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

  1. It is not a smear - it is FACTS - the establishment offered him support, money - and he immediately gave in. He had a few progressive positions - which he abandoned since his campaing. And looking at his former ! VOTING RECORD - he has no progressive convictions. he talked a good game - or got carried away by his own enthusiasm.  - The problem: A president would need to have strong convictions - there would be immense hostility against anything being good "only" for the regular people (and reducing profits of the donors / big biz). Some lame "I would like to have good things for the constituents if it is easy and the establishment does not object to it" is not going to cut it.
    2
  2. David has gone the completley partisan route - very biased. Nothing wrong with being critical about Russia, or Trump admin BUT: Tillerson can accept a medal of friendship, that's a polite gesture. -
    2
  3. Is it posible he JUST mada a silly mistake ? Folks get a grip !
    2
  4. Democracy and having more than right and far right wing choices is clearly overrated . I get a strong vibe that the think tanks and their trolls are working this video - well - it is views and comments and helps with the youtube algorithm.
    2
  5. What is more creepy - the "establishment" all of a sudden "likes" Beto and props him up. Not. A. Good. Sign. - If you watch his campaign - mainstream media did not cover him much. Now, all of a sudden ! they like him. Hint: the more progressive positions he has given up, he had a talk with Obama - in short, they got the impression that HE will not be a danger for the status quo. His voting record is by no means convincing (with a close look it does not look good at all. One could take Corey Booker or Kamala Harris and would get the same - the neoliberal consensus. Which includes that nothing substantial can be done about Climate Change. They serve Big Biz and Big Biz does not like it. First stage: fight against progressive ideas. Second stage: act AS IF - and sell out immediately when in office. That is what Obama did.
    2
  6. They also want to send a mesage to OTHERS, to potential dissenters and whistleblowers. The message is especially aimed at current government employees (if some shit is going on, usually a few persons that do not profit and are not in on the plot also know it. Often because they work in the agency that is supposed to monitor and end it. THEY must be afraid to speak up, if not for they personal safety than for the sake of their family. it is not only what THEY are willing to risk, this is also about what could happen to their families. Such raids have ended with unarmed, non-violent non-criminal civilians being killed because the "police feared for their life" or they "missunderstood" the situtation. Or the police has killed a pet. Chances are if police officers kill a person or even "only" a beloved pet that pose not threat - they will get away with it. Her former work collegues will get the memo. Sure they could win a civil lawsuit (after their family was subjected to a lot of stress and addiationally after THEY lose the government job). And it is also about future environmental issues (big ag in Florida, runoff from big sugar that poisons the water in the streams and the ocean). A lot of people IN the admin know what is going on.
    2
  7.  @busylivingnotdying  The U.S. system of CHATTEL SLAVERY was worse, it lasted much longer and the children born were also slaves. The U.S. also had labor camps, the Chinese building the railroad. Or the Irish ("An Irish lies under each rail")
    2
  8.  @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
  9. Peterson is a good narrator and that can cover a lot of logical sins. He JUMPS to conclusion, asserts thing. But he is eloquent enough (maybe not in this clip, but on other occasions) that you have to rewind - where did he get there, where was the chain of solid argumentation broken. And he has a lot of such arguments.
    2
  10. I do not think it is projection: Biden polls well. And Folksy Joe The Devoted Family Man is part of his brand, and a strong and positive asset. (as for family man I even believe that, cynical as I am). They could have painted Biden as raving Communist or planning the internment camps after getting their guns. Biden closing down all fossil fuel extraction right away would be a narrative to expect from them with the cold in Texas, or criticizing him for the situation in TX - but instead they chose to go after his image as family man and loving husband (not to forget that Jill might also poll well). I do not think that is only FOX desperate for ratings, or in projection mode. I think some right wing strategists are planning for 2022, and 2024 already. Of course Fox will gladly oblige them if they make creative suggestions.
    2
  11.  @jerseygirlinvermont  Kavanaugh DID lie in the hearings in the 2nd term of Bush (mails of the Democratic party had been hacked some years before - it was about confirmation of very controversial Republican judges and the Dems had opposed them for some time. K. in the confirmation hearing was asked if the hacked emails had been sent to him. He said NO - under oath. In summer 2018 only a part of the docs related to his activities for the Bush admin were released. But among them one mail that proves that he DID get the hacked mails. So the Dems had it in writing - he had lied in the hearings for his former position as justice for the D.C. courts of appeals. The hacked mails (that were very useful for the admin trying to push through the rightwing judges) were distributed with a high level of confidentiality. Kavanaugh was one of the FEW Republians who got a copy (it would have been highly embarrssing and counterproductive if that had become known, they could only give them to very loyal people who would not leak). It would be very hard for Kavanaugh to claim stupididty and / or ignorance and that he did not know he had received highly problematic, unethical mail to rig the confirmation hearings of the controversial judges in their favor (they KNEW what the Dems had against them, what questions they planned to ask, so they could prep the candidates). It means that the purpose of a hearing - the candidate giving a truthful answer about his or her positions and doings - was undermined. That is worse than Donna Brazile giving questions to Hillary Clinton. That was ONLY a TV debate in the primaries. Rigging the confirmation hearings means rigging the selection of a high position (only 9 and a LIFETIME appointment). Rigging a process about which the founders of the Republic were very concerned (they were concerned about the lifetime appointment of only 9 people - what if these not even elected people were corrupt ? One of the safeguards are the hearings). The Dems CHOSE to not follow that strategy. One Senator started it, but they did not get much time, so other Dems would have needed to follow up in a coordinated manner. Well there was no coordination ! In hindsight: I think they knew the Ford hearing was to no avail. But the reason for the spectacle was to turn out the Democratic base especially women - not to effectively stall or prevent the nomination of Kavanaugh.
    2
  12. + Jennifer - the silence of the Democratic party on elections stealing, easily hackable !! voting machines, NO PAPER TRAIL has been deafening ! Did you hear them scream on Crosscheck in 2016 ?? Me neither, even Sanders did not dare to touch the subject. (One needs to watch RT !! or independent media on the internet to hear about it). I am astonished that they reported on Georgia. But only Georgia got good coverage. Obviously Stacy Abrams is not seen as threat to the oligarchs. But they (Democratic party AND mainstream media) glossed over the other incidents (North Dakota, Ohio - the safety features of the machines have NEVER been activated). Even mentioning it in passing is more than could be had in the past (North Dakota was at least covered by Rachel Maddow and Heidi Heitcamp got an interview or two). Voter suppression, massive voter roll purges, and elections stealing is an issue the Dems with not touch. The Big Donors who finance both parties do not want the unwashed masses to get alerted to the fact that they do not have a democracy. The suppression tactics are ALSO used by Dems to win against progressives in primaries. (Republicans use them more and more brazenly and they steal general elections not primaries). That after all is what the big Donors pay them for - keeping the Progressives away from influence. Sellout Democratic politicians winning the GE is a bonus, but not necessary (from the point of view of the donors). Good shills will be rewarded with cushy posts if they lose an election or want to end their politcal career. Some opportunists intentionally run for Congress - it is a stepping stone to have a more lucrative career as lobbyist or consultant.
    2
  13. Cruz the coward asked for police protection when he came back from "delivering the kids to Cancun".
    2
  14.  MidScream1  If the Dems could be bothered to work For The People it would not swing back - look at the elections of FDR ! They could kick money out of politics. So that would mean if Republicans would want to win they would need to have some real populists (centrist !) candidates. They would need to win on the merit of the issues and the grass roots campaign. Now with such representatives you can strike a deal - like limiting the terms of justices.
    2
  15. For instance almost always some representatives are NOT in D.C. (sick, family business, want/need to campaign, urgent business in the home state and the constituents expect them to be there). So if the Dems ALL stick together ! and do not vote with the Republicans and accept that they too are tied to D.C. and must drag themselves to the House even if sick - the Republicans MUST hold their majority by having their people in D.C. in full numbers at ALL times. If the Dems would fight for a worthy cause - dreamers or gun control or healthcare, THEY could communicate to the voters WHY they are being "obstructionist" - and send a reliable staffer or proxy to take care of urgent business at home. Or do townhall meetings as a video conference. If the voters know their representative works his butt off in D.C. they will not mind not seeing him or her in person. The voters appreciate the representatives that go the extra mile and do put up a fight. A politician cannot always be right, and there will be points disagreements. Voters know that - they apreciate the HONEST EFFORT and the good intentions even if they do not (completely) agree on political philosophy. No one likes a turncoat or weakling or someone who is self-serving while taking the salary of an elected representative. having to maintain full numbers in D.C. because the Dems would take advantage of absences to get their votes through makes life more difficult for Republicans - and Democrats of course. They may not be able to prevent certain bills - but they for sure can delay and create trouble. And the representatives must be present to vote at all times (sick or well). If the Dems would repay the Republicans for their obstructionism under Obama - they might think twice of doing that again. But of course the Republicans were rewarded for it - mostly they got what they wanted. The Dems would not even dream of doing the same. And NOW they talk about being bi-partisan and being cooperative with Republicans - they started talking that way the minute the votes were counted. The Republicans - if they had won the midterms decisively for the Congress seats - would talk about NOW kicking out ACA, building the useless super expensive wall, maybe some more tax cuts and cuts to welfare and Medicare / Medicaid. That's the difference. The big donors always win. with fierce Republicans OR spineless Democrats. The role of the Democrats is to keep progressives down. THEY would be the real danger for the plutocrats.
    2
  16. 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
  17. No foreign trolls needed (Correct the Record anyone ?) to divide the party. Schumer and Hillary Clinton did a good job on that. Debbie got a job the next day after she HAD to step down down. Nina Turner was not even allowed to speak on the convention. HRC on the trail: This country will never, ever have Single Payer healthcare. She got quite energetic about THAT. Schumer: for every blue collar we lose the get two moderated Republicans from the suburbs of Phylly - and we can duplicate that in the other Rustbelt states.
    2
  18. 1) protect your devices better - hire some specialists and train your staff 2) hackers WILL attack you - hostile and allied nations, nerds, organized crime, terrorists, disgruntled employees, your political opponents - GET USED TO IT 3) had Clintons or the DNC's email showed the usual campaign bickering and a little bit of policital plotting no one would have cared. (that is the political dimension, of course the DNC, and a political campaign for election should not be hackable). Come to think of it - nor should the nation use voting machines that YEARS AGO WERE DECLARED EASILY HACKABLE:  I recently saw a CNN video made with the help of a security firm and it was mentioned they they hired that company AFTER the campaign and/or the DNC thought they had been hacked - how come these parties that swim in money, do not spend money on IT security BEFORE they get hacked. - So these people want to run the country, do they ?
    1
  19. +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
  20. 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
  21. RT Redacted reports on voting manipulation in the Democratic primaries. A 100 page report of statisticians and lawyers came out. The results of the primaries are implausible - but only in areas with voting machines that can be easily hacked. (there are machines that are not that easlily hacked and then there is paper ballot and hand count). The statistical analysis shows an almost impossible situation. Have you ever heard of fractional vote - you assign 0,9 points for every full vote for Sanders and 1,1 points for every vote for HRC (when it should be 1 for every 1 vote). There are machines out there which are not safe from that sort of manipulation. With high voter turnout you see an increasing deviation from the expected trend. Normally it should be the other way round. The more votes - the bigger the sample - the less deviation. This weird (to put it mildly) deviation is only found in areas where manipulation is relatively easy . And the Republicans did not suffer from voting improbability (at least no major inconsistencies). Add to that the not counted million votes in California. They saw that highly implausible deviations in many states. They recalculated the deviation and assume that - from a statistical point of view - Sanders tied Clinton. Question 1: Did you hear anything about that analysis it in the mainstream media? Question 2: Do you think that will happen again ? That any non-establishment candidate not rubberstamped by the DNC and donors would be ALLOWED to win the presidency. There was a Congressional hearing some years ago , a man giving a statement, that he he attended a meeting where it was openly discussed to manipulate the voting machines (public officeals and the private company - it was about altering the software to deliver a certain result). Search the web. I also heard an invterview with a mathematician (Sane Progressive channel ) That man claims that in the 2008 primaries Obama "lost" votes - that the exit polls and the reported results showed fishy deviations. However he had enough support to compensate for the stolen votes AND he found the approval of Wallstreet They did not spend their money for nothing - the banksters were not prosectuted, Frank Dodd only pretends to be efficient regulation. He did the progressive rhetoric well enough but the big donors were obviously aware of the fact that he would not really inconvenicance the establishment. So Obama could win or was allowed to win.
    1
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Precise language matters: Russia "interfered" with the elections * became Russia "rigged" the elections. And now David with "attacked the US voting" system. - by maybe ! making it possible for the voters to hear the truth about Hillary Clinton and her campaign ??
    1
  25. + 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
  26. 2/2 Russia attacked the US voting system ??? And the experts William Binney, McAffee with advanced technical knowledge do not believe the claim of the agencies. They both say that thanks to NSA complete surveillance there MUST be proof if data was extracted electronically (= hacking) AND it would be completely safe to show that proof - no revealing of methods and sources - which is the pretext of the agencies not to show the "proof". The NSA - which are the hacking specialists under the agencies - were the only agency that had "medium confidence" in their report of January (the other agencies claimed they had "high confidence"). So both found it fishy that the agencies made that claim reg. sources and methods (which the lay person will accept at face value). That of course was before Vault 7 leak - so imagine for example the Chinese intentionally leaving "German fingerprints" when they do a hack in France. So the French would accuse the Germans .... you get the idea - it's a maze of mirrors. One thing is for sure, the DNC, the RNC and other important institutions WILL BE ATTACKED by foe and friend (Israel has a reputation) and by non-state players (the mob, ambitious nerds, maybe multinationals). They must protect themselves professionally. Oh, and since the DNC does not have exactley classified information - the publishing could have been of little interest for the public (not so for the IT guys of the DNC of course) or even flattering. It would be a good idea not to cheat and rig the primaries, then a hack would not be potentially damaging and insiders would have had no incentive to blow the whistle.
    1
  27. No need for Russia to rig the US elections - the Dems and the GOP can do that just fine. And Hillary Clinton is perfectly able to mess up her campaign as well. (see Shattered - interesting interviews in the last day to promote that book about her campaign). Search for: !) Clint Curtis manipulation of voting machines. 2) Judge: Ohio must not activate safety feature on machines. 3) Operation Crosscheck purge 7 million entries of ethnic names, Greg Palast. 4) Uncounted (documentary). 5) Greg Palast: "Republicans steal general elections, Democrats steal primaries" - yes he said that on RT - I am sure he would gladly say in on CNN etc. - if they would invite him. 6) Sane Progessive: alleged rigging of primaries against Sanders (she has an interview with a statistics expert). 7) Year 2000 how al Gore let the Black Congressional Caucus down - there are vids and Michael Moore had in in his film in 9/11", 8) 2000 headlines in Europe (Guardian for example, also German press) about the purging of voter rolls in Florida, a state that Al Gore likely would need to win - SO WHY didn't the Dems make a stink about it months - BIG TIME. That was months before the election. And why ignored they Crosscheck in 2016 - maybe that cost them Ohio.
    1
  28. 1/2 ATTACK THE MESSENGER IGNORE THE MESSAGE - Putin has attacked the US voting system ?? - in which alternative reality ? The claim is that Russia ordered or did the hacking of the DNC that the material was uploaded to Wikileaks which published emails that were embarassing to Clinton and the DNC. Now the Dems claim that it made a difference to the outcome of the elections - that means a difference in the Rust Belt and Florida - in the end it did not matter if it influenced folks in Texas and California (TX no chance, CA sure win). Did the folks in Florido and the Rust Belt (demographics) really follow the unfolding of the story that closely - I know people who saw everthing they suspected confirmed, were disgusted about the rigging against Sanders, and still voted for HRC (holding their nose Big Time, so the DNC scheme with "Trump the boogeyman" also see leaks - worked - on those who were that closely informed). Those who did not follow as closely (time, people work long hours) - they sensed that HRC was very cosy with the donors, did not trust her U-turn regarding TPP, knew that she was hawkish. And then there is Craig Murray who says it was not a hack, he got the data in a Park in Washington D.C. from a disgusted DNC insider in phisical form. Which would make it a leak by a whistleblower (and that would not leave any electronic traces).
    1
  29. Is there a chance the media just made this up ? (If true I am oscillating between gratified, amused and terrified). So President Mike Pence ! As for TPP and not alienating Russia even more and leaving Syria alone - these are reasonable positions.
    1
  30. + 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
  31. I am perplexed how easy it is to stir up American citizens against Russia or Putin. So did Putin personally code and spend his nights on the computer ?? Fun Quiz: who hacked Merkels mobile phone, the EU, the President of Brazile and an Brazile oil company ? Who spies on every citizen in the industrialized world 24/7 ? Exactely the US - and Germany/Merkel and the EU are CLOSE ALLIES. Yes nations hack each other all the time. You go after the messenger and not the message. And that is IF the hack was done from Russia our by a Russian AND IF that was on the orders of the government. It seems Guccipher in Romania had hacked into HRC's private illegal servers just out of "nerdy pride". It looks like it wasn't too difficult. Then he tried to hack RT in Moscow - they noted the attack (wasn't successful) and then their secret service hacked back. From what I read they then found HRC's email on Gucciphers harddrive. A part of it was published in Russia (Government officials had allowed it) - this was well before the primaries and of course completey ignored or missed by the Western media.
    1
  32.  @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
  33. Modern medicine could be better with avoiding infection of patients in hospitals (often vulnerable and old so w/o medicine they would have died already) and also with avoiding medical error. - or pushing prevention. Peterson could make that case, he would not be the first, but that is not "controversial" and edgy enough.
    1
  34. + charlie - and bring someone along - do you know YOUNG people who have never voted. Or appealing to the grandparents (you would like to have good healthcare and so would I).
    1
  35. 1/ 3 DIVIDE and CONQUER. - and some sort of GOOD COP / BAD COP game is pulled off by the Democrats and Repbulicans. (they are both financed by the same people on top of society - like George Galloway says: "Two cheeks of the same backside". PROGRESSIVES are the real threat to the status quo and the ruling class (and the politicians they pay). The corporate Democratas are the more dangerous enemy to the wellbeing of the general public (because they are covert traitors to the public welfare, the Republicans and the Tea part are at least upfront about their agenda. Maybe there are some zealots and "adventurers" in the Justice Democrats movement who are more busy with "purity" with having "moral highground" and also with gaining a good place in the pecking order. So they are the useful fools for the powers that be, to dillute the energy of the PROGRESSIVE movement - and to contain them.
    1
  36. 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
  37. The judges - also those appointed by Democratic presidents - represent the interests of big biz and the oligarchs. Luck at their decisions - 60 to 70 % are in favor of big biz and the overbearing surveillance state. They do not work for regular citizens. They are another pillar of power for the 1 %. The institution has been corrupted most of the time. In the 1920s they struck down child labor protection laws. The suppression of unions (again) happened in the 1920s. Detainment of U.S. American citzens of Japanes descent in WW2. But not of German or Italian descent. There had been Nazi rallies in New York in the 1930s - watch the videos ! Detaining Japanese-americans was confirmed by the Supreme Court. During WW1 Eugene Debbs was in jail for being against WW1. Now the undermining of the constitution by mass surveillance. The right to due process was abolished. Secret courts, neither the defendant nor the lawyer can see the evidence. They also do not need to get a trial. Prohibition - the state allowed to ban a substance and infringed upon the rights of the citizens. (many people could deal well with alcohol). Same now with other substances that are mostly addictive or mind altering (marijuana or LSD are not addictive btw, alcohol is to some degree, nicotine definitely is addictive). The McCarthy activities were allowed by the Supreme Court. It was allowed to forbid the Communist party. How is that - if they did not resort to unlawful (violent) acitivities. The stealing of the 2000 election. Abortions are allowed - BUT a state can mandate that a woman must make multiple visits to the doctor. It is legitimate to demand that abortions clinics must meet building standards that are only needed for large hospitals. For both "anti abortion" laws (by states who would like to outlaw abortion but can't directly ) there are no practical, ethical, or medical reasons. It is an arbitrary roadblock that allows states to make it almost impossible to run a clinic (they do not have the wide wards - exactely because they do not need them). There are no such buildings they could rent - they never have been built - because they are not needed. So that was a sneaky way to "outlaw" legal abortions through the backdoor. It makes it harder for low income women to have a SAFE abortion. (Wealthy Republicans mothers will continue to fly with their daughters to Hawaii - no protestors there to take your picture or your license plate if you show up. and very wealthy families do not use the regular healthcare services of Planned parenthood - so showing up there makes them suspects to have an abortion.) All of that was confirmed by a rightwing biased Supreme Court (some on the state level, some at the highest level). The states can mandate that a woman MUST look at an ultrasound of the fetus before she is allowed to make the decision. There is no medical reason to have an ultrasound if it is an abortion in the early stages. But the state can impose the costs and more than one visit. Obviously these small government enthusiasts think that women (or the couple !) are not able to make up their minds. so the lawmakers have to protect them from themselves and if they cannot hinder them to have the abourtion at least they might make them feel guilty about it. Three months into the pregnancy the outer form of the still tiny fetus starts to resemble a human. It is by no means a human, the brain is at the beginning of development, it cannot yet feel pain, etc. But with a little luck the women can be tricked into feeling bad because she does not want a child or another child and does not want to be responsible for it the next 18 years.
    1
  38. 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
  39.  @TripleDDDD  I think he had an episode in his life (when he was younger) that is like yours (there are remarks where you can hear between the lines). He sounds authentic in that respect. That is not a grift. But he is spouts a lot of b.s. - and to stipulate that a person should not be polititcally active if they are young (or do not have their life in perfect order) is stupid. A person can have a messy room, stuck in career and education, romantic relationships just broken up - and still have a valid point regarding war, military draft (Vietnam !), military spening taxation, universal healthcare, etc. It is good INDIVIDUAL life advice to clean your room. That is not a societal / political answer to today's societal / economic / global problems. The people that run the show have their shit together, and are older. That did not work out, did it ? And young (students) have been pushing for and achieving change for society in many cases. Also in the 19th century.
    1
  40. Packing the board of postal govenors, unfortunately they need Manchin the crook for that vote - unless some Senators retire and get replaced, the Dems will have to wait until Jan 2023 and that is only if they win a few more Senate seats.
    1
  41. Gillum and Stacy Abrams had an appearance at a Bloomberg panel discussion. 30 minutes, great discussion, the midterms 2018 and the outlook. Abrams is a fighter, she is one of the few Democrats that dare to call it openly voter suppression (I acknowledged, it did not concede, I invented a new term. Audience applauding) The video is on the bloomberg site and from March 2019. Gillum started a voter registration project. His contribution for 2020 (Flordia will go blue and the Republic can thank us - and then we can send Trump the eviction note). Good for him: instead of running in the primaries as the 99th candidate or clutching his pearls whether to impeach or not to impeach. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2019-03-28/abrams-and-gillum-on-voter-suppression-video
    1
  42. Corbyn* in 2017 and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Obama shined with activating "unlikely" voters. Those who usually do not vote, maybe never have. * See the snap election in the U.K. in 2017 - Labour party in 2 months turned things around. They were behind in the polls by 20 points. For once the party establishment abstained from backstabbing the leader elected by the base. And they came up with a costed manifesto. They did it by activating YOUNG and non-voters. Part of that was ORGANIC and AUTHENTIC social media peer to peer persuasion: register to vote (they could to it online and it is easy - a lot of their elections is based on safe old-fashiojned tech: paper ballots, and handcounting in large sports halls before the eyes of the public. A young Brit a few days before the elections: "Jeremy is the man. Usually it is cool to say that you do not bother to vote. Not this time, though. I am going to vote and everyone on my facebook page is voting, too". Voter turnout was increased from 43 to 72 % in the group 18 - 25 years. Still not quite at the level of plus 65 years of 80 %.
    1
  43. Hey David, you speak Spanish, why not go to the country and talk to the people on the ground. Being white, being U.S. citizen should protect you. Abbey Martin had the guts.
    1
  44.  @dfuher968  If your look on if from Europe - Sanders would be a classic Social Democrat - the kind of Social Democrat that could win in the U.K. in Germany or in France (especially NOW ) As opposed to the champaign socialists that have taken over the big center-left parties everywhere (in the UK the base has taken back Labour). And are currently decimated everwhere because the voters know they do not have a spine and to not work for the little people anymore. In the U.S. Sanders counts as FDR democrat. FDR won in 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944 - he died in April 1945. Sanders very successfully and consistently has his messaging centered on healthcare. Whatever the topic of a TV interview may be - he always, always includes his elevator pitch. 100 % of the time healthcare and how other nations have solved that - much more cost-efficient and for everyone. Plus 1 - 3 other issues (tuition free public college, maternity leave, green New Deal, immigration reform) - he varies those. Medicare for All polled at 51 % with self-identified Republicans (Sep. 2018). People know he would stubbornly fight for that and that he means business - he has not picked up the issue because a focus group said him it polled well.
    1
  45. 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
  46. Well, some generals WERE worried. Did Hillar Clinton WANT war with Russia ? We can hope she was not THAT crazy. But she is a neocon and thinks she can be hawkish all the time, poke the Russian Bear (U.S. COUP in the Ukraine anyone ) - and it is not going to be dangerous. The Cuba crisis in the 1960s was not intentionally, the U.S. and the Soviet Union countries stumbled into it. When Obama in 2013 was under pressure (of the neocons) to enforce the "red line in the sand" after a mass killing with poison gas nearby Damasucs ALLEGEDLY done by the Syrian army (and immediately and without proof blamed on them) - "Putin helped Obama out of the mousetrap" - the neocons had wanted war and direct engagement of the U.S. in Syria for the longest time. * the mousetrap remark is from Ray McGovern (ex CIA). Needless to say, Clinton and the neocons were not satisfied - they almost, almost had achieved more "engagement" of the U.S. in Syria. Russia had planes flying in Syria - so the U.S. shooting down Russian airplanes - could THAT have developed into an international crisis matching the Cuban crisis ? The Pentagon had warned all summer long (the crisis broke out end of August). General Mark Dempsey had warned Obama during the summer and had a meeting end of August 2013 in the White House - no doubt repeating the warnings. I heard a quote recently: The Military Industrial Compelx always needs a threat to justify the insane military budget - they do not necessarily WANT WAR.
    1
  47.  @uncontrolledsubstance7705  Gore would also have won if not 100,000 registered Democrats had switched over to Bush. Or if the sitting president and his VP and candidate would have bothered to scream bloody murder when Greg Palast broke the story that Jebe Bush had black men removed from the voter rolls under the pretext that they are ex felons (they weren't). It was headline news in Europe btw, the Guardian among other large newspapers covered it. But the big donors that finance BOTH parties do not like it when the sheeple are alerted. Decorum must be maintained - and for them it does not matter anyway. Likewise Gore was told by the party leadership to go away quietly. (He chaired the Senate session where the Congressional Black Caucus demanded justice for the voter purge, they would have needed ONE senator to support their cause to get a hearing. Couldn't get one, and Gore did nothing. of course it begs the question whey THEY did not scream it from the rooftops BEFORE the elections. Al Gore did as he was told and did not make a stink. (and they let a Republican mob intimidate the people that counted the vote - banking on windows etc.)
    1
  48. They were extremely rude ALSO towards her husband (if you watchfootage WITH sound). She opens door (allegedly kept them waiting 20 minutes, likely secured her data onto a place online, and called a lawyer. The police gives her rude and LOUD commands w/o any need. They ask:. Is anyone else in the house ? My husband and kids are upstairs. She is kept outside the entrance door, they enter and YELL upstairs with guns drawn towards upwards (not sure if they could see or hear the husband): COME. DOWN. NOW. In an alternative universe. Members of the police have to enforce the warrant, but they do their research and realize whatever may be fought over in court - this is not a mafia hideout or a meth lab. So they tone it down (btw if they encounter addicts or people that have a lot to lose by the search / arrest they also better keep it cool and classy. Addicted people - unlike a middle class family - are not rational. and adding stress by yelling round is not helpful. and for the middleclass people with no criminal record it is not necessary. Police that acts not like an occupying force: Ma'am please raise your hands, keep them in the air and step outside the door. It will not take long. We need anyone else that is in the house to come down too... your husband and kids are in the house. Please call them to come down and with their hands raised. She calls them (of course she does) and police repeats the order to come down in a clear and firm voice (loud enough to be heard) but not yelling and not with the urgency / stress behind it. They tell the Rebeka that they will execute the search warrant as soon as everyone is down. Do you have any pets that run around, like a dog ? If so the husband is asked to bring the dog. l
    1
  49. The court is another pillar of power for the oligarchs.
    1
  50. your forget the part where the former Soviet Union let these countries secede - not one shot fired. - In the case of the Baltic states and Poland they joined NATO (which was against the agreement with Gorbachev when they negotiated the German unification). And Russia did not bitch around. - Now NATO has encircled Russia. - When the U.S / NATO morons in 2009 offered Georgia and Ukraine the NATO membership, Russia drew the red line. (And Germany and France both NATO member states spoke out against the offer, no doubt Russia had some talks with them, so finally reason prevailed). I find it astonishing: When it comes to regime change and wars of aggression the Russians have nothing on the U.S. - and they engage in their own region - or when invited (which is the case in Syria).
    1