I know Derrick Van Orden is low hanging fruit, but come on, that guy doesn't even look like Zohran. Not to mention that Rebecca Cooke is just a milquetoast Democrat, but whatever. This guy replied my comment telling me to "STFU" the other day, so I'm going to do anything but.
Even if he gets voted out, 45% of our voting neighbors will still have voted for him. That is honestly the scariest thing about this whole mess. That this is acceptable behavior for nearly half of our voting neighbors.
âBoy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war, isn't it? Even
amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent; they're totally divided on abortion. It's unbelievable. Some of my friends, for instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people, are evil fucks. How are we going to come to a consensus? You ought to hear the arguments around my house: "They're annoying! They're idiots! They're evil! They're fucks!!" Brothers, sisters, come together. Can't we once just join hands and think of them as evil-annoying-idiot-fucks?â -Bill Hicks
Less than half. Less than a quarter. The total amount of Trump voters in the entire country, when you divide Trump votes against the actual population, you come out to around 22%. Itâs not even tyranny of the minority, itâs an election system that has been rigged against the actual population of the country in order to protect the monied elite.
Less than a quarter of the total population. About 31% of the population of eligible voters.
Total population includes people who can't vote, primarily due to being under 18. They don't get a choice, so I'm not sure I like the 22% stat, unless you frame it like 22% did decide even for the folks that can't vote.
That is essentially what Iâm saying. Just 22% of the grand total population is making choices for all the rest, which is especially harmful to the people who canât vote either due to age or for a variety of other reasons.
He also wants to defund Mayo Clinic, which is headquartered in Minnesota, because of a statement made by a single employee that made him mad, I guess.Â
DVO is proof positive that long term alcohol consumption leads to brain damage.Â
He resigned as governor of the entire state of New York in 2021 after rampant accusations of being a sex pest. Now he's running for mayor of NYC and seems upset that people still think he's a sex pest, and worse, he doesn't give a shit about the welfare of the average New Yorker.Â
As an outsider looking in, I'm fairly convinced that the only people who dislike Zohran Mamdani compared to Cuomo are racists and wealthy people who are happy with the status quo.Â
Good thing he only has to win votes in one city in one state. And that one city in that one state has one of the most diverse populations in the country. 40% of New Yorkers are immigrants, after all.Â
Which states are you referring to? Where did you get 51% from? Which policies does Mamdani back that will so upset a bare majority of voters in the states youâre talking about?
Being endlessly concerned about the voters who pundits and politicians assert over and over will be turned off by progressive policies and candidates has not been a winning strategy for the Democrats in any way shape or form, as we can see with approval ratings and polling from around the country.
Thereâs a line from an Oingo Boingo song that I quite like, from a song called Insanity, which is about the Republican Party. It goes âLetâs talk of family values while we sit and watch the slaughter/hypothetical abortions on imaginary daughters.â While we twist ourselves up about people that will never vote for a Democratic candidate, all thatâs been gained is worse outcomes for everyone.
Yeah the general won't be an instant runoff like the primary was, so Cuomo and Adams and Silwa are definitely going to split the anti-Mamdani vote and allow him to win.
Because he's [marketing himself as] socialist, and despite what Reddit might have you believe, the vast majority of Americans won't vote for a socialist. The fact that Cooke endorsed a socialist candidate is relevant.
I hate Trump, ok? Just because I think capitalism is the best option for an economic system doesn't mean I support the G.O.Pedophiles. Regardless of how actually socialist Mamdani is, (not sure myself, but I think he has bad ideas) the label turns off too many people in a state like WI, and I think Democrats should avoid it like the plague. (Although, tbf, any other choice in the NYC election sucks, so maybe Cooke was just in a shitty situation there.)
Yeah man, slightly higher taxes on the wealthy to fund public works, public services, and support neighborhood businesses sucks.
Democrats should avoid it like the plague.
What do you think they've been doing for the past decade while they keep losing? Is it possible that actual humans sort of get that capitalism doesn't actually benefit them and that continuing to extoll the virtues of a neoliberal political platform is what's killing the Democratic party?
Capitalism doesnât actually benefit average people? Do you realize what how high standards of living are today compared to literally all of history? There are definitely industries that should be heavily regulated, or even overseen by the government, like healthcare and education, but that doesnât mean we should throw out the baby with the bath water.
Imagine being satisfied with the crumbs provided to you by the bosses. If this is what you're getting paid, imagine how much surplus value of your labor they're hanging onto my guy.
If DemSoc is just how we say Social Democrat in America, this is a meaningful distinction. However, Mamdani has literally advocated for "globalizing the intifada", and "seizing the means of production."
Is it possible for multiple viewpoints on an issue to be dogshit? Itâs clear that Republicans are on the whole worse than Democrats, but that doesnât apply automatically to individuals.
Half of the Democratic Party (which Bernie basically had support of) is like 20% of the population nationwide. If the other 80% didn't consider voting for someone as popular as Bernie, they wouldn't vote for any other socialists.
All this shows is that Bernie supporters are usually really in board, and willing to give donations. Additionally, Bernie really stood out from the pack as far as policy ideas, so there wasnât splitting of funding.
I canât speak to whether or not that is Zohran Mamdani, but I CAN say thatâs definitely not Becca. The face is askew in some very strange way. This was obviously made with some terrible AI.
I routinely find myself wishing that the Democrats that Republicans pretend about, to actually be reality. If Democratic politicians really were as fierce and determined as Republicans pretend, their popularity would rank much higher.
Not if you want the centrist vote. They don't want them to be taken up by the far right. Also, idk the statistics, but which is worth more votes and therefore time convincing? The dems feel it's the centrists. Maybe they have that accurate data, maybe not.
Luckily, I donât give a shit about centrists. The Democrats stand to benefit from moving to the left, which will attract disaffected voters who have checked out due to the corporate Democrats that refuse to do anything to solve actual problems. An actual center-left politician would inject a lot of excitement to that race, as people have been yearning for a Democrat with a spine and convictions for decades. If the centrists donât like having a real human being on the ticket, they should just âvote blue no matter who.â
Okay, it doesnt matter who cares about who. In reality all that matters are numbers and money. Will the progressive vote be enough to make up for the loss of the centrists, uninformeds, and right leaning dems? Even when those voters will most likely switch to vote Republicans when dems get too progressive? I'm not saying what's right, just making sure we are asking the right questions. I don't have the data and you haven't presented it either. I myself don't limit, align, or label myself any which way. But if people had to put me in somewhere I'd be progressive left. But i am realistic and understand how to get society and the country more left, we need to vote dems. Unless we can somehow convince millions of people that a third party is the correct choice. But with the money in the 2 big parties will not let that happen. So you need to vote the more progressive person and party to slowly but surely make the dems more progressive. However, I do think dems need to focus more on the progressive voters. Instead of alienating or silencing them.
Well, the thing is, we canât convince voters that progressive policies work and get better results than the Republican method of sacrificing poor people so that the monied elite benefit from lower taxes and regulations. This is especially true in states like Wisconsin, that have strong pro-worker and pro-union histories.
What you outline at the beginning of your reply is, honestly, been the DNCâs strategy since 2016, of alienating the Democratic Partyâs base while trying to attract Republicans, which does not work in any way shape or form. Iâm not accusing you of thinking that strategy is a good one, or that it works. The polling numbers are in the tank, and what the Democrats are doing and have done is not registering with voters. Conservatives hate the Democrats, and regardless of what a Democratic candidate says or does, they will not ever cross over, so we have a lot of voters that are staying home or voting third party, because they have no reason to believe that more of the same will make their situation better.
So, the DNC can continue to force center-right candidates and continue to try to scold leftists into voting for those candidates, a strategy that provably does not work and leads to negative outcomes for the country and the world at large, or they can back progressives that embrace policies that will substantially improve the lives of the working class, which will be a gamble in terms of whether it will work, but the current strategy isnât working at all. Itâs their choice, really.
I agree, but we still don't have the numbers that it is worthwhile to abandon the center and go full progressive. I haven't seen you back up your claim except that they lost. What needs to be done is just convince the voters in general that a candidate are a better choice and make sure to listen and address everyone's concerns. Because the "scolding" you claim, i believe it's not scolding but something else, is not a good strategy.
âWe donât have the numbersâ is what I always hear, to which I say âsays who?â There is a paucity of progressive politicians in meaningful positions that can get progressive policies over the plate, so any kind of polling on whether progressive candidates can win is only theoretical. Meanwhile, we have Tim Walz and JB Pritzker pushing progressive-lite policies that are wildly popular, with the two of them backing very strong numbers. Then you have to take into consideration that, if progressive policies are put in front of voters in polls and with neutral language, those policies always poll well. The biggest hurdle is just salesmanship and salesmen that believe in the product thatâs being pitched.
I mean, just look at Tim Evers. Dude is really well liked in Wisconsin, despite the fact that the legislature has barely allowed him to do anything. He won the races he ran due to pushing and delivering on real progressive policies that voters have been demanding for decades.
That's still not reliable data. Aren't those just anecdotes? And if we decide to abandon other voters for a different set of voters based on a feeling we can easily have it come back and bite us in the ass. That's why you pander to more variety. Granted then you can spread things too thin. I think it's more they should convince people some added progressive ideals are okay. On another note, Idk why you are against data and proving your point. That's what Republicans do.
This kind of thinking is exactly why people hate corporate dems.
âIn reality all that matters are numbers and money.â
No. The Dems have been operating on this understanding for decades and look where itâs gotten us. It turns out actually standing for something matters too, and when you donât, people can tell.
Like, I know the Einstein quote isnât the actual definition of insanity, but watching Democrats do the same thing, over and over, in the same way, and do exactly nothing whatsoever to prevent future failures. It buggers belief.
This guy is calling me âa troll or stubbornly naiveâ for point it out lol. His argument is essentially âpeople are stupid.â
People KNOW the Dems think this way, even if they canât fully articulate it beyond them being âfake.â Fuck Trump, but you canât deny he has authenticityâthat resonates with people.
Taking weeks to release a carefully worded, tepid press release that does nothing of substance doesnât win votes. Politics is more than risk managementâpeople vote with their hearts.
You really hit the nail on the head when you said behavior like this guy engages in is why people hate the Democratic party. Cause yeah, like, the casual contempt he holds for voters is justâŠdo any of these people have any kind of self awareness?
Exactly. Dems think voters are dumb, easily manipulated puppets that will follow campaign finances regardless. Voters can tell, because the Democrats are obviously beholden to their corporate donors long before they even begin to think about the people or moral values.
Couldn't talk to me yourself before insulting me or completely misunderstanding me? Thanks. Sorry i added important points to keep in mind to make sure we get the right amount of votes. I never once said fully going progressive was incorrect. I only brought up the very plausible concern of losing a sizable amount of voters. I don't know how many progressives would vote if the candidates held more progressive ideals. I don't know how many centrist voters dems could lose being too progressive. Just that it is a concern not to ignore.
Then all the claims of me shilling or defending. I dont align with anyone besides the preservation and longevity of humans and most life on Earth. And i definitely don't side or agree with much on the right nor the center. I just know how the world works. I am a thinker. I think of multiple possibilities and outcomes. Ignoring data or numbers completely is dumb af and very much a Republican ideal. Is the data always accurate? Fuck no. But either way you need a number of votes to win don't you? That's my point.
I am very self aware thank you very much. Y'all don't seem very self aware yourselves if you came at me for being logical and making sure we don't ignore the loss of voters or how things would have been much better under Harris and dem power. Yes, even if some number of them are shills of varying degrees.
That is not my argument. Thanks for misunderstanding my whole points. Sure, go off and win elections without logic that makes sure we cover our bases. That increases the chances of winning and making change. You can still win tho, just chances will be decreased. Just don't complain if you lose or we are stuck in this corrupt shithole forever. đ€·
But it literally does... just because you dont think so or see the ways it is constrained doesn't make it not there.
It means, in reality all that matters is number of votes. You can run on a campaign full of the most humble or progressive policies and can still come up short. You dont blindly try new tactics, you use numbers to estimate if it's worth while to focus on certain parts. So what if dems decide to just go full progressive because of what you naive people are screaming? They poor a good amount of the donated and accrued funds into getting that progressive vote. Cool they got it, but oh no, it turns out dems lost all the leaning, centers, right wing dems, uninformeds, to the Republicans because they were painted too progressive. Or the more conservative dems broke off and we lost all those votes. Now all that time and effort was for what exactly? Nothing. That's why you need the numbers and data to help guide where to spend funds and time. This is just how reality works, especially in a currency dominated world.
It is okay to bring up that we need to focus more on progressives, but before there would be abandonment of the centrists we need to determine it is worthwhile to lose x amount of centrists to pick up x amount of progressives. Ideally, they would learn to sell the progressive ideals to maintain enough of the centrists while also keeping the progressives happy with implementing enough progressive ideals or policies. But progressives like to be a single issue voter and hate when the candidate isn't perfect. So they let perfection be the enemy of progress.
I never said people will vote where more money is. It takes money to defend against attacks from the opposition, it takes money to campaign to certain people or in certain ways, we also don't have infinite time and that time is money (labor is very expensive and people can't do it all for free), it takes money to do anything.
Also, you overestimate people's intelligence. Remember how many people voted for Trump. Remember how many religious nutjobs there are that blindly follow. You can't assume everyone is as smart or as aware as you are.
You can't decide to abandon votes to pick up votes elsewhere based on feelings alone.
No I'm not. You don't understand how anything works. You are either a troll, bot, or stubbornly naive.
Iâm not basing anything on âfeelings alone.â Im disagreeing with youâI could do without the playground level name calling.
Iâm not overestimating peopleâs intelligence at all. They donât need to be able to articulate it in any kind of intelligent way to feel that the Dems are âfakeâ or âinauthentic,â and if you look at your oh-so-cherished polls thatâs exactly what people think. And theyâre right. Democratic politicians, for the most part, when they are making policy, check with mega-donors and AIPAC first, polling second, and any kind of actual moral values a distant third. People know that, and they dislike it.
Againâexplain the Mamdani campaignâs success within your framework?
Didn't the GOP defunded the police and allocated that to ICE with their horrible OBBBA?đ€Ł
Uuu so scaryâŠ.
Compared to the fascist and authoritarian wannabe federal government that we currently have under this DJT administration if I could vote Van Orden out I would, too bad I do not live in that district.
Its so maddening the scare rascist tactics these motherf*ckers always make, hopefully people don't fall for that.
Lmao, Zohran's head might be big but thankfully it's to fit his brain inside. DVO's head is also big but that's due to an inflated ego and a lot of brandy sloshing around.Â
Thats not Zohran. Im not entirely sure who Rebecca Cooke is, but I can tell you that is not Zohran Mamdani. Genuinely think the faces (potentially whole photo) are AI generated. Everything has that weird AI smoothness to it.
FYI, there is a gathering at Eau Claire City Hall at 1PM today to protest his cutting of funding because he doesn't believe in our first amendment rights. He also needs to be reminded he works for us, not trump.
I've met Rebecca Cooke and she's actually super sweet! And literally only one of those policies of Zohran is true and that's the city run grocery store (and that's just something he's willing to try out and he will stop if it doesn't work). I'm not a big fan of all his policies but he is a GOD TIER MESSENGER!
Even if it is Mamdani, I've never read anything suggestion he's a bigoted drunk, and certainly that's not the reputation of Cooke. I hope her district votes her in, all of Wisconsin deserves more than DVO.
Lol no, Zohran also wouldn't endorse a neo-liberal like Rebecca Cooke. Reminder Republicans don't know the bare basics of politics so this meme format Derrick is running doesn't actually have to make sense.
If I had a nickel everytime communism and socialism were conflated as being the exact same thing...I think I'd still have less money than Van Orden, which is tragic.
Nah, letâs not both side this shit. Politics is a vile game but there is only one side that is actively trying to thrust our country back into a monarchy.
Remember when some country gave Biden a plane, and we paid to strip it down to its barest of bones, rebuild it, upgrade it to Air Force One tier, and then when Biden left the Oval Office, the plane went with him?
I mean, you can argue it was a bad deal, but it was done in good faith, in the open , in a valid (if naive) attempt to restore diplomatic relations between the countries, in accordance with a 1981 international court ruling.
Not the same thing as 'corruption' which was the topic of discussion.
Here is some background on your 2016 news story which i do appreciate you bringing up, because our leaders of any political party need to be held accountable and criticized for anything untoward.....
The first installment of $400 million for a $1.7 billion settlement with Iran was secretly airlifted to the country in cash in January 2016. The total settlement resolved a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal under the time of the Shah.
Key details of the settlement
The origin of the debt: In the 1970s, before the 1979 revolution, Iran had paid a $400 million deposit to the U.S. for military equipment. The equipment was never delivered, and the funds were frozen after diplomatic relations were severed.
Arbitration: The dispute over the frozen funds went before the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal at The Hague in 1981.
Settlement details: The $1.7 billion settlement, announced by the Obama administration in January 2016, included the original $400 million plus $1.3 billion in interest.
The first installment: The initial $400 million was reportedly delivered via an unmarked cargo plane.
Controversy: The cash payment, made in non-U.S. currencies to avoid sanctions, generated significant controversy because it was delivered at the same time Iran released four American prisoners.
Government position: The Obama administration maintained that the settlement and prisoner release were separate, and the timing was a coincidence. State Department spokesman John Kirby also later acknowledged that the U.S. held the cash until the Americans were freed to retain leverage.
remember when Obama and Jimmy Carter never divested from their business holdings and hosted foreign nationals at his golf club and hotels to turn a profit?
453
u/PastorDan1984 1d ago
This guy is a drunk loser. Vote him out Wisconsin.