News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
This also describes the DNC, with whom you have no evident problem.
I have a lot of problems with the DNC actually. Any more assumptions you want cleared up?
Sure. How much further to the right do you want them?
You're so close bro, just a few more disingenuous attempts and you'll surely catch me as a secret ultra right winger.
Disingenuous? You hate the DSA for reasons that apply to the DNC but I don't see you as angry at every democrat as you are any given member of the DSA.
You just hate progressives and found some copypasta that suits your selective dislike of things both the DSA and DNC do.
No no, I think I understand what he's saying. He's saying everyone is terrible and we should just kill ourselves and stop trying.
Imagine being this dumb
You live it my friend, no need to imagine!
"no u"
This was exactly the level of intelligence I was expecting
One is glad to be of service.
You ARE being disingenuous.
This isn’t about “hating progressives”, it’s about integrity. If a candidate claims to stand against the establishment but proudly accepts an endorsement from a group that’s defends extremists and doubles down on moral incoherence, that’s a real problem. You’re not even attempting to address that.
Instead, you're dodging with bad faith assumptions and false equivalence, as if calling out one group’s hypocrisy demands total denunciation of everyone else, or that I'm obligated to spread my criticism evenly for it to count. Going "b... bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe DeMoCrAtS" isn't even a valid point, that's just the whataboutism fallacy which are you using to deflect from the criticisms being made.
Also, labeling valid critique as “copypasta” doesn’t make it so, make it wrong, or make it go away. It just shows you’ve got nothing to say about the actual issue, otherwise you would've done so instead of desperately scrapping for anything fallacy you throw out. The endorsement from the DSA wasn’t just a footnote in his campaign, it exposed a contradiction you’d rather not reckon with.
But I know you're not honest enough to actually address any of this, so like I said, you're so close bro. You're just one more disingenuous attempt, and you'll surely get me next time.
And by an astounding coincidence, democrats aren't required to have any while anyone to their left must be perfect in every way.
Centrists spent more than a decade screaming "purity test!" at anyone who expected better from the party that centrists ran into the fucking ground. So stow the selective purity tests that magically only apply to the wing of the party you don't like.
You're doing it again! Dodging the issue by assigning motives and projecting tribal loyalty tests. My point wasn’t that progressives need to be “perfect”, it’s that if a candidate brands themselves as anti establishment, accepting an endorsement from a group that defends extremists, such as the DSA, is a contradiction worth examining. That’s not a purity test. That’s basic consistency.
Dragging in the DNC and centrists doesn’t make that contradiction go away, it just shifts the topic, again. If you can’t address the original point without framing everything as a left vs center grudge match, maybe the problem isn’t the critique, but it’s that it landed.
You're right. Perfect wouldn't be good enough for you either.
It's really simple actually. There's two intellectually honest paths you could take here:
Mamdani accepting the DSA's endorsement is a bad move and a red flag that we should criticize and keep an eye on because the DSA is a shitty organization that has done shitty things.
Mamdani accepting the DSA's endorsement is a good thing because I support the DSA and the shitty things they do
Aren't you tired of dancing around like a clown by running in circles with one desperate disingenuous fallacy after another? You're not making yourself look smart, all you're doing is demonstrating that you're aware that DSA is shit and support them despite of that, but you're too ashamed to admit it so you keep trying to mask your support with whatever this is. You can concede that I made a good point or own your support for the DSA so we can shift the conversation to how shitty they are. If you can't do this, then you're not worth another reply.
I'm aware that you think that the DSA is shit.
...and there it is. I was spot on about you word for word. Alright, go troll elsewhere.
Anyone who doesn't look for excuses to oppose progressives like you do is a troll. Got it.
You're arguing macroscopic relativistic issues when voting is a quantum decision.
Are you arguing that you'd prefer Cuomo to have won? Cuz he's the runner up.
I think the main issue you're having in this thread is you are complaining but not really saying what you wanted to happen differently or offering any solutions. In the absence of such things, most people would assume you'd prefer Cuomo.
You're dodging the point. This isn’t about cosmic metaphors or Cuomo. It's about Mamdani claiming anti-establishment credibility while embracing an endorsement from a group with serious baggage. That contradiction doesn’t disappear just because the alternative was worse.
If the only way to defend a candidate is by pointing to who came in second, maybe the candidate didn’t earn the trust they’re asking for. Keep in mind, I actually like a good chunk of Mamdani's platform and he's clearly better Cuomo, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a red flag. He could've simply reject or just ignored the DSA's endorsement, but he instead proudly accepted and put it on his website. Critiquing a flawed move isn’t “complaining”, it’s accountability.
Good job not addressing my point.
AND WHAT? What would you like done and what consequences would you like to see?
What kind of question is that? It should be extremely obvious that I think he should've ignored or rejected the DSA's endorsement. Endorsements go both ways. By openly accepting their endorsement, he's basically saying that he's proud of them and what they do. Do you not find this at all concerning considering what the DSA has done and stood for in recent years? Do you think it's not at least worth criticizing him over this? Just because he's better than Cuomo for not being a sex pest and better than Adams for not being blatantly corrupt and accepting bribes, that doesn't mean he's now absolved from receiving criticism. Saying "but there's worse" doesn't in any way justify, excuse, or negate this endorsement. If accepting an endorsement by a billionaire funded right wing group or a foreign funded lobbyist group is problematic, then this should be as well.
There, I've addressed your point, can you finally address mine?
Ok, so that's not happening. What do you think the consequences of that should be? Do you want him out of office? Or just for people to say hey, that's bad! And then go about our business? Should we have withheld votes over that one thing or not?
Your questions? Oh I don't care about the DSA thing at all. I'm more concerned with where his actual focus lies as a local mayor, not who endorsed him and the optics of endorsements. I don't know enough about the DSA or any of the stuff that are bothering you so much to make it a wedge issue. I'm more curious as to what you hope to accomplish by your comments. One of the things the right does better than the left is maintaining party cohesion, so it always intrigues me when people self sabotage incremental moves in the right direction.
I'm arguing with you right now. If you endorsed me, I'd accept it. I'd take your money and use it for whatever I wanted. I'd take your endorsement to mean you agree with my views, regardless of what your words say. Or are you claiming some quid pro quo we should be worried about? Because that's usually the actual concern when talking about big money donors in politics.
It's crazy that instead of acknowledging that this is a bad thing, you're willing to go through all these mental gymnastics in hopes of sweeping it under the rug. Where's your moral integrity?
We have a politician who is in position to be elected to a very powerful office, and this individual has accepted and endorsement from a group that's known for being extremist, pro violence, and pro tyranny. That is a big red flag because it means he agrees with their views and actions enough to proudly accept and display their endorsement. I hope that I don't need to explain why that would set a dangerous precedent.
As citizens of a democratic country, it is our civic duty to criticize him for things like this. The public should apply enough pressure on him to where he comes out and publicly distances himself from this organization, or at the very least have him explicitly condemn their extremist actions. That way he'll be on public record that he has disavowed their extremist methods and views, and that's a standard that he can and will be held to during his entire time in office. That way he can face consequences should he go back on his words and start employing tactics from this group.
Trying to make excuses for him because he's a progressive is incredibly stupid. Nobody should ever have double standards for politicians. They should all face the same criticisms for same questionable actions. All politicians who openly accept endorsement from unethical organizations should face the same criticisms whether it's Cuomo, Adams, or Mamdani. It should be clear at this point that I'm not criticizing him for the sake of it, but because I have an actual point and an actual concern. How you don't see this as something concerning is beyond me.
It's not about optics, that's such a mind numbingly shallow point of view. Even if a politician’s platform doesn’t explicitly reflect an extremist group’s views, openly accepting their endorsement is still concerning. It legitimizes harmful ideologies, signals poor judgment, and undermines the candidate’s credibility, especially if they claim to stand for integrity or justice, which Mamdani does. Endorsements carry weight that goes beyond optics, and failing to distance from extremist groups erodes public trust and inadvertently amplify dangerous narratives, which is already a big problem in this country. Ultimately, it raises questions about his values and character, which is why a clarification is necessary.
My comments express my opinions, and if they are able to raise awareness about this then that's a plus. At least I have a point in my comments, what is the point of your comments? To me, it looks like you're just big mad that I'm criticizing this guy for doing something questionable and you want that to stop.
What in the fuck are you even talking about? The Republican part has zero cohesion. They have no platform, no ideology, no structure, no values, no leadership, nothing. The whole party starts and stops with Trump and his senile opinions that can change from one extreme end to other at the drop of a hat. The Republican party died when Trump started purging all the ideological diversity that existed within the party during his first term. Right now the party only consists of MAGA cultist worshipers and slimy opportunists who lack a spine.
The left should definitely NOT model itself to be more like the right. One of the hallmarks of a successful democracy is having these internal debates and having the ability to criticize politicians freely and openly about anything they do that's deemed inappropriate. The progressives who think they should become blue MAGA are just as dumb as MAGA. This isn't self sabotage, this is an opportunity for us to hold our politicians accountable so they could serve us better in the ways that we want them to.
Hold on, if you don't even understand what I'm talking about, then why the fuck are you arguing and defending something you don't even know?
It's easy to say this because you know I'm just a normal person, but imagine for a second that you got an endorsement from someone who isn't normal. Say for example, an islamist group like Al Qaeda endorsed you, would you still accept their endorsement? How about if a branch of the KKK endorsed you? Maybe, the church of Scientology? You probably wouldn't, but why? It's because basic morals and ethics wouldn't allow you to, or at least they shouldn't. I don't care how many votes or money their endorsements brings, their views and past doings are more than enough for me to reject their support.
That's one issue, but it's not the only one.
Let's play a hypothetical.
You are a Nazi.
I say, Nazi's are morons who should be exterminated.
You endorse me. I accept your endorsement.
Look, I make so much sense that even Nazi extremists agree they need to be exterminated! I am the common sense candidate that no one disagrees with! Here's my anti Nazi legislation!
What in the fuck are you even on about? Your hypothetical doesn't address my points and it's not used to demonstrate a point of your own. What is the point you're trying to drive here that endorsements from extremists is a good thing? That's just stupid and so is this hypothetical because it's a situation that NEVER happens. Nobody accepts endorsements from extremist groups they disavow. That's why it's a problem. Accepting an endorsement from an extremist group, especially when you preach that you're against extremism, is a big red flag because it shows a conflict, it shows a contradiction. The inconsistencies in morals, views, values, and character are a problem. This common sense, this is obvious. I should not need to explain this to you this many times.
I don't think you understand that hypotheticals need to have a valid point to make in order for them to be relevant. Making them for the sake of it is pointless. It's clear you don't even understand what my point is, what I'm arguing against, or why I'm arguing against it. I spelled it out for you multiple times, and you still don't get it. There are only two possibilities for this, either you're too ignorant for this conversation or you're too disingenuous for it. Arguing for the sake of arguing is a waste of time, especially if you're engaging in bad faith which I'm pretty sure you are. In the words of the great T-Pain "If you ain't got it by now then you're just ain't getting it"
The point I'm trying to demonstrate is endorsements are meaningless, it's policy decisions that matter. It's not like you answered my questions about whether you want him out of office. You just type incessantly long responses to obfuscate from the fact that you have a binary state of he's mayor or he isn't. You can't pick and choose to criticize and pretend that it's not a tacit vote for the status quo. If you want him gone, then you want Cuomo. Period.
If you're basing your entire voting decisions based on endorsements rather than platform you're a moron and I don't really care what you think about anything.