anarchiddy @ anarchiddy @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

1

Comments

202

Joined

4 mo. ago

They're not mad because they lost money, they're terrified because Mamdani is a socialist.

Not in the article, but it's not really a secret

Bill Ackman (billionare democratic donor) has offered essentially unlimited funding for anyone to run against him as a write in candidate

It's indicative of a deep, irreversible rift in the party. Either democrats adapt or they split in half.

Either they listen to their voters and become a 'new' democratic party, or they'll continue bleeding numbers and die. Either way, it's still the beginning of the end.

They are going to gamble that they can stay the same because people are/will be so mad about… well everything.

They will 100% try to do this, but they'll end up losing and then blame the voters they're maligning. Mamdani is a case-in-point difference between status quo candidate turnouts and progressive candidate turnout. The 7% delta over Cuomo is the 7% they'll lose if they try it again.

Fun fact - uneven eye dilation can sometimes be a symptom of stroke or aneurysm

If Cuomo runs independent, the democratic party loses any hope of keeping their progressive base and it might actually split entirely.

After bullying their base for the last 10 years to get in line behind their shit moderate candidates, if they were to suddenly decide that primaries don't mean anything then they'd never be able to convince progressives to vote against their interests again.

Cuomo is backed by the democratic establishment and the DNC's donor class. It doesnt matter if he's independent, he's the establishment pick and would be running with their funding.

"Vote blue no matter who"

Mamdani wins historic primary victory

".....shit"

Not that I'm aware of, no

Would have been expedient doing that back in February when polls were showing him at 1% and nobody knew who he was

Say whatever you want about him, that man has the best comedic timing

Whoever drew this went to great lengths to keep Israel on the map

I see two outcomes:

• Congress introduces articles
• Impeached, but fails ratification in senate

or

• Congress introduces articles
• Some terrible tragedy befalls us or Israel
• Articles fail and congress backs the war full-throated

There is no version of this that ends in removal, and even impeachment wouldn't be anything more than performative outrage.

The majority of sitting representatives have been waiting for an acceptable excuse to bomb Iran for decades. The only objection any of them have is doing so without manufacturing consent from voters first, but we've already seen how this plays out with Afghanistan. They'll drum up dubious evidence of WMD's and launch their entry, and then spend 20 years trying to 'get out' while securing Iran's material resources on the way.

The only difference this time is that Iran has almost 5x the population and 100x the GDP of Afghanistan in 2001, plus an actual organized military base with proper advanced weapons manufacturing. There's a reason we've waited this long to actually do this, and it isn't because we were busy doing other things. It's because this isn't a war we can win without pulling everyone else into it (or at the very least without isolating them from global trading partners).

It's not a morbid joke to call this a WWIII softlaunch.

Once you've finished this project, you're only a hop and skip away from this 3D printed Machining Mill. He uses the 3d printed pieces as a mold for reinforced concrete, so that it's heavy enough to resist the vibrations so that you can mill solid metal stock.

The single most impressive 3D printed DIY tool i've ever seen.

Just a helpful reminder that class relations are real, and that most legacy news outlets have a shared class-interest in de-emphasizing class and income as important electoral issues.

There's a really good reason why democrats will seemingly do just about anything to avoid platforming socialist policies - and it isn't because they aren't popular. They see them as an existential threat to their party, because not only would they lose their primary funding sources if they were to stop protecting donors from wealth re-distributive policies, but they'd also lose their network of private sector allies that enable them to govern at all.

Once you understand the scope of the problem, it's really hard to see the two party system as anything other than good-cop bad-cop neoliberal theater.

Inshallah, Trump abandons Israel to deal with Iran by themselves because he doesn't want to be blamed for WWIII.

But railing against them well before that is warranted.

If Newsome ran on Bernie’s platform it’s probably a landslide.

If Newsom had Sanders' platform, not only would he not be Newsom, he wouldn't be the democratic darling.

AOC is supremely charismatic, and so is Sanders. Democrats keep them on short leashes because they're popular, and because they'd completely ruin the democratic fundraising platform. That's it. That's the whole thing.

It’s called pragmatism.

I've always found this word/idea funny because there's a famous American psychologist by the name of William James that coined a branch of philosophy by that name, that was basically intended as a way of rationalizing religious belief by observing how it effected someone's behavior.

People (including James) think that using that word evokes a type of self-evident common sense, when in reality it has always been a word that rationalizes commonly held but indeterminate and often irrational beliefs.

Idk man. You do what's best for your kids, but I think it's irrational to abandon your convictions because you have greater faith in the superficiality of american voters than you do in your own political ideals. Maybe it's true, but it's just as likely that you are making that the case by undercutting your own values in favor of vanity.

I think it's far more likely that democrats are mistaking a lack of charisma for a lack of popular policy. Maybe it isn't because they lack charisma, but because they are in denial about there being something they're leaving unaddressed with their middling technocratic ideas.

No offense, but what is even the point of your politics if it can be boiled down to, "sure, this guy has terrible policies and I hate the guy personally, but he can win so I'll support him anyway"?

Democrats will never win if all they campaign on is 'we just want the most charismatic person'. People already don't have any faith in our democratic system, and now we're just flat out telling them 'the only thing we care about is aesthetics'.

Big yikes.