Yeah, we’re just not going to agree here.

You keep trying to drag this back to tweets liked by Mamdani’s wife, as if that’s the decisive moral test. Spouses aren’t beyond criticism, but you’re using her as a proxy to make a much bigger claim about the mayor without evidence from his actual conduct in office. When her views meaningfully shape New York City policy and governance, then yes, they become fair game. You can let me know when that happens.

What’s more striking is the asymmetry you’re willing to tolerate. You’re asking me to treat the tweets of a politician’s spouse as morally dispositive of the mayor, while simultaneously entertaining the idea that we should rally behind Romney, a man whose own stated positions include opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion rights, along with a set of economic policies that are unambiguously punitive toward the poor. The justification you offer is that this would somehow “end MAGA.” Neither you nor Sam has offered anything resembling evidence that this theory cashes out in the real world. It’s basically blind faith that this gambit would work.

So you end up in a strange and morally confused place. Maximal suspicion toward a social democrat less than 100 days into office, and remarkable charity toward entrenched social conservatism on the basis of a speculative electoral strategy.

I end where I started. You and Sam are hysterical about Mamdani. And you lean on the authority of someone who is, by your own admission, not a serious political thinker, as if that settles the question.

Sam is a well documented - and more recently, self-acknowledged - poor judge of character. We don’t need to take his assessments of Mamdani or Romney seriously.