That looks more like Jeff Coltin’s contribution to what Mandani said. Mamdani did the very politician thing and said ‘there are many ways’. Jeff is adding in the discouragement and the ‘but’ to Mamdani’s quote.

That might have something to do with it.

It’s not a change of heart on white christian nationalist policymaking, so her rhetoric means fuck all.

the question of why?

It protects their investments for them and their families. Political tidal shifts on corporate ownership of critical infrastructure like housing is unacceptable for their economy. And their electability?

they’re all people who have announced that they will retire after this term.

They are expressly the ones that can afford this action: explicitly burning goodwill to secure wealth. They’re spending currency that has no value to them.

It doesn’t even have to be backdoor dealings. It is all very front door.

I am willing to bet this was on some level retaliatory for Mamdani’s election. All these senators represent a faction that’s currently sundowning. For them, this kind of action is a message.

Schumer has zero control over his party when even the party whip pledges to defect. But he apparently refused to vote for the Democratic candidate for NYC mayor, so this is entirely expected and precedented.

She is just running circles around media establishments. Speaker Greene is going to be wild. Or at least that’s what she’s after. Every House GOPer is going to need a pivot and she will be that for them.

Thanks, though it is a username I have used variously for probably 20+ years.

One of the more interesting polls out of this was whether voters were casting in support of or against a candidate.

86% of Mamdani voters were voting out of support of their candidate.

Half of Cuomo voters were voting against another candidate. (Mamdani.)

Voting against a candidate is a losing strategy.

It’s based on users sending in reports, and positive news for the left or news critical of Israel unleashes an army of rules lawyers.

Meanwhile pundits on CNN is calling this a ‘warning lesson’. Anderson Cooper and crowd fear mongering even through victory.

My understanding the media focus is about how bad it is that this was leaked and that the leakers are bad because it hurts the state of Israel.

Which is exactly what I would expect.

You’d be looking at some early 20th century interpretations of leftism though, which is an important nuance. Lenin was a member of the Russian Social Democrats, but most people probably wouldn’t attribute his legacy to Social Democracy.

The premise is that a computer must never make a management decision. Making a program capable of management decisons already failed. The deployment and use of that program to that end is already built upon that failure.

Before reading the article: “They’re just going to start directly donating to the Heritage Foundation, aren’t they?”

After reading the article: “They’re juet going to help their local church which will then directly support the Heritage Foundation, aren’t they…”

I am guessing Monday will have more dedicated articles coming out from larger orgs. It is usually the way of these weekend events.

I did my week’s work yesterday afternoon. Today is now coffee.

keep telling yourself anarchists hate stalin because of his virtues and not because of his other characteristics.

To be clear, those weren’t the folks I was referring to in my comment. But:

if I may ask you a question - if marxism and anarchism are fundamentally enemies, as stalin himself argued, why would any anarchist support the modern day ML penchant for rehabilitating stalin’s reputation?

Absolutely welcome to ask, and I’ll give it a shot nonetheless.

I would ask the anarchist (and the modern day ML too) if they agree with this part of Stalin’s theory.

I don’t, and would venture to say a modern day ML may also disagree with Stalin in this but even also have a penchant for his rehabilitation, for other reasons.

More tangentally I think anarchism and marxism are not fundamentally enemies, (so, in disagreement with Stalin here), and would suggest they primarily diverge on the role a state plays in mediating conflicts of private and public interests.

But if I were to try and find common ground with the bit from Stalin you’re citing, just for argument’s sake, it would be that this divergence is a fundamental relationship between the two, but I’d still maintain the differences are not incompatible or irreconcileable.

But again, for the record, I was being more snarky about people who pivot from talking about how Hitler could’ve won to how Stalin could’ve lost.

Regardless I don’t think they’re lamenting Germany’s defeat.

I suspect for some folks Stalin is bad because anyone else would have let the USSR capitulate to the wehrmacht invasion.