Anonymous wrote:Cuomo wants to spend $1B on more cops when crime is going down, I don’t see anybody asking how he plans to pay for that. And again, he’s a sex pest and that ought to be disqualifying on its own.
Everybody here seems to be OK with most of the candidates not named Cuomo or Mamdani, why not just rank 5 of them in whatever order you like? But don’t rank Cuomo, he sucks.
Anonymous wrote:No thanks. Mamdani is way too far left.
Bad on Israel (not that it should matter, but he has chosen to speak up on it).
Freeze rents on rent-stabilized apartments? Aren't landlords allowed to make a living?
Free buses? Really?
He is way too light on crime.
And he has no clue how to pay for his wish list. He will bankrupt the city. And Trump will walk all over him.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You lost me at "conservative." I think most of the people opposing you have made it clear that they are lifelong Democrats and anti-Trump. So that puts them well to the left of more than half of America. There are so many people who live in the super liberal bubble of NYC and never leave it. And these people constantly call their moderate Democrat neighbors conservative, or worse yet accuse them of being like Trump. This is mean and rude and incredibly simplistic.
This is a race for mayor of NYC; I think it's fair to refer to Cuomo as the conservative candidate in this race, and his supporters as conservatives. You'd probably all be considered raving liberals in Texas, but we're not in Texas. Cuomo also has a number of qualities in common with Trump - the ego and bullying and self-centeredness and of course all the sexual harassment - that I don't think his supporters are grappling with. And, again, he helped ensure Republicans would control the NY State Senate, so if you're truly a lifelong Democrat and anti-Trump then I don't see how you could consider that remotely acceptable.
Anonymous wrote:Running a big city is all about tradeoffs and compromise. Cuomo admittedly has some issues with this as well. But he has been there before so gets the joke more.
He's shown less willingness to compromise than Mamdani, and has a much longer track record of not compromising on stuff, and he's twice Mamdani's age so he has a lot less potential for growth in that area; if you're going to vote for somebody with unrealistic proposals then I don't think 'getting the joke' is a reason to pick one candidate over another.
Anonymous wrote:I think Lander could be tolerable. I wish he hadn't aligned with Mamdani as it is a bad sign. I think there are a lot of people who will have a ballot in some order of Cuomo, Tilson, Stringer, Myrie and Ramos. And for those who can't stomach Cuomo (which I can fully understand), they might slide in Lander.
Myrie and Ramos are both to the left of Lander so I don't know why anyone would have a ballot with those two and *not* Lander unless they're simply on some sort of personal vendetta against Mamdani and anybody who's friendly to Mamdani, in which case I would suggest that maybe there are reasons for that that go beyond his policies or supposed lack of experience.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We are living this hell in our public school now. The school won’t even teach certain parts of the NYC DOE curriculum because it is not anti racist enough. Everything is thru the lens of race. Academics do not matter, the bar is so low. If you are for advanced learning that is shamed. Just voted in my CEC election and struggled to find a candidate who even mentioned academics. The whole thing is sad and has us questioning our choice to live here.
Are in in a downtown nyc public elementary school? Considering one for my child...
I'm guessing they are in the super woke district in Brooklyn that decided to basically do a race to the bottom for the sake of "equity" and white guilt (I think it is 15)? UES and UWS publics are more progressive than I would like (I'm a moderate Democrat) but the kids still are learning the fundamentals and getting a good education. It can vary by teacher but I think the poster is being pretty melo-dramatic, though perhaps they are somewhere else. I know less about downtown schools but have heard good things about a number of them (I don't live there so can't keep track of which is which - I only have so much bandwidth and they don't really impact me).
I’m the OP who mentioned our school being dumbed down. Bingo on the guess of a woke Brooklyn district. Yes I was being a bit dramatic I admit. It does vary by district so downtown may be ok. You can always supplement too see the recent nypost article about math. We are doing this.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We are living this hell in our public school now. The school won’t even teach certain parts of the NYC DOE curriculum because it is not anti racist enough. Everything is thru the lens of race. Academics do not matter, the bar is so low. If you are for advanced learning that is shamed. Just voted in my CEC election and struggled to find a candidate who even mentioned academics. The whole thing is sad and has us questioning our choice to live here.
Are in in a downtown nyc public elementary school? Considering one for my child...
I'm guessing they are in the super woke district in Brooklyn that decided to basically do a race to the bottom for the sake of "equity" and white guilt (I think it is 15)? UES and UWS publics are more progressive than I would like (I'm a moderate Democrat) but the kids still are learning the fundamentals and getting a good education. It can vary by teacher but I think the poster is being pretty melo-dramatic, though perhaps they are somewhere else. I know less about downtown schools but have heard good things about a number of them (I don't live there so can't keep track of which is which - I only have so much bandwidth and they don't really impact me).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Jessica Tisch the nepo baby being pushed by the center-right establishment NYT?
She could be sitting in the Hamptons eating bon bons but instead is working her tail off to make NYC a better place.
The Times usually pushes the most woke candidates so I am glad they profiled someone more centrist. And she is worth profiling - she is a rising star in the city. She admits getting her foot in the door because of who she is (as well as her degrees) but she is doing the work.
The class envy is so low class. I can't stand people who hate others just because they have money. Who do you prefer?
She doesn't "just have money." The rich yield their power to crush everyone else. Get a clue!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Jessica Tisch the nepo baby being pushed by the center-right establishment NYT?
She could be sitting in the Hamptons eating bon bons but instead is working her tail off to make NYC a better place.
The Times usually pushes the most woke candidates so I am glad they profiled someone more centrist. And she is worth profiling - she is a rising star in the city. She admits getting her foot in the door because of who she is (as well as her degrees) but she is doing the work.
The class envy is so low class. I can't stand people who hate others just because they have money. Who do you prefer?
Anonymous wrote:You lost me at "conservative." I think most of the people opposing you have made it clear that they are lifelong Democrats and anti-Trump. So that puts them well to the left of more than half of America. There are so many people who live in the super liberal bubble of NYC and never leave it. And these people constantly call their moderate Democrat neighbors conservative, or worse yet accuse them of being like Trump. This is mean and rude and incredibly simplistic.
Anonymous wrote:Running a big city is all about tradeoffs and compromise. Cuomo admittedly has some issues with this as well. But he has been there before so gets the joke more.
Anonymous wrote:I think Lander could be tolerable. I wish he hadn't aligned with Mamdani as it is a bad sign. I think there are a lot of people who will have a ballot in some order of Cuomo, Tilson, Stringer, Myrie and Ramos. And for those who can't stomach Cuomo (which I can fully understand), they might slide in Lander.
Anonymous wrote:Yes, I'm aware I'm arguing with multiple people, I just got mixed up about which one![]()
I can say with a great deal of both real-world and online experience that being the one person making the opposite argument in a room full of people who feel a certain way is a *tremendously* high-leverage proposition, which is probably why conservatives do it so much. You're never going to change the mind of the people arguing with you, and your arguments don't honestly even really matter that much; the important thing is having that perspective aired everywhere, so that other people see it as within the bounds of reasonable discourse.
So being the *one* outspoken Mamdani fan in a forum full of conservative private school parents (conservative enough even that it's constantly dumping on schools like Dalton and Fieldston for being too 'woke' despite being full of rich white people and costing $65,000/year to attend) is well worth the effort.
And yes, Koch was vastly better than Bloomberg. Mamdani has plans to play for his policies, and they are, again, on his website, which was, again, written by humans; you just don't care to read them.
But as long as we're talking about fiscal responsibility, here's an article from the conservative-leaning Vital City arguing that both Mamdani *and* Cuomo are making unrealistic budget proposals:
https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/articles/zohran-mamdani-and-andrew-cuomo-arent-as-different-as-you-might-think
On Cuomo:
"Unfortunately, he’s running a campaign made up of costly and clumsily cobbled-together promises to unions and other constituencies.
For example, he has reversed himself on the wisdom of Tier 6 pension reforms, the slightly-less-generous retirement benefits for public employees passed in 2012 with his support, which are saving city government hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Did Cuomo’s principles change or is he just bending to win union and retiree support?
The need for comprehensive property tax reform has been widely acknowledged across the political spectrum — because the current system is impossible to understand and horribly unfair to all types of residents. Cuomo, who understands this well, wants to cap property tax increases just for the city’s one-to-three-family homes, a patently political play that will make it harder, not easier, to solve the bigger problem, which calls for some sort of grand bargain. Again, the former governor knows exactly what he’s doing: This is an expensive pander, not an answer."
Much like NYT, they seem to like Lander better than either of them: "but overall, his detailed taxing and spending proposals make a better-faith effort not to commit hundreds of millions we don’t have."
I don't expect to persuade anybody actually *posting* here to vote for Mamdani (though I do imagine I might catch a few others), but I'm hoping you might at least reconsider your insistence that Lander is also off limits; again, you can rank him ahead of Cuomo if you're committed to the proposition that Cuomo is a reasonable price to pay to stop Mamdani, or you can follow through on your assertion that they're both terrible, not rank either, and if Lander doesn't win then at least you're absolved of blame for whoever does.