ComradeKayAdams

Buffarukus, You put some time and effort into your response, so I’ll try my best to address every point you raised: 1. Interpretations of Poll Percentage Numbers: Acknowledging the enormous and highly nuanced diversity of thought on this subject doesn’t detract from the central point that these are many tiny Venn diagram opinion circles that often overlap. I’d like to see more Roe v. Wade polling data this month, but we may already have an ~80% national consensus on legal protection for the first 12 weeks (plus the usual list of exemptions…rape, mother’s life at risk, etc.). I would NEVER want to shut down the ~20% from expressing their points of view and trying to persuade the ~80%, but we also have time constraints and many other pressing issues to debate! I don’t think the domain of reasonably productive discourse on abortion lies anywhere outside the second trimester interval. By the way, don’t forget that the abortion stats breakdown is this: 90% occurring within the first trimester, 9% within the second, and 1% within the third. So any realistically productive conversations on abortion should be centered around exploring the nature of what’s happening in these (9+1)% cases. 2. Leaving Things Up To The States: You raised a good question of what makes abortion a uniquely federal health/safety issue, in comparison to other ones that are left to states. I haven’t yet thought too deeply on this question, so others here may have better answers. One part of it may have to do with the immense time and energy and cost that is involved with raising another potential human being. Another part of it may be just what ends up being impractical to implement, which is especially true if you have such large deviations between policies on a state-by-state level. I’d also add that sometimes a large percentage of Americans can simply find a state’s behavior way too ethically appalling, as was the situation preceding the 1964 Civil Rights Act and what I expect will be the case once the 13 red state abortion “trigger laws” come into effect. 3. Sundry Left-Wing Hypocrisies: I think we’re mostly in agreement here. No, the Democrats don’t hold any greater integrity than the GOP on numerous other issues and court rulings that you could name. Yes, the Democrats have been using abortion as a political football. I was never much of a COVID Karen, so I’ll acknowledge that point as well. We should note, however, that the left’s argument is that masks/vaccinations are related to the greater public health while abortion services are related to individual health….so it’s not a perfect “my body, my choice” comparison. 4. The Public Paying for Abortion: Yes, I’m a huge proponent of universal health care. I’d start with the United Kingdom version, but I’d eventually want an even more expansive version than that. So am I okay with forcing those Americans who are morally opposed to abortions to pay for these health services? Well…sure. Why? Because Rousseau’s “social contract” (the philosopher, not the defensive end!). I mean, no one is allowing me tax exemptions for my moral opposition to much of our military budget or to meat/dairy farm subsidies! Nor should they. 5. My Own Evolved Stance on Women’s Privacy: I come from an active Catholic family, so I started out very pro-life as a child and have evolved to very pro-choice (in terms of public policy) as a young adult. What mostly changed my opinion was learning about the personal experiences of women who had them and imagining what it would have been like to have “walked a mile in their moccasins,” as they say. You weren’t ever going to have a serious conversation with me. Your strongest rebuttal was going to be a large scary picture of Moloch drawn in crayon.

First of all, “Moloch’s Gaping Maw” is a PERFECT name for a hard rock band. “Moloch” is equally awesome as a slightly edgy name for a pet dog…even more so if the dog is small and ferociously energetic like a corgi! But getting back to the topic at hand, I can’t tell if you are intending to say that a woman who has an abortion is morally irredeemable? Going by Judeo-Christian principles, that is simply untrue. Forgiveness and redemption are two of its core themes, along with all that other important stuff like love, empathy, respect for the poor and the downtrodden, etc… Secular humanism has these same principles too, though I’m not sure if it applies for sociopaths (another topic altogether…). I can’t tell if you instead are intending to say that it is not your personal obligation to educate/persuade a woman from having an abortion? Maybe not, but it is certainly your obligation to educate and persuade others on your moral values IF you want these values to become laws in a democratic society! Lately, the GOP seems to want to hide their least popular ideas behind the Supreme Court and the 10th Amendment. That can be an effective strategy since we do live in a republic and not a democracy, but only up to a point. The political right seems to be careening past that point now. Why do I say that? Simple: Roe v. Wade scientific polling data is at ~30% legal in all cases, ~50% legal but with restrictions (rape, *****, life of mother, health of baby, first trimester only, no third trimester, etc.), and ~20% illegal in all cases. Comparative polling studies can maybe break that ~50% number down to ~35% up through the first trimester only and ~15% up through the second trimester (i.e. up to what is considered the traditional point of viability). In other words, ~80% of Americans are effectively in support of Roe v. Wade, whether or not they realize it. Does anyone here disagree with my numbers? If so, state what you think those 4 numbers (30% + 35% + 15% + 20%) actually are in this country, right now as of May 2022. If you want to talk about “moral imperatives,” I believe it is now my moral imperative to make sure your ~20% stays out of power this November and beyond. I care about all life as well, including the lives of scared and struggling young mothers who are stuck in red states…lives of women whom you castigate and judge for whatever personal reasons…possibly because you get fulfillment from assuming the white knight role for the innocent unborn…in which case I hope you’ll join me in making sure these unborn have universal health care coverage as soon as they are born…??

At the risk of speaking a bit too broadly and dichotomously, I think this is the crux of the debate’s heat: each side somehow believes they’re the ones who are the 70%. By the way, I wonder which side would score better on a basic test of gynecology and abortion facts?? Hmmm… No matter. The truth of the actual 70% will reveal itself once the Bible Belters begin rolling out their draconian state abortion laws. And in terms of political strategy, any failure to pass some version of the Women’s Health Protection Act (i.e., a federal codification of Roe v. Wade) can serve as a useful foot in the door for various far-left political goodies like socialized health care. Hey is it just me, or is anyone else suddenly getting REALLY horny over the prospects of eradicating right-wing zealotry this November?! I haven’t felt this way since the 2008 Kucinich campaign during the halcyon days of my carefree adolescence…my Lord…T.M.I.? Perhaps, but my Lord… Muppy!!! I like your new profile pic! I changed mine too! I’m personally very pro-life but publicly very pro-choice. Often times, the “correct” public policy for such a heterogeneous society as ours can be defined as the “least awful” one. I sincerely believe that a “least awful” solution is the passage of the Women’s Health Protection Act. Those with strong opinions against abortion should focus on educating and persuading young women instead of legally restricting/punishing them.

Okay, thanks for the opinions! Much appreciated. On the progressive side: I’ve been texting my NYC peeps for updates on both the local and national scene. Incumbent grassroots campaign coffers are supposedly rapidly filling and third party enthusiasm seems to have collapsed practically overnight. There’s little chatter anymore about any so-called “hostile takeover” of the Democratic Party. Weeks ago, Nina Turner’s loss in Ohio would have enraged a lot of progressives. But now? Everyone seems laser-focused on collaborating to destroy our common enemy first, and it’s hard for me to disagree with that strategy these days. Maybe I’m also a bit afraid of Julia Salazar scolding me again over my Green Party dalliances lol… The KEY factor by November is going to be the mobilization of college students and young professionals. Fear is a powerful motivator and maybe the most powerful one. If Roe v. Wade is overturned before the election, I think millions of normally apathetic voters are going to witness and freak out over the absurdly restrictive (and punitive!) abortion laws that immediately go into effect in many of the backward red states. The horrific impracticality of managing all the accompanying interstate legal discrepancies will likely become quickly apparent, too. And prospective voters with even the most modest capacities for foresight will soon reason that millions of forced pregnancies to go with a negligible social safety net is a recipe for societal chaos. Election day voter turnout and polling data should ultimately guide any Dem decisions on ending the filibuster and packing the courts. Normally I am against using these strong-arm tactics, but not in special cases of voter mandates. Besides, any lingering notions of honor and civility in American political discourse are dead now. It’s time we acknowledge that reality and instead just prioritize enacting good public policy.

Mr. Governor, I have always respected your political acumen, so I ask you: do you think we can reach the necessary Senate numbers in November?? The economy and inflation is still going to take precedence over social issues for many (if not most) voters. California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire? Sure. That gets us to 47. Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida?? All of these would get us to a more comfortable 55, but I’d say each one is far from guaranteed. But even if we get up to 55, will the Senate Democrats actually have the courage this time to end the filibuster and pass the Women’s Health Protection Act in January? And even if it passes, will the Democrats down the line have the temerity for court packing if the conservative Supreme Court attempts to kill the bill? This, of course, is predicated on the assumption that the Democrats would hold Congress and the Presidency in 2024 and beyond…a huge uncertainty. In the meantime, two things that we have great control over: 1. Continued support and promotion of organizations like The Brigid Alliance that help low-income and other disadvantaged women stuck in backward red states. 2. Targeted campaign organizing on campuses and working-class neighborhoods.

What about Tremaine? Have we discussed Edmunds yet? He’s really good, no?

Your third line needs work. It is one syllable short. Otherwise, good job! Long gone by our pick… McDuffie, Booth, or Gordon. Let’s go cornerback! Super lazy, Dan… You write haikus like Kelvin Benjamin runs routes. TWO BILLS DRIVE POETS: we are counting syllables and will impose fines. I enjoyed this one! The third line is redundant, But it made me laugh!

Respect special teams. A new punter on day three? Matt Haack is not good. 4merper4mer, Where is your haiku structure? Can you try again? Poetry is fun! No more negativity. You got this, Brennan! Ugh! Et tu, Dopey?! A name that is apropos… Why do you hate Dan?!

Um…sorta. Lessons abound for all! Let’s discuss: What the left can learn: 1. The value of nuclear: Germany and most far-lefties should talk to France about it…the benefits, the costs, the technical risks, etc. They will feel much better about nuclear after this long conversation with the French. If Germany hadn’t abandoned nuclear after Fukushima, Europe as a whole wouldn’t be nearly as dependent on Russian fossil fuels as they currently are. What the right can learn: My goodness…where do I start… 1. Basic import/export facts: Russia makes up only a small percent (~7%?) of our total fossil fuel imports. Canada is our #1 exporter by far. Also, U.S. fossil fuel production has never gone down since Biden took office. Furthermore, no additional global fossil fuel production is necessary in order to facilitate cutting Russia off from the international energy trade market. A complete rerouting of the current trade market would suffice. If you don’t believe me, look up global import/export data for each major country and play around with the arithmetic for yourselves. 2. Keystone pipeline: It was always going to take several years to come online, so it’s not a viable solution for either the current Russia-Ukraine fiasco or the current COVID-related cost-push inflation fiasco. 3. Drilling permits: There’s no need to issue new ones when fossil fuel corporations already have an abundance of sea/land plots that are currently untouched. 4. Nationalization of energy: Lots of right-wingers want Biden to take firm control of the situation and alter our country’s energy trade market. Fine…but keep in mind that U.S. energy is controlled by private corporations, so you are technically advocating for at least a temporary “socialization” of the national energy sector. 5. Energy independence: You are free to prioritize this aspiration if you wish, but keep in mind that U.S. energy will continue to be a tradable private commodity on the global market. Therefore, it will continue to be subject to the global market whims of energy supply/demand laws, a.k.a. global cost fluctuations. 6. The many tentacles of the U.S. oligarchy: The most important point for righties to understand because it undergirds much of contemporary American politics, especially as it pertains to energy commerce. The fossil fuel corporate oligarchs have propagandized you to think that anthropogenic global warming is even a scientific debate. The manufacturing industry oligarchs are behind ridiculous Supreme Court cases like WVA v. EPA, which aims to undermine the practical federal power to regulate pollution. U.S. corporate oligarchs of all stripes have colluded to ensure opacity in international commerce transactions, which makes federal sanction impositions much more difficult to enforce (relative to the rest of the industrialized countries that comprise the West). I could go on and on with this subcategory, but you probably get the point… What both the left and the right can learn: 1. Long-term planning: Everyone in the West should have started much sooner with renewables. Ideally, we all should have been dramatically increasing our fundamental R+D budgets during the era of the 1970’s energy crisis. By not doing so and by not having a sufficiently diversified energy portfolio at this point in time, we have ceded a lot of economic leverage to Russia (and China). 2. Basic patience: Putin invaded Ukraine rather suddenly (yah yah, I understand Russia had a lengthy military buildup at the border…). It takes a bit of time to reroute a gigantic global energy trade market. And given present inflation issues and risks of further energy supply shocks, it kinda makes sense for the West to slowly wean ourselves from Russian fossil fuels instead of forcing an abrupt cut-off. 3. Problems with U.S. imperialism: All of our Russian oil import issues could have magically gone away if we had healthy (i.e. open) trade relations with countries like, say, Venezuela. But in Venezuela’s example case, we are sanctioning their people to death because we hate global left-wing politics and we want to install our latest hand-chosen coup puppet, Juan Guaido, who will do our economically exploitative bidding in ways that no leftist would ever allow.

Good interpretation, though the rest of that “story” does matter greatly. The Russian cultural ties to Donetsk and Luhansk matter. The strategic military use of the Crimean peninsula matters. Aggressive NATO expansions toward Russian borders (for the benefit of the military-industrial complex) matter. U.S. meddling into Ukrainian politics (for the benefit of the entire corporate oligarchy) matters. But yes, we agree that energy is the underlying source of this international conflict.

Sure, but I’d like to think that the whole point of this thread is for everyone to gain a better understanding of the causes, who’s to blame, what’s going on currently, and paths to take that can solve the crisis. My own assessment, FWIW: 1. The causes: My one-sentence summary is that this is a typical clash between rival imperialist competitors (U.S. and Russia) in a major economic, cultural, and political market (all of Europe, really…not just Ukraine and the Slavic homelands). A slightly more nuanced take requires thinking beyond the classic left vs. right political paradigm and into a populist vs. establishment one. Everyone here understands that Russia is a corrupt corporate oligarchy with an authoritarian ringleader (Putin). But would everyone also agree that the United States also functions as a corrupt corporate oligarchy whose M.I.C.-rooted foreign policy arm is driven by economic exploitation and not some noble illusory support of global democracy and the preservation of human rights abroad? How about the idea that Biden, Trump, Obama, living Bush, pervert Clinton, pantsuit Clinton too, dead Bush, Reagan, etc… were/are all war criminals and political duopolists whose variations in foreign policy decisions were/are pond ripples above an underlying tidal wave of imperialism? How Trump was another in a long line of heavy-handed American supremacists who may have been less of a bully interventionist (relative to Obama and Biden) in some key respects (Libya, Syria, Iraq) but more of one in others (JCPOA/Iran, Yemen, Cuba, Venezuela, certain dealings with Russia, also never got us out of Afghanistan like he promised, etc.)? How the M.I.C. budget keeps rising every year regardless of the political tribe affiliation of the sitting president, and this is why the American people are told that they cannot have basic things that every other civilized country take for granted like universal health care?? No?! OMG seriously? Then we have a HUGE problem here. Shall we carefully go over every single f*$king coup, regime change war, embargo, and sanction since WW2? The Afghanistan Papers? Collateral damage data from drone strikes? Yemeni civil war? Palestine? Activities in the Horn of Africa? OMG what we’re currently doing in Syria??!! What we’re currently doing throughout Latin America beyond the Cuba and Venezuelan sanctions?? By all means, someone PLEASE defend American post-WW2 imperialistic foreign policy for me…and do so from a secular humanist, Judeo-Christian, and/or Constitutional perspective… <<< insert gif of Kay furiously shoveling popcorn (seasoned…no butter…f*$k the dairy industry too) into her mouth. >>> 2. Blame game: It’s all on Russia. None of their many listed grievances against NATO (many of which I found reasonable, up until the Ukraine invasion happened…) can justify this unprovoked military aggression against a sovereign nation. Putin did not come close to exhausting his diplomatic options. 3. What’s going on currently: We’ll just have to rely on the news media and navigate a bit through some of the fog of war and the propaganda. 4. How to fix the crisis: No idea. Does anyone, really? Direct combat between nuclear powers should always be off the table. Proxy combat is very treacherous, but it may eventually become necessary. Sanctions probably present the most viable options, unfortunately, but how can we tailor them in such a way as to maximally affect the Russian oligarchs and minimally affect the Russian people and the rest of the world? I’m very uneasy of the manifold repercussions of banning those oligarchs from SWIFT. One major leverage we do have over Putin is the fact that their national economy is extremely imbalanced and reliant on fossil fuel exports. Our very first option, of course, should be diplomacy where NATO offers a series of concessions (back to its original status during the 90’s?) in order to get Russia to cease fire and withdraw their troops. Western hubris and Putin’s crossing of the metaphorical Rubicon into the physical country of Ukraine, however, may have already rendered this option moot. Something I want to quickly challenge here is the pervasive notion that energy independence through greatly increased domestic fossil fuel production is the West’s best solution. Never mind the anthropogenic climate change debate. I would encourage everyone to look at tabulated data of various energy categories for Russia, the U.S., Germany, the rest of Europe, and basically the rest of the world. Scan over what is exported, imported, and consumed in each country. Look at their trade partners. Look at production before and after the pandemic. The takeaway here should be that a concerted global effort to reroute energy trade markets at current production levels is more than sufficient to isolate Russia. Some basic degree of cooperation is expected from the major Middle East oil countries, however. I assume Venezuela and Iran will align with Russia, while China will try to play both major sides. Thank you for your cathartic post, Leh-nerd, and don’t forget to vote in the 2022 TBD PPP Subforum Moderator election!! Who do you serve?! Who do we deserve?! Toward whom will you electorally swerve? Leh-nerd: “Irv. IRV. For the love of God, Kay…IRV. Just please stop typing. Ugh. I could use another vacation in Florida. I hate you.”

UGH. Full apologies, Tibsy. You were right and I was wrong. I completely underestimated Putin’s capacity for economic brinkmanship. Is it safe to assume that Russia and China arranged a sweet trade partnership beforehand?? The latest I heard was that China was prevaricating on Ukraine. Yeah, the political tribalism at PPP is super annoying and is also missing the mark. Normally this is the moment where I would insert a lengthy rant against all facets of the bipartisan post-1989 American imperialism (with particular emphasis on NATO aggression, Yanukovych ousting, etc.), but the brutal reality here is that the Ukrainian invasion is 100% Putin’s fault and 0% anyone else’s. At least Nord Stream 2 is dead now. GOOD.

Good to hear! A Russian invasion of Ukraine is highly unlikely because all the players in this stupid game are ultimately rational actors. Everyone here stands to lose so much more in the long run (economically and militarily) than they can ever hope to win. So fingers crossed, but yes it’s looking a lot more like political theater serving to benefit multiple international leaders, namely Biden and Putin, with their respective constituencies’ approval. The worldwide military-industrial complex is also benefiting greatly, of course, and this may very well be the main motivation. Just quickly scanning through the posts in this thread…it appears that (yet again) the corporate mainstream media has been irresponsibly framing the debate through the lens of right versus left, GOP versus Democrats, and Trump versus Biden. Very few have been taking the far more important introspective approach and asking what our own country’s responsibility has been for this escalation? Why is it any of our business to dictate how economic trade relations between Russia and its nearest European Union neighbors are to proceed? As much as I personally despise the Russian natural gas industry, for example, doesn’t a country like Germany have the sovereign right to seek energy price relief from COVID-related inflationary effects? And what about the aggressive military posturing from NATO? Wouldn’t the United States feel increasingly threatened, for example, if China was moving troops closer to our borders from Canada and Mexico? For anyone still wondering what Russia’s endgame is, the best guess would be “economic leverage into the European market.” All of Putin’s aggressive military posturing strikes me as his own unique style of diplomacy. Is he trying to rebuild the Slavic empire from the glory days of the Soviet Union, with the invasion of Ukraine as the first key step? Very doubtful. Way too costly, IMO.

OK, but I don’t see a single sentence in the article that is untruthful. The author calls out Senator Manchin for what he clearly is: a crony capitalist of the fossil fuel industry, legislating based on personal financial gain rather than what’s best for his constituents and the country and the planet. One isn’t necessary because Sinema’s political career is already effectively over. Her resistance to Build Back Better was too radical a departure from the political platform on which she ran in Arizona. As a result, her state approval numbers are now in the basement, though I’m pretty sure she doesn’t care. She knew what she was doing and will be leaving Washington on a very golden parachute. Did you read the article?? He’s NOT looking out for the interests of his constituents! The article described two major ways in which this is the case: higher state utility costs and lower state health/environmental standards. I’ll offer several more that weren’t mentioned: 1. Build Back Better Act: About 70% of all West Virginians and about 90% of registered Democrats from West Virginia have been in favor of the bill. The inflation fearmongering and deficit hawkery that Manchin has used to justify his contrarian position (on a $1.7 trillion bill spread out over 10 years and embedded within a currently $30 trillion national debt, mind you…) contradicts all mainstream macroeconomic rationality as well as Manchin’s own lengthy legislative voting record. 2. General neoliberalism: West Virginia actually has a very rich history of labor activism, but center-right poopheads like Manchin have repeatedly gone out of their way to undermine it. We can start with universal health care and continue on down the long line of Reaganomics nonsense that Manchin has been peddling in opposition to the interests of the working class. West Virginians don’t even care about the coal mining jobs, per se. They care about jobs that provide an acceptable standard of living and that allow them to remain living in their home state. 3. Climate change economic legislation: Manchin has had numerous opportunities throughout his career to advocate for statewide transition program provisions in climate change-related bills that would have allowed coal industry workers to move into new careers (like in renewable energies?). These types of transition programs should have begun 40-50 years ago in West Virginia, or as soon as everyone realized coal was a dying industry. Manchin has never advocated for them. Instead, he has been downplaying, misleading, and flat out lying about anthropogenic global warming. 4. Progressive power shift: For the most part, West Virginia is a socially conservative state, so the social policies of progressive Democrats tend to scare them. Manchin’s (and Sinema’s) uncooperative antics over the Biden administration’s BBB Act, however, have done more to augment and embolden the progressive wing within the Democratic Party than any other political action seen since the Great Recession aftermath. It’s not uncommon for West Virginians to prioritize social policies over economic ones, so I’m sure many of them aren’t too happy with this development.

Thank you for noticing, Leh-nerd! And did you know that us vegan ones smell the best? Yes, I believe this to be factually correct! SCIENCE, Leh-nerd. Envision a stalking field scientist/home invader, with the narrating voice of Richard Dawkins: “As the vegan female variant of h o m o sapien casually emerges from her urban porcelain nest, the olfactory splendors of her dietary remnants fill the open room. Her whole-foods plant-based diet begets a rich aroma that conjures memories of my adolescence in Oxfordshire, running through wondrous dewy spring fields of magnolia, lilac, and wisteria. It is THE delineating signature of her presence, in marked contrast with the effluvious residues of her male counterparts who subsist primarily on meat, dairy, and eggs.” EDIT: silly language filter for "h o m o" sapien.

Great post! Hard to disagree with anything here. Based solely on what you’ve typed in this thread, I might broadly classify you as a “populist centrist” rather than a “classical liberal.” Tulsi Gabbard resonated well with populist centrists in 2020. Does that make sense? If not, maybe think geometrically. Think of the spectrum of politics as divided into a 2-dimensional box along left-right and populist-establishment axes, with the 4 corners as follows: 1. Left populist (roughly represented with Bernie Sanders). 2. Right populist (roughly represented with Donald Trump). 3. Right establishment (best represented with Mitch McConnell). 4. Left establishment (best represented with Joe Biden). 2020 Tulsi (she has moved further right and slightly more establishment since then) was the connecting tissue between corners #1 and #2. I think you may be somewhere along that nebulous middle edge region. Many Americans are! Slight digression: Elizabeth Warren was the 2020 connecting tissue between corners #1 and #4. AOC is the heir apparent to octogenarian Bernie, but she’s been drifting toward corner #4 since March 2020. The civil war within the anti-establishment left (corner #1…my people!) that I alluded to in my previous post mostly concerns political strategy of whether to gain actual political power by unifying more with corner #2 (through third parties, most likely) or with corner #4 (through the Democratic Party’s primary process). The questions then become: which corner to trust more, what policies to concede, what policies to compromise on, what policies to promulgate, what policies to persuade others on, etc.? I don’t know if you have followed my PPP writings in the past, but I lean HEAVILY toward a corner #2 alliance because I REALLY can’t stand the pro-censorship and pro-military industrial complex/American imperialism that resides along corner #4. Now whether you can be better classified as a “classical liberal” requires a bunch of tedious additional questions related to macroeconomics and Constitutional interpretations. Even though the “classical liberal” term has a specific definition rooted in history, I tend to look at it as synonymous nowadays with “libertarian.” Not the vague definition, mind you, of being against excessive government involvement in all aspects of our lives (because who isn’t, really?). I prefer a more tightly defined one that means someone who wants to reduce the responsibilities of the U.S. federal government back to what was carefully enumerated in the U.S. Constitution…and nothing more. Examples: are you against Glass-Steagall, in favor of Bretton Woods, against social security, in favor of a flat tax, against increasing federal debt during recessions, or in favor of union-negotiated health care plans over a socialized one? If you can answer “yes” to at least some of these questions, then you might be a classical liberal…and may God have mercy on your soul. You reside somewhere between corner #2 and corner #3.

Super Bowl 56 does seem scripted to me: Tinseltown’s team moves back. They need to win over the fickle fans. Their new stadium opens up. They make it back to the Super Bowl for the first year that their stadium hosts it. Their adversary is a young Cinderella upstart team whose quarterback is played by Macaulay Culkin. Yeah right. All of us pro football fans are living in some type of Truman Show.

Oh wow…you have completely ruined Peter Pan for me. All this time, your refusal to grow up was a facade for a refusal to confront deep-seated bigotries toward Indigenous peoples??

You do realize that you are comparing Edmunds to arguably the best ILB in the league…who is at a career production pace consistent with a first-ballot Hall of Famer, correct? Furthermore, you realize that Darius Leonard during his rookie year was the same age that Tremaine Edmunds is NOW? Furthermore, you realize that the Colts play a noticeably different defensive system with different MLB responsibilities than Leslie Frazier’s? A more appropriate statistical comparison would be Carolina’s Luke Kuechly, who happened to have had a first-ballot Hall of Fame career. For fun, let’s do a basic career statistical comparison of all three LB’s. Here are their season statistical averages (projected for a full 17-game season and rounded to the nearest whole numbers) for 10 basic statistical categories plus 1 team stat. The order is Edmunds’ followed by Kuechly’s followed by Leonard’s: Combined tackles: 129, 157, 158 Solo tackles: 82, 99, 101 Assisted tackles: 47, 58, 57 Tackles for losses: 7, 11, 9 QB hits: 4, 4, 6 Sacks: 2, 2, 4 Forced fumbles: 1, 1, 5 Fumble recoveries: 0, 1, 2 Interceptions: 1, 3, 3 Passes defended: 8, 10, 9 Team’s defensive unit ranking (in yards allowed per game): 5, 12, 13 Keep in mind here that these individual statistical averages are comparatively higher for Kuechly versus Edmunds partly because they include Kuechly’s peak athletic years during his middle 20’s. Also keep in mind that Kuechly’s numbers are comparatively lower to Leonard’s partly for the same averaging-out reason (as well as the different defensive systems in which they played). CONCLUSION: You know what? No, I’m not going to do this. Here are the stats. The haters are free to draw whatever conclusions they want. I’ve already determined for myself (which incorporates X’s and O’s analyses from people whose opinions I respect…think: Greg Cosell types) that Edmunds is a top 20 NFL LB and still has potential to be much more. Many of you probably gave up on Josh Allen when he was 23 years old, but I’m not going to do that to Tremaine. I’m more than happy to have him as a Buffalo Bill for at least 1 more year. He’ll have every opportunity to establish his true second contract market value next offseason.

I would even settle for the police officer from the Terminator 2 movie: fast, high motor, competitive drive, and quick recovery time from injuries. Best projected fit in the NFL: slot receiver.

Why is Von Miller unrealistic? We know that Brandon Beane was trying to trade for him before the Rams beat him to the deal. We know that Beane places a (borderline irrational) premium on pass rushers. We know that DL draft picks outside the top 20 can’t be expected to contribute much during their first 2 or so years. And we know that the pass rush was wildly inconsistent this season and was a major reason why the Bills aren’t still playing football games. Von Miller’s projected annual salary is $10-11 million, according to Spotrac, which is about the salary cap equivalent of cutting Jon Feliciano and AJ Klein.

Hi, Buffarukus. I’ll comment on your post by each paragraph: Paragraph 1: Law is too arcane a field to be open to the general public for democratic voting. Also, constitutional law is not math or science with objective truths, so there’s no sense in pretending that the judicial branch can ever be anything but inherently political. And if we want a diversity of opinions and life experiences in our courts, I’d consider socioeconomic background as much as I would race and gender. Paragraph 2: There’s a way around this predicament that you describe. In the case of death or early retirement, a sitting president can select that judge’s replacement, but that replacement can only serve out the remaining unused years of the predecessor’s term. So he or she doesn’t automatically get a renewed full term. Paragraph 3: For the record, I personally do NOT advocate subverting the system (court packing, ending filibusters, etc.) to gain more power. The THREAT of subversion, however, is acceptable to me if it ends up persuading all involved parties to come to the bipartisan negotiating table like adults. Also remember that the GOP is playing their own version of unethical power games by using the judicial branch to obviate the will of the clear majority, as expressed via the legislative branch. The most prominent example from last year was Texas SB 8, but I expect many more examples this decade that will be centered around the far-left’s populist economic agenda (universal health care, corporate/Wall Street regulations, etc.). There are few angels and even fewer clean hands in politics…on either side. Paragraph 4: We’ll probably need a ranked choice voting system implemented at every level of U.S. government before we are to realistically give third parties a meaningful voice.

True, but the disparity in numbers is not the real problem. PPP forum: “Liberals are all stupid, lazy, power-hungry, and morally repugnant.” Also PPP forum: “Hey, how come liberals don’t want to converse with us??” Interesting take. However, I’d drop the “intelligent liberal” versus “stupid liberal” dichotomy because it’s unproductive. If I’m interpreting your post correctly, you seem to be asking why the modern American left is so pro-establishment and wondering what happened to all the anti-establishment lefties (i.e. the lefties who are pro-labor, pro-free speech, and anti-American imperialism and who tend to prioritize these issues over social justice warrior ones)? Well as someone who happens to be personally well-connected with far-left NYC politicians, I can assure you that this anti-establishment left still exists and is fairly robust, albeit currently powerless. They formed the backbone of the 2008 Obama campaign in opposition to Hillary’s, the 2016 Sanders campaign in opposition again to Hillary’s, and the 2020 Sanders campaign in opposition to basically the rest of the Democratic Party field. You probably wouldn’t know of their existence if you only consumed corporate media like Fox and MSNBC, but you will hear from them again during the mid-term primaries and again during the 2024 primaries. The anti-establishment subset of the left has been embroiled in a 14-month-long civil war over political strategy and various policy purity litmus tests with the goal of identifying all the poseurs, but they will be ready to do battle with the Democratic Party establishment when the time is ripe! Though winner-take-all electoral systems do make strange bedfellows, unfortunately… A small aside: I really don’t like the sloppy use of the word “liberal” in this thread. Like “Marxist” and “progressive,” it’s a label that has lost most of its original meaning in the American vernacular. Please add a modifier. Thank you. There are “classical liberals” on the right, and then there are “modern liberals” that comprise the left along with the “center-leftists,” “social democrats,” and “democratic socialists.” The “modern liberals” and “center-leftists” are essentially variations of “neoliberal,” while the “social democrats” and “democratic socialists” are “progressives.” And the “democratic socialists,” of course, are the only true “Marxists” among the types. Does that make sense to everyone?? Agree? Disagree? I’m a real stickler for language precision, as you can tell… Final comment: right-wingers who live in glass establishment houses shouldn’t be throwing stones! The neocons and crony capitalists still own the GOP, despite all the sweet political nothings that every right-winger’s favorite faux populist boyfriend in the orange clown makeup has whispered in their ears during the past half-decade.

Hmmm…so recently I have been thinking very deeply about constitutional law, as I am wont to do after a difficult Bills loss. Would a constitutional amendment that specifies Supreme Court term limits and roster size be something on which everyone along the political spectrum can agree? If so, how about, say, 13 justices (one for each U.S. circuit court of appeals) for terms of, say, 26 years (chosen, say, every 2 years)? And if the consensus answer is “yes, Kay, that’s actually a very brilliant idea but that is also not entirely surprising given the progenitor of said idea,” then how would such a bipartisan idea come to fruition given the stridently partisan political climate?? Basically, many of my fellow comrades want to pack the courts. Normally I would be against such a thing, but I also don’t want five or six elderly right-wing out-of-touch individuals continuously blocking future domestic economic populist legislation that has amassed the support of ~70+% of the country. So I’m thinking of ways that our dear nation can avoid another Lochner Era crisis because I don’t think it would be good for the stability of our currently fragile democracy. A reversal of Roe v. Wade via yet another Tenth Amendment cop-out may become the dangerous catalyst for such a calamity, and it could easily happen this decade. Or am I being overly dramatic? I’m still quite upset over the Thirteen Seconds game and am having a tough time processing my emotions. Please forgive me, PPP.