New York City

No definitely, I'm sure every negative wet dream will come true and there won't be any private grocery stores left in NYC 2 years from now. We can bet on that too
No, the death spiral of any great city is more gradual than that. San Franciso has been dying for decades now but is just now reaching the tipping point of no return.
New York has been ill for quite some time now; but they just put the thing into overdrive. But expect them to lose even more electoral votes to Texas and Florida in the 2030 census.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz
Opinions can be false. But nonetheless you asked what was inaccurate.
It is inaccurate he will destroy NYC and inaccurate he should be deported.
I happen to believe the first one. Second, not sure of his status; but as long as he is a U.S. citizen I do not support deporting him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
I happen to believe the first one. Second, not sure of his status; but as long as he is a U.S. citizen I do not support deporting him.
I have no squabble about believing he Will destroy NYC. But in reality, he won't. He may creat a tighter economy, change some policing etc. Likely things will get worse. But destroyed? Extremely unlikely.
 
I don't care if he's a member of the Politburo. Threatening to "denaturalize" someone who has been a citizen since the age of 9 is pathetic. Republicans-- " We're against illegal immigration and censorship. But we're also against legal immigration and free speech.
yea anyone saying that is a lunatic
 
I possess no knowledge to contradict your claims. But there is a point where the juice is no longer worh the squeeze. People choose to live where they do for all sorts of reasons. Expense is one of the factors. The weathly have access to resources which provide a lot of choices (remote work, transportation, etc). If the golden geese are killed, and the revenue is not made up, it will eventually have an impact.
People who want to tax the rich to solve revenue problems simply haven’t done the math. We have a spending problem in this countries government. There are not enough “rich people” to pay for all the spending.
 
First i have ever heard someone say that.

In what way are they different?
As I understand it, democratic socialism is a watered down version that mixes it with capitalism somewhat. Not trying to disavow socialism or anything, my point was just that I think a full-fledged socialist might nitpick that label for him
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
As I understand it, democratic socialism is a watered down version that mixes it with capitalism somewhat. Not trying to disavow socialism or anything, my point was just that I think a full-fledged socialist might nitpick that label for him
I get it. He's not a socialIST but is on the socialISM spectrum. A distinction without much difference in my book.
 
As I understand it, democratic socialism is a watered down version that mixes it with capitalism somewhat. Not trying to disavow socialism or anything, my point was just that I think a full-fledged socialist might nitpick that label for him

Socialism is a term that rarely gets used properly. Republicans tend to mean communist when they say it. Democrats tend to mean social safety net when they say it.

What it really means is government controlling the means of production, like public education K-12, and that's almost never what people mean when they say it, but both parties endorse public education.

When Mamdani talks about city-owned grocery stores, that's regular socialism.
 
Advertisement

Back
Top