Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "David Pakman Show"
channel.
-
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