He wasn’t asked to make who would be the best choice for speaker of the house.
He was asked if he wants Jeffries—who is the current Dem leader in the House and who would get the job of Dems get a majority—to get the job.
He’s just saying he wants Dems to get control of the house. The only alternative is for Republicans to maintain control. There is no way for Progressives to control the House anytime soon.
He also advocates against people to run against Hakeem Jeffries. Mamdani is advocating for Jeffries, who just condemned socialism with Republicans, to gain a top position.
If Hakeem Jeffries controls the house, Republicans still control it. Nothing will change.
If you want to win, it might be smart to learn how the game is played.
Mamdani sat down with Trump and was all smiles. That’s playing the game.
Take a lesson from Frederick Douglas. In 1860 he had a choice of supporting a full on abolitionist, or Abe Lincoln. Douglas did the math and decided that it was better to support Lincoln and have access to the President than it was to support the abolitionist and have nothing.
Progressives aren’t supposed to fight the Establishment, they are supposed to help the masses move forward. That means knowing when and where to fight.
If you think getting rid of Jeffries would mean the House Dems would pick a full on Socialist, you would be wrong.
Progressives aren’t supposed to fight the Establishment, they are supposed to help the masses move forward. That means knowing when and where to fight.
And conveniently for the establishment, “when and where to fight” is “under no circumstances.”
Obviously, you don’t understand the difference between “preemptively surrendering” and using resources effectively.
It took Dr. King and his people months and months to organize the Montgomery bus boycott. There was even a woman who’d refused to give up her seat to a White passenger before Rosa Parks, but King decided to wait.
Here’s a link to an article on “asymmetrical warfare.”
You mean the election the the Democratic Party candidate won, after winning the Democratic nomination?
And you do realize that New York City is smaller than the United States?
Also, Kamala Harris won 67% of the New York City vote, while Mamdani got about 50% running against a known sex offender and a radio shock jock with a history of lying.
Their efforts certainly seem to be in that direction. While they may have had to make some compromises (at least on the surface) along the way, they are also winning offices.
Purity test are self-defeating. Pragmatism is how you actually get shit done. This is a marathon, not a sprint.
Hakeem Jeffries just voted to condemn socialism so I wonder the point is indeed.
Progressives are supposed to combat the establishment, certainly not promote it. Jeffries has done nothing to earn the endorsement so far.
This is purposely obtuse.
He wasn’t asked to make who would be the best choice for speaker of the house.
He was asked if he wants Jeffries—who is the current Dem leader in the House and who would get the job of Dems get a majority—to get the job.
He’s just saying he wants Dems to get control of the house. The only alternative is for Republicans to maintain control. There is no way for Progressives to control the House anytime soon.
He also advocates against people to run against Hakeem Jeffries. Mamdani is advocating for Jeffries, who just condemned socialism with Republicans, to gain a top position.
If Hakeem Jeffries controls the house, Republicans still control it. Nothing will change.
Yup, it all comes down to how the question was actually worded. The question was phrased with an agenda.
The article was certainly posted with one.
If you want to win, it might be smart to learn how the game is played.
Mamdani sat down with Trump and was all smiles. That’s playing the game.
Take a lesson from Frederick Douglas. In 1860 he had a choice of supporting a full on abolitionist, or Abe Lincoln. Douglas did the math and decided that it was better to support Lincoln and have access to the President than it was to support the abolitionist and have nothing.
Progressives aren’t supposed to fight the Establishment, they are supposed to help the masses move forward. That means knowing when and where to fight.
If you think getting rid of Jeffries would mean the House Dems would pick a full on Socialist, you would be wrong.
And conveniently for the establishment, “when and where to fight” is “under no circumstances.”
Thanks for proving my point.
The Establishment is going to fight all the time, which means you’ve got to be smart and not waste resources.
It’s a shame it’s only ever against progressives.
By preemptively surrendering like you want.
Obviously, you don’t understand the difference between “preemptively surrendering” and using resources effectively.
It took Dr. King and his people months and months to organize the Montgomery bus boycott. There was even a woman who’d refused to give up her seat to a White passenger before Rosa Parks, but King decided to wait.
Here’s a link to an article on “asymmetrical warfare.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
I understand what you’re saying. I’m just not buying that it’s not a demand for immediate permanent silence from your left.
Centrists think anyone who doesn’t buy their bullshit is stupid.
If you’re going to put words in my mouth, order some chips and salsa.
If you’re not going to give me the curtesy of assuming my good faith, then it’s a waste of time for me to continue this.
Sorry, but after a solid year of genocide support, centrists get no benefit of the doubt from me.
Big talk coming from some of the most consistent losers in politics
Let’s see.
Since 2000 the GOP won four elections and the Dems won three.
How many have the Progressives won on their own?
Which presidency did the centrists win in 2024 and which mayorship did the progressives win in NYC?
You mean the election the the Democratic Party candidate won, after winning the Democratic nomination?
And you do realize that New York City is smaller than the United States?
Also, Kamala Harris won 67% of the New York City vote, while Mamdani got about 50% running against a known sex offender and a radio shock jock with a history of lying.
She’s president now, right?
deleted by creator
And a Democrat is Mayor of New York.
Didn’t you look at the clip?
So which one wins an election? The milquetoast candidate or the progressive?
Lol. How did that work out for you?
I’d rather co-opt the establishment and trick them into doing the right thing rather than expending the energy to fight them.
You mean, do what AOC and Mamdani did? Work as Dems to get their agenda advanced?
Their efforts certainly seem to be in that direction. While they may have had to make some compromises (at least on the surface) along the way, they are also winning offices.
Purity test are self-defeating. Pragmatism is how you actually get shit done. This is a marathon, not a sprint.
Read some of the comments here. Apparently, actually planning is not ‘progressive.’