I’m looking for the sarcasm tag and getting genuinely curious.

Radical trans antifa atheist radical jihadists

To put it differently, if they are the proximate cause of the Trump presidency, then you are the ultimate cause. I throw up my hands at trying to decide which matters more.

That’s the part where I’m sympathetic to your argument. I think anyone not voting for Harris made a mistake. I also think the arguments people like you made for people to vote for Harris were really really bad and that you are enabling the Democrats to continue down a terrible path of failure.

I’m sympathetic to your argument, but ultimately they absolutely are fascist. If you doubt me, then to ask a Palestinian. There is very little that the Trump regime is doing that the Democrats weren’t doing less obnoxiously and on a much slower timescale.

We can’t keep accepting the lesser evil indefinitely. When you brush off the serious issues in the Democratic party with language like “no saints” you make it look like that’s exactly what you intend for the country to do. I mean “politicians will be politicians”. That’s not convincing anymore.

I didn’t even say how far I wanted him to go. He just didn’t go as far as advertised.

I didn’t say he needs to organize it, but if he isn’t connected to people who are organizing something then I think he’s just posturing. That’s not nothing, but it’s not calling for a general strike either, it’s more like gesturing at one.

If mayors can’t organize general strikes, who can? Union leaders are technically not allowed to do so, and could end up losing their unions. Who else has that kind of authority?

Politically speaking, there is no way that the 2026 midterms aren’t going to be an absolute landslide for the Democrats. At that point the strategic situation will be very different. Either it will be a hell of a lot harder for Trump to escalate, or we will have confirmation that political solutions are no longer possible. Either way, I think now is a time to be preparing. Beyond that, I don’t have a whole lot to offer.

He’s mayor. Is he on the phone with union leaders? Is there a set of demands? Are dates being selected? Has the city started stockpiling supplies?

No he didn’t.

We are well past where violent resistance is justified. The only question is, is violent resistance strategically wise. For now, at least, I think the answer is no, since the administration is desperate for excuses to escalate military deployments. Retaliation also doesn’t come back at the people who initiate the violence half as often as it comes back at innocents.

Technically no. They said that race could be taken into consideration as one of multiple identifiers, not that it could be used exclusively. Of course they knew perfectly well this would be the result.

This, and also to point incessantly to Schumer and Jeffries implicitly supporting the enemy by refusing to endorse Mamdani. We need to tie Cuomo around their necks as he goes overboard.

That’s it! Distract from inadequacy by hand waving away support for a genocide! That’s the ole Democratic playbook!

Has it occurred to you that the kind of politician that will sell out to AIPAC to support a genocide is also the kind of politician that will have sold out to a miriad of other special interests and failed to inspire voters in a myriad of other ways?

This is the triangulation curse that Bill Clinton brought to Democratic politics that is perpetuated by the Democratic consultancy complex. This a-la-carte tailoring of policies to give just enough to each group to make them feel special. That stopped working decades ago, and the Democrats still cling to it. We need leaders who know wrong from right and aren’t afraid to say so. We need leadership that can inspire a population that cares about something more than the bottom line. Democrats didn’t just fail to win elections, they destroyed the soul of this country. Then the demons moved in.

I believe they should lay down their arms. I’m proud to be one of the first elected officials in the state who called for a ceasefire, and calling for a ceasefire means ceasing fire, that means all parties have to cease fire and put down their weapons.

Unless you drop everything after the first sentence, it’s pretty clear to me what he is talking about. Has he ever once indicated that Hamas should disarm in anything less ambiguous? Is there any other position he has ever taken in relation to this or any other conflict that would indicate it is a position he would be likely to take? Has he accepted money from AIPAC or any other big money donor supporting the genocide of Palestine, or any other genocide? Is there any reason at all to make the worst possible presumption that can be made of what these words mean, when they are followed with the exact opposite explanation in the very next sentence? What the fuck is wrong with you that you think it’s OK to be so dishonest?

You are 100% full of shit. There is absolutely zero ambiguity in what he said to anybody not trying hard to misunderstand it. You think he’s trying to get back the Zionist vote by slipping in a subtle dog whistle? Yeah, that’s plausible. You are full of shit, and you know you are full of shit, and you should feel bad.

Listen to the damn clip. It’s perfectly clear what he is saying, despite your overly pedantic parsing of one exact phrase taken out of context.

Misleading headline. He called for both sides to put down their weapons in a cease fire. That’s not a call for Hamas to disarm, unilaterally or otherwise. Someone is sowing division on the left here.

It’s not like he couldn’t afford one. He was just chasing the money. His listeners didn’t want accurate facts, and neither did his sponsors.

It would send an awesome message if it helped.