There is a hunger for bold, transformative politics in the United States right now. Zohran Mamdani shows how the Left can run on a principled, disciplined message that speaks to voters’ lived concerns — and win.
Disingenuous? You hate the DSA for reasons that apply to the DNC but I don’t see you as angry at every democrat as you are any given member of the DSA.
You just hate progressives and found some copypasta that suits your selective dislike of things both the DSA and DNC do.
This isn’t about “hating progressives”, it’s about integrity. If a candidate claims to stand against the establishment but proudly accepts an endorsement from a group that’s defends extremists and doubles down on moral incoherence, that’s a real problem. You’re not even attempting to address that.
Instead, you’re dodging with bad faith assumptions and false equivalence, as if calling out one group’s hypocrisy demands total denunciation of everyone else, or that I’m obligated to spread my criticism evenly for it to count. Going “b… bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe DeMoCrAtS” isn’t even a valid point, that’s just the whataboutism fallacy which are you using to deflect from the criticisms being made.
Also, labeling valid critique as “copypasta” doesn’t make it so, make it wrong, or make it go away. It just shows you’ve got nothing to say about the actual issue, otherwise you would’ve done so instead of desperately scrapping for anything fallacy you throw out. The endorsement from the DSA wasn’t just a footnote in his campaign, it exposed a contradiction you’d rather not reckon with.
But I know you’re not honest enough to actually address any of this, so like I said, you’re so close bro. You’re just one more disingenuous attempt, and you’ll surely get me next time.
This isn’t about “hating progressives”, it’s about integrity.
And by an astounding coincidence, democrats aren’t required to have any while anyone to their left must be perfect in every way.
Centrists spent more than a decade screaming “purity test!” at anyone who expected better from the party that centrists ran into the fucking ground. So stow the selective purity tests that magically only apply to the wing of the party you don’t like.
You’re doing it again! Dodging the issue by assigning motives and projecting tribal loyalty tests. My point wasn’t that progressives need to be “perfect”, it’s that if a candidate brands themselves as anti establishment, accepting an endorsement from a group that defends extremists, such as the DSA, is a contradiction worth examining. That’s not a purity test. That’s basic consistency.
Dragging in the DNC and centrists doesn’t make that contradiction go away, it just shifts the topic, again. If you can’t address the original point without framing everything as a left vs center grudge match, maybe the problem isn’t the critique, but it’s that it landed.
You’re doing it again! Dodging the issue by assigning motives and projecting tribal loyalty tests. My point wasn’t that progressives need to be “perfect”
You’re right. Perfect wouldn’t be good enough for you either.
You’re arguing macroscopic relativistic issues when voting is a quantum decision.
Are you arguing that you’d prefer Cuomo to have won? Cuz he’s the runner up.
I think the main issue you’re having in this thread is you are complaining but not really saying what you wanted to happen differently or offering any solutions. In the absence of such things, most people would assume you’d prefer Cuomo.
You’re dodging the point. This isn’t about cosmic metaphors or Cuomo. It’s about Mamdani claiming anti-establishment credibility while embracing an endorsement from a group with serious baggage. That contradiction doesn’t disappear just because the alternative was worse.
If the only way to defend a candidate is by pointing to who came in second, maybe the candidate didn’t earn the trust they’re asking for. Keep in mind, I actually like a good chunk of Mamdani’s platform and he’s clearly better Cuomo, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is a red flag. He could’ve simply reject or just ignored the DSA’s endorsement, but he instead proudly accepted and put it on his website. Critiquing a flawed move isn’t “complaining”, it’s accountability.
This also describes the DNC, with whom you have no evident problem.
I have a lot of problems with the DNC actually. Any more assumptions you want cleared up?
Sure. How much further to the right do you want them?
You’re so close bro, just a few more disingenuous attempts and you’ll surely catch me as a secret ultra right winger.
Disingenuous? You hate the DSA for reasons that apply to the DNC but I don’t see you as angry at every democrat as you are any given member of the DSA.
You just hate progressives and found some copypasta that suits your selective dislike of things both the DSA and DNC do.
No no, I think I understand what he’s saying. He’s saying everyone is terrible and we should just kill ourselves and stop trying.
Imagine being this dumb
You live it my friend, no need to imagine!
“no u”
This was exactly the level of intelligence I was expecting
You ARE being disingenuous.
This isn’t about “hating progressives”, it’s about integrity. If a candidate claims to stand against the establishment but proudly accepts an endorsement from a group that’s defends extremists and doubles down on moral incoherence, that’s a real problem. You’re not even attempting to address that.
Instead, you’re dodging with bad faith assumptions and false equivalence, as if calling out one group’s hypocrisy demands total denunciation of everyone else, or that I’m obligated to spread my criticism evenly for it to count. Going “b… bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe DeMoCrAtS” isn’t even a valid point, that’s just the whataboutism fallacy which are you using to deflect from the criticisms being made.
Also, labeling valid critique as “copypasta” doesn’t make it so, make it wrong, or make it go away. It just shows you’ve got nothing to say about the actual issue, otherwise you would’ve done so instead of desperately scrapping for anything fallacy you throw out. The endorsement from the DSA wasn’t just a footnote in his campaign, it exposed a contradiction you’d rather not reckon with.
But I know you’re not honest enough to actually address any of this, so like I said, you’re so close bro. You’re just one more disingenuous attempt, and you’ll surely get me next time.
And by an astounding coincidence, democrats aren’t required to have any while anyone to their left must be perfect in every way.
Centrists spent more than a decade screaming “purity test!” at anyone who expected better from the party that centrists ran into the fucking ground. So stow the selective purity tests that magically only apply to the wing of the party you don’t like.
You’re doing it again! Dodging the issue by assigning motives and projecting tribal loyalty tests. My point wasn’t that progressives need to be “perfect”, it’s that if a candidate brands themselves as anti establishment, accepting an endorsement from a group that defends extremists, such as the DSA, is a contradiction worth examining. That’s not a purity test. That’s basic consistency.
Dragging in the DNC and centrists doesn’t make that contradiction go away, it just shifts the topic, again. If you can’t address the original point without framing everything as a left vs center grudge match, maybe the problem isn’t the critique, but it’s that it landed.
You’re right. Perfect wouldn’t be good enough for you either.
You’re arguing macroscopic relativistic issues when voting is a quantum decision.
Are you arguing that you’d prefer Cuomo to have won? Cuz he’s the runner up.
I think the main issue you’re having in this thread is you are complaining but not really saying what you wanted to happen differently or offering any solutions. In the absence of such things, most people would assume you’d prefer Cuomo.
You’re dodging the point. This isn’t about cosmic metaphors or Cuomo. It’s about Mamdani claiming anti-establishment credibility while embracing an endorsement from a group with serious baggage. That contradiction doesn’t disappear just because the alternative was worse.
If the only way to defend a candidate is by pointing to who came in second, maybe the candidate didn’t earn the trust they’re asking for. Keep in mind, I actually like a good chunk of Mamdani’s platform and he’s clearly better Cuomo, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is a red flag. He could’ve simply reject or just ignored the DSA’s endorsement, but he instead proudly accepted and put it on his website. Critiquing a flawed move isn’t “complaining”, it’s accountability.
Good job not addressing my point.
AND WHAT? What would you like done and what consequences would you like to see?