Democrats trying to unseat each other IV

[Derec]

Garcia announced he was not seeking reelection earlier this month, just after the deadline to file paperwork for the seat. By then, his chief of staff was the only candidate who had submitted the needed paperwork.

I do not see how anybody could defend this behavior, Democrat or not.

 

[Derec]

Cameron Kasky, Parkland Survivor and Congressional Hopeful, Wants to Refocus the Democrats | Vanity Fair - "The 25-year-old activist, who is entering the race for Jerrold Nadler’s Manhattan seat, speaks to Vanity Fair about Jack Schlossberg, David Hogg, and “running on youth.”"

Why is somebody from Parkland, FL running for a seat in NYC? Have carpet bag, will travel?

Kasky insists that he is not “running on youth.” In an interview on Monday, he preferred to focus on a dozen issues that he defined as the core of his agenda, including opposing artificial intelligence, supporting Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, and stopping funding for what he described as the genocide in Gaza. “I try to avoid acting like being young makes me better at politics,” he said.

Again, there is no "genocide" in Gaza. A bunch of islamofascist terrorists (who would love to geocide the Jews) attacked Israel, murdered over a thousand people at a music concert and in their homes, and they also kidnapped hundreds. And fauxgressives like Kasky want to make it harder for Israel to defend itself against those people.

I think that’s what we need right now. The traditional politicians have spectacularly failed to put up an opposition in the phase of authoritarianism. So I believe we need to throw out the playbook and try something new.

Not Kasky though. Hard pass!

I also don’t want to be in an environment where we believe that youth equals progression. There are plenty of young candidates out there who are not the most progressive person on their ticket and plenty of candidates who are running on being a young person, as if that makes you good.

Being the most "progressive" candidate on the ballot does not make you good. I wish there were more young people embracing more moderate ideas instead of rehashing things like socialism and being anti Israel.

I believed for so long that we were going to be able to get more substantive gun reform passed, and while over 300 gun laws have directly been attributed to our efforts, and there were so many victories, because we did not get the massive victory that I believed we could obtain for a long time, I gave up and American politics broke my heart, and it took a long time for me to build my faith back up again.

What is the "massive victory" he wants? Banning guns?

And then I saw a genocide in Gaza, and I saw the ethnoreligion that is coded into my DNA being used to defend this mass killing.

He is hallucinating. And killing many people is not the same as "genocide". The Allies killed many people in WWII. Cities like Berlin and Tokyo were turned into a pile of rubble. German and Japanese civilians endured severe hardships. And yet this was not "genocide". It baffles me how a Jew can drink the Kool-Aid of judging Israel on a scale not used for any other country or armed conflict.

Suddenly, I realized I have no choice but to believe in my ability to make a change, even if we can only take it one step at a time, even if it is not something that can happen overnight. I began my young adult life calling for an end to mass violence being caused by American-made weapons. And I saw that again at a much larger scale.

That violence was in direct response to genocidal actions by Hamas and their allies. Just like Ukraine needs our help to defend itself from aggression, so does Israel. Note that Hamas, Hezbollah etc. are backed by the Iranian regime.
Iran sent $1b to Hezbollah in four months as water crisis worsens, researcher says

But people like Kasky never say anything bad about Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Iran. It's always "Israel bad" and "US bad". Part of it is surely the miseducation he received at Columbia, where he attended (apparently as a "general studies" major) before dropping out and moving to LA.

About social media, "I talked about the negative effects of social media to preface the fact that it is a necessary evil in reaching people. This is how you reach people now." Then saying that Zohran Mamdani did not win because of social media. "Zohran won because of his agenda to make New York City affordable for all Americans." and "But at the end of the day, I see plenty of people in office using social media to reach people who are not focusing on the real issues."

Make NYC affordable for all Americans? How would that even be possible? Especially since the very reason for high cost of living in NYC is that the demand to live and visit there is very high. In the 70s and 80s it was lower because it was a less desirable place to live, what with high crime and all.

 

[laughing dog]

Make NYC affordable for all Americans? How would that even be possible? Especially since the very reason for high cost of living in NYC is that the demand to live and visit there is very high. In the 70s and 80s it was lower because it was a less desirable place to live, what with high crime and all.

NYC has had rent control since 1947, and rent stabilization since 1969, both are supposed to destroy the standard of living according to you. So how is it possible NYC is such a desirable place to live!

 

[Derec]

He says "We need Medicare for All and we need it immediately."

Is "Medicare4All" really the panacea its supporters say it is? Especially since advocates like Bernie often conflate it with "single payer" even though Medicare is not a "single payer" program.

We need to stop funding genocide, not only in Gaza, but we also need to be imposing sanctions on the UAE for backing the RSF’s [Rapid Support Forces] genocidal war in Sudan. That includes many atrocities from mass sexual violence to civilians being slaughtered in hospitals.

Kudos to him for mentioning Sudan/UAE, but he is DARVOing the Gaza conflict - especially the "reverse victim and offender" part. Where is his condemnation of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Houthis and their masters in Tehran?

He says that we must abolish ICE, not just reforming it, and that "we must reestablish the Immigration and Naturalization Service abolished by the Homeland Security Act of 2002". Good to see someone saying that.

INS to ICE was just a reorganization and renaming. Renaming ICE back to INS would be part of a reform, not abolition. Abolition implies no immigration enforcement, based on left-wing slogan "no human is illegal". Kasky speaks with a forked tongue here. How would his reformed INS enforce immigration laws concretely here, if at all?

Attention to affordability in the economy, combatting hate crimes, protecting reproductive rights, dismantling the prison industrial complex—there’s so much that I want to focus on.

He talks about "hate crimes", but wants to dismantle the "prison industrial complex". Again, he is speaking with a forked tongue.

I think he is well out of his depth. What qualifications does he even have to represent ~760k people? He is a "theater kid" cum college dropout who has, from what I have read, pretty much drifted since then, and is hoping to get a congressional paycheck for nothing (and his chicks for free?)

I do think that one needs prison for some crimes, but there are alternatives, like stopping drug warring and using ankle monitors. Instead of arguing over whether or not to prosecute shoplifters, for instance, treat it as a summary offense, like a traffic violation, and give anyone caught an ankle monitor.

I think there needs to be an escalation for repeat offenders. Currently in NYC, a shoplifter can steal over and over again, and they get released with a desk appearance ticket every time. That teaches them that there are no consequences for their actions. I think that if you are RORed for a crime like shoplifting, and are arrested again, that a judge should be able to impose something like bail and/or an ankle monitor. If you cut that, or violate conditions, or are arrested yet again, you should go to jail pending trials for all three offenses.

 

[bilby]

The Allies killed many people in WWII. Cities like Berlin and Tokyo were turned into a pile of rubble. German and Japanese civilians endured severe hardships. And yet this was not "genocide".

It would have been if the Allies had lost.

In war, the victors get to punish the vanquished for their "crimes". It's never the other way about.

Bomber Harris met all the requirements for being a genocidal war criminal, except for the critical "being on the losing side" criterion. So did Harry S. Truman. And many other senior allied commanders.

 

[Derec]

It would have been if the Allies had lost.

There would have been baseless accusations of "genocide" by the Nazis, just like there are baseless accusation against Israel from Islamofascists and their useful idiots in the West.

Not much difference between Hamas and NSDAP except for skill.

In war, the victors get to punish the vanquished for their "crimes". It's never the other way about.

Punishment for a vanquished foe is not the definition of "genocide".

Bomber Harris met all the requirements for being a genocidal war criminal, except for the critical "being on the losing side" criterion.

Sir Arthur Harris may or may not have committed war crimes. However, I have not seen any credible claim that he had any genocidal intent against German people.

So did Harry S. Truman. And many other senior allied commanders.

Why the haberdasher? Because he ordered the Bombs to be dropped, shortening the war and likely saving many net American as well as Japanese lives?

 

[bilby]

It would have been if the Allies had lost.

There would have been baseless accusations of "genocide" by the Nazis

And plenty of well founded ones, too. Ask the people of Dresden.

In war, the victors get to punish the vanquished for their "crimes". It's never the other way about.

Punishment for a vanquished foe is not the definition of "genocide".

I never suggested that it was.

I am saying that winners get a pass. If your side won, your war crimes are very unlikely to be punished, particularly if they are big ones, whose perpetrators hold high rank.

Bomber Harris met all the requirements for being a genocidal war criminal, except for the critical "being on the losing side" criterion.

Sir Arthur Harris may or may not have committed war crimes. However, I have not seen any credible claim that he had any genocidal intent against German people.

Are you kidding? It was his stated policy to target "worker's housing". Where did he think worker's families would be at night?

So did Harry S. Truman. And many other senior allied commanders.

Why the haberdasher? Because he ordered the Bombs to be dropped,

Yes.

shortening the war and likely saving many net American as well as Japanese lives?

It was still a war crime. If you murder someone, it is not a defence to argue that killing him saved lives, even if it is true.