~*Official NYC Mayor Eric Adams Thread of Nepotistic Hilarity*~ - update: Adams accused of 1993 sexual assault in court filing

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

5 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Why the fuck is any stance on Israel required by someone running for mayorship, even in a city as large as New York? 

 

There are approximately 1.5 million people who claim to be Jewish in NYC.

 

It's NOT an insignificant political demographic in the city.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Why the fuck is any stance on Israel required by someone running for mayorship, even in a city as large as New York? 

Something like a million Jewish people live in NYC and they tend to vote at a pretty high clip, so cynical politicians think supporting Israel to some degree is necessary to win a city wide election, which has some definite dual-loyalty assumptions baked in.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

American Jews are generally pro Israel but otherwise voted for Joe biden over trump by a 3 to 1 margin

 

AJC 2020 Survey of American Jewish Opinion

WWW.AJC.ORG

---

AJC’s 2020 Survey of American Jewish Opinion, conducted by the research company SSRS, is based on telephone interviews carried out September 9 – October 4, 2020, with a national...

 

 

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

There are approximately 1.5 million people who claim to be Jewish in NYC.

 

It's NOT an insignificant political demographic in the city.

 

I'm pretty sure Hasids think Israel shouldn't exist until the messiah comes though.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

I'm pretty sure Hasids think Israel shouldn't exist until the messiah comes though.

 

While that maybe true of the Hasidim, there are enough non-Hasidic Jews in NYC that a mayoral candidate absolutely must take a position on Israel.

[CitizenVectron]

2 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

There are approximately 1.5 million people who claim to be Jewish in NYC.

 

It's NOT an insignificant political demographic in the city.

 

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Something like a million Jewish people live in NYC and they tend to vote at a pretty high clip, so cynical politicians think supporting Israel to some degree is necessary to win a city wide election, which has some definite dual-loyalty assumptions baked in.

 

Sorry I should have been a bit more clear - I understand why current politicians need a stance...but I think it's ridiculous that they do. Israel has nothing to do with running a city.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

 

Sorry I should have been a bit more clear - I understand why current politicians need a stance...but I think it's ridiculous that they do. Israel has nothing to do with running a city.

[Kal-El814]

9 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Sorry I should have been a bit more clear - I understand why current politicians need a stance...but I think it's ridiculous that they do. Israel has nothing to do with running a city.

It’s almost like all politics is identify politics.

[SaysWho?]

11 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

American Jews are generally pro Israel but otherwise voted for Joe biden over trump by a 3 to 1 margin

 

AJC 2020 Survey of American Jewish Opinion

WWW.AJC.ORG

---

AJC’s 2020 Survey of American Jewish Opinion, conducted by the research company SSRS, is based on telephone interviews carried out September 9 – October 4, 2020, with a national...

 

 

 

It's a very large Democratic demographic. Many of them, from studies and just being friends with them, are quite socially progressive and much more supportive of the social safety net.

[SuperSpreader]

I'm running for Mayor. My stance on Israel is I don't give a fuck. Who's with me!? 🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗

[Guest]

I like Yang, but this is 100% accurate

[SaysWho?]

The New York Mayoral Election Is No Longer Andrew Yang’s To Lose | FiveThirtyEight

FIVETHIRTYEIGHT.COM

---

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup. The race for New York City mayor is tightening Let me take you back to 2013. Everyone had “Get Lucky” stuck…

 

[Kal-El814]

Imagine being this fucking stupid:

 

[Jason]

 

[Joe]

On 6/17/2021 at 8:50 AM, Kal-El814 said:

Imagine being this fucking stupid:

 

Taken out of context I’d say.

[Jason]

14 minutes ago, Joe said:

Taken out of context I’d say.

 

I think the core of the problem is conflating mental illness with being violent, and both of those with being homeless.

 

I usually hate the wishy-washy "problematic" labeling but this is a good example of when it's appropriate. You can handwave your way to a reasonable version of what he meant but it's problematic that he went with such a bad framing of it.

[Kal-El814]

31 minutes ago, Joe said:

Taken out of context I’d say.

The context doesn’t help. Yang’s perspectives on mental health and addiction are bad and should disqualify him from consideration for any major office. 

[Joe]

15 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

The context doesn’t help. Yang’s perspectives on mental health and addiction are bad and should disqualify him from consideration for any major office. 

The context does help. It’s not like he’s saying he doesn’t want to improve outreach to the mentally ill.

 

Also, hard to take you seriously on this issue when you have a bizarre hatred of NYC that is only surpassed by your bizarre hatred of Andrew Yang. As though he’s the first politician that has ever used an political position in NY as a stepping stone. As though you didn’t vote for one of those politicians in 2016 for POTUS lol.

[Remarkableriots]

Quote

"I'm so glad we're talking about this. Half of the attacks on Asian New Yorkers have been by the mentally ill. They're walking around, they're mentally ill, they see someone who's different, and then they lash out. So this is such a crucial issue to return a sense of safety to our city," he said.

Yang said the city needs to offer "more psych beds" and find a way to involuntarily commit those who are acting violently or are unresponsive, a practice that has been rolled back in the decades since major psychiatric institutions began to close across the country.

Andrew Yang muddies mayoral debate answer by saying mentally ill homeless people have rights, 'but you know who else have rights? We do'

WWW.BUSINESSINSIDER.COM

---

"We need to get them off of our streets and our subways into a better environment," Yang added. His NYC mayoral debate comments drew swift backlash.

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Joe said:

The context does help. It’s not like he’s saying he doesn’t want to improve outreach to the mentally ill.

What would you say if instead of “mentally ill” he said “black men”.

 

Cause it’s exactly the same thing  

[Jason]

11 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

What would you say if instead of “mentally ill” he said “black men”.

 

Cause it’s exactly the same thing  

 

19 hours ago, Jason said:

 

I think the core of the problem is conflating mental illness with being violent, and both of those with being homeless.

 

I usually hate the wishy-washy "problematic" labeling but this is a good example of when it's appropriate. You can handwave your way to a reasonable version of what he meant but it's problematic that he went with such a bad framing of it.

 

It's not "black men". He definitely means "violent homeless junkies" as a permanent social caste regardless of what color you are. 

 

You see this shit a lot in California with the "ship the homeless people out to concentration camps in the desert" psychos and it's definitely not about color. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

It's not "black men". He definitely means "violent homeless junkies" as a permanent social caste regardless of what color you are. 

 

You see this shit a lot in California with the "ship the homeless people out to concentration camps in the desert" psychos and it's definitely not about color. 

I’m not saying mentally ill is a proxy for “black men”, I’m saying if you took what Yang said and swapped in “black men” @Joewouldnt be saying the context of it matters…because ther is no context in which you can label an entire group of people as dangerous and that be OK.

[Joe]

That’s not what he did! You guys don’t even know the question they were responding to in the debate. Like, this is either super lazy or about an agenda against Andrew Yang. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I look forward to the day I never hear the words "Andrew Yang" ever again.

[Jason]

Just now, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I look forward to the day I never hear the words "Andrew Yang" ever again.

 

Sounds like Yang Gang in denial to me homeslice. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Joe said:

That’s not what he did! You guys don’t even know the question they were responding to in the debate. Like, this is either super lazy or about an agenda against Andrew Yang. 

 

Please explain how it the full context this is not suggestive of the notion that mentally ill people are a heightened risk to the broader citizenry in exactly the same way racists suggest that black males present a heightened risk to the broader citizenry because they are overrepresented in crime stats.

Yang unquestionably makes the case that mentally ill people present a danger to society, and that is factually untrue and incredibly damaging language that perpetuates thoughts in society that stigmatize those who suffer from mental illness.

[Kal-El814]

56 minutes ago, Joe said:

That’s not what he did! You guys don’t even know the question they were responding to in the debate. Like, this is either super lazy or about an agenda against Andrew Yang. 

No? It’s neither?

 

5 hours ago, Joe said:

The context does help. It’s not like he’s saying he doesn’t want to improve outreach to the mentally ill.

 

Also, hard to take you seriously on this issue when you have a bizarre hatred of NYC that is only surpassed by your bizarre hatred of Andrew Yang. As though he’s the first politician that has ever used an political position in NY as a stepping stone. As though you didn’t vote for one of those politicians in 2016 for POTUS lol.

Literally everything I say about NYC is tongue in cheek, aside from driving near or through it being terrible which I stand by.    I’ve advocated for the destruction of Manhattan, I didn’t think I was being subtle!
 

And I don’t “hate” Yang, he just sucks as a political candidate and shit like this is why. Mentally ill people aren’t just laying in wait, hoping to pop out and antagonize the good, mentally fit citizens of NYC who also have rights. It was a dumb thing to say and it came from the mouth of a man who has a dumb perspective on mental health. If this was the only stupid thing he said / idea he had about mentally ill people and treatment I’d give him the benefit of the doubt. It’s not l, so I don’t. 

 

And yeah at the national level I’ve had to make compromises at the polls, what does that have to do with anything? If it ended up being Yang vs. Trump I wouldn’t have hesitated and this would still be a shit thing to say. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

[Joe]

14 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

Please explain how it the full context this is not suggestive of the notion that mentally ill people are a heightened risk to the broader citizenry in exactly the same way racists suggest that black males present a heightened risk to the broader citizenry because they are overrepresented in crime stats.

Yang unquestionably makes the case that mentally ill people present a danger to society, and that is factually untrue and incredibly damaging language that perpetuates thoughts in society that stigmatize those who suffer from mental illness.

If you still feel that way after watching that video, that’s fair I guess, but I don’t know how you could take that position. The question was specifically framed as talking about the mentally ill and crime and homelessness. He was not trying to insinuate that mental illness predisposes someone to violence. He was specifically being asked about mentally ill violent homeless people. 
 

 

 

14 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

No? It’s neither?

 

Literally everything I say about NYC is tongue in cheek, aside from driving near or through it being terrible which I stand by.    I’ve advocated for the destruction of Manhattan, I didn’t think I was being subtle!
 

And I don’t “hate” Yang, he just sucks as a political candidate and shit like this is why. Mentally ill people aren’t just laying in wait, hoping to pop out and antagonize the good, mentally fit citizens of NYC who also have rights. It was a dumb thing to say and it came from the mouth of a man who has a dumb perspective on mental health. If this was the only stupid thing he said / idea he had about mentally ill people and treatment I’d give him the benefit of the doubt. It’s not l, so I don’t. 

 

And yeah at the national level I’ve had to make compromises at the polls, what does that have to do with anything? If it ended up being Yang vs. Trump I wouldn’t have hesitated and this would still be a shit thing to say. 

 

If you read through your posts in this thread, it’s clear you’ve had it out for Yang day one, which is fine I suppose. I’m hoping for García to win anyway even though I know she won’t. But for the guy that regularly jokes that Manhattan should be taken by the sea to come in and criticize Yang because he’s not NY enough? Kind of the last person on Earth who should be saying this!

 

As for his comments, watch the context. He was not trying to suggest that the mental ill are more disposed to committing violence. The question was “People who care for the homeless and also some people who care about crime agree that there is not a functioning mental health system in New York City.” He didn’t make the connection of mental illness to homelessness to violence, the moderator did. To suggest he should never be allowed to take political office because he responded to a moderator question is silly, Kal!

[Kal-El814]

3 minutes ago, Joe said:

As for his comments, watch the context. He was not trying to suggest that the mental ill are more disposed to committing violence. The question was “People who care for the homeless and also some people who care about crime agree that there is not a functioning mental health system in New York City.” He didn’t make the connection of mental illness to homelessness to violence, the moderator did. To suggest he should never be allowed to take political office because he responded to a moderator question is silly, Kal!

 

I watched the full video before I posted the tweet.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Joe said:

If you still feel that way after watching that video, that’s fair I guess, but I don’t know how you could take that position. The question was specifically framed as talking about the mentally ill and crime and homelessness. He was not trying to insinuate that mental illness predisposes someone to violence. He was specifically being asked about mentally ill violent homeless people. 

The question was “how would you restructure the city’s mental health system to address the crisis of homelessness on the streets”. You made up the idea that the question was specifically about mentally ill violent homes less people.

 

His immediate response is to talk about violent acts by mentally ill and about how to “return a sense of safety to our city”. He finishes his answer circling back to the safety of the rest of the city.

 

You are welcome to argue he has ideas and positions larger than that, but that’s what he said in the clip. 

[Joe]

12 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The question was “how would you restructure the city’s mental health system to address the crisis of homelessness on the streets”. You made up the idea that the question was specifically about mentally ill violent homes less people.

 

His immediate response is to talk about violent acts by mentally ill and about how to “return a sense of safety to our city”. He finishes his answer circling back to the safety of the rest of the city.

 

You are welcome to argue he has ideas and positions larger than that, but that’s what he said in the clip. 

The question spoke of violence as well. 

 

 

[Joe]

Also worth noting that Yang has an autistic son and autism is considered a mental disorder in the DSM-5.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Joe said:

The question spoke of violence as well. 

 

 

No it didn’t! I quoted the question word for word.

[Joe]

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

No it didn’t! I quoted the question word for word.

Before that. I guess the non-question part of the question lol. Violence was mentioned.

 

Edit: Sorry, crime was mentioned, not violence.