• Tedesche@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    12 hours ago

    No, he’s trying to win for his own ambition of power. Calling him a Nazi collaborator for that is idiotic. Just because what he’s doing helps Nazis doesn’t make him a collaborator. Grow the fuck up.

    • IttihadChe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Y’all spent all general shouting how a vote for anyone other than Kamala was a vote for Trump and how those running third party campaigns are just helping Trump win.

      Now that the shoe is on the other foot, third party candidates aren’t working for the other side?

      “A vote for Cuomo is a vote for Sliwa.”.

        • Saleh@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          All the people that had criticized the “vote blue no matter who” line of the centrists as being destructive in the long run, especially as people here started touting completely deranged things along the line of “Yeah both Harris and Trump want a genocide, but Harris will make less bad of a genocide than Trump, so we should vote her.”, are now having the “told you so” moment.

          The entire talk in the general election was nothing but gaslighting the voters who refused to vote for genocide. The entire claim of “party loyalty” and “change through the party is possible” was a set of lies peddled by the “centrists” that rather want a fascist win than a modest social democrat, who wants to observe basic laws of the US and basic international laws. Now that this “loyalty” goes the other way, the centrists just flipped the script, proving that none of their claims were serious to begin with.

          This is relevant, as it proves that the Democratic party is not the vehicle through which to bring positive change, at least not until all the DNC ghouls are kicked out of the party, publicly shamed and stripped of any political influence. Maybe Mamdani is a step in that direction, but we see how the DNC ghouls are already fighting back, as they have one goal and one goal only. To help the oligarchy exploit the people.

          • Tedesche@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 hours ago

            This is relevant, as it proves that the Democratic party is not the vehicle through which to bring positive change, at least not until all the DNC ghouls are kicked out of the party, publicly shamed and stripped of any political influence. Maybe Mamdani is a step in that direction, but we see how the DNC ghouls are already fighting back, as they have one goal and one goal only. To help the oligarchy exploit the people.

            If this is how you see the Democratic Party, I don’t see how you have any right to call yourself a moderate and not a radical. You are quite clearly biased and unhinged. You’re not going to change my mind with that bullshit.

            I have my problems with the Democrats, but viewing them in black and white is crazy.

            • Saleh@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 hours ago

              Embracing yourself as a moderate in the face of a country supporting genocide, bragging about mass deportations, building concentration camps and having unidentified gangs abduct people on the streets, all while your healthcare, education and infrastructure are failing is part of the problem.

              The term radical refers to taking problems at the root. The US oligarchy is the root and both the DNC and GOP are symptoms of that root evil. As long as you want to treat symptoms, you are not going to solve the problem.

              • Tedesche@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                10 hours ago

                LOL, you definitely are a radical, even to the point of not knowing what “radical” means. I have nothing to say to you. Ta-ta.

                • Saleh@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 hours ago

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_politics

                  Radical politics denotes the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system, often through social change, structural change, revolution or radical reform.[1] The process of adopting radical views is termed radicalisation.

                  The word radical derives from the Latin radix (“root”) and Late Latin radicalis (“of or pertaining to the root, radical”). Historically, political use of the term referred exclusively to a form of progressive electoral reformism, known as Radicalism, that had developed in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. However, the denotation has changed since its 18th century coinage to comprehend the entire political spectrum, though retaining the connotation of “change at the root”.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Anyone with the slightest criticism of biden or harris last year was called a trump supporter.

          • Tedesche@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 hours ago

            And anyone with the slightest support of them here is called a genocide supporter. Your point?

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 hours ago

              And anyone with the slightest support of them here is called a genocide supporter.

              Unconditional genocide support certainly wasn’t a dealbreaker for them, was it?

              Your point?

              The point that you’re deliberately pretending to miss in typical centrist bad faith is this: During the 2024 election, anyone who didn’t like the genocide and suggested that democrats didn’t represent them was immediately called a trump supporter. Certainly anyone who suggested voting third party was, on the grounds that any vote not cast for harris was somehow a vote for trump.

              But now that the candidate is a progressive, voting third party is perfectly fine by the same people. If I were to apply centrists’ spurious logic to this situation, you want sliwa to win.

              • Tedesche@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 hours ago

                Unconditional genocide support certainly wasn’t a dealbreaker for them, was it?

                If that’s what you think Biden’s or Kamala’s position was, you’re as biased as the opposition, and I think I’m done with you because of it. You’re not going to convince me of anything when you’ve demonstrated you have no perspective.

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 hours ago

                  If that’s what you think Biden’s or Kamala’s position was

                  They placed no conditions on arms sales for netanayhu’s genocide. That’s called unconditional support.

                  You’re not going to convince me of anything when you’ve demonstrated you have no perspective.

                  there’s no convincing you of anything that runs contrary to the netanyahu wing of the party.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      If he knows what he is doing cannot possibly lead to his own success, splitting the blue vote can’t lead to him winning, then he is deliberately trying to put the nazis in power over his citizens knowing some of them will be harmed. He’s absolutely a collaborator.

      • Tedesche@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I’m sure he thinks he can win. But even if he didn’t, that doesn’t make him a collaborator. You misunderstand the term. It requires intent. You’re just trying to stack the deck by polarizing it. And I’m sure you think you’re doing the right thing. It’s just that your willful ignorance about the semantics of the term you’re using is harmful. Casting Cuomo as a Nazi gains you nothing but self-righteous purpose. Your cause isn’t righteous, no more than any other cause. You’re just an ideologue of a particular stripe. Have fun being that. From what I hear, it’s a lonely existence.

        • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Nobody who splits his own sides vote can win mathematically. To simplify you need side /2 - loss from infighting > opposition.

          By continuing to shit on your own side you tend not only to draw votes for yourself you tend to decrease turnout, enthusiasm, and tell the other sides story for them. All with zero hope of actually winning because you will never out earn the default party vote. EG if just 10% just vote for the official party members it doesn’t matter if you convince 55% of the remaining side to side with you you’ve already lost.

          This is why this strategy hasn’t worked this century.

          Please pray tell when has a major election been won by a fellow running against his own side? Be specific. Remember major impact elections like Mayor of NYC +