ComradeKayAdams

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.

Buffalo Timmy: “Well done proving that the initial alarm was very likely poorly done research.” ComradeKayAdams: “I did no such thing. I distinguished the most useful metrics for determining coral reef biome health (any of the coral bleaching data) from the much less useful ones (coral growth rates and coral cover percentages). The article did not review any of the coral bleaching data collected from the Great Barrier Reef or from any other coral reefs on the planet. Any guesses as to why??” Buffalo Timmy: “Kay, if you can’t predict the future it is not good science.” ComradeKayAdams: “Agreed, but predictions have already been made. The data so far is approximately matching the median predictions for ocean temperatures, coral bleaching incidents, bleaching coverage, AND biome population reductions for the flora and fauna most sensitive to ocean temperature increases.” Buffalo Timmy: “If I keep predicting collapse and it grows, then I am missing something large.” ComradeKayAdams: “Well for one thing, predictions of coral reef biome collapse have been made predominantly for the second half of this century…which obviously hasn’t arrived yet. Also, there are a number of explanations for short-term reversals of long-term trends in coral health. Regional ocean temperatures can undergo large seasonal fluctuations (El Nino/La Nina), carbon dioxide absorption perturbations at sea level can lead to temporary changes in coral growth rates due to the changes in ocean acidification, and a small percentage of coral species can always become more or less adaptive to alterations in their ocean environment via the wonderful process of evolution!” Buffalo Timmy: “Making huge predictions based on 30 years of data for a structure that is thousands of years old seems foolish.” ComradeKayAdams: “No, it’s not foolish. We have a very detailed understanding of how all the various coral species react to water temperature and water acidity. Our understanding comes from both in-situ studies and laboratory research. The only major variables in play, really, besides disease are the trajectories of ocean temperatures and ocean acidity levels. Unfortunately, we know how those two are trending…well, that is the non-climate change deniers among us do.”

I adore you, Irv. You had me at your thread title. The heat from your ridiculous right-wing political takes is often exactly what I need to warm my hypothermic progressive soul. Plus, I respect your inimitable gift for summarizing content in just three unforgettably monosyllabic words. I know that we are traditional political adversaries, Irv, but I need your help now more than ever! We both share a common enemy: the Democratic Party. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer are traitors to the American working class. And so far, Bernie Sanders and the Squad have played the “party sheepdog” role well by keeping far-left enthusiasm away from third-party development but also away from political disengagement altogether. But while many Bernie Bros since Super Tuesday of last March have chosen to wither, know that this Bernie Ho refuses to dither! Won’t you join me, Irv, and help bring down the Democratic Party during the 2022 midterms and further again in 2024?? I will do my best to lead the roughly 40% of the party’s base who self-identify as “progressive” over to third parties (Green, People’s, DSA). I’ll need you, meanwhile, to call out their so-called “moderate” base from the right in the specific ways that I describe. Simple example: start referring to them as “warmongering Russiagating McCarthyites,” “corporate sociopathic oligarch lovers,” and (perhaps my favorite succinct epithet) “sh!itlibs” (a delightful portmanteau of “sh!theads” and “neoliberals”). In due time (how about 2028?), I will get you to see the viability and righteousness of a Green New Deal. But until then, be aware that such unlikely temporary alliances as ours are not at all unprecedented! I’m sure Sun Tzu said something profound about it. Didn’t Batman team up with Catwoman on occasion? The Bat and the Cat? How about…Reactionary Irv and the Far-Left Verve? The Hater of Disarray and Comradely Comrade Kay? I know of a Nanushka black faux leather dress that I think I can modify into a costume and wear at canvassing activities! Oooh, my love of politics is returning. Best thread ever! Thanks, Irv!

Oh no…this editorialized sentence from the article is a BLATANT lie: “Like all other data on the reef, this shows it is in robust health.” For starters, coral growth rates and coral cover percentages don’t tell us anything about the species composition of the newly formed coral. As an extreme example, imagine that every other coral species but one could be dying off, but that one randomly well-adapted species could be spreading like wildfire. This would definitely not indicate that the overall reef biome is in good health, bearing in mind the complex interdependencies of all the highly diverse members typically occupying coral reef ecosystems. Coral bleaching data is BY FAR the most important indicator of coral reef health, but discussion of it in the article excerpt is conspicuously absent. While localized ocean current temperatures around the Great Barrier Reef may vary in any given season like weather does above any region of land, we know for sure that global mean ocean temperatures are continuously rising. We also know for sure that rising ocean temperatures threaten coral life in coral reefs everywhere. This is a basic principle of coral fauna. The coral of the Great Barrier Reef are no exception. Basically, not a single credible oceanographer or marine biologist on this planet would disagree with the information I provided above. Anyone telling people not to worry about the vitality of coral reefs this century has been propagandized by the fossil fuel industry. It is unfortunate that other countries like Australia are also victims of this propaganda.

Right, but none of us are challenging the original stated reason for entering the Afghanistan conflict! Adopting a policy of non-interventionism doesn’t mean you don’t fight back in self-defense. The relevant topic here is an examination of why this war has persisted for TWO FULL DECADES. And to me, at least, the answer is obvious: American imperialism. You seem a bit hostile toward political retrospection, SoCal Deek! A quick look into the Afghanistan region’s long history beforehand would have informed us that forcing democracy and our own specific values onto such a balkanized society (that is living within such a difficult-to-traverse mountainous topography, no less) was doomed to fail. Our country’s record of success with boots-on-ground regime changes, organized coups, and hard sanctions since World War 2 is beyond dismal. And studies of empire collapses throughout human history suggest that overextending one’s own military at the expense of domestic investments is a very bad idea. But I’m sure the sociopathic oligarchic powers in control of our country already knew all of this, and that’s kind of the point. They knew and didn’t care. Canadian or not, Niagara Bill’s thread is actually one of the most interesting and important ones I see on this forum’s first page. My PPP raison d’etre is to get people thinking beyond the “left versus right” American political paradigm that has defined the twentieth century and more toward a twenty-first century “populist versus establishment” framework. Some of you seem to already be there, though way too many of you seem to not understand that imperialism is the foreign policy arm of the establishment. Afghanistan is just the low-hanging fruit, so to speak, of this political awareness. Neoliberal Dems defended Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, but then they looked the other way on disastrous situations like Libya and Syria. Trumpers praised their charlatan’s scathing criticisms of Hillary’s record as Secretary of State, but then had no problem with his renewal of the ineffective six decades-long Cuban embargo or his reckless reversal of the JCPOA (which has now, in turn, hindered Biden’s options with Iran). Neither political side appears to have a problem with coups/sanctions against Venezuela and its people, not to mention the human rights violations against Palestinians in the name of Empress America’s militarily strategic Middle East satellite state. Both sides, of course, excused their guy’s failure to withdraw troops from the Afghanistan conflict. All underlying motives of the U.S. government are clearly economic in nature, not moral (I’m referring specifically to the corporate oligarchs in charge and not the overall voting citizenry who technically put them in charge). Democratically elected socialists in, say, South America are constantly challenged, while gross human rights violators in, say, Africa are routinely overlooked. Empress America especially hates anything associated with “socialism” or “communism,” but not because of the lowered standards of living these systems tend to generate for their citizens. Rather, the reason is because they tend to be much less likely to allow foreign capitalistic powers to come in and exploit their natural resources and labor pools. Economic factors and military efficacies aside, let’s think a bit more about the moral quandaries that the establishment’s foreign policy creates. A large majority of this forum’s participants are strict constructionism types and Judeo-Christian philosophy proponents to varying degrees. But where in the Constitution does it say that our country has the right or the imperative to tell other sovereign nations how to organize their own governments or their own labor pools? And would Jesus be okay with indiscriminately bombing brown people, depriving said brown people of basic economic goods and services needed for survival, or carrying out military drone programs where ~90% of kills are not even the intended target? I guess I should stop typing now because hardly anyone reads what I write anyway (though a few of the BillsFans.com boys still do! Thanks, guys!). I wish people would take a minute every now and then to really think about U.S. foreign policy in various scenarios. Apply the Golden Rule and reverse the roles of the U.S. and the other country/countries in question. See if your opinions change.

Good post, ALF! I wish our country was talking about universal health care during a pandemic more so than indulging in vaccination debates. From that list of 10 countries in that study, I don’t believe even one of them has a minor political party advocating for the privatization of health care, let alone a major party. Doing so would be considered political suicide in these countries. The United States, meanwhile, has TWO major parties doing it…which is twice as upsetting to me as being the only modern industrialized country in the world with a major political party effectively denying anthropogenic climate change…but I digress… The point is that all 10 of those countries have largely (or practically entirely, in the case of some like the U.K.) socialized their health care industries during the twentieth century, and none of them have any regrets in doing so. They simply look at socialized medicine like we look at socialized national defense, socialized law and order, socialized fire departments, socialized postal service, etc… And not coincidentally, all 10 of those countries (U.K., France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) routinely score higher than the U.S. in all sorts of upward socioeconomic mobility rankings. Hmmm. I still believe M4A in the United States is inevitable just like I believe social democracy here is inevitable. But if we couldn’t even get a national discussion on it during a once-in-a-century pandemic, we are almost definitely a full generation away from implementing it. If roughly half the country currently perceives any form of a vaccination mandate to be a slippery slope to gulags, can you imagine the McCarthyite fearmongering that would have ensued if our corporate media acknowledged the basic interconnectedness of each individual’s health, from a financial well-being standpoint? Since our country’s inception, the concept of a social contract has always been under attack here more than in any other country in the world. And to some extent, this is a very healthy thing and a great source of our country’s strength. But in many specific modern scenarios such as pandemic management, I argue that it is downright pathological.

Afghanistan is much more than a “piece of dirt!” It contains an enormous amount of untapped mineral resources that can be used for the electronics industry and for other various high-tech emerging industries. Historically, the land has also held an important trade position connecting the Chinese empire with the Persian empire. Nowadays, the United States can look at the country as a favorable geostrategic position from which to watch over her biggest adversaries: China, especially Iran, and Russia too. If you look at a complete map of U.S. military bases around the world, you will see something very interesting: we’re REALLY obsessed with surrounding Iran on all sides! I believe these are the most important reasons for our extended military occupation there. Spreading democracy, upholding international human rights, controlling the opium market, diverting oil pipelines, maintaining a high budget for the military industrial complex…all good answers, but I think they are secondary motivations. Seeking revenge for 9/11, dismantling the Taliban, and stopping Islamic terrorism were the main reasons for entering the war and certainly the main reasons why any American citizens continued supporting the war in its early stages. But now? At this point, it is indeed all about American imperialism. Afghanistan is only one of the more obvious examples of this deeply immoral and pervasive foreign policy, with Iraq being the most obvious one (Libya, Syria, and Saudi Arabia/Yemen are conspicuous as well. Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Israel/Palestine, and countries involving military drones are perhaps a bit more subtle). As someone who is a strident non-interventionist, I am actually MORE concerned that we are (allegedly…) withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan. Why are we (allegedly…) abandoning this strategic military outpost?? My cynical suspicion is that we may soon see false flags somewhere in the Middle East (Syria?) that will get us into some form of a protracted war with Iran. And if I was a resource-rich South American country with a left-leaning government, I would be sleeping with one wary eye open northward.

This is a fairly mainstream message among left-wing populists. I mention it briefly in this thread (see: bottom of page 20, my post, last paragraph). Thomas Frank gives the most articulate and thorough description of the message in books like “What’s the Matter with Kansas” or “Listen, Liberal.” For those who really want to understand modern American progressivism, I would also recommend checking out these three books if you haven’t already: “Manufacturing Consent” by Noam Chomsky, “The Shock Doctrine” by Naomi Klein, and “Griftopia” by Matt Taibbi. I’m familiar with Jimmy Dore because he was Tulsi Gabbard’s most prominent advocate during her 2020 presidential campaign. I’ll attempt to summarize his political philosophy in an easy-to-read list form: 1. Reaganomics has failed the working class. 2. America is an imperialist nation. 3. Republicans and Democrats are a one-party corporate oligarchy run by sociopaths. 4. With the help of corporate media, both parties use culture war issues like CRT to divide and politically weaken the working class. 5. The Democratic Party is far more dangerous to the progressive movement because one of its main intents is to co-opt and then defuse progressive political energy. 6. The 96 Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) members (including Bernie and The Squad) serve the same role on the left as Donald Trump does on the right: corral enough gullible voters into the two-party political duopoly and get them to think they are actually fighting the “establishment.” 7. Because the Democratic Party is inherently corrupt and unreformable, it must be pushed left and eventually destroyed from outside pressure (third parties, mass protests, and worker strikes). 8. Left-wing populists and right-wing populists must somehow unite if they want to stand any chance at defeating the plutocracy. While most progressives believe #1 and #2 to be true, there is considerable debate within the movement regarding #3-8. I have slowly come to agree with all 8 points. For me, the very last straw was the deafening silence from the CPC in support of last Saturday’s nation-wide “March for Medicare For All.” I attended the one at Washington Square Park in downtown Manhattan. The crowd wasn’t nearly as big as I had hoped. If national progressive Democrats actually cared about what they profess to believe, they would be doing everything they can to constantly push Biden and neoliberal Dems left on major issues like health care. But I strongly suspect they don’t. Their individual political careers and the wealth that come with it apparently matter more to them than fighting for the concerns of ordinary Americans. Interesting post, All_Pro_Bills! I’m shocked at your open-mindedness. It’s not common in this childish hellhole of a subforum.

His entire line of attack against Ms. Fitzgerald was a misfire because she was likely hired for her sports journalism skills, not for having an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bills. Like any true professional, I’m sure she will do her homework and quickly become very knowledgeable of our team. Also, the definition of a “floozy” is a promiscuous young woman who uses sex to manipulate men. That is a pretty disgusting label to flippantly toss at any female, especially one reporting on male athletes.

I am addicted to you.

Would it be wrong to make an Ertz joke here?

I swear, Irv…your political takes are sooo hot that I find myself having to turn up the AC in my apartment as soon as I log in to PPP. Where do I even begin with you??? 1. The term “zipperhead” is a highly offensive slur against Asians. 2. BullBuchanan is the only true socialist here at PPP, but be thankful that I’m not summoning him right now… 3. Joe Biden is in no way a socialist. 4. You don’t appear to understand the internal power dynamics between the two main factions of the Democratic Party. 5. You don’t appear to understand the difference between socialism and social democracy. 6. You routinely conflate authoritarian socialism with democratic socialism, command economies with market socialism, libertarian socialism with statist socialism, socialism with communism, etc… 7. You show no real awareness of the multitude of successful capitalist countries with significant socialist elements like universal health care. 8. You show no real awareness of the immense role that US sanctions, blockades, and CIA-backed coups have played in the destabilization of far-left countries such as Cuba and Venezuela. 9. The real Irv Weinstein died on December 26, 2017, so you must be an imposter. 10. WHAT. A. MESS.

EXACTLY. The fossil fuel industry would rather have the next generation of American taxpayers get stuck with the bill for the sum environmental damage. And while the political right in this country fetishizes the free market, they willfully ignore all of the federal subsidies oil and gas are given. The “pinko commie” far-left form the subset of American politics that take climate change and environmentalism most seriously, and that’s obviously no coincidence. It takes a Marxist to really critique capitalism (as it pertains to land property rights, public goods, negative environmental externalities, unsustainable growth, etc.) without the rose-colored glasses. Only a laissez-faire extremist thinks the free market will reach optimal environmental solutions in minimal time without government regulations and assistance from federally funded scientific research. Your U.S. emissions reduction statement is highly misleading. That refers strictly to carbon dioxide emissions but doesn’t account for all greenhouse gas emissions, namely methane from fracking. The solution to the China dilemma is to engage in carefully crafted multilateral trade agreements with them that incentivize their cooperation under the Paris Climate Agreement. China can make a lot of money by ditching coal, taking advantage of their rare earth metal resources, and fully participating in the emerging international renewable energy market.

Probably, but the Brown write-in campaign idea is getting a lot of pushback from local and state leaders within the Democratic Party. Keep in mind the negative national media attention the situation will draw. Along with the optics of Brown not accepting the consequences for running a terrible mayoral primary campaign, this will only enflame the ongoing civil war between the party’s centrist and progressive wings. Democratic strategists across the country do not want the drama carrying into the midterm primaries. Furthermore, write-in campaigns rarely succeed. Yes, wouldn’t it be nice if our country could discuss issues like adults, instead of going off on drunken Chris Matthews-esque diatribes straight out of the Cold War era?? The claim against India Walton is that she is a dangerous wealth-destroying socialist. Looking at her website: I don’t even see her specifically calling for the raising of taxes on businesses, sales, property, or general wealth. Her campaign seems to emphasize the reallocation of current tax resources away from certain sectors like the police department and toward various infrastructure projects that more directly affect lower income communities. Her plans to address housing, education, and the environment are fairly mainstream liberal ideas now and not exactly without American municipal precedent. The stuff on pandemic recovery, food access, and the arts is all very anodyne. I guess one could call her ideas on immigration extreme, however. The apparent overarching theme in her campaign platform is that of looking out for minorities. As for India’s socialist bona fides, we have little to go on because she has no public office track record. The DSA endorses her, but their vetting process is not exactly known for its rigor. They will endorse practically any political candidate who is willing to publicly self-identify as a socialist. So truthfully, we have no idea if Walton’s long-term intentions are to rage against the feudalistic capitalism machine and lead a grassroots-based revolution whereby workers everywhere eventually come to own the means of production… At worst (read: most left-wing), she may only advocate for a stronger social safety net and a more progressive tax code like any run-of-the-mill social democrat. What we can safely assume is that India Walton will have a giant national media bullseye on her. Every single unfilled road pothole will be used against her very character and against far-left politics in general. Even among some on the far-left, the slightest of political compromises and moves toward centrism from her will likely attract accusations of selling out and of corruption (probably even from me at some later point lol…). Few people have the personality traits to thrive under such scrutiny. Fortunately, India’s inspirational biography suggests that she may be one of the few who can. Regardless of her political orientation, I wish her the best because I love the city of Buffalo and want to see it succeed above all else. Oh…final thoughts on the national media: I always enjoy their narratives. They entertain me. They delight me. One of them here is that so-called socialists like India Walton are the reason for cities like Buffalo having become failures. For one thing, there hasn’t been a socialist mayor in a major US city since 1960. For another, higher taxes that disincentivize business growth are not a distinctly socialist feature. But my main point of contention lies with the selective omission of perhaps the biggest explanation for Rust Belt decay: four decades of a failed Reaganomics ideology for the working class and for Millenials/Gen Z’ers. If people want to discuss what is perceived to be a rising popularity in socialism in this country (see: latest Axios+Momentive poll from June 11-15), how about a little bit of neoliberal culpability?? Let’s also include the impact of international free trade agreements on the deindustrialization of places like the Midwest. Let’s discuss how the collapse of unions has coincided with the obvious reversal in upward American socioeconomic mobility. Or how money that could have gone toward regenerative civil infrastructure projects has been diverted to the military-industrial complex and to American imperialism. Stuff like that.