Zohran Mamdani’s campaign represented a struggle for basic dignity and an affirmation of democratic potential. It was ceaselessly denounced by political and media elites from across the spectrum as something sinister, violent, and dangerous.
Zohran Mamdani’s campaign represented a struggle for basic dignity and an affirmation of democratic potential. It was ceaselessly denounced by political and media elites from across the spectrum as something sinister, violent, and dangerous.
They begrudgingly supported him once it became clear that he was going to win. They never wanted to support him, they are only doing it to save face. How long did it take Jeffries to endorse him?
Fuck if I know, or care, feel free to go count the days.
We here on the left don’t worship our politicians so it may surprise you to learn we’re not heartbroken about Jeffries or Schumer saying some shit we didn’t like.
Yes, I know that you don’t care about data that does’t fit your obviously bullshit narrative. That’s like… your whole thing.
“Data that does’t fit your obviously bullshit narrative” being the number of days it took a single DNC politician to endorse Zohran Mamdani? Man, what a hill to die on.
Who is dying on a hill? I’m just pointing out that I know you don’t care about data when you find it inconvenient. Data like:
“They” this “they” that, is this also the faceless them who own the banks lol? The vast majority, everyone minus a rounding error, endorsed Mamdani and were excited by his victory in the DNC. We’re lucky to have him, like a second Bernie Sanders but not even Bernie runs on the DNC ticket outside of presidential primaries we invite him to participate in.
Who is talking about the banks? WTF are you on about?
I think you missed this part again:
It’s almost like you don’t like engaging with data that doesn’t fit your narrative. Weird, I wonder where I heard that before.
I’m a consequentialist, their reasons for supporting progress are meaningless in the face of progress.