|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 27 2025 18:59 Magic Powers wrote:
I'd love to do a poll on what's the first image that pops into people's heads when they think of a "welfare queen" in America. White? Black? Hispanic? Other?
I think we all know the overwhelming answer. TotallynotfueledbyracismTM though.
Speaking of blatant discrimination:
"Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) suggested New York Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani should be deported and denaturalized ahead of the November election. “Zohran ‘little muhammad’ Mamdani is an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York,” Ogles wrote in a Thursday post on the social platform X, appearing to invoke the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. “He needs to be DEPORTED. Which is why I am calling for him to be subject to denaturalization proceedings,” he added. The Tennessee lawmaker attached his letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi in the post, urging her to denaturalize Mamdani, citing a chapter from the U.S. Code that outlines the revocation of citizenship for individuals who willfully misrepresent or conceal material support for terrorism."
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5372203-tennessee-republican-calls-for-mamdani-to-be-denaturalized-deported/
"The New York Young Republican Club (NYYRC) has called on the federal government to strip Zohran Mamdani of his citizenship and deport him. ... On Wednesday, President Trump hit out at Mamdani, currently a New York State Assemblyman, branding him "a 100% Communist Lunatic" on his Truth Social website. ... Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, wrote on X following Mamdani's upset victory: "NYC is the clearest warning yet of what happens to a society when it fails to control migration." ... On June 2, New York City Council Member Vickie Paladino, a Republican, wrote: "Let's just talk about how insane it is to elect someone to any major office who hasn't even been a US citizen for ten years—much less a radical leftist who actually hates everything about the country and is here specifically to undermine everything we've ever been about. Deport."" https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-ask-donald-trump-revoke-zohran-mamdani-citizenship-deport-2090891
|
wow a muslim antisemite communist, they really hit the trifecta there.
Is this the Republicans biggest fear for 26/28? an actual left progressive wave (I have no clue if Mamdani is even considered progressive) as a response to Trumps re-election and the failure of the establishment Democrats to offer opposition.
|
On June 27 2025 20:28 Gorsameth wrote:
wow a muslim antisemite communist, they really hit the trifecta there.
Is this the Republicans biggest fear for 26/28? an actual left progressive wave (I have no clue if Mamdani is even considered progressive) as a response to Trumps re-election and the failure of the establishment Democrats to offer opposition.
It was bad enough that an old white man (Bernie Sanders) was a progressive and a democratic socialist, but combining left-wing ideals with being a person of color is indeed the Republicans' version of the antichrist. If Mamdani was a woman or non-binary or gay too, then I think half of conservatives would have had heart attacks.
Here are Mamdani's policy proposals / vision for NYC by the way - he's definitely a progressive and a self-proclaimed democratic socialist: https://www.zohranfornyc.com/
|
As expected (and obviously hypocritical af), many "Vote blue no matter who" Dems are hesitant to get on board with the Dem party nominee.
On Wednesday, many Democratic lawmakers and officials either denounced Mamdani or notably declined to rally around him.
The top two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, both New Yorkers, declined to endorse Mamdani even as they applauded his victory.
New York Rep. Laura Gillen, from Nassau County, called Mamdani the "absolute wrong choice for New York."
Rep. Tom Suozzi, also from Nassau County, said he had "serious concerns."
Other House Democrats from New York who hadn't backed Mamdani were mostly tight-lipped Wednesday.
Reps. Pat Ryan, Josh Riley and Ritchie Torres — who went so far as to say he wouldn't run for governor if Mamdani won — all dodged reporters.
Rep. Dan Goldman, asked if he had any thoughts on the result, told Axios: "Not right now."
Major Democratic donors — who poured tens of millions into a Super PAC for Cuomo — were having private discussions Wednesday about whether to back an independent run by Cuomo in November's general election, or rally behind unpopular incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who's also running as an independent.
www.axios.com
There's also Hochul's hesitation:
New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul directly avoided saying whether she will back Democratic mayoral primary winner and assemblyman Zohran Mamdani in the upcoming election for New York City mayor. www.newsweek.com
Adams and Cuomo are such obvious scumbags, I have a hard time believing Dems won't eventually reluctantly rally around Zohran, but I can't rule it out.
Of course, if they don't, then it exposes the "vote blue no matter who" crew as hypocrites and/or useful idiots.
|
|
|
He is the first South Asian man and Ugandan to serve in the assembly and the third Muslim person to do so.
How does that work? Uganda is not in South Asia.
|
On June 27 2025 20:45 GreenHorizons wrote:As expected (and obviously hypocritical af), many "Vote blue no matter who" Dems are hesitant to get on board with the Dem party nominee. Show nested quote +On Wednesday, many Democratic lawmakers and officials either denounced Mamdani or notably declined to rally around him.
The top two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, both New Yorkers, declined to endorse Mamdani even as they applauded his victory.
New York Rep. Laura Gillen, from Nassau County, called Mamdani the "absolute wrong choice for New York."
Rep. Tom Suozzi, also from Nassau County, said he had "serious concerns."
Other House Democrats from New York who hadn't backed Mamdani were mostly tight-lipped Wednesday.
Reps. Pat Ryan, Josh Riley and Ritchie Torres — who went so far as to say he wouldn't run for governor if Mamdani won — all dodged reporters.
Rep. Dan Goldman, asked if he had any thoughts on the result, told Axios: "Not right now."
Major Democratic donors — who poured tens of millions into a Super PAC for Cuomo — were having private discussions Wednesday about whether to back an independent run by Cuomo in November's general election, or rally behind unpopular incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who's also running as an independent. www.axios.comThere's also Hochul's hesitation: Show nested quote +New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul directly avoided saying whether she will back Democratic mayoral primary winner and assemblyman Zohran Mamdani in the upcoming election for New York City mayor. www.newsweek.comAdams and Cuomo are such obvious scumbags, I have a hard time believing Dems won't eventually reluctantly rally around Zohran, but I can't rule it out. Of course, if they don't, then it exposes the "vote blue no matter who" crew as hypocrites and/or useful idiots.
It definitely pisses me off when some Democratic leaders who push for the "vote blue no matter who" argument end up being hypocrites when their preferred "blue" candidate doesn't become the nominee. I had no problem uniting behind the moderate Democratic nominees when my preferred progressive candidates lost their primaries, but if the Democratic establishment is going to actively sabotage left-wing nominees instead of getting in line, the party will eventually split and be screwed.
|
On June 27 2025 21:01 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +He is the first South Asian man and Ugandan to serve in the assembly and the third Muslim person to do so. How does that work? Uganda is not in South Asia.
He was born in Uganda and is part-Indian-American by heritage; his father was an Indian expatriate in Uganda and his mother is Indian-American:
"Zohran Kwame Mamdani was born on October 18, 1991, in Kampala, Uganda.[13][14] His father is Mahmood Mamdani, an Indian expatriate in Uganda and postcolonial studies professor at Columbia University, of Gujarati Shia Muslim descent,[15][16] and his mother is Mira Nair, an Indian-American filmmaker of Hindu Punjabi descent and recipient of the Padma Bhushan award.[17][18][19][20][21] His father gave him the middle name Kwame, in honor of Kwame Nkrumah, the first president of Ghana.[19][22]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohran_Mamdani
|
On June 27 2025 21:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2025 20:45 GreenHorizons wrote:As expected (and obviously hypocritical af), many "Vote blue no matter who" Dems are hesitant to get on board with the Dem party nominee. On Wednesday, many Democratic lawmakers and officials either denounced Mamdani or notably declined to rally around him.
The top two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, both New Yorkers, declined to endorse Mamdani even as they applauded his victory.
New York Rep. Laura Gillen, from Nassau County, called Mamdani the "absolute wrong choice for New York."
Rep. Tom Suozzi, also from Nassau County, said he had "serious concerns."
Other House Democrats from New York who hadn't backed Mamdani were mostly tight-lipped Wednesday.
Reps. Pat Ryan, Josh Riley and Ritchie Torres — who went so far as to say he wouldn't run for governor if Mamdani won — all dodged reporters.
Rep. Dan Goldman, asked if he had any thoughts on the result, told Axios: "Not right now."
Major Democratic donors — who poured tens of millions into a Super PAC for Cuomo — were having private discussions Wednesday about whether to back an independent run by Cuomo in November's general election, or rally behind unpopular incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who's also running as an independent. www.axios.comThere's also Hochul's hesitation: New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul directly avoided saying whether she will back Democratic mayoral primary winner and assemblyman Zohran Mamdani in the upcoming election for New York City mayor. www.newsweek.comAdams and Cuomo are such obvious scumbags, I have a hard time believing Dems won't eventually reluctantly rally around Zohran, but I can't rule it out. Of course, if they don't, then it exposes the "vote blue no matter who" crew as hypocrites and/or useful idiots. It definitely pisses me off when some Democratic leaders who push for the "vote blue no matter who" argument end up being hypocrites when their preferred "blue" candidate doesn't become the nominee. I had no problem uniting behind the moderate Democratic nominees when my preferred progressive candidates lost their primaries, but if the Democratic establishment is going to actively sabotage left-wing nominees instead of getting in line, the party will eventually split and be screwed.
Would you feel like those Democratic leaders exploited you as their useful idiot?
|
Ah, it is that american thing where you identify people by their genetic heritage forever.
To me he would just be Ugandan and/or American.
|
On June 27 2025 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2025 21:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2025 20:45 GreenHorizons wrote:As expected (and obviously hypocritical af), many "Vote blue no matter who" Dems are hesitant to get on board with the Dem party nominee. On Wednesday, many Democratic lawmakers and officials either denounced Mamdani or notably declined to rally around him.
The top two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, both New Yorkers, declined to endorse Mamdani even as they applauded his victory.
New York Rep. Laura Gillen, from Nassau County, called Mamdani the "absolute wrong choice for New York."
Rep. Tom Suozzi, also from Nassau County, said he had "serious concerns."
Other House Democrats from New York who hadn't backed Mamdani were mostly tight-lipped Wednesday.
Reps. Pat Ryan, Josh Riley and Ritchie Torres — who went so far as to say he wouldn't run for governor if Mamdani won — all dodged reporters.
Rep. Dan Goldman, asked if he had any thoughts on the result, told Axios: "Not right now."
Major Democratic donors — who poured tens of millions into a Super PAC for Cuomo — were having private discussions Wednesday about whether to back an independent run by Cuomo in November's general election, or rally behind unpopular incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who's also running as an independent. www.axios.comThere's also Hochul's hesitation: New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul directly avoided saying whether she will back Democratic mayoral primary winner and assemblyman Zohran Mamdani in the upcoming election for New York City mayor. www.newsweek.comAdams and Cuomo are such obvious scumbags, I have a hard time believing Dems won't eventually reluctantly rally around Zohran, but I can't rule it out. Of course, if they don't, then it exposes the "vote blue no matter who" crew as hypocrites and/or useful idiots. It definitely pisses me off when some Democratic leaders who push for the "vote blue no matter who" argument end up being hypocrites when their preferred "blue" candidate doesn't become the nominee. I had no problem uniting behind the moderate Democratic nominees when my preferred progressive candidates lost their primaries, but if the Democratic establishment is going to actively sabotage left-wing nominees instead of getting in line, the party will eventually split and be screwed. Would you feel like those Democratic leaders exploited you as their useful idiot?
You just don't get it.
The alternative is being Trumps usefull idiot, so being the Democrats usefull idiot is still the by leagues and bounds preferable alternative.
|
On June 27 2025 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2025 21:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2025 20:45 GreenHorizons wrote:As expected (and obviously hypocritical af), many "Vote blue no matter who" Dems are hesitant to get on board with the Dem party nominee. On Wednesday, many Democratic lawmakers and officials either denounced Mamdani or notably declined to rally around him.
The top two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, both New Yorkers, declined to endorse Mamdani even as they applauded his victory.
New York Rep. Laura Gillen, from Nassau County, called Mamdani the "absolute wrong choice for New York."
Rep. Tom Suozzi, also from Nassau County, said he had "serious concerns."
Other House Democrats from New York who hadn't backed Mamdani were mostly tight-lipped Wednesday.
Reps. Pat Ryan, Josh Riley and Ritchie Torres — who went so far as to say he wouldn't run for governor if Mamdani won — all dodged reporters.
Rep. Dan Goldman, asked if he had any thoughts on the result, told Axios: "Not right now."
Major Democratic donors — who poured tens of millions into a Super PAC for Cuomo — were having private discussions Wednesday about whether to back an independent run by Cuomo in November's general election, or rally behind unpopular incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who's also running as an independent. www.axios.comThere's also Hochul's hesitation: New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul directly avoided saying whether she will back Democratic mayoral primary winner and assemblyman Zohran Mamdani in the upcoming election for New York City mayor. www.newsweek.comAdams and Cuomo are such obvious scumbags, I have a hard time believing Dems won't eventually reluctantly rally around Zohran, but I can't rule it out. Of course, if they don't, then it exposes the "vote blue no matter who" crew as hypocrites and/or useful idiots. It definitely pisses me off when some Democratic leaders who push for the "vote blue no matter who" argument end up being hypocrites when their preferred "blue" candidate doesn't become the nominee. I had no problem uniting behind the moderate Democratic nominees when my preferred progressive candidates lost their primaries, but if the Democratic establishment is going to actively sabotage left-wing nominees instead of getting in line, the party will eventually split and be screwed. Would you feel like those Democratic leaders exploited you as their useful idiot?
I united behind Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden because I actually felt they were the best nominees in their respective general elections, based on their histories and policy proposals, not because I was persuaded or tricked by some of the potential hypocrites you listed, so I don't personally feel like I was being exploited. I was always going to vote for the Democratic nominee, because I actually prescribe to the "vote blue no matter who" perspective, when the alternative is the current Republican party. (I know you and I disagree on the "lesser of two evils" approach, and the potential shifting of the Overton window, and so on.)
|
On June 27 2025 21:10 Simberto wrote:
Ah, it is that american thing where you identify people by their genetic heritage forever.
To me he would just be Ugandan and/or American.
Yeah on one hand, it's a weird technical obsession that we have; on the other hand, it's something for us to be slightly proud of too, because we're finally willing to entertain the idea of not only having old white men rule everything, so we give little shout-outs wherever we can lol.
|
On June 27 2025 21:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2025 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2025 21:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2025 20:45 GreenHorizons wrote:As expected (and obviously hypocritical af), many "Vote blue no matter who" Dems are hesitant to get on board with the Dem party nominee. On Wednesday, many Democratic lawmakers and officials either denounced Mamdani or notably declined to rally around him.
The top two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, both New Yorkers, declined to endorse Mamdani even as they applauded his victory.
New York Rep. Laura Gillen, from Nassau County, called Mamdani the "absolute wrong choice for New York."
Rep. Tom Suozzi, also from Nassau County, said he had "serious concerns."
Other House Democrats from New York who hadn't backed Mamdani were mostly tight-lipped Wednesday.
Reps. Pat Ryan, Josh Riley and Ritchie Torres — who went so far as to say he wouldn't run for governor if Mamdani won — all dodged reporters.
Rep. Dan Goldman, asked if he had any thoughts on the result, told Axios: "Not right now."
Major Democratic donors — who poured tens of millions into a Super PAC for Cuomo — were having private discussions Wednesday about whether to back an independent run by Cuomo in November's general election, or rally behind unpopular incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who's also running as an independent. www.axios.comThere's also Hochul's hesitation: New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul directly avoided saying whether she will back Democratic mayoral primary winner and assemblyman Zohran Mamdani in the upcoming election for New York City mayor. www.newsweek.comAdams and Cuomo are such obvious scumbags, I have a hard time believing Dems won't eventually reluctantly rally around Zohran, but I can't rule it out. Of course, if they don't, then it exposes the "vote blue no matter who" crew as hypocrites and/or useful idiots. It definitely pisses me off when some Democratic leaders who push for the "vote blue no matter who" argument end up being hypocrites when their preferred "blue" candidate doesn't become the nominee. I had no problem uniting behind the moderate Democratic nominees when my preferred progressive candidates lost their primaries, but if the Democratic establishment is going to actively sabotage left-wing nominees instead of getting in line, the party will eventually split and be screwed. Would you feel like those Democratic leaders exploited you as their useful idiot? I united behind Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden because I actually felt they were the best nominees in their respective general elections, based on their histories and policy proposals, not because I was persuaded or tricked by some of the potential hypocrites you listed, so I don't personally feel like I was being exploited. I was always going to vote for the Democratic nominee, because I actually prescribe to the "vote blue no matter who" perspective, when the alternative is the current Republican party. (I know you and I disagree on the "lesser of two evils" approach, and the potential shifting of the Overton window, and so on.) So they will take advantage of your sincerity again.
You'll be pissed, see their hypocrisy, then fall in line behind them again, indistinguishably from a useful idiot, but actually as someone with a sincere belief in something.
This should help you and others understand how people on the right keep apparently being useful idiots for their politicians despite their hypocrisy and ineffectualness at achieving the things that actually serve their voters and/or adhere to their principles.
|
What a useful idiot I am for supporting politicians that give me healthcare, appoint judges that protect my human rights, and actually do something to fight climate change.
Reminder that the term "useful idiot" was popularized by Soviets to refer to people in the West that promoted Leninism.
|
So... Just putting random thoughts together, perhaps the problem "we" (it's not exactly exclusive to the USA) / the USA has revolves around everything being a zero sum game. This just applies to way too many things in life and can't necessarily be changed. But if this applies to the perception of jobs, then it's only natural that people would eventually behave this way, in an us vs them mentality. And jobs being zero sum sort of runs counter to the American dream.
If their default on any matter is zero sum, then naturally persuading them of anything is an impossible task, as the only thing leading to their benefit is your detrement and why would you work against yourself.
With that, what element in life today is evidently NOT zero sum in it's eventuality.
|
On June 27 2025 21:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2025 21:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2025 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2025 21:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2025 20:45 GreenHorizons wrote:As expected (and obviously hypocritical af), many "Vote blue no matter who" Dems are hesitant to get on board with the Dem party nominee. On Wednesday, many Democratic lawmakers and officials either denounced Mamdani or notably declined to rally around him.
The top two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, both New Yorkers, declined to endorse Mamdani even as they applauded his victory.
New York Rep. Laura Gillen, from Nassau County, called Mamdani the "absolute wrong choice for New York."
Rep. Tom Suozzi, also from Nassau County, said he had "serious concerns."
Other House Democrats from New York who hadn't backed Mamdani were mostly tight-lipped Wednesday.
Reps. Pat Ryan, Josh Riley and Ritchie Torres — who went so far as to say he wouldn't run for governor if Mamdani won — all dodged reporters.
Rep. Dan Goldman, asked if he had any thoughts on the result, told Axios: "Not right now."
Major Democratic donors — who poured tens of millions into a Super PAC for Cuomo — were having private discussions Wednesday about whether to back an independent run by Cuomo in November's general election, or rally behind unpopular incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who's also running as an independent. www.axios.comThere's also Hochul's hesitation: New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul directly avoided saying whether she will back Democratic mayoral primary winner and assemblyman Zohran Mamdani in the upcoming election for New York City mayor. www.newsweek.comAdams and Cuomo are such obvious scumbags, I have a hard time believing Dems won't eventually reluctantly rally around Zohran, but I can't rule it out. Of course, if they don't, then it exposes the "vote blue no matter who" crew as hypocrites and/or useful idiots. It definitely pisses me off when some Democratic leaders who push for the "vote blue no matter who" argument end up being hypocrites when their preferred "blue" candidate doesn't become the nominee. I had no problem uniting behind the moderate Democratic nominees when my preferred progressive candidates lost their primaries, but if the Democratic establishment is going to actively sabotage left-wing nominees instead of getting in line, the party will eventually split and be screwed. Would you feel like those Democratic leaders exploited you as their useful idiot? I united behind Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden because I actually felt they were the best nominees in their respective general elections, based on their histories and policy proposals, not because I was persuaded or tricked by some of the potential hypocrites you listed, so I don't personally feel like I was being exploited. I was always going to vote for the Democratic nominee, because I actually prescribe to the "vote blue no matter who" perspective, when the alternative is the current Republican party. (I know you and I disagree on the "lesser of two evils" approach, and the potential shifting of the Overton window, and so on.) So they will take advantage of your sincerity again. You'll be pissed, see their hypocrisy, then fall in line behind them again, indistinguishably from a useful idiot, but actually as someone with a sincere belief in something. This should help you and others understand how people on the right keep apparently being useful idiots for their politicians despite their hypocrisy and ineffectualness at achieving the things that actually serve their voters and/or adhere to their principles.
I think we might be missing each other semantically on how "useful idiot" is defined. I don't consider myself a naive supporter of 2016 Clinton or 2020 Biden or 20204 Biden/Harris in their respective general elections. I don't think they took advantage of my vote, and I don't think voting for them undermined my other preferences during the 2016 and 2020 Democratic primaries. I also think that 2020 Biden was a generally successful presidency, and that 2016 Clinton and 2024's Biden or Harris would have been far more successful than Trump's presidencies. I would have been happy with all of those. Would a Sanders presidency have been even better? Maybe! But my general election votes for Clinton/Biden/Harris weren't due to some promise or belief or trusted reciprocation that they would rally behind a more progressive nominee if there ever was one in a future election.
|
On June 27 2025 10:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2025 09:24 Mohdoo wrote:On June 27 2025 09:13 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2025 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm fascinated by how big of a deal this mayor race seems to be to the entire republican party. Its like this is some kind of doomsday to them. All republican media, subreddits, all such things are absolutely laser focused on Mamdani like this is a massive deal.
Maybe NYC is more of a big deal as a political canary in the coal mine than I realize? I suppose NYC gave us our current president, lol.
I can understand why certain ideas of his are critically terrible for the ruling class, but the extent to which they are shrieking at Mamdani's success is really odd to me. I suppose NYC is the best possible model for showing ideas can work on large populations? Maybe an NYC mayor has the ability to showcase political change that is otherwise not possible?
Not really sure, but there is something very special about this race and I'm really interested to see how this develops. It is apparently still impossible for many lefties to realize that people on the right actually disagree with them. Instead of secretly "knowing" that they're right and just being stubborn to maintain whatever newly invented privilege in vogue this year. I assure you, no one is afraid that city run grocery stores, rent control, or replacing cops with social workers is going to *succeed.* Second, the reason NYC gets so much attention is twofold. One, it's the biggest city on the country and it's near a large portion of the nation's population. California is the largest state but since we're 3 hours away by time-zone relatively little of what's happening over here gets national attention. Two, NY has a disproportionate amount of news concentration. Many national news services are hosted in NYC and it's a cultural center. People around the country often know and talk about NYC because that's the type of thing a lot of conversation makers are talking about. There are even multiple right of center publications in NYC like National Review and the Manhattan Institute/City Journal. I'm not assuming fake disagreement. I'm noting the extreme interest in the race, but your description of why NYC gets so much attention makes sense. I hadn't considered the stuff about national news and it cultural center, so thank you for that. Based on what you're saying, I think people on either the left or the right being worried about NYC's politics harming political desires is reasonable. People who advocate against xyz might be worried about xyz succeeding in NYC. Even if the NYC example doesn't readily to other cities/states, it being cited as an example could do a lot of harm to political efforts in other places. Rent control and police reform isn't something I expect fruitful conversation from since its all been discussed a million times. But I honestly don't see the issue with city run grocery stores. NYC having grocery stores that do not seek to turn a profit should be strictly good for people, right? Until he starts advocating for NYC to seize other grocery stores and control food supply generally speaking, it seems harmless at worst. A library isn't run for profit and still manages to provide a lot of value to people despite books still being sold in stores. I imagine a city-run grocery store would just be a cost-focused grocery store that is run with the intent of breaking even. In such a case, what goes wrong? I think Ren above is mostly right. It seems to be that things like grocery stores would be a classic case of something that should be/stay private. For one thing, iirc the margins in that business are fairly low, so any savings you would gain from having no profit motive would be minimal, even theoretically. Second, retail, high volume industries can be very sensitive to price signals. When the price of a bunch of bananas goes up, it's probably not price-gouging. Trying to fight the market price signaling mechanism will just lead to less stuff that costs more. Third, the expanded risk of corruption and capture. Presumably, all employees would become city employees and would suddenly be bargaining against the very people their new job arrangement is meant to help. Depending on economic conditions, their wages could be stuck low because high prices would hurt the politicians, or they could at times be far too high as they negotiate against their own employer, if you will. Normally how it goes with government workers is the latter, but given how sensitive people are to grocery prices I could see the former happening. Which circles back to an above point. The politicians are tempted to essentially fix prices, something I think (hope) most people here know is almost always a bad idea. Nevermind all the current business owners and the other businesses they work with being put out of work potentially. I'm sure there are other arguments as well. Is there a single place in the western world, or anywhere, where there are publicly run grocery stores? In the final analysis it seems like a gimmick more than anything.
What if the efforts to open city-run grocery stores were written with language specifying they will only continue to operate if they are operating neutral/profit within 3 years? It is reasonable to force accountability and competently run operations. Although I don't think the initial cost of building a grocery store should factor into that, since paying all that off in 3 years would be basically impossible for any other grocery store.
Would your concerns be addressed by transparent bookkeeping and a contingency that the stores shut down after 3 years if they aren't at least neutral profit in terms of dollars in vs dollars out?
|
Haven't read the whole conversation about city-run grocery stores but it doesn't look like anyone's mentioned that it was only for communities that are food deserts. They're not competing with private grocery stores.
|
On June 28 2025 00:23 LightSpectra wrote:Haven't read the whole conversation about city-run grocery stores but it doesn't look like anyone's mentioned that it was only for communities that are food deserts. They're not competing with private grocery stores.
The general concerns people have brought up more so relate to the grocery store having zero accountability and being a black hole of tax payer money. Which I think is entirely valid. But I also think there are plenty of ways the idea can be strengthened and guarded against that kind of thing by simply putting effort and detail into the planning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
