Sanders to good use after the primaries. The few appearances they had together were lackluster - it must have hurt her ego badly that the moment she appeard with him on stage there were no enthusiastic crowds anymore. And Sanders and Nina Turner working the Rust Belt for her would have made "promises" in her name (or repeated what she said on the campaign trail). Well, she had no intention of keeping those AND knew Sanders and Turner would not shut up after the election about broken promises, if she misused their standing with the voters in that way. Better not to use them at all - to give them even more legitimacy with the base and more leverage. Clinton would get the "moderate Republicans" to replace the dissenting blue collars. (that was the brillant Chuck Schumer strategy). Trump was in trouble in summer - the billionaire Mercer saved the camapign with money AND equally important with staff (Kellyann Conway, Steve Bannon, etc.) (* the margin was razor sharp in some Rust Belt States so there could have been DOMESTIC manipulation of the voting machines - you need insiders for that - to finetune the rigging, as to not stray too far from the exit polls). - The fact that these machines are easily hackable is know for years and is ignored by the media, by the Dems and of course by the Rs (who would have done the hacking to begin with).
    1
  12.  @oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164  You have a nerve talking about rules, courtesy, commons sense while taking the side of Donald Trump.
    1
  13.  @oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164  btw the Republicans were all for impeaching a sitting president for lying about an affair. Harassment ? He was not as openly corrupt like Trump, the Clinton's waited at least until leaving office. And he was not impeached for treasonous behavior either.
    1
  14. Emma's analysis is not as bad as it seems, you have to hear til the end (but it is still flawed, and so is Warren).
    1
  15. Mores lost time on fluff, he should ALSO have said: I dated persons in my age group and only people I had NO influence over - not as a mayor not at the university. And I hid that I was a mayor - if they did not know it. I regret somone felt uncomfortable LATER when finding out, ... while on a human level I would never want anyone feel uncomfortableon ... I then found out some of the persons had contacts with the MA party machine. Calling out the corruption and the look over there tactics was good.
    1
  16. The good thing is that Neal defended himself (students stepped forward independently of me), no place in my campaing for homophobia ... so HE gets teh message home.
    1
  17. West funding terror 1 of 3: The West funding all sorts of terrorists: excellent panel Crosstalk: Syria Lessons youtube . com/watch?v=8DIK_8USVQE (delete the blanks), it is from May 2016 - but still highly relevant. if pressed for time watch it from 14 :43 on - how the U.S. let ISIS grow, supplied them with weapons, allowed the oil trade. When AlQaeda and ISIS become unsupportable (due to atrocities open funding cannot be justified before the voters) the Western governments helped other moderate terrorists - they groups reform and change names all the time - but consist of the same type of extremists.
    1
  18. Did you hear the 5 BILLION USD that Victoria Nuland admitted proudly to (it was declared as "help" to democratize the Ukraine - that was spent BEFORE the regime change). Nuland stood on a stage with the wallpaper of the sponsors behind her (all fossil fuel companies).
    1
  19. Nomiki REALLY ? - I expected more from you ! I would assume that Russia is as likely as any other major nation to spy on the U.S. resp. to do hacking etc. - for rigging the elections their help is not needed, the Dems and the Reps are doing just fine. - And other nations have NOTHING ON THE U.S. - record regime changer and war aggressor. I think Putin is not stupid. He once said that he does not pay that much attention to WHAT is said in the presidential races regarding foreign policy (he did not call it exactely chestthumping - I call it that ;) - the overall tone of his statement was: When the person is in office we will see. - so it does not matter THAT much who is in office. Admitted there was some hostility going on between Hillary Clinton and Putin. I assume that it would need an extraordinarily, committed, strong-willed president with high intergrity (and also enough knowledge) to reign in the Israel-first crowd and the people who would love nothing more than another Arms Race with Russia and/or China (not necessarily a war, at least not in the forseeable future, but the related spending). And then there is the crowd that dreams of the winable nuclear war (they were around during the Cuban Missille Crisis and they still exist). I assume the "puppet in chief" does not mean THAT much - and I also assume that Putin and his advisors KNOW that. Obama said something like that shortly after the election of Trump, in his measured, very slow "official speech mode" he said: ... the continuity granted by the institutions ... that make sure that the US as the indispensible nation... bla bla bla Lee Camp of Redacted RT mentioned it - Obama practically saying: Don't worry, the Deep State will still be there when I left office, even when it is Trump that follows me They are a constant. Larry Wilkerson in his interview with the Real News said that Obama once told him: "this city likes war - see the next comment".
    1
  20. Trump MUST be defeated - young voters and minorities MUST compromise. Because the Biden campaign (or HRD in 2016)for sure will not give them anything of substance. A pandemic and still no single payer 'cause: big donors. - How about Biden giving them policies that help ALL and would guarantee his landslide win ?
    1
  21. Communism = Democracy At The Workplace Let's assume the bar is a family business - meaning those who do the work OWN the means of production and control what happens in their project (location, investments, selling, moving or expanding, opening time, work schedule, services offered) and how they will distribute the surplus = profits.
    1
  22. Larger operations where those who do the work own collectively ! the means of production would be co-ops (see Mondragon) - or see the kibbuzz system. As opposed to only a few very influental shareholders owning the means of production. See Starbucks, in New York they demand a College degree for jobs as baristas (not an official demand, but they just do not consider applications w/o - there are so many graduates that they can make such unreasonable demands). With democracy at the workplace the local manager (which is of course necessary for practical reasons) would have the freedom to hire a well groomed, employable person with a nice smile. Who needs a diploma to run the coffee machine and be friendly with the customers ? In the first phase of the Russian Revolution in the fledgeling democracy larger production units organized themselves as co-ops - they called that "Soviets". To produce food, run industrial production. Needless to say the totalitarian Bolshevics took over those units after their power grab. Democracy at the workplace ? What's next - democracy in the politicals sphere ?
    1
  23. Internationally diversified industrial mass productition makes our current technology / multitude of products / Western standard of living possible - and it rose in tandem with Capitalism. Capitalism is ONE (our current !) way to finance industrial mass production. It is about WHO finances mass produciton of goods and services - and WHO benefits the most. The classical definition includes the relationship between capital and the workforce/consumers who actually create the goods - well this is the part of "who has control and who benefits". Answer: disproportionally the relatively few who have capital or access to capital and accumulated more and more over time. Not only in form of assets and money but also political influence in politics, academia, mainstream media, internet. There is the narrative of meritocracy, rewarding of entrepreneurship or taking risks. Not really - not at the large scale - and even the innovators (like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook rig the system as soon as they get the upper hand). Never mind the speculator and landlord class and those who inherit.
    1
  24. Debt and Interest Free Money (Dr. Richard Werner, short clip highly recommended). youtube.com/watch?v=zIkk7AfYymg - Money is created all the time - usually by commercial banks when they give out loans. Dr Werner refers to the 2nd possibility to create money: the government does it together with the Central Bank also see the Bank of England pdf: Money Creation in a Modern Economy not too long, easy to understand, HIGHLY INTERSTING: Capitalism is the current way how to finance industrial mass production. The resources above inform about the creation of money (regular currency. Could also be an alternative currency tied to the national or local economy. That money can finance the means of production (CAPITAL). It could have been made available the longest time to the regular folks (co-ops, non-profits, public institutions) instead of prefering those who already are wealthy or rich. It could help to finance the renationalization of railways, finance research, public education, social housing, childcare and care for the elderly, switch to renewables. Positivemoney(dot)org has information on that and I think also on alternative currencies. Money creation by the government: Stephanie Kelton, MMT (Deficit Owl speech) Alterntive currency (in a way it is earmarked money) can be used to encourage domestic production in order to satisfy the needs of the citizens w/o undermining the value of curreny (when creating money), or upsetting the existing trade deals - an economy could thus GROW additional pillars.
    1
  25. They WILL TRY to cheat - with all the shenanigans they pulled off they could hardly contain him. He has used his time and toured the country (directly after Nov. 2016 - healthcare and supporting the unions when they fought for better wages and conditions). - Biden is good in polls between elections. Every time he runs he quickly falls in the polls. He is as old as Sanders, a white male, he does the blue collar appeal - but Sanders has the much stronger record. If your scratch the surface you will find the Corporatist Biden and the Big Donor lackey. He was tone deaf enough to recently offend millenials. .... good thing they are not needed to win elections, to come out in droves to campaign for free and vote. Or to be the free of charge social media campaigners. (I forgot: Joe Biden gets the Big Donations as well, he may think that as long as you can pay for a social media game you are fine. Did not work too well for Hillary Clinton.) HE is no match for Sanders - but Kamela Harris could be (or Elizabeth Warren).
    1
  26. Privatizing natural monopolies = extortion of consumers
    1
  27. Trump supporters going off Twitter and Facebook ? I support that !
    1
  28. Did you hear the story of the former stated deparment employee who had to get an Ukrainian passport immediately - so she could become minister after the coup (likely a U.S. regime change). Plus a man from George (the former Soviet Republic) - in Georgia they had an arrest order for him - he privatized the healthcare system, some corruption scandal. In the Ukraine one cannot become minister w/o citizenship (I would assume dual citizenship in case of the US citzen).
    1
  29. I agree - however, humanitarian efforts include businesses that are not nearly as specialized as producers of military equipment. A lot of businesses (including SMALLER businesses) could supply food, build houses or wells, streets, provide healthcare. - Tanks, airplanes, bombs - not many around who can build those products. Civilian products can be very simple and a lot of competition around. Not so the war machinery. - So the special interests make sure there is a PRETEXT (war on terror) that they can monopolize the budgets. All MSM (apart from Fox News so that is 5 of the 6) were highly critical all the time about Trump. When helet Syria and Afghanistan bomb in April 2017 all of a sudden they were fawning over him. (Their rich owners either hold shares and in some cases military manufacturers ARE directely invested in them. Of course ! Makes sense if you want to sell endless war to the cannon fodder/tax payer /voters you better hijack media). Also see my comment to BeeFriendlyApiary - in another thread.
    1
  30. I am against that. ALL adults (with the exception of the very few that have legit medical contra indications) should get vaccinated - and vulnerable children as soon as the vaccines are approved for them. For them the shots would be a godsend. All other (healthy) children have tiny risks. If the adults do their duty and contribute to herd immunity, spread - also among kids - would drop. Healthy children have tiny risks but the problem is that the virus can keep evolving as long as spread goes on. Children are NOT the main factor to suppress spread. Herd immunity provided by adults would be enough, if all adults do their part (or get nudged / pushed / coerced) to do the right thing. The vaccines would be only used for children with high or higher risks - and the stil scarce resources would be available for the DEVELOPING countries who desperately need vaccines for adults - not even thinking of mass vaccination of children.  We need to get the shots out like yesterday to DEVELOPING countries that are behind - and by no fault of their own. No one playing stupid games there. The vaccines bring much more benefits for adults (they have on average the more severe cases so they SHED more, kids often have so light cases that they are only noticed if you test them. Interestingly kids get good immunity even from these encounters. For adults a light infection with little symptoms on average means mediocre or weak response of their immune system.) Children as a group may already have fairly good immunity when you consider that they cannot get vaccinated at the moment. The study where they found that children had an unexpectedly high number of undetected cases and good immunity even though no one realized they had been infected, is from a few months ago. I am not aware of any new study about natural immunity among children. As long as vaccines are not easily available everywhere on the globe the resources have to be used where they give the most benefit and disrupt chains of infection the most. Delta evolved in India and I think at at time when at least some vaccines were already approved in some rich nations. But they did not have them in India. Even if the U.S. reaches herd immunity as a percentage (despite antivaxx adults) by integrating children - there would be still cases imported from other nations. And: The antivaxx parents will be even more rabid when it involves their children. I also think there would be clusters. In California enough parents would let their children be vaccinated to have herd immunity (if you go by the numbers and the average of the state) despite anti vaxx adults. But there will be pockets in counties where neither adults nor children are vaccinated. And it would be worse in red states. Read: chains of infection and breeding ground for reinfection. The way to go is to put up a lot of obstacles for the antivaxxers in first world nations so enough ADULTS fall in line. And shots for high risk children as soon as they are approved. Plus FINALLY helping poorer nations.
    1
  31. 3:17 Nina Turner "dancing" when speaking
    1
  32. Nokiki: Putin was NEVER KGB director - he as for the KGB in Eastern Germany - so that would not make him top brass in the pecking order (the U.S. would have been more relefant as post).
    1
  33. Putin will not have him. He looks out for Russia and wants agreements with the U.S. Contrary to common belief - if the Russians had something on Trump (like that he may have laundered money for Russian oligarchs) they used their advantage with a light hand - as you would expect them too, they have good diplomats after all and a consistent foreign policy with knowledgable actors. That includes Putin, and he does not surround himself with idiots. They did not get anything out of Trump's presidency. The meeting in Helsinki was a good idea, but of course Trump is too stupid to pull it off. Reagan era important treaties (arms, also nuclear ! arms) were about to expire and then there was hope they would renew them. But there are forces in DC that WANT an arm's race, and Trump is too stupid to gloss over the "Russia interfered with our election" trap. He jumped right into it - and then derailed his own initiative. He did not DARE to go ahead with what was indeed a good idea. Trump is too stupid to be of any value for Russia and now as has-been he would be a liablity if they negotiate with the Biden admin.
    1
  34. I wouldn't say Harris can be dismissed. And she is smart. She gave a very smart answer on the VIEW when Meghan McCain had negative things to say about Ocasio Cortez and the New Green Deal. (wrapped in a question for Harris ). First I thought the answer of Harris was good - but on deeper consideration - No. She did an "skillfull Obama". While she seemed to be supportive of AOC, and disarmed MeAgain ahem McCain - we do not need to discuss climate change and if something needs to be done. does the party and Harris have no specific plans by now ??? Sanders might have come up with 3 suggestions WHAT could be passed under the title of Green New Deal.
    1
  35. Harris did not prosecute Mnuchin and the criminal bank (Westbank) that illegally forclosed 1000 homeowners. She was encouraged /urged to prosecute them - and didn't. - and she had an affair with a superior which likely DID help her career (it certainly didn't hurt). She is a smart lady and all of that. But others are smart and ambitious, too. That would likely be the pretext for the Right to start a smear campaign against her. I do not know if it would change outcomes - the people that would go with it are the ones that would not vote for her in the first place. But it could be a distraction.
    1
  36. The affair is not that relevant - except for "election-strategic" reasons and that it is a distraction from the issues in case she would run on issues. But the omitted prosecution is. So is Harris' way to give answers which on the surface sound good. But progressives and people that want a president who stands up against the MACHINE (in more than one respect) will notice (on second thought) that she weasels her way out of committing herself to action and specificts. She is good, too. I heard her answer to Meghan McCain (on the View) and liked it on first hearing. (The danger is: most people are not going to play it on repeat, and most will not know The audience liked it too (it was a subtle jab at McCain, the spoiled obnoxious trustfund baby - which was out of her league against Kamala Harris). On reapeat: I found more and more to object. She did an Obama - and she is good at it.  Talking a good game is not enough, in these times. Not even close. When it was time to bother the rich and powerful (that prosecution in Californa would have been a sign to the banksters and would have drawn public attention, putting pressure on other prosecutors. It might have made a political career for Mnuchin unter a Republican impossible, at least that. Well Harris prefered to do nothing. That was a mild test case of the challenge to go against the forces a presedent would have to fight. If he or she wants to govern For The People - that is. It shows HOW SHE WOUD BE AS PRESIDENT. Likely she could not even be bothered to fight fiercly for good healthcare - let alone the other issues that also need ALSO urgent, decisive action. A course of action that would not be like by the oligarch and the party establishment. At. All. Nor would she stand up to the letter agencies and the war mongers. She would not be worse that most of them - but that is not good enough in these times. Capitalism is headed for a major crisis. And it is not "only" Climate Change.
    1
  37. I am afraid that Harris could be a danger for much better candidates - she might win the nomination instead of Sanders. (I do not see much difference between Warren and Harris, frankly. If push comes to shove both will roll over).
    1
  38. Transcript: slighly shortened (with an effort to stay true to message), filler words edited
    1
  39. 6:30 well observed - but the Dems do not want to get MONEY OUT OF POLITICS.
    1
  40. West funding terror 3 of 3: Envision everything evil, greedy, shortshighted, cynical, unenlightened - and then add some. That is our politcal leadership.
    1
  41. Excellent cmpilation - please go on the social media outlets of the Sanders campaign and tell them, Sanders CAN turn this around - but 1) 3) 5) are crucial. - Invoking FDR, assuring fear driven voters that it is radical NOT to overhaul the healthcare system and trying to reinvent the wheel, when all other nations have cracked the code 70 years ago (most implemented single payer after WW2).
    1
  42.  Wilhelm Geisler  In Vietnam and Korea the interests of the ruling class of the U.S. were defended. Korea and Vietnam could not have been a threat to the U.S. POPULATION, their economic well being or freedom if they wanted to. Poor countries, nothing like the U.S. military, no nukes etc. Korea was collateral damage (and extreme damage, more bombs were dropped than during WW2, even WW2 generals were shocked, not one larger settlement in the North and South was left standing, Eisenhower threatened to NUKE them. This was about CHINA, the attempt to control CHINA. The saying was - and completely unironic: "We have LOST China". So when did China belong to the U.S. ? Vietnam: France had interests, and the U.S. helped them, later France gave up on the fight to control the COLONY Indochine from becoming independent, but the U.S. oligarchs pushed to continue the fighting. Military contractors were quite happy and their sons were not drafted. I heard there were also interests regarding rubber - before synthetic rubber become more important).
    1
  43.  Wilhelm Geisler  'War Is a Racket' is the title of a speech and a 1935 short book (it is online as pdf), by Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient. He basically said that the military is hired muscle for corporate interest; this back in the 1930's.
    1
  44.  Wilhelm Geisler  That highly decorated marine Smedlay Butler died before the end of WW2 - but he lists all the regime change efforts / wars he had been involved with while being with the military. "I was a gangster for capitalism". check it out, the quote is on goodreads, tells you what the U.S. was up to in Latin America (no wonder they never got up their feet) and Asia, Cuba, China,.... - and nothing has changed.
    1
  45. Not true - the co-pay is always 5 USD for prescription drugs. (Plus bulk prescriptions for folks who need a lot of pills)
    1
  46. And hillary clinton would take kindly to being strongarmed by Warren ?? Sure, sure .... HRC would have been pissed at Warren (even more than at Sanders) if she had run. - And there is a chance a bold Warren campaign and sanders being her strong surrogate would have severely challenged the Clinton campaign. Warren would have stolen the first female president thunder from Clinton and Clinton would have FUMED.
    1
  47. How did good wages work in the past ? (have enough jobs = infrastructure investments and have strong unions and fade out of those desastrous "free" trade deals, so it is fade out as opposed to starting trade wars). Then there will be something like a LEVEL playing field between the "market" forces. An appropriate wages will be found in an organic way. It is legitimate for government to set a minimum - but the better qualified middle should have enough of a position of strenght to play in the field on their own. Her proposal will only make the tax code even more complicated AND the companies will find a way to bend and massage that rule in a dysfunctional way. What SHOULD be the incentive to pay good wages ? In the less qualified jobs: the moral question that a person should be able to make a living when they give 40 hours of their precious life time to help someone else make a profit. (If they do not make them a profit - or if there is at least hope - then they are not going to be hired anyway.) - So that means regulation / government intervention A case could be made to limit top wages. That can be done by taxation, they did that under FDR until the 1980s - Nixon and JFK discussed 72 % effective top marginal income tax and that was for a few million USD in todays ! purchasing power. It was a nominal tax rate of 92 % for ever dollar over 2,7 million USD - again in todays purchasing power. Again in the 1970s CEO had 30 times the average wage of their employees, now it is over 300 times ! That brings dysfunction with it - so maybe it warrants regulation.
    1
  48. Delaware rivals Switzerland in being a haven for tax dodging companies. So Biden has always served Big Finance. That includes serving Big Oil, being pro war and pro military spending and the for-profit healthcare industry - Wallstreet likes to protect their "investments".
    1
  49. Emily's List spends 600,000 USD in the Kansas race (the female Coroporate Democrat worked at a fellowship in the White House started under Obama continued under Trump).
    1
  50. 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