Proof positive that a Democrat can tell the truth

And he wants to make grocery stores government run during Schumer's government shutdown.

Enjoy the fallout. Having lived in Canada for the vast majority of my life, I sure will be.

You're right. In under 5 minutes of searching I found this. It was easy to find how wrong you are!

This is from that same article, lest anyone think the end goal isn't for government run grocery stores in NY to run privately owned grocery stores out of business:

'“We will redirect city funds from corporate supermarkets to city-owned grocery stores, whose mission is lower prices, not price gouging,” he added.'

Quote - "This is from that same article, lest anyone think the end goal isn't for government run grocery stores in NY to run privately owned grocery stores out of business."

Or the voters and by extension Mandani are complete dumbasses thinking this will actually work. How the hell are they going to get food to the shelves let alone manufacture food the second legit businesses are expected to provide a produce/service at either at a massive net lose or for free? Grocery stores are not charities they are businesses of convenience. Any act of charity by a grocery store was done after closing with the thought of 'better to put it to good use instead of wasting it by throwing it away'. And I've my thoughts very clear about government stopping grocery stores from doing that. . .and now government wants to be the one to dole out food.

I'm growing real tired of you deliberately misinterpreting everything I say.

Because tax revenue exists and NYC doesn't need a multi-billion dollar police force but even then, he's not using that money. He is planning to reroute the tax breaks that other grocery stores get while NOT helping keep prices down to grocery stores that DO keep prices down...almost like our tax dollars will be going directly toward helping us...in a crazy fit of being reasonable.

Also if you subsidize the farmers at 100% in exchange for 60% of their crop then they get free tools with the tax money and free seeds etc, but they can still have motivation because they can still profit off of the 40% that doesn't go to feeding everyone. They can sell that upscaled produce or stock to more niche stores so that you can still have your fancy burgers. It just means that the takeout restaurants and such will get more expensive - and they should. It should be cheaper for you to buy fresh food and make it than it is to pay someone else to make it for you because their added labor and the fresh sourced or higher quality ingredients are supposed to be WHAT you're paying for - not the corners they cut to get a burger down to $.99 that is ultimately killing you anyway.

Imagine, a world where fresh homemade healthier food is cheaper and the fast food slop and other trash is more expensive...almost like that's how it SHOULD be.

You- Also if you subsidize the farmers at 100% in exchange for 60% of their crop then they get free tools with the tax money and free seeds etc, but they can still have motivation because they can still profit off of the 40% that doesn't go to feeding everyone.
Me - Does that include 'farms' like say Green Giant or whoever owns them this week. . .'cause guess what. Let's not confuse 'farm' with 'business' shall we. . .or were the majority of those subsidiaries go to.

You - They can sell that upscaled produce or stock to more niche stores so that you can still have your fancy burgers. It just means that the takeout restaurants and such will get more expensive - and they should.
Me - You do know the biggest customers for restaurants are middle/working class, right? Oh, sure 'rich people restaurants' get clout and better advertising therefore they are more well known but it doesn't change the fact who the core customers are for the vast majority of restaurants.

You - Imagine, a world where fresh homemade healthier food is cheaper and the fast food slop and other trash is more expensive...almost like that's how it SHOULD be.
Me - You mean like in the 1950s-1960s when people were able to buy three or four shopping carts worth of food for about $20-$50. Today a twenty will buy four maybe five items at a grocery store. And lets not forget about all the promotional stuff grocery stores used to do like a free set of silver(literally)ware. My mom once got a real nice set of plates with gold edging just for buying $20 worth of food that lasted her a month. Remember that the true value in currency is not the number amount but the purchasing power it has.

yes dude - the idea IS that people shouldn't be making a profit off of a resource that others need to live. You've accidentally stumbled upon the point and you didn't even realize it.

Oh, isn't that progressive and forward thinking?

I'm sure those city grocery employees will also gladly give up their human right to groceries the next time a Schumer shutdown roles around and the hungry hungry citizens of nyc come a lootin'.

What noble martyrs that mamdani plans to make of his employees! Truly inspirational.

During the current government shutdown are government workers being paid? If yes, why are the Democrats openly admitting to using government workers' pain and ebt/snap recipients pain as leverage against the Republicans?

If no, why would government grocers be paid during a government shutdown if other government workers aren't?

Please read more before talking. You're showing of your "intelligence" too much here.

"We aren't talking about the shutdown."

Yes, we are.

"Finish the conversation about the grocery stores first - then we move on to why you're wrong about the shutdown, but not before."

I am literally discussing the (idealistically) unintended consequences of government run grocery stores.

"I gave you the specific reason why your argument about the grocery store workers was invalid. Do you have nothing to say back to this?"

I continue to do so but for some reason you continue to falsely claim I am not.

"If not, I accept your concession, and we can start that completely different topic you want to talk about next."

You say that as though not debating a disingenuous communist would be a burden.

You're either incredibly dumb, delusional, disingenuous, or all of them at once.

The grocery stores mamdani wants to be government run will not be offering free food.

The government employees running those grocery stores will not be paid during government shutdowns.

"Sounds like someone doesn't know what essential functions are and what reserve funding is meant to do...and it's not just Trump that doesn't understand it."

Then please do explain this, your intelligensiacy.

"Maybe ask the Republicans why, when they are the only ones holding a way out of the problem that doesn't involve people dying, are they more concerned about the debt than death."

Wrong.

"But amid the punishing effects of the shutdown on federal workers — some 730,000 are working without pay, and another 670,000 are furloughed entirely — Senate Democrats have blocked legislation that would pay the civil servants who have been working without pay, a move that would provide relief to the union’s members but would weaken the bargaining position of Democratic lawmakers. The Republicans, in turn, blocked a pair of Democratic bills that would have paid both those federal workers who are still working and those who have been furloughed."

"You seem to have a lot of questions for the party that only has the choice between some death and more death. Maybe you should ask more questions of the group that has the "the budget isn't balanced but it's better than death" option in their pocket - the republicans. Maybe talk to them first."

Ok. I'll start with you.

So, how exactly will government employees in NYC eat if government employees in NYC succeed at running private grocers out of business once another protracted government shutdown inevitably erupts?

'“Shutdowns have become a recurring tactic in Washington,” Mr. Kelley said. “But there is no ‘winning’ a government shutdown.” Congressional wrangling over the budget, he added, should be conducted “without punishing the people who keep our nation running.”'

Or are they deserving of starvation so you can have "free groceries"?

Let me slow this down for you:

Mamdani. Is. Not. Proposing. Free. Groceries.

Your entire argument is based on a delusional false premise and should be discarded as the ravings of a mad man as such.

As all Marxist arguments should be.

"I am not suggesting Mamdani proposed that. I am intentionally taking the idea to the furthest degree because justifying that furthest degree then means the justifications for arguments that are less extreme are more easily understood - since you seem to be struggling. Now back to the point."

So this was projection then.

"We aren't talking about the shutdown. Finish the conversation about the grocery stores first - then we move on to why you're wrong about the shutdown, but not before."

And you're going to win an argument by derailing it with false claims... How?

Well, here is two special "nexts" for anyone to consider:

1) Mussolini, and The Axis Fascism with the Mufti in Palestine on this side of the Fascists.
Gramsci wrote about fascism too.
What happened to both gents? Gramsci and Trotsky ?

Fun fact is that the while the west is sold on the merits of George Orwell's
Animal Farm & 1984,
they are never told he was a Marxist-Leninist Red Commie Trotskyite.
They soften it to say he was a "democratic socialist" at heart.

2) Trotsky was a Pig, just like all Marxist-Leninists.

I think Orwell called his favorite pig, Napoleon. Based upon Stalin.
What did Marxist-Leninist Stalin do with Marxist-Leninist Trotsky ?

Well, first he had a British kook-a-meyer spy named David Crook spy on the Trotskyites in Spain,
of which Orwell was a member of the group.
At the same time Crook introduced Spaniard Ramon Mercader to Orwell, to infiltrate the Trotskyites and gain trust.

Later, Stalin ordered Ramon Mercader to murder Trotsky in Mexico City.
Mercader served a little time in prison, then lived in Cuba and is buried a hero with an
Order of Lenin medal in Moscow.

David Crook and his bride ended up in Chengdu, China with their Maoist little Red Friends.

Mic Drop

All Marxist Leninist socialists, be it democratic socialists or whatever globalist utopian be it;
are ALL like "poop in the ice cream" of humanity.

Once it's in there, even a small amount, one has to throw it all out for it will always be tainted, and ruined.

Stalin orders Trotsky murdered but you're talking as if they are on the same side. Seriously, next. You can't even keep your own argument in order.

*picks the mic back up*

You accidentally dropped this during that nonsense rant

Are they not both Marxist-Leninist ?
One looked to rule their shared country via communism, the other, the entire globe ?

Is there a special Marxist trotsky-sauce ?
Do tell

imgflip.com/i/abcld0 Maybe Jake from State Farm will make more sense

What flavor is the Trotsky ice cream with the Marx Poop in it ? Is there a lot or a little in it?

Develop or change the poop over time, it's still poop in the idea vat of ice cream.
Totally HONEST about that, make no mistake.

You realize that a free market economy does not equate to fascism, right?

...and that the allies of the USSR in Churchill & FDR were neither Marxist nor Fascist. They used the Marxists, and the Stalinists used them to assist in the overall effort needed to defeat the Axis of fascist follies. Even though Marxism and Fascism are fundamentally opposed, doesn't mean they aren't both Poop, one is Pig Solid Poop, the other Diarrhea.

You come across as having very little interest in championing
individual Liberty and Freedom inherent in the Free Market Economy,
or all 10 Bill of Rights in the USA Constitution. I might be wrong, yet is feels that way.
***I responded to your reply here, for yours exhausted the reply option

You realize that a free market economy does not equate to fascism, right?

Was Trotsky for the Free Market Economy & the USA Bill of Rights, or Marxism Globally?

The free market economy does not equate to fascism. You're almost there. You're like SO close here. What does it TAKE for an economy to be free? If an economy is reliant on government contracts to continually prop it up, is that economy "free" in the sense that people mean?

Now You're just making the point valid about the poop in the ice cream. Thanks, I guess.

-Income Taxes when first implemented were found by SCOTUS to be unconstitutional prior to 1900. This was overturned and eventually found constitutional, as quite a stretch, by a new SCOTUS in 1912
-FDR social programs were sold to the people and implemented to get out of the Great Depression. Once out, those temporary solutions have become permanent and expanded.
-So, if by government contracts, you mean Ike Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex;
wait briefly until we all get a load by 2030 of what the
unelected San Francisco HQ at the Presidio,
of the WEF Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, now renamed the
"Centre For Frontier Technology and Innovation" has in store for everyone.

The WEF and it's young global shapers and young global leaders allegedly
have been groomed for a
Soviet-Type Economic Planning model
based loosely on M. King Hubberts "energy as currency" model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-type_economic_planning

"Hubbert was an avid technocrat. He co-founded Technocracy Incorporated with Howard Scott. Hubbert wrote a study course[2] that was published without attribution called the Technocracy Study Course,[3] which advocates a non-market economics form of energy accounting,[4] in contrast to the current price system method.[5]"
Source: Wikipedia biography on M. King Hubbert

***Fun Fact:
Elon Musks maternal Grandparents were allegedly highly involved in this Technocracy
of M. King Hubbert. So much so, that his Minnesota born grandma, that was the first Licensed Chiropractor in Canada. got kicked out by the Canadian Government along with his grandpa for being too involved, and it was feared this group would overthrow the government and replace it with this system. Hence, his mom's family moved from Canada to South Africa.

Connecting the Dots yet?

You're conflating two variants of ice cream.

The "free market" ice cream has poop in it for all of the reasons you mentioned above, yes.

The "socialism" ice cream has poop in it because every time people try to do this, some nutjob like Stalin, Hitler, or the Kim Jong family is like, "actually WE control the resources" - which is of course, not actually socialism - that's dictatorship and fascism.

So, fascists take a dump in the socialist ice cream in the same way the government takes a dump in the "free" market ice cream - yes.

Trotsky liked the socialist ice cream, not the turds polluting it. Trotsky ALSO disliked "free markets" but not because of the concept itself. He saw the same flaw you see with socialism. He insisted that governments and businesses ALWAYS take dumps in the capitalist "free" markets and make it not free anymore - he was right.

You are ALSO right that fascist dictators always dump into the socialist ice cream. The part you're missing is that fascists dictators will dump into ANY ice cream where they don't control the resources themselves. That's what MAKES them fascist dictators. Fascism will emerge from any economic model that allows them to.

My suggestion as to the first line against them emerging in EITHER situation is to at least protect against their actions harming human lives. For this reason, I advocate for outlawing the capitalization or profiting from human need. It's a bit more of a complex idea than that and I can go deeper into my thoughts on that because we don't want to stifle innovation either - so there is some interplay there but - on the whole - the part you are missing is to think fascism only arises from socialism and that's very documented as not being true.

Now, you're expressing many thoughts that make sense.
It took you a while to get to something with the semblance of being cogent.

The one thought of yours that doesn't make sense, is when you point out
"the part you are missing is to think..."
There, you are distinctly wrong at worst, mistaken at best.

When your words state
"I advocate for outlawing the capitalization or profiting from human need",
then we've got to learn more about what you define as need vs. want.
Can we agree upon Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs as human needs vs. wants ?
Or do you have something else in mind ?

Do unique individual humans have different needs?
-One may need nutrition and food. One may want a steak, yet one can survive on insects for a protein source.
-One may need shelter in a warm, dry, hygienic place to sleep. One may want a 4 BR 2 Ba House on a fairway of a Golf Course in a gated community, yet one can survive in a homeless shelter on a cot.
-One may need clothing that fits and is appropriate for the weather. One may want a down puffy coat made by sustainably farmed down feathers from free range ducks.
-One may need communication through written or spoken conveyance. One may want the latest iPhone and internet connectivity, or internet of Things.

What is the States responsibility for meeting peoples needs for them as a collective, vs the varied tastes, wants, and desires of individual human nature? Diversity of thought which makes individuals unique in meeting their own needs, drives the free market and supplies demand for goods and services. Profits are limited to purchases freely decided upon.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3161123/figure/F1/ (Link to Maslow's Needs)

The notion of Public/Private Partnerships is distinctly Marxist and Socialist in nature.
The Use of the Word "Capitalist", is a demeaning label by Karl himself to describe the profit incentive of an individual to take the personal risk of meeting their own, and others
supply and demand. Those that use it enjoy an individual sense of Moral Superiority in their hubris.

One womans Junk is Another womans Treasure in bartering to meet wants.
Wants, that fulfill a a perceived need within the pursuit of self actualization smiles and laughter.

We disagree on the purpose of a government, and governance.

You & I might like what the people at WEF are planning for us all.
Yet again, we may not appreciate the arrangements made for us w/o our consent.

"Do unique individual humans have different needs?"

Your questions below this are all valid but they are ones we should allow people who study human development and the interplay of society to answer - not you or me.

"What is the States responsibility for meeting people's needs for them as a collective, vs the varied tastes, wants, and desires of individual human nature?"

I believe the state and federal government serve a purpose of facilitating the concept of society on the whole in two capacities. The first is to ensure that each member of the community has the basic needs to maintain the community, because otherwise the community is self-destructing. The other is to ensure that the society itself has freedom, dignity, and humanity.

In keeping with that idea, I then pivot to capitalism. Capitalism cannot exist without capital. Capital is when someone extracts more from a system than they feed into it. The result of this is capital. All capital is gained via exploitation. This doesn't inherently make ALL exploitation evil (though I tend to lean more in that direction personally and that's why I dislike capitalism on the whole). It DOES mean though that capitalism cannot exist without exploiting people. Profit cannot exist if you extract the same value that you put into a system. The only way it is realized is to take more out of something than you put in. In capitalism, this is typically done with labor. Capitalists take labor and return them to them less value than they produce and this is realized as "profit." All capitalism is exploitation. I can concede to this happening so long as the exploitation is not allowed to permeate the bubble of human need.

Right now, we have people exploiting people for labor, but they aren't even returning enough value to them in order for their laborers to feed themselves. That level of exploitation is beyond reasonable and I believe that, in situations where government allowed it to get to that point, it is the government's duty to rectify that. If they won't limit the exploitation, then they need to mitigate the damage it causes.

Annual Memberships are $120
It might be tax deductible, yet you'll need to consult your accountant on that.

https://technocracyinc.org/about-technocracy/

Totally right up your alley, if you're not already a member.
I wish I got a cut of that dough for sending you to them. Maybe then, you'll become happy

It's possible the 120 bucks is converted into energy credit digital currency, and then again maybe it isn't, for they are apparently willing to participate in the price system whilst advocating for it's irrelevancy, and eventual replacement with their "new" digital currency of energy credit system.

I wonder how many energy credits it will take for annual memberships at that time?
When you get there to Los Angeles and start communicating with the like minded in your Technocrat Clubhouse, do me a small favor and tell them I said "Don't Tread on Me"

You're mistaking the idea that I am saying that we need to have people who study things sound off to mean we only want data driven decisions. That works for businesses (as I can explain with my two successful small businesses) but it's not a great model for social development because, as you so delicately put, people have different preferences as well.

When you tell me to say to them "don't tread on me" I am actually going to take your statement and push it further. We shouldn't be allowing anyone to tread on anyone - regardless of your personal beliefs about it. If we want to improve society, we should at least HEAR what the people who study it have to say. The data might suggest the best route is to go Direction X but the right answer at the wrong time is still the wrong answer. If people aren't READY to go Direction X, then we shouldn't.

This is the origin of why I say that I think a full on gift style economy is that "direction X" but I also agree humanity on the whole is nowhere near ready to pursue that. Just because I think it's the right data driven decision and just because I think it's morally much more clean than all the other garbage we are doing does NOT mean that getting there is possible right now or that doing so wouldn't cause more damage than good.

I can understand your thoughts on why pivoting to data is concerning and that's valid but being reductive of my argument isn't a fair response either and I think we both know that.

Get back to me when you learn more regarding
-Centre for Frontier Technology and Information in 21 cities, and HQ at Presidio WEF
-https://technocracyinc.org/about-technocracy/

These people are already working on these professed causes you hold so dear to you. Isn't that nice ?

Does it ever occur to you that allegedly you've been systematically led by the nose to precisely come to their conclusions, that they guided you into over the course of your lifetime.
You're not alone.
I think we both know that.

When the time is right, you'll all walk in willingly,
or be plucked like ripened fruit and either way you'll like it.

"Does it ever occur to you that allegedly you've been systematically led by the nose to precisely come to their conclusions, that they guided you into over the course of your lifetime.
You're not alone.
I think we both know that."

What is interesting to me here is that you're able to articulate this from your frame of view and yet you seem to not assert the same level of authoritative stance about your own ideology. Were you under the impression that you had found the one system of people that are completely free of influence in education and information?

You not only disregarded my outright denial of agreement with their site. I did go look at it. I do not agree with their approaches and methods and I outright made a point of saying that by you seem to not be able to accept this, as you keep insisting it's something I agree to despite giving you very specific examples of how I do not. You ALSO then have offered nothing of any sort of tangible value in return to the conversation.

Instead, you fed me some narrative that creates the impression that you yourself are free and independent in thought and that nothing about the epigenetic modifiers to how your genes express could have possibly impacted you yourself. You see - that's the part that your sarcastic retort repeating the concept that we both know something creates. Because, if we do both know that then you are INTENTIONALLY framing it only from that perspective, which is very obviously malicious in nature. That combined with the lack of putting ANY other ideas on the table and essentially resigning to "well - go ahead and cook yourself but I won't join you" as if you have a morally or intellectually more clear standpoint means that you either lack that awareness yourself and are a hypocrite because it certainly does also impact you or, more likely, you are maliciously being condescending because we both know you've run out of content that contradicts any of this logically so you pivot to the only thing you have left - emotional appeal to survival (that you casually ignore about your own self and defeat your own point in doing so).

Either way, this conversation is devolving into one where you are no longer interested in actual exchange. You've run out of ideas and that's something that we both understand whether you want to make another quip back about it or not. I said we both know because your text demonstrates the knowledge of this. You said it as a cheeky quip back for internet points. *kiss*

...at ease Francis

No, what's happening here is you are beginning to catch up. This has always been the cogent thought from the time I said "The free market economy does not equate to fascism. You're almost there. You're like SO close here. What does it TAKE for an economy to be free? If an economy is reliant on government contracts to continually prop it up, is that economy "free" in the sense that people mean?"

If the idea that you were "missing" something is mistaken then the alternative is that you are rejecting it for malicious reasons up until this point. I was assuming the best of you but thank you for correcting me in that.

"we've got to learn more about what you define as need vs. want"

Quite the opposite, in fact. We should be looking to scientists who study human development and sociological function to make this assessment - not me. I'm not those things but that knowledge set is required to make the proper decisions about the topic - so we should consult them.

No

Yet, it is remarkable to interact with an M. King Hubbert adherent,
noted by your "We should be looking to scientists..."

...which is precisely what the Technocracy Movement
was and is all about. You'll fit right in with your advocacy for precisely the same ideology.
Enjoy your properly consulted adventures.

They finally have their website back up and working as a non-profit. How apprepeaux?

https://technocracyinc.org/

I'm not suggesting that we rely on technology and the current state of science itself to be governing. Those systems are fluid and constantly evolving. That said, I think it stands to reason that the closest we get to the most beneficial thing for all is to lean on the ever updating information that we get from communities of people who STUDY what gets us to the most beneficial thing for all - which is what sociologists and scientists do with regard to resources and humanity.

It's not that what we find now will be "the one right thing" - that would be absurd to think. The data analysis is only one component of the decision making, of course. The will of the people ALSO matters and yet, there should be a weighted system for the value that each of those components give to important decision making so that one cannot simply drive the whole bus, so to speak.

We don't want to ONLY rely on data because what then happens if the data starts suggesting that we annihilate one whole race or species? That's not likely to be something that is truly just and fair and ultimately undercuts the total function of HAVING society to start with.

btw, thanks for providing the
"special Marxist trotsky-sauce" that was inquired about earlier in the thread.
I wondered if you might have some extra of that to spread around. Much obliged.