Zohran is a radical socialist by American standards and Andrew is the poster boy for the rich and famous. Zohran won the democratic nomination for mayor of NY by a landslide, and looks poised to do the same with the election. Andrew is running as a third party because he’s butt hurt that money won’t save him.
To an extent, sure, but surprisingly a lot of the DNC have backed him up. Give them credit where it’s due, which isn’t often so it doesn’t take much effort. If you give them shit for stuff they aren’t doing then they have no reason to not do the bad stuff, because it has the same result.
Manhattan Democrats — the borough’s official Democratic organization, overseeing 30 local Democratic clubs — voted overwhelmingly to support Mamdani after he appeared at their meeting Monday evening. They are the third county Democratic group to endorse Mamdani, after the Brooklyn Democratic Party, which had previously endorsed former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the primary, and the Staten Island Democratic Party.
First I want to point out you aren’t asking for proof against it, but fine.
I can’t find exactly what I’m looking for, because Mamdani saiddidn’t condemn people who said “globalize the antifada,” but here’s the DNC chair not speaking against that at least. He’s said basically that Democrats need to support him no matter what before, but this is the big thing right now that’s making it hard to search for.
I’m much further left than the DNC (social anarchist), but “the party” is mostly doing the right thing here. That’s not to say the donors are though. I think most of the monied people are with Cuomo.
I don’t get why people are making a big deal out of the intifada thing. Who gives a shit that he said it? These idiots wouldn’t have any problem if he said “we need to bring everyone around the world together to rise against oppression”
well for one i heard establishment democrat andrew cuomo is looking to run third party. can’t quite find the source right now but i remember hearing it somewhere
A link to contribute to his campaign, because if Andrew is truly in it to win it for the Democratic party then he would line up instead of running against Mamdani
Thanks for that - I never really understood it. So is this an example of a good or bad ratio? (I don’t eX-Twitter at all, this is the extent of my social media presence)
The ratio just refers to how the original tweet has far less likes/quotes/retweets than the follow up reply. An example here would be having two lemmy comments, one as a reply, and the reply has significantly more upvotes. So the “ratio” of who has the most upvotes/likes/quotes etc shows what the overwhelming opinion is. In this specific case the original tweet has just over 4k likes while the response tweet has 133k
Zohran is a radical socialist by American standards and Andrew is the poster boy for the rich and famous. Zohran won the democratic nomination for mayor of NY by a landslide, and looks poised to do the same with the election. Andrew is running as a third party because he’s butt hurt that money won’t save him.
Which means he’d be a pretty milquetoast centrist in countries with less insane political systems.
And because the DNC wants to split the vote to send a lesson to anybody left of Kissinger.
To an extent, sure, but surprisingly a lot of the DNC have backed him up. Give them credit where it’s due, which isn’t often so it doesn’t take much effort. If you give them shit for stuff they aren’t doing then they have no reason to not do the bad stuff, because it has the same result.
You have any evidence of that?
Yes
what does the N in DNC stand for?
Mayor
First I want to point out you aren’t asking for proof against it, but fine.
I can’t find exactly what I’m looking for, because Mamdani
saiddidn’t condemn people who said “globalize the antifada,” but here’s the DNC chair not speaking against that at least. He’s said basically that Democrats need to support him no matter what before, but this is the big thing right now that’s making it hard to search for.I’m much further left than the DNC (social anarchist), but “the party” is mostly doing the right thing here. That’s not to say the donors are though. I think most of the monied people are with Cuomo.
He never said “globalize the intifada”. You’re parroting Zionist propaganda.
He simply declined to condemn the phrase. There’s a huge difference. Get it straight and cut it out with your lies.
Ah, I didn’t even read it because I didn’t really care if he did or didn’t, and it wasn’t what I was looking for. I think it’s perfectly fine to say.
So this is actually about the DNC not condemning Mamdani not condemning other people saying that. That’s too stupid.
I don’t get why people are making a big deal out of the intifada thing. Who gives a shit that he said it? These idiots wouldn’t have any problem if he said “we need to bring everyone around the world together to rise against oppression”
He didn’t say it. That’s the flex his opponents are trying to make.
You know how Republicans are trying to flex on their cult by asserting the Epstein files don’t actually exist? Same tactic.
it’s because of the islamophobia
well for one i heard establishment democrat andrew cuomo is looking to run third party. can’t quite find the source right now but i remember hearing it somewhere
Yes, he is. He isn’t the DNC though.
Ftfy
Oh, they can try.
And the “ratio” refers to looking at twitter engagement (e.g. retweets, likes, replies) relative to the tweet
I should have been more specific in my question. What did Mamdani reply with?
A link to contribute to his campaign, because if Andrew is truly in it to win it for the Democratic party then he would line up instead of running against Mamdani
To a “contribute” link, which, I assume, leads to somewhere where you can contribute to his campaign.
Thanks for that - I never really understood it. So is this an example of a good or bad ratio? (I don’t eX-Twitter at all, this is the extent of my social media presence)
The ratio just refers to how the original tweet has far less likes/quotes/retweets than the follow up reply. An example here would be having two lemmy comments, one as a reply, and the reply has significantly more upvotes. So the “ratio” of who has the most upvotes/likes/quotes etc shows what the overwhelming opinion is. In this specific case the original tweet has just over 4k likes while the response tweet has 133k