Right, I’ve heard this story before. But what are we attributing to whom we’d otherwise label incompetent or malicious from among the center and left, from among the electorate and the elected?

Or, what absolves them from not being held accountable for not taking heed to these warnings, being passive?

They aren't absolved, but it's pretty normal to put more blame and attention on willful criminals as opposed to neglectful bystanders.

The left was a Cassandra the whole time -- it's been nothing but warnings from the left. The Democrats (note: the Dems are not a left party) refused to listen, assuring everyone it was fine, that we just needed to return to norms and decorum. If we just elected the most proper guy, if we just went a little more rightwards in our policies, all this would be fine.

Meanwhile, the left out there pointing at Obama's extrajudicial killings, Bush's whole post 9/11 fiasco, Clinton's "Superpredators" nonsense, etc. etc. and making tons of noise about how this was all going to end.

Turns out, the left was right, the Dems were wrong. But the Dems are still fighting to try and shut down the left. Look at how hard the Dem establishment hates Mamdani.

My line of questioning could be interpreted as a conflation of the left ("the electorate") with Democrats ("the elected"). Thanks for pointing out that distinction. I think it offers some directive as far as accountability can be considered.

I’m curious to see where the Mamdani Experiment takes you all. His constituents are one group who are for certain no stranger to the armed presence reported elsewhere today. Under pretenses all too familiar.

>I’m curious to see where the Mamdani Experiment takes you all. His constituents are one group who are for certain no stranger to the armed presence reported elsewhere today. Under pretenses all too familiar.

What are you going on about? Mamdani may or may not be a good mayor for NYC. Ask me in two years.

But he's not some sort of jihadi, Commie pinko. He's a New Yorker who is actually talking about issues that New Yorkers care about.

It certainly helps that his competition are a disgraced serial sexual harasser (Cuomo), a corrupt sitting mayor whose administration (as well as himself) is riddled with corruption and a lack of accountability (Adams) and a clownish jerk whose claim to fame is that he used to ride the subways at night with his gang and beat up whoever they felt like (Sliwa).

Given the competition. is it any wonder that Mamdani is a cinch to win the mayoralty?

And all that has absolutely zero to do with the mud being slung at him. He will be the next mayor of NYC and I look forward to his tenure -- especially since it means the other folks will go away, at least for a few years.

Mamdani may suck at being mayor. I don't know. But it would be difficult for him to be worse than his field of opponents.

And none of that stuff has anything to do with national politics or the DNC.

I say all this as an old white guy of Jewish extraction.

I don't know where you're from or where you live, but you're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too. Yuck!

I think the person you are responding to was suggesting Mamdani voters were likely the sort of people who are being targeted by the current administration. I think you might be misunderstanding their (admittedly obtuse) post.

Thanks for pointing that out.

I should have been more charitable in my reading of GP's comment.

I've edited my comment to reflect that.

They weren't attacking Mamdani, they were saying that it would be interesting how things play out, considering that, being a brown person, he's in the group of people that the RNC would love to toss into a camp before making them disappear.

Yeah. I get that now.

It's an interesting, if horrifying thought -- stripping someone of their citizenship because folks don't like his religion and/or level of melanin.

It's disgusting.

I said it already, but I'll say it again -- I have no idea whether or not Mamdani will make a good mayor -- but he's far and away the best candidate in the race.

> Meanwhile, the left out there pointing at Obama's extrajudicial killings, Bush's whole post 9/11 fiasco, Clinton's "Superpredators" nonsense, etc. etc. and making tons of noise about how this was all going to end.

I had a whole comment written up but, meh. The noisy people are made out to be conspiracy theorists, even when someone like Chomsky brings all the receipts. People want to believe the person they voted for is the "good guy" in a superhero sort of way.

It would've been much better if Trump lost, but it wouldn't be some magical solution. His supporters would still exist. The presidency would still have the extreme expansion of powers its given itself just over my lifetime. And as long as half the population okays $bad_thing when "their guy" does it we will continue this downtrend. How fast is really the only remaining question.

Look at how the Dems have been "fighting" Trump. They won't pull us out of this.

> The noisy people are made out to be conspiracy theorists, even when someone like Chomsky brings all the receipts.

Yes. This is what I was saying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra

My bad! Learned a new expression today.

they've lost all sense of nuance. Everyone is evil if they don't have an R beside their name. It's all about shutting off the brain and trusting the process (of indoctrination)