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

[Hans Blaster]

Because what is really at risk is not society but merely anglo-Protestant culture.

Never have cared for "anglo-protestant" cultural domination. They act like the US is some sort of british colony.

 

[BCP1928]

I assume the side that complains about being told what to do by religion

Not by "religion."

are the secular progressives or those who are not religious or believe in God.

Or you can just define them out of existence.

I wasn't necessarily meaning just religion as opposed to non religion.

Good.

The divide and polarisation where each side sees the other as a threat and bad for society can also happen in politics and there can be more than two opposing sides like Left and Right or Conservative and Progressives.

There can be a number of groups like tribes where each thinks the other is wrong. Like at the culture wars where we have different identity and ideological groups pitted against each other.

Its interesting that you keep targeting certain groups as the only bad ones like men and religion. Its never other identity groups like women, non religion or political ideology groups like Marxist, Communists, Feminists, Humanist, Wokist ect.

Because I don't consider them a threat to Constitutional government.

Why is it only these groups you single out as the bad one. I thought all were sinners. It sounds like this is acting more like the Pharisees wanting to throw stones at certain groups. When they have a beam in their own eyes.

Not at the groups, only at their public policy agenda.

Most progressives are not even religious.

Not a chance. You'll just have to define them as non religious because they are progressives.

Do it what way. I am talking about how under a pluralistic society we have to allow all beliefs and political views even if they conflict. Its the only way under a free society.

Well in reality they are and I think everyone knows that and acts like they are moral precepts. A State cannot detach itself from the moral aspects of the policies and the laws they implement.

They mave have started out as moral precepts but the state has no power to make a moral judgement, only a legal one.

Why do you think people protest and get angry and lobby the State. Why do you think all these social groups have rising like Me Too and BLM or the Environmental activists or proests against Isreal and rallying for Palestine. Of course its all based on morals.

They were all protesting the actions of the state, not its ideology.

When the State chnages Marriage laws, abortion law, alcohol and gambling laws, family laws, welfare policies, workplace laws re descrimination, Identity policy and law protections, policies on what is taught in education ect ect ect.

You think all of that is anti-Christian?

Look at all the chaos over immigration policy and laws. People are willing to use violence to stop what they think is unjust and immoral laws.

Injustice is what they are protesting. The immorality of it is for the clergy who also oppose it to consider..

What does this mean for Christians living within a sinful world. The bible says they cannot be of this world and live by its ideology. We have to live Gods will on earth as it is in heaven. Which often contradicts with the world.

Yes we must be on Gods side but what does that entail. That we live Gods will and not sin. Christ forgave the adulterous women but said sin no more. So we try to live like Christ. Help the poor and disadvantaged and proclaiming the gospel.

Christ said the world will hate Christians for standing with Him.

And somebody later added, "Be careful they don't hate Him because of Christians."

So if we are truely living as Christ then Christ church will be hated by the world. But it will also be a light in the darkness for those searching and open to God.

It doesn't matter. My point was there is a significant polarisation and culture war going on. Which is primarily divided along Left and Right, and Conservate/Christian and Progressive/secular.

In fact there are a number of divides. On the world scale its become more polarised between democratic and free nations as opposed to the rising anti democratic powers.

Which Trump is trying to turn the US into, at the behest of his Christian Nationalist base.

But this anti democratic influence is infiltrating western nations to compound the already growing polarisations between Left and Right. Hense we see the rising of socialist and Marxist leaning politicians like OAC and now a socialist Mayor.

AOC is a devout Christian and Mandami is a Shia Muslim with a version of the Ten Commandments tougher and more specific than yours.

Its a mess.

 

[stevevw]

No one. It evolves naturally.

I think this is unreal. We know theres a continual power struggle with groups maneuvering to influence and socially engineer society to how they want it ordered. Even the church does this lol.

Especially in modern times with legacy media and social media. Even small groups can have a major influence of the direct of polcies and society. Its a bit like sales and marketing. Manipulating people to come around to certain ideas.

The whole 'Long March through the Institutions was a socially engineered revolution to undermine and change the social order. Look what happened when it spilt into mainstream society around early 2000's. That was not natural. That was socially engineered through media, and ideologies pushed within institutions and government agencies.

The US absolutely was not. I can't say about the other nations, and frankly I don't care.

So what were the social norms based on during most of the 20th century. What was the basis for say the anti abortion laws or the marriage laws before they changed around the 1960's and 70's. Coincidently the same time soon after the cultural revolutions that formed the catalyst for those changes that were held by society for generations.

But what was the basis for these social norms and laws.

You don't have to have a State sanctioned religion to have religious foundation to social norms and laws. The west came out of the same empire that birth Christianity as opposed to Islam or Hinduism. This is our heritage.

Western nations are more Christian that Muslim, Hindu or other religions. We draw upon Christian social norms and not Islam or pagan or no belief at all.

Simple reality is beyond your comprehension? Perhaps you should stick to Aussie politics. Your understanding of US politics and history is extremely poor.

My understanding of humans is far superior to yours. You may know physics and I give you that credit. But I know the behavioural sciences.

The US government does not regulate belief and nothing in that paragraph even argues counter to that.

Yes it does. You just don't understand it. If laws and policies are underpinned by morals. They they are also underpinned by beliefs because morality is a belief. Comes from a philosophical belief.

So the State has to make a moral and belief determination about the polcies they allow or don't allow. To allow abortion is a moral and belief position. To make laws on any social isse involves a moral and belief determination.

When the State says that a religious or any group pray or protest in certain places due to protecting a polciy they have allowed which relates to a moral or belief issue. They are taking a moral and belief position against those they deny and siding with those with the opposing moral and belief position.

Like I said its unreal to have two or more opposing moral and belief systems with equal status at the same time in the same society. One will be denied over the other an dwhne the State sides with one side they are taking a moral and belief position over another. The State cannot govern with a moral and belief position. If its not for God then its against Him.

To use your example of abortion, changing the legal status one direction or the other does not change the *beliefs* people have about it. There were major changes a couple years ago and my belief didn't change.

But each timer it does change it is declaring one moral and belief position about abortion is it not. If the State is anti abortion then its denying the beliefs and morals of pro abortionist and choice. If it makes abortions legal then its sideing against the belief that abortion is wrong. It cannot take a neutral position.

No wonder you think it is a strange mix, you are mixing things up in your head.

Where else are you going to mix them lol. You have to so you can imagine the scenario. Its like saying Catholics and Communist is a strange mix.

It is still back and forth between some stream or strength of left and of right.

Yes of course, thats obvious in that the government changes between the Left and the Right of politics. I am saying its become more polarised so that when there is a change from Left to Right its far more dramatic.

Far more potentially damaging because if the differences are so polarised then they are major differences in polcies that have major effects. We are seeing this played out with the rising political violence.

If the Left is correct then we went from sleepy Joe to Hitler overnight and now democracy and the lives of many are under threat and we are entering Fascism.

If the Right is correct the US has been saved from an era of identity politics and all the chaos it caused.

So its not just a little swing back and forth like in the past. Its a major difference and thats why political tensions and violence are rising. But its not just the US as its most western nations. Look at Britain and parts of Europe. The same extreme Left and Right identity divide over issues like immigration and race and gender ect.

The Christian Right declared war on American culture a few decades ago.

Yes its been brewing for decades now since the cultural revolutions. The cultural revolutions were a reaction against the establishment which was basically the church. The Christian and other religious nationalist groups was a reaction to the counter culture revolutions.

The academic ideologues who engineered the critical theories and Woke PC was a reaction against the Christian Right and now well who knows.

It seems its the Rights turn but at the same time the Left are not giving in. It seems we have been through the back and forth struggle for decades and now its escalted into a war over political ideology with religion mixed in. With all sorts of stuff mixed in. Its a mess.

I'm not interested in your persecution complex projection. This is pathetic Steve, you are projecting your self into persecution in a country where you don't live and there is no such persecution.

So now your tripling down on denying the current situations for Christians. If this was any other group people would at least acknowledge that when they say that they are been affected that they are at least acknowledge. Your not even doing that. Just falling back on typical stereotypes and assumptions that Christians are always complaining.

You don't have to be an American to understand the culture and what is happening. To hear the experiences of people and what they are going through. Besides you often coment on my nation. Its double standards.

Looks like we have to go to some independent evidence.

Hostility Towards Christianity Increasing in U.S. and Europe, Experts Warn

Hostility Towards Christianity Increasing in U.S. and Europe, Experts Warn

Experts are warning of rising anti-Christian hostility - not just abroad, but at home in the U.S. Arielle Del Turco, director of the Center for Religious Libert

washingtonstand.com

Charlie Kirk’s Killing Has Left Other Political Influencers Reeling

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/14/business/media/charlie-kirk-political-influencers-content-creators.html

Here in the US we have entered a month-long season dominated by a Christian religious claim. That isn't anti-Christian persecution. Not in the slightest.

Give me a break, you sound like a politician.

 

[Hans Blaster]

[Note to other readers: Yeah, this doesn't have anything to do with Mamdani or mayors, but it is absolutely about the moral panic centered in the OP. I'm going to break my response to this extensive list of errors into one on culture and one on politics. Scroll past if you're looking for socialist mayor content. Cheers.]

I think this is unreal. We know theres a continual power struggle with groups maneuvering to influence and socially engineer society to how they want it ordered. Even the church does this lol.

Influence and control are different things, Steve. You wanted to know who "controls" society. I gave the only answer that makes sense: No one. This is because no one person or group "controls" society, certainly not the government. Societies evolve under a wide variety of influences. When authoritarians *try* to control societies, their efforts break eventually. Now lets look at some other ways you were wrong about this:

Especially in modern times with legacy media and social media. Even small groups can have a major influence of the direct of polcies and society. Its a bit like sales and marketing. Manipulating people to come around to certain ideas.

There are popular movements, fads, celebrities, influencers (old style and new), propagandists, advertisers, etc. They all "influence" society, but they do not "control" it.

The whole 'Long March through the Institutions was a socially engineered revolution to undermine and change the social order. Look what happened when it spilt into mainstream society around early 2000's. That was not natural. That was socially engineered through media, and ideologies pushed within institutions and government agencies.

What are you talking about?!?

On to social norms...

So what were the social norms based on during most of the 20th century.

They kind of change a lot, and not just the parts that are freaking you out in the last half of the century, so the only short answer I can give is: various things that changed.

What was the basis for say the anti abortion laws or the marriage laws before they changed around the 1960's and 70's.

Assumptions that abortions were mostly had by sexually promiscuous unmarried young women. (That and "baby killing" were the two things they tried to sell us on in church in the 80s.)

Coincidently the same time soon after the cultural revolutions that formed the catalyst for those changes that were held by society for generations.

[First "long march", now "cultural revolution", do you live to close to China down under where you see all "bad thing" as some how "Maoist"? Weird.] I don't know why you keep labeling women's liberation as "revolutions", 'tis very odd. That liberation is from bad husbands and the "tut tut" clucking of the town scolds. It is critical that the earlier decision on access to birth control products is based on a right to privacy in ones life.'

As for what was "held by society for generations" I would suggest reading a history on the topic (birth control/abortion) than just assumming that "society" was universally condemnatory until some magic "revolution" came.

But what was the basis for these social norms and laws.

Social norms and laws are very much not the same thing.

You don't have to have a State sanctioned religion to have religious foundation to social norms and laws. The west came out of the same empire that birth Christianity as opposed to Islam or Hinduism. This is our heritage.

So many possible things to respond here. Can't make up my mind...

There is "Christianity is just a variant of the non-Western religion of Judaism ." or "When the Christians got control of Rome it fell", but I think I'll go with:

Much of the best stuff "the West" has came from pre-Christian Rome and Greece or was revived from pre-Christian Rome and Greece during the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

You can find the same moralizing about sex and family from various non-Christian Classical writers and philosophies. Even the stuff you want to focus on has non-Christian antecedents. The rest is just which god you worship, and I don't care.

Western nations are more Christian that Muslim, Hindu or other religions. We draw upon Christian social norms and not Islam or pagan or no belief at all.

I'm not concerned about "the west" (unless you're talking hemispheres, then, like Jim Morrison wrote "the west is the best, baby".) only about discussing the US. I don't need to waste my time building meta-narratives that span so many different societies. You realize there are more actual atheists in the US than Muslims and Hindus combined, right, right?

My understanding of humans is far superior to yours. You may know physics and I give you that credit. But I know the behavioural sciences.

In what way do you know "behavioral sciences"? I've never seen evidence of this and behavioral science isn't relevant to our topic as we are discussing history and political science which don't fall in that grouping.

Yes it does. You just don't understand it.

I don't how you can say I don't understand when you are clearly wrong. Unlike you, I live in the land regulated by the US government, and I can say unequivocally that the US government does not regulate my beliefs. I get to decide those for myself.

If laws and policies are underpinned by morals.

They aren't.

They they are also underpinned by beliefs because morality is a belief. Comes from a philosophical belief.

Morality is subjective, but the government is not in control of it or controlled by it.

So the State has to make a moral and belief determination about the polcies they allow or don't allow.

But they don't. The State is not an entities with moral opinions because it is not alive. It's just a big bag of laws, people trying to enforce the laws, and other people making the laws.

To allow abortion is a moral and belief position. To make laws on any social isse involves a moral and belief determination.

This is falsified by the two principle abortion decisions in the US Supreme Court in 1973 and 2023. The 1973 decision put the right of decision on the pregnant woman based on her personal privacy during the period when the fetus was not viable to live outside the uterus -- overriding the power of the individual states to have restrictions beyond those. The 2023 decision was that the states had the power to regulate abortion since women were free to exercise their privacy rights to abortion by going to other states. This is a legal decision based on personal rights versus devolution of powers to states (federalism) and as it has in both eras flipped from and then back to "states rights" in a manner roughly consistent with other rulings of the period.

When the State says that a religious or any group pray or protest in certain places due to protecting a polciy they have allowed which relates to a moral or belief issue. They are taking a moral and belief position against those they deny and siding with those with the opposing moral and belief position.

I believe you are alluding to the clinic protection law. The right to protest abortion clinics is not taken away, but the protestors are prohibited from interfering with the rights of the patients to enter. Are you not aware of the "flying fist" analogy for the competition of individual rights. The short version goes like this: "my right to thrust my fist ends at your face".

Like I said its unreal to have two or more opposing moral and belief systems with equal status at the same time in the same society.

Two? We've got more than two and all have the same legal status.

I don't think you appreciate how diverse in morality, belief, religion, lifestyle, etc., the US has always been. We had radical abolitionists and slavedrivers; free-love communes and local theocracies; isolated communities with their own language and neighborhoon "melting pots" and so many more and I'm only talking about the 1840s and 50s.

One will be denied over the other an dwhne the State sides with one side they are taking a moral and belief position over another. The State cannot govern with a moral and belief position.

It sure can. (I assume you meant "without".)

If its not for God then its against Him.

This is the problem with your binary thinking. You speak as if there only two sides when there are many just as there are many gods worshiped by the people. This is why the best policy is religious neutrality in government. We try to keep it that way, though there are some...

I stop here as the rest is even more political.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Influence and control are different things, Steve. You wanted to know who "controls" society. I gave the only answer that makes sense: No one. This is because no one person or group "controls" society, certainly not the government. Societies evolve under a wide variety of influences. When authoritarians *try* to control societies, their efforts break eventually.

On the flip side, the assumption that someone must be in control (despite the lack of viable visible suspects) leads straight into conspiracy theory territory.

 

[another_lost_guy]

No one. It evolves naturally.

The US absolutely was not. I can't say about the other nations, and frankly I don't care.

Simple reality is beyond your comprehension? Perhaps you should stick to Aussie politics. Your understanding of US politics and history is extremely poor.

The US government does not regulate belief and nothing in that paragraph even argues counter to that. To use your example of abortion, changing the legal status one direction or the other does not change the *beliefs* people have about it. There were major changes a couple years ago and my belief didn't change.

No wonder you think it is a strange mix, you are mixing things up in your head.

It is still back and forth between some stream or strength of left and of right.

The Christian Right declared war on American culture a few decades ago.

I'm not interested in your persecution complex projection. This is pathetic Steve, you are projecting your self into persecution in a country where you don't live and there is no such persecution. Here in the US we have entered a month-long season dominated by a Christian religious claim. That isn't anti-Christian persecution. Not in the slightest.

Too bad.

Dude stop being so condescending. It is 100% unearned.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But each timer it does change it is declaring one moral and belief position about abortion is it not. If the State is anti abortion then its denying the beliefs and morals of pro abortionist and choice. If it makes abortions legal then its sideing against the belief that abortion is wrong.

No, as I explained in the previous post it was a shift between an "individual rights" position by SCOTUS in the 60s-70s as it did for many other things and a "states rights" position which is common in rulings from the current court (at least when the requesting state is a "red" one. The court is nothing if not partisan in favor of the GOP.)

It cannot take a neutral position.

Of course it can. One could reasonably argue that the old "Roe" status was morally neutral leaving it up to individuals to decide for themselves if abortion was moral or not. (We could also make an argument that the Federal government is not neutral taking no position to either direction and leaving it to the state.) I leave these arguments to others, but leave them as counters to your notion that government is inherently built on morality and "belief".

Where else are you going to mix them lol. You have to so you can imagine the scenario. Its like saying Catholics and Communist is a strange mix.

I thought there were Catholic Communists in Central America back in the day.

Yes of course, thats obvious in that the government changes between the Left and the Right of politics. I am saying its become more polarised so that when there is a change from Left to Right its far more dramatic.

Far more potentially damaging because if the differences are so polarised then they are major differences in polcies that have major effects.

To the extent it is, it is largely driven by primary elections purifying candidates, gerrymandering, and highly partisan media.

(Not sure what this has to do with your "government has morals and enforces belief" notion.)

We are seeing this played out with the rising political violence.

If the Left is correct then we went from sleepy Joe to Hitler overnight and now democracy and the lives of many are under threat and we are entering Fascism.

If the Right is correct the US has been saved from an era of identity politics and all the chaos it caused.

So its not just a little swing back and forth like in the past. Its a major difference and thats why political tensions and violence are rising. But its not just the US as its most western nations. Look at Britain and parts of Europe. The same extreme Left and Right identity divide over issues like immigration and race and gender ect.

None of this is new:

The Paranoid Style in American Politics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Still not the most politically violent period in my life time:

Political violence in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now we get to the Christian right's seemingly endless war on American culture...

Yes its been brewing for decades now since the cultural revolutions.

We know -- the Christian right is anti-modernity.

The cultural revolutions were a reaction against the establishment which was basically the church.

What?!? No.

The "establishment" was most certainly not "the church", especially if you are dating it to these cultural "revolutions" (like feminsm, not sure what the other ones are supposed to be).

In the era you are discussing, about 50-60 years ago, there was no such thing as "the church" in the US. Christians were broken in to at least three primary factions, the English mainline churches, the Evangelical churches, and the Catholic Church, plus smaller groups. They didn't really get along all that well. None could be called "the establishment".

The Christian and other religious nationalist groups was a reaction to the counter culture revolutions.

No they already existed.

The academic ideologues who engineered the critical theories and Woke PC was a reaction against the Christian Right and now well who knows.

Academics as your boogymen? Seriously, they have no power or significant influence.

It seems its the Rights turn but at the same time the Left are not giving in. It seems we have been through the back and forth struggle for decades and now its escalted into a war over political ideology with religion mixed in. With all sorts of stuff mixed in. Its a mess.

Your thinking is a mess. I'm not sure what you've wound yourself into here.

So now your tripling down on denying the current situations for Christians.

I'll quintuple down if needed.. The persecution you mention is in your head.

If this was any other group people would at least acknowledge that when they say that they are been affected that they are at least acknowledge. Your not even doing that.

Why should I acknowledge these baseless claims? They are no different that cries of religious persecution by Shia in Iran, Hindus in India, Catholics in Poland, Jews in Israel, etc. It just isn't credible.

Just falling back on typical stereotypes and assumptions that Christians are always complaining.

There is a sub-set of US Christians that seem to do little else but complain that they are persecuted because they don't get there way on everything. You seem intent on joining them.

You don't have to be an American to understand the culture and what is happening. To hear the experiences of people and what they are going through. Besides you often coment on my nation. Its double standards.

You don't, but your positions and citations on American politics and culture are dominated by right-wing publications without hint of

Looks like we have to go to some independent evidence.

Hostility Towards Christianity Increasing in U.S. and Europe, Experts Warn

Hostility Towards Christianity Increasing in U.S. and Europe, Experts Warn

Experts are warning of rising anti-Christian hostility - not just abroad, but at home in the U.S. Arielle Del Turco, director of the Center for Religious Libert

washingtonstand.com

This is the branded blog of the Family Research Council, a key Christian Right organization. Their output is not only not "independent", it is strongly biased toward the "persecution narrative". Case in point, the first reference you give below...

Charlie Kirk’s Killing Has Left Other Political Influencers Reeling
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/14/business/media/charlie-kirk-political-influencers-content-creators.html \

I'm sorry, but that weird week or so after his killing where everyone was freaking out with all kinds of nonsense that wan't the case, is not a good place to go looking for reasoned discussion on anything near this topic.

Give me a break, you sound like a politician.

Given that the politicians in my new party are accused of talking like academics, thanks!

 

[another_lost_guy]

There is a sub-set of US Christians that seem to do little else but complain that they are persecuted because they don't get there way on everything. You seem intent on joining them.

*Their

(don't worry I'm not here to engage with the conversation, I am only here to see the intellectual himself at work)

 

[BCP1928]

One thing Steve has forgotten about the counterculture revolution is that it was fueled by many factors besides sex, including the Civil Rights movement and restistance to a Godless war in Southeast Asia.

 

[another_lost_guy]

One thing Steve has forgotten about the counterculture revolution is that it was fueled by many factors besides sex, including the Civil Rights movement and restistance to a Godless war in Southeast Asia.

You know what, I take it back. I'll step into the ring. Why do both of you insist on speaking about him in third person? He's in the thread with you!

 

[BCP1928]

You know what, I take it back. I'll step into the ring. Why do both of you insist on speaking about him in third person? He's in the thread with you!

He rarely actually pays much attention to what other people tell him. We've been arguing about this same issue in its different aspects for several years, enjoy it and know how much we can get away with jabbing each other.

 

[another_lost_guy]

He rarely actually pays much attention to what other people tell him. We've been arguing about this same issue in its different aspects for several years, enjoy it and know how much we can get away with jabbing each other.

This is nothing to brag about.

 

[BCP1928]

This is nothing to brag about.

Why not? What do you come here for?

 

[another_lost_guy]

Why not? What do you come here for?

I can tell you that I don't come here to enjoy jabbing. There are other places on the internet for that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You know what, I take it back. I'll step into the ring. Why do both of you insist on speaking about him in third person? He's in the thread with you!

Because that's how you speak of someone whom you aren't addressing directly. When you are not quoting someone's post you are not directly speaking to them, particularly when you *are* directly talking to someone else.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I can tell you that I don't come here to enjoy jabbing. There are other places on the internet for that.

Could've fooled me.

 

[another_lost_guy]

Because that's how you speak of someone whom you aren't addressing directly. When you are not quoting someone's post you are not directly speaking to them, particularly when you *are* directly talking to someone else.

Yes, glad we both understand what speaking in third person is. But I can't say I understand why there's a need for you to speak in third person about someone else when the person is in the thread, able to be interacted with in first person

 

[FireDragon76]

Breaking down the cultural norms of American society (socialism taboos out the window) into something new, is the mark of a new beginning. With Zohran being a Shia, and his Syrian-American wife most likely being a Sunni, it marks another new beginning, where the New York Muslim population is sure to skyrocket. Both Sunni and Shia united, side by side... I know if I was a Muslim of any brand, considering migration, I would seriously consider New York city. And so we can expect a real transformation to take place.

What better place to bring the Muslim world together than in the United States - where modern-day multiculturalism is rooted. Perhaps a good place for a global caliphate even. Who knows!

For Muslims like Mamdani, Islam is a cultural heritage more than a controlling ideology (plus, Shia Islam actually rejects the idea of the Caliphate in the first place).

Shia theology has historically lended itself to political quietism. What you see in modern Iran is more the result of Iranian nationalism more broadly. It just happened that religious clerics lead the Iranian revolution due to the power dynamics of Iranian society (you either had western and British puppets like the Shah, or you had a religious establishment voicing the grievances of a population disgusted by the decadence and repression).

 

[FireDragon76]

Goodness, what an offensively written article. "Screeching", "hysterical", "sobbing", "dopy"....

How about this: When you vote in a primary, especially in states where your party has a large majority, carefully research the history and political views of all the candidates and make sure you approve of the one you're voting for. Good advice, and we don't have to insult anyone.

Alot of younger Democrats are just not happy at all with the older leadership in the party that made neoliberalism their north star. Sanders or Mamdani represent a rejection of the "Reagan Consensus" that was quietly vouchsafed by Clinton and Obama.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Alot of younger Democrats are just not happy at all with the older leadership in the party that made neoliberalism their north star. Sanders or Mamdani represent a rejection of the "Reagan Consensus" that was quietly vouchsafed by Clinton and Obama.

I mean, I don't want to have to work hard for things either. I want to play video games, and find shortcuts in life, and have it easy. But nobody will let me have that.

If I were to vote for Sanders or Mamdani types, would I be on my way to achieving that?