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

  1. 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
  2. We plan to make Sen. Sanders look boring and young by comparsion ! lol
    1
  3. 3:01 Question to Nixon: Did you have problems, too to hire staff as Alexandria ? ... You will not work in this town again... Cynthia Nixon: I can be very scary for people to work on a campaign of an opponent of Cuomo, it is also scary for people who are traditional Democratic donors to donate to the campaign. The govenor takes note of everything. [very gracious of Cuomo, a real champion of the people]
    1
  4. could the brother be raising money for Mike Pence. But they can't do it openly as to not piss of Trump ? (Although I would assume the oligarchs would fund Pence in a heartbeat ....) ... Or some rivalrly between brothers ?
    1
  5. Sanders ran in VT until age 40 - always lost (max. 4 %, 4 - 5 races always higher office), THEN he became mayor (by 10 = TEN votes) that was in 1980. THEN he built his name rcognition, still took him one lost race (3 party race), then in 1990 he finally won
    1
  6. 2:40 Glenn Greenwald on Tom Perez: ….It was this is kind of like mealy-mouthed, transparently insincere, talking points clinging, establishment pleasing, just programmed kind of political talk that Democrats are drowning in - and I think is what alienates them from from voters. So to me it just kind of Illustrated why the Democratic Party on all levels of elected life has been failing and collapsing … Context: Keith Ellison was doing well in the race for DNC chair beginning 2017, but he is critical of Israel and a little bit too progressive …. So the establishment sent in Johnny-come-lately Tom Perez to make sure Keith would not win (Obama tipped the scales for him among other things). Perez admitted in a rare moment of honesty that the primaries had been stacked against Sanders, got "clubbed over the head by the establishment" (Jordan Chariton) and walked that back immediately with a twitter message. Which was not sitting well with Glenn ;) Fast forward 18 months (July or August 2018): Tom Perez on his way toto protest at the border against the separation of children from their imgrant parents. It is the right thing to do - and even more important: the Big donors do not mind it, does not cost them any money, either way and brings publicity. There is a meeting with the press/media. Amy Goodman from Democracy Now corners him and asks him about Universal healthcare. .... a mealymouthed stream of platitutudes follows. He would not even use the dirty word "universal healthcare" in his response (let alone single payer or Medicare for All). then the quickly turned away to another microphone. Yikes ! He is not even good at the lying game. he must know that he is selling the voters out, but he hopes for a career or a cushy job provided by the aprty. And he is utterly uncharismatic, so the only way he might win (let's say as govenor) would be with honesty and a good track record.
    1
  7. ticking boxes ? Nina Turner for VP: She has a spine, good speaker, eloquent, intelligent, progressive ideas / plus race and gender. Which IS an advantage. The Dems would knot themselves into pretzels - they would not know HOW to attack HER. Sanders: record and substance / stubstance and record. Extra points for age - unlike Obama he does not have to worry about getting the money of the Big Donors after he left office. or what to do with the rest of his life. (For Sanders it would be about LEGACY and which world to leave for his grandchildren. With some people that can promote WISDOM). And Tulsi Gabbard in a cabinet position to prepare her, too for higher service. She has a spine, is eloquent, intelligent, anti-war, progressive positions, veteran - and a woman (attractive on top of that) and minority. I think she would do well with moderate affluent conservative women, too.
    1
  8. 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
  9.  @Murderbot2000  Biden is a neoliberal Republican (as they used to be before the went to the deep end in the 1990s). And he is pro gun control and will not outlaw abortion. And now that it is convenient he is not even against gay marriage. He is fairly to the right. economically.
    1
  10.  @kdnofyudbn5918  you mean before the internet Sanders was unable to overcome the media blackout /collusion regarding overpriced for-profit healthcare ? Before the internet and independent media it was really hard to run grassroots campaigns. - Sanders can't achieve Medicare for All in Vermont he is not the govenor. They discussed a public option some years ago in Vermont, a govenor ran on it, but got cold feet when in office. - The sad truth is: he may have been right. Tiny Iceland with 360,000 people has a version of single payer (or maybe they did one better and are like the NHS of the U.K. - only with reasonable funding. The difference: in most countries there is a public non-profit insurance agency that dominates OR completely dominates the field of "insurance". Which means COVERAGE. And then there are doctor practices (small companies) and hospitals (non-profits, either private then often coming from an old tradition of church charity, or public non-profits run by cities, states, universities, ....) These providers (and the pharmacies) have contracts with the non-profit public agency (which is the "single payer" of the bills). The only "for-profit" actors are the doctor practices and the pharmacies and usually they are SMALL companies / shops that are represented by their professional representation in the negotiations with the insurance agency. That means they cannot develop and exert undue power in the system, for instance it is naturally limited how much resources they can devote to lobbying. They have legitimate concerns and goals and their "Chambers" try of course to get them a good deal. But not more than that. The profit which the doctors or the pharmicists make (rates which the non-profit public insurance agency pays them minus their costs) is their '"wage"', no one rakes in the millions and there are no shareholders involved. They are not allowed to incorporate into larger structures. So they cannot afford to devote whole departments of statisticians or hordes of lawyers and lobbyists to the task of how to rig the system or how to influence the lawmakers. They make a good living, and that's it. Now the NHS took it one step further they are insurer * and provider ** in one entity * collecting the money, negotiating and paying the bills of providers ** providers = doctor practices and hospitals, pharmacists, labs, massage /physio ... therapists, rehab centers
    1
  11.  @kdnofyudbn5918  From the description of the Icelandic system I cannot quite determine if they are single payer or more NHS style * BUT: they have the power of GOVERNMENT of a country - even though they are tiny (360,000 people so smaller than Vermont I think). Iceland can pull it off - and very well, but Vermont realistically did not stand a chance. * either way Iceland leans stongly in the direction of public non-profit and they spend less than half per person compared to the U.S. and have of course a higher life expectancy. - They are not forbidden ! to negotiate drug prices (and they can learn behind closed doors what much larger nations are paying). So if big pharma wants to rip them off they could import drugs. I guess one of the Nordic countries or the UK (or another European nation) would help them out. They all have national non-profit agencies - so why wouldn't they. Iceland like other countries (not states like Vermont) can determine their own rules for the qualification of their doctors and nurses and set up the schools to train them. The American Medical Association keeps the numbers down, many well qualified applicants are rejected every year by medical schools, it is very expensive and the rules for immigrant doctors to work in the U.S. are prohibitive (even if they would come from first world nations - not sure if the rules for Canadian doctors are different. Maybe they have it easier because of NAFTA or other treaties. Not that they flock in masses to the U.S.). When Medicare was discussed in the 1960s most insurers were private non-profits. (there was a law then that healthcare was not allowed to be for-profit - did not apply to doctor practices obviously, but for insurance and hospitals. That law was abolished under Nixon ! in the 1970s). So it was not the insurance "industry" back in the day that was fiercly against Medicare - it was AMA. AMA has kept graduation numbers down and "prices" up. Not sure if all doctors in the U.S. earn more than their peers in other first world nation (even when factoring in that they have to pay for Medical school which is free in most nations). But many specialists with their own practice certainly do.
    1
  12.  @kdnofyudbn5918  That means that many doctors in Vermont would simply have refused to work with the public option (Vermont public insurance). Patients then would either be forced to pay out of pocket for the "private" doctor or be forced to have extra insurance for that - or the doctors would move to a state where they can demand the higher rates. Doctors and hospitals in other nations (if they are even for-profits which are very rare) cannot refuse to have a contract with the public non-profit insurance agency. It goes w/o saying that the public non-profit hospitals that are run by cities or states cooperate with the public agency and are open for all patients. Most doctors and all hospitals would not have enough patients if they did not accept the contract (and rates) of the public non-profit insurance agency. The public insurance agencies are a dominant and very powerful buyer of medical services in their countries - and they work for the patients and for the good of society. Not for profit and not for shareholders. These are some of the many problems that tiny Vermont cannot solve on their own, they cannot go against the mainstream in the U.S. The govenor cannot change that, and Congressman or Senator Sanders can't solve them either. But he works towards the solution - by making Medicare For All at the national level the center of his campaigns. Maybe California, Texas or New York could do their own thing with Medicare For All. If within a few years the other states follow, or distortions would develop that even these larges states would find hard to handle. In Canada ONE province started it (and the others followed within few years) - but at that time medicine was not as capable - and also not as costly (many costly and life saving / extending treatments were not yet developed). Plus the population then was younger on average (age is a massive driver of spending. One province doing their own thing was possible in the 1960s or 1970s - but I very much doubt it would have worked under the current conditions.
    1
  13.  @kdnofyudbn5918  A public option is a very weak second best to single payer anyway. There is no wealthy nations that has it. - Public option means that the insured either have coverage for ALL that is necessary (!) in medical terms either by a private insurance company OR the public non-profit. (so that would include basic dental but not expensive dental like braces or implants). Public option is often conflated with "other countries have still private insurance". Yes, but that is for "upgrades". If the public insurance agency is properly funded and can pay the necessary rates for doctors and hospitals (for good services) and has the funding to cover ALL that is medically necessary (not this and that and basic dental is NOT included) - then there is no need and no space for private insurance: not for full coverage - and also not for "upgrades". The public insurers (and without exception on the globe) get you more bang for your buck if they get the same budget per insured compared to a private insurance company. Important condition: level playing field. No cherrypicking for the private insurers. They get the young and healthy and can make them seemingly good offers. The insurance principle is twisted - the costly patients all land with the public pool. Which then can be badmouthed as "expensive" and a little defunding goes a long way to support the case of private insurers how they arre needed and can make better offers. Private insurance companies (even IF they would be honest players and only ask for modest proftis) have costs the public non-profits do not have (marketing, sales). They also bring complexity with billing and different packages (what they cover and what not). Even well regulated private insurerance companies (like in Switzerland where they only have private insurers) mean a steep surcharge. The Swiss regulation means they cannot play games with the insured: like denying to accept them for coverage because of their health status (they must have one basic offer for each age group, at the same price for everyone. The government determines what "basic" is, so that is comprehensive and no one goes bankrupt over medical bills. (Swiss citizens and residents MUST have insurance coverage). The insurers cannot deny to pay for treatments later. But the Swiss regulations do not work as well when it comes to costs (it is on principle not possible to control that as long as profit is involved - because of the complexity of medicine): Almost all wealthy nations are in the range of 49 - 54 % of the U.S. spending per person, while Switzerland has 78 %. (The U.S. spent USD 10,260 for every person on average, data 2017). In Iceland the training for doctors is free and they graduate around 43 doctors every year. No doubt they also train their nurses for free. As for all other ingredients of a medical system: buildings (hospitals or practices), they need equipment and machines and need to import most of it (but I think for that the "free market" functions. Plus they need food and laundry for the hospital patients, etc. Not to forget ambulances (cars and staff). But Iceland controls two very important cost factors: wages of staff and prices for medical drugs. And all other services can be provided by the national economy. Vermont would have to make it work with the high drug prices, and navigate the rates of doctors (If the U.S. as a nation determines that they want to pay doctors better, it means of course that they will always have higher costs than other countries. Better than now of course.) In a public option system the admin and billing remains complicated and an important chance to cut costs is squandered. - So there would be the streamlined public offer (and invariably the most costly patients will land in that pool, old, sick, pre-existing conditions - that is ANOTHER big problem with "public" option). And there are countless other private packages with all kinds of exceptions. So the rates ALSO have to compensate the doctors and hospitals for the extra administrative staff they need. Even though the red tape does nothing for better CARE or outcomes for the patients. I heard from a industry whistleblower (Wendell Potter) that doctors spend 3 weeks per year on the phone with the insurance companies. I read that U.S nurses have daily phone calls with insurance companies to get treatments for their patients granted. Doctors and nurses in other nations don't do that. They do not waste their expensive time on red tape. The rules are very clear - what is covered and what they get as compensation (which does not bother a doctor or nurse employed by a hospital) - and then they are free to chose on behalf of their patients as they see fit. I live in a single payer country (Austria): Example: Airlift with a doctor on board is "on the menu". If the doctor arrives at the scene he or she determines which hospital is the best in a case that is (or could be) severe, and whether an airlift is necessary. (They do not ask the public insurance agency for permission. The agency determined at some point to have airlift included and negotiates the rates with the helicopter services in the region. Automobile club often. Likely the doctors on board are employed with the agency or a non-profit set up to organize the whole airlift scheme. So the agency takes care of the framework - and then leaves it to the doctors (who decide w/o for-profit incentive or constraints by the agency. So it comes down to a MEDICAL decision in every individual case). The transport (nromal ambulance, or "emergency" ambulance with a doctor on board or airlift - is of course w/o costs for the patient (healthcare services free at the point of delivery). I have experienced a doctor generously erring on the side of caution during the Christmas holidays 2018 for an (otherwise) healthy man with severe stomach pain - he is near the age of 80. (No it wasn't a heart attack, it was an almost ruptured stomach, and he is doing fine).
    1
  14.  @kdnofyudbn5918  Iceland (and all other nations but not states like Vermont) can make their own laws regarding patents which affects drug prices. - In reality Iceland will go with the EU laws and regulations - not the U.S. laws that favor the industry over the patients or the good of society. The U.S. grants longer times for patents - shorter times for testing drugs - and very generous rules to re apply for patents or to extend them - often using some loopholes. The companies also pay the producers of generica to NOT produce when the patents have expired. Other countries can have generica - but it is forbidden to import drugs into the U.S. to circumvent the collusion. Sanders tried to start a process that it would become legal to import drugs from Canada. The project failed right in the beginning. The first bill (to have it discussed !) would have passed if all Democratic Senators would have supported it, some Republicans voted for it as well (for instance Ted Cruz on grounds of "free market" and competition). But 13 Democratic Senators defected (incl. Cory Booker, he was not pleased when Sanders "mentioned" his vote with regret). That vote was in January 2017. On a sidenote: A drug was developed on the dime of the U.S. taxpayers (the agency still holds and owns the patent, but a for profit company Gilead produces the drug). The drug helps with prevention of HIV infection and it costs around 10 USD in Australia where patent protection has expired (not sure if Gilead makes it or another producer). And it costs 1,800 in the U.S. All hail the free market ! The U.S. government paid for development of the drug because there is a societal interest to prevent HIV from spreading. Reason given for that price gouging in the Congress hearing (in 2018 or 2019). In Australia the patents have expired but not in the U.S. - Well of course: in Australia Big Pharma does not run the show and pay the campaigns and the parties to get the laws pased which THEY write.
    1
  15.  @grandeking216  So ... you ignore the advice of the overwhelming majority of medical doctors and all epidemiologists, that plead with people to get vaccinated - and whoever complies is a herd animal. Just be sure to remember that if you or a family member gets a BAD case of CoVid-19 and it turns out you are not invincible and it can get bad for you, too - despite eating well, lots of vitamins or whatever else you do, or start doing frantically when you get infected * . Stick to your guns when you gasp for air - you can get oxygen at home, no need THEN to rely on the advice and help of medical doctors whose advice you ignored before. Don't go to the hospital, they are all liars and / or incompetent when it comes to CoVid-19 And you might find if you would need their services for OTHER not CoVid related cases - even for emergencies - that they cannot take you, they are already at capacity (with unvaccinated people, that could have easily avoided needing a regular bed or ICU, IF ONLY they would have gotten the vaccine. Break through infections are HARMLESS (unless the vaccinated person is high risk), usually they can stay at home. That is why we have now 2 groups of CoVid-19 patients at the ICU: A few vaccinated high risk pesons. What makes them high risk typically means that their immune systems are not in good shape overall and tend to have weak responses to a vaccine. This group needs the protection of herd immunity, and that was always clear. Plus a lot MORE unvaccinated with no special risks at the ICU that gambled, thought they knew better, thought THEY would not have any problems even IF they get infected. And then they rushed into the hospital as soon as they experienced the consequences of non-compliance. The doctors have no clue what they are talking about or worse they have nefarious reasons to lie to your, they collude with big pharma, they falsify statistics or the cause of death on death certificates, or help big bad governmen that carries out an obedience exercise and disrupts the economy just for the heck of it. Weirdly enough ALL governments do that, dictatorships or democracies, rich or poor nations, countries that are fierce adversaries agree when it comes to the pandemic and how to combat it best - with vacccines. That's one heck of a villain plot to mess with citizens - when all governments, all agencies and doctors on the globe are in on it. So obviously the doctors in the hospital cannot be trusted, and there is no point in gobbling up the scarce resources. regular beds but already with the need of more monitoring (done by staff at breaking point because of the high work load). ICU beds so scarce that one man with a worsening heart condition in Alabama could not get intensive care in his regular hospital when he returned to seek help. They tried to get him a spot in another hospital and had to call 43 - FORTYTHREE - other hospitals. It needed a 200 mile drive to get him to a hospital that did have free capacities - and he died. Time is of the essence in emergencies, after accidents, when a stroke or heart attack is about to happen .... (That man was vaccinated, the the many, many unvaccinated in the ICU's of nearby hospitals that robbed him of a fighting chance). * A healthy lifestyle is good, but you cannot "earn" your way out of the dangers of a pathogen that is completly new to your system. Even young, fit, healthy and healthy living persons and vibrant children can succumb to new infectious diseases. Checking all the boxes means you are less likely to get cancer and you'll do better on average with new pathogens etc. - That is statistics it does not work for all. A vaccine beats the advantage of a healthy lifestyle ! (not in the long run but in this one case) and even better if you do both, the healthy life style AND getting the vaccine. Checking the boxes does not mean you are invincible. Our immune systems are not perfect, and can fail if they encounter completely new pathogens (a too strong immune reaction can kill you too). Sharks and bats beat us, they have really good immune systems.
    1
  16. So the Obama admin had the foresight of wanting to do something about flu pandemics (in 2009 that was an issue, so it wasn't even that insightful). And we all know how flu disproportionally kills the elderly or already sick people. And Susan Collins was hell bent to not have that money in the bill. - That's a compassionate champion of The People. flu pandemics usually mean the person is ill for 1 week (at home !) and then recovers. It is not that infectuous, has a lower mortality rate, often there are vaccines - and it does not lead to that many hospital stays right away or AFTER one week. With the flu: after 1 week you are on your way to recovery or dead already. with corona: after 1 week you are getting better OR the respiratory problems will start (especially if the person was healthy before and is not elderly, then it can be that they think they are doing better and then their lungs get into trouble). that might take 2 more weeks - in the hospital, sure the younger ones are likely to survive as long as there are enough ICU beds and ventilators.
    1
  17. Sanders ran in VT until age 40 - always lost (max. 4 %), THEN he became mayor (by 10 = TEN votes), then he built his name, still took him some one lost race (3 party race), then in 1990 we finally won
    1
  18. the Dems pulling off some wins even if they are narrow could bring some Republican representatives to be less hostile to universal healthcare. The reasonable might realize that it is a winning (or losing) issue. Annoyig some donors might be better than losing their seat (unless the big donors have a cushy job for them ready).
    1
  19. How about Israel the rogue nuclear nation comes clean about their undeclared nukes ?
    1
  20. you have got a point - never take a win for granted, even though it should be a SECURE WIN for AOC. Like one Fox News presenter said: Always campaign like you are 10 points behind. The primary polls in their sampling of the "likely voters" did not consider the activation of young voters and the non-voters. Polls were based on "voter behavior as usual" - in those polls she was 36 points behind. So Crowley continued to be complacent. On the other side being completely ignored and having to buy airtime or do the door to door grind was the hard part of her campaign.
    1
  21. Now even the "liberal" mainstream media covers her in a fairly positive way. Buying airtime would be extremely expensive (a field were Crowley could outspend her - but she gets it for free). 1) Name recognition plus 2) being on the ticket of the DEFAULT PARTY were the things Crowley had going for him. She snatched 1) away and can now hold against him in point 2) even if he would try to unleash Big Money against her. A lot of low information voters will just vote for whoever the party candidate is in order to prevent a Republican - that is how Crowley got ushered into this safe seat, it is not like he is so well connected with his constituency or had done so much for them. Now she is the one with the D to her name, she is the default choice. If Alison Hartley had gotten a Stephen Colbert, The View, ...and many other appearances (and mostly being treated nicely) - she would have done better than 5 %. I hope she will run again - Sanders run many times for higher office before his career was jumpstarted when he became mayor of Burlington (against all odds) at the age of 40. Eloquent progressives benefit from media exposure. That is why they fired Ed Schulz (friend of Sanders it seems) when he wanted to cover live the announcement of Sanders to run in April 2015 (plus some pre recorded interview). Schulz was ordered to stand down a few minutes before (after a heated discussion on the phone). His contract was ended 45 days later despite good ratings. Ed had a successful show on MSNBC, covering Sanders right from the beginning likely would have grown the show's audience. Since the Sanders campaign was initially planned with modest 30 million USD budget the FREE and friendly (likely repeated) airtime would have been especially valuable for that modest campaign. So the best buddies of the Clinton machine from the top management of MSNBC were right to neutralize Ed (never mind his good ratings). And he was against TPP too, so ...... The media is now so desperate for a positve Democratic story that even the "Democratic Socialism" of AOC is tolerated (they had time to get used to it thanks to Sanders.) I think he shifted the Overton window - against mainstream media propaganda. That is no small feat.
    1
  22. Voters and the media like a good underdog story.Voters like to rock the boat and be part of a positive change movement. I noticed that with Trump voters, Brexit voters or the Labour voters in the 2017 snap election. Every time voters (incl. a lot of people who usually do not vote !) DEFIED EXPECTATIONS and they "showed it to the establishment". They felt elated about it (at least in the beginning) so they become emotionally even more attached to the cause (which in the case of Brexit and Trump makes it very hard to admit that they may have made the wrong choice or were fooled).
    1
  23. Well he was in war, and was a POW in Vietnam.. He ran around in Syria and met with people close to Al Qaeda and ISIS. (the opposition that was meant to topple Assad). But to call him a chicken hawk is not true. war hawk, yes. But he knew war.
    1
  24. +castro65 - nonsense the spending of any campaign is public record - the Republicans AND the Corporate Dems would have a field day if he took as much as a dollar for private purposes. - it is possible that he paid a salary to his wife - well she worked for the campaign. For instance some enthusiastic foreigners got carried away and sent the campaign money, (not big money, almost all of it under 200 USD), from Canada, Australia, Europe .... - some staunch Hillary fans tried to create a tempest in the teacup about it. Didn't go anywhere: 2000 donations maybe, and small money. - BUT outsiders of the campaign could KNOW about it - because the finance of the campaign MUST the transparent. So the campaign returned the donations (they must also monitor if someone overspends the allowed amount per person, USD 2,700).
    1
  25. Sadly elections have become advertising battles - so "ticking the demographic boxes" is just acknowledging that.
    1
  26. Colin Powell - a self-described Conservative - endorsed Obama. He says it is family tradition to assemble together in their home (extended clan likely) on election night and watch together. They all cried when it was clear Obama had won. - I think you underestimate what it MEANS when you did not see "someone like me" represented - in advertising, in posititions of authority - and in highest office. If you are white - or even white and male - you were always "represented". It is not only vanity when voters (women, people of color) react more strongly to a "minority" candidate. Mediocre white males dependent on their advisors got the presidency (Bush2 ! Reagan) ... and the bar was lowered for Trump (even IF the voters hoped he was well intentioned: he was given a pass on many essential qualifications. He does not have the intellect, the morality ... never mind the manners. A candidate that admits that he does not like to read ... how is a person supposed to acquire knowledge about the world, foreign policy, economics ? He or she is at the mercy of the advisors, who DO read and DO know what is going on. And promote their interests and can play POTUS like a fool. Obama might have been inexperienced or a willing tool - but he was able to process information. Bush and Trump are not especially smart or knowledgeable. Reagan was an idelogue but he did not have much knowledge either (he had a strong if ruthless team). Cheney dominated the first 4 - 6 year of the Bush presidency. Clinton or Bush1: whatever went on in their presidency - I do not think they were fooled by their advisors. The advisors likely do not even try (a lot) - when they know the president has the intellectual capacity and knowledge that is necessary for a well developed B.S. meter. That is even more true for Bush who had been VP for 8 years and CIA boss. The dementia started to show in the second term of Reagan so it was not Reagan that ran the show.
    1
  27. Women did not have a good run, 50 % of the population, 46 presidents, not one of them a female (not not many candidates either). - That said: Sanders - who happens to be a white male - was the best candidate in 2015/2016. He would be the best chance that the country gets in 2020 a leadership that is willing to turn the ship around. Like Corbyn is the best chance for the U.K. The Titanic is headed for the icebergs.
    1
  28. The U.S. already has a jobs guarantee program, but it is expensive. Get caught with weed (maybe more than once), and you will be provided with work (for almost no pay, but they pay for but board and housing - which is awful. and they take your freedom and later your right to vote. But someone will profit off the labor).
    1
  29. + Adkins You are right - many very prestigious universities are in the U.S. - I do not know how the ranking is done - I assume there are much more funds for research for instance (and a culture and mindset being positive and bold about it) - translating into more published papers, likely real results, more REAL nobel prizes * (as opposed to the fake "economic nobel prize" where the U.S. is leading - much good did it do in 2007/2008). The MIT is HEAVILY militarily and tax-funded (see Noam Chomsky who used to teach there) - and no doubt an institution with a high reputation. For instance I also know the names of Havard Law or Havard Medical School - so how does their prestige (and no doubt rigorous training) translate into economic success and well being for 325 million U.S. citizens ? The U.S. citizens have one of the lowest life expectancy for a wealthy country * (no, this not just about Lifestyle choices). The reasons are disadvantages in the healthcare system for the lower income people, a stressful way of life (overall very competitive, way too little time to unwind in form of vacations, people holding 2 jobs to make ends meet, a diffuse feeling of being threatened - folks knowin at a deeper level that they are one accident or divoce or job loss away from losing their home, ending up bankrupt or at least losing their middle class status. Another indicator for how the healthcare system works for lower income people is infant mortality (very bad results for the U.S. compared to other wealthy nations). If the average solid middle class German, French, Dutch or U.S citizens meet the nurses and doctors and institutions in need of treatment - it matters how THESE people (not a few elite graduates) are trained. Again I am convinced there is no difference in qualification between the U.S. and let's say Germany. And the nurses might have the possibility to do a better job according to their training when the systems is set up to SERVE the patiens instead of maximizing profits. Innovations in surgery, equipment in medical drugs are introduced and then SPREAD in the European healthcare systems (the transfer from "elite to mainstream") - and if the innvovations come from the U.S. (many come from other countries ! ) - the innovators are getting paid for it, good for you. And the export/import balance between Germany and the U.S. is completely lopsided anyway, at least SOME counterbalancing. Germany exports way more - quality goods very favoured by the importers - to the U.S. than the other way round. Whereever innovations originate - the non-profit public systems are not designed to withhold them from for some patients without the money/good insurance policy just to increase profits for the investors BTW: In the German system there are private non-profit, or for-profit players as well, but they are regulated for the goal to deliver good healthcare to all. The public insurance agencies are not meant to make a profit, they have a budget to stick to, surpluses are transfered to the budget of next year - not to shareholders or investors.
    1
  30. + Adkins As for the average level of education the test results for the U.S. are not good, many wealthy nations (which do not have the prestigious universities for a few) do better - and the graduates from the excellent U.S. institutions cannot improve the average level enough. In countries like Germany or Austria additional to STEM university training there is also widespread public STEM high school training: Teenagers are getting a profound theoretical and also some practical training in schools specializing in fields like machine building, electronics, IT, construction of buildings, sophisticated wood working - etc. Some are boarding schools, or some require (free) comute - these schools are usually in cities. Many excellent engineers or software programmers do not have an university degree - they know how to construct quality machines or write code w/o the college degree. And then there is the system of apprenticeship for teenagers that trains retail employees, waitresses, cooks, office workers, plumbers, nurses, car mechanics, electricians, ... - apprenticeship is like a paid, strictly regulated (protection of the trainee !) internship for 3 - 4 years, mostly hands-on oriented with only 1 day school per week). Usually the students in the STEM highschools start there at the age of 15 or 16 years and finish school after 4 or 5 years. And then they get a chance to work in prestigious enterprises within experienced teams where they can upgrade and hone the skills from school. Does the U.S. even have that kind of widespread, public, free training for teenagers ? I would argue that having a well educuated and professionally trained MIDDLE does a lot - maybe more - for the economic success of a country and the opportunities for entrepreneurs and people seeking jobs in the field, than having some (relatively few !) elite universitiy graduates. These elite universities do not educate the MAJORITY of graduates. So lets assume some STEM graduates from elite colleges - and hopefully with good research funding, something where Germany is doing badly ! - come up with some inventions or innovations. Now, will these inventions be put to good use IN the U.S. ? Partially yes, but not to a sufficient degree - see the export / import imbalance between Germany and the U.S. See the decline of manufacturing and the PRODUCTIVE = CREATING economy in the U.S. Since the Germans have high costs (wages for qualified people, protection of the environment, high energy costs) they do not sell cheap stuff to the U.S. Their field of expertise are quality technical goods, in most cases B2B. (Same is true for Japan, Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Nordic States, Netherlands, ...) Outsourcing jobs has consequences, a country loses the people who can do the not so prestigious, but still qualified, down to earth jobs - the poeple who help to transfer the innovations into a product for sale. Sure you need for that also "unskilled" people at the assembly line - but also the electricians, the mechanics, the plumbers - skillfull, resourceful folks who know how to keep the shift going, no matter what. Germany is good in BUILDING THINGS, cars, machines, machines for industrial manufacturing. Clothes are sewn in China and other developing nations. The high precision, high performance sewing machines for that come from Germany (Pfaff), I assume some of the very few producers worldwide might also be located in Switzerland and Japan - not the United States.
    1
  31. + Adkins * Reasons why the U.S. has one of the lowest life expectancy among the wealthy countries. This is sometimes "explained" with poor "lifestyle choices" of the citizens. - Well, how come the many, many European countries (different cultures, languages, governments, lifestyles) in total approx. 530 million people - would "make better lifestyle choices" ? We are not more into workouts, we love our good (fattening) food like the U.S. citizens, smoking is more prevalent than in the U.S., alcohol use (or misuse) is often treated in a more cavalier manner than in the U.S. Did the 325 million U.S. citizens all decide, they did not want to be healthy and life one to three years longer ? Or are there SYSTEMIC reasons making it hard for individuals to have a healthy, long, pleasurable life DESPITE the mainstream trend to the opposite. I think the shorter life expectancy has to do with disadvantages in the healthcare system for the lower income people, or those who just about manage to hang on to middle class status. Their services may be of lower quality and there is an element to prevent early treatment and preventive care - because the costs are prohibitive (Like a young woman said: "Am I feeling sick enough to "justify" the high co-pay the doctors visit will cost me ?" Usually patients will pull through what seem to be relatively harmless illnesses - but from time to time a patient will pay with loss of health or life for not getting care in time. Add to that a certain level of overall stress, because many are always one accident away from losing their home, from bankrupcy. Stress (the silent killer) and the undermining of longterm good health is also caused by the competitive way of living, the tireless long work hours, by the pollution the government is willing to accept, by sugary drinks (and use of corn syrup) which we know are bad for the human metabolism and lead to massive obesity. We have overweight folks here, too. But not so many among young people, and the overweight 40 - 60 year old people are nothing like the obese U.S. citizens. It must be the food - and comfort food (sweet and fatty) is an instinctive "self-medication" of stressed out homo sapiens - and is readily available in our time. Exercise would counteract and relieve stress too - but it requires more initial energy to pull yourself together to start out before you will get the reward. So drained stressed-out people will fall for the easy rewards of comfort food and TV. In Germany, Austria, France, ... 4 - 5 weeks paid vacations, and on top paid holidays (when even the most dedicated workaholic stays away from work) help people to unwind. It is not usual for folks to work 60 or 70 hours a week, so the homecooked meal happens more often. In Austria they get the equivalent of at least 2 work weeks in form of paid holidays on top of 5 weeks paid vacation time. Germany does have have a lot of paid holidays as well.
    1
  32. The Trump rule - don't give a shit and do your thing. ..... the dogs bark - the caravane moves on .... And as we can observe (with Sanders and Corbyn as well) some political opponents are too lazy to attack on the issues (or more like: they can't because they cannot defend their issues). So it is Bernie Bros, or the Labour Party is being misogynistic, anti-semitic and what not. Well, once they tried that gig (anti-semitism or at least something related to that ) even with Sanders - that was a test balloon, didn't really stick. I do not remember what it was - really silly, that I do remember. Case in point: there will always be people who will use prejudices against women (or other political opponents), and it is entirely possible that they do not even believe their own crap. They just try to score cheap points. If they call a woman pushy - let them. Or even better: embrace the point and turn it around.. It is not necessary to win every vote, and those who fall so easily and willingly for the negative stereotype were not potential voters anyway. While many voters would like the reframe of "no nonsense". Sanders btw is not a charismatic speaker. His style of presentation is true to his personality and fits the message. He does not try to appear more charming or cheerful or folksy or polished/fashionable than he is. And people are fine with that. In sales they say the person that poses the questions steers and controls the conversation. In politics if you bury your opponent with fake outrage and play the stereotype card - you can effectively dictate to them the topics they talk about and modify their behavior if THEY TAKE THE BAIT (trying to "defend" themselves). Always being on defense makes a person look weak. It is a very effective method to keep them from getting THEIR message out. If a woman is genuinely passionate about something (if she does not fake it because a speech trainer taught her), it will come across. And those who don't get it, were beyond reach anyway. And those who fake to be offended by her passion to dictate to her how to run her campaign can go f***k themselves. It is important to run a campaign on your own terms and to "control your space" - where you get out your message. The audience, the newspaper reader, the media have only so much time and attention. To some degree the fake and made up antipathy may have happened to Hillary Clinton as First Lady. The GOP just was pissed off they lost the presidency to Bill Clinton, and they threw everything at them. Now, the Clintons are EASY target for that - and the hypocrisy weighs more because they claim to help minorities, females. BUT: at that time every professional women who would call herself a feminist, swore an oath of loayalty to Hillary Clinton it seems. They mixed up politics with their personal experience of being slighted in the workplace. That is typicall of well-educated women of that time - and if one believes comment sections and Change org petitions they detest Sanders (the feminist) with a passion because he stole the thunder of their hero. Turns out it is more about persons and not so much about the brand of feminism that helps improve the lot of largest number of females and their children. Especially low to medium income women. The woes of the wealthier or better educated women are different, not as easy to "fix" with laws and minimum wages and Medicare for all. The female professor might have to endure some professional disadvantages but she and her children will have healthcare. And the battles that are important for equality in her field happen (mostly) not in the legal sphere. They happen when the culture changes. On the other hand it is not only women who have to deal with "cheap" criticism and tempests in the teapot, although the points of attack are different.
    1
  33.  @prestonanonuoso5508  that is the first black woman that does well in the military he has seen. It can't possibly be true. Now, she looks young (but older than 18), and there is an outside chance the photo and her current looks do not match well and the manager thinks she impersonates the ID of someone else (like a sibling stealing it). But he should have thought that through. Whoever was the legit carrier of that ID was indeed that young, and if she had OTHER ID on hand that backed up the claim it was increasingly unlikely that it was not her (even if we assume, the photos used were less than ideal).
    1
  34.  @prestonanonuoso5508  But rightwingers do not think things through, they get triggered and double down. Black, female, young - can't have a successful military career. End of. Any evidence shown after that does not even compute. If that had been a white young men or even a young white female soldier - the manager would not have insisted on him/her being an impersonator. Certainly NOT after the other ID's were shown. Why would she not use her own ID in the first place ? Only if she was too young or if she was on a blacklist. Or his knee jerk assumption was that all 3 documents were forged (the depicted person does not exist, it is completely made up name. That is a highly illogical and implausible scenario for several reasons). Using a military ID to impersonate someone else is likely a crime (forging one is a crime as well), and using the driver's licence is a crime (or misdemeanour), too. Whoever theoretically provided their military ID be abused in such a way - would be in for a lot of trouble. If she had stolen that from a relative the impersonator AND the holder of the IDs are in for a lot of trouble. It would have to be stolen IDs from someon she is close to and she would have to look like the person, or she would not have gotten her hands ot THREE different but perfectly matching ID's. With photos that looked like it could be her. (sometimes the photos are not good, her hairstyle changed, she lost weight ... but even then the manager should have given it a rest after the other 2 IDs were shown. It is highly unlikely that it is not her, and he would not have made a fuss w/o severe prejudice. At the first sign of doubt of the manager an impersonator would have gone away quietly. There was a chance security / police would come and detain her and then the legal actions would start. She also had company (did the manager think they would continue to support such a plot after "calling the police" was talked about ? If that was a FORGED series of documentation - what does that fool think she is. That would be mob style backup and having good matching forged IDs costs a lot of money (and professional criminals would of course be sure to have inconspicuous documents. So not creating a persona that goes against expectations (like a young black female with a good military rank for her age). Better to stay under the radar. I would also not use a military ID to commit crimes - it gives a lot of clout, but if is also another point of vulnerabiltiy of forged documents. The mob would not waste forged documents for access to a casino, and a criminal provided with that kind of forged ID's would have their orders not to needlessly abuse that asset - and potentially bust their cover. They would plan to use it for crimes (and not at a place that is teeming with cameras, security and what not). A real impersonator would have left, and left quickly when "busted" and would not have insisted on the police coming. And what are the odds the impersonator would have a driver's licence AND a fitting vaccine ID to match a military ID ?? (If in doubt I would rather abuse a civilian ID, not a military one, that could mean extra trouble if busted).
    1
  35. PayGo increases the power of the leadership - good point.
    1
  36. Others in the comment section suggest he might have had political aspirations. (why is a construction company owner on the board ??) -Normally as biz owners people learn a kind of smooth facade when they deal with customers or agencies, never mind what he really thinks. But he just could not help himself, and it goes to show how much his good judgement is clouded, didn't he realize there was a good chance this would at least be locally spread ?
    1
  37. 3:00 did you notice - sounds like she is having problems to get funds - it gave me a pessimistic vibe ....
    1
  38. The biggest outrage are the Democrats that play along with the sick game. They COULD all weave in the other " issues" whenever they are interviewed about something ellse. But they hope they can serve Big Money, give lip service to the cause of morality , declare themselves to be incensed ("grab them at the pussy" Stormy Daniels, now the border issue). Advocating for things that do not cost the donors (THEIR donors) money - so gun control, gay rights, abortion are O.K. But NOTHING that would help the mass of people - usually the interest of the commonpeople and the ruling class do not align, so less profits for the donors. The Dems are quite cynical / cavalier about it: They will not cover positions that are inconvenient for their Big Donors - and they hope "Trump is bad" will suffice to pull off a win in the midterms. (and also the blackmail of the lesser evil, now another Supreme Court replacement is at stake, it is not even clear THAT the dems are going to resist fiercly). They can afford the cynicism - at least the big shots in the party and the well connected people will be provided for if they lose (cushy jobs, lucrative contracts). A further Republican takeover, another term for Trump -it is not going to hurt them.
    1
  39. term LIMITS will CEMENT the power of money in politcs. because even IF a good candidate slips through the cracks (which usually takes lost elections, and a tremendous effort to build your name against the money machine) - the establsihment happily only will have to put up with the thorn in their side for short time. And eveyone will be very scared to step on powerful toes. They can calculate WHEN they need a job. A politician that works FOR the people will by necessity piss of some people, Forget about getting a good job in the Corporate world EVER. And even if yo start in small biz or when starting your own biz - Big Money and Big Biz CAN find ways to retaliate against you. And they would make a point of it - just to scare of other dissenters in the future.. Other people started their careers or biz while you fought against windwills and with TERM LIMITS in your 30s and 40s. Needless to say the really good shills will get cushy jobs as rewards. Someone like Allison (if she manages to get elected) or Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard CAN work for the voters, if they want to be politicians and are content with the salary they get as politicians. They are not fired automatically but only if the voters fire them. That btw is the reason why Jeremy Corbyn and a few like him could survive in their districts - the party establishment would have been pleased to get rid of them. BUT: they ONLY needed to win the vote in their district. And ONCE you have that strong standing with the voters (and the name recognition) the party establishment has to put up with you. Corbyn in the UK led the effort against the Iraq war - 1 million of 65 million people on the streets. Was not enough in the end. But since he was a longtime politician he had the resources in TIME and also some money to devote to the cause. Else he would have needed to make his income elsewhere and fight agaist the war as a hobby. He survived in the niche like Sanders survived in little Vermont (he would have been weeded out in a large and important state) and both popped up to annoy the heck out of the neoliberals when the mood was turning.
    1
  40. Term limits work wonderfully for Big Money and their potential shills. They already exist: for some Congress is a stepping stone to becoming a lobbyist, they build their network (age limit for Senate is higher). - the shills will have to work really, really hard for their financiers in the SHORT time they have to prove their loyalty to big money. Then comes the next generation of shills.
    1
  41. Polls CAN and WILL be rigged, they even rig elections.
    1
  42. The establishment would be THRILLED if they could leverage term limits against Sanders in VT (now they could not rig the polls against him, but which politician apart from him has such a strong standing AND VT is small !) And which kind of candidate would make if AFTER Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard were eliminated ?
    1
  43. Feinstein is not even the problem, there are enough Democrats like her. And with term limits big money would find and CREATE a Feinstein 2.0
    1
  44. * The danger of being assassinated for a president that works against the status quo and the Deep state - and Washington D.C. LIKES war - see The Real News video of spring 2017: Wilkerson: Practically Everyone Opposes Trump's Reversal of Obama's Cuba Opening Excerpt from the transcript Larry Wilkerson Chief of Staff to Colin Powell: Obama might have risked being assassinated if he had chosen an anti-war, anti deep state stance. Wilkerson: ...If I call President Obama for anything, it was his timidity, and his lack of courage. His lack of courage with respect to politics, and his lack of courage with respect to particularly his last three years in office. Where I know from talking with him personally, talking with him in the Roosevelt Room, that he understood. He said [to me] there was a bias in this town towards war, with his Secretary of State sitting beside him. He said quote : "There's a bias in this town towards war" unquote. Well, he went on for another 20 minutes to elaborate on that. Well, Mr. President if you knew that - why didn't you start doing something about it ? I mean, he could have done a lot more, if he'd had the political courage to do it ..... I think it's because, first you get trapped in that environment, and you want to make lots of money, and you wanna be very happy, and you wanna be very satisfied when you leave that office, especially if you're as young as he is. And you realize that if you start these fights, if you start these battles, not only might you be assassinated, you're probably going to leave without anything like the dignity, and the honor, and the emoluments, and the fortune that he left with. And I don't say that lightly, that's a very difficult decision to make, when you stand up for principle, when you stand up for the country, when you are a true patriot, you usually are punished, not rewarded. the complete transcript of that comment (only) is under the video (on the youtube channel of The Real News) - usually they have a complete transcript and the youtube video embedded on their website - but in this case there is not transcript on their site.
    1
  45. The tall thin man watches The Victory Channel - check them out a scary example of rightwing "pastors" and "prophets" riling up people and doing political propaganda. They should lose the tax exemption.
    1
  46. Well, Reagan had Alzheimers it was diagnosed 3 months in (when he got emergency surgery after the assassination attempt, I guess they had to come clean regarding medication). The Reagan campaign (with help of ex CIA head and VP Bush) struck a secret deal with the ayatollahs of Iran to keep the American hostages until after the elections. The idea was that freeing them under the sitting president Carter would help his reelection. The Iranian were not subtle to remind Reagan of their end of the deal (supplying U.S. military equipment), they announced they would release the hostages on the inauguration day of Reagan. The former ally of the U.S. the schah had bought a lot of miliary equipment from the U.S. and of course they could not change that so fast. Iran was well aware that the allies of the U.S. could soon start a war against them - (Saddam Hussein indeed started a war against Iran one year later. Then he was the good buddy of the U.S. and lead that proxy war. Saudi Arabia and the other oil monarchies promised financial support - but the war lasted longer and they did not deliver. One of the reasons Saddam Hussein later turned on Kuwait. I think Bush lured him into a trap. Saddam Hussein had lost his usefulness or he became too independent from U.S. wishes. Anyway I think he was signalled the U.S. would not intervene if the settled the finanical stress from 8 years of war with the help of oil of Kuwait. they had a spat going on, Irak accused Kuwait to drill accross borders. The U.S. ambassador (a woman, the boy's club did not waste a man on the job for a future fall "guy / gal") was left w/o instructions when she visited Saddam Hussein so she was very polite, spoke about the friendship of the two nations and the hope he would settle the controversy with Kuwait amically. There is no doubt the U.S. knew that they gathered the troops and they did not hinder Iraq to invade Kuwait.
    1
  47. Then there was Iran / Contra scandal. Black budgets for the CIA to fund terrorism in Latin America. After Congress had explicitely forbidden the CIA to do that and they also did not give them the official budgets. Likely some of the illegal, treasonous sales to Iran (with the help of Israel) also went into the funding of death squads. There is also plausible reason to assume the CIA helped with the import of drugs INTO the U.S. Did not violate Republican values, the drugs were sold in minority neighbourhoods of L.A. The Reagan admin ignored the HIV crisis for ideological reasons. In typical Republican fashion it only bothered them when a friend of the Reagans died of HIV. Starting a war of aggression against panama - against their former buddy.
    1
  48. Going against unions. Undermining peace in Latin America (like many admins before). Thus more migration into the U.S. Reagan opened a path to citizenship, there was a major amnesty for undocumented migrants. Which is not a bad idea provided this is not used to undermine domestic labor, and there are policies in place to ramp up public services. Higher demand for schools, childcare, affordable housing, etc. The U.S. had a lot of migration after WW2 it did not damage the people that had been in the country already. This was the Golden Era. But migration can be used to undermine domestic labor and that was the intent of the Reagan admin.
    1
  49. +Jay Davis - if you think Reagan was a "most great" president - I get how you like Trump. O.K. Reagan had better manners, and he did the dog whistles, he was not uncough like Trump. - Plus he had a competent (if ruthless) VP and cabinet members. Not the morons Trump surrounded himself with. Reagan had at least some experience with government (he was governor of California. Undermined the funding of the public universities there. "These are not "my" voters, I am not going to help them". He was not even shy to admit that to his advisors. He was a partisan hack, not a governor / statesman for all Californians (incl. low income that would have profitted from well funded public universities). Gorbachev was a statesman. That the Soviet Union leadership considered a thawing (domestically) and later stepped down ! from the Cold War is seen (in the U.S.) as achievement of Reagan, or Bush later - it wasn't. The Soviets voluntarily left Germany which was a necessary condition for the reunification of Germany, it is not like the U.S. could have forced the soviet troops and nukes out of Eastern Germany. With someone else but Gorbachev at the helm the Soviet polical elites would have doubled down in case the population got restless. The Afghanistan war (and the economic fallout) was not the undoing of the Soviet Union, the Soviets had mastered much worse situations: they were hanging on for dear life in WW2 and lost 27 million people. In 1953 they shocked the U.S. with launching the Sputnik satellite, and in the late 1950s they had recovered from WW2 (which was an issue in the presidential debates between JFK and Nixon in 1960).
    1
  50. Nixon on Cuomo's sellout ".... You know who was not surprised about Cuomo's policies ? [Helping the Republicans to be able to block Democratic core issues.] - The Koch brothers. They know a good investment when they see it." Cynthia-taking-no-prisoners-Nixon.
    1