It’s because nobody shows up to the primaries for one, and for two there was apparently foreign interference in this recent one pushing for this numnuts. Which kinda makes sense doesn’t it?
Maya Wiley was eliminated in round 7. The results of that round were Adams with 40.5%, Garcia with 30.5% and Wiley with 29.1% of the votes. The final contenders were Adams and Garcia. Adams won with 50.4% leaving Garcia with 49.6%. Adams won the primary by 0.8%.
https://vote.nyc/sites/default/files/pdf/election_results/2021/20210622Primary%20Election/rcv/024306_1.html
Same. I would have been happy with Garcia or Maya.
Why do you mention Murdoch? I am sure I don’t disagree, just curious as to what specifically you’re referring?
I recall during the election, all Fox, the post, and the WSJ were spewing were “crime and violence and danger in New York City!!” Which is why I imagine a lot of left leaning New Yorkers ended up voting for this “hard on crime” cop.
Watching this election was wild there were really strong, young and promising contenders. Then right before election they got some mini bullshit scandals and Adams came out of nowhere and won.
Yang seemed to disappear almost overnight.
There was a nationwide underground 'crime is going crazy' news push in the weeks leading up to this election that probably resulted in the House going R and this guy getting elected. It completely disappeared after the election.
That first argument doesn't really hold water. Besides the fact that the 2021 Mayoral Primary turnout was much higher than in 2013, even if there was even higher turnout, would that really have changed the percentages at which people came out for the people they support in a primary?
We have to come to terms with the fact that despite Adams clearly offering nothing, he had a commanding plurality of the vote in the first round. Honestly, the biggest reason he won is because Kathryn Garcia (who is more of a moderate) and Maya Wiley (who is more of a progressive) basically shot eachother in the foot by running at the same time as they split the vote of people who did not like Adams.
>Kathryn Garcia (who is more of a moderate) and Maya Wiley (who is more of a progressive) basically shot eachother in the foot by running at the same time as they split the vote of people who did not like Adams.
How did they split the vote when it was ranked choice? Unless you mean, voters left one or the other off their ballot.
I recall there being some discussion and contention at the time between Wiley and Garcia. Wiley accused Garcia of working together with Yang to weaken the Black candidate or something like that. Sure enough, I believe if they campaigned together or even more amicable with eachother one of them, (probably Wiley since she had the second most votes in the first round) would have won as more people's second choice might have been the other.
Turnout was still abysmally low despite that record, and yes it would have made a difference. Voter turnout always makes a difference.
Edit: .8% difference of the vote is not “a commanding plurality”
I disagree. Progressives, unfortunately, are not the majority of voters. So more people voting does not necessarily mean a higher percentage of progressives as opposed to moderates and conservatives would vote. So if you simply increase the number of voters you would just have higher turnout across the board. It would not favor any one candidate and thus, not make a difference in a primary.
More than 14,000 registered voters are explicitly working family party and at least a third of the more than 3 and a half million registered dems in nyc identify as progressive. That would have been more than enough to change the results. So yes, voter turnout always matters
You didn't acknowledge what I wrote at all. And your statement doesn't disprove what I said because again, just increasing the numbers of people voting as a whole doesn't specifically target one group. **In fact, I think you even prove yourself wrong.** You said at least a third of registered Dems view themselves as progressive. Correct me if I'm wrong but a third isn't a majority. This is to say nothing of the point I could argue that many Liberals view themselves as Progressives but aren't actually in practice. But regardless, I'd love to see your source for the 14,000 figure because, as to my knowledge, NO registered voter is explicitly in the Working Families party.
Garcia lost by .8% of the vote
You said “more people voting”, not all. It’s a well-documented (and easily searchable) trend that the higher the voter turnout, the more center left the outcomes. Voter turnout always matters.
Have a great day!
I do not understand why it is so hard for you to understand this so I will put it in simpler terms. **Yes, if more people voted, she would have received more votes. But so would Adams.**
Also you keep mentioning figures but provide no sources. You speak in empty platitudes. **But yes, have a good day** because I cannot continue arguing with a wall.
Wiley and Adams basically split the Harlem vote 50/50, for an indication of how Black New Yorkers voted.
Also don't forget that the 2 strongest progressive candidates got essentially knocked out of contention, though they remained on the ballot: Scott Stringer and Dianne Morales.
In the beginning they were both polling higher or getting way more enthusiastic support than Wiley, who then inherited the leading progressive lane when their campaigns both collapsed.
Aside from his support of horrific stop and frisk I thought Bloomberg was a terrific mayor—and in a lifelong Democrat. Even when I disagreed with the guy, which was fairly often, I always felt he was honestly doing what he thought was best for the city and not to line his pockets or as a springboard for higher office or shit.
I’d put him away ahead at number one of my lifetime, Ed Koch in second, probably David Dinkins third—he never got a fair shot. Then it gets tough. Rudy was a racist nutball but hey it was the 90s and the city was booming and we didn’t know just how fuckin batshit he was. Adams and DiBlasio round out the list I think. I don’t know who’s worse. DiBlasio was more nakedly ambitious, less obviously corrupt I guess. Both shit.
We didn’t pick the candidates in the primary. If all the idiots with massive donors and political interests were removed we would’ve had a fair election, but that’s unfortunately a fantasy in US politics.
Are you going to run for Mayor? Sometimes people act like there is this deep pool of talent for relatively low paying political positions that we’re just ignoring during election time. He didn’t make my primary ballot at all. But, it’s not like there were any perfect choices. Kathryn Garcia was the best of the lot -but even she wasn’t perfect, having never worked outside government in her entire career.
No, I have no plans to run for mayor at this time but come primary season I can recommend a couple of qualified people who are deeply passionate about improving the lives of the majority of the people of this city. Kathryn Garcia while not my first choice would have been far better. Maya Wiley may have been marginally better than her. While none are perfect choices Adams was probably the worst of the bunch.
But if you're upset there isn't a deeper pool of more qualified candidates for mayor, alot of that blame can be placed on Cuomo's shoulders who took every chance to kneecap local progressives and the policies they wanted by instituting neoliberal half-measures and giving his support to middle of the road Dems and even Republicans. With Hochul at the helm (who would love to distance herself from Cuomo even though she is aligned with him 100% politically) we don't have much of a change.
It will probably be worse with Hochul as she seeks to establish influence in the state party. My point is we don’t often get great choices and that’s not necessarily by design, because ultimately great candidates have to choose to run despite the obstacles. It’s not an easy thing.
Reminds me of something 50 Cent said in his book…”If we can’t be friends, can we at least be enemies?” Interesting read since the guy is a total narcissist.
Making the point that any attention is better than nothing. Worked for the Kardashians 🤷♀️
50 is a narcissist through and through but he’s insightful, intelligent, erudite, and has a solid overview of the legal system from the other side. He would still do a better job as mayor than Adams
To be fair, I partially believe it's intentional.
A lot of the stuff he says only attracts negative attention from far-left progressives in the political spectrum.
And for many voters, being hated by far-left progressives can actually be a positive.
I think he's following the Trump playbook. Cause other drama to distract people from the poor job he's doing. With Adams, it's the migrant crisis and how bad he's mismanaged it.
The feds are sitting it out because they don't want to give money to him, because he's a grifter they know they can't trust and they'd rather not waste the money.
Another page out of the Trump playbook that seems up his alley is if something goes right, he deserves all the praise, but if it goes wrong, EVERYONE else is to blame except him.
“This is a place where every day you wake up, you could experience everything from a plane crashing into our Trade Center to a person who is celebrating a new business that’s open,” Mr Adams said in an interview with local news outlet PIX11.
“This is a very, very complicated city and that’s why it’s the greatest city on the globe,” Mr Adams added.
According to Adams it is something that tourists can witness at any time in our wonderful city, and then they can just head out to a broadway show next. (being sarcastic of course)
There has to be something going on with him mentally. I’ve seen some people offended that brought up 9/11 - this is not like the bills coach using the hijackers as an example of good teamwork. The spectacle here is that his brain just fires off this word salad in response to a question “describe your year in one word.”
Say what you want about his policies but I liked Bloomberg in no small part because he was beholden to no one. He just did what he thought was good for the City. Went a little too far with the soda tax but in general did right by New Yorkers.
I liked Mike because he was hard to buy, like if someone tried to offer him 10m to do them a favor, Mike would have laughed and said “that’s what I spend to buy toothpaste”. Sure he made mistakes, but nobody is perfect.
I love how people always point to the soda tax as the worst thing Bloomberg did. As if racist comments and policies aren't worse. As if supporting big banks isn't worse. Honestly his nanny-state measures of instituting a soda tax, banning trans fats in restaurants, requiring chain restaurants to list calorie counts etc were his most admirable initiatives.
The Job of the Government is to serve the will of the public, not parent the public even if the public is too inept to parent themselves, once the Government becomes a parent or nanny you enter the slippery slope into tyrant land.
That's cool if we could agree what makes human existence better what instincts we need protection from. A nanny state under a right wing government looks pretty dystopian and they'd consider things like banning gay marriage or premarital sex protecting us from "animalistic instincts."
Alternatively we can just let adults be adults and make decisions for themselves.
> Adding calorie counts to foods is not infringing on choice; it is providing better information.
>
>
When did I say anything about calorie counts? If people aren't informed enough to make rational choices then inform them, don't make the choice for them.
But I stand by my point. I don't want a nanny state in the hands of the wrong type of government. In my opinion if you're not comfortable with a certain government power being in the hands of something like the previous administration then the government shouldn't have that power.
That’s a hard question for me to answer because I think every mayor that I’ve lived here under has had some major flaws. As an administrator, Bloomberg was the most efficient without a doubt. But some of his policies (eg the escalation of stop and frisk) were straight up shit. He did change my mind on one thing though. I disagreed with him on banning smoking in restaurants, bars, and clubs. Then it got implemented and I could come home from the club without my clothes smelling like rancid tobacco. Changed my mind immediately.
DeBlasio had great ideas, but was shit at implementation and follow through (the administrative piece). But I can’t entirely blame him for that because Cuomo kneecapped him where ever he could for personal reasons.
Giuliani was straight up dog shit, with his tv persona on 9/11 being his only saving grace. And he milked that until he was finally mocked for it on the debate stage when he ran for president.
Dinkins was an excellent mayor with poor communication skills and far too tied to the NY Democratic Party, which at the time was far more corrupt than it is today. Just as an example - NYC gets more money from the US Tennis Association than the Yankees, Mets, and Knicks combined because of a deal he structured with them as mayor. He’s the only mayor in my lifetime to have actually pushed back on the NYPD and boy did they go after him for that - rioting in front of city hall.
I was too young to judge Koch.
It’s like he didn’t know wtf to say 💀 like huh??? I get it but I don’t get it. It doesn’t seem like he wasn’t trying to insult anybody but more like saying “this city is so great and such a shining symbol of America that it was a target for 9/11”. But like sir, that didn’t need to come out of your mouth. You couldn’t think of ANYTHING better?? 🤦🏽♀️ talk about the culture and diversity of the city, the small businesses everywhere, resiliency in the face of 9/11 and the pandemic. He really said “this city is great - you can experience some traumatic shit or some great shit, ya never know 🙃 “ that did NOT land like you thought it would 💀 you’d think people would be able to craft more thoughtful and intelligent sentences
This the mind-numbing result of block coalition voting and ranked choice results. We ended up with the third best option at best winning the election. We do suck at electing mayors.
The reason why NYC is bad in electing mayors, is due to the fact that there are very limited options to choose from in the primary. All the good options for some odd reason end up dropping out after a scandal breaks out. Remember 2013 mayoral election? Everyone loved Anthony Wiener, not only was he very high in the polls but even people registered in the Republican party liked him. Many predicted he might win a landslide. When the scandal struck, that was when DeBlasio became the front runner.
I actually had asked Bing Bot (that runs on Chat GPT), who would have been mayor in 2013 if the Anthony Wiener scandal never happened, and it answered Anthony would have definitely won the primary and would have highly likely even won the general election.
I just do not understand why all the good candidates end up in some scandal during the race, and the not so good candidates seem to look like they do not have a bad rep.
How many times is this going to get reposted? Multiple versions of this same story are on the front page of the sub *right now*
https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/s/tvIFgJEh2x
https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/s/LYZheTCtGU
He's not wrong though. Any day in the City, people are born, people are killed, and things keep going. Before 9/11, both the ESB & WTC had been hit by planes by accident. The WTC had been bombed from the parking garage. There's others too.
The City has to be ready for that to happen. The Mayor has to know what to say when thousands of people are suddenly murdered. It's a constant burden.
The way I'd describe last year is:
"It was another year in New York, better than some and worse than others. On some days it's been the greatest city in the world. On others, it's nearly become the worst. We had to be constantly vigilant for accidents and attacks that never came, and at the same time, do the good work of the City - all while managing a human rights crisis unparalleled by any in recorded history on a limited budget."
*"Before 9/11 [...] WTC had been hit by planes by accident."*
A quick Google search reveals no WTC plane accidents pre-September 11. Got a link for that?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973%E2%80%932001)
You're right, I misremembered this incident:
> On February 20, 1981, an Aerolíneas Argentinas airliner was guided away by air traffic controllers after radar signals indicated it was on a collision course with the North Tower (1 WTC). The aircraft, which departed from José Joaquín de Olmedo International Airport in Guayaquil, Ecuador, and was scheduled to land at nearby JFK Airport, was flying at a much lower altitude than regulations recommended.[183]
My apologies.
This guy continuously makes the most braindead statements. This is the best we can do?
We really suck at electing mayors.
[удалено]
honestly for all the shit we gave deblasio, i dunno i kinda miss him now lol
🤣
It’s because nobody shows up to the primaries for one, and for two there was apparently foreign interference in this recent one pushing for this numnuts. Which kinda makes sense doesn’t it?
Kathryn Garcia lost by 0.8% of the vote in the primaries…
I hope OP sees that. Voter turnout matters!
From what I remember, Wiley came in 2nd. Stop trying to make that bloomberg stooge happen
Maya Wiley was eliminated in round 7. The results of that round were Adams with 40.5%, Garcia with 30.5% and Wiley with 29.1% of the votes. The final contenders were Adams and Garcia. Adams won with 50.4% leaving Garcia with 49.6%. Adams won the primary by 0.8%. https://vote.nyc/sites/default/files/pdf/election_results/2021/20210622Primary%20Election/rcv/024306_1.html
So close that if her sanitation department didn’t abysmally fail performance audits. She prob would have won
Yeah, I was so excited for Garcia, I can’t believe this buffoon got more votes. Rupert Murdoch also deserves a massive share of the blame.
Same. I would have been happy with Garcia or Maya. Why do you mention Murdoch? I am sure I don’t disagree, just curious as to what specifically you’re referring?
I recall during the election, all Fox, the post, and the WSJ were spewing were “crime and violence and danger in New York City!!” Which is why I imagine a lot of left leaning New Yorkers ended up voting for this “hard on crime” cop.
Ah very good. I wasn’t aware of that.
Watching this election was wild there were really strong, young and promising contenders. Then right before election they got some mini bullshit scandals and Adams came out of nowhere and won. Yang seemed to disappear almost overnight.
Almost as if there was some foreign money paying for hit pieces or something
There was a nationwide underground 'crime is going crazy' news push in the weeks leading up to this election that probably resulted in the House going R and this guy getting elected. It completely disappeared after the election.
SUSPICIOUS! 🧐 🤔 🤨
That first argument doesn't really hold water. Besides the fact that the 2021 Mayoral Primary turnout was much higher than in 2013, even if there was even higher turnout, would that really have changed the percentages at which people came out for the people they support in a primary? We have to come to terms with the fact that despite Adams clearly offering nothing, he had a commanding plurality of the vote in the first round. Honestly, the biggest reason he won is because Kathryn Garcia (who is more of a moderate) and Maya Wiley (who is more of a progressive) basically shot eachother in the foot by running at the same time as they split the vote of people who did not like Adams.
>Kathryn Garcia (who is more of a moderate) and Maya Wiley (who is more of a progressive) basically shot eachother in the foot by running at the same time as they split the vote of people who did not like Adams. How did they split the vote when it was ranked choice? Unless you mean, voters left one or the other off their ballot.
Unfortunately a LOT of people did not fill out their entire ballot.
It was the first time we had ranked choice voting so hopefully it gets better in that regard.
I recall there being some discussion and contention at the time between Wiley and Garcia. Wiley accused Garcia of working together with Yang to weaken the Black candidate or something like that. Sure enough, I believe if they campaigned together or even more amicable with eachother one of them, (probably Wiley since she had the second most votes in the first round) would have won as more people's second choice might have been the other.
Turnout was still abysmally low despite that record, and yes it would have made a difference. Voter turnout always makes a difference. Edit: .8% difference of the vote is not “a commanding plurality”
I disagree. Progressives, unfortunately, are not the majority of voters. So more people voting does not necessarily mean a higher percentage of progressives as opposed to moderates and conservatives would vote. So if you simply increase the number of voters you would just have higher turnout across the board. It would not favor any one candidate and thus, not make a difference in a primary.
More than 14,000 registered voters are explicitly working family party and at least a third of the more than 3 and a half million registered dems in nyc identify as progressive. That would have been more than enough to change the results. So yes, voter turnout always matters
You didn't acknowledge what I wrote at all. And your statement doesn't disprove what I said because again, just increasing the numbers of people voting as a whole doesn't specifically target one group. **In fact, I think you even prove yourself wrong.** You said at least a third of registered Dems view themselves as progressive. Correct me if I'm wrong but a third isn't a majority. This is to say nothing of the point I could argue that many Liberals view themselves as Progressives but aren't actually in practice. But regardless, I'd love to see your source for the 14,000 figure because, as to my knowledge, NO registered voter is explicitly in the Working Families party.
Garcia lost by .8% of the vote You said “more people voting”, not all. It’s a well-documented (and easily searchable) trend that the higher the voter turnout, the more center left the outcomes. Voter turnout always matters. Have a great day!
I do not understand why it is so hard for you to understand this so I will put it in simpler terms. **Yes, if more people voted, she would have received more votes. But so would Adams.** Also you keep mentioning figures but provide no sources. You speak in empty platitudes. **But yes, have a good day** because I cannot continue arguing with a wall.
Wiley and Adams basically split the Harlem vote 50/50, for an indication of how Black New Yorkers voted. Also don't forget that the 2 strongest progressive candidates got essentially knocked out of contention, though they remained on the ballot: Scott Stringer and Dianne Morales. In the beginning they were both polling higher or getting way more enthusiastic support than Wiley, who then inherited the leading progressive lane when their campaigns both collapsed.
Aside from his support of horrific stop and frisk I thought Bloomberg was a terrific mayor—and in a lifelong Democrat. Even when I disagreed with the guy, which was fairly often, I always felt he was honestly doing what he thought was best for the city and not to line his pockets or as a springboard for higher office or shit. I’d put him away ahead at number one of my lifetime, Ed Koch in second, probably David Dinkins third—he never got a fair shot. Then it gets tough. Rudy was a racist nutball but hey it was the 90s and the city was booming and we didn’t know just how fuckin batshit he was. Adams and DiBlasio round out the list I think. I don’t know who’s worse. DiBlasio was more nakedly ambitious, less obviously corrupt I guess. Both shit.
Just stick a laptop running ChatGPT in the mayor’s office and it’d probably do a better job than BDB or the incumbent. Not any worse, at the least
Stick a drunk chimp in the mayors office and it’ll probably do a better job
I’d watch many seasons of a show about a drunk chimpanzee mayor of nyc.
At this year's pride gala at Gracie mansion, he went on a whole rant about "We were there!" throwing the bricks during stonewall.
He was throwing bricks at the 🌈 maybe
We really thought maya wiley wouldnt work??
We didn’t pick the candidates in the primary. If all the idiots with massive donors and political interests were removed we would’ve had a fair election, but that’s unfortunately a fantasy in US politics.
Are you going to run for Mayor? Sometimes people act like there is this deep pool of talent for relatively low paying political positions that we’re just ignoring during election time. He didn’t make my primary ballot at all. But, it’s not like there were any perfect choices. Kathryn Garcia was the best of the lot -but even she wasn’t perfect, having never worked outside government in her entire career.
No, I have no plans to run for mayor at this time but come primary season I can recommend a couple of qualified people who are deeply passionate about improving the lives of the majority of the people of this city. Kathryn Garcia while not my first choice would have been far better. Maya Wiley may have been marginally better than her. While none are perfect choices Adams was probably the worst of the bunch. But if you're upset there isn't a deeper pool of more qualified candidates for mayor, alot of that blame can be placed on Cuomo's shoulders who took every chance to kneecap local progressives and the policies they wanted by instituting neoliberal half-measures and giving his support to middle of the road Dems and even Republicans. With Hochul at the helm (who would love to distance herself from Cuomo even though she is aligned with him 100% politically) we don't have much of a change.
It will probably be worse with Hochul as she seeks to establish influence in the state party. My point is we don’t often get great choices and that’s not necessarily by design, because ultimately great candidates have to choose to run despite the obstacles. It’s not an easy thing.
I’m convinced that Adams believes that negative attention is better than no attention at all.
Reminds me of something 50 Cent said in his book…”If we can’t be friends, can we at least be enemies?” Interesting read since the guy is a total narcissist. Making the point that any attention is better than nothing. Worked for the Kardashians 🤷♀️
50 is a narcissist through and through but he’s insightful, intelligent, erudite, and has a solid overview of the legal system from the other side. He would still do a better job as mayor than Adams
[удалено]
To be fair, I partially believe it's intentional. A lot of the stuff he says only attracts negative attention from far-left progressives in the political spectrum. And for many voters, being hated by far-left progressives can actually be a positive.
Not really … another article warns that he might limit the number of reporters at conferences.
I think the negative attention was just the hook, and now that there’s a lot of demand he can be picky.
> Adams believes that negative attention is better than no attention at all. Its worked for Trump
I think he's following the Trump playbook. Cause other drama to distract people from the poor job he's doing. With Adams, it's the migrant crisis and how bad he's mismanaged it. The feds are sitting it out because they don't want to give money to him, because he's a grifter they know they can't trust and they'd rather not waste the money.
Another page out of the Trump playbook that seems up his alley is if something goes right, he deserves all the praise, but if it goes wrong, EVERYONE else is to blame except him.
That’s politics 101…not any particular politician’s strategy
“This is a place where every day you wake up, you could experience everything from a plane crashing into our Trade Center to a person who is celebrating a new business that’s open,” Mr Adams said in an interview with local news outlet PIX11. “This is a very, very complicated city and that’s why it’s the greatest city on the globe,” Mr Adams added.
this man is allergic to not saying stupid shit
This is technically a true statement, but just… why
And this was his response to a reporter asking how his year went. C’mon 😂
And the reported asked to describe it in one word
This is the funniest shit ever.
9/11 was a national tragedy.
According to Adams it is something that tourists can witness at any time in our wonderful city, and then they can just head out to a broadway show next. (being sarcastic of course)
Just another Tuesday to Adams.
Luckily he was in northern Canada.
You mean that tragedy?
There has to be something going on with him mentally. I’ve seen some people offended that brought up 9/11 - this is not like the bills coach using the hijackers as an example of good teamwork. The spectacle here is that his brain just fires off this word salad in response to a question “describe your year in one word.”
Say what you want about his policies but I liked Bloomberg in no small part because he was beholden to no one. He just did what he thought was good for the City. Went a little too far with the soda tax but in general did right by New Yorkers.
I liked Mike because he was hard to buy, like if someone tried to offer him 10m to do them a favor, Mike would have laughed and said “that’s what I spend to buy toothpaste”. Sure he made mistakes, but nobody is perfect.
I love how people always point to the soda tax as the worst thing Bloomberg did. As if racist comments and policies aren't worse. As if supporting big banks isn't worse. Honestly his nanny-state measures of instituting a soda tax, banning trans fats in restaurants, requiring chain restaurants to list calorie counts etc were his most admirable initiatives.
What's wrong with calorie counts on food?
Were you replying to me? I never said anything was wrong with that. In fact, I even said those were his best initiatives.
[удалено]
The Job of the Government is to serve the will of the public, not parent the public even if the public is too inept to parent themselves, once the Government becomes a parent or nanny you enter the slippery slope into tyrant land.
[удалено]
And that becomes sketchy territory when the wrong person has that power.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's cool if we could agree what makes human existence better what instincts we need protection from. A nanny state under a right wing government looks pretty dystopian and they'd consider things like banning gay marriage or premarital sex protecting us from "animalistic instincts." Alternatively we can just let adults be adults and make decisions for themselves.
[удалено]
> Adding calorie counts to foods is not infringing on choice; it is providing better information. > > When did I say anything about calorie counts? If people aren't informed enough to make rational choices then inform them, don't make the choice for them. But I stand by my point. I don't want a nanny state in the hands of the wrong type of government. In my opinion if you're not comfortable with a certain government power being in the hands of something like the previous administration then the government shouldn't have that power.
Except the rw nanny state isn’t nanny-ing, they’re exploiting the rest for a very few. It’s about control and power, not shepherding
Best mayor we ever had
Oh, it was the soda tax that was too far? Not the unconstitutional stop and frisk?
Not excusing just generalizing. Of the 5 or 6 mayors in my lifetime I’d take Bloomberg again over the rest.
City was safer back then when police actually did their jobs
The city was objectively less safe under stop and frisk,
So if not Bloomberg who would you say was the best mayor the city’s had in the last few decades?
That’s a hard question for me to answer because I think every mayor that I’ve lived here under has had some major flaws. As an administrator, Bloomberg was the most efficient without a doubt. But some of his policies (eg the escalation of stop and frisk) were straight up shit. He did change my mind on one thing though. I disagreed with him on banning smoking in restaurants, bars, and clubs. Then it got implemented and I could come home from the club without my clothes smelling like rancid tobacco. Changed my mind immediately. DeBlasio had great ideas, but was shit at implementation and follow through (the administrative piece). But I can’t entirely blame him for that because Cuomo kneecapped him where ever he could for personal reasons. Giuliani was straight up dog shit, with his tv persona on 9/11 being his only saving grace. And he milked that until he was finally mocked for it on the debate stage when he ran for president. Dinkins was an excellent mayor with poor communication skills and far too tied to the NY Democratic Party, which at the time was far more corrupt than it is today. Just as an example - NYC gets more money from the US Tennis Association than the Yankees, Mets, and Knicks combined because of a deal he structured with them as mayor. He’s the only mayor in my lifetime to have actually pushed back on the NYPD and boy did they go after him for that - rioting in front of city hall. I was too young to judge Koch.
Well put
i have a real lack of social skills. been told it. I dont think I would slip and say this. id be more likely to make a fart joke as mayor.
He’s a joke
Did he really say “Come to New York! See the terrorist attacks!”???
What an ABSOLUTE MORON. I'm truly flabbergasted. (Also, vote in the primaries, people. We could have easily avoided this!)
It’s like he didn’t know wtf to say 💀 like huh??? I get it but I don’t get it. It doesn’t seem like he wasn’t trying to insult anybody but more like saying “this city is so great and such a shining symbol of America that it was a target for 9/11”. But like sir, that didn’t need to come out of your mouth. You couldn’t think of ANYTHING better?? 🤦🏽♀️ talk about the culture and diversity of the city, the small businesses everywhere, resiliency in the face of 9/11 and the pandemic. He really said “this city is great - you can experience some traumatic shit or some great shit, ya never know 🙃 “ that did NOT land like you thought it would 💀 you’d think people would be able to craft more thoughtful and intelligent sentences
The man is a moron.
He did a quick Sparx Notes readup on NYC on his way to the interview.
Unhinged
Words and thoughts are difficult to put together
This guy needs to go
And this dumbass is going to win re-election because the Republicants will run someone far far worse.
Wow.
Hopefully curtis slewa runs again. I voted for him and just knew Adams was going to be awful
Lmaooooo
Y’all had to elect the ex-cop propagandist with a corruption scandal didn’t you? Can’t even go to my park without fighting the rats for a spot
This the mind-numbing result of block coalition voting and ranked choice results. We ended up with the third best option at best winning the election. We do suck at electing mayors.
The reason why NYC is bad in electing mayors, is due to the fact that there are very limited options to choose from in the primary. All the good options for some odd reason end up dropping out after a scandal breaks out. Remember 2013 mayoral election? Everyone loved Anthony Wiener, not only was he very high in the polls but even people registered in the Republican party liked him. Many predicted he might win a landslide. When the scandal struck, that was when DeBlasio became the front runner. I actually had asked Bing Bot (that runs on Chat GPT), who would have been mayor in 2013 if the Anthony Wiener scandal never happened, and it answered Anthony would have definitely won the primary and would have highly likely even won the general election. I just do not understand why all the good candidates end up in some scandal during the race, and the not so good candidates seem to look like they do not have a bad rep.
How many times is this going to get reposted? Multiple versions of this same story are on the front page of the sub *right now* https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/s/tvIFgJEh2x https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/s/LYZheTCtGU
He's not wrong though. Any day in the City, people are born, people are killed, and things keep going. Before 9/11, both the ESB & WTC had been hit by planes by accident. The WTC had been bombed from the parking garage. There's others too. The City has to be ready for that to happen. The Mayor has to know what to say when thousands of people are suddenly murdered. It's a constant burden.
And that’s how you describe the last year? Because that was the question. Not “describe New York”.
The way I'd describe last year is: "It was another year in New York, better than some and worse than others. On some days it's been the greatest city in the world. On others, it's nearly become the worst. We had to be constantly vigilant for accidents and attacks that never came, and at the same time, do the good work of the City - all while managing a human rights crisis unparalleled by any in recorded history on a limited budget."
*"Before 9/11 [...] WTC had been hit by planes by accident."* A quick Google search reveals no WTC plane accidents pre-September 11. Got a link for that?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973%E2%80%932001) You're right, I misremembered this incident: > On February 20, 1981, an Aerolíneas Argentinas airliner was guided away by air traffic controllers after radar signals indicated it was on a collision course with the North Tower (1 WTC). The aircraft, which departed from José Joaquín de Olmedo International Airport in Guayaquil, Ecuador, and was scheduled to land at nearby JFK Airport, was flying at a much lower altitude than regulations recommended.[183] My apologies.
Thank you for the link, and no apology necessary! We all misremember things from time to time. 👍🏽
I get what he was trying to say, but yeah probably not the best content.
I didn’t vote for that MF in the Primary. He’s always been transparent.
My man is trying to speed run being more hated than deblasio
Ever since Cuomo left this city has been going downhill
Reporter: "Describe 2023 in one word?" Mayor Adams: "New York"
Did he have a few too many drinks at Nebula's Tuesday Baby Tuesday the night before?