What is the problem they have with Zo... nevermind...
he's not a white moron. That explains a lot.
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
715 points (98.8% liked)
politics
24776 readers
2763 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Abstract policies are a notoriously poor way of polling for voting patterns.
But it seems most people don't have a strong opinion on our New York boy, which is honestly the best we could ask for at this junction. May ~~Zohran the DESTROYER'S enemies be DESTROYED~~ Mamdani succeed and, for our sakes if not necessarily his, go on to national politics after. Gods know we need him.
The weird part is it shouldn't be, it shows how enthralled every is by the sports team 'us and them' dynamic that they'd rather vote for policies they hate than for someone not on their team.
I think it speaks more to how shallow policy questions tend to be.
The poll says 46% of Republicans and 42% of Democrats outside of New York don't have an opinion on a guy running to be Mayor of New York.
Clickbaitey article headline implies not having an opinion on a politician running for mayor in another city means the same as being unfavorable towards that politician. Yes he has a low favorable number but a massive "no opinion" number because should people give a shit about a politician in another city?
New Yorkers may like to to think they're the center of the world, but shockingly over 40% of people outside of New York probably don't know who this guy is because why should they?
Really. I've read quite a bit about him, and I've never even been in North America.
But I also try to stay informed, and our news are infested with US culture war bullshit.
Well you're in a politics community on lemmy, so you're going to hear about all of the leftist populists constantly. But I don't think lemmy is an extremely popular web forum.
So their dislike of him is just because he isn't white.
Probably also a lot of propaganda.
You get told by every mainstream news everywhere on social media that this is an “evil socialist”.
It’s been a trend for atleast the past 30 years that policy wise the average US voter has been way further to the left than the average party they vote for.
Yep. The same thing happened to Bernie in the 2016 primary. He polled better than Trump amongst Republicans in some polls right up until people were told whose policies they were, and then many of those same people said that they would vote against him.
Exactly, the wording is extremely important when talking about policies. People like "helping the poor", but people hate "welfare", because that's communism or something.
Also, the term "welfare" has had so much work done on it over the decades so that it is so racially coded at this point. I bet anything that is measurable in focus groups. A lot of whites tend to not know/conveniently forget that the largest group of welfare recipients are....white.
There probably are ad-men who pride themselves on being able to make any word filthy, or make people love even the filthiest of things. The only obstacle is in who has the most money to spend on the best ad-men and can hire the smartest sociopaths. Checkmate socialists!
make people love even the filthiest of things
This is why Karl Rove's nickname was "turd blossom".
load more comments
(6 replies)
Having the term "socialist" in his description "Democrat socialist of america" is gonna turn off a lot of people. It's a dirty word in the US.
I want mandatory vacations, nationalization of the shorelines, nationalization of all oil reserves, if some companies drills - they need to be paying tax on what they extract.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well that and he's for socialist policies. You see Americans want socialist policies, they just need to get them rebranded first so they don't have socialist policies.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not necessarily, the US now has a long track record of progressive policies being super popular when they're not associated with Democrats.
It's kind of dumb, because politicians don't really matter aside from their policy.
I guess that means that most of the attack ads probably had some impact and that US voters are against this guy, but can't remember why?
I swear sometimes it feels were in an disinformation dark ages. Like dehydrating on a boat in the ocean.
Lack of credible news sources. It's all entertainment now. Those in power are afraid of a well-informed electorate. However, as Americans, it's our duty to cut through the bs
There's plenty of good journalism eeking by out there, it's just buried by feeds and spam.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Policies mesn nothing without trust
Don’t need to be a certain color or gender to get the job done correctly to help the people.
This survey seems to suggest otherwise.
Many, including myself, see Trumps wins as backlash by legacy European settler descendants for to a part African man serving two terms as president.
The ghouls, sewer-dwelling demons, and subterranean goblins are all assembling their forces to defeat Mamdani.
Don't forget the bridge-residing trolls, splitter!
Yeah, thing is Democrats are on the same side of the class war as Republicans.
One thing that drives me crazy is when Progressives insist on talking about Socialism.
Talk about the policies and ignore everything else.
I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately the amount of right-wing propaganda out there will label any real challenger as being socialist whether that's Mamdani or the "radical marxist socialist commie" that was... Kamala Harris?
So progressives must decide whether they hide from the term, enabling the fearmongering, or openly embracing it to show there is nothing wrong with it.
Second to that, I feel they should be pivoting the questions not just to policy but to definitionally explain the notion of socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracies; how in reality — as in actual, realized, tangible results, not utopian fantasies — some of the happiest and most successful countries by the data are ones who embraced a properly mixed economy; that is, social democracies or the Nordic Model.
I recently had what was maybe one of my biggest wins in a conversation with a maga by explaining it this way. They're so damn confused and believe all trade and bartering, all markets, and any scale of monetary income will vanish. That big bad guv'mint isn't necessarily so bad when it's protected from outsized corporate and billionaire power and firmly in the hands Of the People.
So progressives must decide whether they hide from the term, enabling the fearmongering, or openly embracing it to show there is nothing wrong with it.
I've been wondering, what if they just ran in the opposite direction? Don't call it "state-owned industry" or "collective ownership", but instead "Hypercapitalism: every citizen is a shareholder!"
Work should provide ownership. Worker-owned co-ops should be the default form of business organization. We should write it into corporate charter law that any business over a certain number of employees must gradually transition to a worker-owned co-op. For example, maybe every company over 30 employees must transfer 2% of its equity to its employees each year. This would mean after about 35 years, the business would be majority owned by its employees. Business founders and investors can still make plenty of profit, but you prevent the accumulation of generational wealth. You prevent the formation of an aristocracy by slowly transferring the ownership of company's from their founders to their employees over time. (And obviously you have a lot of other policy details to make this work, such as not just having a flat threshold. Always have to point this out as the "umm aktually" brigade likes to confuse aspirational policy descriptions for actual legislation.)
I fully agree. Companies should belong to the people that allow I to turn a profit, and that is, well, every employee. The founders could still remain the CEOs if they do a good job and are elected to do so.
I like the idea of the transition happening slowly over several decades. Basically you found a company, and you'll be able to maintain majority control over it until you reach your retirement. You can have a vision and carry it through. You just can't create a multi generational empire that makes your children and grandchildren into newly minted aristocrats.
"This is a policy Eisenhower endorsed in 1956. Are you saying Ike was a Communist?"
I just realized Ike was our last (openly) bald President.
Or… they just completely ignore it?
If you’re going to be labeled a socialist and commie sympathizer no matter what you do, why not just run on your platform and brush off the accusations as political hubris?
load more comments
(10 replies)
I mean, if someone wants to call themselves socialist, maybe it's fine, but I think most of their discussion should be about the policies they are for, how they would work, etc., and what that would mean for everyday Americans.
Once the qons throw out that tar baby Red Scare stuff, and the target(s) start engaging with them on this, tacitly accepting the framings and the definitions that the qons have chosen? Game over. Now the target(s) are on the back foot, trying to prove they aren't the demons a lot of normies and qons have been trained to think anyone with those labels really are, and they get to wrestle the tar baby endlessly.
Instead of doing that, I suggest these people make the qons justify THEIR positions. How is it morally defensible that the likes of Taco and fElon got out their chainsaw and have already murdered hundreds of thousands of children and jeopardizes millions more in the future? As an example on the national stage.
If progressives waste tons of time defending themselves, arguing over the absurd framing and definitions and terms that the qons have spent decades sharpening, they are already losing. Their narrative should be about painting a brighter future for every American, while demanding the qons defend THEIR reprehensible actions and political platforms.
I mean haven't the likes of Chomsky and Cenk been pointing this out for decades? When polling Americans on the issues, they tend to be progressive?
That's in spite of a helluva lot of propaganda that is nonstop, 24/7, in favor of corporations, by the way...
Yes this has been a known fact for like 30 years. But somehow it feels like no one internalised it so I keep sharing examples.
Please do continue. The usual trope that "most people are cons" is common currency, nearly everywhere, even though it's false.
Just say that he wants the Epstein files released.
view more: next ›