552
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
552 points (97.8% liked)
News
36118 readers
3284 users here now
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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No, he’s trying to win for his own ambition of power. Calling him a Nazi collaborator for that is idiotic. Just because what he’s doing helps Nazis doesn’t make him a collaborator. Grow the fuck up.
Sure is neat how voting third party suddenly isn't collaboration.
Sure is neat how your argument has no relevance.
Anyone with the slightest criticism of biden or harris last year was called a trump supporter.
And anyone with the slightest support of them here is called a genocide supporter. Your point?
Unconditional genocide support certainly wasn't a dealbreaker for them, was it?
The point that you're deliberately pretending to miss in typical centrist bad faith is this: During the 2024 election, anyone who didn't like the genocide and suggested that democrats didn't represent them was immediately called a trump supporter. Certainly anyone who suggested voting third party was, on the grounds that any vote not cast for harris was somehow a vote for trump.
But now that the candidate is a progressive, voting third party is perfectly fine by the same people. If I were to apply centrists' spurious logic to this situation, you want sliwa to win.
If that’s what you think Biden’s or Kamala’s position was, you’re as biased as the opposition, and I think I’m done with you because of it. You’re not going to convince me of anything when you’ve demonstrated you have no perspective.
They placed no conditions on arms sales for netanayhu's genocide. That's called unconditional support.
there's no convincing you of anything that runs contrary to the netanyahu wing of the party.
All the people that had criticized the "vote blue no matter who" line of the centrists as being destructive in the long run, especially as people here started touting completely deranged things along the line of "Yeah both Harris and Trump want a genocide, but Harris will make less bad of a genocide than Trump, so we should vote her.", are now having the "told you so" moment.
The entire talk in the general election was nothing but gaslighting the voters who refused to vote for genocide. The entire claim of "party loyalty" and "change through the party is possible" was a set of lies peddled by the "centrists" that rather want a fascist win than a modest social democrat, who wants to observe basic laws of the US and basic international laws. Now that this "loyalty" goes the other way, the centrists just flipped the script, proving that none of their claims were serious to begin with.
This is relevant, as it proves that the Democratic party is not the vehicle through which to bring positive change, at least not until all the DNC ghouls are kicked out of the party, publicly shamed and stripped of any political influence. Maybe Mamdani is a step in that direction, but we see how the DNC ghouls are already fighting back, as they have one goal and one goal only. To help the oligarchy exploit the people.
If this is how you see the Democratic Party, I don’t see how you have any right to call yourself a moderate and not a radical. You are quite clearly biased and unhinged. You’re not going to change my mind with that bullshit.
I have my problems with the Democrats, but viewing them in black and white is crazy.
Embracing yourself as a moderate in the face of a country supporting genocide, bragging about mass deportations, building concentration camps and having unidentified gangs abduct people on the streets, all while your healthcare, education and infrastructure are failing is part of the problem.
The term radical refers to taking problems at the root. The US oligarchy is the root and both the DNC and GOP are symptoms of that root evil. As long as you want to treat symptoms, you are not going to solve the problem.
LOL, you definitely are a radical, even to the point of not knowing what “radical” means. I have nothing to say to you. Ta-ta.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_politics
This is sort of hilarious, because I'd think you have a duty to call yourself a radical. If you're not a radical by now, then you're just a collaborator. It's not about black and white, it's about black and blacker.
Of course one has to act and vote in a sane manner and play politics, but if your rhetoric and our demands aren't seen as radical by the mainstream, that's a problem. Like e.g. universal healthcare.
If he knows what he is doing cannot possibly lead to his own success, splitting the blue vote can't lead to him winning, then he is deliberately trying to put the nazis in power over his citizens knowing some of them will be harmed. He's absolutely a collaborator.
I’m sure he thinks he can win. But even if he didn’t, that doesn’t make him a collaborator. You misunderstand the term. It requires intent. You’re just trying to stack the deck by polarizing it. And I’m sure you think you’re doing the right thing. It’s just that your willful ignorance about the semantics of the term you’re using is harmful. Casting Cuomo as a Nazi gains you nothing but self-righteous purpose. Your cause isn’t righteous, no more than any other cause. You’re just an ideologue of a particular stripe. Have fun being that. From what I hear, it’s a lonely existence.
Nobody who splits his own sides vote can win mathematically. To simplify you need side /2 - loss from infighting > opposition.
By continuing to shit on your own side you tend not only to draw votes for yourself you tend to decrease turnout, enthusiasm, and tell the other sides story for them. All with zero hope of actually winning because you will never out earn the default party vote. EG if just 10% just vote for the official party members it doesn't matter if you convince 55% of the remaining side to side with you you've already lost.
This is why this strategy hasn't worked this century.
Please pray tell when has a major election been won by a fellow running against his own side? Be specific. Remember major impact elections like Mayor of NYC +
Y'all spent all general shouting how a vote for anyone other than Kamala was a vote for Trump and how those running third party campaigns are just helping Trump win.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, third party candidates aren't working for the other side?
"A vote for Cuomo is a vote for Sliwa.".