The Mamdani Model: More Socialist Mayors to ComeBeware! The DSA will attempt to repeat Mamdani’s success in other Democrat strongholds.

[Gene2memE]

That is the most biased chart I've ever seen. Where's Uruguay, and all the other South American countries?

Do you not understand the meaning of the term 'OECD nations'?

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's normal for people with similar customs, languages, cultures and religions to flock together, like birds. If you get too many in one area, assimilation slows, or fails.

So what. Your post has nothing to do with the Mayor of NYC not having any powers over who does or does not get into the USA.

 

[Gene2memE]

Where is China?

China isn't part of the OECD.

It also depends on how you define 'Child poverty'.

Officially, the child poverty rate is at 0.1% as of 2022. That's based on the international standard (adjusted for PPP) of living in a household that makes at least $2.15 per day (in 2017) dollars.

But, that's also an official Chinese statistic (so potentially dubious) and is also the defined poverty rate for 'low income' countries. Which you can argue that China no longer is.

If you update it for 'lower middle income' ($3.65 per day in 2017 dollars) or 'upper middle income' ($6.85 per day), then the number goes up considerably. The China Household Income Project estimated the share of children living in income poor households (at the $3.65 threshold) was 6.3%. The UNDESA estimate for 2019 was between 5.3% and 7.8% of Chinese children were living in income poor households.

If you go to a broader stat, like "multidimensional poverty" - which covers more than just income, but stuff like development milestones, educational attainment, living standards and access to healthcare - then the estimates for childhood poverty are between 6% at the low end to 18% at the high end.

For context, estimates of childhood multidimensional poverty for the US range from 10% at the low end to 22% at the high end.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Do you not understand the meaning of the term 'OECD nations'?

Do you think that it matters in the reality of the world, which nations participate in that? The comment was made that socialistic economies are better for the poor than capitalist ones, while excluding a huge number of countries in the data set. That's not useful.

 

[Landon Caeli]

So what. Your post has nothing to do with the Mayor of NYC not having any powers over who does or does not get into the USA.

He doesn't need those powers. Immigrants come all the time. Now I predict the Muslim ones will head to New York, because the mayor is a Muslim.

...Watch as mosques start popping up like weeds.

 

[Hans Blaster]

He doesn't need those powers. Immigrants come all the time. Now I predict the Muslim ones will head to New York, because the mayor is a Muslim.

...Watch as mosques start popping up like weeds.

No different than churches.

 

[Landon Caeli]

No different than churches.

You want more of both, I knew it. You're going to be super happy.

 

[Gene2memE]

Do you think that it matters in the reality of the world, which nations participate in that?

No, but it matters for that graph. It's measuring poverty rates between OECD peers. That's only capable because they have an agreement that ensures there is data sharing on a like for like basis.

The comment was made that socialistic economies are better for the poor than capitalist ones, while excluding a huge number of countries in the data set. That's not useful.

No, the comment was that "democratic socialist" countries populate the low end of child poverty rates.

Democratic socialist is a subset of socalist countries.

They - generally speaking - combine democratic representative governments with substantial state involvement in the economy with universal social safety nets. Typical features include state-owned monopoly corporations which act according to a charter rather than purely financial considerations, some form of state-led economic planning and strong regulatory controls, particularly around labour.

Some may seek socialist reformation of the economy, while others are more concerned with market socialism as a way to curb the 'race to the bottom' excesses of unregulated capitalism. Generally that's a social democracy vs democratic socialism distinction, but time and popular usage has blurred those lines.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

"Many informed Democrats are aware of this slick maneuvering and are not happy about it. You might recall the serpentine James Carville screeching about lifetime socialist Bernie Sanders during the 2016 Democratic Party Primary: “But Bernie’s not a Democrat!” No, Bernie never was. The Senate “Independent” way back in 1980 had served as a formal presidential elector to the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. Bernie in 2016 merely adopted the Democrat label to try to get himself elected president. And many of the dupes that comprise the Democrat rank and file willingly pulled the lever for him, giving him an astonishing 13 million primary votes that year, not far behind Hillary Clinton. "

The Mamdani Model: More Socialist Mayors to Come – The American Spectator | USA News and Politics

I’ve written countless times in recent years about the model established by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) to get its members elected to office. It’s a brilliantly cunning strategy that goes like this: First, the DSA identifies a Democrat-safe, if not guaranteed, district. These are...

spectator.org

Not your father's Democratic Party for sure!

Slick? I hardly think so. There are too many capitalists in love with power and money.
The idea that any socialist can fundamentally change the American economic framework is simply impossible. This country is built on capitalism, and its laws, culture, and massive financial markets are designed to protect private property and individual profit above all else. Any attempt to replace this system with socialist ideals is a non-starter and will inevitably fail, as the power of capital and the deep-seated protection of private ownership cannot be overcome.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You want more of both, I knew it. You're going to be super happy.

I would be happy with none of either, I just refuse your notion that mosques are somehow problematic, but churches are just peachy keen.

 

[Landon Caeli]

No, but it matters for that graph. It's measuring poverty rates between OECD peers. That's only capable because they have an agreement that ensures there is data sharing on a like for like basis.



No, the comment was that "democratic socialist" countries populate the low end of child poverty rates.

Democratic socialist is a subset of socalist countries.

They - generally speaking - combine democratic representative governments with substantial state involvement in the economy with universal social safety nets. Typical features include state-owned monopoly corporations which act according to a charter rather than purely financial considerations, some form of state-led economic planning and strong regulatory controls, particularly around labour.

Some may seek socialist reformation of the economy, while others are more concerned with market socialism as a way to curb the 'race to the bottom' excesses of unregulated capitalism. Generally that's a social democracy vs democratic socialism distinction, but time and popular usage has blurred those lines.

And so how do you know whether or not only certain countries were invited into the OECD data set to begin with, in order to produce a desired outcome? Sorry, but there's not so many countries in the world that it couldn't have been done to produce a true, realistic picture, rather than a selective one.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I would be happy with none of either, I just refuse your notion that mosques are somehow problematic, but churches are just peachy keen.

If they're one in the same, why aren't you complaining about the additions? It's not like the churches are going away because the mosques are going up. What's happening is that the total numbers are increasing! I would have thought that you would be opposed to that.

...You're losing ground here! Surely you see the implications.

 

[BCP1928]

It's normal for people with similar customs, languages, cultures and religions to flock together, like birds. If you get too many in one area, assimilation slows, or fails.

You think so? So what? As long as they remain loyal to the Constitution and the government derived from it then nothing else matters very much.

 

[BCP1928]

If they're one in the same, why aren't you complaining about the additions? It's not like the churches are going away because the mosques are going up. What's happening is that the total numbers are increasing! I would have thought that you would be opposed to that.

Why? It's a sign that the !st amendment is still alive and well.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Why? It's a sign that the !st amendment is still alive and well.

Wow! I never knew the left was so supportive of religious expansion in the U.S.

...It makes no logical sense! When things are illogical, it makes me think there is either delusion or evil at play. So I don't know what's going on here, but I'm interested in finding out.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Wow! I never knew the left was so supportive of religious expansion in the U.S.

We are into freedom and diversity, just like the founders who set it up that way.

 

[Landon Caeli]

We are into freedom and diversity, just like the founders who set it up that way.

Well so are we. But you do realize Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson disagreed in similar ways to how you and I seem to disagree on Mamdani. Jefferson saught a slower more controlled immigration policy than Hamilton, to protect the identity of American culture, and I don't think Mamdani is fully assimilated enough into American culture to begin with, considering he's only been here for 17 years. I feel like he's unpredictable, and was elected based on public drunkenness on the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. I feel like they wanted a Palestinian, because that was a hot topic at the time, and Mamdani was the closest they could get.

His economic policy is going to be a disaster, and I think he's going to attract a huge foreign culture to America's "big apple" that's going to clash with our own culture, and cause long term problems in the future.

...So while I'm not against diversity, I'm openly protective over it, just like some of our founders were.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well so are we. But you do realize Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson disagreed in similar ways to how you and I seem to disagree on Mamdani. Jefferson saught a slower more controlled immigration policy

You seem to have changed horses midstream. We were talking about religious diversity. Not immigration or 'public drunkenness' on Gaza.

The Jefferson on my side is this one:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

 

[BCP1928]

Well so are we. But you do realize Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson disagreed in similar ways to how you and I seem to disagree on Mamdani. Jefferson saught a slower more controlled immigration policy than Hamilton, to protect the identity of American culture, and I don't think Mamdani is fully assimilated enough into American culture to begin with, considering he's only been here for 17 years. I feel like he's unpredictable, and was elected based on public drunkenness on the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. I feel like they wanted a Palestinian, because that was a hot topic at the time, and Mamdani was the closest they could get.

His economic policy is going to be a disaster, and I think he's going to attract a huge foreign culture to America's "big apple" that's going to clash with our own culture, and cause long term problems in the future.

...So while I'm not against diversity, I'm openly protective over it, just like some of our founders were.

Evidently you reserve the right to yourself to determine what "American culture' is so you are going to have to deal with more people who haven't "assimilated" than just Muslims--including many of us native born citizens.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

His economic policy is going to be a disaster, and I think he's going to attract a huge foreign culture to America's "big apple" that's going to clash with our own culture, and cause long term problems in the future.

Oh no… what would NYC look like with a huge influx of foreign immigrants?!1!