• FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      17 hours ago

      It may just be me, but Mamdani just reminds me very much of 2007-2008 Obama, who himself was massively popular and saying all the right things, and then opted to rule as a conservative and helped usher along US fascism in the end.

      • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        17 hours ago

        I feel Mamdani might be different since he openly and unflinchingly said he doesn’t like capitalism, something that many politicians are afraid to do. And he is a member of DSA which Obama isn’t a member of so that is something of a solid credential for Mamdani. But only time will tell if he sticks to his promises and conviction.

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          17 hours ago

          He’s saying a lot of the right things.

          The question is what he’ll do when he realizes that being the mayor of NYC means he and his family have the opportunity to accrue generational wealth if they just play ball with the bad guys. Obama’s answer to that was: “I’ll do whatever you want.”

          • buttnugget@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Anyone can do anything, so obviously we can’t say definitively what Mamdani might do, but comparing him to Obama is disingenuous nonsense. Obama never said the workers owning the means of production was the ultimate goal; he was never a socialist and never espoused leftist beliefs personally, regardless of policy.

            Furthermore, all Obama did was talk about hope and change. He coasted into office on empty rhetoric, whereas Mamdani has been crystal clear about his policy goals right from the start. Saying a politician could bail once in office is reasonable, but comparing these two is unbounded idiocy.

          • ameancow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            Obama was never anywhere close to socialist and was already deep in the political game when elected, this is why he was successful in his role, he accrued political capital in his time in Senate by “dealing with the bad guys.” They are from very different places playing very different games going into very different roles.

            And we have to expect every politician is going to “deal with the bad guys” because that’s how you play. Vast sums of virtual and real wealth change hands behind closed doors and through policy decisions, this isn’t the “bad” in what makes for “bad guys” in politics, what makes it bad is the source of this money and how it’s being used by outside forces like corporations seeking specific agendas to make their shareholders even wealthier.

          • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            17 hours ago

            Did Obama actually said that? I don’t know if it’s true, but I heard that Obama told Bernie that he can’t be the good guy and be president.

            Corruption aside, once getting into position of political power, it is actually harder to maintain it because of different stakeholders involved. Take the military industrial complex, for example. We rightly chastise its profit taking motive by artificially inducing wars. But the sad truth is that they are jobs providers to peripheral places where there are little to no opportunities for many, especially in the desert states in the American Southwest and in isolated regions of Scotland and Northern England in the case of UK. No politicians want to be branded as jobs destroyer.

            Even without the opportunity for personal corruption, balancing genuine concerns and interests is a hard juggling act for any politicians. And that’s not even including campaign financing and its trap of being beholden to the donor. Unfortunately, there is strong correlation between electoral success and how much money is thrown into the campaigning. It is one factor as to why the Citizens United was allowed by the US Supreme Court.

            • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              17 hours ago

              Did Obama actually said that?

              Absolutely he did. He stood aside when Occupy was brutalized. He did nothing meaningful to help consumers during the foreclosure crisis. He gave the MIC seven wars at once during his presidency. (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, and Libya.) He made sure the big banks got their bailouts. His promise of universal health care morphed into ‘access to health care’, which of course, only existed if you could absorb being price-gouged for your insurance.

              Hell, he walked into Flint and pretended to take a drink of water as a political stunt, when he and everyone in that room knew their water was still poisoned with lead.

              Obama was a massively corrupt president, and one of the biggest disappointments in American history.

              • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                15 hours ago

                only existed if you could absorb being price-gouged for your insurance.

                The last time i tried to get insurance on the exchange, they said it would be 5 thousand dollars.

                I said “5000 dollars a year? that seems high”

                they said “Oh, no sir. 5000 dollars a month”

                I said “Goodbye” and hung up.