top 76 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 119 points 5 months ago (11 children)

Quoting myself from another post with that topic:
Mamdani's plans and actions are almost too good to be true, but true they are and they are more than a silver lining for a lot of people.
People like him are so desperately needed in the world of robber billionaires enslaving the whole world.
Those robber billionaires might not realize that yet, but people like Mamdani are going to save their lives by nibbling at their looted fortune.
And if the Mamdanis of this world fail, we can always resort to eating the billionaires.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Yeah, people were joking that the media outlets were afraid of Mamdani getting elected because he would fail as a mayor of one of the largest cities in the world. But what they were actually afraid of is him succeeding using socialist policies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Socialism is what most people love, yet some in all but name.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Too right! Social Security, Medicare(though that's been whittled down to glorified insurance company at this point), Medicaid, the Fire Department, trash collection, Food Stamps, all crops grown in the US are subsidized(Fuck You Monsanto!), and literally every paved non-toll road and bridge you use has been built with taxpayer money. Plus more I can't even think of at the moment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    As if literally every NYC mayor in my long lifetime hasn't been a complete failure. We might as well try Mamdani, at least it's something different than "Maybe this guy won't be so corrupt that it will crash the city."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 5 months ago

    I love Mamdani, and his existence in office gives me hope for the world, but it's not just because he's helping New Yorkers.

    He also demonstrates proof of concept:

    1. Socialist policies are popular: people like him.
    2. Socialist policies are electable: he got voted in.
    3. Socialist policies work: people are materially benefitting, and NYC's finances have quantifiably improved.
    4. Anti-socialist propaganda has been bullshit from the start: he's not some shady two-faced evil maniac like the pigs from animal farm (those are the capitalists). He literally means what he says and puts his money where his mouth is, and you can see it every day by his actions.

    Altogether, this can encourage more people to run on socialist policies, especially for local offices in progressive strongholds, but it can seep outward as it catches on.

    It can also encourage the DNC (especially with the new chairman) and elected democrats to support/endorse candidates who run on a progressive agenda. No more hesitancy over whether that's an electable platform: clearly it is.

    Lastly, it can encourage voters to support these candidates because instead of fearing the big scary "Socialism" word, they can see what it actually is and what it does and they think "Gee, I want what NYC has in my city/town."

    Taken alongside the upcoming election which will be absolutely punishing to republicans, and people's disenchantment with establishment Dems and their corporatist policies, this can honestly represent a sea-change in the political landscape of the US, which as we know bleeds out into the rest of the world.

    What we're experiencing now with the resurgence of fascism is like the birthing pains of a new era: "The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born."

    That dying old world is putting up a vicious fight, but it's like an injured leopard: dangerous, to be sure, and doubly-so in its desperation; but it won't be long before it perishes.

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

    Those robber billionaires might not realize that yet, but people like Mamdani are going to save their lives by nibbling at their looted fortune.

    You know, if I was a billionaire, I would quite literally want democratic socialists in charge because I'd feel safer if the entire goddamn population didn't have a reason to kill me for my monies.

    It's not so much that we don't have inequality in Europe, but in most countries, even if you work minimum wage and barely get by, you can get sick, have to go to a hospital for treatment, pay nearly nothing out of pocket, and your time off work is also compensated.

    People are a lot less desperate for change when a single health issue won't derail their entire lives. When people are less desperate, they're less likely to shoot rich people too. Let's not forget that Luigi, who may or may not have killed that UHC CEO, had chronic back pain requiring surgery. In his 20s. He came from a well-off family, but chances are his condition is/was going to cost him hundreds of thousands over his lifetime WITH insurance anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Idolize the actions, not the person. No one is perfect. And people who have the skills to win elections are much more often "flawed". If the flaw ends up being something really bad and gets out, all the progress will be for naught. But if we idolize the actions, they can be separated from the person if need be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Very true, we are all flawed humans.

    It would do us good to examine why democratically elected positions don't often attract the right people, I suspect some mix the right people are often too busy, don't want to deal with the harassment, can't afford it. And that last point is critical, greed as a character flaw skews to the wealthy.

    Then there is marketing/charisma angle, even if you objectively have the best person in hand... they still need to be elected, which is tougher to solve

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 96 points 5 months ago (32 children)
  • [+] -92 points 5 months ago (31 children)

    Not really, he decided not to tax the rich and instead, took funds from the state (that could serve the poor) to prevent raising taxes on the rich.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 5 months ago (16 children)

    Explain exactly what you mean with sources. No offense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] -24 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    Not Akh, but did you really miss our /c/ources?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    Second one isn't a source, and first one literally says he implemented a tax on second houses, which is a tax on the rich. I don't know what you mean.

    You also can't blame someone for not reading every comment on every post in the community.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago* (13 children)

    You also can’t blame someone for not reading every comment on every post in the community.

    It's the otherway around sunshine: I am trying to garner how much pelespirit, you, and 21 of you know about how rich people keep their money.

    tax on second houses, which is a tax on the rich.

    Blackrock & Vanguard do not own homes. Yet they own every company in the AmeriKKKa. If Mamdani wanted to actually go after the actual rich of NYC, he’d be targeting their industries.

    Also, liquidate private equity entirely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    "He hasn't cleared the impossibly high bar I set so obviously he is trash"

    Mamdani cannot liquidate private equity.

    Targeting industry might or might not be possible for a mayor. NY has the most powerful mayor in the country but that doesn't make him all powerful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    Is there a reason why you place strawmen interpretations when trying to actualize meaningful progress?

    Mamdani cannot liquidate private equity.

    In his city, he can make it both illegal to do so, and use that liquidity for state projects.

    Targeting industry might or might not be possible for a mayor..

    Better to try where it actually penalizes the rich, than people with actual needs of secondary homes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    Can you describe exactly why anyone would need a second home? I cannot fathom any legitimate reason besides luxury for no reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Disabilities, logistics, surveys sheltering, snowbirding, etc..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child)

    How would it help a disability any more than a hotel or some such? Unless it's related to weather/climate somehow.

    Idk what you mean by logistics but maybe
    idk what surveys sheltering is
    Snowbirding barely legitimate, if you make enough to afford it you deserve to be taxed for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Not all hotels have the dedicated staff to take of people say paralytic, dialysis, sun allergies, etc..

    Access to water, food, resources, equipment, etc. Bananas don't grow whene apples grow, etc.
    Mountainous vs flats, vs lakes, vs rivers, etc.

    Snowbirding barely legitimate, if you make enough to afford it you deserve to be taxed for it.

    Then go right ahead and die of hypothermia🙃.

    For a progressive, you sure like to steal from people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (6 children)

    Is there a reason why you place strawmen interpretations when trying to actualize meaningful progress?

    Mamdani's actions in the first few months of his mayorship have been one of the few bright spots of meaningful progress we have seen in the past decade.

    In his city, he can make it both illegal to do so, and use that liquidity for state projects.

    Citation needed

    Better to try where it actually penalizes the rich, than people with actual needs of secondary homes.

    This is rich. Somehow Mamdani is not going hard enough against the money and also he is picking on the poor and downtrodden who own Million dollar flats that they don't even live in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    Citation needed

    he is picking on the poor and downtrodden who own Million dollar flats that they don’t even live in.

    Citation needed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (4 children)

    The Pied-à-Terre Tax and Its Potential Revenues - Office of the New York City Comptroller Mark Levine https://share.google/4ybZGPdS9SjIVlVdd

    The pied a terre tax is on properties valued at 5 million or more. That doesn't sound like working class families to me? How about you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)
    1. Why a Google redirect?
    2. You're aware this is a proposal that never took effect. If you did read it, acquiring $510 million in taxes doesn't even tackle the billionaires…
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    _Why a Google redirect?__

    I don't know what that is

    The proposal is what this is. The governor has expressed support. It's in progress.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    The Google redirect is how you shared the link, it makes a new shorter URL that takes you to the actual website. I assume you pressed 'share' or something instead of directly copying the URL, which is this:

    https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/the-pied-a-terre-tax-and-its-potential-revenues/

    In general it is best practice to copy the URL directly, as it is compatible with all browsers (the one you posted does nothing on Firefox) and prevents tracking and such.

    Agree with you on the argument n stuff just doing my part to educate about the Internet, hope that made sense :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 36 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    Why are we saying that Mamdani getting funds from the state is a bad thing? Hasn't NYC subsidized the rest of the state while getting little in return from them in the past?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    These centrists want him to hand that cash over to billionaires instead, obviously, like Biden, Obama, and Clinton did. The notion of one's taxes being used for the citizens own benefit is scary to them.

    I kid.

    What they want is for Mamdani to be as shitty as they and the people they vote for are so they can feel better in telling us that better things aren't possible.

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

    Hasn't NYC subsidized the rest of the state while getting little in return from them in the past?

    I mean, yes, because NYC is where the money is. Manhattan is full of millionaires, and most of Upstate is either farmland or abandoned company towns that have spent the last three decades trying to rebuild after Kodak/Xerox/GE packed up and moved out.

    Can't get blood from a stone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    They're not gonna leave no matter how much they threaten. A few maybe, but not a significant amount. No matter what, it's still THE New York City. My old sugar daddy used to bitch and moan about how he'd leave the city if Mamdani was elected and he's still there and his life has barely changed. He's screening my calls now though, pray for me

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    No no no. You see, urban centers generating all the wealth and then giving that wealth to the apple pie loving rugged individualists in suburban-pretending-to-be-rural areas is the natural order. Any change to this system is unAmerican, evil, greedy city fatcats out fatcatting it up like a bunch of commies. /s

  • source
  • parent
  • This works on an intra-state level and interstate level. Usually the poorer, rural areas of a state require financial assistance to support their people that comes from the higher taxes and earnings cities make. From there states that don't have strong metropolitan centers with a lot of business and money flow require cash flows from those that do in order to support themselves. No one in those poorer states will admit to it because it also kills the self sufficient by nature image they have of themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Why are we saying that Mamdani getting funds from the state is a bad thing?

    The wing of the party that expects us to buy that the biden administration kept its promises by announcing its intent to keep their promises won't accept that balancing a budget is balancing a budget.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -16 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Because he ran on taxing the rich than chickened out

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    You mean reclaiming a higher percentage of New Yorker's tax dollars for New Yorkers?

    NYC pays more in taxes to the state than it recieves. Seems fair they get more money back for their community

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    But billionaires owning second homes do not pay anywhere near an appropriate amount of taxes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 47 points 5 months ago

    Just picked this up the other day. Fitting.

  • source
  • [–] 44 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Fuckin' master shot. Far right uses Reagan to dog whistle and trigger the Boomers, well so can Mamdani manipulate those Boomers. Excellent work.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (6 children)

    Next year Millennial voters will outnumber Boomers. Yay! But about 47% of Millennials say they lean Democrat and 45% lean Republican. Boomers lean about 44% Dem, 48% Rep. So it's a little different but not enough to expect any revolutionary changes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I’d rather eat dog shit than have any positive feelings over neolib politics, but those millennials who lean R are class and generational traitors.

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

    To me boomers who lean R are also generational traitors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    It's almost worse because at least with Boomers they can maybe believe the system works because they got theirs (nevermind how they got to enjoy such prosperity...), whereas anyone who's worked on the past twenty years knows things have gotten worse and how.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    The party's outreach to younger voters so far has been "you don't vote so we're going to ignore you."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 5 months ago

    Fucking Regan, that jackass is most of the reason we're saddle with the Orange Jackass now. Deregulate this 🖕

  • source
  • [–] 41 points 5 months ago (20 children)

    WHY CANT WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE LIKE THIS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS YARGHHHHHHHHJ

    i know why. I just need to scream.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 5 months ago (16 children)

    With Mandami, people voted in the primary, selected a progressive, and then he won in the general election.

    Vote in the primaries. That's the whole trick.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Remember that the party interferes with the primaries. Any progressive that wins has to successfully fight both parties.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    All you have to do to defeat that is to fucking vote. Bernie lost the Presidential primaries in 2016 ans 2020 because more people voted for Clinton and Biden.

    Yeah, there was talk about them rigging the 2016 primary for Clinton with the superdelegates if Bernie was ahead, but it never reached that point because Clinton secured the nomination before the convention.

    I teach at a university and I had a ton of students praising Bernie who couldn't be assed to change their registration to a local address or drive home for a day to vote for him. And then they refused to vote in the general because they were protesting that the person they couldn't be bothered to vote for didn't win the nomination.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago*

    I caucused for Bernie both times. The first time, Clinton's staffers misdirected and intimidated a bunch of Bernie supporters to stand on her side of the room. No one realized what had happened until after the count was taken, but by then it was too late, and the person running the caucus turned a deaf ear to our complaints. We were told that we'd be thrown out/arrested if we continued to make a disturbance.

    The second time, we didn't have enough people for Bernie to be considered a "viable" candidate, and that's only because the people from the Biden side of the room convinced half of our group that we were not viable (we were, but that was the first caucus for most of the Bernie supporters and they didn't know how it worked)

    If you're not familiar with caucuses, I don't blame you; they are an antiquated, easily manipulated system that needs to be thrown out.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (6 children)

    All you have to do to defeat that is to fucking vote.

    And in places where the party's fuckery succeeds, you'll pretend that the primaries are fair because you like the results.

    Yeah, there was talk about them rigging the 2016 primary for Clinton with the superdelegates if Bernie was ahead, but it never reached that point because Clinton secured the nomination before the convention.

    The party successfully argued in court that it could decide the nominee in a smoke filled room without the input of the voters if it wanted. Then it did just that in 2024. And you pretend it was fair because a genocide candidate was nominated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The establishment Dems didn't support Mandami, but he still won in the primaries. You know why? Because people showed up to vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    How many have lost because the party plays favorites?

    Who showed up to vote for harris in the primaries we were cheated out of?

    The results of crooked primaries are not reliably indicative of the electorate's will.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Who said it was fair? But you've got to use every tool at your disposal. Don't make it easy for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Centrists argue that we should ignore progressives and point to primary losses as a reason.

    Primaries centrists run dishonestly for their own benefit.

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

    For newbies: "the primary" in the US is the selection process for who you get to vote for in the coming election.

    Democrats and Republicans each have their own primary to select a candidate for the district where you live.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I would phrase it as:

    Each party sends a candidate to compete in the general election. The primary elections are the party's internal elections to decide who their candidate is.

    In the United States, elections for the office of the Presidency are held every four years. Fun fact: the first few elections, the winner of the race got to be the president, and the runner up was made the vice president. The great experiment in democracy yielded data: That doesn't fucking work! So the candidates for vice president are selected by the presidential candidates during the campaign cycle. As a major job of the president is to appoint people, this is the free sample you get. They then run as a pair, the vice presidential candidates are often called "running mates." These get a lot of attention, you'll hear these called Major Elections. The next one is still tentatively scheduled for 2028.

    Congress...is kinda fucking stupid. But also, the term "congressman" refers strictly to members of the House of Representatives; members of the upper house are addressed as "senator." Congressmen serve 2 year terms with no term limits. We re-elect the entire lower house every 2 years, almost to a man. Half of those elections line up with a presidential election, the ones that don't are often called "Midterm elections." There is a mid-term this year.

    The Senate is even weirder, senators serve 6 year terms, and every two years a third of the senate is up for re-election. From an individual state's perspective, that means one of your senators is up during one election, the other one is up two years later, and then neither is up two years after that. Because 100 isn't divisible by 3, there's an exception to that somewhere, I'm not sure where it is off the top of my head.

    It gets a little complicated because each party, the Democrats, Republicans, and The United Collective Of Parties That Are Allowed To Exist Because Of The First Amendment Assembly Clause But Not Allowed To Matter, and each state, are allowed to choose how their primaries (and their elections) work.

    In many states, such as my home state of North Carolina, a primary election looks like the main election, The party issues a paper ballot, you bubble with a pen and insert into the box. Other states have "caucuses" where you go to a big room and vote by physically sitting in the area designated for the candidate you support. Some parties in some states welcome anyone to participate, some allow only registered members of that party to participate. Such is life in a federation.

    Most, I think all, states also line up their own elections with the Federal elections. So every two years you walk into the polls for a 1/2 chance of voting for a President and vice president, 2/3 chance of voting for 1 senator, 1 congressman, quite possibly a governor, lieutenant governor, general assemblyman, state senator, county commissioner, sheriff, district judge, town mayor, 3-7 school board members, dog catcher and village idiot.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    What happened in the general election, jackass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›