New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's popularity in the metropolis has surged since his election last month, according to a new poll.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30 points 11 months ago (18 children)

Oddly enough I've seen the purported progressives on here already trying to claim he's bad on a few occasions.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    Hate to break it to you, but people can lie about what they believe and who they are...

    Especially on the internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    Yeah, and the legitimate lefties out there are awesome and I hope they get their way.

    Then there are the ones who preach disengagement because "both sides" / "blue-maga"...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    I mean, shits been fucked up largely due to neoliberals controlling the DNC...

    That changed with the last chair electuon, and some people are genuinely ignorant of that fact. Others want people on the actual left to be disengaged for the next primary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    The DNC is neo-liberal, period. They are center right everywhere in the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    You don't understand that the chair has complete control...

    Otherwise when Obama was elected youd have been saying "the president" and holding Obama accountable for everything GW did before Obama even ran for president.

    At least, I'm hoping the problem here is ignorance, like I said a lot of people are lying to depress Dem turnout in the next presidential primary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I do understand that the DNC has complete control. We've seen many example of that, the most egregious being Bernie vs Clinton.

    US society is fundamentally to the right and the DNC will keep it that way.

    That creates an issue where changing the Democrat Party will take a long long time. So the better option would be a real left party, but that would mean that Republicans would be in power for a while, until the politcal landscape changes and stabilise with 3 parties. And that's not accounting for the DNC that will work against the newly formed party.

    Denying that the DNC is neo-liberal to its core is deliberate ignorance.

    Any prominent member that has an ounce of progressism has to fight the DNC at every corner to get through, like we've seen Mamdani.

    Meanwhile, progressives should definitely vote for the Democrats. But this is a different issue. The vote turnout is terrible in North America (we have the same problem in Canada).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    I've never seen anyone here (or anywhere on the Fediverse) actually preach disengagement. Pointing out that both sides suck isn't preaching disengagement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Eh, tomato/potato, the 'genocide joe' mantra and then immediately turning that hate on Harris when he stepped down, essentially demanding an ethically pure option...

    It all ends up in the same place, a disenfranchised apathetic public leaving the door open for the current shitshow whose voters eagerly embrace the terrible options they're offered. Perfect being the enemy of the less bad and all that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Yeah that's not "potato potato" that's called fucking lying. Criticizing the options offered and preaching disengagement are two completely different things. It's completely possible to denounce genocide Joe and "nothing comes to mind" Harris and call not for less, but for more (and more radical) engagement. No way in hell, say, Uncommitted was "preaching disengagement," and if you feel the need to lie about people for opposing genocide you should seriously reconsider your beliefs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    There is absolutely room for criticism against Zohran. I wholeheartedly support that voting for him was still the correct choice and I hope he really does unleash significant progressive policy for NYC. I also believe he deserves the criticism for manufacturing consent for action against Venezuela and Cuba by calling their presidents dictators in the context of today's likelihood of attack against the former; and for his redundancy on pinning the Isntreali genocide of Palestinians on October 7th.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    they are dictators. most of the world sees them as dictators.

    whether or not that justifies military action is another question, but they are certainly not freely elected representatives, anymore than Putin is. And the countries that do recognize the legitimacy of their elections... are also dictatorships.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago

    not freely elected

    They definitely aren't freely elected. You can't have free elections when the US government is interfering in them by sanctions.

    As stated in the memorandum on the sanctions in the office of the historian governmental website:

    The majority of Cubans support Castro (the lowest estimate I have seen is 50 percent) [...] The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship. [...] every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.

  • source
  • parent