Mamdani is a socialist who is in trouble for soft-selling the term "global intifada." Strange times.
Will NYC elect a socialist mayor?
- Thread starter BradStevens
- Start date
Mamdani is a socialist who is in trouble for soft-selling the term "global intifada." Strange times.
Doubtful, but it’s New York and they are batshit crazy. And, it’s Cuomo.
I didn't think I'd see such a consequential election with choices even more horrible than Trump v. Biden in such a short period of time.
Cuomo is being viewed as the rational, reasonable one.
Even though conservatives love to use socialism as some dirty word, I would much rather go that route than see someone with baggage like Cuomo.
But then I don't support shit stains regardless of their party affiliation. Not like there aren't people out there that are without scandals
But then I don't support shit stains regardless of their party affiliation. Not like there aren't people out there that are without scandals
You would rather have socialism. Something that could be devastating, than have another candidate bc of personal baggage?
That’s just unfathomable to me
It's mayor. No matter how important the city, no mayor has the legal authority to implement socialism.
For sure. Theoretically bc I think it’s the same logic we hear with Trump from some. We’re better off suffering in unison than elect a bad person who might do good things
I've been watching Brandon Johnson and before him Lori Lightfoot perform as mayors of a big city. Trust me, they can screw things up badly and make the city worse. Sure, he won't be able to take state ownership of the means of production, but he can implement a lot of other bad, bad policy in policing, education, etc.
Ah yes, the guy calling for a global infitada isn’t a guy with baggage in your eyes
That started long ago with bill clinton not trump. I said when they let clinton get away with sleeping with hundreds of women it would change the game forever. That is why access hollywood never did much because people had seen clinton and nothing was done. Dems will disagree but that is a fact. You cannot have selective outrage you either hold both sides accountable or you do not.
Clinton is getting jerked off in the oval office and sleeping with women and some of his biggest supporters were the NOW game. The national organization of women. I mean so when they come at trump for a recording sorry but I will not play that game. You are total hypocrites
WASHINGTON — Two days after announcing that it might file court papers supporting Paula Corbin Jones in her sexual harassment suit against President Clinton, the National Organization for Women backed off Wednesday, saying that her case is murky and that she has aligned herself with “disreputable right-wing organizations and individuals.
Last edited:
I hope they do. And i hope NYC burns. A good place to try a socialist experiment
You're not a very good socialist.
Come over to the little l libertarian side. You know you want to. We do drugs, let gays be gay and shoot a lot of stuff.
I'm not a socialist or a libertarian.
I'm not big on comprehensive economic (or moral) systems. I think it's all messier than that. So I tend to evaluate a particular economic policy individually, weighing and considering the pros and cons. As a result, I support some ideas that people call socialist and some things that people call libertarian and a bunch in between.
If you think what Clinton did was wrong, but believe what Trump has done is OK, you’re a hypocrite.
Two things.
Monica aged well.
Looking to a politician for morality is like going to Satan to find God.
Bad decisions regarding education and policing wouldn't be because of "socialism" though.
Nope, that’s true. Although it is a policy of that guy’s brand.
Technically, that's true. But I'd say that it's all of a kind.
A lot of the political terminology we use has become almost colloquial -- and mutated from literal/original meanings. I'd guess it's the result of strategic co-opting of language to advance or oppose agendas from messaging people.
Some pretty good momentum from Zohran. I've felt for a couple weeks that he might just pull this off. Has a very Trump (or, in this case, Bizarro Trump) kind of feel to it.
American socialists are not monolithic. There is a fight between the old guard who believe everything should be focused on economics and the new guard who want to also champion woke b.s.—sex is a spectrum, anti-racism/DEI, etc.
Bears resemblance to the battles that have been underway on the right.
When the Tea Party first became a thing, it was entirely motivated by economic policy. That movement really had no social or cultural stance -- even if many/most had conservative cultural views. But it didn't take long before those debates were thrust into it.
Around that same time, Mitch Daniels ruffled feathers when he floated the notion of a "truce" on social/cultural issues. I thought it made eminent sense, if it was at all feasible (it wasn't). Just a few years later, Donald Trump won the Republican nomination running on a form of economic populism and promoting the cultural hot-button issue of immigration.
Yes, in part.
But it's also a cultural one -- and, IMO, more of a cultural one than an economic one...in terms of voter motivations.
Go back and review stories regarding the Tea Party. They weren't talking about immigration. They were talking about fiscal stuff -- taxes and spending, size of government, regulation, etc.
Maybe things have to get worse to get better. Maybe a radical Muslim in office will finally make leftist Americans take notice that their goal is replace western civilization with their own. I hope if elected he goes full mullah. May not matter though, as it appears the subjugation of America is a-ok with the left.
I don't think he's a religious fundamentalist given his background. He wouldn't be able to survive in the DSA long if he were.
I don't think the Muslim factor (however extreme he is on that) is playing much of a role here. It's incidental. That's my take on it, anyway.
He's running on very populist themes -- hiking taxes on rich people, freezing rents, etc. And I don't think anybody should be surprised that these are popular among an urban electorate.
After all, Brandon Johnson and Karen Bass aren't Muslims. But they were each the more left-wing alternative in their respective races.
If I was in NYC, I'd be less worried about the prospect of Zohran instituting some kind of Islamist capture of the city, and more worried about him chasing people and money out of the city (not to mention screwing up housing with his rent proposal).
I find it very interesting that Cuomo is leading among women.
I haven’t been compelled to look beyond his cry to “globalize the intifada.” Everyone is working hard to put spin on what he really means by that, but I’ll take it at face value, & that’s radical enough for me…
But you’re not a serious person when it comes to making claims about the right…
