#55 | Posted by snoofy

Food access should be basic, not radical. The fact that "feeding people" still counts as a political statement kinda proves Mamdani's point, doesn't it?

#56 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS

You just quoted my SIL!

But hey, handouts to people needing food, who does this Snoofy guy think he is, Jesus?

#55 | Posted by snoofy

Ummmm....yes?

That's the biggest issue with all this, the average person doesnt have time to navigate this crap. They have to work to pay for it all

#50 | Posted by oneironaut

That's one of the best arguments for single payer healthcare that I've ever heard.

#58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

The bears are repeating...

Good idea! I went for Dogfish Head. Not sure how available that is on the Left Coast.
#52 | Posted by snoofy

Sierra Nevada Torpedo for me this evening.

#51 | Posted by snoofy

That's a good pull, and you're right! A few cities have opened small, publicly run grocery stores, usually in food deserts where private chains have pulled out. Baldwin, Florida, and St. Paul, Kansas are clearly prime examples.

What makes Mamdani's proposal different is scale and intent. Those cases were isolated stopgaps, IMO. He's talking about a citywide network of publicly operated stores serving everyone! Not one-off responses to local crises.

So yeah, the idea's been tested in miniature, but never as a core part of an urban economic model. That's a distinction with a difference, right?

What am I supposed to be catching on to with that comment?
#49 | Posted by snoofy

PXs aren't open to the general public, only to service members and their families. So while they're technically government-run, they don't qualify as civilian grocery stores.

Mamdani's proposal would be the first time a U.S. city operates that kind of store for everyone.

You drinking IPAs tonight by chance?

Ever been in one? It's closer to a Costco or a Super Wal-Mart. A lot more than just groceries.
#45 | Posted by snoofy

I've never been to one because I am a Regular (*unaffiliated to military) citizen.

You catching on now?

Military wives are civilians, I thought I was kinda driving that point home earlier.
#39 | Posted by snoofy

Regular (*unaffiliated to military) citizens...

Is that good enough for you? If so, maybe opine upon the actual context.

Well, except all those PX's...
#40 | Posted by snoofy

You refer to them as PXs, not grocery stores. Thanks for proving my point.

#36 | Posted by eberly

Yeah, you're right. The ideas themselves already poll well. I meant "popular" in the after-the-fact sense: if he actually made them work, they'd go from being popular talking points to proven policy. That's what scares his critics! Success turns slogans into precedent.

Military housewives seem pretty regular to me. Actually so do enlistees. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.
#35 | Posted by snoofy

The only Americans with access to government-run grocery stores right now are in the military and those affiliated. Extending that model to civilians would be a first in U.S. history. We've subsidized food before, but we've never actually run the grocery stores ourselves.

Everyone in the military gets a government run grocery store called the PX.
#30 | Posted by snoofy

Yet regular citizens don't have access to this. Now you get the point?

Is that how you would describe the opposition to Trump?
#25 | Posted by eberly

The reaction to Mamdani does echo how people responded to Trump in 2016. But the context is totally different.

In 2016, Trump had never held office, and most of the opposition came from people who saw him as corrupt, power-hungry, and obsessed with notoriety (not because they feared his ideas might work). They thought he'd use the presidency to enrich himself and after seeing how things played out, they weren't wrong.

Mamdani's opposition, on the other hand, isn't about personal ethics or corruption. It's ideological. He's pushing for a level of socialism (e.g., rent freezes, city-run groceries, and free public transit, etc.) that's never really been implemented at this scale in the U.S. The fear isn't that he'll fail; it's that he might actually succeed and prove those ideas popular.

That's the key difference. With Trump, people feared the man and his proven corruption. With Mamdani, they fear a movement that could spread if proven to be impactful and popular.

Republicans are terrified by what Mamdanis represents.
#22 | Posted by Alexandrite

They're terrified that he'll get elected and actually improve life for New Yorkers, that his policies might work, making him and his ideas popular.

If they truly believed socialism would fail, they'd be cheering him on. They'd want him to win, to implement those policies, and to watch them backfire, proving once and for all that "socialism" can't work in a city like New York, let alone in America.

But they're not doing that. They're doing the exact opposite and that speaks volumes.

Both Israel and Hamas have accused each other of violating the latest ceasefire agreement as of late October 2025. Israel claims Hamas breached the truce by launching an attack on Israeli forces and by returning remains of a hostage that did not match the agreed terms, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a "clear violation" of the agreement. In response, Israel ordered military strikes in Gaza.

Conversely, Hamas asserts that Israel violated the ceasefire, particularly by conducting strikes and other actions they say contravened the agreement's terms. Hamas cited these alleged Israeli violations as the reason for delaying a planned handover of a hostage's remains. As a result, both sides continue to blame each other for undermining the ceasefire, with hostilities and accusations ongoing.

Swallow it, BOAZ.

#5

So there is no peace in the middle east. Thanks for the clarification, Trump ball washer.

Even when Republicans are in full control of the government, they are still victims.

Bunch of pansies.

Someone should stop these Democrats from praising the traitors of the Civil War.

#80 | Posted by BillJohnson

Look at you speaking for most people! HAHAHA! Twisted little cultist!!!

Posted by oneironaut
You know, it's OK to take Trump's balls out of your mouth once in a while.
#16 | Posted by jpw

He can type perfectly fine while gargling Trump's --------.

Suck it up, you need to lose weight anyway.
#26 | Posted by fishpaw

You're not a serious person! HAHAHA! Silly cultist!!

why didn't Biden release the tapes?
#22 | Posted by fishpaw

I'm not a Dem, but I've answered this question NUMEROUS times. And the answer is simple: because pedo Joe and Bill Clinton are in the files along with other prominent Dem donors.

Now how about YOU answer the question cultists refuse to answer: why are Trump and Republican congress running cover for pedo Joe and Bill Clinton?

hard drug use.
#63 | Posted by sentinel

What do you consider "hard drugs," Officer McGruff?