[Election Night: Nov 2 GDT]

On 11/7/2021 at 5:07 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m disappointed because while I disagree with most of your political positions, it seems to me that you’re articulate, passionate and quite obviously well-read.  Yet, you chose not to call him out on his condescending commentary and bigotry.  Had someone asked me prior to today if CKA would have politely demurred to such comments, I’d have bet that you would not.   
 

But maybe it’s acceptable because women historically have not had to fight, struggle and suffer to be heard.  Perhaps a little honey is for the best. It’s worked for the suffragettes, right?

 

Us vegans don’t consume honey, Leh-nerd.

 

Thank you for the compliments, but I do think you’re making this a bigger deal than it needs to be. I believe the Governor and I reached a point of mutual understanding over his contentious remarks, and I believe that we would have never reached that point had I not demurred politely.

 

For the past five years, I have been among the most vociferous critics toward the “Trump voter = racist” accusations because they lack nuance and a basic willingness to understand conservative, libertarian, and populist nationalist values. I have done so even as it has been enormously unpopular and alienating within left-leaning social circles in my personal life. So I don’t feel any special added obligation to do the same on a right-wing internet forum read by two or three dozen other right-wing people. You guys are normally pretty good and quick at taking on that responsibility!

 

Is it the “white female” component that has you especially annoyed with me? You are disappointed that I did not exhibit any special solidarity with “my people?” Sure, I suppose the Governor’s sweeping generalization could be construed as offensive to our delicate sensibilities. In the broader spectrum of life’s tribulations, however, it does not pose an existential crisis to our rights and to our dignities as Americans. Us twenty-first century white chicks are going to be okay! We’re gonna make it after all! And perhaps challenges to be a little more self-reflective on how our political choices impact the world around us should be encouraged, no?

 

But if we are now in the business of confronting every instance of condescending commentary and bigotry in this absolute hellhole of a subforum, I have a VERY long list for you guys. Oh wherever shall I begin?? For starters, how about all the verbal abuse here that routinely gets directed at the transgendered community??

 

Actually…you know what? It’s been a rough few days for all of Bills Mafia. Let us reserve the therapeutic vituperation for Daboll, Bobby Johnson, Sugar High Josh, Cody Ford, etc… Do you need a hug, Leh-nerd? I know I could sure use one. Here, Leh-ny, let me give you a hug….

 

Narrator (to be read using a Brian “Baldy” Baldinger voice-over…I find his voice very calming): “ComradeKayAdams leans toward her laptop, wraps her arms around the screen, and gives a gentle squeeze. She closes her eyes and smiles, knowing the Jets are next up on the schedule. Kay reasons that a healthy Knox and a greater commitment to the run game out of spread formations should fix a lot of the offense’s problems. Furthermore, Kay knows that Frazier’s cover 3 zone defense has remained sensational all season, aside from that one Derrick Henry run. Kay often tells lies to herself in order to get through the week.”

 

3 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

number 3 in not only dubious it’s a lazy conclusion.  
 

Regarding number 2, people want to protect their assets. Hone values don’t benefit from “affordable housing projects”.  To prove this, go find an affluent predominantly black neighborhood, of which there are plenty across the country, and investigate scenarios where such housing project proposals were received. 
 

“not in my backyard” isn’t a social sentiment It’s an economic one equally applied to factories, Amazon warehouses, highways, etc. 

 

i mean the last neighborhood I lived in, which I was not politically involved in aside from paying the dues, 

spent considerable legal resources resisting an elderly home project. Was it because they were ageists?

 

On point #2: No doubt, but prioritizing personal finances over affordable housing issues that disproportionately affect minorities is what I mean by “racial insensitivity.” In various situations, yes, this may instead manifest itself as “socioeconomic class insensitivity” or “elderly insensitivity.” It would be preferable if these suburban Trump-supporting “keeping-up-with-the-Joneses” white women supported candidates who also offered viable alternative housing policies for others less fortunate than them. But alas, the binary American political system normally only offers non-ideal choices. So I understand that people’s motivations behind their voting decisions are complex. I therefore try to temper my judgment a little.

 

EDIT: spelling mistake.

[Election Night: Nov 2 GDT]

1 hour ago, Governor said:

https://www.alternet.org/2020/11/heres-why-so-many-white-women-voted-for-trump-analysis/

 

None of this is very earth shattering. We’ve seen this behavior for decades. It shows up in polling and focus groups.

 

“However one defines it, a majority of white women voted for Trump to protect what they have – status, income, tax advantage, whatever – despite Trump's anti-woman attitudes and record.”

 

Now, who is “perceived” to be threatening those things?

 

Thank you for the article, Mr. Governor. Yes, I’m familiar with the content and you are correct that it’s not earth-shatteringly breaking news. As a Bernie 2016 and Bernie 2020 canvasser in the NYC area, I rarely ventured out to the suburbs so I rarely interacted with the white women demographic that voted for Trump (though the five boroughs certainly have their fair share of gentrified neighborhoods, of course, which is partly the subject of the article).

 

But I still don’t think the article is in opposition to my original stance, which is basically the following:

 

1. The overall white women demographic is choosing to prioritize personal economics over social justice issues.

2. Accusing them of “racial insensitivity” is fair game, especially regarding the issue of affordable housing options in suburbs.

3. Accusing them of outright “racism” is much more dubious and politically suicidal.

 

Maybe we’re more or less in agreement here? This topic is beginning to feel more tautological than substantive, so I shall retire to another thread on this lovely pre-Bills game afternoon…

[Bi-Partisan Infrastructure Deal!]

21 hours ago, B-Man said:

But would the Squad have voted no if there were no Republican yes votes to bail them out?

 

https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2021/11/06/did-the-13-republicans-who-voted-for-the-infrastructure-bill-help-or-hurt-democrats-n427461

 

Good article, B-Man! I highlighted the question that I want to address because I suspect it’s going to be a hot topic of debate among my fellow comrades this week. I suspect the answers are going to fall into 3 approximate camps:

 

1. The Marxist-Leninist revolutionary types who insist it was all political theater and that the Squad would have bowed down to their corporate Democratic Party overlords if their 6 votes had been needed.

2. The social democrat reformer types who believe the Squad would have still held the progressive line because they are sincere political agents who want to remain accountable to their constituents.

3. The sh!tlib fauxgressives who don’t care about the question and want to blame the Squad for holding up Democratic Party progress and not helping to deliver infrastructure aid to their respective districts.

 

Let’s quickly review the situation:

 

1. Nancy Pelosi is one smart Machiavellian cookie and has a reputation for never allowing a bill proposal to be voted on without already knowing she has the required votes to pass it.

2. 218 House votes were needed to pass this bill, 215 Democrats voted in favor, 200 Republicans voted against it, 13 GOP’ers “betrayed” their party, and 6 Squad members (AOC, Omar, Pressley, Tlaib, Bush, Bowman) “betrayed” theirs.

3. 88 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus voted in line with Pelosi. This included Jayapal, Khanna, Porter, Newman, and Pocan.

4. I’m familiar with a few of the 13 GOP betrayers: Andrew Garbarino, Chris Smith, and Nicole Malliotakis. They represent districts that would not have looked favorably upon a vote against infrastructure aid. Nicole in particular is from Staten Island and is absolutely a real headache to us progressives, as the article suggests. So I think Pelosi and the Squad probably already knew how at least some of these 13 people were going to vote.

5. There’s a “rotating villain” theory in democratic politics that is worth mentioning. It suggests that corporate politicians choose scapegoats to kill populist legislation. Their choices are based on who is most likely to handle the political blowback at the time. Regarding the budget reconciliation bill, for example, Manchin and Sinema have been selected to be the Democratic Party villains du jour.

 

Commie Kay’s Conclusion: Hmmm…yes, sadly this reeks of political theater. The 6 Squad members reside in possibly the 6 most far-left districts in the country and had the most to lose from not holding the progressive line that Bernie Sanders implored. However, I’m not so sure about some of those Left Coasters like Jayapal, Khanna, and Porter. Will they get primaried from the left? Will they survive them? Perhaps they were the ones instructed to play the “rotating villain” roles that the 6 Squad members could not afford to play? Hmmm…don’t know. Don’t really care anymore, either. I’m going third-party in the generals if I don’t get my way in the Dem primaries.

 

13 hours ago, Tenhigh said:

Good, I am glad this bill got passed. It's probably bigger than it needs to be, but we need work on our roads, bridges and airports.

 

It’s actually way smaller than it should be, but the political environment in the post-Reagan era United States doesn’t allow for government to solve large-scale problems (unless it’s related to “national defense,” i.e. American imperialism). If you travel to countries in East Asia or Europe, you’ll see firsthand that government gridlock toward civil infrastructure projects isn’t globally ubiquitous. Other societies are able to collaborate like mature adults to solve problems. Most countries in the West, for example, are already way ahead of us with implementing the panoply of cutting-edge twenty-first century “green” infrastructure.

 

Speaking of “green” infrastructure, all of the major infrastructure legislation written to combat anthropogenic climate change is in the budget reconciliation bill that Manchin, Sinema, and the GOP will kill this month. Even if it were to pass, the climate provisions currently in it are a full order of magnitude in cost below our country’s responsibility to the Paris Agreement. Corporatist politicians of both parties who accept campaign donations (a.k.a. legal bribes) from fossil fuel industries moved in to whittle down the climate change components of the bill. This will be Joe Biden’s “green” legacy for future historians to detail: a repeated failure to mediate and lead.

[Election Night: Nov 2 GDT]

On 11/6/2021 at 8:01 AM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m actually a bit disappointed to read this post.  I recognize that the Guv likely loses out out on the free coffee if he doesn’t get all the punches on his bigotry card, but you’re “...not quite sure about…” his condescending and disrespectful characterization of a massive segment of the female voting bloc?

 

We aren’t where we were, historically speaking, but the “you can’t trust them people” trope is how we got there the first time around.  

 

There are no new ideas, just different boogeypersons.

 

Why are you disappointed in me?? I was just being polite and open-minded and was giving Mr. Governor an opportunity to defend a very bold statement. His supporting evidence for the claim that white women are becoming more racist appears to be that more voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016. Suffice to say, I remain unconvinced… And even if the claim is true, liberals should know by now that calling everyone a racist isn’t a productive political strategy (see: 2016 presidential election, Hillary campaign, “deplorables” comment).

 

While politicians alone won’t “solve” racism (empathic dialogue and social desegregation are essential components too), my contention is that they can still do a lot to alleviate the problem by delivering on domestic economic policies which have overwhelming support from the electorate (such as most of the stuff that is being gutted from the BBB bill…). Why? Because American history is loaded with examples indicating a strong causal relationship between economic anxiety and racial tension.

[Election Night: Nov 2 GDT]

33 minutes ago, Governor said:

I’m not talking about the electorate as a whole. I’m talking specifically about “white women voters.”

 

We’ve been paying pretty close attention to that group over the last 10 years and it isn’t good at all. Look at the numbers.

 

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.

[Election Night: Nov 2 GDT]

On 11/3/2021 at 8:40 AM, Governor said:

White, racist Karen voters have been the problem, and until they stop being racist Karen’s, the country can’t really move forward.

 

The numbers are clear but no one wants to talk about it.

 

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!

[Election Night: Nov 2 GDT]

8 hours ago, Warcodered said:

There is not just pro government and anti government there is a whole spectrum in between and like a lot of things the best place is in the middle not on the edges. I mean I don't think a privately funded military, police, fire, or transportation department is a good idea but I also don't think the government should run Wal-Mart. I really wish we wouldn't be so black and white on this because it destroys all possibility of debate to try and actually improve things.

 

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.

[India Walton]

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?!”

 

11 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

As I said earlier

 

In a shocking surprise.. the winner of the election is Brian Brown

 

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%

[Practice squad hidden gems...]

6 hours ago, Dan Darragh said:

That helps a lot.

 

But who the hell are Mike, Sam and Will? Or is that MIKE, SAM and WILL?

 

And if Ferguson is the LONG HIKE, is there also a MEDIUM HIKE?

 

Also, where are the JILLS?

 

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.

[Practice squad hidden gems...]

1 hour ago, Dan Darragh said:

Since when did "EDGE" become a position?

 

And what literary genius decided that it needs to be written in all capital letters?

 

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.”

[Per Nick Wright: Bills will be a fringe contender.]

Hehehe...

 

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

 

[Stop Going To The Airport]

16 hours ago, BringBackFergy said:

My grandmother (God rest her soul) took me to the airport in 1990's to watch the planes take off.  It just so happens the Bills were arriving and a huge group of fans gathered to wish them well.  The crowds were so huge that my petite Gram Gram was trampled by three guys clamoring for a Jim Kelly autograph.  One of these bruisers wore a tattoo that said "Vinny Hart Ivy" (an obvious mistake by the guy that inked his arm, but unique nonetheless.)  As I watched my Gram Gram lay in a pool of Budweiser on the tile floor, she winked at me and said "Find that bastard".  Don't ever tell me what to do...my search continues.  He'll show up sooner or later and then it's curtains for Vinny.

 

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.

[Kyle Brandt makes his Super Bowl prediction. MOUNT UP!!!]

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

All I see and hear is Kay. 

 

 

 

[Abortion Basically Illegal In Texas Now]

On 9/7/2021 at 6:15 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You’re right of course.  If the collective, say, were to choose to allow abortion on demand up to, say, an hour or two  after birth, the ball would roll down hill, crushing anyone (male or female) in its path who opposed it.  In some ways, we’re already there. 
 

I think the other side of the argument is that simply because the collective wants to see that sort of option does not mean you submit and acquiesce.  On the religious front, it violates deeply held beliefs that transcend the earthly realm.  On the moral plane, some believe that at some point before the baby comes out the belly button that a separate life is created and should be protected.  

 

Why, if one felt this way, would they ever submit simply because some mean folks got mean(er)?

 

And on the threat of court packing, geesh, ComradeMeanie, to many conservatives, it’s a forgone conclusion that dem and left leaning folks are already planning that.  Same with disarming the American people.  Same with perpetually open borders.  Same with CRT.  Same. Same. Same.  It’s no different than your argument that “Texas law = crush abortion business”, is it?  I’m usually certain that people are less concerned about where we are and much more concerned with what comes next. 
 

You’re apparently pro-abortion when a woman decides it’s the right choice.  Some here are pro-life with no exemptions.  A whole bunch of many are probably stuck somewhere at a dusty Day’s Inn on a moderately fertile archipelago, trying to figure not so much where  life begins, but more where common sense ends and medieval spine crushing begins. 
 

What’s really (and in my head I’m thinking it sounds like reeeeeeeeeealy)to talk about?

 

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.

 

On 9/8/2021 at 7:32 AM, Governor said:

I really don’t understand the right’s strategy here. Trump already has a huge problem with non-white women but now they go and piss away their lead with white women?

 

Every GOP candidate is going to be asked if they agree with the Texas law and that would be disastrous in a whole lot of districts. There’s probably a dozen House seats in swing districts that would stay blue, especially those seats being held by moderate women, like mine.

 

It really feels like Trump’s people are behind this approach. Someone shows them a poll showing evangelical turnout was lower, they respond with abortion to energize them, not realizing that it also energizes the Dem base at a time where we’d usually be lulled to sleep before a midterm.

 

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

[India Walton]

3 hours ago, snafu said:

1. Castro is just as much a logical extension as any other long-term Marxist leader. People lose their freedoms. And please don’t ask for suggestions just to qualify any suggestion made with excuses like American Imperialism — especially in South America where American influence barely exists over the decades that include the Pink Tide years.  I never implied that India Walton was going to start a military uprising.  I said that one a Socialist come in then the manner of implementing policies becomes necessarily more and more draconian.  Why have a dialogue if you’re going to focus on Castro’s violence.  You asked for a specific time period.  I specifically said Castro in his earliest of years — before any revolution or violence followed.  Everyone starts small, Kay.  Then when you didn’t like that example, I switched to Evo Morales.  You said he “did some good things”. Well there’s a ringing endorsement if I ever heard one. And then you trotted out Military Dictator, Pinochet. 
 

2. Public housing is an available option.  I never said to abolish it.  Again, you asked for an example.  Public housing should be improved to the point where the government has enough credibility to tell any private property owner what to do or how to set a market.  You didn’t address the mayoral candidate’s desired result of altering a free market other than to peripherally say that you support rent control.  You asked for an example of a socialist policy and I gave you one.  There’s a whole entire ton of housing topics and you stretched the conversation to touch on some of them. But you avoided this one. 

3. I didn’t call you a 1/6 conspiracist.  I was just pointing out the similarities in the 2020 election to this here mayoral race.  You were grinding your gears about the tricks being played, and I was agreeing with you.  Others think there was some shady stuff that happened in 2020 — and they sound a lot like you.  You say the Federal Court decision is probably tainted by a judge who had a preferred outcome, and then hide behind courts to defend the 2020 results.  For the record, I believe that Trump lost all on his own. 
 

4. That’s nice.

 

5. If workers want to privately collect themselves to run a business or a million businesses, then that’s great.  Why should the government be involved? We were talking and actually agreeing that Socialism can not be scaled up to fit any large model.  And, Kay, I’m not engaging in fearmongering here. And since we primarily agree on this point, if I’m fearmongering then where does that leave you?  You would not have asked Q:4 if you didn’t have a notion that any small city success will be used as a catalyst for the growth of your preferred political governing style.  Why else would all the national news have reported on this but to hold Buffalo up as the example of a city that supports a Socialist — when it really looks like that’s nowhere near the truth.  I’m not fearmongering, I just don’t agree with this governing theory and I’m trying to point out my reasons why.

Kay, it looks like we primarily agree on 3 of 5 of your questions.  You haven’t acknowledged my Q:2 policy example yet, and we seem to disagree on your Q:1.  Not bad!

 

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.

[India Walton]

On 9/7/2021 at 5:04 PM, Doc said:

Why?  Because she's not connected like he is?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  But on the face of it, to have a May 28th deadline when the Dem primary is in June is dumb.

 

Yes, not being connected, which also ties directly into her political philosophy.

 

On 9/7/2021 at 5:50 PM, snafu said:

(1) Castro wasn't a dictator in 1950.  He was trying to get into the machine but the machine changed the rules.  Sound familiar?  He BECAME a dictator after he came into power in order to consolidate and retain his power.  The comparison isn't comically laughable -- it is the logical extension (or the execution of) what starts out to be laudable goals in theory.  It's  nice to have the lofty goals she lists in her website.  But when the policy needs to be implemented, the hand gets heavier and heavier.  You want a different comparison, let's go with Evo Morales, or any of the "pink tide" leftist leaders in South America.

 

(2) the closest I can see in her policy statements is WRT housing and canceling rent and holding landlords accountable because of her declaration that housing is a right.  Sure it is a right.  But if you don't OWN your housing, then you need to RENT your housing.  For money.  Or go live with your parents forever.  To take (or even to diminish) the property rights of one class of people in order to distribute the fruits of those rights to another class of people is pretty damn "command economy/socialist".  If she wants to limit herself to holding Landlords accountable for substandard living conditions, then yes, sure, whatever.  If she will eventually tell Landlords that they can't set the market -- which is the direction she's heading -- then what do you call it?  And, hey, why limit this to renters?  Why not have any single family homeowner paying a mortgage get their debt canceled?

 

(3) You're sounding like a January 6 conspiracist.  I think you and I agree on the sh***y nature of party electoral gameplay.

 

(4) Looks like we agree on my "time will tell" answer.

 

(5) Can't be scaled up.  If someone wants to live in a commune, then there's plenty of places to go.  That should be a personal election, not imposed upon people who don't choose to live collectively.  And I'd add that for India Walton to believe for a second that just because Byron Brown lost focus in the primary doesn't mean that she's got a mandate or ANY broad public support to implement her platform.  Her level of support, Citywide, from the potential constituents that she would be working for is miniscule.

 

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.”

 

On 9/7/2021 at 9:47 PM, Doc Brown said:

That’s a really good point.  She’d be laughed out of the room.
 

In a way though wouldn’t it be better for the progressive movement as a whole to show it can beat a more centrist candidate in a general election without the excuse of that person losing only because the centrist candidate’s name wasn’t on the ballot?

 

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.

[Abortion Basically Illegal In Texas Now]

On 9/6/2021 at 12:07 PM, Governor said:

All politics is local Kay. We may very well be close to a checkmate nationally, but we’re getting killed at the local and state level, Governorships, etc., and we’re seeing the effects of that today. This is what happens when a party gets distracted by social issues and gets away from a strong meat and potatoes economic message.

 

The courts are their last stand and I’m in “believe it when I see it mode” as far them going crazy and straying away from national opinion on any one issue.

 

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.

 

On 9/6/2021 at 2:25 PM, B-Man said:

REMINDER for this page also,  that the Title of this thread is incredibly wrong.

 

The Left knows this false, but wants the "controversy"...................their concern is votes, not women's rights.

 

No, Texas's New Law Does Not Ban Abortions - Or Even A Majority Of Them

 

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:

 

 

[India Walton]

On 9/6/2021 at 12:23 PM, snafu said:

Hi, Kay.
1. Castro circa 1950. 

2. She doesn’t self-describe in the “Who is India Walton” section of her website.  However, her endorsements label her as a socialist.  Also her site contains this interview of Walton from Jacobin Magazine (there’s a loaded title!) discussing her endorsement by the Democratic Socialists of America. They discussed Socialism and her vision quite a bit.  Not only that, but any media outlet that announced her primary win distinctly labeled her as a straight-up Socialist, and I never saw her push back on that. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/05/india-walton-interview-buffalo-mayor-race-democratic-primary?fbclid=IwAR2GeLuz8_ra-dCgQ60umzdCm27DDHT7w6LTnaEsEWQFion8kcc2x-4IM1M

 

3. I haven’t read Sinatra’s decision and I don’t know who his brother is.  I will say that the decision, coupled with the past recent news that the City Council is thinking of banishing the office of Mayor led me to my answer #1. With your question #3 are you insinuating that you see a political party setting up the apparatus to defeat a political outsider whom they see as an extremist? Hmmm, have we seen this before?

4. Time will tell. Can’t answer that yet. 

 

5. Depends on a lot of things, but I’d say, like everything Socialist and further left: good in theory, bad in practice. Time and basic human nature erodes the good idea and eventually the only way to sustain the idea is through heavy-handed regulation, to say the least. See my answer #1. 

 

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).

 

On 9/6/2021 at 12:32 PM, Doc said:

Is 3. even material?  Why shouldn't Brown have his name on the ballot?

 

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.

[India Walton]

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.

[Abortion Basically Illegal In Texas Now]

8 hours ago, Governor said:

There’s a lot of moving parts but what’s very clear is that 70 percent of the country doesn’t like the 30 percent and continues to marginalize them, which is causing them to lash out. 
 

It will turn to violence soon. There’s no doubt in my mind that the North will be putting the squeeze on the South real soon. 
 

The GOP abandoned democracy and that’s made it impossible for a healthy multi-party political system. As the party continues to shrink, it’s only going to get worse, until something is finally done.
 

Their goal now is to take control by force, an Apartheid, and that’s going to be met with force. 
 

It won’t start out with bombs. It will start with the removal of federal funding, starving these states out, to change political behavior. 

 

Truth is, these states don’t have any industry and they’ll just need to be put in check. They can’t sustain themselves.

 

It wouldn’t take much to turn DeSantis into AOC in a matter of weeks if we took the money away and they couldn’t run on lowering your taxes every election cycle and quit the nonsense. 

 

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.

[America no longer exists]

21 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Some will no doubt read this and say I am being idealistic.  To that I say, why not?  Why not hold up the ideals of this country?  Instead, the people of this country don't care about the ideals anymore.   They only care about themselves.  And that selfish instinct, and how it has affected our daily lives, our government, and our standing in the world, has led to an inevitable consequence.

 

America is gone.  We have let it slip away.  The only question now is whether we can ever get it back.  

 

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…

 

[Bernie Sanders]

16 hours ago, Governor said:

I think Progressives need to keep things in perspective. Biden has been successful because he’s been taking hits from his right and also his left from the Squad.

 

That’s exactly where he wants to be. It’s a game they’re playing. He’s able to appear center to most voters.

 

But is Joe actually in the center? So far, not at all. He’s governed left of center.

 
Obama was a true centrist. Yuck gross!

 

If Biden is in the center, Obama would be a right-wing extremist militia leader from Illinois.

 

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.

[Bernie Sanders]

On 8/17/2021 at 12:18 PM, Governor said:

Andy’s story angers them doesn’t it? I knew it would.

 

So, what is your problem with AOC? Do you just feel that the office itself and her committee position has already corrupted her? Well, that’s why Nancy stuck her there. Ha!

 

Personally, I think she’s just growing and learning to legislate. She’s a pretty quick study.

 

I don’t think the HC system can be fixed. I have 2 friends with colon cancer, one 48 and the other 70, and I’m just blown away by how it’s designed. They both received totally different care based on their age. It’s as if the “system” doesn’t value the 70 year old since he’s no longer a productive labor unit.  It’s absolutely insane. I don’t think I could ever willingly partake in that.

 

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.

[Afghanistan]

22 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

The interaction of the tin foil hat and the crazy pills are there to be certain, but I’m positive there is something we are all missing here.
 

The industrial military complex idea while certainly not an ethical or moral stretch, there is just not enough money (at least officially on the books) imo involved for what has been a protracted policing and half hearted infrastructure propping up exercise to justify this as a means to that end. And the enemy was so low tech it justified little. 
 

Weve had 13 years since the usgs dubbed the trillions of natural resources in the ground. Other than a couple barreled of oil and some boxite I’m not sure what is coming out. 
 

The poppy fields might be something but I don’t know how that turns into inflows.  

 

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?

 

22 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

I never read your full posts.  Does not fit with my ADD but you mentioned we’ve done a better job of immigration vetting. Questions. Have you seen our southern border lately and no one has (at least I’ve not seen a response) told me where these planes full of Afghani refugees are going.  And how have they been vetted? 

 

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.

[A little disagreement among Rams fans]

15 hours ago, First Round Bust said:

yeah if you listen closely it started off as a debate over micro-economics versus Keynesian theory application in pre-20th century agrarian cultures...economists..SMH..sigh

 

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.

 

 

8 hours ago, Paulus said:

Not all heroes wear capes...

 

 

 

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.