Che Guevara

Just to reiterate, "It is my hope, and I would like to believe the hope of any reasonable, concerned, law abiding, citizen, that whomever was empowered by Epstein to engage in illegal activities and, particularly, pedophilia, should be outed with the Epstein files as well as any other sources of evidence and that such activity causes them to have to face consequences. I also think that this ought to apply to everyone, democrat, republican, British royals, etc." Make no mistake, I don't care if democrats are implicated and, in all likelihood, there are many democrats captured by the Epstein universe of criminality. And, the fact that the democrats did not advance the Epstein files during the Biden administration is likely because of how it would implicate many democrats. And, there are also republicans that are included as well within the Epstein circle. Party affiliation means nothing to me. In fact, party affiliation generally means nothing to me with respect to most topics. In particular though, I have a simple and, I think, principled view regarding this subject. Epstein and Maxwell are/were child sex traffickers and they sex trafficked to wealthy and powerful people, many of which are in or related to the US government, among other parts of US society. To play some kind of bizarre partisan binary built on asinine tribalism to defend one side or another does nothing to hold people to account for their wrong doing. So, no, I don't care who goes down so long as people go down for this because it is outrageous and the degree of social, cultural, and moral decay that pervades our society that we would even debate this on some kind of partisan line is absurd.

I find this to be an odd message. How exactly are the democrats aligning with Epstein because of their "mutual hatred of Trump?" Epstein was a bad guy. I don't think that pointing out that Epstein had information about Trump because he knew Trump (arguably pretty well) and had a longstanding relationship with Trump that allowed him to glean insights into Trump, is aligning with Epstein? It implies that one bad guy may have been close to another bad guy and that they both contributed to bad stuff happening. There is, minimally, guilt by association here which is, minimally, not a good look for Trump. I'm not saying Trump is guilty of committing crimes here, I have no idea, but the fact that he had the relationship that he had with Epstein is worthy of more information and a closer investigation. And, while I tend to find the democrats amusingly inept at politics, they are doing the most obvious thing that they ought to do here, which is to highlight Trump's association with Epstein, including this really bad guy's (Epstein) opinion of Trump. It is my hope, and I would like to believe the hope of any reasonable, concerned, law abiding, citizen, that whomever was empowered by Epstein to engage in illegal activities and, particularly, pedophilia, should be outed with the Epstein files as well as any other sources of evidence and that such activity causes them to have to face consequences. I also think that this ought to apply to everyone, democrat, republican, British royals, etc. The fact that this topic can brush up so closely to Trump should probably concern all of us as he is the president and may have engaged in underage sexual activity with girls that were procured by Epstein. Sorry, but, this is just bad.

I think that the democrats just embarrassed and discredited themselves. By caving and agreeing to reopen the government without getting any of what they were asking for as the basis of the shutdown means that the democrats just took ownership of the entire shutdown. The democratic leadership just demonstrated itself to be completely incompetent. At the time of the shutdown, I could see the binary arguments that either side was at fault. The republicans were at fault because they are in the majority, controlling the executive and legislative branches of the government. The majority party sometimes needs votes from the minority party and, hence, they sometimes have to negotiate. The shutdown was one of the times that the republicans were being asked to negotiate and they simply said no. From a minority party position, to then say, "okay don't negotiate but you can't have the votes you need," is a reasonable position to stake. To the contrary, for the republicans to say, "we need 7 (turns out 8 votes) minority party votes to stay open and minority party is saying no so they own the shutdown," is also tangibly factually and the basis for why republicans could claim that the democrats were (are) responsible for the shutdown. I can or could see how both parties could blame the other (although I personally thought one party was definitely more responsible than the other). So, for the democrats to now decide to accept an offer that was floated weeks ago, demonstrates that the democrats were never sincere in the positions they staked (at least the leadership wasn't sincere) and have now essentially taken ownership of the entire shutdown. And, after elections that just showed potentially considerably republican vulnerabilities, the democrats have just triggered a decided political turn. I think that there is a real possibility that rank and file democrats will turn on the democratic leadership in DC. On the one hand, the democrats just set themselves back politically. On the other hand, this might just be the event that triggers a tea party like uprising in the democratic party and possibly reconfigures a democratic party that is desperately in need of a massive shakeup. For example, I think that any democratic primary candidate that does not distance themselves from or doesn't demand a change in leadership (aka., removing Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries) is going to have a hard time winning their primaries. I think that rank and file democrats feel betrayed by their leadership and this betrayal may come at a big political price. Maybe?

Secretary Rollins can say that there is waste, fraud, and abuse, but unless there is evidence presented, it is just a political (and ideological) statement. According to a 2019 USDA report (Trump's first term) the USDA's own reporting came to the following conclusions: “SNAP’s Quality Control (QC) system earns a solid “A” grade. Over 99 percent of those receiving SNAP benefits are eligible." Of course, the USDA has taken down their own report (from the first Trump Administration). By implication SNAP is not full of waste, fraud, and abuse. 1% ineligible recipients is indicative of an efficient system. Sure, try to root out the 1% "fraud," but, again, aren't there far bigger fish to fry when it comes to waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, will the DOW (Department of War) pass an audit? https://fas.org/man/eprint/contract-fraud.pdf In 2018, according to the then Department of Defense, the US lost $334 billion to contractor fraud between 2013 and 2017. $334 is 3+ years of the entirety SNAP funding, and that was just self reported defense contractor fraud. 2/3 of SNAP recipients are either children, the elderly, or people with disabilities who, well, are not going to work. 1/3 of SNAP recipients are working and are poor. Rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse is a worthy cause. And, I think, a good starting point would be to look at the places where there is actual waste, fraud, and abuse as opposed to picking around the edges of a low cost program that is designed to assist poor people in having food.

Reading the posts throughout this thread, there appears to be themes that reoccur and those themes seem to center on the idea of who is or is not deserving of SNAP benefits and what SNAP means as a cost to taxpayer and the government and whether those costs are 'just.' In terms of cost, https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-does-the-federal-government-spend-on-snap-every-year/country/united-states/ SNAP represents 1.5% of federal budget expenditures at roughly $100 Billion per year. If people are really concerned about deficits and the role of social spending in driving deficits, SNAP seems like an odd starting point for that conversation. The USDA's own website tracks the SNAP data. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap/key-statistics-and-research Note, the USDA is currently run by a Trump appointee and they have a political message at the top of their page that claims that the democrats have caused the government shutdown. Of the data that is tracked, the USDA notes that SNAP spending creates a 1.54 times multiplier. What this means is that for every $1 of SNAP benefit spent, the economy generates $1.54 in economic benefit. In this regard the program is a benefit to the economy. But, the issue isn't whether SNAP benefits are a benefit to the economy, the issue for those concerned about the deficit is that SNAP represents social spending that contributes to the deficit. The US is looking at a $1.78 Trillion deficit for fiscal year 2025. Eliminating all SNAP benefits would reduce the deficit to roughly $1.77 Trillion dollars. A $1.78 Trillion versus a $1.77 Trillion budget deficit seems trivial. A program that generates positive economic spillovers, reduces malnutrition, and is a targeted poverty reduction tool, that is low cost to taxpayers, should probably not be the focal point of a deficit reduction policy. If I was in charge and tasked with making a legitimate dent in the budget deficit, SNAP would probably be one of the last places I would look for cost savings. Instead, I would look at the big budget items and see where I could make a sizeable dent. If, of course, that was the sort of issue I had concerns about. On another note, there is another idea that SNAP beneficiaries are gaming the system. And, in all likelihood there probably are some folks that have figured out how to game the system. But, in the grand scheme of the SNAP program, the numbers look pretty normal and consistent. The peak year, outside of the COVID years, in absolute terms, of recipients was 2013 when over 50 million (about 51 million) Americans received benefits. And, 2013 makes sense in terms of SNAP recipients. Looking at the data there are several big jumps in SNAP recipients 2008-2009 the numbers jump by 10 million from 25 to 35 million Americans and then from 35 to 45 million Americans in 2009-2010. 2008-2010 was the Great Recession with the unemployment rate over 10% in the fall of 2009, so, of course, the number of recipients would rise. From 2010-2013 there is a much more gradual rise as the lingering high unemployment rates of the Great Recession persisted. But, after 2013, the absolute number of SNAP recipients declines year over year (Obama to Trump) by 15+ million recipients down to about 35 million Americans in 2019. Of course, with COVID there is another spike in recipients to 65 million and, predictably, coming out of COVID the numbers again decline precipitously to what is now about 41 million Americans (12.3% of the population) which is closely in line with the amount of poverty in the country. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. For me, I think $100 billion, relative to all of the other expenditures that our government makes, is a small price to pay for a program that is means tested and provides resources so people can purchase food, an actual basic need.

Here's Gates' full memo, https://www.gatesnotes.com/home/home-page-topic/reader/three-tough-truths-about-climate Notably, from Gates, "To be clear: Climate change is a very important problem. It needs to be solved, along with other problems like malaria and malnutrition. Every tenth of a degree of heating that we prevent is hugely beneficial because a stable climate makes it easier to improve people’s lives." Gates continues to believe that climate change is real, a serious issue, and one in need of "solving." I don't think the issue is that Gates doesn't believe in climate change any longer, he clearly does. I also don't think the issue is that Gates doesn't think action is needed. I think that Gates' is suggesting that resources need to be allocated differently going forward toward mitigating climate change risk to human populations. I think it is a question of climate change priorities. If there is going to be a debate with Gates, it is not a debate over climate change as a hoax or climate change as real. The debate with Gates is, how best to manage resources going forward on the basis that climate change is real.

The public seems to support SNAP benefits, https://www.fmi.org/blog/view/fmi-blog/2025/05/12/americans-broadly-support-snap-and-oppose-significant-reductions "According to the survey, 64% of Americans hold a favorable opinion of SNAP, compared to just 14% who view it unfavorably. Support for the program is strongest among Democrats (+82 net favorability), but a majority of Independents and Republicans also express positive views—underscoring SNAP’s enduring popularity as a hunger program across the ideological spectrum. The numbers are even stronger when respondents were asked directly whether they favor or oppose the SNAP program: 70% expressed support, with only 15% opposed." And, if the concern is related to cutting SNAP... which is perhaps included in the desire to "root out those that abuse it," "Voting to cut or restrict SNAP is electorally problematic for lawmakers. Only 17% of voters would be more likely to vote for a Senator or Representative in Congress who voted to cut or restrict SNAP, while 48% would be less likely to vote for lawmakers who reduce benefits, reduce beneficiaries, or push the funding challenges down to the states." It looks like the 80/20 issue favors SNAP supporters.

Largest US naval buildup in the Caribbean since the Cuban missile crisis, https://www.gktoday.in/us-military-buildup-in-the-caribbean-sparks-fresh-tensions-with-venezuela/ Very little Fentanyl that enters the US comes from Venezuela, https://news.sky.com/story/trumps-venezuela-drug-bust-shows-hes-either-misinformed-or-has-another-motive-13457711 Not exactly lefty sources above and below Lindsey Graham is beating the war drum. Also, Rick Scott suggests that Maduro's days are numbered. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/10/27/republican-senator-supports-military-force-against-venezuela-new-game-were-playing.html I do not think it is crazy to think that the Trump Administration is interested in war with Venezuela. And, it seems like they are searching for a reason to escalate. But, anything that is being asserted about Maduro and Venezuela could apply and does apply to many other countries and leaders as well. And, importantly, Maduro has tried to help deescalate, hence the oil offer to the US. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Maduro-Offered-Venezuelas-Oil-to-Trump-to-Avoid-Conflict-with-US.html#:~:text=The administration of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro,quoting multiple sources close to the discussions. Seems a bit like 2003...but, we'll see.

Here's the entire Reagan speech, what point do you think Reagan was trying to make? Pro Free Trade? Pro Protectionism? More nuanced?

So I found the whole video, the Fox interview, and am attaching it here. The interviewer asks Mamdani about arresting Netanyahu and his response is that he (Mamdani) believes in enforcing the law (including being complimentary of NYC's current police chief) and this includes international law. Because the ICC has ruled that Netanyahu should be tried for war crimes and because Mamdani believes that the enforcement of international law is important, it seems he would not be opposed to attempting to apprehend Netanyahu if Netanyahu was in NYC. With regard to this segment as geopolitical, yes, there is definitely a geopolitical element and there is also a NYC element to the question. So, not speaking on the geopolitics of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict beyond calling for peace makes sense for Mamdani and consistent with his approach of not really taking positions on matters that lay outside of the purview of NYC. And, answering the question about Netanyahu also makes sense, even with the geopolitical element, because the question pertained to Mamdani's view of Netanyahu entering NYC. In fairness to Mamdani here, he is saying he believes in enforcing the law, including international law, and since Netanyahu has been identified by the ICC as a war criminal, then it becomes a matter pertinent to NYC and the enforcement of the law in NYC to apply that to Netanyahu. I would stand by the idea that Mamdani seems to be trying very hard to stay on message and keep the conversation about NYC and, in this instance regarding Netanyahu, there is an overlap of a geopolitical issue and NYC, so, for consistency sake, he has to address the question more directly.

So the clip is 43 seconds, it cuts out before Mamdani can answer the question regarding Netanyahu (I'm going to look for the whole interview somewhere because I am curious to how he responded to that question too). And also, Netanyahu was not the issue of the post regarding Mamdani. The post states that Mamdani says something that he never said in that clip. It is just disingenuous. And, I know, you guys are all fired up about my Handle or what I am saying here, but I think this is all really simple. If a post says someone says something and they don't say it within the context of the evidence given, then that post is either built on ignorance or it is purposefully disingenuous. I realize a lot of you don't like Mamdani and would like him to lose this election, everyone has their own electoral perspectives. But, I think it discredits the critic when they are inaccurate. And, this particular post is a misrepresentation, which really doesn't help anyone take that critic seriously. As for the rest of the comments made, I'm open to hearing all sorts of perspectives, it is actually why I have been scrolling PPP for years. And, whether any of you like me, my statements, my Handle, or my perspectives is not something I am at all concerned. I think PPP is a great place to learn what people think in a pretty raw and unfiltered way. And, at least for me, I can get a sense of the depths of the political binary in this country. I do think that it is a real binary too, but I also find the binary to be an oddity because I think it is fomenting unnecessary tribalism.

Did you watch the clip and hear what he said? It was pretty clear he was doing what he has been doing pretty much this entire campaign, keeping the subject on NYC and not getting dragged into commenting on geopolitics. It's just such a weak take to suggest that Mamdani calling for peace and hoping for the enforcement of international law to maintain and continue to secure a peace is somehow him saying that "Hamas shouldn't lay down their arms." At least with regard to that clip, he never says what is being insinuated in the X post. Just a lazy substanceless effort at a smear.

I live in Northeast (NE) Portland. I have continually lived in Portland for the last 15 years and, on and off, for the last 20 years. Like most cities, Portland does have a few sketchy spots, but those are mostly scattered around town. Generally we tend to enjoy a really high quality of life here. Lots of public transit, biking is easy (by US standards) and the city is littered with local neighborhood centers where there are shops, restaurants, and other local businesses. In all seriousness, I often leave my house unlocked for hours at a time while out and about. The city has 6 main, and distinct, parts. As I said, I live in NE Portland which is very residential. There is also a SE Portland that is also very residential. The East side in general tends to follow a classic city grid pattern and is relatively flat which makes it very walkable. There is also a North Portland, which is also residential but a little bit off the beaten path because it takes bit of work to access. The Willamette river divides the east side from the west side. Great walkable and bike-able bridges cross the river one of which is, in fact, a pedestrian, bus, light rail, bike only bridge. On the west said, there is NW Portland characterized by the Pearl District which has taller apartment buildings and condos and some great neighborhood hang out spots and parks (Portland is loaded with public parks). If you head South from "the Pearl" (as it is known here) you start to get into downtown. Our downtown has seen better days. It was thriving up until Covid but the combination of remote work and the 2020 protests did take a toll on downtown. However, downtown is better today than it was a year or two ago and there are still some classic sites to visit in downtown (Powells Books, and the Saturday Market as some examples). Once you head South out of downtown you get in SW Portland. The SW waterfront is spectacularly. It is where you will find the tram that takes you up into Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) up going into the west hills. The SW waterfront has tall, Vancouver BC like towers and parks and neighborhood appeal on the ground level of the area. Further back in SW you start to go into the west hills where the neighborhoods are less obviously walkable but still with their own neighborhood centers (like Multnomah Village) and, of course, great parks. One last thing, this is a great, great, food city. Truly an embarrassment of riches.

Well, living in "war ravaged Portland" was just hell today! I somehow managed to ride my bike three miles to my local climbing gym through sunlit tree lined neighborhoods and well managed city parks. I then climbed distractedly, wondering how I would ever get home in this war torn city? Miraculously I made it home but my day of terror was really only beginning because I had to take my 13 year old out today to another city park to play in their youth soccer game. What are we thinking here? Youth soccer? In this battle scarred place... what if one of the kids steps on a landmine. Yet, again, miraculously, all of the kids survived the game. Later, after a trip to the grocery store, fearing for my life whole time, I took the family out to eat. Amazing BBQ at a food cart pod. 100s of people eating food and enjoying great beer, outside. I guess everyone must have thought like me, "may as well enjoy our last meal." I was amazed there was even food... did an international aid organization provide rations? Somehow, someway, we ate and, at least for now, I appear to have survived the day in "war ravaged Portland." But, who knows what tomorrow will bring? Heaven forbid there be a peaceful protest somewhere. I may need to retreat to the basement bunker. Thank goodness the President is taking action, otherwise, whatever would we do here in "war ravaged Portland." God willing, I will keep you all appraised on our situation here. Reporting live from "war ravaged Portland."

I was a sophomore at SUNY Cortland. Probably looking forward to the annual Cortaca Jug game and watching Bills games in the dorm TV lounge... way too many Jets and Giants fans.

Not sure if this has found its way into the discussion, but Nate Silver's 538 site has an article, "Is Josh Allen Actually Good Now?" Here's the link, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-josh-allen-actually-good-now/

Well GOBILLS78, the meaning of the word possible doesn't typically need further qualifiers, but I know from many years of reading this board that sometimes the obvious is not so obvious. Tell you what, for your sake I'll change it back to its original form...

Oh. now that would be brilliant marketing!

Hence possible...

Just saw this on CNNSI, I just had to pass it along... http://tracking.si.c...fl-knuckleball/

Hi all, longtime reader... I very rarely post messages. I have a question though. I am currently in Beijing, China and I am interested in watching the game. Does anyone know where I can find the game in Beijing? There is a palce here called Frank's Place that caters to foreigners from the States, but I am not sure where else to look and I don't know if they will have the game. Any help would be great, thanks.