Anonymous #1 8w

El sayed is not radical lmao

12

Anonymous #3 8w

I’m not referring to El sayed specifically. I’m just saying radical candidates in general have an agenda with special interests and they won’t let anything get in the way of that. Moderates on average will have policies more adapted to the needs of a particular area.

-3

Anonymous #2 8w

You mean the landlord?

-2

Anonymous #1 8w

Moderates tend to the needs of their rich donors. Progressives like mamdani actually attend to the needs of their constituents.

8

Anonymous #3 8w

Like Platner?

-3

Anonymous ___joker__ 8w

Shut up jelqer go LARP about being Camus some more

14

Anonymous ___joker__ 8w

I don't recall progressives supporting him after he was outed for rape unlike moderates with Cuomo

7

Anonymous #3 8w

Ahhhhh….but the Nazi tattoo

0

Anonymous ___joker__ 8w

That he had removed... Yet moderate dems are the ones supporting an actual genocide in Gaza

7

Anonymous ___joker__ 8w

epic gotcha my good sir! I’ll remember to never support anyone who thinks a better future is possible because some dipshit in Maine was a bad person

11

Anonymous #3 8w

I did say on average. Mamdani is one of the better extreme politicians. Do you think the problem is more about the lobbyists themselves or the actual candidates, because it does make sense that moderates would contribute more to lobbying groups.

-3

Anonymous #1 8w

On average progressives are not the ones accepting bribes

3

Anonymous #3 8w

Not all lobbying is bad, but I do think it is a net negative. The reason why it exists is because politicians get directly informed of important topics by experts the politicians otherwise wouldn’t know about. I do think the system is a little bit outdated though because of the internet now. I’m just saying that most of the country is moderate, and a person like Mamdani wouldn’t work in a lot of US cities.

-2

Anonymous #3 8w

Most Americans just want to raise a family in a peaceful neighborhood with low rent, healthcare, and education costs. That isn’t radical at all.

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

The guy is a prick but I think bro is like one of the few people on here who doesn’t larp about his life

1

Anonymous #1 8w

That statement is considered “radical” by moderate democrats, liberals and conservatives because of the three topics you’ve mentioned (healthcare, education, low rent) all of them are the focus point of a shift towards socialism, the only ideology that has the capability of providing solutions these problems

6

Anonymous #1 8w

However, as a result of both Red Scares and the consolidation of power found in the elitist class the term socialism or communism is viewed as extremely derogatory to a majority of Americans as a result of propaganda by the media, government, corporations, etc. that hold the power in US society

2

Anonymous #6 8w

A mixed economy is best. With only socialism or only communism, nine times out of ten, you’ll end up with an authoritarian government.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

The solution to this central problem and question is revoking the persistent message by moderates that progressive and “radical” candidates aren’t electable and will lose come the general and we must “pivot to the center” aka move more to the right to achieve victory

1

Anonymous #1 8w

Yes this may be partially true when capitalism is the maintained system in a nation that preaches self interest and indulgence that, when the opportunity for unification of power is given by more government control of social order and security they will abuse it as this is what has been ingrained. A mixed economy is a step in a better direction that what is currently happening but this will never be achieved by electing moderate democrats

1