this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2025
198 points (95.0% liked)

politics

26306 readers
2693 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Zohran Mamdani’s campaign represented a struggle for basic dignity and an affirmation of democratic potential. It was ceaselessly denounced by political and media elites from across the spectrum as something sinister, violent, and dangerous.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Fuck if I know, or care, feel free to go count the days.

We here on the left don't worship our politicians so it may surprise you to learn we're not heartbroken about Jeffries or Schumer saying some shit we didn't like.

[–] piefood@feddit.online 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, I know that you don't care about data that does't fit your obviously bullshit narrative. That's like... your whole thing.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Data that does’t fit your obviously bullshit narrative" being the number of days it took a single DNC politician to endorse Zohran Mamdani? Man, what a hill to die on.

[–] piefood@feddit.online 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who is dying on a hill? I'm just pointing out that I know you don't care about data when you find it inconvenient. Data like:

"They begrudgingly supported him once it became clear that he was going to win. They never wanted to support him, they are only doing it to save face."

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"They" this "they" that, is this also the faceless them who own the banks lol? The vast majority, everyone minus a rounding error, endorsed Mamdani and were excited by his victory in the DNC. We're lucky to have him, like a second Bernie Sanders but not even Bernie runs on the DNC ticket outside of presidential primaries we invite him to participate in.

[–] piefood@feddit.online 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who is talking about the banks? WTF are you on about?

The vast majority, everyone minus a rounding error, endorsed Mamdani and were excited by his victory in the DNC.

I think you missed this part again:

“They begrudgingly supported him once it became clear that he was going to win. They never wanted to support him, they are only doing it to save face.”

It's almost like you don't like engaging with data that doesn't fit your narrative. Weird, I wonder where I heard that before.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

I'm a consequentialist, their reasons for supporting progress are meaningless in the face of progress.