Thứ Hai, 4 tháng 2, 2019

Auto news on Youtube Feb 4 2019

Arsenal legend Charlie Nicholas (Photo: Sky Sports) The Red Devils dropped their first

points under interim boss Ole Gunnar Solskjaer last week when they were held to a 2-2 draw

by Burnley at Old Trafford last week.

Manchester United are aiming to try and break back into the top four before the season is

out as they look to try and secure qualification for next season's Champions League.

They currently find themselves sixth in the Premier League table as they look to try and

climb the table under Solskjaer.

However, Arsenal legend Nicholas is tipping Leicester to hold Manchester United to a 1-1

draw at the King Power Stadium on Sunday afternoon.

Writing in his column for Sky Sports, Nicholas said: "A first slip-up for Solskjaer, but

being 2-0 down and getting something from it keeps momentum going.

"Martial has re-signed his contract, so there is a feel-good factor there – they

are not losing any games and keeping the group together and they have their points to prove.

"After going behind early at Anfield, Leicester did really well and I feel like I'm waiting

for Puel to get the sack every game.

They responded brilliantly at Anfield, they defended and attacked well, they did not get

enough service to Vardy, but Maddison missed a couple of sitters and they could have easily

won that match.

"So this will be a tough test for United, but I think it will be a draw with Vardy being

a real handful and I'm totally not convinced by United's defence."

Manchester United brought in Solskjaer as their interim boss after having sacked Jose

Mourinho last month.

The Red Devils have not won the Premier League title since Sir Alex Ferguson's final season

in charge back in 2013.

For more infomation >> Charlie Nicholas states his prediction for Leicester v Man United - Duration: 2:10.

-------------------------------------------

Scouting the Southwest | US Camel Corps - Duration: 16:23.

Love it or hate it, the military is often on the cutting edge of technology.

There's nothing like a good war to get the military to think outside of the box and come

up with new solutions to old problems.

Usually that problem is how can we kill people but like… from a distance.

But seriously, along with things like rockets, the internet and even wifi started off as

a military idea.

Not all of their ideas were winners though.

This video was brought to you by Skillshare.

In the 1840s, Manifest Destiny was all the rage, Americans were crossing into the west

by the tens of thousands and we were staking claim to basically everything the light touched.

It was one of the primary motivations behind the Mexican American War.

When it became apparent that the United States was about to capture all of this new land

from Mexico, people were already thinking of ways to cross it.

You see, the southwestern United States is a literal desert.

The sarlacc pit from Return of the Jedi was filmed near Yuma, Arizona.

So donkeys, mules, horses, and humans had a hard time crossing that desert due to a

lack of water.

In 1847, before the war was even over, Major G.H.

Crosman and Major H.C. Wayne submitted a report to the War Department, which is now the Department

of Defense, suggesting that camels might be the way to go.

For strength in carrying burdens, for patient endurance of labor, and privation of food,

water & rest, and in some respects speed also, the camel and dromedary are unrivaled among

animals…

They will go without water, and with but little food, for six or eight days, or it is said

even longer.

Their feet are alike well suited for traversing grassy or sandy plains, or rough, rocky hills

and paths, and they require no shoeing…

The report reached the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, which is now known as the

Senate Armed Services Committee, where it was mostly laughed off as ludicrous.

Some senators even said that the desert is too cold.

Which it is believe it or not, but camels live in the desert, they're already used

to that.

One senator who really took to the proposal and tried for several years to get it implemented,

was Jefferson Davis, a man famous for always supporting good ideas.

In 1853, Jefferson Davis was appointed Secretary of War under President Franklin Pierce.

He continued to pressure Congress and the President to allocate funds for a small experiment

to see how viable the idea was, which they finally did in 1855.

Congress granted $30,000 to the project, about $866,000 in 2019 money… which is about one-tenth

of the price of a single M1 Abrams tank.

Davis wasted no time and two months later, Major H.C. Wayne and Lieutenant D.D.

Porter of the USS Supply were sent to the Mediterranean to purchase the first batch

of US camels.

Major Wayne went on his own little side quest to learn about camels first.

He stopped at the London Zoological Gardens to learn about their care and then interviewed

members of the French Camel Corps in Paris.

Yes, there was a French Camel Corps, they just used them to colonize Algeria.

Then he went to the Crimea, where camels were actively being used by the British in the

Crimean War against Russia.

It was there that Wayne decided dromedaries were preferable to camels.

Back in the day, the term "camel" usually specifically referred to the two-humped Bactrian

camel, it was significantly larger and slower, but could carry more weight.

A dromedary is the one humped Arabian camel.

It was quicker, could still carry a considerable load, and was much easier to ride, in fact

Arabian camels had been used for military purposes for as long as the horse.

Some militaries even outfitted them with cannons…

I know that's just a drawing so you might not believe me.

So here's a real picture, look at that, that's awesome!

Ahem, so anyway, Wayne and Porter were ordered to buy several different kinds of camels from

different places in order to test which ones would be suitable in America.

The story of their adventures is actually kind of funny.

They became somewhat experts in the camel trade and were able to refuse gifts of diseased,

worthless camels from the viceroy of Egypt.

Porter even had to construct a "camel deck" on the ship because they were so much larger

than horses.

In the end, they paid about $250 each for 33 camels from five different countries.

Twenty one larger Arabian camels for general hauling, nine swift dromedary camels for chasing

off Indians – direct quote from Jefferson Davis – two Bactrian two-hump camels, and

one Booghdee hybrid camel with only one hump.

A few camels died on the trip over.

But also, a few were born, so in May 1856, 34 camels landed in Indianola, Texas, beginning

the US Camel Corps.

The Texans laughed at Wayne, saying there was no way a camel could carry more than a

mule.

And I'll give it to them, camels do look pretty awkward.

But in front of a crowd, Wayne loaded four bales of hay, weighing a total of 1256 pounds

onto one camel, and it stood up and walked away without any struggle.

To convey to you the surprise and sudden change of sentiment when the camel, at the signal,

rose and walked off with his four bales of hay, would be impossible.

This was enough to make front page news in Texas.

Mules can carry about 300 pounds, a Bactrian camel can carry up to 1500, one of the larger

Arabians can carry 1000 pounds, and the swifter dromedaries can only carry 700.

Which is still more than double what a mule can carry.

The Camel Corps was stationed at the newly constructed Camp Verde, Texas, about 60 miles

north west of San Antonio.

But it wasn't just camels that were recruited into the Army.

Major Wayne also hired five Arabs and Turks to help teach the Americans how to properly

care for and ride the camels.

They actually make an appearance in several movies about the Camel Corps.

Praying, caterwauling heathens, that's what they are.

Don't seem to matter much how man looks to god, long as he looks.

The most famous of them was Hi Jolly… though his real name was actually Hadji Ali and the

Americans just couldn't pronounce that.

Though that wasn't his real name either.

It was actually Philip Tedro, he was a half-Greek, half-Syrian from Turkey, though it wasn't

actually Turkey at the time, it was still the Ottoman Empire.

But like many people who convert to Islam and complete the Hajj, he changed his name

to Hadji Ali.

Many of my fellow veterans will probably recognize that word as the derogatory term for Muslims.

But it actually just means "someone who has completed the Hajj" the closest Christian

word would be Pilgrim.

Think back, Pilgrim.

So when you call someone a hadji, you're basically calling them a pilgrim.

Well take some advice, Pilgrim.

Do you know how or when that term became a pejorative?

It comes from Jonny Quest, the 1960s cartoon.

This character is named Hadji, he's actually Indian, and while there are Indian Muslims,

it's pretty clear in the show that he's Hindu.

But you know, all brown people are basically the same, I guess.

Anyway, Hadji Ali or Hi Jolly, was so important to the project that he also appears in every

movie about the Camel Corps.

While we're performing introductions, let me introduce you to Hadji Ali from Smyrna,

we call him Hi Jolly.

How do you do?

Effendi.

Here you are Hi Jolly, no pork in yours!

Okay!

Hadji Ali's the name, or if you prefer as your barge driver so quaintly called me, Hi

Jolly!

Ha ha!

Camel instructor extraordinaire, at your service, sir.

The guy playing Hadji Ali in this one is actually Italian, but you know, all brown people…

I sure am glad whitewashing is no longer a thing in Hollywood.

It took the Americans a while to get used to the camels, the saddles are a bit awkward,

and camels are notoriously ill-tempered and stubborn.

They also smell different, not any worse than a horse, but different.

Which always made horses, donkeys, and mules afraid of them because they were this weird

foreign smelling animal, they'd always be restless when camels were around.

It was such a problem that Brownsville, Texas banned them from the city limits.

But Wayne continued to acclimate them and even began running experiments, when it became

obvious that camels weren't well suited for combat.

They're unwieldy in close quarters and can't sprint for very long like a horse.

In short bursts, camels have a top speed of 40 miles an hour, while a horse is only 30,

but can sustain it for much longer.

But the camel did beat the horse when it came to long distances.

During one experiment, he set a team of six camels against a team of six mules in a race

to San Antonio and back while carrying a cargo of oats.

The mules carried 1800 pounds and took five days, while the camels carried 3600 pounds

and took only two days.

That's double the cargo in half the time.

So it became pretty clear that the camels were much better suited for transporting cargo

as part of a wagon train.

In 1857, Buchanan was sworn in as president.

As a result, Major Wayne was transferred to another post and Jefferson Davis was out as

Secretary of War… but I have a feeling we'll be hearing from him again . And their replacements

were impressed with the camels so far.

So in June of that year, they were set to the task of helping E.F. Beale create a wagon

road across the 35th parallel, from Fort Defiance, Arizona to the Colorado River.

Kind of like the Southwest's version of the Oregon Trail.

He took 25 camels with him in the ultimate test of their ability, it's actually the

plot of every movie featuring the Camel Corps.

Except for Hawmps which is just terrible.

And look what gets off the boat, a bunch of raunchy, mangy… hawmps.

The expedition left in August 1857, and it took a while before Beale really warmed up

to the camels.

They pack their heavy load of corn, of which they never taste a grain; put up with any

food offered them without complaint, and are always up with the wagons…

It is a subject of constant surprise and remark to all of us, how their feet can possibly

stand the character of the road we have been traveling over for the last ten days.

It is certainly the hardest road on the feet of barefooted animals I have ever known.

You see, while horses need horseshoes, camel toes can take quite a beating…

I'm sorry.

The camels travelled 30-40 miles a day, they basically ate whatever they could find on

the trail including cactus, and would go 8-10 days without water.

The horses and mules would start to freak out from thirst after only 36 hours.

Here's a painting from the artist that went along with the expedition, as you can see,

the horses and mules are basically drowning themselves in the river, while the camels

are just hanging out in the back giving absolutely zero f***s.

Several times during the trip, they got lost while looking for a waterhole and it was the

camels that went out searching that saved the day.

I believe at this time I may speak for every man in our party, when I say that there is

not one of them who would not prefer the most indifferent of our camels to four of our best

mules.

They arrived at the Colorado River in October 1857, which was the biggest test, because

for those of you familiar with fording rivers, things don't always go your way.

This was compounded by the rumor that camel's can't swim.

It's said that camels can't.

Is it true that camels can't swim?

I don't know, we're about to find out.

Camels, can't swim!

No, instinctively afraid of the water.

They can swim, in fact, the older of the two movies shows them doing it…

Okay we'll just ignore that really bad cookie cutter frame there…

The point is that they totally c- what?!

WHAT?!

I think we're gonna need CaptainDisillusion to crack this one.

All the camels, fully loaded successfully swam across the Colorado River, which is an

average of 300 feet wide.

Two horses and ten mules drowned during the same attempt.

Beale's expedition continued to Fort Tejon, California, a distance of 1200 miles covered

in four months.

He left the camels there and retraced his steps a year later.

Extending the road from Fort Smith, Arkansas, through Fort Defiance, Arizona, to Fort Tejon,

California.

Much like the Oregon Trail, Beale's Wagon Road later became a railroad and then a rather

famous highway where you can get your kicks…

Route 66.

You can still hike the trail and find signs like this.

The camel experiment was declared a huge success.

The Secretary of War petitioned Congress to buy 1000 more camels in 1858, 1859, and again

in 1860.

But then the Civil War happened, starring our old friend Jefferson Davis.

Because of Beale's expeditions, 31 camels were in Fort Tejon, California, which remained

part of the Union, they were used for local hauling and map surveying during the war.

80 camels were still in Camp Verde, Texas and were captured by the Confederacy.

Many of the camels were abused or even killed, but a few of them were put to use by the Confederate

Quartermasters.

An entire infantry company in Mississippi used a single camel to carry their luggage

around.

Apparently even Robert E Lee was impressed by the camels.

When the war ended, all of the remaining camels fell under US control again, but they didn't

know what to do with them.

Because the railroad was about to render them obsolete.

The first transcontinental railroad was underway and as a result, people didn't really do

wagon trains anymore.

So some of the camels were sold at auction.

Camels went to circuses or civilian transportation companies, even Hi Jolly bought a few and

used them for several years.

Others were simply turned loose in the desert.

Wild camels were spotted for decades afterwards, Douglas MacArthur apparently saw one in 1885,

there were sightings in 1901 and 1913, and even one near the Salton Sea in California

in 1941.

But that's nothing compared to the Legend of the Red G host.

In 1883, a woman in Arizona was trampled to death by a camel who left behind tufts of

red fur, then it terrorized prospectors in the surrounding area and was rumored to be

carrying a dead rider on its back.

Once, a hunter took a shot at it and the head fell off, because why not, right?

It made its way down to Mexico, where it was known as el Fantasma Colorado and was eventually

shot and killed in 1893, still wearing a harness but the rider must have been shaken off.

And because everything comes full circle, legend has it that the rider was Hi Jolly…

even though he was still alive at the time.

Hadji Ali died in 1902 and he was such an important local figure that they put up a

pyramid shaped monument in his honor in Quartzsite, Arizona.

It also contains the ashes of Topsy, the last US branded camel, which died in 1934 at the

age of 80.

One of the other camels' bones were sent to the Smithsonian and are still on display,

even mentioning its time in the Camel Corps.

The camel experiment was never officially called the US Camel Corps.

But I mean, c'mon, what a cool name.

And because of the success of the experiment camels were imported and used all over the

west by civilians starting their own camel corps small businesses.

Using skills you can master at Skillshare.com by going to skl.sh/knowingbetter5.

Skillshare is an online learning community with over 25,000 courses taught by experts

in their field, or desert, wherever.

Take this course in debt financing to learn how to fund your small business the smart

way and don't overpay for mangey diseased camels.

Then take this course in project management so you can successfully communicate with and

hire the best camel trainers this side of the Mississippi.

You can learn this, and much more for less than $10 a month.

But if you head over to skl.sh/knowingbetter5, you can get 2 months of unlimited access to

all of Skillshare's courses for free, you'll also be supporting the channel when you do.

While the military may have been the source of the ultimately failed camel experiment,

the idea was eventually picked up by civilian companies.

Maybe not to the extent that Wayne, Beale, or Davis would have liked, but that's due

more to the railroad than to the camel.

While you may think it was a silly idea to bring a foreign animal to the United States

to try and change the culture and landscape…

I'd remind you that horses are foreign to America too.

The United States is a nation of immigrants, not only with its people but with its ideas,

we often borrow foreign ideas and make them better.

Hamburgers, pizza, even the car, are all foreign inventions.

The camel was a foreign idea that probably would have worked if not for the bad timing

of the Civil War.

And an even better foreign invention coming along.

Many of the things you probably thought were American aren't, so take a look around,

you're surrounded by foreign ideas, which isn't so bad, because now, you know better.

The State of the Union is on Tuesday, so join us for some group therapy, I'll also be

at Vidcon London next week so there won't be a new video for a while.

But if you'd like to add your name to this list of camel jockies, head on over to patreon.com/knowingbetter.

Don't forget to survey that subscribe button, follow me on twitter and facebook, and join

us on the subreddit!

For more infomation >> Scouting the Southwest | US Camel Corps - Duration: 16:23.

-------------------------------------------

What Do You Need To Run For President of the United States? - Duration: 7:38.

Think you got what it takes to run for President of the most powerful nation on earth?

Well, you probably do seeing as that bar has been historically set pretty low at times,

and with 2020 around the corner people around America are even now beginning to consider

their candidacy for the highest office in the land.

But just how does one get into the oval office and a chance to push the biggest, reddest

button in the world?

For starters you're going to need to make sure that you even qualify for the job, and

that means being a natural-born citizen of the United States- with 37,000,000 million

immigrants in the US that's going to knock out a sizable chunk of the competition.

Next you have to be at least 35 years old, which is bad news for Saira Blair of West

Virginia, who at 18 was the youngest person ever elected to state or federal office in

the United States.

Also not qualifying is James Tufts, who was 3 years old in 2012 when he was elected mayor

of the town of Dorset, a town with a population of 22.

Next you'll have to have made sure that you were a resident of the United States for at

least 14 years- so if you were born in the US as a natural citizen but took off to live

abroad, no dice for you.

We suppose the founding fathers thought that it might be dangerous to elect a President

who was heavily influenced by a foreign, potentially hostile, nation.

Be 35 or older, a 14 year resident, and a natural born citizen.

Meet those standards and you are free to declare your candidacy for president at any time,

although once you receive campaign contributions up to, or spend more than $5,000 you must

register with the Federal Election Commission- that's the agency that we in the US trust

to enforce campaign finance law and that helps keep foreign money out of our political system

so that candidates aren't compromised.

Of course it would be easier to simply make elections federally funded to ensure no funny

business, but think about all those poor lobbyists who'd be out of a job.

Next stop on your road to presidency is your state primary and caucuses.

Both help to narrow the pool of candidates from each political party.

A caucus and a primary works much the same way, a group of voters each cast their vote

for a nominee- however caucuses are limited to the parties voters are registered for only,

while some primaries, known as open primaries, allow a voter of any political party to vote

for the nominee they like best- however a voter cannot go to their car, put on a disguise,

and then vote in a second primary for another political party, that would be voter fraud.

Leading up to the primaries or caucuses though you're going to want to be on the road every

single day, you want to make sure your message reaches as many people as possible so you

can drum up as much support as possible.

You're also going to need funds to run campaign ads and finance your election team.

In a common sense system those funds would come from a federal election pool to ensure

candidates weren't compromised by lobbyists and to ensure a true democracy where poor

candidates weren't disadvantaged by richer candidates.

Instead though candidates are free to beg, scrape, borrow, and promise any amount of

favors and influence should they win the White House in exchange for cold, hard cash now.

So you're going to be putting in a lot of footwork as you move from fundraiser to fundraiser

and take meetings with special interest group after special interest group!

Remember to always be flexible with your principles, or just outright discard them!

All the while you're shaking babies and kissing hands- or is it the other way around... you'll

want to make sure your campaign manager finds out asap- you're going to be keeping your

eye on your political party's national convention.

That's the superbowl of party politics, and though a clear frontrunner is typically identified

early on, sometimes the national convention serves to confirm a single nominee.

At each convention- Republican and Democratic- there are a group of delegates which must

be swayed over to your side if you want a chance at your party's nomination.

These delegates are split into two main groups: pledged, or bound delegates are required to

support the candidate that the people gave the most votes to during their party's primaries

and caucuses.

Unpledged, or unbound delegates, or also known as superdelegates, are free to completely

ignore democracy and the people's votes both and simply vote as they see fit.

How do superdelegates fit into a democratic system?

They don't, are an affront to the very idea of democracy, and should be abolished immediately,

but we'll go ahead and tell you anyways:

In 1972 Democratic Senator George McGovern won the overwhelming support of Democratic

voters, but in the national election faced Senator Edmund Muskie who was the favorite

of the Democratic Party establishment.

McGovern however was so beloved by Democrats that he completely trounced Muskie, and thus

won the party nomination- only to go up against President Nixon in the general election and

give the Democrats one of their most humiliating defeats in history.

In the final vote, Democrats won only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

Incensed and determined to never suffer such an overwhelming defeat, the leaders of the

Democratic party established a VIP category of delegates who would vote however they saw

fit, completely ignoring the wishes of the voters.

These superdelegates wouldn't even have to be voted into their positions, they would

simply be appointed by senior party leaders and end up making up 30% of the total delegate

count- ensuring some measure of control over who wins the nomination and that democracy

would be in no way served.

Though Republicans also make use of superdelegates, theirs are limited to only three per state

and obliged to vote for their state's popular vote winner.

To have a chance of winning your party's nomination at the national convention, you're going to

want to tow the party line and make sure you please as many delegates as possible.

However if no nominee has their party's majority of delegates going into the convention, this

can result in a brokered or contested convention, where delegates must vote for their candidates-

pledged delegates must vote for the candidate they are pledged to, but after the first round

of voting are free to choose any candidate if their candidate doesn't make it past the

first round.

The two national conventions are pretty much modern Thunderdomes- many men, and sometimes

women, enter, but only one will exit victorious.

Now you're ready for prime time- the general election.

This is the big show, and where every single embarrassing secret, gaff, mistake, and poor-taste

tweet you have ever posted will be put on full public display.

If the national conventions are thunderdomes, the general election is a 1 on 1 no-holds-barred

deathmatch, and at stake is the ultimate prize: presidency of the United States.

But it's not as easy as simply campaigning, talking to people, and spreading your message-

you're going to have to be strategic about your time and money.

That's because both are limited, and because the Presidency is not actually decided by

individual votes, but rather by a process known as the electoral college.

The electoral college is an institution held over from an early compromise made by the

founding fathers.

While most supported a popular vote election, many- most of whom already held some form

of political power- insisted that while they would grudgingly allow the peasants to vote

for each party's presidential nominees, a bunch of 'normals' surely couldn't be

trusted to vote for the actual president- that'd be preposterous!

Thus they believed that only the US Congress should vote for President, in a kinda-sorta-not-really

democratic way.

With a brand new nation already on the verge of collapse and England gleefully waiting

for a chance to strike should it, the founding fathers came to a compromise- the President

would be elected by an electoral college, with each state receiving a number of electors

based on how many members of Congress that state has, and with absolutely no constitutional

obligation to even vote for the person who won their state's popular vote!

US territories on the other hand would pay taxes but mind their own business and receive

no electors, how the founding fathers missed that bit of irony given the cause of their

recent rebellion is beyond us.

So with your money and time running out, you're going to want to prioritize which states you

actually campaign in- aiming for all the states that have the highest number of electors.

States with few electors, or those that polls show are heavily made up of the opposing political

party, are going to be very low priorities for you.

Come election day all your hard work is going to pay off, and the electoral college will

do its job by ignoring the votes cast by the people and deciding for themselves who gets

to be president!

Would you ever run for president?

Is the electoral college and superdelegates truly democratic?

Also, check out our other video Can a US president Go To Jail?

And as always this video don't forget to Like, Share, and Subscribe!

See you next time!

For more infomation >> What Do You Need To Run For President of the United States? - Duration: 7:38.

-------------------------------------------

President Trump readies for much anticipated State of the Union Address - Duration: 6:12.

For more infomation >> President Trump readies for much anticipated State of the Union Address - Duration: 6:12.

-------------------------------------------

Joe Biden: Healthcare in the US | In-Person | J.P. Morgan - Duration: 2:30.

It's really, really complicated.

But what I found out that disappointed me the most is things that I'd imagine if I told

you or told the audience that were… weren't happening // There's not much collaboration

at all, with knowing that the more collaboration we get to cures much more quickly.

// For example, when my son had his cancer genome // a lot of things that I learned that

were impediments that existed; silos had been built up of information and data that were

not accessible.

Whereas if they were put together, we'd move a lot more quickly to finding answers on how

to deal with these cancers.

I think what they can do and should be doing is moving as strongly as they can to put pressure

on their elected representatives and on companies to begin to move more systematically and rapidly

toward dealing with cures to cancer that are available to us now, and making them affordable

and accessible to people.

// I was, vice president of the United States.

I literally had an entire Air Force available to me to get me anywhere I needed to get,

to get my son to the right doctors, hospitals, et cetera, and I thought to myself, what would,

how would people I grew up in my neighborhood in Claymont, Delaware, how do they do it?

How do they-- just practical things, like if you have a neighbor who is going through

chemotherapy, // If they are going through a particularly difficult time, offer to watch

their home for them.

Offer to drive them.

// and make a world of difference.

I know that sounds so overly simplistic, but it can change people's lives.

There are so many things to look forward to, it's the things we can do to prevent cancer

in the first place, diagnose it when it occurs, to get it early, be in a position once it's

diagnosed to be able to get treatment, and turn some cancers into chronic diseases instead

of death sentences, and absolute outright cures.

And so we should all be putting 100% of our effort behind dealing with a disease that

affects almost every family.

For more infomation >> Joe Biden: Healthcare in the US | In-Person | J.P. Morgan - Duration: 2:30.

-------------------------------------------

US| Donald Trumps BIG�2020 edge Politics - Duration: 1:28.

US| Donald Trumps BIG 2020 edge Politics

But its not all dark clouds for Trump. Because in at least one respect, he will have something that he never had in 2016 and something that none of his potential 2020 Democratic opponents will have either: massive amounts of money and the time to use it as he sees fit.

In his first two years in office, and has spent all but dollar 19 million of it. Those numbers are absolutely without any modern comparison as both George W. Bush and Barack Obama largely eschewed raising money for their re election in their first two years in the White House. Obama had raised just over dollar 4 million for his 2012 race at this point in 2011.

Trump has shown no such compunction. He has held a series of big ticket fundraisers since almost the beginning of his administration and a super PAC aligned with Trump raised dollar 75 million over the first two years of his presidency as well.

That sort of focus on fundraising and the campaigns active spending means that the Trump 2020 campaign will be vastly better funded and in theory, better organized and structured than his 2016 effort, in which he was badly outspent in every swing state by Hillary Clinton. Of course, money is not determinative to outcomes; if it were, Clinton would be president right now.

With a crowded Democratic field already in place, Trump will also be able to continue to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars on his general election campaign while his likely opponents beat each other up and exhaust their own campaign coffers.

The Point: If youre looking for a silver lining in the dark clouds surrounding Trumps 2020 bid, youre looking for the wrong color lining. Its a green lining. Very, very green.

Heres the week that was in political Washington, in 29 headlines.

For more infomation >> US| Donald Trumps BIG�2020 edge Politics - Duration: 1:28.

-------------------------------------------

US| Bernies healthcare policies already won the 2020 election Health Al Jazeera - Duration: 2:25.

US| Bernies healthcare policies already won the 2020 election Health Al Jazeera

Just a few years ago Sanders call for Medicare far all was deemed too extreme, but things are very different now.

When all is said and done, there may be as many as two dozen Democratic hopefuls for the 2020 presidential nomination. But nearly all of them will have one thing in common: theyll be trumpeting one of Bernie Sanders signature causes upending our healthcare system in favour of a single payer system. We progressives call it, Medicare for All.

Since 2016, when the Independent senator from Vermont used his White House bid to call for Medicare for All so that all Americans have access to high quality healthcare, the Democratic Party has bolted to the left. Nearly all of the candidates who have, up to now, announced their intentions to run for president in 2020 and many of those who seem to be preparing to enter the race support Medicare for All. 

Julian Castro has said that passing Medicare for All would be his first priority as president. Elizabeth Warren has declared that she supports Medicare for All so "everyone gets covered and no one goes broke" because of the cost of healthcare. And Beto ORourke has said, "Medicare for All is the best way to get people covered."

It wasnt that long ago that advocating for a single payer system was thought to be political suicide. Yet, today, running on Medicare for All is one of the most popular positions. A recent poll showed that . 

Ultimately, providing affordable healthcare for every American will be an uphill battle for any presidential candidate. In fact, some may still question the viability of a healthcare for all system. But the undeniable truth is that our current system has failed. It has left millions of Americans uninsured and struggling to get the healthcare they need even if they have insurance.

I ought to know. I live in the state with the highest uninsured rate in the country Texas. While our states elected leaders have long touted the expansive benefits of the so called "Texas economic miracle", that miracle apparently did not include access to basic things like healthcare. You see, one in six Texans dont have health insurance.

Medicare for All could be an effective rallying cry for Democratic candidates. After all, Americans are tired of footing the bill for the most expensive healthcare in the world that still leaves millions of them uninsured. While Obamacare helped close the uninsured gap significantly, it didnt go far enough. The costs of healthcare are still soaring, and millions of Americans still dont have healthcare coverage. 

Nearly every American knows someone who doesnt have healthcare. My mother is one of the estimated . She has diabetes, and she is forced to cut her dollar 12 pills in half to manage the disease because she cant afford the full cost for the medication she needs. When she is sick, she is afraid to go to the doctor because she cant afford it. Yet, she also cant afford to not get the medical care she needs.

Even if you are lucky enough to have health insurance, it is a bureaucratic nightmare of a system that often still leaves you owing thousands of dollars after an illness or injury.

Of course, some say that because healthcare makes up one sixth of the US economy the issue is too challenging to tackle. But who are we kidding? An inefficient and expensive healthcare system is crippling our economy. Besides, surely, the most prosperous nation in the world can do a better job of caring for the citizens who helped make it so prosperous in the first place. 

Nearly every American has experienced up close the failures of our current system. Thats why Bernies initiatives on healthcare have taken hold with voters and the cast of Democratic hopefuls. Those candidates have to know that it wont be enough in 2020 to simply say that you want to reform our current system or just try or make prescription drugs more affordable. Voters arent looking to make gains on the margins, they are looking to end a system that they believe has wholly failed them. Thats why we need Medicare for All. 

In 2016, Sanders ideas were thought to be too extreme for the Democratic Party establishment. But, just a few years later, they are now the mainstream. Its unclear whether Sanders will once again enter the race for President. But this much is clear: his ideas have already won it.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeeras editorial stance.

Cristina Tzintzun is the founder and Executive Director of Jolt, a Texas based Latino civic engagement organisation.

For more infomation >> US| Bernies healthcare policies already won the 2020 election Health Al Jazeera - Duration: 2:25.

-------------------------------------------

US| Medicare for All Emerges as Early Policy Test for 2020 Democrats The New York Times - Duration: 8:27.

US| Medicare for All Emerges as Early Policy Test for 2020 Democrats The New York Times

By and

WASHINGTON — Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke at length this week about her vision for improving the American health care system, like strengthening the Affordable Care Act and making prescription drugs more affordable. Twice, though, she ignored a question posed to her: Would she support eliminating private health insurance in favor of a single payer system?

Affordable health care for every American is her goal, Ms. Warren said on Bloomberg Television, and there are different ways we can get there.

To put it another way: I am not walking into that political trap.

Ms. Warren of Massachusetts and three other liberal presidential candidates support a Medicare for All bill, which would create a single payer health plan run by the government and increase federal spending by at least dollar 2.5 trillion a year, . But Ms. Warrens determination to sidestep an essential but deeply controversial issue at the heart of the single payer model — would people lose the choices offered by private insurance? — illustrated one of the thorniest dilemmas for several Democrats as the 2020 primary gets underway.

Their activist base, inspired by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, believes that the party should unabashedly pursue universal health care, ending private insurance entirely. But polls indicate that the broader electorate, particularly the moderate and high income voters who propelled the partys sweeping suburban gains in the midterms, is uneasy about this Medicare for all approach in which many would lose their current insurance options and pay higher taxes.

Senator Kamala Harris of California drew immediate attacks from Republicans this week by taking on the issue that Ms. Warren dodged. Ms. Harris breezily acknowledged in a CNN town hall forum that she would eliminate all of that, referring to ending private insurance in a country where almost 60 percent of the population receives coverage through an employer.

Her remark triggered an intraparty debate about an issue that until now had been largely theoretical: A decade after Democrats pushed through the most significant expansion of health care since the Great Society, should they build incrementally on the Affordable Care Act or scrap the insurance sector entirely and create a European style public program?

Four Democratic presidential candidates — Ms. Harris, Ms. Warren, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey — are among the co sponsors of Mr. Sanderss , which would replace the Affordable Care Act with a single government health plan for all Americans. Medicare is the federal program providing health coverage to people 65 and older.

The concept of Medicare for all has become popular with Democrats: 81 percent support it, according to a . Yet voter opposition to surrendering the insurance they are used to led to a backlash over President Barack Obamas repeated promise that if you like your plan, you can keep your plan after it proved false for several million people under his health law. Many Democrats are keenly aware of that backlash, and the 2020 presidential race will be the first where many of the partys leading candidates will have to explain and defend the meaning of Medicare for all.

For now, as Ms. Warren demonstrated, many candidates do not want to wrestle publicly with the details. After Ms. Harriss comment, her aides hastened to add that she would also support less sweeping changes to health care; like most other candidates, Ms. Harris declined an interview request. And by Friday, Mr. Booker, , sought to curtail the matter by offering a brisk no when asked if he supported eliminating private coverage.

Yet there is one likely 2020 contender who is thrilled to discuss Medicare for all.

Mr. Sanders, in an interview, did not mince words: The only role for private insurance in the system he envisioned would be cosmetic surgery, you want to get your nose fixed.

Every candidate will make his or her own decisions, Mr. Sanders said, but if I look at polling and 70 percent of the people support Medicare for All, if a very significant percentage of people think the rich, the very rich, should start paying their fair share of taxes, I think Id be pretty dumb not to develop policies that capture what the American people want.

But Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor who is considering a 2020 bid on a centrist Democratic platform, said it would be folly to even consider a single payer system. To replace the entire private system where companies provide health care for their employees would bankrupt us for a very long time, Mr. Bloomberg on Tuesday.

The Congressional Budget Office has not scored Mr. Sanderss Medicare for All bill, but by the Mercatus Center of George Mason University predicted it would increase federal spending by at least dollar 32.6 trillion over the first decade. The cost could be even greater, the study says, if the bill overestimated the projected savings on administrative and drug costs, as well as payments to health care providers.

The divide between Mr. Sanders, a democratic socialist, and Mr. Bloomberg, a Republican turned independent turned Democrat, reflects the large chasm in a party that has been reshaped by President Trump.

The presidents hard line nationalism has simultaneously nudged Democrats to the left, emboldening them to pursue unambiguously liberal policies, and drawn independents and moderate Republicans to the party because they cannot abide his incendiary conduct and demagogy on race. These dueling forces have created a growing but ungainly coalition that shares contempt for Mr. Trump but is less unified on policy matters like health care.

And these divisions extend to what is wisest politically.

Liberals argue that the only way to drive up turnout among unlikely voters or win back some of the voters uneasy with Hillary Clintons ties to corporate interests is to pursue a bold agenda and elevate issues like Medicare for all.

Those who run on incremental changes are not the ones who are going to get people excited and get people to turn out, said Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, the co chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

And by preserving their options, Democrats risk alienating liberal primary voters, some of whom consider support for Medicare for all a litmus test.

The center is not a good place to be on these policies anymore, said Mary OConnor, 61, a substitute teacher and horse farmer in Middleburg, Va., who wants a single payer system. Ill be watching extremely closely, and I will most likely jump on board and volunteer for whoever it is thats going to be the most forceful for this.

But moderates believe that most Democratic primary voters are — and that terminating employer sponsored insurance would only frighten the sort of general election voters who are eager to cast out Mr. Trump but do not want to wholly remake the countrys health care system.

Most of the freshmen who helped take back the House got elected on: Were going to protect your health insurance even if you have a pre existing condition, not Were going to take this whole system and throw it out the window, said Kenneth Baer, a Democratic strategist.

While polling does show that Medicare for all — a buzz phrase that has lately been applied to everything from single payer health care to programs that would allow some or all Americans to buy into Medicare or Medicaid — has broad public support, attitudes swing significantly depending on not just the details, but respondents age and income.

On the House side, a to Mr. Sanderss is under revision and will soon be reintroduced with Ms. Jayapal as the main sponsor. Other Democrats have introduced less expansive , which would preserve the current system but would give certain Americans under 65 the option of paying for Medicare or a new public option plan. Another bill would give every state the option of letting residents buy into Medicaid, the government health program for poor Americans.

The buy in programs would generally cover between 60 and 80 percent of peoples medical costs and would require much less federal spending because enrollees would still pay premiums and not everyone would be eligible. Some proponents, like Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, have described them as a steppingstone on the way to a full single payer system; some of the Democrats running for president are co sponsoring these Medicare for more bills as well as Mr. Sanderss.

Mr. Sanders has , such as a new 7.5 percent payroll tax and a wealth tax on the top 0.1 percent of earners. He has also predicted several trillion dollars in savings over 10 years from eliminating the tax exclusion that employers get on what they pay toward their workers insurance premiums, and other tax breaks.

But Robert Blendon, a health policy professor at Harvard who studies public opinion, said it would be wise not to delve into financing details for now.

The reason it failed in Vermont and Colorado was taxes, Professor Blendon said, referring to recent efforts to move to a near universal health care system in those states, which flopped resoundingly because they would have required major tax increases. But Democratic primary voters will not go deep into asking how these plans will work. What they will say is, Show me you have a principle that health care is a human right.

The general election will be a different story, Professor Blendon added. If Ms. Harris were to become the Democratic nominee and keep embracing the idea of ending private coverage, he argued, shes going to have terrible problems.

The difficulty for Democrats, added Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama health care adviser, is that many voters look at the health care system the same way they view politics. They say Congress is terrible but I like my congressman, as Mr. Emanuel put it.

According to the Gallup poll, 70 percent of Americans with private insurance rate their coverage as excellent or good; 85 percent say the same about the medical care they receive. The Kaiser poll found that the percentage of Americans who support a national health plan drops by 19 percentage points when people hear that it would eliminate insurance companies or that it would require Americans to pay more in taxes.

Among those who make over dollar 90,000 a year — the sort of voters in the House districts that several Democrats captured in the midterms — those surveyed in the Kaiser poll were particularly wary of an all government system: 64 percent in this income group said they would oppose a Medicare for all plan that terminated private insurance.

My constituents are tired of bumper sticker debates about complex issues, said Representative Lizzie Pannill Fletcher of Texas, a freshman from an affluent Houston district. We dont want ideologues in charge.

In Vermont, where former Gov. Peter Shumlin for a single payer system in 2014 after conceding it would require enormous new taxes, advocates for universal health care are now resigned to a more incremental approach.

Dr. Deb Richter, a primary care doctor who , said that while the Democratic field is going to have to face the T word, being upfront about the required tax increases, she now thinks phasing in a government run system is a better approach.

Theres ways of doing this that dont have to happen all at once, she said, pointing to a push in Vermont to start with universal government coverage for . But you need to talk about the end goal: We are aiming for Medicare for all, and this is a way of getting it done.

For more infomation >> US| Medicare for All Emerges as Early Policy Test for 2020 Democrats The New York Times - Duration: 8:27.

-------------------------------------------

US| Donald Trumps BIG�2020 edge Politics - Duration: 1:28.

US| Donald Trumps BIG 2020 edge Politics

But its not all dark clouds for Trump. Because in at least one respect, he will have something that he never had in 2016 and something that none of his potential 2020 Democratic opponents will have either: massive amounts of money and the time to use it as he sees fit.

In his first two years in office, and has spent all but dollar 19 million of it. Those numbers are absolutely without any modern comparison as both George W. Bush and Barack Obama largely eschewed raising money for their re election in their first two years in the White House. Obama had raised just over dollar 4 million for his 2012 race at this point in 2011.

Trump has shown no such compunction. He has held a series of big ticket fundraisers since almost the beginning of his administration and a super PAC aligned with Trump raised dollar 75 million over the first two years of his presidency as well.

That sort of focus on fundraising and the campaigns active spending means that the Trump 2020 campaign will be vastly better funded and in theory, better organized and structured than his 2016 effort, in which he was badly outspent in every swing state by Hillary Clinton. Of course, money is not determinative to outcomes; if it were, Clinton would be president right now.

With a crowded Democratic field already in place, Trump will also be able to continue to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars on his general election campaign while his likely opponents beat each other up and exhaust their own campaign coffers.

The Point: If youre looking for a silver lining in the dark clouds surrounding Trumps 2020 bid, youre looking for the wrong color lining. Its a green lining. Very, very green.

Heres the week that was in political Washington, in 29 headlines.

For more infomation >> US| Donald Trumps BIG�2020 edge Politics - Duration: 1:28.

-------------------------------------------

US NEWS | Donald Trumps BIG�2020 edge Politics - Duration: 1:30.

US NEWS | Donald Trumps BIG 2020 edge Politics

But its not all dark clouds for Trump. Because in at least one respect, he will have something that he never had in 2016 and something that none of his potential 2020 Democratic opponents will have either: massive amounts of money and the time to use it as he sees fit.

In his first two years in office, and has spent all but dollar 19 million of it. Those numbers are absolutely without any modern comparison as both George W. Bush and Barack Obama largely eschewed raising money for their re election in their first two years in the White House. Obama had raised just over dollar 4 million for his 2012 race at this point in 2011.

Trump has shown no such compunction. He has held a series of big ticket fundraisers since almost the beginning of his administration and a super PAC aligned with Trump raised dollar 75 million over the first two years of his presidency as well.

That sort of focus on fundraising and the campaigns active spending means that the Trump 2020 campaign will be vastly better funded and in theory, better organized and structured than his 2016 effort, in which he was badly outspent in every swing state by Hillary Clinton. Of course, money is not determinative to outcomes; if it were, Clinton would be president right now.

With a crowded Democratic field already in place, Trump will also be able to continue to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars on his general election campaign while his likely opponents beat each other up and exhaust their own campaign coffers.

The Point: If youre looking for a silver lining in the dark clouds surrounding Trumps 2020 bid, youre looking for the wrong color lining. Its a green lining. Very, very green.

Heres the week that was in political Washington, in 29 headlines.

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét