Vote in the New York City Election

[Zoupa]

"Withdrawing", as in they are not longer actively running, and actually being off the ballot are different things. I think once you are on the ballot, you are on the ballot.

Voting Mamdani of course. The idea that actually doing something to solve NYC's problems is some kind of radical communism just shows how deranged the politics of this country have become. None of his recommendations would have been seen as particularly outrageous back in the New Deal or Great Society era.

I'll just throw this out there:  it is possible that some reasonable people may think that it's not enough to "do something"; that something has to be productive rather than counterproductive.  Maybe if more people found some things outrageous in Great Society, we wouldn't have liberalism so discredited that people like Reagan could win 49 states.  Just a thought.

Give me another alternative then. Oh excuse me, a thought. Give a thought. One that isn't more of the same disastrous bullshit. The 1970s obviously had some problems but it positively looks like a golden age compared to the dystopia the horrible policies of Reagan and company unleashed upon this country.

Barring some new thoughts dude I think things were better when we actually worked together to try to address problems. But feel free to provide "just a thought" at some point.

No thanks, not in a mood to engage with you when you adopt that kind of a tone.

Copout.

[Admiral Yi]

Copout.

Standards.  Boundaries.  Manners.  Decorum.  Civility.

I'll bite Valmy.  British nationalization in the 70s led to the extinction of the UK car industry.  The Great Society led to gang violence and welfare mothers.  FDR's farm assistance led to fatcat welfare farmers.  The history of post colonial development is littered with make work projects and subsidized gas and food that bankrupted nations.

[Zoupa]

Copout.

British nationalization in the 70s led to the extinction of the UK car industry.

British nationalization didn't cause the extinction of the UK car industry. The decline had begun decades earlier due to chronic underinvestment, poor management, labor disputes, and failure to modernize compared to Europe/Japan. Nationalization was an attempt to rescue an already struggling industry, not the cause of its collapse.

The Great Society led to gang violence and welfare mothers.

False and misleading. Those programs reduced poverty and expanded civil rights, healthcare, and education. Fang violence stem from deindustrialization, housing segregation, mass incarceration and systemic racism.

FDR's farm assistance led to fatcat welfare farmers. 

New Deal farm programs stabilized prices and prevented mass rural poverty. It saved small farmers from collapse. The current abuse came decades later under GOP legislation.

The history of post colonial development is littered with make work projects and subsidized gas and food that bankrupted nations.

Many countries faced debt crises due to colonial economic legacies, global market shocks, and unfair trade or lending conditions, not make-work or welfare programs. Infrastructure and subsidy policies often improved literacy, health, and stability in early postcolonial countries.

Anything else?

[Josquius]

And for me yes. From what I've seen of Mamdani he sounds potentially really rather great....  though of course there is the worry that this is obvious to MAGA too so if he wins they will do everything they can to crush NYC and pin it on him.

No surprise you go for the racist.

I suspect you're just doing your usual thing but do explain.

NBC interviewer Kristen Welker asked Mamdani about a policy proposal on his campaign website to shift the tax burden "to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods".

Asked whether he might alienate key constituents by invoking race, he denied the policy was driven by race and said: "I think I'm just naming things as they are."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvge57k5p4yo

Why the fuck would he mention race?

Its pretty clear what he meant. Not many brown faces to be seen in the richest neighbourhoods. In many US cities, I guess NYC included, this was created by historically outright racist parties.

Takes me just a minute of googling to see him say he's just telling it like it is and explaining it's not based on race at all but the richer neighbourhoods do tend to be super white.
Yeah.... Argue if you like he shouldn't have used that wording. If it has given ammo to your circles then very good case to be had there.
 But to say this one comment makes him a racist thus the other wonderful candidates who have never done anything wrong should be voted for instead....no.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, it's pretty clear what he meant.  And if Trump said we should tax another race, it would be pretty clear what he meant.

[Josquius]

Yeah, it's pretty clear what he meant.  And if Trump said we should tax another race, it would be pretty clear what he meant.

Yes. Yes it would.

[Razgovory]

And it's the same thing.

[Norgy]

Copout.

Standards.  Boundaries.  Manners.  Decorum.  Civility.

I'll bite Valmy.  British nationalization in the 70s led to the extinction of the UK car industry.  The Great Society led to gang violence and welfare mothers.  FDR's farm assistance led to fatcat welfare farmers.  The history of post colonial development is littered with make work projects and subsidized gas and food that bankrupted nations.

The British car industry fell because the cars were poor. I mean, really poor. Worse than American cars, even. Vauxhall Motors was bought by Opel, not nationalised. The history of British Leyland escapes me, but blaming nationalisaton for the downfall of a British car industry seems, well, both opaque and spurious.

How the Great Society plan led to gang violence, that is beyond me, but okay. 

I'd say that resource extraction is not a "make work" project, but that's just me. The one factor that hit the West worst was the OPEC. It was the Trump tariffs of the day.
I'd like you to explain how Aramco, partly owned by the Saudi state, has made the country poor. Your libertarianism is just blind obedience, isn't it? Private good. State ownership bad. 

[crazy canuck]

Copout.

Standards.  Boundaries.  Manners.  Decorum.  Civility.

I'll bite Valmy.  British nationalization in the 70s led to the extinction of the UK car industry.  The Great Society led to gang violence and welfare mothers.  FDR's farm assistance led to fatcat welfare farmers.  The history of post colonial development is littered with make work projects and subsidized gas and food that bankrupted nations.

OVB level quality post here

[Josquius]

And it's the same thing.

If the same thing means total opposite it is yes.
Lets put more of the tax burdens on the richer areas that have historically excluded non-white people vs. lets put more of the tax burden on poorer areas where non-white people were historically forced to live.

[Admiral Yi]

The British car industry fell because the cars were poor. I mean, really poor. Worse than American cars, even. Vauxhall Motors was bought by Opel, not nationalised. The history of British Leyland escapes me, but blaming nationalisaton for the downfall of a British car industry seems, well, both opaque and spurious.

How the Great Society plan led to gang violence, that is beyond me, but okay. 

I'd say that resource extraction is not a "make work" project, but that's just me. The one factor that hit the West worst was the OPEC. It was the Trump tariffs of the day.
I'd like you to explain how Aramco, partly owned by the Saudi state, has made the country poor. Your libertarianism is just blind obedience, isn't it? Private good. State ownership bad. 

I can't explain how Aramco has made Saudi Arabia poor.  It has not.  Why are you asking me this question?  Are you familiar with the concept of a strawman?

The Great Society led to gang formation by concentrating poor kids in high rises like Cabrini-Green.

Any kind of industry can be make work if you hire too many people and pay them too much.

The British made bad cars and had bad management etc., etc. while it was owned by the government.  That was not the intended outcome of nationalization.  Nationalization failed to achieve its goals.

[Josquius]

A bit weird to say nationalisation is at fault because it failed to fix the failures of private enterprise.

[mongers]

Copout.

Standards.  Boundaries.  Manners.  Decorum.  Civility.

I'll bite Valmy. British nationalization in the 70s led to the extinction of the UK car industry. The Great Society led to gang violence and welfare mothers.  FDR's farm assistance led to fatcat welfare farmers.  The history of post colonial development is littered with make work projects and subsidized gas and food that bankrupted nations.

Seems to be fairly clear what you were saying.

[The Minsky Moment]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvge57k5p4yo

Why the fuck would he mention race?

He is describing neighborhoods. It's a well known fact that certain describe residential neighborhoods in NYC have predominant ethnic compositions. Central Harlem is still a predominantly Black neighborhood, East Harlem is still Hispanic, Upper East Side which is not far from both is 80% white.  T

If you look the campaign website where this appears, he is describing a well-known feature of New York City's property taxation, which is the complete disconnect from assessed property values and market values. Mamdami claims, with some good reason, that the assessment process unfairly benefits certain neighborhoods over others. In particular, it does appear to benefit predominantly more affluent and white neighborhoods compared to others.

Race is a relevant factor precisely because of significant differences in the racial composition of neighborhoods. Despite the efforts of Trump' DOJ, state discrimination on the basis of race is still illegal. Thus, if NYC implements a property tax regime that favors predominantly white neighborhoods over predominantly Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, then prima facie, there may be improper disparate impact.

This is not mere speculation - the city of New York was sued precisely on this basis: that the NYC property tax regime impermissibly discriminates on the basis of race, in violation of federal housing laws. The highest court in New York ruled that the lawsuit could proceed on that claim in a 2024 decision, holding that it sufficiently pleaded a racial discrimination claim.

So Raz - I get that in our new era of Trump, it has become common to jump up and down any time anyone on the left mentions race (while ignoring any such mentions on the right or explaining it away as "jokes" or just 30+ year old "kids").  But racial discrimination still exists in America and laws against it still exist.  It is entirely appropriate to mention race in a specific context of attacking racially discriminatory policy.

[The Minsky Moment]

As for the election, watching the mayoral debate reinforced the message that Mandami is out of his depth and doesn't have what it takes to run the city.  Cuomo has the capacity and ability to do it in theory, but I don't trust him to do it honestly and fairly.  And Sliwa is still his usual entertaining train wreck of a person.  Luckily, I'm not eligible to vote in NYC and have the luxury to avoid a decision.