By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a public address, actor Jon Voight urged President Trump to “terminate” the mayoral election of Zohran Mamdani in New York City. Voight, who was appointed as a special ambassador to Hollywood by Trump, used the opportunity to express his concerns, citing fears of socialist policies and Islamophobic rhetoric in a video posted to social media. Despite Voight’s claims, the president lacks the legal authority to remove a mayor from office, and Mamdani, who identifies as a “democratic socialist,” won the election with a majority of the vote. Mamdani will assume office on January 1st.
Read the original article here
Jon Voight’s plea for Donald Trump to “terminate” the election of Zohran Mamdani as NYC mayor is, well, something. The reaction to this call is a mix of disbelief, disdain, and a general head-shaking kind of weariness, and it’s easy to see why. The core of the issue boils down to a fundamental disagreement with the democratic process, fueled by a fear of socialism and a profound misunderstanding of how things work.
The crux of Voight’s argument, as presented, is that Mamdani, the elected mayor, will supposedly destroy New York City with socialist policies. He paints a picture of a city on the brink of collapse, a “horror” that only Trump can stop. This fear seems to be the driving force behind the call to essentially nullify the election results, a move that is, to put it mildly, undemocratic. Voight frames this as a fight for the “private sanctuary” of businesses and property, suggesting that Mamdani’s policies threaten these things. It’s a classic fear-mongering tactic, playing on anxieties about change and economic stability.
Many people find the whole thing absurd, pointing out that Voight doesn’t even live in New York City. His opinion, from his home in Beverly Hills, is seen as irrelevant and out of touch with the reality of the city he’s commenting on. The fact that an actor, however famous, is calling for such a drastic measure, is also treated with considerable irony.
The comments also highlight the hypocrisy often associated with this brand of conservatism. The notion of states’ rights is conveniently forgotten when it conflicts with personal ideologies. The Constitution, often invoked, is seemingly disregarded when it suits a particular political agenda. This selective application of principles is a consistent theme, leading many to dismiss Voight’s plea as nothing more than a desperate attempt to cling to power and prevent policies they disagree with.
The tone of the discussion is laced with personal attacks, though the focus remains primarily on the content of the statements. Comments about Voight’s acting career, his relationship with Angelina Jolie, and his general character are commonplace, as are dismissive remarks about his age and apparent mental state. The prevailing sentiment is that Voight is out of touch, irrelevant, and his opinions are not worthy of serious consideration.
Some see the situation as indicative of a broader trend: the complete rejection of the democratic process when the outcome isn’t favored. The call to “terminate” an election, to disregard the will of the voters, is not a small thing. It strikes at the heart of the principles of democracy, and that’s precisely why it’s so unsettling. The commenters see a pattern of behavior: a MAGA mindset where patriotism is conditional, where love of country is reserved for those who hold power.
There’s a sense that these kinds of pronouncements are counterproductive, solidifying support for the very person they’re trying to discredit. The attempt to undermine Mamdani is seen as likely to backfire, strengthening his base of support. The whole episode is viewed as another example of out-of-touch figures clinging to outdated ideas and failing to understand the evolving political landscape.
This situation reflects a growing disconnect between certain factions and the realities of modern society. The idea that someone from a completely different environment, geographically and socially, can and should dictate the outcome of an election in a major city like New York is considered preposterous. The general impression is one of absurdity, fueled by a combination of fear, ignorance, and a deep-seated resistance to change.
Ultimately, the comments suggest that Voight’s intervention is seen as nothing more than a pathetic attempt to wield influence where he has none. His views are dismissed as the ramblings of an out-of-touch figure, and his call for Trump to intervene is viewed with a mixture of amusement and outrage. The overall sentiment is one of a resounding “no” to Voight’s plea, and a reaffirmation of the importance of respecting the democratic process.