Ok… so… who here thinks he’ll end up shot sooner or later?
NYC Mayor is his top track, he wasn’t born in the USA so that should limit his exposure nationally. He’s a convenient strawman for the right so I’d say that keeps him safe but there are guns everywhere so who really knows.
All these guys just say what the public wants to hear before election.
Behind the scenes, this guy wants to be a billionarie, and the way there is to make a political career, saying whatever is popular with the voters.
There is no risk of being shot because all this guy is doing is trying to get popular, just like every other political guy before him. He wont be able to get rid of billionaries even if he wanted to.
This is after he won the election, though
I thought he was a nominee? Article says that anyway. But still, there is zero chance that any of these guys will make any changes that are helping the ordinary people and hurts billionaries. Its a system where they have money and power and most of the citizens do not.
People are desperate for hope, and thats why his strategy is working. It is simular to Trumps own strategy also. They all come out and act as if they represent the ordinary people, and everyone buys it every time.
He’s going to be assassinated, isn’t he?
Nah, the mainstream media will just stop reporting on him, the social media algorithms will be tweaked to hide him, and when it comes to the election, people will go “Ugh, who is that Muslim sounding guy? I’m voting for Barron Trump.”
wtf
Popular American politician starts saying radical but good things tends to end in a certain way.
If you live in the past and your mindset got a little fucky. Off base.
“Hey, we may have assassinated non-white people in the past for saying communist things, but we’ve totally changed now!”
Mossad, Maga fascists, NYPD, All the billionaires all gonna be chomping at the bit to kill this guy to set an example.
not surprised considering his other views but glad to see his courage in sticking to his principles against a very biased media landscape. even his rap was fun af. this guy never misses.
deleted by creator
Alright, now I HAVE to donate to his campaign.
Here’s the link for those who need to do the same after hearing this: https://www.zohranfornyc.com/
He’s gonna die, calling it now he’s gonna have a tragic accident or sudden ‘suicide’.
wtf is wrong with you?
They’re calling for his citizenship to be stripped and for him to be deported to El Salvador. If anything happens it’ll be right out in the open.
Centrists already hated him, and now he said their gods shouldn’t exist.
So what else is new? I had an imaginary friend when I was little, I got over that. So can others.
It’s a lot harder when it’s part of their very identity.
“Centrist” is just a masquerade for Republicrats to pretend to still be on the left.
Just because the US has only 2 real options to vote for doesn’t mean people can have different opinions. It isn’t for nothing that in a country like The Netherlands we have like 40 parties, including centre parties.
I’m pro LGBTQ, anti-israel, against consumerism/capitalism, pro socialism. Pro government control on key infrastructure (water, gas, electricity) and better housing and support services. Pro climate policies, pro taxing the rich.
But I’m also against fossil fuel bans, against bans on firearms, pro military for defence, pro free-speech, pro strict immigration, against ‘PC’ culture, against trans-women in women’s sports, pro merit success.
Am I left or right? …Or centrist?
Let’s take the obvious “Pro military for defense” first since that’s the most insane thing to think is a contentious political issue.
There are 30% of people in the US that think aliens are real and have visited their asshole but you will not find 5% of people in america that oppose the military as a concept.
What you’re doing here is being manipulated by people who want you to think some of these things are Important Issues™
The trans women in sports is a great example of propaganda. It was cooked up by a conservative think tank. How many people are affected by this “problem”? Maybe 200? And in most cases sports organizations themselves often have rules in place like “how long you’d have to have been on hormone therapy to qualify.” That is already more or less a solved problem for most the people it actually affects. People playing sports didnt come up with the “trans people in sports issue”, a think tank did.
So what you are …is manipulated by think tanks and propaganda and in a way that causes you to oppose people who otherwise have common interests with you.
There’s only two real political philosophies and they can be summed up as “fuck you, I got mine” and “we’re all in this together.” I will tell you right now only the “fuck you, I got mine” group has any real interest in dehumanizing people by say, having the government ban trans people from public spaces and public activities like sports.
And yet the comments and downvotes shows how contentious it is which I knew it would be when I wrote it.
I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it’s probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.
Personally I agree with you. I always vote left and am more of a “we’re in in together” mindset.
Either way, thank you for you insight!
I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it’s probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.
Not to surprising, since it is a standpoint that lays the foundation for oppressing and dehumanising one of the most vulnerable groups if society.
First it was just Trans people in sport, then it is trans people in bathrooms and the next step is eradicating trans peoples existence from public spaces.
pro LGBT
against trans-women in women’s sports
You sound like an Idiot to me.
I’m pro LGBTQ
against trans-women in women’s sports
No, you’re not pro lgbtq. You’re a TERF at best
against consumerism/capitalism, pro socialism. Pro government control on key infrastructure (water, gas, electricity) and better housing and support services. (…) pro taxing the rich
pro merit success
??? Do you understand what any of those words mean? “Pro merit success” directly contradicts each of the social policies you claim to support.
Pro climate policies
I’m also against fossil fuel bans
You’re either lying about one of these or you somehow think we can stop climate change without stopping the most significant cause of climate change?
Does the complete lack of internal consistency in your worldview not bother you at all? You have no defined political leaning, you have a bunch of emotionally driven contradictory political opinions that you clearly have little to no understanding of.
Given that description, I’d guess you probably call yourself a centrist and vote conservative.
Dead wrong, I’ve always voted left. And yes, I do consider myself a centrist, that’s exactly why I commented because I think the ‘you’re either with us or against us’ mentality is doing more damage than it helps.
I’m only against trans-women competing against women because they would have a competitive advantage. I’m even for athletes using hormones, stereroids and drugs in sport (in seperate divisions perhaps) and then the rules on who is in who’s class can really be thought out properly, but currently most trans-women have a clear advantage based on current sport (and biological) evidence. I don’t think it’s fair competition is all. I know some pretty cool trans people and one of them even admits to similar feelings of it being unfair.
I’m pro social policies because I think everyone deserves a roof over their head, food, water and basic amenities. But I’m also pro merit purely to reward people to achieve more and be better. Some people will never be as capable as others are but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have a basic living standard. Something like UBI would be a perfect solution to my understanding. I’m not American but when Bernie Sanders was a candidate I was rooting for him.
Pro climate because we need to fix it and fast, we do way to much damage to the environment. Against outright bans on fossil fuels because we simply are not there yet. My country is unfortunately nowhere near renewable and our outback has hardly any electricity, we need fuels to do anything out there. Trucks, trains and ships sometimes can’t work without it. Not to mention that lithium although amazing is causing more greenhouse gases mining and refining it than what electric cars are offsetting. Electric cars literally aren’t doing anything because the batteries die before they make up for their production. Carbon batteries are coming but mass production is difficult to scale. Cargo ships emit around a quater of all green house gasses and I personally think thats where we could really cut down on it by either fitting cargo ships with nuclear reactors which some military vessels have or just reducing consumerism. Currently most CO2 emissions is from electricity of which in most countries (such as mine) residential makes up only about 10%. The onous is not so much on the individual person but on companies and business, we need more incentives/punishments for corporations to be more considerate.
Almost no issue is black or white. I do have defined political beliefs, I think most people oversimplify or don’t research topics before forming an opinion. And there there are people like the one I originally commented to who have turned politics and world issues into binary division, where instead of educating they attack and insult.
What is emotionally driven here?
And what do I have little understanding of?
You’re in the wrong place to present nuanced opinion in long form. I love the independence of Lemmy from the large corporations (likely astroturfing aside), but this place swings the Overton window back to the left so hard it breaks without any acceptance of different nuanced ideas. It’s as though the life you’ve lived and the subtleties that governed it are irrelevant.
Of course this develops the mindset that trying to engage is mostly pointless, which I’ve adopted, because ultimately these are all just words on a screen with no real connection to the person behind them either way. You can’t sway them and they don’t respect your attention to minutiae.
Gonna be honest, I’m not reading that slop. You open by telling me that I’m dead wrong, then immediately confirming that my guess as to your political leaning was half correct, which sets a very clear tone that you’re here to mudwrestle on the internet rather than engage in a discussion. If you want to try again I’ll talk to you, but I’m not interested in trading novels high on insults and low on reading comprehension with you.
I assumed being centrist was already clear.
Mudwrestle? I’m here to make a point, that not everything is back and white, left or right. But if you don’t want to discuss, fine by me. I didn’t insult you once so your insult is quite hypocritical and immature infact.
Or some people just have nuanced opinions and see that topics can be multiple shades of grey instead of either white or black.
Contradiction isn’t nuance
Thank you for understanding!
I’m pro LGBTQ
against trans-women
Right
In women’s sport, I just don’t think it’s fair to women to compete against women who are stronger than them. I only beleive that out of fairness, but I think people have every right to do what they want with their bodies and be accepted for who they are.
Where another person’s rights begin, another’s ends type of thing.
You’re right, it’s completely unfair for women to compete against women who are stronger than them. For the weightlifting they should test every woman’s strength, and only the weakest woman competes. That’s fair.
and,
We definitely shouldn’t let trans women compete in women’s chess, because of the biological advantage/s
That is not what I am saying. You’re trying to make an enemy out of me when I am not, it’s almost a strawmans argument you just made.
https://womeninsport.org/transgender-inclusion-womens-sport/
After 12 months: In studies which recorded the retained muscle mass/strength, there was an average of 25% residual advantage for transgender women at 12 months treatment compared with reference a group of females. After 12 months of testosterone suppression, transgender women remained 48% stronger, with 35% larger quadriceps mass compared with the control population of females. After more than two years of follow-up on testosterone suppression recent research citing retrospective data from military personnel in the US has shown that transgender women retain an advantage in running speed, at a residual of some 12% faster than the known normative values for females.
What is your opinion on this, truely? This organisation literally supports trans-women being in sport but has to admit that they are uniquely stronger and faster than born-women. It’s an unfortunate reality but I personally believe that we can support transgender women without disenfranchising born-women. I’m just being pragmatic about it.
And for clarifycation, I don’t think there should be classes in chess.
That is not what I am saying.
No, it is what you said. It’s just not what you mean. It’s not my fault the two are separate. It’s your responsibility to speak clearly if you don’t want the silly things you say to be mocked.
There are a number of other genes linked to athletic outcomes that are way more influential than “12% above average”. Steroid usage is rampant in top teir sports for instance and people with like genetic kidney conditions that overproduce some hormones have a far greater advantage.
The people doing the sports should be making the rules about sports, not a bunch of armchair theorists with calipers. Most the guys who have A LOT OF OPINIONS on how to gatekeep womens sports don’t actually watch any women’s sports.
That’s basically the Lib-Right/“Libertarianism”
Edit: Actually I don’t think that’s Libertarian. Its like mix of Libertarian and Auth-Right values
You’re a liar, that’s what you are. Can’t even properly set up the troll.
Huh!? This isn’t a troll, I’m an example of a centrist. The term ‘centrist’ exists for a reason, and plenty of people such as myself think this way although I will admit, I have met very few unfortunately.
What makes me seem like a liar?
deleted by creator
Imagine life was a game. You lived for 2025 years. You worked 260 days / year. You made the median US salary.
You would need to relive that process 3,145 times to match an Oligarch.
That amount of wealth is unethical while humanity suffers. No one can really fathom “1b dollars.”
Before the oligarchs say this is “violence”.
This can be done peacefully. Just enact a law that taxes everything above like 999 million (or a fewer amount, to be debated on), and if you don’t comply, that’s tax evasion and you go to jail. Complelete peaceful (other than the tax-person we’d have to send to arrest the rich for non-complance), comply and everyone is happy.
Voila, no more billionaires, and that wealth redistributed will let everyone become a millionaire. Everyone is happy, maybe the 1% cries that they now have a few less yachts and mansions, but like, they can still enjoy that one house, same as everyone else would also have.
But could this really be done? As far as I’ve understood, billionaires typically don’t have a billion liquidized and ready for spending. Rather, their value is distributed in ownership of several companies. How would the 100% taxes on ownership in companies be applied?
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see it work, but I feel like it’s a lot more complicated than stated. And if a good way of applying those taxes would be introduced, I’m sure the billionaires would either find new ways to make the money untouchable or personally move to a country with looser tax laws.
As far as I’ve understood, billionaires typically don’t have a billion liquidized and ready for spending. Rather, their value is distributed in ownership of several companies. How would the 100% taxes on ownership in companies be applied?
If you can leverage assets to apply for a loan to buy twitter, then you can levarage assets to pay your taxes.
Than they have to sell their stock or property to either not be above the threshold or to liquidate it. It’s not untouchable.
That’s what conservatives always claim. Most of them won’t move and even if they do, good riddance. Simply tax their wealth beforehand.
You know what? I don’t want it peaceful. They’ve stomped on people there entire lives, forced others to rely on social programs, dig through trash, and work to the bone.
I want a comeuppance, I want blood, and I want it to be that of every fucking billionaires’ head rolling off the guillotine
Agree. They had a choice. They shunned taxes and played at fake philanthropy. They have now dropped that and started playing like they are god. They are fragile mortals that need a reminder of revolution, I would like to see it done the French way but any way should do.
And you’ll have it. They have enough money to pay an army and you bet they will use that to stop you from taking their wealth. Understand that they have rationalized their immense wealth to the point where they trully believe they deserve it. You can see it sometimes in how they consider themselves hard working geniuses, or decide God somewhat chose them to be ridiculously rich.
Yes, they will resort to violence (but not themselves, of course). But they won’t need to get their hands too dirty.
They’ll fund campaigns, they’ll own law enforcements and will wield it against the people, meanwhile they’ll buy propaganda to convince as many people as they can it’s all for the best. That’s easy to predict because they already do exactly that.
Violent repression of demonstrations, violence and intimidation against activists and journalists. Owning of all the mainstream medias and a large share of the less mainstream ones. All of that is slowly normalized.
deleted by creator
If everyone becomes a millionaire, then being a millionaire is useless. Inflation will be very high, imagine $1000 eggs. I think the wealth should be distributed to provide free food and services instead.
Voila, no more billionaires
… in the country with the tax. They’ll just live somewhere else.
People have to stop believing that wealthy people will leave instantly once they begin getting taxed. This is just a lie.
They are wealthy because of their assets and connections. They have houses, appartements, offices and factories. They have a network of influencer in the country they live in, in the city they live in ! They have a big family, kids. It’s actually harder for these people to move out than you and I.
The money is already escaping. They use any loopholes (fiscal optimization they call it) to pay much lower tax than anyone else proportionally.
They won’t leave ! Let the tax begin ! The loopholes have to be eliminated so that they cannot convert their wealth to escape tax artificially.
Fine by me, they weren’t paying taxes anyway.
Let them, they don’t generate anything.
I’m getting downvoted like i i care they’d leave, just that it’s not gonna bring tax revenue.
Ok great.
Based as fuck. The fact that the establishment players disagree is extremely telling.
Damnit Zohran… I can only get sooo hard…
Good thing he’s pro-universal healthcare, I’ll need to get this hardon medically drained.
He’s, ahem, straining the limits of my turgidity.
At this rate im gonna have to see my doctor.
One of my favorite hypotheticals is that once someone gets to a billion money they get a trophy that says “I won capitalism” and anything over the limit goes to folk who need it.
Knowing greed, people would certainly find ways around it, but a gal can dream
One of my favorite hypotheticals is that once someone gets to a billion money they get a trophy that says “I won capitalism” and anything over the limit goes to folk who need it.
And they name a dog park after you. That part is crucial.
In a fantasy world I’d go even further to say if you amass $1 billion in wealth you have it all taken away. So either you consistently give away your wealth to keep it below that level or pray that you helped build a society where losing it all isn’t a death sentence.
Ah, the Pythagorean cup of economics
Take it one step further. If you amass $1bn you’re then executed. Best get rid of that cash homie.
So they donate it to “charities” that spend that money privatizing education or whatever cause helps keep them and their kids in a privileged position.
I figure this is why Musk had so many kids; he can divide up his wealth “in trust” between all of them, with himself as the eternal executor.
Nobody should have a right to more than, say, 10 million dollars. Any worth over that, tax it at 100%.
Similarly for companies, tax them dynamically. Ybr bigger the company, the higher the tax. At, say, over a billion dollars, tax it 100%. Limit company sizes to 1000 employees.
This way, nobody is too big, nobody is too powerful, nobody is too rich
At that point you might as well just go full socialism; 1000 people is just a mid-sized factory.
10 million seems low only because there are realistic things that can cost more than that. Nothing an individual could buy costs a billion. That’s the heinous part of billionaires in my opinion—it is just numbers on a screen for them to measure their dicks with. No realistic change of lifestyle is happening after the first billion, yet they continue to inhale dollars out of greed and habit.
Bezos is halfway there; his yacht cost 500 million:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koru_(yacht)
Give it a few more years and I bet one of them will buy a a billion dollar yacht. But in an ideal world, such absurdities wouldn’t exist.
I don’t like the idea of limiting company size - there are a lot of advantages of scale. Instead let’s say any company over 1000 employees must be fully employee owned
Yeah but what about Elon?
Make the tax scale into an exponential multiplier. Two companies? Double taxed. Three companies? Your taxes are now cubed. So on and so forth.
Maybe subsidiaries of larger conglomerates should be taxed this way as well, take giants like Nestle and Unilever down a few pegs.
Bill Ackman, a billionaire hedge fund manager who has backed President Donald Trump in the past, on Thursday pledged to use his money to bankroll a challenger to Mamdani in the general election.
Case in point.
And how did he get those billions? How many peoples necks did he have to step on to climb his way up. It’s not so much what you do with your billions, it’s how you got them that makes you evil. The only exception to this is probably Bezos ex wife, maybe.
“Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don’t hesitate to step on them.” -Rule of acquisition #211
Grand Nagus Rom: “We invented elevators for a reason.”
She was working for a hedge fund when she met him and they were married for 26 years. She may have given away $19 billion of her fortune, but her net worth is still $36 billion, the same as the original divorce settlement.
This might induce me to donate to Mamdani’s campaign. I live in fucking Illinois btw.
I live nowhere near NYC and I donated.
I absolutely am
Tbf, that’s one of the better states on workers rights issues.
Mamdani added in his response: “I have already had to start to get used to, get used to the fact that the president will talk about how I look, how I sound, where I’m from, who I am, ultimately, because he wants to distract from what I’m fighting for, and I’m fighting for the very working people that he ran a campaign to empower, that he has since then betrayed.”
Goddamn, this reads like a response that came from a real socialist playbook. Don’t take the bait on the culture war bullshit, say it’s distraction from helping workers. Wow.
