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.
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.
It’s really simple actually. There’s two intellectually honest paths you could take here:
Mamdani accepting the DSA’s endorsement is a bad move and a red flag that we should criticize and keep an eye on because the DSA is a shitty organization that has done shitty things.
Mamdani accepting the DSA’s endorsement is a good thing because I support the DSA and the shitty things they do
Aren’t you tired of dancing around like a clown by running in circles with one desperate disingenuous fallacy after another? You’re not making yourself look smart, all you’re doing is demonstrating that you’re aware that DSA is shit and support them despite of that, but you’re too ashamed to admit it so you keep trying to mask your support with whatever this is. You can concede that I made a good point or own your support for the DSA so we can shift the conversation to how shitty they are. If you can’t do this, then you’re not worth another reply.
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.
What kind of question is that? It should be extremely obvious that I think he should’ve ignored or rejected the DSA’s endorsement. Endorsements go both ways. By openly accepting their endorsement, he’s basically saying that he’s proud of them and what they do. Do you not find this at all concerning considering what the DSA has done and stood for in recent years? Do you think it’s not at least worth criticizing him over this? Just because he’s better than Cuomo for not being a sex pest and better than Adams for not being blatantly corrupt and accepting bribes, that doesn’t mean he’s now absolved from receiving criticism. Saying “but there’s worse” doesn’t in any way justify, excuse, or negate this endorsement. If accepting an endorsement by a billionaire funded right wing group or a foreign funded lobbyist group is problematic, then this should be as well.
There, I’ve addressed your point, can you finally address mine?
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.
It’s really simple actually. There’s two intellectually honest paths you could take here:
Mamdani accepting the DSA’s endorsement is a bad move and a red flag that we should criticize and keep an eye on because the DSA is a shitty organization that has done shitty things.
Mamdani accepting the DSA’s endorsement is a good thing because I support the DSA and the shitty things they do
Aren’t you tired of dancing around like a clown by running in circles with one desperate disingenuous fallacy after another? You’re not making yourself look smart, all you’re doing is demonstrating that you’re aware that DSA is shit and support them despite of that, but you’re too ashamed to admit it so you keep trying to mask your support with whatever this is. You can concede that I made a good point or own your support for the DSA so we can shift the conversation to how shitty they are. If you can’t do this, then you’re not worth another reply.
I’m aware that you think that the DSA is shit.
…and there it is. I was spot on about you word for word. Alright, go troll elsewhere.
Anyone who doesn’t look for excuses to oppose progressives like you do is a troll. Got it.
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?
What kind of question is that? It should be extremely obvious that I think he should’ve ignored or rejected the DSA’s endorsement. Endorsements go both ways. By openly accepting their endorsement, he’s basically saying that he’s proud of them and what they do. Do you not find this at all concerning considering what the DSA has done and stood for in recent years? Do you think it’s not at least worth criticizing him over this? Just because he’s better than Cuomo for not being a sex pest and better than Adams for not being blatantly corrupt and accepting bribes, that doesn’t mean he’s now absolved from receiving criticism. Saying “but there’s worse” doesn’t in any way justify, excuse, or negate this endorsement. If accepting an endorsement by a billionaire funded right wing group or a foreign funded lobbyist group is problematic, then this should be as well.
There, I’ve addressed your point, can you finally address mine?