New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Wednesday said the U.S. "was never that great" in a dig at President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign slogan.

Cuomo, a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2020, was speaking at a bill-signing event in New York City, when he turned his attention to Trump's "Make America Great Again" mantra.

"We not going to Make America Great Again. It was never that great," Cuomo said, prompting some in the audience to laugh and others to gasp.

"We have not reached greatness. We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged," he said. "We will reach greatness when discrimination and stereotyping against women, 51 percent of the population, is gone, and every woman's full potential is realized and unleashed."

Trump used "Make America Great Again" as his 2016 campaigns slogan — hats bearing the the words were ubiquitous at his rallies, and remain so at his political events — and he has used it often as president.

Republicans were quick to slam Cuomo, who is running for a third term this fall, for the remark.

"He should be ashamed of himself," Marc Molinaro, a GOP gubernatorial candidate, said in a statement in which he demanded that Cuomo apologize to the nation.

Following the blowback, Cuomo's office defended his original remarks and criticized Trump's slogan.

"When the President speaks about making America great again — going back in time — he ignores the pain so many endured and that we suffered from slavery, discrimination, segregation, sexism and marginalized women's contributions," Dani Lever, Cuomo's press secretary, said in a statement. "The Governor believes that when everyone is fully included and everyone is contributing to their maximum potential, that is when America will achieve maximum greatness."

Cuomo's comments came just two days after Trump took aim at him in a speech in Utica, N.Y., claiming that Cuomo had called him to say that he would never run for president against him.

"He called me and he said, 'I'll never run for president against you.' But maybe he wants to. Oh, please do it. He did say that. Maybe he means it," Trump said on Monday. "Anybody who runs against Trump suffers."

On Tuesday Cuomo hit back against Trump's claim, telling reporters he doesn't have "personal political conversations" with Trump and he's focused on winning re-election, according to The Associated Press.

 whembly wrote:
Cuomo just 'deplorable'ed' himself...

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Cuomo just 'deplorable'ed' himself...

You mean he expressed an accurate statement that isn't really controversial but will be taken out of context and treated as the worst thing every because Their Team said it? Yeah, that seems like a good description of the event.

"Governor Cuomo disagrees with the President. The Governor believes America is great and that her full greatness will be fully realized when every man, woman, and child has full equality. America has not yet reached its maximum potential."

Make America Not Very Good Again

— Cuomo 2020

 whembly wrote:
Or, a window to his mindset??

Also, the political ads write themselves now...imagine being a political consultant in 2019 for this guy, knowing that he could be a 2020 Democrat... especially if he wins his reelection, which is not really in jeopardy, and literally watching him hand the GOP an attack ad soundbite for their arsenal. I hope this political consultant charges a premium!

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, a window to his mindset??

A window to what mindset? That mindless "AMERICA IS GREAT" patriotism is a bad thing, we can and should do better than we are now, and we shouldn't settle for mediocrity and empty slogans? I'm not seeing the problem here, whether or not partisan politics forced him to put out an apology.

Also, the political ads write themselves now...imagine being a political consultant in 2019 for this guy, knowing that he could be a 2020 Democrat... especially if he wins his reelection, which is not really in jeopardy, and literally watching him hand the GOP an attack ad soundbite for their arsenal. I hope this political consultant charges a premium!

Yep, you're certainly demonstrating what is wrong with US politics.

 d-usa wrote:
For feths sake.

It’s basically the exact scenario we talked about last week.

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, a window to his mindset??

A window to what mindset? That mindless "AMERICA IS GREAT" patriotism is a bad thing, we can and should do better than we are now, and we shouldn't settle for mediocrity and empty slogans? I'm not seeing the problem here, whether or not partisan politics forced him to put out an apology.

Okay... we'll see how that works... because:

 greatbigtree wrote:
@ Iron Captain:

Thanks for the perspective. I went and tried to learn a bit more about anarchism. For me, it still seems like it couldn't work in reality, but that doesn't mean it can't be an ideal.

Not an ideal I'd agree with... but one in which I'm better informed. Thanks for that.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Wait what? You think mindless patriotism is a good thing?

 Xenomancers wrote:
[Haven't seen that poll - can you post it?

I mean - you can basically confuse people into answering a question wrong by asking really unfair questions.

 Xenomancers wrote:
[Okay - that is interesting. It changes nothing though - it's literally the exact same problem.

 Xenomancers wrote:
This kind of dishonesty is the absolute worst. Guy honestly claims to have never said anything hateful in a casual conversation. Then another clown calls it bait. It is an obviously true statement that shouldn't actually need to be stated. Everyone has said something hateful in their life.

Prestor Jon wrote:


It’s impossible to abolish hierarchies that’s where systems that call for flattening or eliminating hierarchies fail. In anything that we do there will be a range of abilities, a bell curve, some will be better at it than others, be it painting miniatures or basketball or teaching elementary school students or yoga or being a real estate agent etc. therefore hierarchies will always exist. When systems of government try to eliminate naturally occurring hierarchies you get oppression, discontent and violence. The issue governments need to deal is how to regulate hierarchies so that those at the top don’t dominate and destabilize society and those at the bottom don’t become a disaffected underclass that destabilizes society. The disagreements on how best to regulate hierarchies are the crux of the left/right polarity in politics.

Rosebuddy wrote:
... When anarchists want to abolish hierarchies I am quite confidently 100% certain that they are talking about hierarchies of power and wealth, not of individual ability at painting toy soldiers. They don't seek to abolish expertise.

 Peregrine wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
... When anarchists want to abolish hierarchies I am quite confidently 100% certain that they are talking about hierarchies of power and wealth, not of individual ability at painting toy soldiers. They don't seek to abolish expertise.

But one inevitably leads to the other. Individuals have greater ability and succeed more, gaining power and wealth. For some people it might be painting toy soldiers, but for other people it might be more relevant areas of expertise like beating people up and taking all of their stuff. Anarchism is, at best, incredibly naive about human nature and will never work in practice.

Rosebuddy wrote:
I don't think that it's necessary to ban people from getting good at painting toy soldiers in order to guarantee that criminal gangs don't form. I believe that a central hierarchy of some kind is likely necessary to deal with the current set of problems the world has and am not an anarchist, but saying that expertise itself must be abolished if oppression is to be ended is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It strikes me as quite similar to when people say that communism means you can't have your own toothbrush or shirt.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trump revokes security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for the high crimes of criticizing him and not bending the knee

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday revoked the security clearance of John O. Brennan, the former C.I.A. director under President Barack Obama, citing what he called Mr. Brennan’s “erratic” behavior.

The White House had threatened last month to strip Mr. Brennan and two other Obama administration officials — Susan E. Rice, the former national security adviser; and James R. Clapper Jr., the former director of national intelligence — of their security clearances. At the time, Ms. Sanders said that Mr. Trump was considering doing it because “they politicized, and in some cases monetized, their public service and security clearances.”

Mr. Trump has questioned the loyalties of national security and law enforcement officials and dismissed some of their findings — particularly the conclusion that Moscow intervened in the 2016 election — as attacks against him

The White House statement on Mr. Brennan was dated July 26, three days after Ms. Sanders first announced that Mr. Trump was considering revoking his critics’ clearances. The date suggested that the decision had been made weeks ago, although the White House would not explain the delay in revealing it.

Ex-CIA directors John Brennan and Michael Hayden, ex-FBI director James Komi and his deputy Andrew McCabe, ex-director of the National Intelligence Service James Clapper, ex-national security adviser Susan Rice say goodbye to access to classified materials.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

The men who made the USA were great men but they did not make a great nation. They did, however, make a nation that was free to try and become great. It took great large strides along that road with the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage and the continual challenging of racism, sexism and other forms of bigotry. But as long as there is racism and sexism and bigotry, you do not have a great nation, except by shifting your definition to one where those people suffering at the hands of that bigotry have a lesser voice in determining the greatness of your nation.

 Peregrine wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
I don't think that it's necessary to ban people from getting good at painting toy soldiers in order to guarantee that criminal gangs don't form. I believe that a central hierarchy of some kind is likely necessary to deal with the current set of problems the world has and am not an anarchist, but saying that expertise itself must be abolished if oppression is to be ended is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It strikes me as quite similar to when people say that communism means you can't have your own toothbrush or shirt.

What? I think you are very confused here, I'm not at all arguing that expertise must be abolished for oppression to end. Expertise must be abolished for anarchy to be possible. All people must be exactly equal, with nobody having any advantages that could allow them to start accumulating power. Otherwise, human nature being what it is, they will use those advantages to accumulate power and you now have a new state instead of anarchy. This makes anarchy an impossible goal, and anyone who advocates for it is naive at best.

The correct means of abolishing oppression is to acknowledge the role of the state in ensuring that power is used for the good of society rather than the good of its most powerful members. Expertise still exists, but the state prevents it from being used for oppression. Inequality may (and probably will) exist, but mere inequality is not oppression.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
I don't think that it's necessary to ban people from getting good at painting toy soldiers in order to guarantee that criminal gangs don't form. I believe that a central hierarchy of some kind is likely necessary to deal with the current set of problems the world has and am not an anarchist, but saying that expertise itself must be abolished if oppression is to be ended is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It strikes me as quite similar to when people say that communism means you can't have your own toothbrush or shirt.

What? I think you are very confused here, I'm not at all arguing that expertise must be abolished for oppression to end. Expertise must be abolished for anarchy to be possible. All people must be exactly equal, with nobody having any advantages that could allow them to start accumulating power. Otherwise, human nature being what it is, they will use those advantages to accumulate power and you now have a new state instead of anarchy. This makes anarchy an impossible goal, and anyone who advocates for it is naive at best.

The correct means of abolishing oppression is to acknowledge the role of the state in ensuring that power is used for the good of society rather than the good of its most powerful members. Expertise still exists, but the state prevents it from being used for oppression. Inequality may (and probably will) exist, but mere inequality is not oppression.

I know you aren't, I'm saying that this explanation of why anarchism isn't feasible goes over the top. Your critique isn't that anarchism requires and lacks a method of defence that is sufficient against highly organised enemies, but that people having different levels of skill in even mundane things makes anarchism impossible. That's why I'm saying that it seems on the level of people who claim that communism means you don't get a toothbrush.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
I don't think that it's necessary to ban people from getting good at painting toy soldiers in order to guarantee that criminal gangs don't form. I believe that a central hierarchy of some kind is likely necessary to deal with the current set of problems the world has and am not an anarchist, but saying that expertise itself must be abolished if oppression is to be ended is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It strikes me as quite similar to when people say that communism means you can't have your own toothbrush or shirt.

What? I think you are very confused here, I'm not at all arguing that expertise must be abolished for oppression to end. Expertise must be abolished for anarchy to be possible. All people must be exactly equal, with nobody having any advantages that could allow them to start accumulating power. Otherwise, human nature being what it is, they will use those advantages to accumulate power and you now have a new state instead of anarchy. This makes anarchy an impossible goal, and anyone who advocates for it is naive at best.

The correct means of abolishing oppression is to acknowledge the role of the state in ensuring that power is used for the good of society rather than the good of its most powerful members. Expertise still exists, but the state prevents it from being used for oppression. Inequality may (and probably will) exist, but mere inequality is not oppression.

I know you aren't, I'm saying that this explanation of why anarchism isn't feasible goes over the top. Your critique isn't that anarchism requires and lacks a method of defence that is sufficient against highly organised enemies, but that people having different levels of skill in even mundane things makes anarchism impossible. That's why I'm saying that it seems on the level of people who claim that communism means you don't get a toothbrush.

Hierarchies are a natural occurrence in any human activity be it a profession or a leisure activity. Talent competence and luck are not distributed evenly and their distribution is beyond the control of any government. Since the unequal distribution of those key attributes results in unequal degrees of success so the only way for governments to abolish or flatten out the hierarchies is to cap the level benefit one can derive from their pursuits and redistribute the fruits of those labors in an enforced equal manner. That level of forced equality of outcome and artificially imposed limitations on success is by necessity oppressive to those that would achieve greater degrees of success without the restriction in place. The government that could place such restrictions on people would by necessity need to so far into the authoritarian spectrum as to make anarchy impossible for the people who live under it.

If a government imposes communism to the extent of guaranteeing everyone’s needs are met but allows people to freely pursue their personal wants then the pursuit of those wants will create hierarchies of achievement, inequalities and capitalism al of which will actively damage the purity of the communist State and undermine its sustainability.

 greatbigtree wrote:
From the outside looking in, that’s just a weak excuse. They all believed in their *own* freedom, but were willing to accept that their slaves wouldn’t have it. Rich, white, land owners would get freedom (particularly, to vote) while everyone else could go screw.

Which seems unheroic to me.

Prestor Jon wrote:

If a government imposes communism to the extent of guaranteeing everyone’s needs are met but allows people to freely pursue their personal wants then the pursuit of those wants will create hierarchies of achievement, inequalities and capitalism al of which will actively damage the purity of the communist State and undermine its sustainability.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

If a government imposes communism to the extent of guaranteeing everyone’s needs are met but allows people to freely pursue their personal wants then the pursuit of those wants will create hierarchies of achievement, inequalities and capitalism al of which will actively damage the purity of the communist State and undermine its sustainability.

Not in any way, no. Some people becoming great at singing, sculpting or using a construction crane does not undermine communism. The idea is fething absurd. Capitalism is not created by people having different skills, it's a system of relations to the means of production. Truly those who know the least about capitalism are its supporters.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

If a government imposes communism to the extent of guaranteeing everyone’s needs are met but allows people to freely pursue their personal wants then the pursuit of those wants will create hierarchies of achievement, inequalities and capitalism al of which will actively damage the purity of the communist State and undermine its sustainability.

Not in any way, no. Some people becoming great at singing, sculpting or using a construction crane does not undermine communism. The idea is fething absurd. Capitalism is not created by people having different skills, it's a system of relations to the means of production. Truly those who know the least about capitalism are its supporters.

Somebody enjoys singing, practices it, has talent for it, joins a band with other talented musicians. The band creates good music, they produce a product that they own the means to produce. They are offered gigs, they are paid for their musical performances, they gain notoriety, the band gets a record deal, they make a lot of money off of producing their privately owned music, go on big successful tours and achieve a large amount of wealth, fame and influence. Now there is a hierarchy and inequality, lots of people enjoy singing but not everyone can achieve Taylor Swift level of success. Capitalist economics allows people to monetize their talents. Are we seizing control of the factories but not control of the record labels? Are you maintaining a communist system that allows people to acquire unequal amounts of wealth and by extension power and influence, by becoming great artists or furniture makers or architects or app designers or whatever but you’re not allowing people to achieve unequal amounts of success and wealth by owning their own companies? I fail to see how you would sustain a society that enforces communism for work but allows capitalist monetization of leisure time.