Congrats

[Viratas]

Congrats to the left, I won't say Dems, because not all Dems are far left. You have what you wanted. Now the proof will be out there for everyone to judge. If they succeed and make a more prosperous, safe, Clean, and welcoming state or city, like Cali has become, then we have our model moving forward.  

[El Luchador]

1 hour ago, Viratas said:

Congrats to the left, I won't say Dems, because not all Dems are far left. You have what you wanted. Now the proof will be out there for everyone to judge. If they succeed and make a more prosperous, safe, Clean, and welcoming state or city, like Cali has become, then we have our model moving forward.  

I always said the fastest way to end socialism is to give it to them. Unfortunately you generally need a revolution to force the rulers into giving up their power. You can vote your way in but you have to fight your way out. We don't need an experiment to understand socialism we just need an education. The evidence is out there.

Edited November 5, 2025 by El Luchador

[Paul158]

37 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

I always said the fastest way to end socialism is to give it to them. Unfortunately you generally need a revolution to force the rulers into giving up their power. You can vote your way in but you have to fight your way out. We don't need an experiment to understand socialism we just need an education. The evidence is out there.

I find it intriguing how smart, educated people cannot see the results of socialism and come to the logical conclusion that it doesn't work. I believe most schools have history classes that explain it in detail. 

[WrestlingRasta]

Personally and selfishly, this could be a good thing.  My youngest of five will graduate in May, and I'll be looking to sell my house and downsize around July-ish.   This election, combined with DeSantis' big push for eliminating property tax, could lead to another mass exodus of New Yorkers to Florida.....where we do things that make sense (for the most part), and lead to the housing mark turning and ticking upwards.   The timing is perfect.    Good job New York!!

Edited November 5, 2025 by WrestlingRasta

[JimmySpeaks]

35 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I find it intriguing how smart, educated people cannot see the results of socialism and come to the logical conclusion that it doesn't work. I believe most schools have history classes that explain it in detail. 

“Smart” brainwashed by the education system people 

 

fixed it for you 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

37 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I find it intriguing how smart, educated people cannot see the results of socialism and come to the logical conclusion that it doesn't work. I believe most schools have history classes that explain it in detail. 

Free stuff!!!!

[Viratas]

30 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Free stuff!!!!

That

[ionel]

3 hours ago, Viratas said:

Congrats to the wingers ... the far far left wingers

fixed that for you & rv 

[red viking]

Just now, Viratas said:

That

Nope. It's just about making the rich, who are far richer than ever, pay their fair share. It's that simple.

[uncle bernard]

It's not "free." It's paid for by the government which is funded by taxes. We all pay a share and we all get to enjoy the benefits.

Do you consider the police to be free stuff? What about the fire department? The military? Public parks? Roads?

[uncle bernard]

1 hour ago, Paul158 said:

I find it intriguing how smart, educated people cannot see the results of socialism and come to the logical conclusion that it doesn't work. I believe most schools have history classes that explain it in detail. 

The highest quality living countries in the world are socialist.

You guys complain endlessly about how horrible America is. You seem to have forgotten that it's the most hyper-capitalist country in the world. Maybe smart, educated people see the results of that and are ready to try something new?

[Viratas]

7 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

The highest quality living countries in the world are socialist.

You guys complain endlessly about how horrible America is. You seem to have forgotten that it's the most hyper-capitalist country in the world. Maybe smart, educated people see the results of that and are ready to try something new?

This is technically wrong. I will explain, and also, Socialism is not anything new, not sure why you think it is.

You are right that countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, and the Netherlands have a better quality of living. With that said, they are not socialist, although they have many socialist programs; politically, they are a "Social Democracy". Now you also have to consider economies of Scale. Their type of Government works well for small populations (those countries you refer to have populations of 5.5 million to 18 million). Much less than the 336 million in the US. Most experts agree that, on a smaller scale, many social programs do make sense and can improve the quality of life. Now, another aspect you have to consider is that we are a Federal Republic, while the Countries you reference are Unitary States. Making implementation much easier. 

Now, if you are going to use these hybrid socialist countries, let's use actual socialist countries, which are Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and China. They have a low quality of life, and the difference between the rich and the poor is dramatic. Nearly all countries that maintain a purely socialist or communist system are single-party authoritarian states that lack the political and civil liberties that are the main components of a high quality of life.

Wealth redistribution is not new. If helping people, making sure they have food, and HC is so critical to the left and their agenda, then tell me why none of these people have stepped in and funded it? Are they giving 50-70% of their income to the poor? Why don't they start by redistributing their wealth? 

George Soros
Fred Eychaner
Reid Hoffman
Tom Steyer
Jeffrey Katzenberg

Mark Warner (D-Virginia)
Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut)
Nancy Pelosi (D-California)
Suzan DelBene (D-Washington)
Doris O. Matsui (D-California)
Daniel S. Goldman (D-New York)

[Caveira]

41 minutes ago, red viking said:

Nope. It's just about making the rich, who are far richer than ever, pay their fair share. It's that simple.

If the rich pay nearly all of the taxes now what is their fair share?

[JimmySpeaks]

34 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

The highest quality living countries in the world are socialist.

You guys complain endlessly about how horrible America is. You seem to have forgotten that it's the most hyper-capitalist country in the world. Maybe smart, educated people see the results of that and are ready to try something new?

Wrong!  Lie!    America is the greatest country on the planet and will remain that way until socialists and commies ruin it.  Socialism and communism ARENT NEW skippy 

[JimmySpeaks]

38 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

The highest quality living countries in the world are socialist.

You guys complain endlessly about how horrible America is. You seem to have forgotten that it's the most hyper-capitalist country in the world. Maybe smart, educated people see the results of that and are ready to try something new?

You may want to look into how those countries handle immigration 

[Caveira]

9 minutes ago, Viratas said:

This is technically wrong. I will explain, and also, Socialism is not anything new, not sure why you think it is.

You are right that countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, and the Netherlands have a better quality of living. With that said, they are not socialist, although they have many socialist programs; politically, they are a "Social Democracy". Now you also have to consider economies of Scale. Their type of Government works well for small populations (those countries you refer to have populations of 5.5 million to 18 million). Much less than the 336 million in the US. Most experts agree that, on a smaller scale, many social programs do make sense and can improve the quality of life. Now, another aspect you have to consider is that we are a Federal Republic, while the Countries you reference are Unitary States. Making implementation much easier. 

Now, if you are going to use these hybrid socialist countries, let's use actual socialist countries, which are Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and China. They have a low quality of life, and the difference between the rich and the poor is dramatic. Nearly all countries that maintain a purely socialist or communist system are single-party authoritarian states that lack the political and civil liberties that are the main components of a high quality of life.

Wealth redistribution is not new. If helping people, making sure they have food, and HC is so critical to the left and their agenda, then tell me why none of these people have stepped in and funded it? Are they giving 50-70% of their income to the poor? Why don't they start by redistributing their wealth? 

George Soros
Fred Eychaner
Reid Hoffman
Tom Steyer
Jeffrey Katzenberg

Mark Warner (D-Virginia)
Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut)
Nancy Pelosi (D-California)
Suzan DelBene (D-Washington)
Doris O. Matsui (D-California)
Daniel S. Goldman (D-New York)

• Michael Bloomberg: ~$106 billion (former NYC Mayor, businessman, philanthropist)
• George Soros: ~$6.7 billion (investor, philanthropist, significant Democratic donor)
• Steven Spielberg: ~$5.4 billion (filmmaker)
• Alec Baldwin: ~$60 million
• Alyssa Milano: ~$10 million
• Barbra Streisand: ~$400 million
• Ben Affleck: ~$150 million
• Bette Midler: ~$250 million
• Billy Crystal: ~$60 million
• Danny DeVito: ~$80 million
• Debra Messing: ~$25 million
• George Clooney: ~$500 million+ (primarily from the Casamigos tequila sale)
• Jane Fonda: ~$200 million
• Kerry Washington: ~$50 million
• Larry David: ~$400 million (from Seinfeld syndication and Curb Your Enthusiasm)
• Leonardo DiCaprio: ~$300 million (philanthropist, environmental activist)
• Mark Ruffalo: ~$35–90 million (anti-fracking activist)
• Matt Damon: ~$170 million
• Meryl Streep: ~$160 million
• Morgan Freeman: ~$250 million
• Oprah Winfrey: ~$3 billion (media mogul, philanthropist)
• Rob Reiner: ~$200 million
• Robert De Niro: ~$735 million (includes restaurant/real estate ventures)
• Rosario Dawson: ~$8 million
• Rosie O'Donnell: ~$120 million
• Samuel L. Jackson: ~$250 million
• Sean Penn: ~$70 million
• Seth MacFarlane: ~$300 million
• Seth Rogen: ~$80 million
• Shonda Rhimes: ~$140 million (TV producer, writer)
• Susan Sarandon: ~$60 million
• Tom Hanks: ~$570 million
• Whoopi Goldberg: ~$60 million 
• Adele: ~$220 million
• Ariana Grande: ~$240 million
• Beyoncé: ~$760 million
• Billie Eilish: ~$30 million
• Bono: ~$700 million (U2 frontman, activist)
• Bruce Springsteen: ~$1.2 billion
• Cardi B: ~$80 million
• Cher: ~$360 million
• Christina Aguilera: ~$160 million
• Demi Lovato: ~$40 million
• Elton John: ~$600 million
• Gloria Estefan: ~$500 million
• Jay-Z: ~$2.5 billion (business mogul, artist)
• Jennifer Lopez: ~$400 million
• John Legend: ~$100 million
• Katy Perry: ~$38–45 million
• Lady Gaga: ~$150 million
• Lizzo: ~$12 million
• Madonna: ~$850 million
• Miley Cyrus: ~$160 million
• Pink: ~$200 million
• Rihanna: ~$1.4 billion+ (includes Fenty Beauty, Savage X Fenty brands)
• Shakira: ~$300 million
• Taylor Swift: ~$1.6 billion (as of April 2025) 
• Chelsea Handler: ~$25 million
• Ellen DeGeneres: ~$380 million
• Jimmy Fallon: ~$60 million
• Jimmy Kimmel: ~$50 million
• Jon Stewart: ~$120 million
• Samantha Bee: ~$8 million
• Stephen Colbert: ~$20 million
• LeBron James: ~$1.2 billion (NBA superstar, media/business ventures)
• Megan Rapinoe: ~$5 million (former professional soccer player, activist) 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

1 hour ago, uncle bernard said:

It's not "free." It's paid for by the government which is funded by taxes. We all pay a share and we all get to enjoy the benefits.

Right...

Edited November 5, 2025 by Interviewed_at_Weehawken

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

1 hour ago, Viratas said:

This is technically wrong. I will explain, and also, Socialism is not anything new, not sure why you think it is.

You are right that countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, and the Netherlands have a better quality of living. With that said, they are not socialist, although they have many socialist programs; politically, they are a "Social Democracy". Now you also have to consider economies of Scale. Their type of Government works well for small populations (those countries you refer to have populations of 5.5 million to 18 million). Much less than the 336 million in the US. Most experts agree that, on a smaller scale, many social programs do make sense and can improve the quality of life. Now, another aspect you have to consider is that we are a Federal Republic, while the Countries you reference are Unitary States. Making implementation much easier. 

Now, if you are going to use these hybrid socialist countries, let's use actual socialist countries, which are Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and China. They have a low quality of life, and the difference between the rich and the poor is dramatic. Nearly all countries that maintain a purely socialist or communist system are single-party authoritarian states that lack the political and civil liberties that are the main components of a high quality of life.

Wealth redistribution is not new. If helping people, making sure they have food, and HC is so critical to the left and their agenda, then tell me why none of these people have stepped in and funded it? Are they giving 50-70% of their income to the poor? Why don't they start by redistributing their wealth? 

George Soros
Fred Eychaner
Reid Hoffman
Tom Steyer
Jeffrey Katzenberg

Mark Warner (D-Virginia)
Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut)
Nancy Pelosi (D-California)
Suzan DelBene (D-Washington)
Doris O. Matsui (D-California)
Daniel S. Goldman (D-New York)

Stop! You're ruining the narrative!

[red viking]

1 hour ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Wrong!  Lie!    America is the greatest country on the planet and will remain that way until socialists and commies ruin it.  Socialism and communism ARENT NEW skippy 

America sucks in so many ways and overall. Pretty much all.of western Europe, Canada and Australia are better. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

36 minutes ago, red viking said:

America sucks in so many ways and overall. Pretty much all.of western Europe, Canada and Australia are better. 

You're so close to Canada...

[uncle bernard]

2 hours ago, Viratas said:

This is technically wrong. I will explain, and also, Socialism is not anything new, not sure why you think it is.

You are right that countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, and the Netherlands have a better quality of living. With that said, they are not socialist, although they have many socialist programs; politically, they are a "Social Democracy". Now you also have to consider economies of Scale. Their type of Government works well for small populations (those countries you refer to have populations of 5.5 million to 18 million). Much less than the 336 million in the US. Most experts agree that, on a smaller scale, many social programs do make sense and can improve the quality of life. Now, another aspect you have to consider is that we are a Federal Republic, while the Countries you reference are Unitary States. Making implementation much easier. 

Now, if you are going to use these hybrid socialist countries, let's use actual socialist countries, which are Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and China. They have a low quality of life, and the difference between the rich and the poor is dramatic. Nearly all countries that maintain a purely socialist or communist system are single-party authoritarian states that lack the political and civil liberties that are the main components of a high quality of life.

Wealth redistribution is not new. If helping people, making sure they have food, and HC is so critical to the left and their agenda, then tell me why none of these people have stepped in and funded it? Are they giving 50-70% of their income to the poor? Why don't they start by redistributing their wealth? 

George Soros
Fred Eychaner
Reid Hoffman
Tom Steyer
Jeffrey Katzenberg

Mark Warner (D-Virginia)
Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut)
Nancy Pelosi (D-California)
Suzan DelBene (D-Washington)
Doris O. Matsui (D-California)
Daniel S. Goldman (D-New York)

Mamdani is also a democratic socialist. He's a part of DSA, which explicitly argues for the Scandinavian model. 

The great thing about democrats advocating for tax increases on the rich, the few who do like Mamdani, is that they also apply to rich democrats. Being rich and advocating for taxes on the rich isn't hypocritical. It's the opposite of that.

One of the major flaws in your judgment is that you view the democrats as "the left." They majority of the democratic establishment is center or center-right on an actual political scale. Guys like Mamdani or Sanders are actually "left" on economics (not just social issues) which is why the entire party unites to try to stop them anytime they have success. The establishment of the democratic party (Pelosi, Schumer, Jeffries, etc...) probably hates Zohran more than you do.

But you do hit on one thing correctly. These issues aren't black or white. Zohran isn't planning to end capitalism in NYC (as if that were even possible). He's arguing for a strong social safety net and public benefits within a market economy, just like the Scandinavian social democracies (and China and Venezuela btw - Capitalism very much exists in those countries too).

To act like Mamdani is going to instantly turn NYC into a Communist Muslim Caliphate is just as stupid as the people who thought Trump was going to put every democrat in the country in a death camp or end democracy (except Trump actually does lean into some of that rhetoric because his base likes it).

[uncle bernard]

2 hours ago, Caveira said:

 

• Michael Bloomberg: ~$106 billion (former NYC Mayor, businessman, philanthropist)
• George Soros: ~$6.7 billion (investor, philanthropist, significant Democratic donor)
• Steven Spielberg: ~$5.4 billion (filmmaker)
• Alec Baldwin: ~$60 million
• Alyssa Milano: ~$10 million
• Barbra Streisand: ~$400 million
• Ben Affleck: ~$150 million
• Bette Midler: ~$250 million
• Billy Crystal: ~$60 million
• Danny DeVito: ~$80 million
• Debra Messing: ~$25 million
• George Clooney: ~$500 million+ (primarily from the Casamigos tequila sale)
• Jane Fonda: ~$200 million
• Kerry Washington: ~$50 million
• Larry David: ~$400 million (from Seinfeld syndication and Curb Your Enthusiasm)
• Leonardo DiCaprio: ~$300 million (philanthropist, environmental activist)
• Mark Ruffalo: ~$35–90 million (anti-fracking activist)
• Matt Damon: ~$170 million
• Meryl Streep: ~$160 million
• Morgan Freeman: ~$250 million
• Oprah Winfrey: ~$3 billion (media mogul, philanthropist)
• Rob Reiner: ~$200 million
• Robert De Niro: ~$735 million (includes restaurant/real estate ventures)
• Rosario Dawson: ~$8 million
• Rosie O'Donnell: ~$120 million
• Samuel L. Jackson: ~$250 million
• Sean Penn: ~$70 million
• Seth MacFarlane: ~$300 million
• Seth Rogen: ~$80 million
• Shonda Rhimes: ~$140 million (TV producer, writer)
• Susan Sarandon: ~$60 million
• Tom Hanks: ~$570 million
• Whoopi Goldberg: ~$60 million 
• Adele: ~$220 million
• Ariana Grande: ~$240 million
• Beyoncé: ~$760 million
• Billie Eilish: ~$30 million
• Bono: ~$700 million (U2 frontman, activist)
• Bruce Springsteen: ~$1.2 billion
• Cardi B: ~$80 million
• Cher: ~$360 million
• Christina Aguilera: ~$160 million
• Demi Lovato: ~$40 million
• Elton John: ~$600 million
• Gloria Estefan: ~$500 million
• Jay-Z: ~$2.5 billion (business mogul, artist)
• Jennifer Lopez: ~$400 million
• John Legend: ~$100 million
• Katy Perry: ~$38–45 million
• Lady Gaga: ~$150 million
• Lizzo: ~$12 million
• Madonna: ~$850 million
• Miley Cyrus: ~$160 million
• Pink: ~$200 million
• Rihanna: ~$1.4 billion+ (includes Fenty Beauty, Savage X Fenty brands)
• Shakira: ~$300 million
• Taylor Swift: ~$1.6 billion (as of April 2025) 
• Chelsea Handler: ~$25 million
• Ellen DeGeneres: ~$380 million
• Jimmy Fallon: ~$60 million
• Jimmy Kimmel: ~$50 million
• Jon Stewart: ~$120 million
• Samantha Bee: ~$8 million
• Stephen Colbert: ~$20 million
• LeBron James: ~$1.2 billion (NBA superstar, media/business ventures)
• Megan Rapinoe: ~$5 million (former professional soccer player, activist) 

In a few sentences, explain the point you're trying to make.

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

In a few sentences, explain the point you're trying to make.

Thad’s a short list of rich actively vocal liberal’s who can start donating extra tax money to the poor.  They can start redistributing their wealth.  

[Viratas]

3 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Mamdani is also a democratic socialist. He's a part of DSA, which explicitly argues for the Scandinavian model. 

The great thing about democrats advocating for tax increases on the rich, the few who do like Mamdani, is that they also apply to rich democrats. Being rich and advocating for taxes on the rich isn't hypocritical. It's the opposite of that.

One of the major flaws in your judgment is that you view the democrats as "the left." They majority of the democratic establishment is center or center-right on an actual political scale. Guys like Mamdani or Sanders are actually "left" on economics (not just social issues) which is why the entire party unites to try to stop them anytime they have success. The establishment of the democratic party (Pelosi, Schumer, Jeffries, etc...) probably hates Zohran more than you do.

But you do hit on one thing correctly. These issues aren't black or white. Zohran isn't planning to end capitalism in NYC (as if that were even possible). He's arguing for a strong social safety net and public benefits within a market economy, just like the Scandinavian social democracies (and China and Venezuela btw - Capitalism very much exists in those countries too).

To act like Mamdani is going to instantly turn NYC into a Communist Muslim Caliphate is just as stupid as the people who thought Trump was going to put every democrat in the country in a death camp or end democracy (except Trump actually does lean into some of that rhetoric because his base likes it).

It is not a flaw since apparently you did not read my post that started this thread, "Congrats to the left, I won't say Dems, because not all Dems are far left." I guess I am confused as to why you would mischaracterize my position? 

Pelosi, Schumer, and Jeffries are far from moderate, sorry. Newsome is the perfect example of failed socialist policies. So is Chicago. Mamdani wants to go even further. I guess we will see. That is how the system works.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

10 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Mamdani is also a democratic socialist. He's a part of DSA, which explicitly argues for the Scandinavian model. 

The great thing about democrats advocating for tax increases on the rich, the few who do like Mamdani, is that they also apply to rich democrats. Being rich and advocating for taxes on the rich isn't hypocritical. It's the opposite of that.

One of the major flaws in your judgment is that you view the democrats as "the left." They majority of the democratic establishment is center or center-right on an actual political scale. Guys like Mamdani or Sanders are actually "left" on economics (not just social issues) which is why the entire party unites to try to stop them anytime they have success. The establishment of the democratic party (Pelosi, Schumer, Jeffries, etc...) probably hates Zohran more than you do.

But you do hit on one thing correctly. These issues aren't black or white. Zohran isn't planning to end capitalism in NYC (as if that were even possible). He's arguing for a strong social safety net and public benefits within a market economy, just like the Scandinavian social democracies (and China and Venezuela btw - Capitalism very much exists in those countries too).

To act like Mamdani is going to instantly turn NYC into a Communist Muslim Caliphate is just as stupid as the people who thought Trump was going to put every democrat in the country in a death camp or end democracy (except Trump actually does lean into some of that rhetoric because his base likes it).

The two groups who can afford this stuff are the rich and the poor.  The middle class gets crushed.