Yes, but Mamdani has shown his willingness to fight for us. Even if he can’t pull off all his agenda, it’s still better than the alternative candidates who won’t even try.
Our future survival as a species depends on teaching ourselves and our kids to find the reasonable line to ride between getting prematurely excited and letting our emotions getting exploited, and sinking into absolute, checked-out, fucking apathy and this is a tall order because the majority of Americans, and much of the larger developed world, fall into one of those two camps and few people in between, because measured, thoughtful responses and appropriate emotional investment and momentum is just not as easy to rally behind and make memes about.
Nothing inspires apathy like the 40 years of Democrats doing the wrong thing and making it so food and shelter are cost-prohibitive for tens of millions.
I’ll believe Mamdani is the real deal when he shows me. It’s unreasonable to expect Democrats to do the things they say they’re going to do.
It may just be me, but Mamdani just reminds me very much of 2007-2008 Obama, who himself was massively popular and saying all the right things, and then opted to rule as a conservative and helped usher along US fascism in the end.
I feel Mamdani might be different since he openly and unflinchingly said he doesn’t like capitalism, something that many politicians are afraid to do. And he is a member of DSA which Obama isn’t a member of so that is something of a solid credential for Mamdani. But only time will tell if he sticks to his promises and conviction.
The question is what he’ll do when he realizes that being the mayor of NYC means he and his family have the opportunity to accrue generational wealth if they just play ball with the bad guys. Obama’s answer to that was: “I’ll do whatever you want.”
Obama was never anywhere close to socialist and was already deep in the political game when elected, this is why he was successful in his role, he accrued political capital in his time in Senate by “dealing with the bad guys.” They are from very different places playing very different games going into very different roles.
And we have to expect every politician is going to “deal with the bad guys” because that’s how you play. Vast sums of virtual and real wealth change hands behind closed doors and through policy decisions, this isn’t the “bad” in what makes for “bad guys” in politics, what makes it bad is the source of this money and how it’s being used by outside forces like corporations seeking specific agendas to make their shareholders even wealthier.
He also could have forced through single-payer healthcare if he wanted, the ACA is a watered down, conservative-designed alternative. There were many ways that Obama established a set-in precedent for Democrats basically becoming the modern conservative party as the Republicans pushed so far right without actual political or cultural opposition that they threw the overton window out into the fucking sea.
Anyone can do anything, so obviously we can’t say definitively what Mamdani might do, but comparing him to Obama is disingenuous nonsense. Obama never said the workers owning the means of production was the ultimate goal; he was never a socialist and never espoused leftist beliefs personally, regardless of policy.
Furthermore, all Obama did was talk about hope and change. He coasted into office on empty rhetoric, whereas Mamdani has been crystal clear about his policy goals right from the start. Saying a politician could bail once in office is reasonable, but comparing these two is unbounded idiocy.
Did Obama actually said that? I don’t know if it’s true, but I heard that Obama told Bernie that he can’t be the good guy and be president.
Corruption aside, once getting into position of political power, it is actually harder to maintain it because of different stakeholders involved. Take the military industrial complex, for example. We rightly chastise its profit taking motive by artificially inducing wars. But the sad truth is that they are jobs providers to peripheral places where there are little to no opportunities for many, especially in the desert states in the American Southwest and in isolated regions of Scotland and Northern England in the case of UK. No politicians want to be branded as jobs destroyer.
Even without the opportunity for personal corruption, balancing genuine concerns and interests is a hard juggling act for any politicians. And that’s not even including campaign financing and its trap of being beholden to the donor. Unfortunately, there is strong correlation between electoral success and how much money is thrown into the campaigning. It is one factor as to why the Citizens United was allowed by the US Supreme Court.
Absolutely he did. He stood aside when Occupy was brutalized. He did nothing meaningful to help consumers during the foreclosure crisis. He gave the MIC seven wars at once during his presidency. (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, and Libya.) He made sure the big banks got their bailouts. His promise of universal health care morphed into ‘access to health care’, which of course, only existed if you could absorb being price-gouged for your insurance.
Hell, he walked into Flint and pretended to take a drink of water as a political stunt, when he and everyone in that room knew their water was still poisoned with lead.
Obama was a massively corrupt president, and one of the biggest disappointments in American history.
I’m not going to get excited until Mamdani wins and actually does what he promises. Speeches and vocal support aren’t worth anything anymore.
Still, solid meme that makes a good point.
I don’t doubt Mamdani, I doubt the NYC City Council. They’re gonna be a huge roadblock.
Yes, but Mamdani has shown his willingness to fight for us. Even if he can’t pull off all his agenda, it’s still better than the alternative candidates who won’t even try.
Our future survival as a species depends on teaching ourselves and our kids to find the reasonable line to ride between getting prematurely excited and letting our emotions getting exploited, and sinking into absolute, checked-out, fucking apathy and this is a tall order because the majority of Americans, and much of the larger developed world, fall into one of those two camps and few people in between, because measured, thoughtful responses and appropriate emotional investment and momentum is just not as easy to rally behind and make memes about.
Nothing inspires apathy like the 40 years of Democrats doing the wrong thing and making it so food and shelter are cost-prohibitive for tens of millions.
I’ll believe Mamdani is the real deal when he shows me. It’s unreasonable to expect Democrats to do the things they say they’re going to do.
Fair, but do show up and vote please
I always vote, not that it matters.
You’re fucking pathetic
It does matter, but its also just one part of building out our progressive movement
Good point.
It may just be me, but Mamdani just reminds me very much of 2007-2008 Obama, who himself was massively popular and saying all the right things, and then opted to rule as a conservative and helped usher along US fascism in the end.
I feel Mamdani might be different since he openly and unflinchingly said he doesn’t like capitalism, something that many politicians are afraid to do. And he is a member of DSA which Obama isn’t a member of so that is something of a solid credential for Mamdani. But only time will tell if he sticks to his promises and conviction.
Time, and a constant light show around him to help any would-be assassins miss.
He’s saying a lot of the right things.
The question is what he’ll do when he realizes that being the mayor of NYC means he and his family have the opportunity to accrue generational wealth if they just play ball with the bad guys. Obama’s answer to that was: “I’ll do whatever you want.”
Obama was never anywhere close to socialist and was already deep in the political game when elected, this is why he was successful in his role, he accrued political capital in his time in Senate by “dealing with the bad guys.” They are from very different places playing very different games going into very different roles.
And we have to expect every politician is going to “deal with the bad guys” because that’s how you play. Vast sums of virtual and real wealth change hands behind closed doors and through policy decisions, this isn’t the “bad” in what makes for “bad guys” in politics, what makes it bad is the source of this money and how it’s being used by outside forces like corporations seeking specific agendas to make their shareholders even wealthier.
Obama could’ve codified Roe and he didn’t. He ran on doing it.
He also could have forced through single-payer healthcare if he wanted, the ACA is a watered down, conservative-designed alternative. There were many ways that Obama established a set-in precedent for Democrats basically becoming the modern conservative party as the Republicans pushed so far right without actual political or cultural opposition that they threw the overton window out into the fucking sea.
Thank you for your commentary. I hope you have a wonderful Saturday afternoon.
Anyone can do anything, so obviously we can’t say definitively what Mamdani might do, but comparing him to Obama is disingenuous nonsense. Obama never said the workers owning the means of production was the ultimate goal; he was never a socialist and never espoused leftist beliefs personally, regardless of policy.
Furthermore, all Obama did was talk about hope and change. He coasted into office on empty rhetoric, whereas Mamdani has been crystal clear about his policy goals right from the start. Saying a politician could bail once in office is reasonable, but comparing these two is unbounded idiocy.
I hope I’m wrong. Time will tell.
Did Obama actually said that? I don’t know if it’s true, but I heard that Obama told Bernie that he can’t be the good guy and be president.
Corruption aside, once getting into position of political power, it is actually harder to maintain it because of different stakeholders involved. Take the military industrial complex, for example. We rightly chastise its profit taking motive by artificially inducing wars. But the sad truth is that they are jobs providers to peripheral places where there are little to no opportunities for many, especially in the desert states in the American Southwest and in isolated regions of Scotland and Northern England in the case of UK. No politicians want to be branded as jobs destroyer.
Even without the opportunity for personal corruption, balancing genuine concerns and interests is a hard juggling act for any politicians. And that’s not even including campaign financing and its trap of being beholden to the donor. Unfortunately, there is strong correlation between electoral success and how much money is thrown into the campaigning. It is one factor as to why the Citizens United was allowed by the US Supreme Court.
Absolutely he did. He stood aside when Occupy was brutalized. He did nothing meaningful to help consumers during the foreclosure crisis. He gave the MIC seven wars at once during his presidency. (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, and Libya.) He made sure the big banks got their bailouts. His promise of universal health care morphed into ‘access to health care’, which of course, only existed if you could absorb being price-gouged for your insurance.
Hell, he walked into Flint and pretended to take a drink of water as a political stunt, when he and everyone in that room knew their water was still poisoned with lead.
Obama was a massively corrupt president, and one of the biggest disappointments in American history.
The last time i tried to get insurance on the exchange, they said it would be 5 thousand dollars.
I said “5000 dollars a year? that seems high”
they said “Oh, no sir. 5000 dollars a month”
I said “Goodbye” and hung up.
Wtf? I thought 500 a month was robbery.
“And I continued not having health insurance because that’s true compassion in a Christian nation.”