top 90 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 49 points 1 year ago (85 children)

Wait why are democrats fighting him? I thought he was socialist or something

  • source
  • hideshow 85 child comments
  • [–] 144 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Democrats aren't fighting him, the DNC (Democratic National Convention) is. The party doesn't want him as their representative, because he doesn't match their values. But he represents what the Democrat constituents actually want and the DNC fears losing control over their constituents, so they want to ensure he loses the race.

    The DNC and the RNC basically want the same thing, except the Democratic Party is much more subtle about it. The US doesn't actually have a left-wing party. Both our major parties are right-wing by global standards. So any truly left-wing candidates scare them, and they'll fight tooth and nail to keep them out of elections.

    Even Cuomo, who was completely stomped in the primaries, is still planning to run in the election as an independent. Their hope is that his run will split the party and make Mamdani lose. If the Democratic Party can't get their man in the election, then they'll throw the race and take everyone down with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 86 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The DNC and the RNC basically want the same thing, except the Democratic Party is much more subtle about it.

    The old RNC. The new Republicans have taken over and actually do want all the fascist hateful stuff. The old guard courted crazies and those crazies took over.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Which, fuckin' honestly, should be an object lesson for anyone who wants to advance progressive politics in this country. Engage in primary after primary and take over the party from within until the old guard are appalled at what it has become, except do that with good goals instead of horrifying ones.

    And remember that by the time the election itself is at hand, it's too late to make meaningful change in the party platform. The primaries are what actually matter when it comes to changing course. Everything after that, it's just a binary choice between which of the major candidates you actually want in power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I mean the difference is that the old RNC deliberately invited the vampire inside, thinking they could control them. They were supposed to be useful idiots to get extra votes. They were wrong and lost control.

    The DNC recognizes that if they ever actually gave the people power they'd never get it back. So they're much more diligent about denying any possible progressive advancement, up to and including damaging their own party to do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's why they're fighting him. Money go brr and money is scared.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    He's popular with the voters. He's going to stomp New York, and then he'll start looking at the presidency. And he might win that, too. And then they'd have to pass bills, and their donors would be mad.

    They'd rather run bad candidates and lose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    He's not eligible to run for president because he was born in Uganda.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Damn, I forgot the constitution was racist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    It's not actually a racist policy. People born in the US, regardless of race, can run for president. People born outside of the US, regardless of race, cannot. Xenophobic, maybe? But not racist. Arnold Swarzenegger can't run for president either. Neither can Elon Musk.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    That's actually the exact reason democrats are fighting him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [+] 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm just going off of what was said in the prior comment. I haven't looked anything up quite yet

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    There's way more nuance than Lemmy pretends. It's difficult to deal with, because there's a lot of nuance and several grains of truth lying around.

    They're afraid if someone on "their side" is out there yelling "I'm a socialist", that it'll scare the donors. That much is true.

    Lemmy forgets that you need donors and allies to win elections. I honestly think many people pushing the "both sides" narrative actively want us all to lose.

    We don't need to be as beholden to donors as the general Democrats are. We have a lot of room for Democratic Socialist policies. But if we use our platforms to yell about how both sides are the same, well, first, they're absolutely fucking not, and second, that's going to get people to stay home and lose elections.

    We need to pull the party to the left. Partly that'll help win elections. IF we don't sink the boat while we're doing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Uhh but Zohran got donors from the people. 20k people donated to his campaign fund. You don't need billionaires to fund your campaign.

    Heck, look at Kickstarter. They still manage to get millions from the regular people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "We can't elect people who do the things we want, otherwise we won't be able to elect people who do the things we want."

    If he gets elected that proves the entire premise wrong.

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

    We can elect the people we want. We also need to elect some that aren't perfect. That's how Democracy works.

    You aim to get some ideal representatives, some less than ideal representatives and maybe some real compromises, and you team up against the literal fucking Nazis.

    That doesn't mean we have to be the ones to compromise every time. Looking forward to this NYC election.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (42 children)

    Now do you believe people when they say they have a 2 party system with Republicans vs Democrats other republicans?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [+] -21 points 1 year ago (38 children)
  • [+] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (37 children)
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (36 children)

    It's abundantly obvious the parties are different. I'm snarky because so many mental sloths exist. Be bothered to think and I'll be less snarky. Specific, non-hyperbolic factual criticisms are not what I take issue with.

    If you say the parties are the same you're either revealing how grossly ignorant you are, or what a liar you are. No grey area there really.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Just look at how they voted in tabling to be able to vote on if Trump's articles of impeachment. Way too many democrats voted yes to not vote on it. It's as if most of them don't want to look at the fascism happening, and stick their heads in the sand. In my blue state only one voted to hear the articles of impeachment. Fuck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Of all the reasons to impeach Trump, the one selected in that case was the most precarious.

    It should be unacceptable for the president to unilaterally make such a risky military maneuever, however you can cite some precedent in every administration for over 60 years. So you have to answer why only this time is the president impeachable for a unilateral strike when that has been normal for presidents for a very long time.

    I get it, it's unconscionable how Netanyahu has treated Gaza and the West Bank, it's supremely risky how they and the US engaged with Iran. It's shocking this level of military risk can be incurred by the executive branch without warning. However without some laws indicating the status quo has changed, there's nothing to hold the office accountable for being consistent with every other administration in living memory.

    Besides, while reactions over Gaza have significantly more popular sympathy for the Palestinians, the popular opinion of the Iranian regime is not so sympathetic, and thus far the nature of the strikes seem to be more surgical in nature than what has happened in Gaza, so this isn't exactly the political opinion to bet everything on.

    Trump's administration almost daily gives more unique and blatantly illegal behaviors that could be the focus of articles of impeachment, and this was just a poor choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The VOTERS of each party are different. The actual leaders of each party, the actual people running the party apparatus? There's very little difference between the parties in terms of actual leadership.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (20 children)
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    If they're the same, you wouldn't even need to say it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (11 children)
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Weird thing to keep saying, coolBotShilly

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Okay so my random baseless accusation is you don't like sushi and that makes you bad. BAD.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And you're a flagellant gorilla.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You're right, they're not the same.
    Red MAGA is evil, Blue MAGA too but they are hypocrites about it.
    So worse

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    BoTh SiDeS me no see difference because difference challenge me

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Trump always bad so our side always good.
    Little projection from Blue MAGA

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Saying "blue maga" = "Putin is my daddy"

    You sound a lot like someone I know who would be evading ban if they're here. You'll be caught if that's so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    LOL lame BS, why dont you say it's anti-semitic?

    https://citizenactionny.org/2025/06/27/citizen-action-of-new-york-condemns-senator-gillibrands-racist-remarks-towards-assemblymember-zohran-mamdani/
    Racist fanboy POS
    Blocking you now, you disgust me.
    Glad they will put your miserable fash partyall in the trash with the Red MAGA.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    They aren't, Mamdani is the representative on the DNC ticket and has been congratulated by many members of the DNC. He swept every district in the primary election.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Hakeem Jefferies went on television literally yesterday and said he wasn't willing to endorse Mamdani. Schumer hasn't endorsed either. Generally speaking, when a politician from your own party releases a statement, "congratulating," you instead of endorsing you, it's considered a slight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    He didn't say he wouldn't endorse him, only that he was going to meet with him this week to talk about stances which affect both of their approval ratings such as rising antisemitism in NYC, and I can certainly believe that even before the war on Gaza there was rising antisemitism such as a crowd led by Kanye West at one point.

    Hakeem's District is Brooklyn, 22.4% Jewish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Mamdani won Jefferies'district, so it wouldn't make sense to withhold his endorsement because of the voters. However, Jefferies top contributor is AIPAC, which does make a lot more sense.

    Jefferies has insinuated that Mamdani is antisemitic and refused to endorse him. There is no universe in which that is anything but and attack.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Mamdani won Jefferies' district with a 15% DNC voter turnout, running against Cuomo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So you think Jefferies' voters are so concerned about Mamdani they'll primary Jefferies if he endorses him, but not concerned enough to vote against Mamdani in the first place? That's more likely than Jefferies not wanting to piss off his biggest donor?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm saying caution is a fine approach in the face of uncertainties, hopefully Mamdani's polls look great and Jefferies endorses him wholeheartedly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Jefferies had no problem endorsing Cuomo, who resigned due to corruption and sexual misconduct allegations, and was rejected by Jefferies' voters. He's picked an odd time to become cautious with his endorsements.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Can have actual socialists getting a foot hold anywhere.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    Something something class interests something something

  • source
  • Let's keep putting the same candidates out there and hope for a different outcome.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›