President Donald Trump’s loyal MAGA influencers have a lot to be fearful of when it comes to Zohran Mamdani’s preemptive Democratic primary win for mayor in New York City on Tuesday.
From promised rent freezes to city-owned grocery stores, the progressive, Uganda-born candidate is rising in the ranks without the help of massive super PACS like disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
However, it’s not Mamdani’s lack of lawsuits surrounding sexual assault or COVID-19 death cover-ups that have the likes of Laura Loomer and Charlie Kirk shaking behind a keyboard. Rather, the two are turning to the tried-and-true Islamophic approaches they know well to attack the 33-year-old making waves across the Big Apple. For self-proclaimed Islamophobe Loomer, Trump's shadow tweeted Tuesday that Mamdani "hasn't even been a US citizen for 10 years. He is literally supported by terrorists."
Adding to the insanity, she said, "NYC is about to see 9/11 2.0."
Loomer wrote in response to a separate tweet, “Muslims destroyed NYC on 9/11 [sic] and now a Muslim Communist [sic] is about to destroy the entire city for eternity.”
Looney needs to be seriously medicated. She is..insane. -greenman
All you have to do is look at the cities of Chicago & LA to see what socialist leaners can do.
I'm not a hater. I don't care if those mayors are Black, White, or purple. I don't care if they are Hispanic, Chinese, Korean, African, Middle Eastern or European. Just as I don't care what the race of my doctors are. I just desire highly competent people that are top shelf at practicing their profession or craft. That would also include politicians.
Your fake cries of 'But I'M not a racist!' ring false. Otherwise why deliberately name two MAJOR American cites targeted by the Right, who have black Mayors?
I'm calling you out on this.-greenman
Just stating the facts. The fact that both are Black is the product of coincidence and
Posted by TW on June 26, 2025, 10:10 am, in reply to "And BTW" Valued Poster
the fact that there are many Progressive Democrats who are Black. Those high percentages make the fact that both are Black all the more possible. Thanks to DEI, it has become somewhat of a nice virtue signal to vote for someone that is not White. It was a part of the reason Obama was elected. Collective White guilt along with a way to prove, "I'm not a racist!". As being called a racist is a favorite pastime of the left in these times.
A significant portion of the actions of the left are based in virtue signaling. I will say that virtue signaling is engaged by those on the right as well. Why? Too many people these days have developed no basic and authentic sense of self. Their sense of self is a cause or series of causes that tickle their fancy. They hop on board the crazy train for amusement, and it looks like a fun ride that all their friends, their favorite celebrities, and the so-called movers and shakers are riding on. They have superficial knowledge of their destination and are only capable of parroting the talking points of their fellow travelers. Not only that, but they haven't a clue of the nuts and bolts of their desires or the end results of getting what they think they want. It seems today that too many people's lives and sense of self are based in "virtual reality". Their phones, their many social media accounts, and the culture the mass media peddles. For too many years, too many of our young have received dismal educations, and they read nothing of substance. You cannot be well-educated without some tangible experiences. You do not receive tangible experiences in the digital realm. As has been stated many times, people today are better connected communication wise than they have ever been, but loneliness is the plague of these times. Too many people today are not grounded in experience and a solid education. They have little knowledge of math, science, history, or literature. They are empty vessels that are readily filled with the nonsense puked out by pop culture.
We have done our children and thus ourselves and our collective futures a monumental disservice.
Posted by greenman on June 26, 2025, 1:18 pm, in reply to "NTR"
..of how full of it you are:
"Thanks to DEI, it has become somewhat of a nice virtue signal to vote for someone that is not White. It was a part of the reason Obama was elected. Collective White guilt along with a way to prove, "I'm not a racist!". As being called a racist is a favorite pastime of the left in these times."
This is CRAP.
DEI has to do with EQUALITY. Only bigoted Righties believe it's a system of preference or quotas. It's largely a buzzword for ignorant MAGAs, the kind of buzzword Faux Nooze and your echo chambers teach you.
I voted for Obama (who was not even being discussed) because he was a BETTER CANDIDATE and because I tend to vote Dem. Apparently idiots have told you it's 'virtue signaling.' It is not, that's a LIE. But opposition to a candidate because he is black is RACIST. Obama was far better educated, and a better family man, than the sac of pus in the White House at present.
"Collective White guilt" is a race-baiting term. I don't give a damn whether you accept that or not. Don't want to be called on your obvious racism? Then don't put it in every extremist post of yours.
Dismissed. -greenman
Actually, you are stating your OPINION of the things that you see, have heard, and
than the very red state of Missouri to see what Republican politics do to a state. The crime rate in Missouri's two major cities far surpasses that in Chicago and most of the major cities in California. In fact, you should compare the poverty and crime rates in all the red states against all blue states.
Unfortunately crime, drug overdoses, mortality and poverty rates in red states far surpass that in blue states. Why do you think that is?
Because those cities have Democrats for their mayors like Chicago and LA.
As do likely most, if not all cities, in Red States.
The major point I was attempting to make is the Progressive and Socialist leaning Democrats tend to have very poor records as mayors of their respective cities. Their policies seldom improve anything, and they drive much of their citizenry into a deeper dependence of government. That is not a recipe for a success in anything other than greater debt.
Here's some research that completely upends your claim
It's just been years of propaganda by Republicans, that's all.
"Overall, our findings show that mayors’ partisanship has limited influence on crime and policing. Electing a Democrat rather than a Republican as mayor leads to no detectable impact on police staffing or expenditures on criminal justice, nor does it lead to changes in crime or arrest rates. Racial differences in policing are also mostly unaffected by mayoral partisanship, with a few potential exceptions. Electing a Democratic mayor rather than a Republican mayor appears to marginally decrease the Black share of individuals arrested for several types of crimes and marginally increase the Black share of law enforcement officers. Yet the first of these results is not consistently robust to alternative measures of calculating racial disparities in arrests nor the use of alternative research designs, and the latter is not verifiable using reliable data."
They act as if Dem Mayors are all-powerful. That's NEVER been true; most must answer to City Councils.
The dirty little secret is that it's a way to blame black folks without saying so.
-greenman
Also, do you have an explanation for why Springfield, MO, has such a high crime rate?
Is it because Springfield has or had a Democrat mayor?
Is it because it is located in the bible belt?
Is it because of low wages?
?????
Springfield, Missouri, has a high crime rate, often ranking among the most dangerous cities in the United States. Specifically, it's been listed as the 5th most dangerous metro area in the country by Safewise.com. The city's crime rate is significantly higher than the national average, with a considerable number of violent and property crimes. While some sources highlight Springfield's cultural and economic strengths, the high crime rate is a persistent concern. Here's a more detailed breakdown: Overall Crime Rate: In 2020, Springfield's crime rate was 144.56 crimes per 1,000 people, according to FourStatesHomepage.com. Violent Crime: The violent crime rate is particularly high, with some reports placing it at 1,519 per 100,000 residents. Property Crime: Property crime also contributes to Springfield's high overall crime rate. Specific Incidents: Reports often mention high numbers of incidents like rapes (356 in 2019, according to CBS News) and robbery. Comparison to Other Cities: Springfield has been compared to other major cities in Missouri, like St. Louis, for its high crime rate, with some analyses putting Springfield above St. Louis in terms of overall crime against individuals. College Town Concerns: The-Standard.org reports that Springfield is also ranked as one of the most dangerous college towns in the US
I moved to Springfield in 1982. From Kansas City, MO. I had an aunt that lived in KC
As an elderly woman walking to the neighborhood grocery store, which was just around the corner from where she lived, she was knocked down, and her purse was stolen. More than once. At that neighborhood grocery store, the checkout had a glassed in checkout area. You put your groceries down in a bin that was common with the checkout stand. They picked the groceries up, rang them up, bagged them, and then waited for you to pay. Once you paid, they moved the bags back down into the bin. They'd been robbed far too many times.
She would have people come to her front door and distract her while others were breaking in her back door and stealing her valuables. This was in the mid '70s. All she had to live on was Social Security. She lived in what eventually became a bad area of the city. She had no other choice. She owned her home and she wouldn't leave. I visited her whenever she needed some help or to take her to my parents' house for the holidays. I never felt comfortable when visiting that neighborhood.
I feel plenty safe in Springfield. There are some areas of town that do have their problems. You stay out of those areas late at night and in the wee hours of the morning. Springfield's crime problems are like many city's problems. The poor, the uneducated, the mentally ill, and the drug addled people are the ones causing most of the problems. We're far enough south that the weather is mild enough the better part of the year. Thus, we have a fair amount of homeless types residing here. The rural areas were popular with the meth manufacturing criminals for a long time. They don't stay out in the woods all the time. The drugs import and creates more crime problems. Springfield is kind of a hub area for all sorts of stuff. That and the fact that many come here for the lakes, recreation, and somewhat milder climate. It is an affordable place to party.
in multiple area neighborhoods throughout the city. By and large, the majority of the crime was limited to those specific areas with some overlap into nearby neighborhoods.
We didn't let our kids outside of our small, fenced in yard and even there, our German Shepherd guard dog was always with them and I was either out there too or at tge kitchen window cooking where I could see them at all times. We could see drug deals going down on our street and knew where multiple drug dens were near our house.
We couldn't leave ANYTHING out front without it being immediately stolen, even rubbish bags with actual rubbish a/o garbage.
Cars were broken into so regularly that police advised leaving them unlocked with absolutely nothing of value inside so thieves wouldn't break the car windows. Some of those thieves were grammar school children!
One Thanksgiving, we were delayed getting to my folks house because of a fatal shooting a half mile away on our street between 2 of the 4 gangs that lived in close quarters within 2 square miles of us. One Christmas morning, an entire family that lived 3 doors down were murdered in their beds, including a 10 year old playmate of our kids. There were drive-by shootings regularly on our block so I was terrified of letting our kids out of my sight. Multiple abandoned and drug houses were burnt down due to explosions cooking drugs for distribution. Several within a mile of our house.
I grew up in a neighboring town with minimal crime so was simply not prepared for that. I hated it there! I was always armed with a small 38 caliber revolver and pepper spray. Our grammar and middle school children had pepper spray with them in school.
Yet other neighborhoods and sections of the city were idyllic and terrific places to live. If you try to tell them that the city has a high crime rate (at least back in the 90s, now with the gangs taken care of, the city is relatively safe again overall), they'd scoff in disbelief because they didn't see it there. But WE saw it daily.
Ours WAS very safe when we bought the house, prior to the black, Puerto Rican, and Asian gangs moving in on the white drug dealers who'd plagued the previously French Canadian neighborhood and causing so many of them to move out.
Even living in Boston for a couple of years after leaving my small town, it wasn't anywhere near that bad. You'd expect a major city with gangs to be riddled with crime, but it wasn't anything like Fitchburg was where we lived.
((Now you know why we finally moved to rural NH where crime is all but nonexistent beyond someone taking veggies from an unmanned veggie stand employing the honor system of payment. That is a "big crime". LOL))
My point in telling this story is that every big and even small city has crime ridden neighborhoods JUST LIKE SPRINGFIELD, MO but also many neighborhoods like yours where crime is far less visible and active.
IOW, Chicago and NYC and other Blue cities are just like Springfield have their problems. It is not fair of you to condemn certain cities as sh*tholes of crime but somehow exclude your own city because it is not ALL bad. Neither are they!
First, most large cities have Democrat mayors, and with good reason, because cities need a lot of infrastructure and support services, and therefore need to collect taxes to pay for those services... and as we know, it's more rural states that are usually Republican leaning, and Republicans typically don't like taxes... or regulations.
There are a lot of factors that go into determining crime statistics and reasons for such... such as high density areas, income levels, policies, etc.
I would also note that states like Missouri, with very lax gun laws, have more violent crime and mortality rates than states with common sense gun laws.
Several states with weaker gun laws tend to have higher rates of gun violence. States like Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Missouri consistently rank high in gun violence rates and are often cited as having some of the weakest gun laws. Conversely, states with stronger gun laws, such as Massachusetts, California, and New York, generally experience lower rates of gun violence.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
States with Higher Gun Violence Rates (and Weaker Gun Laws):
Mississippi: . Consistently ranks high in gun violence rates and gun deaths, and has some of the weakest gun laws.
Louisiana: . Also experiences high rates of gun violence and is often cited as having lenient gun laws.
Alabama: . Similar to Mississippi and Louisiana, Alabama sees high rates of gun violence and has weak gun laws.
Missouri: . Another state with a high gun violence rate and relatively weak gun laws.
Wyoming: . Has a high gun death rate and is often cited as having some of the weakest gun laws.
States with Lower Gun Violence Rates (and Stronger Gun Laws):
Massachusetts:
Consistently ranked as having some of the lowest gun violence rates and strong gun laws.
California:
Has made significant progress in strengthening gun laws and experiences lower rates of gun violence.
New York:
Also has strong gun laws and relatively low rates of gun violence.
Hawaii:
Consistently ranks as having the lowest or near lowest gun violence rates and has strict gun laws.
New Jersey:
Another state with strong gun laws and low gun violence rates.
Important Considerations:
Correlation vs. Causation: . While studies show a correlation between weak gun laws and higher gun violence rates, it's important to note that this doesn't automatically mean that weaker laws cause the violence. Other factors, such as socioeconomic conditions, crime rates, and access to mental healthcare, also play a role. State-Level Variations: . Even within states, gun violence rates can vary significantly. Factors like urban vs. rural environments, demographics, and local law enforcement strategies can all influence gun violence within a state.
Here are a few links that dispute your simplistic conclusions.
homeless statistics, debt, deficits, and other aspects concerning the quality of life in those cities.
I will grant you this, it's a huge can of worms and there are tons of other factors that come into play. Mayors are the leaders, but you still have plenty of other political figures that add to the misery index. Like prosecutors that don't prosecute. Like laws that enable and actually promote stealing.
Now! You go ahead and prove how wonderful things are in those cities since their mayors have been in office. How much things have improved under their leadership. Should be easy if things are going in the right direction. Maybe you can talk about how great the high speed rail is going or how many houses are being rebuilt from the massive fires that hit in recent times.
LA is going downhill, like much of California. If it wasn't for all the extreme wealth and business in that state and its cities, that started there when times were good and government wasn't so burdensome, they'd of sunk long ago. They are on their way down now and have been for a while. Much of big business and big industry is leaving California due to outlandish taxes and onerous government regulation. Even Hollywood! Brought about by stupid politicians that fail to realize that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. You can get away with a lot of terrible leadership for a long time when you are filthy rich. You can also fritter it away like a redneck fritters away his 100 million dollar lottery winnings.
Sad to say, the nation is seemingly headed the same direction. You've undoubtedly heard the quote:
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
The former "good times" have created weak men, and we're in the "hard times" period these days, and have been for many years now. Brought to us by weak politicians on both sides of the aisle. I'm looking for some "strong men and women". All I see these days are primarily weaklings in leadership positions. In both parties. The Democrats are really adrift with weaklings and direction. It's on all the news sites! Hating Trump is not much of a direction and takes little in the way of leadership skills. They need a better plan and better political leadership.
I spend too much time as it is providing you with proof. You can spend a little of
Posted by TW on June 26, 2025, 10:16 am, in reply to "No evidence, as always." Valued Poster
your own time for a change.
I often provide you with links to prove my statements or the reason for my beliefs. You seldom do the same for me. But I don't expect it. I figure you have some decent rationale for believing as you do. Even if it is wrong.
No proof? Then I reject every one of your baseless claims. You simply troll this board every few weeks with this kind of unsupported nonsense, then get indignant when people call you on it.
You can't even answer the simple questions i asked.
ps - you spend virtually NO time 'providing me with proof.' The only evidence you usually cite is Fox or Nationalist Review.
'Because those cities have Democrats for their mayors like Chicago and LA.'
- Black Mayors, IOW.
'As do likely most, if not all cities, in Red States.'
-State laws have far more to do with governance than do Mayors, ditto federal laws.
'The major point I was attempting to make is the Progressive and Socialist leaning Democrats tend to have very poor records as mayors of their respective cities.'
- PROVE it. What records? What laws? Which cities? Give examples or don't waste our time. Nobody needs your vague Right-wing assertions and political lies.
'Their policies seldom improve anything, and they drive much of their citizenry into a deeper dependence of government.'
- Again, PROVE it. You don't like government helping people. I think you're DEAD wrong. Why are your views better? Got evidence to support anything?
'That is not a recipe for a success in anything other than greater debt.'
- TRUMP seems to be your idea of success. He is the OPPOSITE of that. -greenman
Debt debt debt! Debt is one thing and manageable. Deficits and insolvency is another!
There is a common belief among evangelical retarded righties, Democrats can't be Christians. They are as wrong and pigheaded about that as you are about Democratic leadership and represention in local and national levels.
Your concession is they're all bad. But when it comes to actual blame and responsibility, Republicans generally do no wrong, and Democrats generally do no right.
Applied here, you're almost always right and I am almost always wrong. In fact, all the rest of us are almost always wrong, and here you are trying to correct us, so we see the light as you. You can look away from a painting, but you can't listen away from a symphony
They point out all the religious people mercilessly persecuted throughout the world and history for practicing their faith, and living for God. So if and when they help you be poor, and pass laws to persecute and prosecute your lifestyle, they're helping you live the Godly life their preechers preech about on Sundays. Preechers like Joel Olsteen who says God wants you to prosper, and if you send him money, God will send your even more money. And Paula White who preeches to the president about how God strikes and strikes and strikes and strikes and strikes and strikes and strikes and strikes and strikes and strikes and strikes and strikes down His enemies and yours if you send her money. He makes all those woke liberals pay dearly.
Can you recall TW writing anything good about a Democrat or Liberal? Somewhere in the history, there might be a mention. Maybe. He writes he doesn't like Felon the man, but supports the felon's policis. He comnplained above about resentment directed toward him. I think he resents the ground I stand on because it COULD be occupied by a responsible Republican. My position of soclally liberal and fiscally conseevative either flies over his head every time, or in one ear and out the other. You can look away from a painting, but you can't listen away from a symphony
on June 25, 2025, 8:14 am
