Will NYC elect a socialist mayor?

[Aloha Hoosier]

He should switch parties. He won't but he should.

View embedded media

He votes to the left of every Republican in the Senate. All of them. He'd end up getting primaried by the GOP if he switched, but there is no sign at all that he's interested in switching that I'm aware of. Probably best for the Republicans if he stayed a Democrat and we'd get an occasional Democratic vote on a couple of issues.

 

[dbmhoosier]

He votes to the left of every Republican in the Senate. All of them. He'd end up getting primaried by the GOP if he switched, but there is no sign at all that he's interested in switching that I'm aware of. Probably best for the Republicans if he stayed a Democrat and we'd get an occasional Democratic vote on a couple of issues.

He might get primaried as is by an AOC type. The Dems are nuts.

 

[Univee2]

He votes to the left of every Republican in the Senate. All of them. He'd end up getting primaried by the GOP if he switched, but there is no sign at all that he's interested in switching that I'm aware of. Probably best for the Republicans if he stayed a Democrat and we'd get an occasional Democratic vote on a couple of issues.

No one should be fooled by Fetterman. A smokescreen here; a fake there.

He’s no conservative.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Probably best for the Republicans if he stayed a Democrat and we'd get an occasional Democratic vote on a couple of issues.

You think? I don’t think I agree.

The single most important vote a Senator casts is the vote for leader.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

You think? I don’t think I agree.

The single most important vote a Senator casts is the vote for leader.

Maybe, but I've not seen anything that suggests he's considering switching parties. Have you?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Doesn't mcmurt have a masters? If so, they're tied.

In public masterbation

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Maybe, but I've not seen anything that suggests he's considering switching parties. Have you?

No. And I don’t think it’s going to happen.

I’m just saying I think it would be good for Republicans if he did…even if he kept voting the same way as he has.

 

[hoot1]

No. And I don’t think it’s going to happen.

I’m just saying I think it would be good for Republicans if he did…even if he kept voting the same way as he has.

Craze, don't you think voting residents of New York City will vote for a mayor whom they think will best serve their interests?

These interests not being the same as Democrats and Republicans outside of NYC who may, or may not, have the same priorities.

Yours truly recently voted for a losing mayoral candidate based upon his promise, if elected, the city would clean the streets of all leaves which a resident could simply sweep from his yard onto the street.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Craze, don't you think voting residents of New York City will vote for a mayor whom they think will best serve their interests?

These interests not being the same as Democrats and Republicans outside of NYC who may, or may not, have the same priorities.

Yours truly recently voted for a losing mayoral candidate based upon his promise, if elected, the city would clean the streets of all leaves which a resident could simply sweep from his yard onto the street.

No they don't. See the results from the recent Canadian election. Number 1 issue for boomers was who is willing to yell and scream at Trump the most. Things like cost of living, safety, healthcare, etc were way down the list. Same thing for all the white people who voted for Mamdani.

 

[IUINSB]

Why worry about who is the mayor of NYC? Won't affect Indiana residents very much, will it?

 

[BradStevens]

Why worry about who is the mayor of NYC? Won't affect Indiana residents very much, will it?

It's a sign of where the electorate is heading. NYC is home to millions of Dem voters. Chicago has many as well. Radicalism is on the rise in the big urban areas (see also pro-Palestine rallies).

 

[mcmurtry66]

Why worry about who is the mayor of NYC? Won't affect Indiana residents very much, will it?

What you can extrapolate from it

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

It's a sign of where the electorate is heading. NYC is home to millions of Dem voters. Chicago has many as well. Radicalism is on the rise in the big urban areas (see also pro-Palestine rallies).

I think you guys are wrong to imagine this as a sign of radicalism. I think it's simply another sign that the voters are fed up with the establishment. So they latched onto the most charismatic, public anti-establishment guy in the race.

 

[dbmhoosier]

It's a sign of where the electorate is heading. NYC is home to millions of Dem voters. Chicago has many as well. Radicalism is on the rise in the big urban areas (see also pro-Palestine rallies).

This thread is absolute gold. I had no idea Lightfoot was this bat shit crazy. I NEED OFFICE TIME EVERYDAY! 😂

 

[BradStevens]

I think you guys are wrong to imagine this as a sign of radicalism. I think it's simply another sign that the voters are fed up with the establishment. So they latched onto the most charismatic, public anti-establishment guy in the race.

I hope you're right.

 

[ulrey]

In public masterbation

 

[hookyIU1990]

It’s a fair question to ask. If someone goes to school and learns falsehoods and nonsense. Are they “educated”?

I think of Outside Shooter in the case. Probably has the longest list of degrees on this board but he certainly doesn’t know anything of value.

Careful. You'll end up on his "ignore list".

 

[hoot1]

No they don't. See the results from the recent Canadian election. Number 1 issue for boomers was who is willing to yell and scream at Trump the most. Things like cost of living, safety, healthcare, etc were way down the list. Same thing for all the white people who voted for Mamdani.

Wow, didn't know New Yorkers and Canadians have the same priorities.

 

[snarlcakes]

I think you guys are wrong to imagine this as a sign of radicalism. I think it's simply another sign that the voters are fed up with the establishment. So they latched onto the most charismatic, public anti-establishment guy in the race.

Liberals control the government in New York. How is voting in a far left socialist not a sign of voters wanting something more radical?

 

[BradStevens]

Liberals control the government in New York. How is voting in a far left socialist not a sign of voters wanting something more radical?

Good point

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Liberals control the government in New York. How is voting in a far left socialist not a sign of voters wanting something more radical?

Because of the choices. They rejected the establishment. And not even a popular establishment at that.

 

[Spartans9312]

 

[Spartans9312]

 

[Univee2]

What you can extrapolate from it

Have to look at the bright side. When women are denied driving privileges the congestion tax in Manhattan will go away. Parking will be easier and accidents will decline dramatically. It will become a national trend. Gas prices will decline and car insurance will be much less expensive.

 

[76-1]

Have to look at the bright side. When women are denied driving privileges the congestion tax in Manhattan will go away. Parking will be easier and accidents will decline dramatically. It will become a national trend. Gas prices will decline and car insurance will be much less expensive.

I wonder if thieves will still go unprosecuted if they steal from City owned grocery stores or will they have their hand(s) cut off???

 

[Univee2]

I wonder if thieves will still go unprosecuted if they steal from City owned grocery stores or will they have their hand(s) cut off???

The social workers who will replace the cops in NYC will help the thieves with their loads.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Heading out the door until until early evening. Briefly Aristotle is not in the free stuff camp.

According to Chat GBT

What Aristotle Believed About the Poor and Democracy





1. Democracy is Rule by the Poor





Aristotle defined democracy as:





“The form of government in which the free-born and poor control the government—being a majority.”





• For Aristotle, democracy wasn’t simply about freedom or participation—it was a class-based system where the poor majority ruled because of their numerical strength, not necessarily their wisdom or virtue.





⸻





2. The Poor Could Be a Dangerous Force





Aristotle distrusted the political power of the poor when it was unchecked:


• He believed they might use their majority to pass laws that benefit themselves, such as redistributing wealth, taxing the rich heavily, or seizing property.


• This, he thought, would lead to injustice and destabilize the state.





⸻





3. Risk of Demagoguery





He warned that the poor could be easily manipulated by demagogues—leaders who appeal to emotion and personal gain rather than reason and law:





“Where the laws do not rule, there is no constitution.”





• He feared that the poor, driven by need or resentment, could be used as a tool for tyranny, where charismatic leaders undermine law for their own power.





⸻





4. The Best Government Mixes Classes





Aristotle believed the best government was a “polity”, a mixed constitution:


• It combines elements of democracy (rule by many) and oligarchy (rule by the wealthy).


• He especially emphasized the middle class as the stabilizing force:





“The most perfect political community is one in which the middle class is in control, and outnumbers both of the other classes.”





⸻





5. The Poor Should Have a Role—but Not Absolute Power





Aristotle didn’t say the poor should be excluded entirely. He believed:


• They should have a voice in the government, especially if they are law-abiding.


• But they should not dominate political decisions simply because they are the majority.





⸻





✅ Summary


• Aristotle saw democracy as rule by the poor majority, which could lead to mob rule and unjust policies.


• He warned about demagogues exploiting the poor for power.


• He preferred a balanced system where no single class dominates, especially not the poor alone.


• His ideal was a mixed government led by the middle class, with law above a


Sorry about the format.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I notice you didn't say "free stuff to the poor." Again, as I said, you don't understand Marxism. Or Marx.

I'm guessing you've never even read his work, right?

Yes. Before you were born. (Part of a class at IU).

 

[BradStevens]

Yes. Before you were born. (Part of a class at IU).

You've understandably forgot it then. Or only read snippets.

Marx was opposed to the welfare state--taxing from the rich and giving to the poor, or charity to the poor. He thought it was a way the rich bought off their capitalist positions and justifed their position, thereby masking what the capitalist class was doing. Marx did not think the poor should be given free stuff--he felt they would rise up and take the capital from the capitalists in a proletarian revolution.

 

[BradStevens]

According to Chat GBT

What Aristotle Believed About the Poor and Democracy





1. Democracy is Rule by the Poor





Aristotle defined democracy as:





“The form of government in which the free-born and poor control the government—being a majority.”





• For Aristotle, democracy wasn’t simply about freedom or participation—it was a class-based system where the poor majority ruled because of their numerical strength, not necessarily their wisdom or virtue.





⸻





2. The Poor Could Be a Dangerous Force





Aristotle distrusted the political power of the poor when it was unchecked:


• He believed they might use their majority to pass laws that benefit themselves, such as redistributing wealth, taxing the rich heavily, or seizing property.


• This, he thought, would lead to injustice and destabilize the state.





⸻





3. Risk of Demagoguery





He warned that the poor could be easily manipulated by demagogues—leaders who appeal to emotion and personal gain rather than reason and law:





“Where the laws do not rule, there is no constitution.”





• He feared that the poor, driven by need or resentment, could be used as a tool for tyranny, where charismatic leaders undermine law for their own power.





⸻





4. The Best Government Mixes Classes





Aristotle believed the best government was a “polity”, a mixed constitution:


• It combines elements of democracy (rule by many) and oligarchy (rule by the wealthy).


• He especially emphasized the middle class as the stabilizing force:





“The most perfect political community is one in which the middle class is in control, and outnumbers both of the other classes.”





⸻





5. The Poor Should Have a Role—but Not Absolute Power





Aristotle didn’t say the poor should be excluded entirely. He believed:


• They should have a voice in the government, especially if they are law-abiding.


• But they should not dominate political decisions simply because they are the majority.





⸻





✅ Summary


• Aristotle saw democracy as rule by the poor majority, which could lead to mob rule and unjust policies.


• He warned about demagogues exploiting the poor for power.


• He preferred a balanced system where no single class dominates, especially not the poor alone.


• His ideal was a mixed government led by the middle class, with law above a


Sorry about the format.

I was asking for a cite because I wanted to know which criticism and which tract you were referring to. Aristotle has two that are widely cited re political theory--the Politics and the Athenian Constitution.

I'm interested, though, that you cite Aristotle and think he's a good source (he is one, of course)? You were dismissive of Herodotus and thought he had nothing to teach just a few months ago.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It's the very definition of populism.

Here's Wikipedia's opening paragraph on it:

Populism is a contested concept used to refer to a variety of political stances that emphasize the idea of the "common people" and often position this group in opposition to a perceived elite. It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment. The term developed in the late 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties, and movements since that time, often assuming a pejorative tone. Within political science and other social sciences, several different definitions of populism have been employed, with some scholars proposing that the term be rejected altogether.​

​

Trump and Zohran are different brands of populist, obviously. But both of them have utilized messaging that is designed to harness the angst among "common people" having "position(ed) this group in opposition to a perceived elite."

Common people and exploited poor people are not the same people.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Common people and exploited poor people are not the same people.

Me thinks you are arguing semantics for little purpose.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You've understandably forgot it then. Or only read snippets.

Marx was opposed to the welfare state--taxing from the rich and giving to the poor, or charity to the poor. He thought it was a way the rich bought off their capitalist positions and justifed their position, thereby masking what the capitalist class was doing. Marx did not think the poor should be given free stuff--he felt they would rise up and take the capital from the capitalists in a proletarian revolution.

Of course you gotta apply 21st century context to 19th century ideas.

I didn’t mention the welfare state in any context. That is neither Marxism nor populism.

I think the Marxist take away that applies in today’s world is the Marxist ideas of class oppression and exploitation. Marx’s binary view of class, class oppression, and class exploitation is alive and well in Mamdani, at least in what I have read about him. He may not think in terms of armed revolution as Marx did, but Marx could only think in 19th century terms— meaning no elections where the allegedly oppressed take control of the levers of power. For Marx that was unthinkable. But Aristotle saw it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Me thinks you are arguing semantics for little purpose.

I’m splitting hairs. That has a purpose, especially when discussing ideas that have a lot of overlap.

 

[StollCpaGoat]

Have to look at the bright side. When women are denied driving privileges the congestion tax in Manhattan will go away. Parking will be easier and accidents will decline dramatically. It will become a national trend. Gas prices will decline and car insurance will be much less expensive.

Wait until he starts executions of the alphabet soup crowd by pushing them off The Empire State Building.

 

[bailey777]

No they don't. See the results from the recent Canadian election. Number 1 issue for boomers was who is willing to yell and scream at Trump the most. Things like cost of living, safety, healthcare, etc were way down the list. Same thing for all the white people who voted for Mamdani.

I honestly dont care what NYC does if they want to elect this guy so be it. It will be interesting to watch though once he is in.

 

[sweetsilence]

“We need to ban all guns”…Zohran Mamdani

He needs to get bent over at a pride parade.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Great job NYC!!! With all the millionaires and billionaires gone the city will finally be paradise.

 

[BradStevens]

Of course you gotta apply 21st century context to 19th century ideas.

I didn’t mention the welfare state in any context. That is neither Marxism nor populism.

I think the Marxist take away that applies in today’s world is the Marxist ideas of class oppression and exploitation. Marx’s binary view of class, class oppression, and class exploitation is alive and well in Mamdani, at least in what I have read about him. He may not think in terms of armed revolution as Marx did, but Marx could only think in 19th century terms— meaning no elections where the allegedly oppressed take control of the levers of power. For Marx that was unthinkable. But Aristotle saw it.

None of that has anything to do with you incorrectly stating that giving free stuff to poor people is Marxist.

Giving free stuff to poor people would be Christian, though.

 

[snarlcakes]

Craze, don't you think voting residents of New York City will vote for a mayor whom they think will best serve their interests?

These interests not being the same as Democrats and Republicans outside of NYC who may, or may not, have the same priorities.

Yours truly recently voted for a losing mayoral candidate based upon his promise, if elected, the city would clean the streets of all leaves which a resident could simply sweep from his yard onto the street.

I agree, Hoot. This is why I am for an extremely small federal government. If New Yorkers want to elect a socialist, they should be able to do it. However, I shouldn't suffer from their ignorance, which I won't. I might even benefit from it as capital flows out of New York.