Languish.org

This is getting quite some reporting.

The high seat of capitalism getting a democratic socialist mayor is simply too good a story to not jump onto the bandwagon.

I think former Emmy^TM Award winning Governor Andrew Cuomo is the clear choice.  He's already caused one real estate boom here in Florida, I'm sure he can do another.  He saved the Social Security Administration millions by killing off old people (everybody talks about the looming Social Security crisis, he's done something about it.)  I understand that he kicks ass 24/7 (well, maybe not "Kicks", I think it's more like "Pinches" but close enough.)  And the return of Andrew will undoubtably bring ace reporter Chris "Mycroft" Cuomo back to some network, and don't we all miss Chris?

I was going to non-vote por Mamdani but if Oscar the Grouch is running for NYC mayor it is my solemn duty to vote for him.

This election is basically a referendum on the Commie.

I watched a PBS story on small town publicly owned supermarkets.  One succeeded, one failed. The concept is pretty similar to food co-ops, which don't seem to have caused the end of civilization.

The rest of his agenda I've spaced out on, but I vaguely recall some of it was nutty.

FYI, only three candidates are still in the race.  Mamdani, Cuomo, and Sliwa.

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3935

So I guess Oscar gets my vote.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2025, 09:21:48 AMFYI, only three candidates are still in the race.  Mamdani, Cuomo, and Sliwa.

Hernandez and Estrada are still in it technically, they just aren't considered to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning.  Only Adams and James Walden (who I had not heard of until today) have unofficially withdrawn (they're still on the ballots, though).

Wiki says Hernandez and Estrada have withdrawn.

Where did you see that? Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_New_York_City_mayoral_election) and Ballotopedia (https://ballotpedia.org/Mayoral_election_in_New_York,_New_York_(2025)) both still show them as in, and their campaign websites show no indication of a withdrawal.

"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 based who I included here purely based on who wikipedia said would be on the ballot.
And added the personification of New York City for fun.

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.

Also love that the guy who looks like a communist revolutionary isn't the left winger.

Which one personifies New York?

Ah, confused by the layout.  Withdrawn is *above* the person's name, not below.

Fucking Quinnipiac.

Rua Sésamo wins my vote, obviously.

Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2025, 10:07:37 AMWhich one personifies New York?

(https://muddyrivernews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/10/pizza-rat.jpg)

Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2025, 10:07:37 AMWhich one personifies New York?

Sliwa.

But I wouldn't make him mayor.

Quote from: Josquius on October 28, 2025, 10:06:31 AMAnd 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.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2025, 01:09:02 PM

Quote from: Josquius on October 28, 2025, 10:06:31 AMAnd 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.

:blink:

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

Raz, insults don't improve any point you're trying to make.

Did Cuomo really get 60% of the Languish vote?

(https://media1.tenor.com/m/hU1NJTQUDcAAAAAC/stewie-gun.gif)

wait, I read it wrong lol

In case you were wondering who the one idiot was that voted for Cuomo, it was me.  I meant to vote for Mandani but misunderstood what box was for what.  I am like a little old Jewish lady in the 2000 election in Florida.  :Embarrass: 

Fixed the sizing again so the bars are kinda better aligned.  The HTML for pools just sucks when the poll options are images. :P

Quote from: Zoupa on October 28, 2025, 02:52:46 PMDid Cuomo really get 60% of the Languish vote?

I voted for him.  He was the greatest governor of New York that Florida ever had :thumbsup:

Obvs Mamdani - but what a catastrophe that the political groups opposing him ended up with Cuomo, Adams and Sliwa as the alternatives.

Not serious and I find it insane the guy who is spending all the money on anti-Mamdani campaigns could not have found anyone better than Cuomo as his standard bearer. Just bizarre.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 28, 2025, 04:19:21 PMObvs Mamdani - but what a catastrophe that the political groups opposing him ended up with Cuomo, Adams and Sliwa as the alternatives.

Not serious and I find it insane the guy who is spending all the money on anti-Mamdani campaigns could not have found anyone better than Cuomo as his standard bearer. Just bizarre.

Well welcome to American politics. Look at the best we could find to oppose Trump.

Sliwa, just for this beatdown (after beating down Bill Ackman) of Coumo...

https://youtu.be/zHO1hm2iyF0?t=2160

And he has 15 rescue cats.  ^_^

Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2025, 10:06:19 AM"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.

Quote from: DGuller on October 28, 2025, 06:58:23 PM

Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2025, 10:06:19 AM"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.

Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2025, 07:03:57 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 28, 2025, 06:58:23 PM

Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2025, 10:06:19 AM"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.

Quote from: Josquius on October 28, 2025, 01:52:25 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2025, 01:09:02 PM

Quote from: Josquius on October 28, 2025, 10:06:31 AMAnd 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.

:blink:

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

QuoteNBC 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?

Quote from: DGuller on October 28, 2025, 07:09:30 PM

Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2025, 07:03:57 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 28, 2025, 06:58:23 PM

Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2025, 10:06:19 AM"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.

Quote from: Zoupa on October 28, 2025, 07:44:05 PMCopout.

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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2025, 11:29:50 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on October 28, 2025, 07:44:05 PMCopout.

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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteFDR'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.

QuoteThe 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?

Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2025, 07:37:04 PM

Quote from: Josquius on October 28, 2025, 01:52:25 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2025, 01:09:02 PM

Quote from: Josquius on October 28, 2025, 10:06:31 AMAnd 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.

:blink:

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

QuoteNBC 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.

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.

Quote from: Razgovory on Today at 03:24:36 AMYeah, 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.

And it's the same thing.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2025, 11:29:50 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on October 28, 2025, 07:44:05 PMCopout.

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.  :lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2025, 11:29:50 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on October 28, 2025, 07:44:05 PMCopout.

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

Quote from: Razgovory on Today at 05:17:17 AMAnd 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.

Quote from: Norgy on Today at 05:24:39 AMThe 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.  :lol:

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.

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

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2025, 11:29:50 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on October 28, 2025, 07:44:05 PMCopout.

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.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2025, 07:37:04 PMhttps://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.

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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on Today at 06:22:06 AMThe Great Society led to gang formation by concentrating poor kids in high rises like Cabrini-Green.

Here's the problem with that theory: Cabrini was built in the 1940s and 50s, and Green was completed in 1962, all well before the Great Society.

The idea of concentrated low income housing in high rises arose out of the "slum clearance" and urban polices of the 1940s and 50s.  Your villain is more Robert Moses than LBJ.

The Great Society era actually pushed back on this kind of concentrated segregated public housing: Cabrini-Green in particular was one of the targets in a late 1960s lawsuit seeking to break up and spread out low income housing in Chicago.

Look I am not saying we need to recreate every Great Society/New Deal policy in a cookie cutter fashion. More that the spirit that we all need to actualy address social problems aggressively together. Right now we all just kind of hand wring about big social issues like the collapsing middle class, homelessness, falling wages, increasing prices on housing and food and education and health care and just sort of...watch it continue to happen while our policies accelerate the problems.

The best we have done is Obama Care, which is kind of sad.

Will Mamdani's policies reduce rents and food prices? I don't know but I think they are worth trying. Sure beats doing jack shit.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on Today at 09:28:20 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2025, 07:37:04 PMhttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvge57k5p4yo

Why the fuck would he mention race?

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.

Don't be silly, you wouldn't defend these kind of racial statements if they came from the right.

Raz, he did not make a racially discriminatory statement. Well, not in the way that term is properly understood. If you apply the definitions created by uninformed manosphere, or the White Christian Nationalists, you might have a point.  But is that a point you really want to make?

Sure if someone had the right opposed rent control on the ground that it disproportionately benefits white renters and hurts minority renters, I wouldn't have a problem with that statement.

Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 11:53:37 AMRaz, he did not make a racially discriminatory statement. Well, not in the way that term is properly understood.

Yes, the way it is "properly understood" is that it is okay if certain types of people say these things, but not others.  I'm just so tired of these absurd double standards.

Quote from: Razgovory on Today at 12:12:17 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 11:53:37 AMRaz, he did not make a racially discriminatory statement. Well, not in the way that term is properly understood.

Yes, the way it is "properly understood" is that it is okay if certain types of people say these things, but not others.  I'm just so tired of these absurd double standards.

No, that is not what a discriminatory statement is.  I wonder whether this is the problem with the current state of US politics.  Words and concepts that used to be well understood are not just misunderstood, they have been flipped on their head

There isn't any way to advocate for enforcing laws against racial discrimination without mentioning race or how policy impacts on different races.

As with so many issues these days, I feel like I am in backwards land, having to explain that it isn't racist to point out racial discrimination and seek to fix it.