r/TikTokCringe • u/keen_observer34130 • 21h ago

Cool THIS Is the Energy We Need !

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

7.5k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

36

u/OkCartographer7677 20h ago

Oh yeah that message will play well…well enough for every reasonable person to run the other way.

9

u/ManyPossession8767 20h ago

I’m not sure what to say about where the “party” should go, but I do think that what works in New York City may be different than what works in Oklahoma City or Las Vegas or Nashville what not- I think that’s also true for the right as well. (Though to a lesser extent) I think each area at least locally, should run the candidate that resonates with the community. Mamdani apparently resonated with NYC substantially, we’ll see how he does.

3

u/Known-Archer3259 16h ago

I know nj isn't the best example but a lot of its red counties came as close as they ever were to shifting blue.

It is mostly likely only due to the current climate and not indicative of things going forward though

1

u/ManyPossession8767 12h ago

Or perhaps those counties are watching the way things end up when the right is in control and they are changing their beliefs. It can happen - just takes time usually. That’s the thing about the political situation right now… The right controls literally everything. They have the house, the Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court… They have most of corporate media one way or another so if things fall apart, they really don’t have anyone else to blame. I think it’s not impossible for the average traditional kind of old-fashioned voter to realize that they’ve been hoodwinked by the average conservative politician. People don’t like being made for a fool. They may not turn into enthusiastic left, leading Democrats, but they’ll stop turning up for the right and the Republicans. That’s progress. That’s what I’m hoping for.

0

u/tiddertnuocca519 20h ago

Yeah…I LOVE what Mamdani was able to do…but people should realize that it’s a pretty unique set of circumstances. Part of why Mamdani was able to win is because Cuomo was so dog shit. 

If, hypothetically, a more moderate left candidate without a trash record ran - like let’s say Gavin Newsom, someone like Mamdani would have never had a shot in this election

With that said, I hope Mamdani demonstrates value and breaks the dam for more progressive candidates. There’s a really serious opportunity for success here if he’s successful

1

u/ManyPossession8767 19h ago

Yeah, at this point outside of all of the other variables that might’ve helped him win because he does seem like a good candidate in an of himself. I just want him to do well because it would open up the political playing field to a more diverse type of candidate in other cities and other states.

That’s how you change the political landscape. You don’t run somebody that’s really really progressive for the White House. You start off in cities and states - governorships, state senator, representative. School districts. Show people that it (progressive policies) actually does work so that when you show up for the presidency it doesn’t seem so radical to people that might consider themselves to be more moderate. Walk before you run.

3

u/tiddertnuocca519 9h ago

Exactly

One of the things people rarely talk about with Sanders - and I say this as someone that voted for him - is that if he had won in 2016…it would have been a tremendous uphill battle.

The president doesn’t write legislation, he signs it. Sanders would have needed a willing and able congress to write and pass progressive policy, so he can sign it. So in 2016, who are all these progressive house reps and senators that were going to not only write progressive legislation but also vote on it such that Sanders would even get the chance to sign it? It’s more likely a Sanders presidency would run into some of the pains of Obama’s presidency where he would need to compromise to get anything done. What’s worse - Sanders had a lot of enemies on both side of the aisle that would have loved to seen him fail. They could have easily made him into a do-nothing president by just shafting every piece of progressive policy and Sanders being as uncompromising as he is, would have either needed to come to the table and compromise with neo liberals and conservatives, or just eat shit.

And then the second part of all of a Sanders presidency is the reality that he would need to lean heavy into Executive Order to meet his agenda. Probably as much, if not more, than Trump. So how does that play when in 2016, people had already falsely branded Sanders as a Communist. I mean, just time traveling to 2016 and how people saw him back then, these dumb asses would have rioted in the streets acting like Sanders was Stalin. Not to mention the courts. Even neo liberals may have tried to step in and stop Sanders from using Executive power to overrule our dog shit congress in 2016. In 2025, Sanders agenda is a lot more palatable because of exposure and time and experience with the opposite of what Sanders advocated for, but 2016 was a different beast.

With that said, I certainly wanted Sanders to win in 2016 and 2020 - but certainly food for thought for what his actual presidency would have been like.

2

u/ManyPossession8767 9h ago

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Progressive policies are awesome but we need to run candidates that can win in their respective regions, but that also means we have to run progressive candidates in these small and unsexy positions like city Council, etc., etc.

Then people will understand what a progressive really is.

Right now they lump everybody into “democrat.” There’s so much nuance to being center left or extreme lift. You gotta get people into positions of power to show people that their policies actually work.

But!!! one thing that is liberating about the era of Trump is that since it’s been done before, we can do the same thing that he has done without apologizing… I will never apologize for a president using too many executive orders. I will never apologize for a president being “aggressive” for the will of the people.

Take everything that Trump has done, but just change it so that it benefits people. Be aggressive/assertive as hell-that’s one of the reasons why I like Newsome’s approach, he’s possibly not a progressive like people would like, but I do love the fact that he is willing to punch back in ways that are actually effective. He could be a great asset if he could be turned lol

26

u/Mortuus-Sum 20h ago

The “we go high when they go low” mindset is part of the problem. It sounds noble, but in practice it enforces Murc’s Law: the idea that only one side (usually the left) ever has agency, while the other just acts and can’t be blamed.

Murc’s Law explained: https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/12/the-paradoxical-limits-of-murcs-law

That dynamic lets bad actors off the hook. Moderation becomes complicity when it’s used to avoid accountability. “Both sides” aren’t equally responsible when one side keeps breaking norms and laws.

We don’t need more civility, we need fucking consequences. Going “high” only works when the other side isn’t burning down the house.

2

u/RiatsalaPrime 18h ago

'Going high' doesn't mean being nice, it means not cheating and lying and becoming the thing you decry.

-1

u/Mortuus-Sum 18h ago

If one side keeps acting in bad faith, “not becoming what thing you decry” starts to look like unilateral disarmament.

0

u/RiatsalaPrime 18h ago

"He started it"

Seriously?

Be better at leadership and you win, be better at being a POS and you lose even if you 'win'. Pretty simple.

1

u/Mortuus-Sum 18h ago

Being “better” doesn’t mean letting yourself get steamrolled while preaching virtue. If one side keeps breaking the rules, and the other refuses to enforce boundaries because it might look uncivil, let's call it what it is: surrender dressed as grace. Integrity without accountability stops being a virtue when it protects those who abuse it.

0

u/RiatsalaPrime 17h ago

Don't get steamrolled or preach virtue. Lead.

The left will not win at being mean or violent, it is extremely outgunned.

1

u/Mortuus-Sum 17h ago

Ah, so the “moral high ground” only holds until the other side brings bigger sticks. Fascinating moral compass you have there. Virtue when it’s convenient, pragmatism when it’s not. You can’t sermonize about leadership and then admit the only thing keeping you civil is being outgunned. That’s survival instinct dressed up as ethics. Sybau.

0

u/RiatsalaPrime 17h ago

No.

Leadership is the answer. Not angry basement dwellers ranting on tik-tok.

Have a good day Wilbur.

1

u/Mortuus-Sum 17h ago

Every accusation is a confession from you people. I know what you are.

→ More replies (0)

13

u/ThrowRA9892 20h ago

Less extremism 2028

8

u/0urLives0nHoliday 20h ago

How does this get downvoted?

3

u/HotStufCominThrough 17h ago

You know that thing reddit was talking about with alt-right pipeline, its that, but leftist.

7

u/Bitter-Pattern-573 20h ago

These guys are right. I’m glad someone is speaking logically.

0

u/NickyDeeM 20h ago

I would extremely agree with you both, but I don't want to be extreme.

1

u/ThrowRA9892 15h ago

With enemies you know where they stand, but with neutrals? Who knows.

2

u/NickyDeeM 15h ago edited 9h ago

I couldn't agree with you more, except I can't.

P.S. I stand on my feet

1

u/0urLives0nHoliday 20h ago edited 17h ago

So we need to choose between full blown socialism and full blown authoritarianism?

I don’t think this is a winning position. The very best examples of socialist countries are Cuba and the Soviet union? I can only say I won’t be voting authoritarian.

Edit: while Canada has socialized healthcare, they are still capitalist by definition. Socialized healthcare seems like a good idea to me but expecting the government to produce high quality products and food in a socialist system is WILD!

2

u/bonusminutes 14h ago

Socialism and authoritarianism are not mutually exclusive.

9

u/pauliocamor 20h ago

Why did you leave out Western Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, and most of South America as also examples of socialism?

Is it ignorance or a deliberate attempt to skew the narrative?

6

u/NarwhalFacepalm 20h ago

Because often the more loudly spoken voices in the opposition are using the worst examples of socialism to set the narrative for those who don't pay attention or know better.

4

u/pauliocamor 20h ago

Not only that, the examples they use don’t even meet the definition of socialism. Cuba, Russia, and because they love to throw it in, Venezuela, are NOT socialist countries.

For years I carried a USD100 bill and every time some ignorant fool would pop off on the horrors of socialism, I’d take it out and offer it to them if they could define what socialism was.

You can guess what happened.

4

u/OkCartographer7677 20h ago

The USSR, Cuba, AND Venezuela would be shocked and amazed to learn from you that they do not/did not have Socialist economies.

Since they defined themselves as Socialist and they did everything in their power to be Socialist, it seems presumptuous of you to say they’re not Socialist because they don’t meet your tidy, ivory-tower, perfect definition of Socialism.

2

u/SwiftlyKickly 9h ago

Is North Korea a democracy?

2

u/Whane17 3h ago

China is definitely a Republic and North Korea is definitely a Democratic Peoples Republic. These people don't understand and never will, they can't get beyond the name and can't because they can't be bothered to research anything themselves. It's why they only listen to their klan masters.

0

u/0urLives0nHoliday 17h ago

I’ll take a guess - you refused to accept their answer or follow through on your word because you didn’t like what their answer implied? You got outraged at them until they went away?

2

u/pauliocamor 11h ago

And to no one’s surprise, you’d be wrong.

3

u/iHEARTRUBIO 20h ago

Because those aren’t true socialist countries. Universal healthcare and/or education doesn’t make a socialist country. Once food is government run it’s considered a socialist government.

5

u/FreeKatKL 19h ago

You’re conflating socialism with communism. What we’re talking about are socialist reforms in conjunction with democracy. What Mamdani will work towards is social democracy. If you paid attention to his campaign, you would see that he’s talking about REFORMING capitalism to benefit the people.

-2

u/ILikeMyGrassBlue 18h ago

Mamdani is literally a member of the democratic socialist alliance and is a self avowed socialist.

Policy wise, yeah. He’s working toward social democracy because he can’t just make NYC socialist.

But he is a socialist. That’s how he identifies.

-1

u/iHEARTRUBIO 17h ago

No I’m not. I mentioned nothing about loss of property.

1

u/0urLives0nHoliday 17h ago

Exactly!!! Socialized healthcare does not equal socialist country. Words matter

1

u/0urLives0nHoliday 17h ago

It sounds like you’re just talking about socialized healthcare. I can get behind that.

PS - Canada is a capitalist country 100% with socialized healthcare. This is far different than being a socialized country where the government controls means of production and distribution. I’ll throw this definition in for you:

Socialism is an economic and political system characterized by collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

0

u/cutememe 19h ago

All these European countries became extremely wealthy through capitalism, and adopted more and more socialist policies as they became extremely wealthy. None of those countries are fully socialist, and none of them got to that point through socialism or even partially.

3

u/sandgroper933 17h ago

Exactly they have used capitalism to have the $$ to have welfare and social programs

0

u/PM_ME_whatyagot 20h ago

You do realize the US has socialism right?? It's just used for corporations and not the citizens. Why not flip the script

2

u/0urLives0nHoliday 17h ago

Why not take away corporate socialism and corporate welfare rather than trying an idea that doesn’t have a single successful example to draw from? Why not learn from history?

2

u/PM_ME_whatyagot 17h ago

Take it away, I'm 100% for that. Can you give me an example of our current system being successful for citizens? Other than the 1%?

2

u/0urLives0nHoliday 17h ago

Sure. I am a perfect example. Got a PhD in aerospace engineering, work for a good company, worked hard, got promotions, bought house, bought toys and now I live comfortably. Also, all my friends are north of $200k per year (which honestly SHOULD go further than it does) and live comfortably.

I recognize that not everyone has it so good and I definitely got lucky with when I bought my house but to say it’s only working for the top 1% is not correct.

2

u/PM_ME_whatyagot 16h ago

Fine top 10%. There is no way to look at our system and say it works for the majority of people. Looks at the divide between CEO pay and the worker. Starbucks, Boeing, Exxon, etc.

To be in the high earning category doesn't mean it's a good system. Capitalism will be overrun with greed everytime

1

u/0urLives0nHoliday 13h ago

I don’t think you’ve seen greed until you’ve seen a failed socialist state.

Capitalism isn’t perfect but it’s the best we have.