ComradeKayAdams

I look at lots of numbers. What numbers are you looking at which show white women becoming more racist over the past 10 years? How can such a thing even be proven conclusively? And are white women becoming more racist or are we simply placing greater emphasis on other issues, i.e. perhaps becoming “racially insensitive” at worst (yes, I believe there’s a distinction between “racist” and “racially insensitive”). Maybe white women are simply prioritizing concrete domestic economic issues over seemingly abstract culture war ones? Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and what not…placing the needs of their children and other close loved ones ahead of important social causes. The post-Great Recession economic anxieties of white women are not mutually exclusive from those of the rest of the electorate. The analysis in my previous post was apropos and AWESOME. Please re-read it, print it out, highlight the salient sentences, and pin it on the wall above your computer desk. I’ll be here if you have further questions and concerns, Mr. Governor.

I’m not so sure about this racism angle, Mr. Governor. The numbers I look at are various single-issue poll results. They strongly indicate the country shifting left on economic issues and right on culture war issues, yet the Democratic Party continues to run counter to this trend with woke corporatists for candidates who are fixated on Trump and critical race theory at the exclusion of demand-side macroeconomics. It’s a recipe for disaster next November and in 2024 if anyone not named Trump runs for the GOP. Republicans could easily own both chambers of Congress, the executive branch, and of course a 6-3 Supreme Court in a few years… All these worker strikes emerging across the nation should be serving as political canaries in Democratic Party coal mines. The electorate appears to be screaming their unhappiness with the deadly combination of neoliberal policies and authoritarian COVD measures. But the Democrats as a whole do not listen to the people because we know they are there to serve their corporate donors first and foremost. Even the progressive voting bloc now appears to be caving to the centrist corporatists, as they’re expected to vote for that garbage bipartisan infrastructure bill well before the budget reconciliation bill, the latter of which has already been heavily gutted of legislation overwhelmingly popular with Americans (l actually lost track of what remains but any of the following is probably gone at this time: free community college, universal pre-k, child tax credit extension, paid family leave, paid medical leave, Medicare expansion including dental and eye care, prescription drug price controls, etc… plus the corporate and billionaire tax hikes to help pay for these programs). No $15 federal minimum wage or student debt relief, either. A more active and less demented president would be mediating the internal disagreements among the Democratic Party congressmen or implementing executive orders for much of the popular legislation pieces that were stripped from the BBB bill. Actions, or the lack thereof, have consequences. Expect a lot of successful and perhaps unexpected Dem primary challenges against incumbents…challenges from both the economic progressive left and culturally centrist right, depending on the U.S. district. Here in the unofficial far-left capital that is NYC, I’m aware of movements already being organized to replace Ritchie Torres, Jamaal Bowman, and Mondaire Jones from the left in anticipation of their Benedict Arnold-ing the progressive movement with their BIB+BBB bill votes. Even the Progressive Chosen One a.k.a. Socialist Barbie a.k.a. AOC could be targeted (though I seriously doubt that movement would be successful). As for the rest of the country? I’m 99% sure Jayapal is in trouble. Khanna, Porter, Pressley, Tlaib, Omar, Cori Bush, Newman, and Pocan could be in trouble too. I’m less familiar with moderate Dems, but I’m sure they’re sweating profusely as well. On the plus side, I suppose the incompetency and corruption of the current Democrats is making it that much easier for us far-lefties to take over the Democratic Party at the national level! Woohoo! Commie Kay likey!

You can’t have a productive debate with people who are unwilling and/or unable to differentiate between social democracy and democratic socialism. Congratulations to Byron Brown last night, I guess. Childhood poverty in Buffalo rose to 45% during his four terms in office, as he continued funneling most of the city’s financial resources into downtown development. Hurrah for trickle-down economics! But whatever. In time, progressives will have our revenge. The 2022 Democratic Party primaries are going to be an absolute bloodbath. Here in NYC, I know it’s going to be like the opening scene of Scorsese’s “Gangs of New York.” Hell-Cat Maggie? Meet Hell-Cat Kay.

A special message on behalf of NYC’s progressive community: Good luck today, India Walton!!! And best wishes to everyone on her campaign team, including the wonderful volunteers who I know have been working tirelessly to help get her elected! Remember to focus on saturating the East Side neighborhoods. As you already know, a strong gameday ground game is the difference maker in elections like these (hey, just as it often is the case for late-season Bills games…). A friendly reminder to Buffalo voters: Mayor Brown is a corrupt neoliberal f$#@face scumbag and a traitor to the working class. His relationships with local real estate developers are completely analogous to Kyrsten Sinema’s connections with the pharmaceutical industry or to Joe Manchin’s ties with fossil fuel barons. It is well past time to systematically identify and remove such proven sociopaths from positions of power. All of progressive America is looking to the Queen City today for inspiration! To paraphrase Marv Levy: “Where else [should our country’s pro-labor revolution begin] than RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW?!” My prediction: 1. INDIA WALTON (Democratic Party): 30% 2. Byron Brown (Independent): 25% 3. Biron Broun (Independent): 20% 4. Byrun Browne (Independent): 15% 5. Biran Braun (Independent): 7% 6. Biden Brawn (Independent): 2% 7. Marty Biron (The Instigators): 1%

Oh my God…Mr. Darragh…thank the Lord that I am here to save you from the embarrassment of “OK Boomering” yourself out in public. No one refers to the MIDDLE MIDDLE positions anymore as the “Mike,” “Sam,” or “Will” lol. Back in the days of rotary phone communication and horse-drawn carriage transportation? Sure, maybe. I suppose a few stray Buffalonians might still use those terms to honor those middling Buffalo Bills MIDDLE MIDDLES who once roamed the middle of the field like mighty middling bison: Mike McCaffrey (your teammate!), Sam Rogers, and Will Cokeley. Today, however, we refer to Edmunds as the MIDDLE MIDDLE MIDDLE. Milano is the COOKIE MIDDLE MIDDLE because the COOKIE MIDDLE MIDDLE often gets more “delicious” opportunities for big plays than the MIDDLE MIDDLE MIDDLE. It’s worth mentioning that in the modern NFL, a traditional “Sam” as you call it (such as A.J. Klein here in Buffalo) is often replaced with an AWFUL ROCK BAND like Taron Johnson or Siran Neal. Oh and don’t you dare get sassy with me, Dan. There is obviously no such thing as a LONG HIKE or MEDIUM HIKE position in football. On special teams, Ferguson is the LUTJANIDAE, which is also the scientific name for the marine species better known as the “snapper.” Bass is the BASS for Buffalo, while Haack plays HAKE. Please note that these fish-themed positional names happen to have no particular relationship to Buffalo’s current special teams players. They are homages to the great Walter Camp, a.k.a. the “father of American football,” who I believe was an amateur ichthyologist and avid fisherman as much as he was a football enthusiast. The Buffalo Jills haven’t been around since renowned men’s rights activist, Terry Pegula, purchased the team in 2014. They were one of the last remaining relics of an oppressive matriarchy. In the year 2021, the responsibility of leading cheers has now been outsourced to ALL of Bills Mafia, women AND men alike. Yes, Mr. Darragh…even YOU! So go apply that concealer and lipstick (blush and fake eyelashes optional), put on that tennis skirt, pull up that sheer pantyhose, and shake your cute little buttocks among the Highmark Stadium bleacher seat denizens this afternoon like your very life depends on it! Lead the battle cries as we squish the proverbial fish…and by “fish” of course I mean their whole team, not just their three special teamers.

Hi, Mr. Darragh! I know you haven’t played pro football in five decades, so I’ll try to help you become better acquainted with the modern game. All of the positions nowadays are much more self-explanatory. Let’s review the nomenclature, shall we? On defense, I will use our Buffalo Bills as examples. Rousseau and Hughes each play the EDGE position. Oliver and Lotulelei play CLOSE MIDDLE. Milano and Edmunds play MIDDLE MIDDLE. White and Wallace are our SIDES. Poyer and Hyde both play FAR AWAY. Taron Johnson is the AWFUL ROCK BAND. On offense, the position labels tend to be more action-oriented rather than physical location-based. Josh Allen is the THROW. Singletary plays RUN. Diggs and Sanders are the CATCH. Knox is the HEAVY CATCH. Beasley is our TINY WHITE. Sometimes Gilliam comes on the field to play BLOCK. Dawkins, Feliciano, Morse, Williams, and Brown comprise the FAT BLOCKS. Per common football vernacular, Dawkins and Brown each play “FAR FATTY,” Feliciano and Williams are the “CLOSER FATS,” and Morse plays “HIKE.”

Hehehe... "...the underdog (Washington) has the better quarterback (Heinicke)..." - Nick Wrong

Allow me to play Nancy Drew for a minute. What if that WASN’T a tattoo mistake?! What if “Hart” is a reference to Jim Hart, longtime Cardinals QB from 1966-1983? And what if “Vinny” is an homage to Vinny Testaverde, the first overall pick from the 1987 NFL draft who threw for over 46,000 career yards?? “Ivy” is a bit tricky, but perhaps that is a reference to Sid Luckman, a COLUMBIA grad and Hall of Famer who revolutionized pro football offenses as Chicago’s T-formation QB??? Maybe this boorish grandma-trampling fella who rushed to get Jim Kelly’s autograph isn’t named “Vinny,” after all. And maybe “Ivy” is not the love/lust of his early life. Perhaps he is just a random aficionado of good NFL QB play? If my hunch is correct, you may not want to restrict your searches to Bills Mafia gatherings around Josh Allen. “Vinny” could be found anywhere where a quality NFL QB roams. Hope this helps, BringBackFergy! We can’t ever bring back Gram Gram (or Fergy), but wouldn’t it be lovely if you can bring back the battered corpse of Vinny (and those of the other two hooligans who were with him) so that we can drag their defiled carcasses alongside the February 2022 Bills Super Bowl parade into Niagara Square? I bet you that is what Gram Gram would have wanted. R.I.P., dearest Gram Gram. You deserved a far better Cheektowaga airport experience than what life gave you. EDIT: Yay! I did some more sleuthing. Hart finished #3 in career passing yards at the point of his retirement, Testaverde finished #6, Luckman finished #2, and Kelly finished #10. Hmmm…notice a pattern? I suspect that “Vinny” and his two autograph-seeking henchmen will turn up this season at a Bucs game (Brady), Steelers game (Big Ben), Packers game (Rodgers), Falcons game (Ryan), Rams game (Stafford), Seahawks game (Wilson), Chiefs game (Mahomes), and/or a Bills game (Allen). Go get ‘em, BringBackFergy!!! You find “Vinny” + crew and you finish the job.

I dunno, Mr. Skin-erd, but this is a subforum comprised of ~96% male Gen X’ers/Boomers. The other ~4% is a menstruating Gen Z/Millenial tweener named Commie Kay. For this reason, I almost feel morally obligated to contribute in a thread on abortion? I’ll use my typical numerical outline format to make everything slightly easier to read. Expect a very long post: 1. Kay’s Personal Stance on Abortion: I’m pro-life beyond about 8 weeks, which is the approximate point where both electrical brain activity and a heartbeat can be recorded. This is my own arbitrary definition of when an embryo gains “human” status. However, I don’t think I’m psychologically capable of having ANY type of abortion outside the typical extenuating circumstances (*****, rape, my life in danger, very significant deformities/genetic defects of baby, dilation/curettage after miscarriage). 2. Kay’s Public Policy Stance on Abortion: I am in favor of safe, legal, and RARE abortions for all three trimesters (something like ~90% happen during the first trimester, ~9% during the second, ~1% during the third). For me, this entire debate simplifies down to acknowledging and weighing the interests of two sides: the life of the embryo/fetus/baby and the health/safety of the mother. Pro-lifers tend to fixate on determining when life begins and, thereby, frequently overlook the consequences of their abortion public policies on the lives of the mothers at all three trimesters. People are going to end up having sex. Women are going to end up seeking abortions. Is it sensible to reintroduce an industry of back-alley abortions because we have collectively decided to prioritize the life of, say, a 7-week old embryo as in the case of Texas SB 8? These mothers aren’t succubi, by the way! These are your daughters, sisters, and female friends! Almost all are innocent victims in this, too, who have been trapped by life’s circumstances into making emotionally traumatic decisions. Don’t think they are victims? Fine, then pray for them. Talk to them. Advise them. Persuade them. But don’t use the government to criminalize them. 3. Right-Wing Hypocrisy, Part 1: What is the percentage of pro-lifers who have ever had sex with partners outside the confines of a strongly committed relationship? Or for that matter, what is the percentage of pro-lifers who would be WILLING to have sex with partners outside the confines of a strongly committed relationship? Now of these percentages, how many would still be willing to support a “bastard child” (ew…hate that term) for 18+ years if the birth control or condom fails? And among those who wouldn’t, how many of the men would be willing to equally share the criminal penalty with the involved female? 4. Right-Wing Hypocrisy, Part 2: “Congratulations on your birth, little baby! Now go pick yourself up by your tiny bootstraps, get off that pacifier, and get a job!” says a typical right winger (more or less). What more needs to be said here about the crowd who thinks health care isn’t a basic human right? You’re also probably familiar with my social democracy stances on issues like preschool/college/trade school funding, living wages, affordable public housing, etc… The cognitive dissonance among American pro-lifers is stunning to anyone from more sensible countries with much better upward socioeconomic mobility stats. American pro-lifers insist you be born, but thereafter couldn’t care less if your parents are completely unprepared to give you a fighting chance in life. Sanctity of life? Please. 5. Primal Explanations: There is a very dark undercurrent of female agency-directed misogyny in the abortion debate that is rooted in evolutionary psychology and anthropology. I shall say no more because it will distract heavily from the rest of my post, but any woman reading this knows exactly what I’m talking about, unfortunately. 6. Why Texas SB 8 is So Despicable: 6-1. The unreasonably short “heartbeat window” of about 6 weeks. For one thing, you can’t even test for pregnancy during the first 3 weeks. And for a variety of reasons, it is not uncommon for women to have irregular menstrual cycles. Exercise, diet, and stress can play major roles in that regard. Women may also delay having an abortion because of financial/transportation limitations, poor education/misinformation, shame, fear, trauma, or sudden changes to the relationship status with significant others. There can even be significant and unexpected time delays between the initiation of an abortion consultation and the point at which the medical procedure is performed. A woman, for example, could sign up for an abortion appointment well within the first trimester but not have the procedure completed until the second trimester. 6-2. No exceptions for rape, *****, health of mother, etc. Ugh. So gross. 6-3. The infamously egregious $10k vigilantism component…the fact that all 9 Supreme Court justices didn’t immediately shoot the bill down for this component alone means we may be facing constitutional crises in the very near future. Abject legal stupidity. 7. Political Strategy: You asked what all this is REEEEEEEAAAALLLY about, Leh-nerd, but I prefer you speak more directly with me. We’re good PPP friends, after all, no? You believe the Democrats are using this issue to drum up female support in a difficult upcoming midterm election. You also think the far-lefties want to use this issue to pack the court so that they can push their Green New Deal. You would be correct with both accusations lol!! But but BUT…it can also be because they genuinely care about protecting Roe v. Wade, on principle and for the preservation of the nation. It can be all of these things. 8. Kay’s Political Threat to Leh-nerd and Crew: The GOP has won the popular vote in a presidential election only once since 1988. They’re barely holding on for 2024, even with the assumed 40 electoral college votes from Texas and the 30 from Florida. But we know that Texas is trending purple. If the Democrats can somehow flip Texas and hold it, the GOP would be rendered all but mathematically eliminated from presidential election competition for a generation…even WITH support from Georgia, Arizona, and those big 3 Midwest states. So if I were you guys, I would be more careful with how you wield those sub-33% approval issues… 9. Kay’s Miscellaneous Policy Positions: I am for Supreme Court term limits and for codifying Roe v. Wade with a federal law. I used to be firmly against court packing, but now I see it as potentially necessary to invalidate the judicial branch in case the GOP attempts to govern the entire nation with 5 out-of-touch individuals upholding highly unpopular (i.e. sub-33% approval) policy positions. It’s an affront to democracy. Same goes for the left, too, by the way! I disapprove of the left pushing any policy that has much less than 50% support, with very few exceptions. If one wants to govern the country a certain way, one must first exercise one’s first amendment rights and persuade. You also mentioned gun rights and border control and CRT, Leh-nerd. I’m actually center-right on the first two and completely against CRT, so you would find me vociferously fighting alongside the right wingers if my far-left friends try to subvert the will of the majority on these issues. Maybe there is no overarching, top-down GOP strategy on display here? Maybe we’re seeing nothing more than rogue clusters of single-issue grassroots movements starting trouble? Nevertheless, I suppose it’s a good nation-wide political stress test for the GOP to see how far they can push their unpopular (i.e. sub-33% approval) ideas under the guise of the tenth amendment. But are they insane enough to take it too far? Yeah, probably…hehehe. Aren’t our conservative friends so cute in their craziness?! It’s such a shame that I will eventually have to send them to my gulag to finish out their lives. EDIT: ***** = i n c e s t

1. Oh, American imperialism was very much an ever-present force during the Pink Tide! We can do a full country-by-country breakdown if you’d like lol. Here at PPP, I’ve already done it for Cuba and Venezuela. It may have receded relative to the second half of the twentieth century, but the LEGACY of American imperialism in Latin America persisted too and is what catalyzed all the internal revolutions against neoliberalism. Plus, Chinese mercantilism came in to fill whatever imperialist void the United States left. The theme of Latin American politics is that corruption, violence, and authoritarianism exist on both the socialist left and the U.S.-sponsored neoliberal right. Why do Latin American socialists tend to get violent? Maybe for the reasons you cite. Maybe also because violence is the only remaining power that the poor have when they have no other resources and are up against U.S.-backed corporate oligarchs funded to undermine their democratic elections. There are no good actors in this political play. You can’t extract honest lessons on socialism governance from the rest of the mess that is Latin American politics. Sorry, but you just can’t (in my opinion). 2. All I’m saying is that India Walton’s public housing policies aren’t DISTINCTLY socialist. American liberalism routinely allows for government interventions into free market forces that guide landlord-tenant relationships. Now is that a good thing? Sort of…I apologize for not wanting to jump into what would be a long economics debate right now lol, that’s all. If you’re specifically referring to the extended COVID-19 “cancel rent” policy, then yes we agree that it is a bad one because it’s one-sided. A good policy would incorporate equal protections to both prevent mass homelessness and protect the landlords who are victims too. Without any such government interventions, landlords can kick out all the freeloading squatters but then what is the market demand status of their replacements?? Basically, I just disagree that a generalized, non-pandemic-related “cancel rent” policy whereby landlords are ordinarily forced to allow tenants to live in their houses for free is a part of democratic socialism. DSA types believe in options for housing co-ops, more aggressive rent controls, strengthened tenant rights, things of that nature…which often have a lot of overlap with what more establishment Democrats espouse. 3. It’s a difference of scale, spotlight, and circumstances. Do I think Judge Sinatra was compromised? I don’t know. I have no proof and I don’t even necessarily disagree with his ruling. I’m mostly just pointing out an appearance of impropriety that would have generated much more of a media uproar if the roles were reversed. An awful lot of highly coordinated corruption would have had to occur in order to take down Trump last November. Maybe it did, but significant claims require significant evidence. 4. Yes, it is indeed quite lovely, isn’t it? 5. This ties in with point #1 above. You seem very confident that democratic socialism eventually leads to far-left authoritarianism, based heavily on Latin American politics. I’m MUCH less confident on that point, but you can have the “argument win” if you’d like! My main problem is with the people who argue that European-style social democracy eventually leads to far-left authoritarianism…people who argue that universal health care is a slippery slope to the gulags. PLEASE tell me you aren’t one of those types. I’m already so triggered thinking about you typing “yes, Kay, in fact I am.” I’m supposed to be working on a report at work today, and now I can’t focus because of all the emotional turbulence you have induced in me hehehe… EDIT: Corrected a couple spelling mistakes.

Yes, not being connected, which also ties directly into her political philosophy. 1. This is getting silly. Fidel Castro, like authoritarian leaders from all political orientations throughout recorded history, demonstrated serious anti-social behavior and a propensity for criminal violence years before obtaining power. India Walton has no such background. Furthermore, Castro had the power of the military to enforce his policies. A Buffalo mayor will not. Any attempt to prove that democratic socialism inevitably leads to far-left authoritarianism falls apart when Latin American politics are invoked. You simply CANNOT decouple their politics from the influence of American imperialism or from a whole list of other cultural, geographic, and economic factors (including Chinese mercantilism!). The common themes of violence and corruption in Latin American government transcend the left-right paradigm. For every Evo Morales mentioned, I can counter with a Pinochet. A lot of the pink tide politicians did great things, too, along with some less than great things. I think I’ll take a Lula any day over the social democrat lineup we have in American politics… 2. The argument in favor of public housing options is as much the position of a typical American liberal as it is that of a socialist. That has been my point. The unique “cancel rent” movement is in the context of COVID-19, where the government forced people to not be able to work. Consequently, the government should have been fully responsible for financially compensating the people for not working. Landlords and homeowners definitely SHOULD have the same pandemic protections as tenants. Otherwise, banks and super wealthy people can just come in and buy up all the financially delinquent properties. And of course that was the desired outcome all along, but I digress… Also, I have no problem with rent control measures in certain scenarios, but that’s yet another topic that I don’t want to get into right now… 3. I’m not a January 6 conspiracist. Trump’s argument was blown out in the courts. For the time being, that is good enough evidence for me. 4. Yes, we do. 5. You’re talking about communes now, while I’m focused specifically on worker cooperatives i.e. different ways individual businesses can organize their leadership and ownership structures. Otherwise, we’re not really in disagreement here. In the unlikely event India Walton wins, I agree that she wouldn’t have a mandate for massive socialism impositions. You are engaging in McCarthyite fearmongering here, however, because the office of the mayor is quite limited in the extent that business systems can be imposed whereby “workers own the means of production.” Sure, of course. But a more interesting question: is it better to win with an asterisk** or lose with grace? To me, that answer depends heavily on India Walton’s (currently unknown) level of professional competence. **- insert Bill Belichick joke here.

LOVE the bolded…Thomas Frank’s “Listen, Liberal” is my political Bible! Your point that “all politics is local” has merit, of course, but every district in every state consists of a mix of red people and blue people. When a political party aggressively pushes back on a hot-button policy stance that has 70%+ approval, that can enflame enough of the electorate to change the colors of purple, light red, and light blue localities. In light of recent current events and the gleeful reactions from right wingers in support of this vile bill, I simply can’t agree with your last sentence. We have to take their threats to undermine Roe v. Wade at the state level very seriously. Current Democrats need to nip this in the bud, or dangerously progressive females like myself will find our own candidates in the primaries who can. For starters, I want a renewed dialogue on court packing, Supreme Court term limits, and codifying Roe v. Wade with a federal law. The priority of Texas SB 8 is to financially destroy the state’s abortion clinic services, not to criminalize abortions after 6 weeks. I’m supposed to be here for the 2021 Buffalo Bills talk. But if the PPP boys want a serious and open-minded discussion on abortion, then I will participate. Just say the word. As a forewarning, it may get uncomfortable:

Thank you, snafu, for being the only one to directly address my questions in full. 1. Ms. Walton is a democratic socialist. Castro was a dictator who ruled as head of a command economy. The political and economic differences between the two systems are comically enormous. 2. You didn’t quite answer my question here. I acknowledge Ms. Walton’s socialist identity. But what are her specific public policies that distinguish her as a socialist and not as a typical liberal? I can only count two: neighborhood-owned grocery stores and support for a public bank. But as a city mayor, she has zero power to ever implement a New York state-owned bank. So is this what the McCarthyite fearmongering is reduced to…fear of better produce options for East Side denizens?? 3. Sinatra’s brother is a major campaign donor to Byron Brown. We are not our siblings, but it still reeks of corruption. Also, the Buffalo Common Council consists entirely of establishment Democrats. Ms. Walton’s allies aren’t the ones suggesting that the mayor’s office be abolished! And I have never denied that the Democratic Party is horribly corrupt, though political corruption isn’t unique to a particular party or political philosophy. 4. In my opinion, this mayoral race will probably have a negligible impact on the national stage. American politics and the progressive movement, however, are so charged and unstable right now that Buffalo could be the origins of a political “butterfly effect,” regardless of the mayoral race outcome. A lot could depend on how the media (both corporate mainstream + independent leftist) chooses to cover (or ignore) it. 5. We’ve seen worker cooperatives have success in a variety of limited situations around the world and throughout history. I’m most familiar with ones currently existing in Spain, Italy, and France. The question is whether they can be scaled up to the national level and across all industries? I’m not a socialist, so my best guess would be “no” for probably the same reasons you have. However…I consider myself an open-minded person and so have yet to completely give up on market socialism models, either. I’d like to see one attempted without it being sabotaged from American imperialistic forces who want to exploit the foreign labor and foreign natural resources. Also, we’ve seen more than enough from variations of laissez-faire capitalism to know that it doesn’t work for the working class (or for the environment) and inevitably devolves into crony capitalism models (see: American history: Gilded Age, Great Depression, 1980-now). Because he missed the state’s ballot petition deadline. On electoral substance alone, I don’t even mind the judge’s ruling. What’s galling is that we all know Ms. Walton would have not been granted the same exception if the roles of her and Brown had been reversed.

Looking for the following from the PPP community: 1. The specific model of socialism that you think best characterizes India Walton’s political philosophy (a technical label or a matching country/time period is fine). 2. Public policies pulled from Ms. Walton’s campaign website that you think qualify her as a socialist. 3. A candid appraisal of the fairness of Judge John Sinatra’s ruling, with reference to his brother’s political ties. 4. A simple “yes” or “no” answer here will suffice: Do you think Byron Brown winning in November will hurt the far-left movement, from a national perspective and not a local one? 5. Any personal opinions on the efficacy of worker cooperative implementations.

Strong-arm tactics are completely unnecessary when your opposition commits political suicide on the national stage. As far as political strategy discussion goes, the only interesting question is what to do about the Supreme Court? As far as abortion policy discussion goes, yeah I think we’re done here.

oldmanfan, So your thesis is that America since the mid-20th century has become more selfish, stupid, and uncaring? Do I have it right? Unfortunately I don’t think I have the time this morning to provide a definitive answer, but here’s a sketch of how I might begin to deconstruct the argument: ARGUMENT PROS: 1. Increase in scientific illiteracy and the related proliferation of conspiracy theories. 2. Melting pot friction from greater diversity that includes more non-whites and non-Christians. 3. Consolidation of corporate mainstream media. 4. Neoliberalism’s four-decade assault on the working class (NAFTA, union collapse, automation, attacks on social welfare programs, Wall Street deregulations, etc.), on upward socioeconomic mobility, and therefore on the American Dream. ARGUMENT CONS: 5. Civil rights progress. 6. Foreign policy promoting American imperialism in Latin America and in the Middle East for the purposes of economic exploitation, not human rights. NOT SURE: 7. Greater dependence on technology (phones, internet, social media) and how it impacts our interactions with other people and our perceptions of the world around us. 8. Declining religiosity in America, as well as its potential effect on volunteerism. 9. The age-old American philosophical battle of individual rights versus the will of the collective, and how/why outlooks may have changed over recent generations. 10. Respect for shared public lands and how well Teddy Roosevelt’s dream of environmental conservationism has fared from unrestrained “greed-is-good” capitalism, beginning roughly from the EPA’s founding in 1970 to the Paris Agreement. EARLY MORNING HOT TAKE: I’m inclined to fail your thesis on point #6 alone, oldmanfan. You know my position already from my posts in the Afghanistan thread. America never had a particularly high moral standing in the first place, nor were its citizens ever enlightened and concerned with what the military and the CIA were actually doing to people abroad. However, #4 does leave me intrigued. What has been the broader impact of our domestic economic policies on Americans, from a sociological and psychological perspective? Hmmm…deep thoughts with Commie Kay…

I don’t know what exactly the American center is at the moment, but I am very familiar with the progressive center*. Biden is definitively to the right of it on almost every hot issue: Paris Agreement efforts, green infrastructure efforts, military budget, American imperialism foreign policy, Wall Street regulation, $15 minimum wage, health care, student debt relief, protections for both tenants and landlords during COVID, COVID UBI, reparations, filibuster, court packing, ranked choice voting, marijuana legality, police reform, etc. Any PPP reader who thinks Biden has been adequately far-left on any of these issues is either personally far to the right of Biden on them, a Democratic Party loyalist, or someone who perhaps doesn’t fully understand the composition and demands of the modern progressive movement**. Also please note that I’m not necessarily advocating for all of the aforementioned far-left positions, and so I’m not necessarily arguing that Biden was wrong to not cave to the far-left on them. Also, yes I do understand the compromising nature of politics. My argument is simply that Biden has the power of executive order plus a majority of the House and Senate, so he could have achieved a lot more than he did if he was actually a far-leftist (by American standards) in his heart. Or if Bernie was the man behind the curtain pulling Joe’s strings. Or if the Squad knew how (or wanted??) to consolidate their power as a unified voting bloc and extract useful progressive concessions. * - a standard social democrat center, flanked by socialists and communists to the left and the SJW pro-imperialism fauxgressives to the right. ** - Kay’s progressive credentials: volunteer worker on Bernie’s campaign in 2016 and 2020, volunteer on a few other local/state political campaigns in the NYC area.

Three points: 1. I’m really sorry to hear about your two friends with colon cancer. I hope things work out okay for them?? 2. Yes, Andy’s story to right-wingers is like catnip to my feline friends. Remember that these are people who attribute morality to labor supply-demand curves. Dear Andy was an entertaining plot twist in a thread otherwise barraged with dull “Bernie Bro = lazy freeloader” insults. 3. My problem with AOC is that she hardly puts up a fight anymore on the issues on which she ran back in 2018. NYC wanted a feisty social democrat who would use impassioned socialism-inspired language to persuade voters and colleagues alike. Nowadays, she’s behaving more like an Elizabeth Warren-esque SJW progressive afraid of challenging neoliberal establishment figures on key economics+foreign policy issues. Truthfully? I don’t know whether AOC has become corrupt, whether her inability to fight anymore is a matter of personality, or whether she’s playing some kind of clever long game with the centrist Dems and is biding her time until enough far-left comrades join the House. I wanted her on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Will playing nice with the neolibs eventually get her that spot? I don’t think so, but…maybe? My leading suspicion is that she HAS become corrupt in the sense that she no longer wants to do anything to disturb her new six-figure career and her national fame. The Democratic Party, after all, has many “arrows in their quiver” for any member who chooses to go off the Dem reservation (see: Tulsi Gabbard, 2016-2020). AOC seems only willing to do (a.k.a. tweet) the bare minimum anymore to maintain her credentials as America’s Socialist Barbie. Harsh words, but that’s how I feel. This is Commie Kay unfiltered for ya.

My brain keeps going back to Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous “seven countries in five years” classified memo. It was the memo produced weeks after 9/11 which General Wesley Clark later described in his memoirs. U.S. military generals were already planning invasions for Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia. Two decades later, six of those regimes are gone and only Iran’s theocracy remains. Iran was always going to be the most difficult to topple. It is by far the biggest one of the seven in terms of population and GDP. So that’s my best answer to the “something” that we’re missing. I suspect (and fear) that we have big plans for Iran and that this bizarrely mishandled withdrawal from Afghanistan could be related. Last I checked, Biden’s JCPOA renegotiations with them weren’t going well. Apparently countries can lose trust in each other when carefully crafted multilateral deals are unilaterally ripped to shreds on a whim… So assuming we’re not already planning to move our troops back into Afghanistan, be on the lookout for large military movements near Iran and false flags anywhere throughout the greater Middle East. Or…maybe there is no uber-Machiavellian plot. Maybe Biden and the military generals in Afghanistan are just super incompetent? I don’t know where the plane of Afghan refugees is going and I don’t know how many Islamic militants have crossed our southern border. What I do know is that the requirements for legal immigration to the United States are much more stringent now than they were in the pre-9/11 days, and background checks are much more thorough. If you are from a Muslim country, then the United States is by far the most difficult Occident country in which to enter and obtain citizenship. If you are deeply concerned with terrorist infiltration from the southern border, then one idea might be to call for U.S. troop withdrawals from around the world so that they can be repositioned along the Mexican border. The neocon mantra of “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” is simply illogical for numerous reasons. Fundamentally, Islamic terrorism has no imposed cap on manpower or financial resources that could render them diffuse on the international battleground. Terrorist leadership is also perfectly capable of multitasking. In my previous post, I mentioned a couple other big problems: it doesn’t take our allies’ territories into account and it enables all sorts of aggressive actions that open up a Pandora’s box of foreign relations blowback.

Are you suggesting that Keynesian theory is overly limited in scope?? That it is somehow ill-suited for application in pre-industrial societies due to the primitive composition of central banking systems in that time period?? If that is indeed what you are suggesting, then perhaps this would best be settled over a spirited match of fisticuffs. What say you, good sir? Might you be so willing to engage this pugnacious Polish-American pugilist in a Sunday afternoon autumn scuffle at Highmark Stadium? I shall prepare in earnest for our confrontation with a pair of 3-pound econometrics textbooks for dumbbells. Following the conclusion of our bout of sparring, your old name of “First Round Bust” will be forgotten and your new name henceforth will be “Twelve Rounds Concussed.” PPPPPFFFFFF!!!!! That was me blowing raspberries in your general direction. There’s a theory in the fashion industry that vertical stripes are flattering because they create an optical illusion of slimming. This would be my counterexample.

Apologies, Mr. Governor. I should have clarified: whenever I propose M4A, I’m referring specifically to Jayapal’s bill. Her plan includes dental and vision and happens to be slightly more comprehensive than Bernie’s 2020 campaign proposal. Your point of focusing on price control measures is duly noted, but the broader point I’m trying to make here is that no one should be voting for Democratic Party politicians with any expectation that they intend to eventually move the country to universal health care. Yes, I’m even including the Squad. As long as party leaders like Pelosi accept corporate donations, the party’s fundamental agenda will be to remain intrinsically hostile to universal health care. It’s not just the health care insurance industry and their campaign contributions/bribes that are the problem. I’m including any uber-wealthy establishment donor who already has health care and who would stand to lose something from federal budget alterations needed to accommodate M4A (i.e. the MIC, vulture capitalists, etc.). I suppose one could even make a Lenin-esque “worse is better” tactical argument that voting Republican instead of Democrat brings us closer to policies like M4A. I would never go that far because I don’t believe in enabling either of the two major parties. I only advocate for third party pressure until the two main parties respond with substantive anti-establishment policy reforms. Now what if a so-called progressive actually prefers ACA on merit over M4A? Then by all means, they should consider voting Democrat. But then they should also stop calling themselves a “progressive” because “neoliberal” would be more fitting and I’m a stickler for proper labels. Same goes for anyone preferring any perceived incremental improvements on Obamacare. Really, I see nothing more ethical about wasting time rearranging chairs on the Titanic for a few when there’s still a bunch of people on the ship without ring buoys. I’d rather focus on plugging up the gaping hole in the hull. Ouch. That post may not have been among my greatest hits, but your words are still hurtful. Whatever. At least I’m not a stupid poopyface doodoohead like you are. Oh and by the way, I don’t care for your socioeconomic elitism. It’s gross and I see way too much of it in this subforum. As a current resident of the popular American trailer park known as Manhattan Island, I think it would be lovely to live in a more rural minimalist setting with less judgmental neighbors and a reasonable cost of living. Oooh another shout-out to Kay! I crave attention and relish my newfound political supervillain role! So here’s what I recommend instead: ditch your standard American political spectrum line and apply the more traditional Euro-centric economics-based one where the left includes the socialists, the center includes the mixed economy types, and the right includes the classical liberals. This is the line that I believe most world historians use. I find it to be much more illuminating when applied to this wonderful little forum of ours. It puts me somewhat squarely in the center*, you (Mr. Governor) on the far right of the center portion, and much of the rest of the PPP members so far right that a few of them might have accidentally fallen off the line and somehow landed on the very far left (as anarchists, I guess?). Now you see, this kind of illustrates why we can’t have productive health care debates on this forum. This is kind of why a thread about Bernie ends up as an interrogation of your eccentric friend Andy’s life choices. With my deliberately provocative line reframing, we can also see that there are actually very few genuine leftists in American politics and none at the national level. I believe Kshama Sawant from Washington state is the furthest left. Buffalo’s very own aspiring mayor, India Walton, calls herself one, but who knows? Brooklyn’s pride and joy, Julia Salazar and Jabari Brisport, may be among the biggest leftist rising stars in the country. I consider AOC, the Squad, and Bernie as all falling within the left half of the center portion but definitely trending rightward since last March. I’m judging them strictly by their voting records, of course, and not their democratic socialist rhetoric. * - personal fun fact: I know literally hundreds of Bernie Bros. Many of them consider me to be a closet right-winger because I’m open to all sorts of privatized/market-based solutions for social welfare issues (aside from health care). They say I also don’t criticize Trump enough. Go figure.

I think it has way more to do with the fact that the U.S. intelligence community became much better at their jobs after 9/11: improvements in immigration vetting processes, stronger communication between different intelligence agencies, and better collaboration with other countries. The widespread adoption of social media since the mid-2000’s has also made terrorist activities more transparent. And no, none of this should be interpreted as any endorsement of Patriot Act mischief! The specious war theory that “we fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” validates all sorts of horrible aggressive acts. The notion that we can just funnel terror like that also doesn’t hold up, for example, when you take our allies into consideration who are not separated from Muslim countries by oceans (see: Syria, mid-2010’s, effects of European migration crisis). Our military presence in Muslim countries like Afghanistan is doing nothing productive for us in the long-term war on terror. It is the primary source of recruitment for radical Islamic terrorism. But even if we immediately evacuated all of our Middle East military bases, our propping up of various dictatorships and monarchies like the House of Saud still fosters extreme discontent among oppressed Muslims. Sort of my main thesis here: American empire, in whatever manifestation, creates unwanted blowback such as radical Islamic terrorism. My solution: stop all forms of regime change, stop all coups, stop all unilateral embargos and sanctions, no banana republics either, keep emerging Chinese imperialism (they’re doing it in a unique way…with indebtedness through infrastructure projects) in check with multilateral trade deals, stop carrying out ~95% of drone strikes, close down ~75% of all U.S. military bases worldwide for starters, and immediately trim ~33% of the defense budget (which would still be double China’s). Use that money to reinvest in America. Make America the best domestic version of itself and thus the envy of the rest of the world. Spread American ideals abroad by way of example, living as awesome peaceful people and not greedy bullies. Pro-democracy and pro-capitalism revolutions are almost always best carried out by a country’s own citizens. We can inspire and encourage from afar, but their internal will must be there. Yeah, there’s something very convenient about such a poorly executed troop withdrawal like the one we’re seeing. It showcases the human rights horror potential of the opposing regime in rapid succession. This can generate a humanitarian-themed rallying effect among the American public for returning troops. The military-industrial complex knows that war has become increasingly unpopular with the American people since the mid-2000’s, so maybe this is their new way of perpetuating the racket. Or maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight. I dunno. I feel like I’m taking CRAZY PILLS. Sociopathic oligarchs don’t think like the rest of us, so I don’t want to put it past them. We do have conclusive evidence that the government has misled us throughout the Afghanistan conflict (see: SIGAR Afghanistan Papers, 2019, Washington Post).

Once again, Irv…you completely nailed it! I especially enjoyed this insightful gem: “idiot pantsuit Clinton.” She is indeed a frumpy sartorial disaster. The Benghazi of fashion, if you will. Total mess. Blazer dresses are where it’s at! MACA: Make America Chic Again. Make us less of a mess. Just so you know, I’m wearing my Greta Thunberg “how dare you” resting b!tch face as I type: I’m not an anti-vaxxer and never have been at any point during my life. The science is compelling. Everyone who can get COVID vaccinated should have done so ASAP. The percentage of anti-vaxxers within the Green movement is no different from that among Democratic Party voters. 2016 Green presidential candidate, Jill Stein, is a physician and has long maintained a pro-vaccination stance. Clintonistas deliberately took Jill’s words out of context in 2016 in order to marginalize her presidential run and her third-party voters. ALL politicians play into a victimhood complex...not just Bernie and Trump. They all run on proposed solutions to fix alleged problems. Those alleged problems are negatively affecting someone somewhere, no? I.e., victims, no? Biden ran on the fear that Donald Trump is a dangerous fascist who will permanently destroy American democracy if allowed one more term. So all of America and the world = victims, according to Biden, no? A lot of the COVID bill goodies fall into the category of “absolute bare minimum” (relative to what the rest of the industrialized world was offering their people) so to stave off a populist uprising. They were the legislative equivalent of writing one’s own name on the front page of a test. I won’t give credit to Pelosi and to the Democratic Party for that stuff, minus a select few exceptions like the nice child tax credit that you mentioned. I could easily write a very long-winded and very angry dissertation right now which obliterates your claim that Pelosi and the Dems have delivered on progressive policies. I would do it if I had confidence that anyone here carefully reads what I write lol. Instead, I will select one policy you mentioned that should be paramount to any self-described progressive: health care. Like AOC, Pelosi once began her own political career as a wide-eyed pro-M4A “progressive.” But as she quickly rose to power, she just as quickly abandoned the universal health care idea and gobbled up massive corporate bribes a.k.a. “campaign donations,” including ones from the health insurance industry. Medicare expansion from age 65 to 60 ends up being nothing more than another cleverly disguised gift to these health insurance companies because it shifts the coverage burden of what tends to be their most costly patient subset under 65 over to the taxpayers. You speak highly of ACA expansion, but it is akin to replacing a band-aid over a gunshot wound with a bigger band-aid. It does little to reduce incurred individual costs. For that, you need to eradicate the entire health insurance industry altogether which has no business existing in a civilized society in the first place. But we’re not even getting Medicare expansion to 60 under Biden, let alone a public option, let alone M4A!!! Hillary Rodham Pantsuit ran on Medicare expansion to 55 back in 2016, so we’ve somehow moved a bit further to the right between presidential election cycles on this important issue. Furthermore, AOC and the Squad already seem to be on the same political career trajectory as Pelosi. Earlier this year they refused to leverage their collective voting bloc on the House floor in order to extract anything of importance related to health care, such as an up/down vote on Jayapal’s M4A bill that would have quickly exposed all of the M4A traitors during a once-in-a-century pandemic. Wonderful. Or rather…to paraphrase a famous new friend of mine, “mess.” Random PPP Subforum A-Hole: “Ha! M4A?! Cool idea, baby Kay. But for such grandiose desires, how do you intend to pay? With leprechaun pots, unicorn farts, and fairy dust?” ComradeKayAdams: “We’ve covered this like a million times here, Random PPP Subforum A-Hole. Reductions in wasteful MIC budgets, speculation taxes, tax codes that counter trickle-down economics, and MMT.” Random PPP Subforum A-Hole: “Ah! My sincerest apologies, dearest Kay. In the future, I shall strive to be less of a condescending a-hole to you.” ComradeKayAdams: “Oh no worries! We good!” Goat cheese is just as unethical as cow cheese. Free-range animal farming is no good, either, because you’re accepting only a slightly more humane practice at the expense of so much more required land use that is globally unsustainable. But thank you for acknowledging me as a political literary femme fatale, Leh-nerd. For sure, my tedious prose is as endless as my legs. My social democratic message clarity is as transparent as my negligee. My preferred marginal tax rate for the top income bracket is as high as my hem line. The TwoBillsDrive.com boys hate-read my posts with socialist red rage, yet they yearn during my BillsFans.com sabbaticals with Green New Deal envy. My dangerously subversive far-left manifestos titillate them in their dreams and haunt them in their nightmares. Such is the essence of ComradeKayAdams. Oh and I also like to write about Buffalo Bills history! Wooo! BILLS MAFIA TILL I DIE.

Thank you for mentioning petrodollars! Yes, a huge component of American imperialism involves the maintenance of the dollar as the dominant international reserve currency. The petrodollar system best explains why we do what we do in places like the Middle East and Venezuela. I see politicians in America as mostly controlled by their list of campaign donors. The voting constituents matter, too, but only to a much smaller extent. These campaign donors ultimately comprise the top of the “establishment.” Regarding foreign policy decisions, the “establishment” are usually executives and major shareholders within defense contracting companies and energy companies. This particular power network also extends into banking, media, and important government positions throughout the military and the executive branch (i.e. the “deep state”). Note that progressive politicians who don’t accept corporate donations are still subject to establishment influence so long as they choose to operate within the Democratic Party. Their political career advancements depend on acquiescing to more powerful party members who DO take the corporate money. I never viewed Trump as someone outside the establishment. He certainly used populist rhetoric to get elected. He certainly was a less reliable puppet for the establishment than anything Hillary Clinton would have been, and so that unique element of chaos in Trump’s personality explains why Hillary was preferred in 2016 and why Trump was Russiagated. Nevertheless, Donald Trump is an over-the-top narcissist and egomaniac. Someone like that was inevitably going to rule as an American supremacist and thus wield U.S. military hegemony without compunction. In Niagara Bill’s original post and in subsequent posts of his, he repeatedly refers to “20 years” and questions why the U.S. was there for such a lengthy amount of time. But whatever. No need for us to belabor this point! So are you seriously trying to make the case that our country is not an imperialist one?? You are familiar with the concept of “soft power,” correct? I know you are aware that we still have military bases in Germany, Japan, and Iraq (and probably Vietnam too if we had won there). This sentence of yours deeply concerns me: “We try to give a better place to the people of each country while running out the regime responsible for their plight.” Any inclusive study of U.S. intervention cases in Latin America (especially since the beginning of the Cold War) and in the Middle East (particularly since the energy crisis of the 1970’s) will reveal to you everything that is so horribly incorrect with that statement. Sometimes we are the source of the problems. Often, we create new ones and then leave the places in worse shape. I suppose “try” was the operative word in your sentence. No, I will not retract my “brown people” remark because I do not sugarcoat history or politics. And what a curious place to take a stand on politically correct language, Mr. Trump Voter! If you must, read “brown” people as “foreign” people in my previous post. I will only slightly concede that the United States has been a bit more color blind during its modern (i.e. post-WW2) foreign policy history. Were it not for Soviet nuclear deterrence, then yes, we likely would have treated white Eastern Europeans in the same patronizing and often dehumanizing manner that we treat everyone else. Yes, agreed. Afghanistan is a classic lesson on the sunk cost fallacy. The entirety of the war on radical Islamic terrorism has been shortsighted. The first step in winning any war should be understanding the enemy. Americans have been repeatedly told that the enemy is driven entirely by religiosity and psychopathy. We are the clearly defined good guys, they are the clearly defined bad guys, and the real world is an arena where these polar opposites battle each other like in some sort of superhero movie. I suppose that’s a perfectly good explanation of international relations for the type of adult children inclined to still sleep with fuzzy reassuring Disney stuffed animals in their beds (um…wait, not that there’s anything wrong with that!). It’s also a good enough explanation for people who don’t live in those affected foreign places, who don’t serve in any of the U.S. armed forces, or who have vested interests in the American military-industrial complex. Mature and rational and empathic adults, meanwhile, who actually want to “defeat” terrorism (however that may be defined) are at the very least willing to go back and study Osama bin Laden’s messages so to learn more about their recruitment tactics. He was quite transparent in his long-term intent to bankrupt America by drawing her into unwinnable wars abroad, with Afghanistan a stated focal point in the same way that he viewed it to be for the Soviet Union during the 1980’s. On 9/11/01, bin Laden attacked American symbols for three of the four major components of imperialism: economic exploitation (World Trade Center), military aggression (Pentagon), and political leadership (Capitol Building, which was the target of Flight 93). The fourth component is cultural indoctrination, but any American symbol of it (Hollywood Hills sign?) was left unscathed on that day. Why? Just my speculation: to minimize the “war of cultures” aspect of the terrorism and instead highlight the American imperialism aspect of the war, thus helping to further isolate the U.S. from world allies already annoyed with our “world police” complex.