Split New York City Mayoral Race

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think that part of the accusation is fraud. They are claiming he lied on a govt form or concealed info on such form which would be fraud. I don't know the details of that nor do I trust what they have to say about it. However, with a friendly judge and questionable language they might get away with it. Right now, it's probably just noise to try to impact the election. They accuse him of being an anti-American fraudster, right-wingers on social media accuse him of being a liar for other reasons, eventually the caricature sticks, like how Al Gore become a robot or Bernie Sanders a grouchy complainer. Independents will be influenced.

On the other hand, if he does actually win, they will absolutely make this into a case, however illegitimate.

 

[Politesse]

I feel like the Times is taking a very cowardly approach. They did not endorse a candidate, unusually for a mayoral race in their own city, but they do constantly run hit pieces on Mamdani. At the moment, the front page, top-of-the-page news report is titled "Even for Some Mamdani Supporters, His Thin Résumé Is Cause for Concern". A covert editorial disguised as reporting, if I ever saw one (does Mamadani really have the least experience of those on the slate? When his principal rival is a radio host who runs a vigilante posse on the side?).

Is it the paper's intention to get Cuomo elected, or Sliwa? They should say it outright, if so. Or are they just trusting that their readership has more interest in attacking progressivism on principle than in the practical outcomes of this election? Is this just profitable trolling for them?

 

[Derec]

I feel like the Times is taking a very cowardly approach. They did not endorse a candidate, unusually for a mayoral race in their own city,

That is a reflection of the fact that all the candidates suck. But Cuomo is definitely the lesser of the weevils.

but they do constantly run hit pieces on Mamdani.

They have run some negative opinion pieces on him, but also many positive ones. Almost as if different authors can have different opinions.

At the moment, the front page, top-of-the-page news report is titled "Even for Some Mamdani Supporters, His Thin Résumé Is Cause for Concern".

What's wrong with that article? Note that they also quoted people who did not think he was too inexperienced.

A covert editorial disguised as reporting, if I ever saw one (does Mamadani really have the least experience of those on the slate? When his principal rival is a radio host who runs a vigilante posse on the side?).

His principal rival is the former governor of NY.

Is it the paper's intention to get Cuomo elected, or Sliwa? They should say it outright, if so. Or are they just trusting that their readership has more interest in attacking progressivism on principle than in the practical outcomes of this election? Is this just profitable trolling for them?

As, I said, they publish different articles. This one is pretty positive: Obama Calls Mamdani to Praise His Campaign and Offers to Be Sounding Board

 

[Derec]

I think that part of the accusation is fraud. They are claiming he lied on a govt form or concealed info on such form which would be fraud.

Lying on immigration forms is certainly grounds for denaturalization. That happened to the PFLP terrorist Rasmea Odeh who did not disclose that she spent time in an Israeli prison for blowing up two young Jewish men in a grocery store.

I do not see how that applies to Mamdani as he was a child when he came here.

 

[Derec]

Zohran Mamdani

IMPORTANT
Denaturalization can only occur for serious crimes or fraud; political beliefs cannot be grounds for losing citizenship.

Did they try heating him up or adding some vinegar or citrus juice?
Oh way, that's denaturation!

 

[Derec]

Good for him. As Henry Miller said, “I am a citizen of the world.” To the extent that everyone thought that way and abjured nationalism, tribalism and xenophobia, we’d all be better off.

To the extent being a "citizen of the world" is even possible given the state of the world today (and that's an issue for another thread), what Mama Mamdani said is not this. She said that he was not Americanized at all, and sees himself as Indian and Ugandan only. That is the opposite of what Henry Miller said. A "citizen of the world" would not abhor being identified with the place he made his home; he merely would not identify only with that place. Btw, Papa Mamdani is a big apologist for the Ugandan dictator (and notorious cannibal) Idi Amin.

I notice you have pointedly ignored my posts on the harmonious diversity of views and ethnicities in NYC, which has nearly a million Muslims, as well as the study showing that the vast majority of Muslims in the UK are very content to assimilate but face constant discrimination,

I am not saying that all Muslims fail to assimilate, but a relatively high proportion of them do fail at that. In NY as in UK, and everyplace else.
And a small, but very disproportionally high, portion of those engage in violence, including in NY (subway bombings, the "truck of peace" attack) even discounting the 9/11 attack and the original WTC bombing.
The violent ones are the tip of the iceberg. The Islamists who seek to spread Islamic control through immigration and hypernatalism are below surface and pose a more insidious and in long term a far greater threat.
I count Siraj Wahhaj, whom Mamdani recently praised, firmly in the latter category. He wants an Islamic theocracy instead of democracy, but is not going to engage in violence himself. He did support the mastermind of the original WTC bombing though.

 

[Derec]

When he shoots him in broad daylight on 5th Avenue...
Or has one of his henchmen do it and he pardons them...

President can't pardon state crimes.
And Alvin Bragg and his chipmunks at the Manhattan DA's office would be very eager to prosecute that particular crime. For a change.

 

[southernhybrid]

Trump does or tries to do lot of illegal things, but there is no legal way of ending the citizenship of Mamdani

When he shoots him in broad daylight on 5th Avenue...
Or has one of his henchmen do it and he pardons them...

Then you'll know who is the real power in the US is.
Tom

I think we are already aware of that. That is why I mentioned that Trump does or tries to do lots of illegal things. The question is will SCOTUS and Congress ever grow some balls and stop him from his illegal actions. One can only hope.

It's pretty amazing when MTG is about the only Repug, criticizing his actions, despite her constantly saying that she and Trump have a great relationship. I wonder how long that will last. She was on Bill Maher this week and she sounded more like a D then an R. They even showed a video of Bernie praising her. She should at least become an independent. Trump and his cronies have criticized her but she seems to have more courage than the rest of them Who woulda thunk it?

 

[southernhybrid]

I feel like the Times is taking a very cowardly approach. They did not endorse a candidate, unusually for a mayoral race in their own city, but they do constantly run hit pieces on Mamdani. At the moment, the front page, top-of-the-page news report is titled "Even for Some Mamdani Supporters, His Thin Résumé Is Cause for Concern". A covert editorial disguised as reporting, if I ever saw one (does Mamadani really have the least experience of those on the slate? When his principal rival is a radio host who runs a vigilante posse on the side?).

Is it the paper's intention to get Cuomo elected, or Sliwa? They should say it outright, if so. Or are they just trusting that their readership has more interest in attacking progressivism on principle than in the practical outcomes of this election? Is this just profitable trolling for them?

I don't think so. I read that article and some Mamdani supporters are simply concerned about his lack of experience. I can certainly understand that, but most of them will vote for him considering the alternative, as well as how charismatic he is and how much they like his ideas, regardless of how unrealistic they may be.

Still, if you read that article, there was one supporter who changed her mind at the last minute and held her nose and voted for Cuomo. The current governor. has reassured voters that she will do whatever it takes to help Mamdani and he has said he will be sure and find people with lots of experience to advise him in areas where he lacks experience. He will be the youngest mayor in over a century, so his lack of experience certainly is a concern for a lot of people, although I'd gladly vote for him if I lived in NYC. He's still way ahead in the polls.

I personally think the Times tries to do a good job or presenting all sides in their opinion section, but considering I've been reading and subscribing to the Times for over 25 years, I guess I may have my own bias.

 

[southernhybrid]

I feel like the Times is taking a very cowardly approach. They did not endorse a candidate, unusually for a mayoral race in their own city, but they do constantly run hit pieces on Mamdani. At the moment, the front page, top-of-the-page news report is titled "Even for Some Mamdani Supporters, His Thin Résumé Is Cause for Concern". A covert editorial disguised as reporting, if I ever saw one (does Mamadani really have the least experience of those on the slate? When his principal rival is a radio host who runs a vigilante posse on the side?).

Is it the paper's intention to get Cuomo elected, or Sliwa? They should say it outright, if so. Or are they just trusting that their readership has more interest in attacking progressivism on principle than in the practical outcomes of this election? Is this just profitable trolling for them?

I found an article that said the NYTimes will stop endorsing New York candidates. It was written in the summer of 2024, so that probably explains why there has been no endorsement for mayor.

https://apnews.com/article/new-york...t-candidates-b9c09472c5f7d7f261a457d41277a9f9

NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Times editorial board will stop endorsing candidates in New York elections, the paper’s opinion editor said Monday.

The editorial board, which operates independently from the paper’s newsroom, will continue to make endorsements in presidential elections.

In a statement, Kathleen Kingsbury, head of opinion at The New York Times, did not explain a reason for the decision on the New York endorsements but said “Opinion will continue to offer perspective on the races, candidates and issues at stake.” The paper reported the change would take effect immediately, with the editorial board not endorsing candidates in New York congressional or Senate races this fall, or in next year’s mayoral race.

Many newspapers have stopped endorsing political candidates in recent years for various reasons, including concerns over alienating readers as well as dwindling staff and resources, among other things.

 

[laughing dog]

Good for him. As Henry Miller said, “I am a citizen of the world.” To the extent that everyone thought that way and abjured nationalism, tribalism and xenophobia, we’d all be better off.

To the extent being a "citizen of the world" is even possible given the state of the world today (and that's an issue for another thread), what Mama Mamdani said is not this. She said that he was not Americanized at all, and sees himself as Indian and Ugandan only. That is the opposite of what Henry Miller said. A "citizen of the world" would not abhor being identified with the place he made his home; he merely would not identify only with that place. Btw, Papa Mamdani is a big apologist for the Ugandan dictator (and notorious cannibal) Idi Amin.

I notice you have pointedly ignored my posts on the harmonious diversity of views and ethnicities in NYC, which has nearly a million Muslims, as well as the study showing that the vast majority of Muslims in the UK are very content to assimilate but face constant discrimination,

I am not saying that all Muslims fail to assimilate, but a relatively high proportion of them do fail at that. In NY as in UK, and everyplace else.
And a small, but very disproportionally high, portion of those engage in violence, including in NY (subway bombings, the "truck of peace" attack) even discounting the 9/11 attack and the original WTC bombing.
The violent ones are the tip of the iceberg. The Islamists who seek to spread Islamic control through immigration and hypernatalism are below surface and pose a more insidious and in long term a far greater threat.
I count Siraj Wahhaj, whom Mamdani recently praised, firmly in the latter category. He wants an Islamic theocracy instead of democracy, but is not going to engage in violence himself. He did support the mastermind of the original WTC bombing though.

You don’t have to worry about Islamists long run threat because the Christian Nationalists will protect you once they complete their takeover.

 

[Politesse]

In a statement, Kathleen Kingsbury, head of opinion at The New York Times, did not explain a reason for the decision on the New York endorsements...

Three guesses why....