New York democratic socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani 'globalize the intifada' ?

This isn’t a replacement for the original concern — it’s a complementary argument that adds another layer.
Rather than canceling the previous point about Mamdani’s troubling positions on Israel, this opinion piece broadens the scope by highlighting a pattern of extreme rhetoric and ideological alignment that many voters — regardless of religion or background — may find concerning. It shows there are multiple red flags, not just one, and that his platform raises deeper questions about judgment, historical awareness, and the direction he wants to take the city.

 

Sorry Lerner, this post makes very little sense. What does selective reading mean? What did I selectively read? What do you think you proved? What sentence did I cut off? What did I falsely claim what you said? You are making even less sense than usual.

Perhaps you need to reread the beginning of this exchange?

You didn't prove anything. Where is your quote from Phillips saying that Mamdani endorsed extremism against Jews? That is your false statement. If you think you proved that Mamdani did endorse extremism against Jews then, I disagree but more importantly point out that that would be completely irrelevant to what we were talking about.

 

I think, you only read first half of sentence and ignored the other half.

 

He openly ran as a democratic socialist. His leftist political ideology wasnt a secret.

 

Sorry Lerner, this post makes less sense than before. You answered ZERO of my questions.
Here's a new question. What sentences are you talking about?
What does selective reading mean?
What did I selectively read?
What do you think you proved?
What sentence did I cut off?
What did I falsely claim what you said?

Perhaps you need to reread the beginning of this exchange?

 

I understand some elected Democrats being concerned about him being a socialist Democrat. He's bucking the status quo. There's always going to be some folks concerned when one bucks the status quo. Bernie Sanders is the only long term politician I know of that claims to be a socialist Democrat. I have to assume the Democrats criticizing him are worried that moderates and independent voters will be turned off by the whole Democratic party because of him? I kind of doubt that is true though.

 

I think partially that. Democrats in recent years have tried to move to the center to get more moderate voters. That being said, progressives have shown broad appeal, so clearly that is not the whole answer.

I think a large part is that Democratic leadership is afraid to upend their gerontocratic structure and lose grip to the younger politicians. Many establishment Dems have substantial wealth generated from lobbying to corporate interests as well as other questionable means (Nancy Pelosi is probably the most obvious at this). Change in the system might hinder that. Democrats also like to always have a “rotating villain” to explain their inability to pass progressive legislation. More progressive democrats threaten that order. Much like Bernie being snubbed in 2016, democrats would rather lose an election than give up that power.

And the other factor is good old racism and xenophobia at play. Various moderate dems have made statements saying as much so.

 

People voted for Mumdani because the moderate policies of Eric Adams didn’t work for them.

 

Yes, Mamdani had a much higher success rate than expected. He's probably going to win the mayoral race because his competition in the general election is not real strong. He must have run a really strong campaign for the nomination.

 

Adams is extremely unpopular, even amongst democrats. I am not convinced he would have won the primary against Mumdani.

 

I responded

What sentences are you talking about?
What does selective reading mean?
What did I selectively read?
What do you think you proved?
What sentence did I cut off?
What did I falsely claim what you said?

Perhaps you need to reread the beginning of this exchange?

You didn't prove anything. Where is your quote from Phillips saying that Mamdani endorsed extremism against Jews? That is your false statement. If you think you proved that Mamdani did endorse extremism against Jews then, I disagree but more importantly point out that that would be completely irrelevant to what we were talking about.
______________________

It looks like Lerner is not going to answer any of the questions I asked to try to make sense of his assertion in the quoted text.

IMHO, he should respond truthfully, similar to the way that NotJoeBiden did in this thread when he got confused by Lerner's use of Jihadi versus Moslem (or maybe it was Islam?) But, that not being the case, what's your best guess at what Lerner was trying to accomplish? Was he being serious? Perhaps he was just trolling? Or just trying to obfuscate the issue? Or, he reread the the exchange earlier in this thread and realized his response didn't make sense? Or? I'm seriously curious what anyone else guess might be.

 

I think the disconnect is that you thought I ascribed the post only to one person, I clarified that my post was according to multiple sources.
What sentences are you talking about?
"Lerner us quoting Former Rep Dan Philips D -Min and other critics, from moderate Dems."

 

Bill, you're misrepresenting what I said.

I didn’t claim that Mamdani personally endorsed extremism.
I clearly wrote that critics argue he is “crossing a line from advocacy into endorsement of extremism.” That’s a paraphrase reflecting public criticism — including the direct quote I cited from Former Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN), who called Mamdani a “grave threat” to Democrats across the U.S.

Here’s what Phillips actually said on CNN:

“Mamdani... is a grave threat to Democrats around the country. He could be the mayor of New York.”
Source: [Yahoo News link you provided]

This is not my invention.
I provided the source, and it’s not a fringe or partisan voice — it’s a moderate Democrat expressing serious concerns.

What you did was selectively read the first part of my sentence and ignore the qualifier — “critics argue”. That’s what I meant by selective reading or intentional distortion.
It appears to me that you falsely attributed the quote to me as if I made a personal accusation against Mamdani endorsing extremism — when in reality, I was referencing others who’ve made that critique, including Phillips.

Instead of honestly engaging with the full context, you:

• Ignored the “critics argue” framing
  
  
• Claimed I was making a false assertion
  
  
• Shifted the conversation away from the actual criticism Mamdani has received from fellow Democrats

If you disagree with those critics — including Phillips — that’s fair. But please argue with them, not with a reduced version of my post.

I stand by what I wrote. If you think you’ve proven anything, please quote exactly what you think I falsely claimed — in full context, and I will clarify.
We have very different views of things, so each see things differently.

 

This makes much more sense. When Phillips and Carville criticized Mamdani, they were criticizing his socialist bent not accusing him of endorsing extremism against Jews. When Phillips called Mamdani a grave threat he was referring to his espoused socialist policies. Carville and Phillips expressed concern about his socialist leaning views causing problems that might get some moderate and independent voters to vote against Democrats in general. When you said others accused Mamdani of endorsing extremism it seemed clear to me that you were talking about the stupid phrase that I forget what it was intifada something. If that wasn't what you meant then you were very awkward in your phrasing. Phillips was not concerned about that. Maybe Carville mentioned it but it was more in the context of Mamdani being stupid not to just condemn the phrase and be done with it.

 

Jeffries: Mamdani must reassure Jewish community ‘that he’s going to stand up’ for their safety, security.
"House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani needs to reassure Jewish New Yorkers that he plans to prioritize their safety if elected in November.

Jeffries, who still has not endorsed Mamdani’s candidacy, plans to meet with the 33-year-old democratic socialist this week.

The Democratic leader said in a recent interview with Punchbowl News that he expects Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada” will “be part of our discussion.”
The House Democratic leader, who represents Brooklyn and a small part of Queens, has previously talked about the rise in hate crimes against Jews in New York and the need to reassure voters that the issue is a priority to him.
With respect to the Jewish communities that I represent, I think our nominee is going to have to convince folks that he is prepared to aggressively address the rise in antisemitism in the City of New York, which has been an unacceptable development"

 

Mumdani said multiple times throughout his campaign he will work protect Jewish New Yorkers. Jefferies is democratic establishment, and for the reasons I outlined above, he doesnt want Mumdani. He wants Eric Adams or Cuomo. Both are corrupt politicians.

 

I doubt they really want Eric Adams or Cuomo that bad. Like you say they are corrupt and would have their own drag on the party. Part of it might just be political gamesmanship on the part of Jefferies and Shummer. The Jewish vote is a decent part of the Democratic vote. They need to make a show of support for the Jewish faction of the party. Mamdani should be a wise enough politician to play along with them.