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