I’m not calling any posters out for hypocrisy. If I did, I would be saying, “Such and such poster is a hypocrite”, or maybe I’d be quote of an earlier post of theirs and asking, “this you?”.
I am sure it occurred, but I have no memory of that post- (Think Gandalf down in the Mines of Moria).
Oh come on, there are posters here that claimed having a photo Op with trump and shaking his hand made that person a traitor.
Yep.
I will see that and raise-
“She’s a woman!!!” “She is black!!!”
Who?
You are, I believe, badly mistaken.
A female politician, possibly a frontrunner for Prez in 2028, in that thread. I dont remember her name or the poster, but she posed for a photo op with trump, and shook his hand- instant disqualification that poster said.
I don’t believe you’re correct, even in this much milder claim.
I suspect the perceived “magnanimous” and “thick-skinned” was merely a function of the pills he was on at the time, some sort of mood relaxant that worked maybe a little too well.
Posts 440 and on.
Thanks for the link! I was right: the word “disqualifying” never appears in that thread, and nobody called Whitmer a traitor. You were wrong, and I appreciate the evidence. Done and dusted, and back to the main topic!
(edit: on the remote chance that you weren’t admitting error by posting that link, and want to discuss it further, I’ll join you in a different thread to discuss it; but it’s so unambiguous that I don’t see the need.)
“I can’t vote for someone who shows up at the Trump White House expecting him to act in good faith….Her duty to her constituents is to resist fascism.…Whitmer’s a tool.” if that is not “disqualifying” I dont know what is.
Well, Zohran’s lost my vote for president. 
Start a new thread, or join the appropriate one in a different forum, and I will gladly engage with this further.
Moderating
I’m making that official, drop it here.
So I went to watch the video, and what’s available on the web didn’t seem to match this description at all. I watched only the first five minutes, but it was clear it wasn’t what Fanger was describing. Does anyone have a link to a video that does match this description, or was Fanger hallucinating the whole thing? Disappointing if so.
He was hallucinating. What he describes doesn’t make any sense, anyways; he describes their meeting as some kind of attempted dick measuring contest by Trump that Mamdani isn’t impressed by which makes Trump back down and respect Mamdani. And while it’s entirely possible that this is how their initial meeting went, we wouldn’t know, because Trump and Mamdani met one on one first, which is when they’d have hashed out how they feel about one another, and only after that did they let reporters in.
Actually, I did watch the full coverage of the meeting after the fact, and some of the context is interesting. The anchors were saying that usually when someone meets the president, the press sees them on the way in and maybe they say a couple words, they go in, meet one on one, and at a prearranged time the press enters.
This time Mamdani entered through a different entrance without greeting the press, and there was no announcement about the press getting in. They explained that the press was aware Mamdani was there (obviously, as there were coverage) but they had no idea if Mamdani would make a public appearance of any kind, with or without Trump.
Only as the one on one meeting was wrapping up was it announced that Mamdani and Trump would be taking questions shortly.
As to the interview itself, the two of them were cordial the whole way through. Trump was almost protective of Mamdani - that fascist question wasn’t the only time he intervened to help him. Like, at one point a reporter from what I assume was a particularly crappy right wing rag (I looked it up, it was Fox News, no surprise there) asked him “Why did you fly here? Aren’t trains greener?”. Mamdani gave a good redirect - “I will use every mode of transportation and ensure they are all affordable for all New Yorkers” - and then Trump follows that up with, “and also, it’s MUCH faster”.
So I think it’s clear that whatever Mamdani did to work out a relationship with Trump, he did it at the first, private meeting.
As an aside, it’s only a three-hour ride from NYC to DC on the Acela, vs. a 90-minute flight from LaGuardia to Reagan International, but when you factor in getting through TSA and the time it takes to board the plane it might be a wash. Biden used to ride Amtrak almost daily from Wilmington to DC and back when he was a senator, so it wouldn’t be unheard of.
When i lived in Manhattan, i routinely took the Acela to DC because it was faster (door to door) than flying. But it’s certainly plausible that from Queens, and getting a car to the white house, flying is faster.
Thanks for the confirmation and thanks for the further context.
Isn’t it something, that just not having an embarassing public meltdown happen is viewed by some observers as some sort of triumph. A sign that unhingedness has been normalized?
But also I get from reactions like that how so many are vulnerable to the “OMG he’s such a genius strategist” syndrome whenever things go reasonably well. So many have grown to expect failure.
Here’s an interesting take from CNN on how Mamdani “won over” Trump – using the generational “desi*” trick of treating him like a tedious uncle, i.e. acting respectful and interested on the surface, then going off and doing exactly what he wants to do.
*This is the term used in the article, I hope it is not offensive.
As a desi uncle myself, I can say I’ve never found it offensive.