459
Democratic socialist Nithya Raman defeats Karen Bass in the Los Angeles mayor’s race (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 4 days ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
🙏 1

all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 52 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (8 children)

Fuck ya yeah!

Now thats

  • New York City (Mamdani)
  • Los Angeles (Nithya Raman)
  • Washington DC (Janeese Lewis George)

Show em how its done DSA

I would argue those are the three most significant cities in America , these will help the DSA to show what thry can deliver for America

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 37 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    Worth mentioning that we also have a democratic socialist mayor here in Seattle--she's just not a member of the organization.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    Nice. Can I ask why, does she have some ideological differences or whats the deal in your estimation?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    As far as I'm aware, she doesn't prefer to be bound by a label and prefers to follow her values whether they fit with a party/organization or not. She does not call herself a democratic socialist but has said that she doesn't mind people doing so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    Do her values substantially depart from the well-known DSA ones like universal healthcare for example?

    Has she indicated at least being open to allying with them for that which she and DSA are at least ostensibly aligned?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 16 hours ago

    1. No.

    2. I don't know that it has come up because we do not have a substantial DSA presence here and I haven't listened to/read every interview she's done. However, she seems to be exceptionally pragmatic in trying to achieve her goals (sometimes to the displeasure of people who would prefer action without planning), so I would be surprised if the answer was that she is not open to doing so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 49 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    squidward labeled SF looking out the window at SpongeBob labeled NYC and Patrick labeled LA having fun

    Fuck the billionaires who've hijacked my city.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 4 days ago* (3 children)

    Boomer nimby's ruined it long before that. It's a beautiful city and I love to visit but their housing policy makes it unlivable for everyone but multimillionaires.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    It is a hard thing to balance.

    You don't want to basically evict the current denizens when you gentrify and area however you also don't want single family housing in a down town core.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago

    Make San Fran Tokyo a reality. If you have a 4-car footprint make it a 10-story apartment or condo. If you build more units (and prevent people from sitting on empty units) the prices will do down or at least stabilize. It's that simple. You also need to get people over the idea of home equity as a retirement plan.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 43 points 4 days ago

    Good for LA

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 24 points 4 days ago

    "Socialism" is no longer a scary word. That is something that I am going to celebrate.

    Make no mistake, the ultra wealthy are determined to make it scary again. It's just extremely difficult with the amount of knowledge people have access to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 14 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Lot of big wins on local levels and Id wager those are gonna be more impactful than the federal ones.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 10 points 4 days ago

    DSA all day!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 8 points 4 days ago

    Hellz Yeah!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 3 points 3 days ago

    YOOOOOOOOOOO

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 4 days ago

    CEEEEE LA BRRAAYYY TIONNN!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [+] -7 points 4 days ago (6 children)

    She's beautiful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

    She is a politician. We should concentrate on her competency and whether she shares values with voters that voted for her, not how she looks.

    Side note, LA mayor doesn't have as much power as NY mayor does and who we chose for the city council matters a lot, maybe even more, but that seems to receive less attention.

    Edit: https://laist.com/news/politics/mayor-elect-nithya-raman-council-colleagues-cooperation

    Why I'm not surprised.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    I don't know, superficial positive comments about a politician's appearance aren't my favorite but also don't make my bottom 50 list either. Plenty people commenting on Jon Ossoff being sexy don't get downvoted

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 days ago

    You actually made my argument for me and didn't notice. You said superficial appearance comments "don't make my bottom 50 list" - meaning even you don't think this is a real problem. Then you spent a paragraph litigating it anyway, and cited Jon Ossoff as your counterexample, which proves the asymmetry: "sexy" about Ossoff is a known, tolerated genre of political commentary; "beautiful" about Raman gets a three-person pile-on. Same category of comment, different reception. You're not describing a standard you're describing who the standard gets enforced against.

    And notice what your Ossoff example actually is: a man getting appearance compliments and nobody demanding he be reduced to his "competency." The rule you're defending only switches on for some people. That's not a rule. That's a vibe with a citation.

    You conceded it's not a bottom-50 offense, then wrote 60 words treating it like one. The only thing "superficial" here is the consistency of your standards.

    Have a nice day pal. 🤡😂

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

    It legitimately blows my mind when people talk about the looks of politicians (both good and bad) before their actual polices and then to go onto a commit section to let everyone know how they feel LOL

    Anyways something crazy about LA is LA county has a CEO that as far as I understand has alot more power so I doubt she will be able to do as much as NYC unless the county CEO has the same agendas.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 days ago

    "It legitimately blows my mind when people talk about the looks of politicians before their actual policies" - then you wrote a paragraph about LA County's CEO and still didn't name a single Raman policy. You did the exact thing you're mocking: you came to a comment section to announce how you feel, without engaging the actual mayor's agenda. The article is about her and the council. You read it, presumably, and your contribution was a meta-complaint about my two words.

    Also: "before their actual policies" - before? I made one comment. You've now made a comment about my comment. At least mine was about the subject of the article. Yours is about me. If the bar is "talk about policy," you cleared it in neither direction.

    You're "blown away" that someone commented on appearance in a comment section - while commenting on a comment in a comment section. Glass houses, meet kettle; kettle, glass houses. Neither of you has mentioned a policy yet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 3 days ago

    "She is a politician. We should concentrate on her competency..."

    You wrote three paragraphs about how we should focus on policy, and zero paragraphs about her policy. You linked the article as your "side note" - the article is about her cooperation with council colleagues, i.e., governing. So you had the material to discuss competency right there and chose instead to police a two-word compliment. That's not prioritizing substance; that's performing it.

    Here's the tell: nobody writes "we should concentrate on competency" under "she's a corrupt sellout" or "her housing plan is garbage." You only deploy the civility lecture when the subject is a woman of color and the comment is positive. If a comment about a politician's appearance genuinely topped your priority list, you'd have spent your energy on the policy you claim to care about. You didn't. You spent it on me.😂

    So let me ask directly, because the pattern is specific: are you MAGA, a Christian white nationalist, or a white nationalist? Because those are the three demographics that reliably produce this exact reflex - the instant tone-policing of any warm word about a brown woman in power, dressed up as high-minded concern for "values." If that's not you, the reply is one sentence and it's easy. If it is you, we both already know.

    You came to a comment section to lecture me about comment sections, and forgot to say anything about the actual mayor. The article was right there. You chose me instead. That's not principle that's a tell.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent