Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "David Pakman Show"
channel.
-
David neglects the big elephant in the room - Ashkenazi Jews are
EUROPEANS and have no connection and no claim on the "Holy Land" (which
was the pretext to found the new colony in 1948). Plus the European
countries and the U.S. were shamefully unwilling to accept Jewish
migrants after WW2 (except for France and Sweden). (I know David is
secular but he is a apologist for the apartheid state of Israel).
The Ashkenazi do NOT genetically ORIGINATE from the area that is the modern state of Israel ! They are EUROPEAN CONVERTS (East Europeans, with some Greek, Italian influence etc.). Of course because of the constant
prosecution and their close-knit ties within their community (plus their
white collar skills, doing trade, being literate which was a big thing
in the medieval times, etc.) they moved around a lot in Europe.
People of Jordan, Syria, Egypt and the Palestinians that come from the region
have a much better chance to be related to the folks that lived 2000
years agon under the Roman rule. They might be related to King David and
Abraham and Moses etc. - if these persons have ever really lived - No,
not even King David is confirmed by historians.
All that highlights the ABSURDITY of the claim under which Middle European
citizens were handed over a new colony after WW2 (using the recently
founded US dominated UN). And they got extensive military and economic
help of the U.S. Zionism was an idea in 1600, and became revived from
1800 on - but it still does not make sense. And the Jewish people of
France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, etc. were mostly well assimilated,
THEY WERE REGULAR often secular EUROPEAN CITIZENS most of them middle class - so why suddently have them migrate to this far away region ?
They did not form a nation for the Social Democrats or communists who
were prosectued under the Nazis - or the Gypsies. For those Jewish
persons who couldn't stomach to stay in Germany after the Nazi
prosecution, another solution could have been found for them (in the
U.S. the rest of Western Europe or the Commonwealth countries which had
NOT prosecuted them and where they could feel safe).
Instead they were given somebody else's country (because these were brown and poor people so they do did and still do not count)
Please note: the Osman or later the British rule did not mean that the NATIVE population was ever driven out - they were not politically independent, did not have their own foreign or economic policy - but the NATIVES could live on their land, keep their houses, businesses and farms.
WHO founds international policy on a religious book that is 2000 years and older to begin with ??
The REAL reason was that the Zionist terrorists had given the British in
Palestine (it was British protectorate after the fall of the Osman
empire) a hard time when they were busy with their other colonies and
WW2. The US wanted to DOMINATE the oil rich region (and thus Europe and
Asia) and they wanted a tarmac there. The U.S. wanted to have that
military ally in a country that was ISOLATED in the region (so they
would not join forces ! with their neighbour countries - same is true
for the loyal U.S. support for the extreme religious dictatorship in
Saudi Arabia - and sure enough behind the scenes KSA and Israel have a
well working cooperation ! )
The new colony would be absolutely loyal to the U.S for cultural reasons and out of military and economic necessities.
And needless to say the new colonists - many of whom were
either survivors or enraged on behalf of their community about the
atrocities of Germany - THIS TIME WANTED TO BE THE DOMINATING MAJORITY - which OF COURSE meant kicking the NATIVES out or suppressing them.
While the U.S. supported that and Western Europe (grateful for the end
of WW2 and caught up in the Cold War) oblingly looked the other way.
Well, this dynamic of the U.S. wanting unwavering loyalty from Israel has
played out in a interesting way a) the collusion of the MIC with Zionism
to have continuous war and b) the political support and bias of the
intellectual and financial U.S. elites many of whom have a Jewish
background.
These days , it often looks like the tail wags the dog. AIPAC, anyone ? And no one, not even Sanders dares to cross them.
10
-
David neglects the big elephant in the room - Ashkenazi Jews are EUROPEANS and have no connection and no claim on the "Holy Land" (which was the pretext to found the new colony in 1948). Plus the European countries and the U.S. were shamefully unwilling to accept Jewish migrants after WW2 (except for France and Sweden). (I know David is secular but he is a apologist for the apartheid state of Israel).
The Ashkenazi do NOT genetically ORIGINATE from the area that is the modern state of Israel ! They are EUROPEAN CONVERTS (East Europeans, with some Greek, Italian influence etc.). Of course because of the constant prosecution and their close-knit ties within their community (plus their white collar skills, doing trade, being literate which was a big thing in the medieval times, etc.) they moved around a lot in Europe.
People of Jordan, Syria, Egypt and the Palestinians that come from the region have a much better chance to be related to the folks that lived 2000 years agon under the Roman rule. They might be related to King David and Abraham and Moses etc. - if these persons have ever really lived - No, not even King David is confirmed by historians.
All that highlights the ABSURDITY of the claim under which Middle European citizens were handed over a new colony after WW2 (using the recently founded US dominated UN). And they got extensive military and economic help of the U.S. Zionism was an idea in 1600, and became revived from 1800 on - but it still does not make sense. And the Jewish people of France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, etc. were mostly well assimilated, THEY WERE REGULAR often secular EUROPEAN CITIZENS most of them middle class - so why suddently have them migrate to this far away region ? They did not form a nation for the Social Democrats or communists who were prosectued under the Nazis - or the Gypsies. For those Jewish persons who couldn't stomach to stay in Germany after the Nazi prosecution, another solution could have been found for them (in the U.S. the rest of Western Europe or the Commonwealth countries which had NOT prosecuted them and where they could feel safe).
Instead they were given somebody else's country (because these were brown and poor people so they did and still do not count) Please note: the Osman or later the British rule did not mean that the population was ever driven out - they were not politically independent, did not have their own foreign or economic policy - but the NATIVES could live on their land, keep their houses, businesses and farms.
WHO founds international policy on a religious book that is 2000 years and older to begin with ??
The REAL reason was that the Zionist terrorists had given the British in Palestine (it was British protectorate after the fall of the Osman empire) a hard time when they were busy with their other colonies and WW2. The US wanted to DOMINATE the oil rich region (and thus Europe and Asia) and they wanted a tarmac there. The U.S. wanted to have that military ally in a country that was ISOLATED in the region (so they would not join forces ! with their neighbour countries - same is true for the loyal U.S. support for the extreme religious dictatorship in Saudi Arabia - and sure enough behind the scenes KSA and Israel have a well working cooperation ! )
The new colony would be absolutely loyal to the U.S for cultural reasons and out of military and economic necessities. And needless to say the new colonists - many of whom were either survivors or enraged on behalf of their community about the atrocities of Germany - THIS TIME WANTED TO BE THE DOMINATING MAJORITY - which OF COURSE meant kicking the NATIVES out or suppressing them. While the U.S. supported that and Western Europe (grateful for the end of WW2 and caught up in the Cold War) obligingly looked the other way.
Well, this dynamic of the U.S. wanting unwavering loyalty from Israel has played out in a interesting way a) the collusion of the MIC with Zionism to have continuous war and b) the political support and bias of the intellectual and financial U.S. elites many of whom have a Jewish background.
These days , it often looks like the tail wags the dog. AIPAC, anyone ? And no one, not even Sanders dares to cross them.
7
-
6
-
6
-
Charity is not the same as levelling the playing field * . Charity - even if well intentioned - establishes a hierarchy. And the receivers ofen must prove that they are "worthy causes" and please the benefactors. It gives power to the givers . As for the Gates foundation: see my comment above.
In Sweden, Germany, France, ... you do not need a charity for medical treatment or school - people feel ENTITLED as members of a wealthy society to have those services (and rightly so) - even if they do not belong to the top 30 %. And the wealthy are made to paid for it - not out of charity, it is REQUIRED from them. So there is no shame in receiving and no special status to be gained in giving (paying your taxes). (Wealthy people still give on top of that and can be honoured for that. But then - a lot of modest living folks GIVE as well, their time as volunteers for instance).
The developing countries do not need "charity" from the Firs World. Some know-how, yes. FAIR trade agreements, not forcing neoliberalism and crippling "free" trade agreements on them (I am looking at you EU).
Not propping up their dictators, selling them arms (because it is so profitable), sending in the Western elites to "invest", taking advantage of the fact that they often have nothing to sell but agricultural products (and not paying them adequate prices). Allowing speculation of those commodities.
helping their corrup elites in looting the countries, laundering the money - and assaulting any leader who seems to serve the country more than the Western interests.
6
-
5
-
5
-
@JohnVanRaak-yx6cb Warren has a lot of fmr Clinton staffers - her campaign chair for instance. I assume many despise Sanders. They measured the drapes in early November 2016.
The authors of the book Shattered were allowed to accompagny the Clinton campaign: very informative (the interviews to promote the book, it came out in early 2017).
Team Clinton and the annointed one had no idea what to make the core of the campaign or their main message. Sanders was an unexpected an increasingly annoying complication with that. Fluff campaigning wasn't enough with him in the race.
You could kick Bernie at 3 am out of the bed and he would know what his stance on the issues is and what the main message of his campaign is. - It helps developing your positions organically (and w/o the lobbyists in your ear) and over the decades. Then you do not need polls, retreats, focus groups, brainstorms, and highly paid "experts" engaged in circle jerks ... to know what your campaign is about.
Of course Clinton and team could not admit it was their fault that they had lost. So Sanders was an easy target for blame (and Russia, Comey, etc.). Sanders is not a member of the insider club, and he is not a highly paid consultant - blaming them a member of that species would implicate the whole profession, because Clinton certainly had people that were considered to be good.
The other conclusion is that Clinton was such a bad candidate that not even the best talent could counteract that - better not go there.
Sanders CAN be blamed (I think they did it preventively to keep him from ever running again, and to undermine his growing influence regarding healthcare discussion. Clinton blamed him end of 2019 in a Howard Stern interview that HE had really harmed her campaign).
Sanders did not make them look good in the primaries - so they had a grudge to begin with.
His being pro blue collar vibe does not sit well with them, too. There is a good dose of classicsm of the educated, affluent / rich managerial class.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
most of the WEALTHY European countries and Canada have healthcare expenditures around USD 5,000 - 5,500 per capita vs. the US more than 9,000 USD per capita!! - source World Bank 2014. The calculation of these USD 9,000: all that is spent in the US on healtcare no matter where, no matter if it is covered by insurance or not. That sum is divided through all 325 million inhabitants (no matter if they are insured and whether they even had any costs in that year).
Little Iceland has 300,000 citizens and per capita expenditures of 4,600 USD. So that is a sufficiently large risk pool. No need for million citizens !
US opponents of single payer often claim that the Canadian system is far from perfect (waiting times, less quality). I think that is deflecting. Canada is an immigration country and has the same mixed population and economic challenges as the US. The US citizens can relate to their neighbour Canada and there is just no denying that they have drastically lower costs than the US - so the last line of defense is - "But their service is not as good". Well they - unlike the US - do not have people dying because they do not get care in time or are w/o insurance and do not get preventive or sufficient ! long-term care. If the claim of waiting time is true - considered the much lower costs - the Canadians maybe gladly accept the waiting time for the planable procedures like hip replacement (if not, they can invest in a private upgrade then, but it will never be a life and death matter).
I can tell you for sure about the situation in Germany and Austria (82 resp. 8 million people, USD 5,600 resp. 5,400 per capita - they provide GOOD healthcare for everyone. Technically it is mandatory for every job over approx. USD 500 monthly. And there are a lot of provisions for those who do not have a job, so in the end everyone is covered.
In Austria and Germany the system is financed by payroll deductions matched by employer contributions + some tax funding. The public NHS in UK is (under)funded by taxes only, their total expenditures are USD 3,900 per capita (that is expenditures of the NHS + expenditures for the private services - those who can afford it, spend on private services to compensate for the shortcomings of the starved public system).
I would make a distinction between taxes (general revenue of the state) and contributions = money that is earmarked for a certain purpose and often goes directly to the relevant agency - like is the case with our healthcare insurance contribution. The corporations send the money to the agency that is separate from the gov. The tax funding goes to the hospitals (local and federal taxes).
Most countries have a mix in funding, too (payroll deductions + employer contributions and taxes to a varying degree).
That common aspect was not mentioned by David.
And usually they set up a public non-profit agency to collect the funds (from the corporations), negotiate all the contracts and pay the bills. The patients do not get bills.
So that agency is a legal entitiy that is separate from the government (and privacy laws apply to the patient data).
The "premiums" (payroll deductions) depend on income only = SOLIDARITY based, risk is irrelevant, and no bills when patients get treatment. The British call that "free at the point of use". The "premium" covers it all, no unexpected, unplanable costs, and income related = affordable. That means that wealthy, young, healthy people pay more than they would strictly according to their risk. They profit of course of the cost-efficiency of the streamlined system.
The nations with a public non-profit healthcare system do have DIFFERENT approaches and organize their systems differently, and they ALL have much lower costs than the U.S., have everyone insured, have better outcomes, and their citizens cannot even imagine the stress the U.S. citizens experience around the healthcare system and the funding.
Cornerstones of all the systems: either private for profit with heavy government regulations (they are the exception) *
* Example for a private regulated system: the Swiss system, as expensive
as the U.S., but it is excellent and everyone has full coverage. (they
do not have the working poor in Switzerland, they have in general high
wages, maybe some subsidies for their "underclass").
Most countries have a public non-profit agency and contributions ("premiums") according to income NOT according to risk ! it is definitely affordable (wealthy and rich people pay more), the system is very streamlined, everyone has the same good ! care at the same facilities. Often smaller players are for-profits (family doctors or pharmacies are small businesses who have contracts with the public agency) while the large players like hospitals are non-profits.
And then there is the UK where all the doctors (which are here small businesses with contracts) are also employees of the National Health Service.
The NHS does not have private players (well they used to - the Tories try to ram through a partial privatizaion right now, so recently they got private "contractors" - needless to say a lot of hassle and more expensive).
3
-
3
-
Well even the more "morally aware" among them do not usually advocate for levelling the playing field. - It tells you more about the deeply social nature of homo sapiens. They need an ideology/justification before they can be - relatively - selfish.
And I am uneasy with big charity as well. Bill Gates should not have that much power. Even IF he is well intentioned. No absolute monarchs needed, not even benevolent ones - and I think his money gives them that role where they engage.
It is well known, that other charities (who operate on a more normal budget) do not dare to speak out against the foundation, even if they disagree with the Gates ideas (GMOs for instance).
Africa certainly does not need and cannot profit from the the kind of agriculture in which GMOs would make sense. And of course these behemoths also attract the vultures (people wanting to force GMO's onto the communities, want to get their hands on the water or patent the seeds - the plants that those communities have developed, which do not have as much yield, do not always work well with machines, but are much more reslient to lack of water etc. and thus SAFER for small farmers without much financial backup. And they have a lot of people there but no money for machines, no network for maintainace, spare parts, ... So low-tech methods are much better to strengthen those communites and make them independent (incl. independent from the "benefactors" and the money shufflers in their wake).
The Gates foundation is also an influence in politics. There should be smaller initiatives AND the power to decide given to the locals. With the foreigners being the influence to deter fraud and corruption and tribalism if that is possible.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
In early Nov. 2019 she refused to shake the hand of renowed journalist Amy Goodman and was rude to her. It was the end of of the interview, it was on a stage. Goodman had a legitimate and polite question about the early states: Tthey are so influental, but do not reflect the diversity of the party, should the party change the schedule for these majority white states ?
For some unknown reason Warren got all huffy and puffy. a short tense exchange ending with 2 snappy answers from Warren, then she left (it was the last question, so at least she did not storm off the stage).
Shook the hand of one person that thanked her for the interview, but she either refused to take Amy's hand (who had stayed polite and professional). She said something to her along the lines of: Yeah, thanks a lot (and not in a friendly manner. As if Goodman had set her up).
in Nov. 2019 Warren polled better than now, but her support is white, educated and affluent. so beyond the WHITE primary states trouble was ahead. That is not Goodman's failure (even if she meant to allude to that fact, Warren had a keejerk reaction. As if she had made that allegation, likely Goodman had unintentionally touched a sore sport of Warren.
It was a reasonable question - and Warren does not have the flexibility to come up with at least a non-answer (a Kamala Harris style "We certainly should look into it").
Warren started with an somewhat annoyed: You do not seriously think I am going to criticize IO and NH ....
She took immediate offense (likely Goodman had asked in good faith, she does not do gotcha journalism).
After seeing that - I can imagine Warren also jumping to conclusion about a reasonable remark of Sanders, and mulling over it for some time.
Or maybe she is even more Machiavellian and there was not even a perceived slight by Sanders in the private ! conversation in Dec. 2018 - that she just made it up because she thought a) it could help her and b) she would not have to pay a price.
Terrible political instincts (and not for the first time).
Plus of course the lack of character (and maybe a lot of envy ?) that she would attack him NOW by leaking a private conversation when he is surging and she has a drop in the polls and fundraising is not too good either. Plus Sanders has the resources to navigate being stuck in D.C. for impeachement - the excellent groundgame, the surrogates that will attract a crowd on their own, the fundraising to finance a private jet and the expenisve TV ads.
She and Klobuchar are affected more by the impeachement that keeps them in D.C. for 6 days.
Warren also did not contradict Sanders (during the Jan. debates) when he said that he had encouraged her to run in 2015 in the primary and that he would have deferred to her.
(Likely he would have supported her in exchange for her solid support for single payer healthcare). Sanders jumped into the race because she wouldn't - they planned a small dollar campaign with a budget of 30 million USD. They had no idea how far they would come.
Sanders was not shy to annoy the Clinton machine: they only let him run as Democrat in the primary because the alternative would have been him running as Indpendent. Their fear was not that he could seriously challenge her, but that he could do well in some of the early states and therefore could take away from her momentum.
Sanders wanted to use the platform of the debates and the race to draw attention to the issues.
Warren in 2015 thought she could promote her career by staying at the sidelines and in the good graces of the party establishment. She angled for VP or a cabinet position.
Sanders served.
I think she realized that if she had shown courage and had run a progressive campaign she could be POTUS now. Fast forward to 2019: Taking a piggy ride on the platform of Sanders (but hardly giving him any credit. She was the last one the lobbyists could convince to support a de facto public option, WHILE using the MfA brand).
That does not cut it this time. Never mind that SHE has no intention to abstain from running in order to not take away from the other progressive (well we can now safely assume now she is a faux progressive).
3
-
The U.S. meddling with Russian elections: 1996 to get Yeltsin elected. found an interesting article headline: US Meddling in 1996 Russian Elections in Support of Boris Yeltsin under www(dot)globalresearch(dot)ca/us-meddling-in-1996-russian-elections-in-support-of-boris-yeltsin/5568288 - a few lines out of that article
.....Readers will recall that in the run-up to the 1996 presidential election in Russia, opinion polls put the pro-western incumbent, Boris Yeltsin, in fifth place among the presidential candidates, with only 8% support. The same polls showed that the most popular candidate in Russia by a wide margin was the Communist Party’s Gennady Zyuganov.
Moved to desperation by the numbers, well-connected Russian oligarchs suggested just cancelling the election and supporting a military takeover, rather than facing a defeat at the polls. Neocons in the West embraced the idea–all in the name of Democracy, of course. In the end, though, Yeltsin and the oligarchs decided to retain power by staging the election.
In keeping with Russian laws at the time, Zyuganov spent less than three million dollars on his campaign. Estimates of Yeltsin’s spending, by contrast, range from $700 million to $2.5 billion. (David M. Kotz, Russia’s Path from Gorbachev to Putin, 2007) This was a clear violation of law, but it was just the tip of the iceberg.
In February 1996, at the urging of the United States, the International Monetary Fund (which describes itself as “an organization of 188 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation”) supplied a $10.2 billion “emergency infusion” to Russia.The money disappeared as Yeltsin used it to shore up his reputation and to buy votes. .....
The article looks well researched, I have not verified it yet.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
3/3 PLEASE UPVOTE comment to transcript
* Corporations DID WELL under the left wing populism in the New Deal era (certainly better than their counterparts in austerity ridden, often fascist Europe). The fascists and right wing parties often campaign on populist economic policies - they did it in the 1920s and 1930s and they do it now - that and blaming the "other" for the economic problems. Instead of blaming the ruling class (or the war that caused the problems and which the "elites" did not prevent).
The minute right wing populists come into power they (without fail !) get openly cozy with the "haves". As they admire and submit to power and authority that makes sense. Usually they also pander at least to the middle class and upper middle class (to have enough public support, and these people's concern are somewhat considered in the media). As there is not enough to go around for everyone if you favour the top 10 % they need to put up the strawman of the low income people who do not deserve help and are a drain to the "hard working, honest, patriotic, … citizens. Divide and conquer.
Left wing populism allowed the spectacular economic success of the post WW2 era = Economic Miracle (in the US, Commonwealth and Western Europe). Those policies helped the regular citizens = the consumer base for industrial mass production.
But: in those time the corporations could not have it alll - and they could not evade paying high income or corporate taxes (if they did well) or outsource jobs. They had to put up with an "uppity" working class and produce the goods with the good wages they were forced to pay (because of low unemployment = a lot of negotiation power for the workers). So even if the unions were more and more marginalized, as long as labour was "scarce" the individual did not need them as much to get a decent paying job - and if it you didn't like your job or your boss you could leave and easily get another good ! job - or work your way up without formal training.
The "masters" of course villified the unions for decades - that was one of the underlying causes of the "Red Scare" in the 1950s. They were smart enough to capture first the media, then the political parties and then economic academia). They pushed a narrative and mindset of "I will care for myself, I do not want to show solidarity * with anybody else. Me, me, mine. And I do not need collective bargaining, my negotiation skills with my boss and my job skills are good enough, I am independenat (unlike those suckers who want help when they negotiate with the Corporations). I can get mine without any help.
If you are not capable of that, if you cannot make it financially you are a sucker, or a wellfare queen, lazy jobless person, too stupid or lazy to get a better job, … (insert derrogatory term of choice).
* I just checked if there was an adjective like solidaric or solidary - not in the common English language. The noun "solidarity" exists but not the corresponding adjective. Well, not in common language, "solidary" exists in legal language. There is the auxiliary term "showing solidarity" - which proves my point, the English language community does not even bother to have an adjective. Showing solidarity describes more an action at a specific time as opposed to having a mindset that values that (in thought and action) in general.
** Trump claimed that he used his own money for the campaign. I think that is not factual (he gave loans to his own campaign, meaning he intended to get repaid from donations). And campaign activities were funneled into his business (booking the venues, etc.) More important: in summer 2016 his campaign did not do well, the billionaire Mercer and his daughter injected money and equally crucial ! know-how and staff into the campaign (Kellyann Conway who ran his campaign more professionally - or at least successfully and without the blunders that happened before, Steve Bannon, Betsey DeVoss and others)
2
-
The win of Trump is first to blame on the DNC and Hillary and then on Obama (rigging the primary against Sanders - HE WOULD HAVE WON - and all the policies that made it abundantely clear whom they seved). - And unless the Dems are willing to change - and there are no clues they even want to - they will continue to lose. Or if the country is lucky some progressives withing the party or in an independent party will take over. Unfortunately Sander is not younger or 2020 would be a no-brainer.
Obama enacted neoliberal policies and also pretty hawkish policies - him being black and having more charisma than Hillary covers a lot of sins for those who do not look cosely (not everone follows politics closely - no interest or no time). And some are very partisan.
He had a mandate in 2008 , he could acitivate the minorities (many non-voters), the country wanted him to be the next FDR (well not the racists and the hardcore GOP - but he could have easily gotten majorities with populist policies).
Unlike FDR, Obama had a tool box of well-tried recipes (tried in the New Deal era and after WW2), he did not need to go to unchartered territory (like FDR with Keynsian economics).
Also examples form FDR: strongarming the corporate Dems - like FDR did, engaging the masses (FDR Fireside chats - Obama did grassroots ONLY in his campaign, but not to get suport for helpful policies - of course not the donors did not want the unwashed masses to get more engaged in REAL politics).
Use Keynsian economic policies - that was a completely new approch in FDR's time.
Model the healthcare after the successful systems of every other wealthy nation (since WW2).
The Dems had the majority in the houses and for 59 days (after much ado and resistance of the GOP regarding ACA) they had a filibuster proof majority where they passed a very weakened ACA (= Romney Care = a plan of the right wing heritage foundation).
Well during that window of opportunity they could have had a Medicare for all Bill ready on the shelf. The people would have loved it - so the masses would KNOW WHY to vote for Dems. No chance for the GOP to repeal that.
Such a prez would not even consider something like TPP - tells you everything you need to know about Obama and Clinton. With NAFTA Bill Clinton maybe was caught up with the rhetoric of neoliberalism and what his advisors told him about it's advantages - after NAFTA and then the China agreement there is no excuse of ignorance or being economically illiterate or naiv. TPP was for the advantage of Big Biz not for the citizens. And Obama and HRC serve first and foremost Big Biz.
Truth is - Obama only posed as Mr. Hope and Change. Even in his first run he accepted a lot of Wallstreet money. And boy, did that investment pay off for the banksters. (Expect more of these 400k speeches, now that he can cash in on his loyalty to the people that forclosed the middle class and are responsible for the catastrophe of 2007/2008).
Nor would Obama (or the Corporate Dems) offend the healthcare industry.
You cannot serve two masters.
He tried to do a little bit for the masses and defended the status quo of the special interests. That gave the country ACA and Frank Dodd - both very weak very compromized, extremeley COMPLICATED attempts to reconciliate two things that do not go together. Serving the donors and serving the citizens.
Had Obama fought fiercly for Single Payer, to get money out of politics (the cancer in the system that taints everything) and had he fiercly fought for a financial reform that deserves that name - the Corporate Dems would have tried to resist (pus of course the GOP). And in response he could have rallied the masses. The country was ready to show the pitchforks in 2008 if necessary. The special interests would have caved in.
And the Dems would have won 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016 in a landslide (maybe with some new blood replacing the Dems that are unwilling to serve the citizens and to stop chasing donor money).
Instead the Democratic Party LOST ON EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNANCE (state, governors, Senate, Congress, and now even the Supreme Court is in jeopardy)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Last year the words the "DNC was hacked" (meaning the Podesta emails) quickly changed to the wording of "Russia meddled with the elections". And that UNCLEAR ACCUSATION is now repeated over and over. It is conveniently and intentionally unspecific and suggests to the people who do not follow closely that a) it is sure the Russians DID something and b) something really bad (that made some impact !) happened, maybe voting machines were hacked, .....
Also note that the "hacking" was never indpendently verified ! and is unproven despite all the claims to the contrary. The FBI never had access to the DNC server (only a company that was hired by the DNC made the claim of a hack, and a Russian hack as that). If it causes major stress between Russia and the U.S. with sanctions and counter sanctions - wouldn't an indepdendent FBI investigation be APPROPRIATE ? The intel agencies published a speculative report in January 2017, describing HOW hacking COULD have be done. The agency that is the most competent regarding hacking - the NSA - had medium confidence. The CIA claimed to have HIGH confiidence about the hacking. They did not publish any proof. They could, it would not reveail sources or methods even though that claim was made as well. (William Binney former technical NSA director has interesting things to say about the whole "report").
The rest of the "report" speculates about the psychology of Putin's motif (an alleged wish for revenge on Hillary Clinton), and they obsess with RT. How they fuel discontentment by reporting about Wallstreet greed, about fracking and that they hosted a Third Party candidates debate. How dare they undermine U.S. democracy like that. - It would be almost comical if it was not about an escalating rift between 2 nuclear powers.
I noted that ALL the media, and now also David use the very unspecific description "Russia intefered or meddled with the elections". At most ! they hacked the DNC and handed the Podesta emails anonymously over to Wikileaks.
The embarrassing Podesta emails revealed the TRUTH about the DNC, HRC's double speak, how Libya was intended to be a feather in her cap to show her qualification as president. Also the undermining of the Sanders campaign, the servile mainstream media colluding with the Clinton campaign, plus the DNC demanding ! better treatment by some formats if they thought them insufficiently obedient (Debbie W.-S. demanded better treatment by Morning Joe and complained to the network management about the hosts).
2
-
2
-
2
-
80 millions to "fight Russian propaganda". What would that "propaganda" be specifically ? and how would you do that without limiting freedom of speech ? - And if the Russians pay trolls - would the U.S. pay countertrolls clogging the web up even more for citizens searching for substantiated information. Or would they hire consultants to come up with cleverly "crafted" stories to muddy the water ? - The CIA ALREADY bribes journalists worldwide and has ten of thousands of media people working for them worldwide.
- The U.S. powers that be wouldn't start fighting the Russian narrative by telling the TRUTH, wouldn't they ?
Which propaganda is to be stopped by investing those 80 millions. Paying trolls to go after RT ?? -
The interesting thing about RT: a) the "intelligence report" of January 2017 obsessed with them. Now they are entitled to air their news/narrative in the U.S. But they have increased their audience substantially. They are actually good. And the powers that be are getting nervous about them (in the U.S. and in U.K.).
They have the progressive good journalists with integrity that are not allowed to tell the truth on mainstream media.
b) the have their bias in the name, of course you will get the Russian perspective. Which is a good counterbalance to MSM which gives you the perspective of the 1 %, Big Biz, and the Military Industrial Complex.
c) I would like to see hosts like Lee Camp, Chris Hedges, Thom Hartmann on MSM. Or Abbey Martin. Or consumer protection lawyer Mike Papantonio. See guests like Ray McGovern, Larry Wilkerson, Ralph Nader, John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, William Binney or McAfee on the alleged hacking. - I am not holding my breath.
Right now Papantonio talks about the dangers of Glyphosate and the upcoming lawsuit. The collusion of Monsanto with MSM and the EPA. Do you think you are going to hear about that on MSM ?
2
-
If you want to know what is really going on with subverting democracy in the U.S. - for instance voter list purges: listen to Greg Palast - funny how he only appears on RT - the GOP does Operation Crosscheck in 2016 (8 million ethnic names) and the Dems cannot be bothered to even comment on it. - Sanders only recently mentioned it (June or July 2017). It is remarkable how even he held back on that issue. Greg Palast got the lists last summer (they were leaked to him.)
He already covered the purge in Florida in 2000 - another example where the Democratic party could not be bothered to DO something BEFORE or AFTER the elections, even though they had the presidency and the sitting VP knew he would likely need Florida to become the next president. - Makes you really wonder - it seems NOT ROCKING the boat is even more important than winning elections.
I am shocked how easy it is for the Military Industrial Complex, the 1 %, the corporate media, the Democratic Establishment to manipulate public opinion.
You bet a lot of people (and a few foreign governments - Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey) are furious that the U.S. stops funding jihadists who fight against the Syrian government (one of the very few good decisions Trump has made). Looks like the regime change is not going to happen in Syria.
They want Cold War 2.0 with Russia, they want another hot war no matter where, to deflect from the soon to be expected cyclic economic downturn (which may be the straw that breaks the camels back and that affects the Dems as much even if they are not currently governing. That might turn the country in the progressive direction, neither the GOP nor the Democrats and definitely NOT the people who OWN them want that to happen).
Another war, or increased "war on terror" (fighting AND funding terrorists), or the "need" to counteract alleged Russian "interference" - all that is another pretext to crack down even more on civil liberties and freedom of speech and to introduce censorship through the backdoor.
All the hysteria creates a certain environment - the next major incident will give the war mongerers and regime changers free reign. (The media outlets who are usually very critical of Trump were completely enthusiastic about his - unsubstantiated - attacks on Syria in April 2017. Likely the CIA and the military were against it - see Seymour Hersh.) The media: it is WAR !! And they have not met a war they do not like never mind if there is a reason to go to war.
The U.S. population does not want more war, but with that propaganda campaign (anti Russia, anti Iran) they create enough confusion to divide the population up, to muddy the water.
And Pakman goes along with it.
Leave your pro Democratic establishment bias behind, and look at the facts: Trump being corrupted by biz interests with Russia (or other countries) is no different than HRC being corrupted by Gulf state money. No doubt GBW was corrupted by fossil fuel intersts and fracking interests, and the Bushes are close to the Saudi family Bin Laden.
It just so happens that seeking cooperation with Rusia would be better for the U.S. than pandering to Saudi Arabia. So the Trump corruption might do some good.
The goal would be of course to have a president and a Congress who have some insight, wisdom and acutally look out for the longterm wellbeing of the REGULAR CITIZENS (not the MSM owned by rich individuals and shareholder, not the MIC, not the Israel first crowd).
And then there is Obama taking Wall street money, HRC doing the same plus the Clinton Foundation taking Monsanto, Wallstreet and other questionable money. - you think THAT does not harm the country ?? (And of course GWB with the fossil fuel industry, and Cheney)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cristianproust The medical error deaths include a LOT of people that would not even be alive but for modern medicine (the avoidable infections often hit people with preexisting conditions, or the elderly). There is a good chance the person would have died from the original disease (or a ruptured appendix, or giving birth, or an accident, or diabetes, heart attack years ago).
Of course modern medicne has to be improved, they certainly have flaws. But to frame it that way (modern medicine might do more harm than good resp. might kill more than it saves) is just plain stupid. And reckless.
As if being edgy is more important than having a good cause.
Peterson is not the first to raise the questions of superbugs, but those did not mean to talk down medicine, but to make the demand to improve it. He could of course be a force of good - instead he is running his mouth.
Where does he think the increase of life extpectancy and reduced infant mortality comes from ? Long after vaccinations have been rolled out.
We STILL see improvements.
Non profit public insurance agency reminds and invites the insured to have cancer screening.
Nations did programs to tackle infant mortality (and other problems) with MORE examinations, and bribed parents to use the already free offers. Example Austria: They introduced a cash benefit in the 1970s if they had done the vaccination and other schedule. That initiative had tangible successes, and the country was a first world country at that time, they had well bounced back after WW2 (same for Germany).
They got the equivalent of 2,000 - 2,100 USD for that (in 2 payments). But they needed the stamp of the doctors that did the examinations, and it had to be in the right timeframe.
So the medical system and government defined stages (during pregnancy) and for the development of the infant and the doctors would see the child over time. Plus that made sure the children were up to date with vaccination.
Humans tend to feel that things will stay O.K. if they are O.K. now.
Since the medical profession is not hyped in the non-profit system, and they are not allowed to advertise, the parents often went the happy go lucky route. Accidents and deaf children happen to other families, not to them.
The 2000 USD were not that much for 2 or 3 years (the time covers also pregnancy). The country saved money in the long run, because higher risk pregnancies, and disabled children were detected sooner.
And it was a modest cash boost for normal families.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, the base would NOT be uninterested in the procedural "boring" tricks to fight - if the fight is for a worthy cause. If the Dems could muster only HALF of the Republican determination and use it to the benefit of the people ! But of course the Big Donors finance WEAK Democrats (spineless careerists and sell outs) and fierce Republicans. That is how they prefer the ballot to be - some "choice" for the voters !
Chuck Schumer could have prevented a bill from going forward - once it did go forward it was clear that they would lose the vote. (was it the tax cut for the rich or dismantling Dodd Frank the already too weak regulation of Big Finance, or net neutrality or the cuts to Medicare ?? Most likely it was deregulaing WallStreet which makes perfect sense WHY Schumer carefully avoids using ALL TOOLS in the box.) Jimmy Dore reported on it - this summer. It was an issue forwhich the Dems would have a hard time to "justify" not voting against it.
So Chuck Schumer (master Wallstreet fundraiser) LET THE VOTE go forward and THEN - when it was a lost case for sure - most but not all Democratic Senators "voted against" it. So the records are clean, they can throw up their hand - "what could we do if we do not have the numbers?". (Just in case they do have the majorities they always have to blue dogs to spoil the majority.
In 2006 they saw the Blue wave coming - and made sure to pack the races with extremely well funded Wallstreet Democrats (Emanuel Rahm then DCCC head). Just in case they would have a majority - the Dems could still prevent themselves from working For The People if they cannot blame the Republicans anymore.
They can play the "we need to be bi-partisan" card - so that they STILL can serve the Big Donors even with majorities (see 2009 - 2010, see California where they had a supermajority).
Pay-go is another rule where the Democrats voluntarily tie their hands in case they are embarrassed by having a majority. Now it could be called the "anti Medicare for All" rule . Pelosi already announced that she wants to see that reinstated. (no pay-go under republicans, of course not).
It means no spending increase unless you cut other spending or increase taxes. It support the (economically illiterate argument that deficits are bad and that the debt is going to kill us. Republicans say that all the time - when Democrats are in government. It does not matter when THEY govern.
Funny how almost all Democrats along with almost all Republicans voted for insane increases of the already insane military budget in 2017 - no pay-go to be seen anywhere. There was not even a discussion. The Pentagon gives ads to the media, and the military contractors are big donors (the media gets a lot of that money in form of ads) and war is good for ratings - so no critique there either. No: "How are we ever going to pay for it" . That only ever applies if the spending would benefit regular people and not the rich or the military industrial complex.
Tax increases are very unpopular, so that puts a good stop to every attempt to have progressive legislation. More taxes would have to hit the still existing middle class (which is bad for the economy too). The rich and Big Biz - with help of bought and paid for Congress - can evade taxation. So the only possibility would be to cut the military budget (not likely - Big Donors) or increase deficits and / or increase taxation.
Deficits are O.K. for wars, to save the banksters - and every time the Republicans govern.
But NOT for the welfare of the people, or for any peaceful project.
Democrats who plan to run in 2020 can maintain plausible deniability with the Nay votes once it is clear that it will not matter (important the voters pay more attention, and it has become much easier to check out the old voting history !!) - and at the same time they can serve the Big Donors - same donors that ALSO finance the Republican wing of the one and only Big Donor Party.
Republicans on the other hand use any procedural trick and then some - including shutting down the government - to promote their agenda or prevent things from happening.
The made sure (even more so than the Democrats) that ACA would be a bad bill - for the consumers/patients. But even then they feared obama could have a political success and citizens would experience come relief. So they threw one tantrum after the next.
The Dems drew it out instead of organizing the townhalls. (the healthcare industries bribes BOTH parties). So the momentum of 2006 (Blue Wave) and of 2008 (election of Obama) faded - or more preceisely: Obama had already sold out to Big Biz in 2008 while talking a good game. he successfully diffused the energy - working overtime for the Big Donors of the Democratic party.
So in Nov. 2010 midterms did not go well. The Dems could have gotten a landslide in 2010. Sure they might not have been able to pass a GOOD healthcare bill before 2011. But they could have it ready on the shelf, blame the Republicans every day of the week and twice on Sunday and continue to communicate with the voters what they would do for them if they only had the majorities.. Giving them a reason to turn out in masses in 2010. THEN they could have passed the good law with a supermajority. They could pass ACA in a 60 days window when they had a filibuster proof majority.
That would infuriate the Big Donors. And the people would love their healthcare. Therefore it would be easier to win the next elections even if the Big Donors would abandon the Democrats.
FDR fought decisively (including the opposition to his plans within the Democratic party). Once the public saw their president meant business and intended to hold his campaign promises, his support increased. the first relief measures were very popular - so that gave him more leverage.
2
-
2
-
1
-
+Will Buhrr - Regarding Red Brigades and terror in Italy - search for Operation Gladio, false flag and Daniele Ganser (he wrote a thesis on "Gladio", the post WW2 fascists militias that were used as backup in Europe (in case the Soviets would ever invade). The Allied Forces recruited them from the Fascists troops and militia - the former enemy. And these men of course had every reason to be very cooperative - if handed over to the new governments, they would have been tried as traitors (or immediately killed).
Since the Soviets never came, they were used to incite or perform terror acts to discredt the domestic Communist parties. (In Italy the most consequential PROVEN event where those "Stay behind" militias helped to launch the attack, was the bombing of the railway station of Bologna - walls collapsed and ? 20 people killed).
These militas (in several European countries !) were so secret that the parliaments did not know about them. The Defense minster of Belgium - when the story broke - read the story at an airport, flew directly back and asked the Military leadership of Belgium if that was true - if such troops existed in Belgium, too. Yes, indeed - and the military had never bothered to inform the government(s) (at least not that minister).
In Italy the story broke, because one brave judge looked deeper in the case of a car bomb that killed a police man, it was attributed to the terrorists - the explosives used were military grade stuff - NATO stuff to be precise. The story unfolded, the judge miraculously was not murdered, in the end Andreotti admitted to those Stay Behind Militias. He had to testify before a commission or the Parliament.
Oh and there was the case of 3 young men who were framed with the murder of 2 police men (who were sleeping in the secured casern with a wall around, no less). These policemen the day before had stopped a truck that had suspicious load (weapons). Next night they were assassinated.
The police forced confessions out of the three young men (who were clearly used as scapegoats). 1 week later they were presented before the judge (who has to decide if there is a case). The judge was obviously pressured into accepting the forced confessions even though at least one of them was completely beaten up (he had been in the hospital between interrogation and first court date).
Then the justice system dragged their feet, kept them arrested without officially charging them with anything. Obviously to miss a certain deadline (6 or 12 months). Then they were legally obliged to let them go but the "suspects" were not allowed to leave the country (I think not even the city). After several years there was a trial in court, they were "found guilty" resulting in plus 10 years prison. They did not have to go to prison right away - the date to shop up for being jailed was 6 months later.
Two of the guys used that to flee the country (as they obviously were meant to do), one man stayed (he had started a familiy meanwhile). I think he was 10 years imprisoned before a re-trial set him free (may have been proven innocent) - the other 2 guys I think stayed abroad.
1
-
There is a window of time for the development for the human brain. And 100.000 years of evolution set the conditions of how that brain can develop ideally. That does not change because computers became widespread around 1990. The formation years until the age of 8 or 10 are too VALUABLE to have kids before the screens - a little TV or PC use will not harm them and they will naturally be attracted to it. However we SHOULD not encourage use of PC etc. in that age or integrate it into the teaching.
How did we do science and education BEFORE everyone had a computer ? (How did ever Kopernikus, Newton, Franklin et al get stuff done - they had to do ALL the calculations manually - well these guys could concentrate).
David seems to be highly biased - he might be pro use of PC for children - that does not mean Jill Stein's views are UNSCIENTIFIC.
On the contrary - maybe Jill Stein KNOWS something that young David is blissfully unaware of - does he have children?
As a doctor she will have met much more children than him and talked to more parents. She might have noticed differences in the children over time (less attention span, more need of glasses - experienced teachers I know notice a difference).
When a child operates in the "virtual world" by reading a book the brain can at least somehow regulate WHAT pictures will be evoked by a story. With the TV/PC you are getting overwhelmed by the pictures. A young brain is highly trainable - and it WILL be trained in a certain way by a regular activity. If the "training" is done by using PC's that is pretty much opposed to WHAT and HOW we are "naturally" meant to learn.
Our lifestyle is completely different than that of our ancestors, but that does not mean that we are not DEEPLY INFLUENCED by our evolutionary "equipment". We are meant to function as hunters and gatherers in small groups where we know each other. The children are meant to learn as much as they can from their tribe and to engage in a lot of physical activity (playing, running around). They are also meant to imitate the adults (household chores, playing family, building things, preparing and gathering food - or growing things if we want to be very modern ;).
It would be the safe, reasonable, successful, easy and pleasant way to consider that heritage when we teach and educate children. If you want to go against 100.000 years of evolution you are in for trouble or at least in for (unnecessary) struggle.
As a young adult I started working with a comupter (it was a business software to process orders, manufacturing, billing - nothing creative). Business communication was done with the typewritter = letters, prints from the software, telefax - or the phone. (International export). I came across the Microsoft programs around the age of 26, I took courses around the age of 27. I got my first private computer (laptop) around the age of 29.
I am a now a very well versed user of all programs. I very much appreciate the internet (don't need Facebook, thank you very much) - and frankly spend too much online.
There is a time for every thing and the young years should be used for learning the basic skills of a human being (off the grid) and for old-fashioned playing (in the real world) and face to face with other human beings.
1
-
1
-
it IS rational to be wary about GMOs (industrial agriculture, Glyhposate and cancer !). there ARE studies that suggest if would be a good idea to shield the little ones from WI-FI (we don't get more elaboratestudies, who would pay for them ??). It would be a good idea to kepp the children off the screens (there is enough time to learn the computer skills later).
Educate yourself about how HOW HOMO SAPIENS learns and develops (the physical mobility will have an effect on your language skills etc.) Children up to the age of 6 - 8 years are in "download mode". That means they function with brain waves that are similar to those of adults when they are in hypnosis. That means they are very open to any information / input and that goes directly into the memory. They lack the ability of critical thinking. It makes sense from the standpoint of evolution. The children should do everything to pick up the information / habits / customs of their tribe - the programming should be quick, thorough and permanent.
I am strongly in favour of limiting the TV and internet time of children. It happens to adults: we watch a video online or something on TV which is not really that good, but we somehow stay glued (out of curiostiy or because we - as highly optical species - STRONGLY react to the flood of pictures. Not that easy to shut them out and to curb our natural curiosity. Children are completely "helpless" against that temptation / / overload of information and pictures - they will stay glued to the screen.
I would rather have the children play outdoors interact with other children (directly) and not only engage in intellectual activities (I was an addictive reader as a child, had it's benefits, it would have been better to do more "physical" stuff. Like building things, learn baking etc. Everything you need to teach them up to the age of 10 can be taught in person - in the old fashioned way. I am not even sure if it would be better to teach them reading and writing later. These are not easy tasks and if we make the children use their brain in the formation stage in that way it may close the doors for other developments.
anyway: Build a base, let them develop as is fitting for a young homo sapiens - when they are older, when they are more mature, when there is a SOLID base to build upon then you can let them work more on the computer etc.
Plus: screen time puts a strain on your eyes.
1
-
If a text (a law ) is very complex - as they usually are, the president usually gets a compact, time saving summary (briefing). And especially an estimate (briefing) about the not so obvious or unintended consequences. Because a president is not always a lawyer, time is precious, and even if he is a lawyer (like the Clintons or Obama) he has not time to look for the one sentence in the text that has huge legal (unintended) consequences or will get the executive order kicked out by the courts.
To some extent the president always depends on those around him, that they have thought matters through and that they take the unintended consequences into consideration. That they pay attention to the fine print and how it will work out in the administrative machine if you apply new laws and procedures. Part of it is to make sure it will hold if challenged in court.
It is complicated and that's not a game where Donald Trump is good (No one did that "vetting" with the Muslim ban for instance, even if you think this is good policy and will hold in court - they made an administrative and political pigs ear out of it. Of course there is the theory that this was a test balloon for more sinister and consequential policies to come.
Now an intelligent man like Obama and Clinton or also likely Bush in the 90s (whatever you think of them they are intelligent and had knowledge) would not have tolerated a team trying to manipulate them or to con them. And those around them knew better than to even try. Their intelligence and also that they knew and dominated the network of power made sure that the president was in charge. If you are CAPABLE of nuance and of paying attention to the details, if you are open to new knowledge for instance by reading, you will recognize that skill in your team. And your team will recognize it in the boss. So even if the boss for pragmatic reasons does not take care of the fine print he will have a well developed bullshit meter. And the team knows it.
When all these presidents signed an executive order they had a clear idea what it was intended to do and the team around them damn sure took care of the details and that the executive order reflected and assisted the intention of the president. And he got the text on the desk, got a short summary and then signed in in good conscience.
As for network of power, this applies especially to Bill Clinton, there is the term the "Clinton machine" and also Bush who was Vice President and CIA director before. They were on top of the game. Reagan depended much more on his advisors, so did GWB. Trump sets a new negative record here, even IF he knows how to read and process what he read. He talked about policies always in very broad terms and he liked the spotlight. He is the equivalent of Sarah Palin. His talent for self-marketing, networking and the money and connections !! with which he started helped him to be successful in the real estate business. (Money, connection, maybe a good sense for good staff for making profit ! (not to govern a country !), maybe some bribery or in advance knowledge - if the market is good, one can be successful even IF you would not qualify as manager. When he ventured into other areas he managed to have large failures - and that may be due to his failure to pay attention to the details. Or to be aware enough to hire someone who will. Bill Gates was enough into this tricky game that he knew whom to hire to take care of it (but then he is a very intelligent man and certainly does read).
If was quite clear during Trumps campaign that HE was not the person to have nuance or to pay attention to the details. And he does not realize the necessity of if and also has no way of detecting that ability in his staff.
Now his staff / cabinet people may be able in that area (intelligence, but strong ideology tends to trump intelligence, and the capability to handle nuance) - the question is: how are they going to use it. Are these unelected very rich people going to play their own game.
1
-
1
-
+ Darbear Dossier Standing up for LGBT - after they became mainstream - is not enough. That a party does nota attack Planned Parenthood is not enough ! The country must work for ALL people. And being LGBT and not having a well paying job, good healthcare, a citizen-oriented police, ... still sucks. And there was a candidate who had both - the empathy and concern for the minorities * AND the broad economic stimulus program to the help the low and middle class people. Which would have disproportionally helped the minorities.
* read about his initiative to make retailers sell tomatoes for 50 cts more per pound - so the farm workers would get a better wage. That is not a concern of Vermont and was long before his presidential campaign. He just thought it was a good and just thing to do (he and at least one other representative).
Dems and the GOP are two cheeks of the same backside - the Dems eagerly adopted the LGBT agenda AFTER they had won their struggle to become mainstream - that was an opportunity to "differentitate their brand and define their niche" as opposed to the GOP brand. Standing up for them did not cost them politically (anymore) and the BIG DONORS id not mind. Big money does not really care about gay marriage or transgender people - they do not cost them money either way.
While a certain mayor in Burlington in the 1980s !! was working to make that city a good place to live in for the LGBT community long before that became a "chic" agenda or could earn you political points. (The more conservative voters of Vermont and Burlington "forgave" him his progressive stance, he appeared authentic and seemed to really care about ALL the little people. So he got away with this "weird" stance. As he gets away with being clearly pro choice in a rural often scocially conservative state (outside of the cities).
Now, legalizing weed - THAT affects profits - therefore weed it still a schedule 1 drug like Heroin (very dangerous, very addictive, no medical use, almost no research possible). Neither Bill Clinton nor Mr. Hope and Change (both knowing weed from experience !) did anything about it - they could have reclasssified cannabis - that for instance would have helped the minorities. If the drug is not classified as THAT dangerous (the NIXON admin started that nonsense so that they could target minorities and hippies) the harsh sentences would not be warranted.
As for being pro black - not being as racist as the GOP is not enough either. The Dems talked the talk and mostly ignored the worries of the minorities: prison, ECONOMY, minimum wage, high rents and housing prices, affordable !! healthcare really for everyone !! , FORECLOSURES.
Obama protected the vultures instead of having them prosecuted. In 2016, just before he left office, he bailed out a company making lots of money of forclosed homes- on the backs of regular folks. And when that did not work out they got the golden parachute. How about the government buying up the houses and use them for citizens instead of bailing out the miscalculating speculators ?
The minorities lost much more wealth than the white middle class in the crisis. And they are on average poorer - so WHEN did Obama go out of his way to help them ? Nice talk does not count !
He put even Social Security on the table as "bargaining chip". Bill Clinton did that too, he was stopped by the Lewinsky scandal. Obama met resistance - I am sure Sanders was among them. So Obama gave up on the plan. he should never have considered it in the first place.
Who do you think would be hit hardest if his treason would have led to the dismanteling of SS ?
Or: imagine Bill Clinton had achieved to hand over the SS money to his Wallstreet buddies. Because the private sector is just better with "working with the money and investing it" - 2008 anyone ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Middle East "Truth" ALTERNATIVE FACTS MUCH ? - Research definitely does NOT support your claim that the DNA of the Ashkenazi can be tracked back to the region that is today the State of Israel. And yes, there are connections to Eastern Europe (with some Greek, Italian influence- see my post). Many Jews in Germany and Austria looked exactely like the locals (maybe more on the dark side like Eastern Europeans, in the Austrian Hungarian monarchy there were many Eastern European and Polish immigrants as well, so they did not stand out).
Many of those who survived the Nazis, migrated to the U.S. or to Israel. And had as much to do with that region of Israel like any other German or Austrian citizen - NOTHING.
Now many of them understandably wanted to leave, and they usually were not that much into religion, many had converted to Christianity, were atheists, or just superficially religious. If their wellbeing and safety had been the concern, Europe and the U.S. could have found places for them where other people of Middle Europeans descent lived.
But of course the U.S. wanted a tarmac in the oil region, damned be the natives (who have much better chances of having the "right" kind of DNA - not that the religious ideas and scriptures of an obscure tribe some thousand years ago should matter in foreign policy.
I do not expect you to have any use for the SCIENCE. For everybody else: the web is your friend.
There was a project that wanted to debunk the findings of the first Ashkenazi DNA research - which got quite a lot of attention because the state of Israel uses such claim of heritage and the old testament for political reasons.
Well, in the end they came to the same conclusion as the first research project.
1
-
1
-
@daniellove162 Austria spends 5,400 USD for every person, Germany 5,700 - the U.S. 10,240 (data 2017), the wealthy nations have an average of 5,240 USD.
Austrians like good food, sweets, alcohol, too much cigarette consumption (among young people). Not especially into sports, not more than other nation. (but there is better environmental protection)
More important: both nations have on average an older population. THAT is a major cost factor with healthcare. It is an interesting question if the costs are that much MORE if people are overweight - and if all overweight is the same (the obesity of old people in Greece or Italy may not be as unhealty for instance).
The only thing that is very clear is that if a country has an older population it has higher costs. Amazing outlier Japan: they spend 4,700 per person. That must be lifestyle choices, they beat Germany; Europe in general and of course the U.S.
When the service costs double of what it should cost there is PLENTY OF MONEY to be found to cover people even if they are more obese than in other nations (Obesity creates the problems later in life)..
the other interesting question - WHY do the U.S. citizens have such an unhealthy SOCIETY. could it have to do with SOCIETAL influences ?
Worse regulation of food industry, profit over people (sugary snacks offered in school, partnerships with the food industry for school events. They GROOM the children. I saw a Canadian ! doctor highly critical of that (in Canada). It is the norm that the children will be surrounded even in school with sugary or unhealthy foods, snacks and drinks
as he said. "There are only so many nos you have as parent. and the children are conditioned that rewards and treats will be some unhealthy snacks. They cannot set thier foot on a lawn and bend some grass in some exercise w/o being offered unhealthy food, either as incentive or as reward.
He also explained that the industry now "promotes" exercise - as their fig leaf. When research indicates that it is the food that gets you overweight. exercise has its own benefits, but the obesity crisis has to do with food - and THE FOOD INDUSTRY.
If so many of the 328 million people in the U.S.are overweight - it is SYSTEMIC. They are not all stupid or lack self-discipline. They are up against evolutionary set up - in combination with a good industry that works even more to their disadvantage than in the other industrialized nations.
stressing people out (evolutionary remedy for that: eating something fat if possible with carbs or sugar - which made sense if your sprint just saved you from the sabber toothed feline. Or after hunting down the mammoth.)
If people are constantly stressed out and / or do no sleep enough or are constantly snacking on comfort food (because that is one of the cheap easily available soothers they have) their body cannot access the fat reserves.
There is also the question if (and in the specific American way - people get more pounds on as they grow older, but not so many young. And it LOOKS DIFFERENT.
Now in Europe, food is more (better) regulated, there is the assumption that cornsyrup in softdrinks plays a role (it is worse for the metabolism than even regular sugar). But it is cheaper and in the U.S. the industry wanted to use it.
Then there are 5 weeks holiday, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave. It is quite normal that women CAN stay at home with a baby or smaller children or she works part time later. It has career consequences, but then it is also the case that more home cooked meals are eaten.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I do not think Trump's father was a nice father. But likely someone who had high expectations of the performance of their children. At that time learning disabilites were not understood by the general public (not even by most professionals, psychologists, or teachers, let alone by frustrated and / or deeply worried parents.) and I assume it was communicated to Donald that he did not live up to expectations. I also assume no professional help was sought (that would reflect bad on the family the children were expected to be intelligent).
If Donald went to private schools that got a lot of donations from Trump sr. - the teachers picked up the cue that it would not do that have Donald fail.
Donald may well have been a talented, smart kid just not performing in school. it is hard work to compensate for dyslexia, it is almost impossible for a child to muster the energy and learning strategies to cope. It is also traumatic for a child to be the stupid child that disappoints and angers their parents.
when he was a teenager, he likely had his strategies in place to cope with it (just not in a good way, smart avoidance for the most part, and being the clown) and to avoid that hurtful area and more humiliation and frustration.
It was impossible for Trump to seek help later, when more laypersons understood that learning disabilites are not a sign of low intelligence, that would have been the admission of a weakness.
1
-
1
-
3/3 One would think if Cenk Uygur has grown up, and is now a family man and entrepreneur (and not a partying bachelor and boss of a start-up anymore), if he apologizes and resigns that would be enough to do justice to the need to stand up for women. Which is exactely the reason he did resign, as to not be a distraction.
One would think the movement would continue to concentrate on the HUGE task on hand (see end of part 2 of 3) - and not try to stir up UNNECESSARY and UNPRODUCTIVE DISTRACTION.
If you want to see how that is done - watch a Sanders interview, whatever scandal and controversy they try to engage him with - he usually 1) comes up with a MODERATE and cautious retort (like when Hillary misrepresented him in her last book) - and 2) then he returns straight to the issues (healthcare, childcare, infrastructure, ....). Whatever the question - the answer will always also contain a reference to the high costs, uninsured people, etc....
It is called the broken record technique. He will not engage in, and be distracted by petty fights. The networks of course invite him in pursuit of some "controversy" (which they hope will bring ratings). And without fail he uses the few minitues on air to promote the ISSUES.
It seems to me the current leadership of Justice Democrats could learn something from Sanders. Like putting the BIG AGENDA before personal drama and conflicts. Like knowing when it is wise to ACCEPT an APOLOGY and then MOVE ON.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correct: No toilet paper and no wheat based products like bread in the shops (only on the black market). These are import products. The importers get US Dollar allocated from oil exports. - The interesting thing: paper products (napkins, stationery) which are also imported, are available in the shops, no problem (see Abbey Martin's report who was actually there recently).
Imported toilet paper which is hard to do w/o is only available at the black market. - conclusion: the USD appropriated by the government for importing such goods or the goods themselves (if they are staples and hard to substitute with domestic products) land in black channels.
That is a scheme - by the business world (which votes mostly the opposition). So they rip of their fellow citzens and take their chance - might be only greed, might also have a political motivation.
The questions is: Do they have NO food. answer: they DO have food in the shops (although I honestly cannot say at what price compared to income, Abbey Martin did not elabtorate on that), whatever they can grow in the country. It is certainly more affordable than the black market products.
But they do have a problem with toilet paper, with corn meal (that is used for a popular dish), and with medical drugs.
And the U.S. sanctions are not helping. - At last the EU in this case refuses to fall in line with joining the U.S. ordered sanction. They are pissed about the Russian sanctions courtesy of Congress.
And yes there is a lot of chaos and unsafety in Venezuela. The opposition "activists" target chavistas (black people ! who look poor ! ) And with target I mean arson, shooting them, setting people on fire !! and burnging them alive, throwing molotov cocktails at them.
The "activists" block the streets - many streets..
They catch people trying to evade the road blocks (it they look like typical chavistas, poor and black).
Truck drivers have reversed so hastily they drove over bike riders (no members of the thugs) . (In one case the wounded person on the street then got a molotov cocktail thrown at it and was killed).
One wonders why they are so hectic in getting away from the opposition "activists".
And after the recent election someone targeted a warehouse with food meant for distribution among poor people. (Not robbing it, which one could understand somewhat - no it was arson). - It is allmost as if some players want the lower income population suffer as much as possible.
And then there is senseless violence (additonally to robbing people and killing them). Like wires stretched over streets that will behead people riding on bikes (the wealthy peoply I guess are driving CARS, so there is a good chance to harm/kill potential Chavistas. Might explain so called robberies of bike riders. It could be both: normal crime - or let's hit the likely supporters of our political opponent. On the other hand the thugs who do all that have not much of a political affiliation. They just get paid by people wanting the current government to step down and seeing no chance to do so by means of elections.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A nephew has gotten diabetes 1, he is a young teenager. Getting a cesarian. People died of an infected apendix (one relative had almost a rupture at age 19, it was an unpleasant week, it was sure death back in the day). An uncle had a very severe pneumonia at age 40, might have died back in the day, was bad enough with modern medicine, but he recovered.
One in 20 women died due to pregnancy or birth before modern medicine.
An older relative (over 80 now): Does not drink, smoke, eats well, is slim, has been eating lots of raw garlic for his health for decades, and is exceptionally fit and active, - did not help with his vessels, he needed a stent around 75, and had a stomach rupture 2 years ago. He is back again, and has the reserves to recover well, but he would have died 5 years ago.
Instead he is likely just waiting for back to normal, so he can be out and about.
1
-
1
-
Republican voters have other values: they care about obedience and loyalty. Loyalty would be the thing to alienate them from Trump, he has broken promises of his 2016 campaign: healthcare, reduced pharma prices - that convinced the step father of + Kevin Higgins.
Trump could have dragged the Dems in Congress and the Repubs in Senate to at least do something about pharma prices. And that does not need the big systemic overhaul.
The step likely paid attention to the campaign promise of Trump in 2016 to lower drug prices, so he noticed that broken promise.
Economic advantages count for Republicans. Also prudence and putting resources to good use (some do). So that would ALSO help with Green New Deal, energy efficiency. Some Christians can be convinced to care about the environment when they are reminded of the Biblical order to be stewards of the earth.
"Medicare for all is a human right, everyone should have it, it is the compassionate thing ...."
They don't care (beyond family, friends and maybe people like them). Tell them that it costs double in the U.S. of what it should cost. That the current system is anti competitive and obviosuly not a functioning free market (free market does function for many products and services but NOT for all. Healthcare for instance is a terrible fit - exhibit a) the United States)
Maternity leave - if someone is for a more traditional family model that should be a no brainer.
Many conservatives (if they are not very religious) can now (kind of) accept gay marriage on grounds of libertarian views. The government should not interfere with the life of people.
Harsh prison sentences for non-violent offenders ? It costs up to 80k to incarcerate a person per year. And cheap prison labor undermines tax paying businesses it is anti free market.
Under Nixon Marijuana was defined as being as dangeours as heroin (the ONLY other schedule 1 drug). Meth, cocain etc. they are not schedule 1. That means very dangerous, highly addictive, no medical value - the latter meant that for years no research was possible, scientists could not get their hands on plants legally and could not justify the need to do research.
It is remarkable that 2 Democratic presidents that KNOW from experience that weed is NOT that dangerous - Bill Clinton and Barack Obama - could not be bothered to change that classification to a more harmless one. Which would also undermine the penal code for weed possession, use, sales, growth.
Nor did their FDA appointees push for a reality based classification.
The president does not need Congress or Senate for that, that could be an EO, and of course an FDA head that is not against it for inexplicable reasons ....
anyway Republican voters will not care about the racists reasons for the Nixon admin to make weed a schedule 1 drug or how many minorities and lower income people got in trouble. These are the "others".
but they care about the health benefits (medical use, can help with parkinson, I saw a retired elderly police officer, he had no problem with it once he saw the efffect on his tremor).
They care about the costs for the government to prosecute and imprison people to weed related crimes.
1
-
1
-
2/3 If I was a powerful corporate DEMOCRAT doing the BIDDING of BIG DONORS, I too would want to pull off a controversy that has Kyle Kulinski and Cenk Uygur gone from Justice Democrats. And even better: have the MOVEMENT be BUSY and DISTRACTED with some INFIGHTING. This is 2018 - and there is the possibility that progressive candidates could unseat blue dogs. Then what ?
On the other hand the Republicans and Trump make such a pig's ear of the job, that even blue dog Democrats could beat them in 2018 and 2020. Not inspiring the masses - and not as the start of a landslide (continuing into 2020) that would be necessary to fuel REAL CHANGE. But certainly an improvement to the seats they hold NOW.
REAL CHANGE is NOT on the AGENDA for these DEFENDERS of the STATIS QUO, THEY LIVE WELL with the status quo (which serves their donors and they get their 30 pieces of silver too). They are quite CONTENT with a slim majority or even with the Republicans only losing a filibuster proof majority. They just have to maintain appearances for the unwashed masses whose vote they need (so in that respect they have a more difficult job than the Repbulicans).
They ALL play the GAME of god cop / bad cop - aka "lesser of two evils - you have to be content with what WE decide to give you".
The Dems scare their voters with Trump resp. with the GOP, attack on women's rights etc. The Repubs use Hillary Clinton, Feinstein, Pelosi, Schumer, and issues like immigration and abortion in the same way. And ALL of them - or nearly all of them - are in the pockets of Big Donors.
They have to, the party establishments (both parties !!) MONITOR CLOSELY and SPRING INTO ACTION if there are straying footsoldier among the elected politicians - they will be undermined and defunded.
The Tea party seemed to wreck some havock within the party - replacing moderate Republicans with rightwingers. Which is why the smart ruling class and Big Money financed them right from the beginning. They can be as racist and backwards and anti-science and fundamentalistic (in religious matters) as they want to be, as long as they are the sheeple that give them the votes to make tax cuts, "free" "trade" happen. As as long as the lucrative but insane speculation in Big Finance can continue (and no prospect of them being regulated for the good of the general public).
The billionaires do not care if rural America is falling back, THEIR children can have abortions no matter what and do get an excellent education, and they will never be drafted to the army. So the country can go down the drains - they will be doing well and they think that their wealth can keep them safe in case of insurgencies.
See Tulsi Gabbard - she must be very certain that she CAN WIN and hold her seat without big money and against the stabs of the party establishment (And Hawaii again is not that influental as a state).
Or Nina Turner in Ohio (who lost her seat btw).
And also Bernie Sanders. In that tiny and unimportant state Vermont (that has no major industries and is not important in the grande scheme of things) a figur like Sanders could politically survive - in the end the Democratic Party gave up on challenging his races (for Congress and later for Senate). They did not invest the money and manpower when they could have contained him. They just didn't bother (and sure he would have given them a run for their money even in the 1990s)
It is easier to gain name recognition in a small state without Big Donors, and the power brokers just never bothered to invest a lot to fight him.
There could be no "Sanders" or "Gabbard" in Texas or California. The representative would have either have made some shady compromises or would have been weeded out and replaced with a candidate that CONFORMS to the demands of the ruling class (which has undue influence in both parties and the political system)..
A SLIM Republican majority keeps the Democratic voters that would like to have BETTER REPRESENTATION FROM the DEMOCRATS at their toes. The Republicans will reliably come up with a BOOGEYMAN (or a boogeyman agenda) with which the Democrats that serve Big Money can then SCARE OFF the voters, make them FALL IN LINE, prevent PROGRESSIVES from gaining TRACTION:
The role of the Democrats is NOT necessarily to WIN ELECTIONS. Their role is to keep the PROGRESSIVE FORCES of the country in check. The infightig in Justice Democrats SERVES that PURPOSE:
Here is my theory. Someone dug up some old dirt on Cenk. There are power brokers that would like to sheepguard the Justice Democrats into the "old gates". I think Cenk has made compromises anyway - taking 20 millions for the network etc. - but he is still way too progressive for the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. So it was essential to get rid of people like Cenk and Kyle - and then have some ongoing controversy.
- W/o digging into the details of his transgression many years ago - it likely was reasonable for him to resign in order to avoid giving ammunition to the opposition.
One would think Justice Democrats have bigger fish to fry: Remember what is going on with tax cuts for the rich, which will lead to deficits and more debt in a few years. (in addition to the insane increase of the military budget, which passed Congress and Senate almost w/o any Nos).
Those deficits and the increase in debt will serve as pretext to privatize social security and to make even more cuts to the wellfare state in a few years (the ruling class can bide their time !). And to hand over infrastructure projects to the private for profit players. Which is splendid - infrastructure is usually a natural monopoly, so it is a SAFE and LUCRATIVE investestment.
If such privatizations fail - like railroad in several nations, or motorway or the mint privatization in Germany - the taxpayers cover the losses and the infrastructure - providing a indispensible service for the general public - is bought back. That the project is a failure DOES NOT MEAN that it wasn't lucrative for some people in the short run (the mint in Germany many years ago is a splendid example for that, also the takeover of the good industries in Eastern Germany in the 90s by big players. They got the family silver for cheap - and if only to destroy their future competition).
Under Bill Clinton there was a task force busy to give Wallstreet access to the funds of (allegedly failing) Social Security (the Monica Lewinsky scandal prevented them from following through). But the ruling class has money and can comfortably bide their time. In a few years they will try the next major attack (be it under the Dems or the Republicans - the "haves" have them both in their pockets).
Then there is healthcare, racism and white supremacy, DACA, immigration, potential war with North Korea and Iran, and denial of climate change, plus an increase of the regular ! military budget BY 80 billions to about 650 billions - 80 billions is more than Russia has in total as yearly budget. The regular US military budget does not include WARS. (As a rule of thumb: a few trillions extra per war).
1
-
1
-
Megyn Kelly has some base intelligence - BUT she does not use it (or the bias and the desire to win points during an interview overpowers her intellectual capabilities. Working with Fox - or in the US media in general does bad things to the skills of an interviewer). The interview with Putin (in the 2nd year, she repeated the gig ) she made a fool of herself.
Outright embarassing when she was on the stage (with PM Modi of India, and Pres. Putin, and I think Chancellor Kern of Austria). - I mean she could have asked intelligent and informed questions. Instead she went on with the Russian interference in U.S. elections (and that issues had gotten PLENTY of time before). Then she told Putin that Germany, France, UK also had confirmed interventions - so why did he deny it - yeah right.
The status quo proponents tried to launch that claim in Europe in summer 2016 too (it worked well in the US) It did not catch on, the Europeans citizens did not bite (they know their elections are safe from a procedural standpoint ). And if the status-quo defenders have a hard time convincing the voters, they better correct their own game, not blame it at a foreign nation that might have some trolls online (like the West does too).
It sounded like they were preparing their excuses who was to blame just in case the results would turn out to be catastrophically bad for them (but it was not pursued, it was just too ridiculous).
No doubt if Le Pen had won in France, the mantra "Russia, Russia" would have been repeated more intensely.
Back to Megyn Kelly on the stage, Putin got kind of annoyed with her and started to give her mocking answers. At some point she then turned to PM Modi and said: What do you think about the matter.
That was the low point
Modi - very subtly set her straight ("Such great names Germany, France, UK .. what can I say after such names were mentioned ?". ) - and Putin doubled down (That's the problem with these old cultures, you never get a direct answer).
As in: you do not have any culture. The Russian audience laughed - they got the joke in Modi's answer and Putin's remark right away.
Did she expect PM Modi - the head of a state and a large one - to criticize another head of state on stage ??
Jeez !
1
-
The German system IS NOT cheaper than that of Canada - quite the opposite, see OECD data for 2017 and World bank data 2014 (2017 is PPP adjusted it means adapted to reflect purchasing power). Both datasets give a consistent picture. Germany is at the HIGHER end of the average for a wealthy nation. Canada appeared to be in the middle (2014) resp. at the lower end in 2017 (that is the effect of the purchasing power adjustment).
in numbers 2014 Germany 5,600 USD and Canada in the range of 5,000 - 5,5000 (can't remember - like many European countries).
OECD numbers 2017 (PPP = purchasing power parity adjusted): Germany 5,700 versus Canada 4,900. Of course you need to consider that the Germans are older on average !
Another example: Switzerland had even higher spending (nominal amount) than the U.S. in the 2014 World Bank data, U.S. then 9,600 versus over 10,000 of Switzerland.
In the 2017 OECD data the Swiss look better. I think the PPP approach is more accurate. Switzerland does have higher costs of living, that means also higher wages, which is also a major factor for healthcare costs.
But the 8,000 USD IN Switzerland are not quite the same as if you would have that kind of spending in Germany or Austria. Citizens have higher wages and the GDP per capita is higher.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Amercian society REWARDS being adverserial, much more than other rich countries. Riling up people pays off, it is part of a business / political model: Riled up people are loyal, they come back for their dose of rage, they donate, turn out to vote, bring ad revenue. Churches. Media. Rightwing radio. Fox would not get a broadcasting licence in other nations if they would act like they do in the U.S.
Big donor money can buy a lot of attack ads. That gets a certain type of politicians elected - and helps over time to weed out more moderate politicians. It getsthe voters (primed by churches and Fox) used to knee jerk reactions based on quasi religious convictions
Especially voters that are pretrained by rabid pastors. I recommend to go to the The Victory Channel to see such prophets and pastors doing open political ridiculous rightwing propganda (their Jan 8th video is over 1 hours, I did not hear any religious message or the gospel, it was political pro Trump propaganda, posing as releigion).
Or on the satire channel Holy Koolaid you can see the compilations. Which saves time and gives the rest of the (scared, shcocked, bewildered) world and insight into these people.
Holy shit (literally !)
The people storming the Capitol often invoked god, some prayed after they had forced their way in (for instance in one of the Chambers. No wonder these people believed to be in the right. Politics and elections are not a matter of facts anymore they have been also primed by their church to take for granted that god would give Donald Trump a second term.
Only 2 parties, that also encourages them to be adverserial (at least 1 party) and it is even easier for the special interests to capture only 2 parties.
Other nations have 1 - 2 major denominations (as opposed to many smaller faith groups). At most another one that is not that widespread. (and a few minor groups). So most people are affiliated with churches that are centrally organized and FINANCED. In the U.S. local groups have to compete for donations with each other. That is an incentive to go crazy (they do) and to increase the dose over year. Now they outcrazy each other, and that can be very lucrative for some. While others (especially if they do not wan to bother with the more difficult task to model a life after the gospel and the need for talent to be an inspirational precher) hang on for dear life. Even a talentless pastor can have modest success by riling up his small crowd it can help him (or her) to make a living. If they do not go along others will outcrazy them and give their faithful more red meat, and they will lose out.
Other rich nations are not nearly as fundamentalistic about religion. It is unheard of that priests and pastors comment on politics. If they do it is higher ups and they carefully craft their messages. It is either condolences (after natural disasters or 9/11), appeals to end wars, polite and cautiosly formulated reminders that it behooves Christians to be kind towards refugees (if rightwing politicans use a crisis to make political hay).
But nothing like the open propagand that is used in the U.s. to keep the congregation ENGAGED.
The problem for the grifters / fierce ideoloues that rile up people ?
They have to increase the dose over time. It gets more and more ridiculous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
That was PREEMPTIVE INTIMIDATION of potential dissenters (especially her former collegues). The crooks have no financial disadvantages, the brownshirts and the costs of a lawsuit of the family will be paid by the tax payers. Not only do they not have any financial or personal riks - the crooks will be rewarded one way or the other.
Money for reelection campaigns (maybe also for the judge if that is an elected position), promotions.
Perks under the table. A family member gets a very good job offer, lucrative and safe real estate deals are offered, that is a hidden way to funnel money to someone, the spouse can do the house flipping to make it inconspicious and to evade the law.
They have just to flip a few houses and not be too outrageous about realistic market value versus what they have to pay or get paid.
Some "renovations" can muddy the water even more.
De Santis can write a book and he can use all the profit - if think tanks buy it up by the truckload as gift for members etc. - as personal income. Unlike donations, where he has to be more careful. Some grift is possible, like employing family members, but if you get the money directly and no legal strings attached it is much better.
Buying the umtieth book and offering real estate deals is a way to funnel money for personal use to corrupt politicias. In case you have ever wondered WHO reads all those books written by politicians.
Barrack Obama wrote a book long before he was on the national stage (yep, he sold out big time). I get that the Clintons, Obama, even Dick Cheney - or the likes of Henry Kissinger can sell their books. But Amy Klobuchar ? the unknown mayor of a smaller Midwestern town, that failed at state wide races (mayor pete). he wrote a book for his upcoming presidential race, and there is a reason corporte media hyped him up like crazy. he has never won any race but that for mayor (and not mayor of a big city either). He lost a few, he is young - so WHY would anyone want to read his book.
Nope: party and big donors like types like him so they prop up Obama Lite. And if he gets money for personal use (which is very useful to him as he stopped being a mayor to concentrate on his race, and in many states they cannot pay a salary to themselves from the campaign donation), they make sure IF he is an upcoming star that they they already have him in their pocket.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just checked out more details: 90 % in Germany have the mandatory insurance by a non-profit (the "legal" insurance if you translate it literally) - since 1996 people can chose WHICH non-profit insurance agency. * 10 % are fully privately insured. That is a historic relict and a favor for special interests with a hint of 2 class system - it does not add to the cost-efficiency (* see below). There are criteria - only certain people are allowed to CHOSE IF they want the non-profit or the private insurance.
Until 1996 the 90 % regular folks were assigned to a public non-profit (regional, an agency for their profession, or a non-profit set up by the employer - if it is a large company). Since then the insured can chose which non-profit they want (I see no advantage in that, given how regulated they are, they could have ONE per state and be done with it.
"multipayer" is no advantage. It can be explained from the origin from 1883 and grandfathering in then all existing solutions (communities, charities, large companies)
It is the goal of the German government to reduce the number of agencies, they had 7000 in 1931, 1993: 1400, in 2019 down to 109 of which 84 are set up by large companies - think car manufacturers and other giants. Those can be open to the public or not (I guess some accept more for cost efficiency).
That leaves 25 non-profit insurance agencies that are not set up for the staff of a company. Of course the doctors and hospitals need to deal with all those non-profits ! think software, more complex billing.
The goal of the government is to bring the numbers down to 40 or 50. Mergers etc.
Austria has 16 with a population of 8,7 million (also a little byzanthine, but it is still a single payer system, they cooperate, help each other out with the budgets, transfer from the well funded agencies from rich states, etc. Important and typical: the citizens are assigned to a certain agency, either the state were they work or the profession, I think there a maybe a few companies that are large enough to have their own)
All people with a job or a biz MUST have insurance. For employees there is a mandatory wage deduction matched by the employer. the wage related deductions are relatively high. in 2019 ist is 7,75 % of the wage pre tax (so 14,6 % since the employer has to match it). There is a cap for deductions.
In Austria for instance it is approx. 3,8 % times 2, and 2 - 3 % seem also be the numbers for Australia or the U.K.
In Austria the cap is for a monthly wage of USD 5,000 per month (so one of the approx. 16 single payer agencies will get max. 2,400 USD times 2 for an employee per year. The low percentage is favorable for low-income people. they may not even pay taxes, only the Social security deductions (this is 3,8 % for healthcare and other deductions for disability, for retirement, etc. - in total it is 20 % - but the 3,8 % are earmarked for healthcare).
There is an increasing number of working poor in Germany (Germany is crumbling behind the glossy facade, but of course if you are low income you still want to live there and not in the U.S.) - and for them the high % is a real disadvantage.
(on the other hand VAT is 1 % lower than in Austria, so that helps).
CHOICE: people that earn more than 67,000 USD per year (which accounts for more than in the U.S.), white collar professions with a safe job and the prospect of rising / good wages like teachers or civil servants. Entrepreneurs, students.
The agencies have to get their money in that case from individuals, the criteria make sure they are likely to have enough money and that they have their ducks in a row. They cannot switch back to non-profit coverage, once they got full private insurance. And that insurance is RISK related. (I checked that, yes - Children cost extra for higher incomes - in the public version they are always included in coverage. Up to 3 months after birth the children can be included without checking their health status in the private insurance. Those rules seem to be very complicated - oh well)
the healthy WILL switch, the people with higher risks end up in the non-profit sector, wich misses out on their contributions. There is is a chance for specialists to only accept the privately insured (urban, many civil servants, higher income people, think large cities) - they can make do w/o the other patients.
But even so the people that get older under private insurance find it to be expensive - despite the protections they have (which are much better than in the U.S.). they cannot switch back. For high inocme people it may work well (tax deductible)
There were discussions to have everyone in the non-profit system with no risk assessment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They are parading around their relationship and deaths in the family a little bit too muchfor my taste. They know it "sells" or gets him sympathies - and FOX and the rightwing strategists ALSO know that. Biden appearing to be folksy and the devoted family man is part of his brand and APPEAL.
(And I think he really loves / likes his long time wife and was devastated by the loss of his son Beau, and the loss of his wife and one year old daughter in a car accident in 1972.
Biden had just won his first Senate race, he was sworn in in the hospital being present with his severely injured two sons.
I dislike the fact that he insinuated (or let the audience believe) that the other driver was to blame for her accident though police determined she likely had not noticed the tractor trailer. Folksy Joe exaggerating things is also part of his brand.
When Sanders had his stroke, that was alltogether a really bad week. His son's wife (his only biological son) had gotten a very short term cancer diagnosis and had died within weeks. She passed away in the very week, Sanders had the stroke, she and Levy had 3 children.
But hardly anyone is aware of it, Sanders and his wife kept that private. I am sure they were shocked, but they did not try to use it for PR, nor was it their way of dealing with grief to go public).
They invoke tragedies (accident of first wife) and death of Beau.
Might be their way to deal with mourning, and it does not hurt that it gets them sympathy.
That said: I think they really like each other and care about family.
Even if Jill is his nurse now (I do not think it is that bad, at least not now) - she married him when he was much younger, more active, attractive and powerful.
Wouldn't a loving loyal wife stay with her husband even as he gets older (if that is the case with Biden. Honestly he does not seem to be in good shape, Sanders would run the show differently. And Biden surrounded himself with neoliberals so they run the show.
He was deeply hit by the death of his first wife and by the death of his son. I can also believe that Jill loved her step son and was worried about the other son and his (drug) escapades.
Jill was married when they got together (he married her 5 years after her death).
1