Liberal CNN Host Fareed Zakaria Slams the Commie Mayor of NYC Zohran Mandami

Newsweek and google AI are not credible sources. Many Demoturds in nyc do not like Mamdani. Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

As if you posted any source other than your opinion.

elg…

Let me re-phrase: I don't know why you would care.

About either of those two idiots. Or NYC in general.

If I told you I lived in Manhattan for almost a decade, would you kindly give me your permission to care about the place? Pretty please, roo?

Fareed isn't an idiot. I wish everyone could have as much smarts as he does.


The only reason anyone claims that they do is to promote more divisive bullshit.

Wrong. I care and I'm not pushing divisive bullshit. I'm pushing ideas that work over ideas that fail. Originally Posted by rooster

Maybe you should try another approach. "Who cares?" isn't resonating.

The guy has been in office less than 2 months. Nothing in any government gets fixed that fast.

A year from now, we will have a better idea if his ideas work. Originally Posted by elghund

I would like to agree with you. Except his ideas have been proven to fail, again & again, and at some point you have to speak up like Fareed and say - enough! Please don't put NYC through the wringer again!

What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over & over while expecting a different result?

As roo says... faak!

I'd be happy to give him a year to fix things, if he showed the good sense to retreat from bad ideas and embrace ideas that work. You know, like Francois Mitterand in 1983. I doubt if he is capable of it. Prove me wrong, Zohran!

This is what I don't get - why do you view everything in terms of us versus them? My team versus the "maggies"? Why not try to listen to everyone carefully and objectively, then pick & choose the best ideas from both sides? Originally Posted by lustylad

The number of nut jobs who post in this forum make the “Us vs Them” viewpoint the default. The best chance of having a rational discussion hereabouts can only be achieved if the OP clearly states it in the opening post and even then it’s more likely than not to degrade into name calling and trash talking.

But as I stated in my earlier post I believe affordable housing in NYC is a true oxymoron. It might be more efficient to upgrade or subsidize public transit to the burbs and build affordable housing at a more reasonable cost further away from the city center.

An opinion piece on the benefits of free public transit.
https://archive.ph/gBRoW
Something Surprising Happens When Bus Rides Are Free

Free buses? Really? Of all the promises that Zohran Mamdani made during his New York City mayoral campaign, that one struck some skeptics as the most frivolous leftist fantasy. Unlike housing, groceries and child care, which weigh heavily on New Yorkers’ finances, a bus ride is just a few bucks. Is it really worth the huge effort to spare people that tiny outlay?

It is. Far beyond just saving riders money, free buses deliver a cascade of benefits, from easing traffic to promoting public safety. Just look at Boston; Chapel Hill, N.C.; Richmond, Va.; Kansas City, Mo.; and even New York itself, all of which have tried it to excellent effect. And it doesn’t have to be costly — in fact, it can come out just about even.

As a lawyer, I feel most strongly about the least-discussed benefit: Eliminating bus fares can clear junk cases out of our court system, lowering the crushing caseloads that prevent our judges, prosecutors and public defenders from focusing their attention where it’s most needed.

I was a public defender, and in one of my first cases I was asked to represent a woman who was not a robber or a drug dealer — she was someone who had failed to pay the fare on public transit. Precious resources had been spent arresting, processing, prosecuting and trying her, all for the loss of a few dollars. This is a daily feature of how we criminalize poverty in America.
….
Click the link above to read the full article.

This is what I don't get - why do you view everything in terms of us versus them?
Originally Posted by lustylad

Look no further than the title header you gave this thread, to get your answer….

“Liberal CNN Host Fareed Zakaria Slams the Commie Mayor of NYC Zohran Mandami”

MAGA dog whistle terms:

-Liberal CNN host
-using the full names of Islamic people
-Commie Mayor
-Slams as an attack word

You placed this in the header as a way to create argument and create divisive comments, it certainly seems, and written to precisely create “us” vs. “them”…….

A non decisive header accomplishes a potential for dialogue, but you did not choose that.

“Talk show host discusses NYC Mayor’s policies” would have given you a non confrontational header.

Yet, You chose the “us” vs. “them” way to present this thread.

Pot……..meet Kettle…….

elg…

No one cares. Literally, no one. About either of these morons. Originally Posted by rooster

Maybe you should try another approach. "Who cares?" isn't resonating. Originally Posted by lustylad

Look a little deeper into what is actually being "discussed" here. It is not really Mamdani.

(it certainly AIN'T Zakaria)

.

Absolutely Democrats don't see eye to eye with Mayor Mamdani. Democrats are quickly learning to hate Mamdani, especially in NYC.... Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

Please. I am dying to know....absolutely hanging by my fuckin fingernails...DYING to know...how it is that you are so absolutely deeply fucking tied into the NYC Democratic electorate...that you know all about this....that they are "quickly learning to hate" him....and these other claims like this that you make.

Please tell us how you know this. What your sources are. Whether...maybe ya even got..."insiders"....

Newsweek and google AI are not credible sources.... Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

So it ain't them you are using, obviously. Please tell us who...where you are getting this info. Cuz so far, in similar discussions about Mamdani, you've used some really bad sources. Really bad.

.

As if you posted any source other than your opinion.

elg… Originally Posted by elghund

My opinion is more powerful than what the media has to say. Presstitutes are controlled.

Please. I am dying to know....absolutely hanging by my fuckin fingernails...DYING to know...how it is that you are so absolutely deeply fucking tied into the NYC Democratic electorate...that you know all about this....that they are "quickly learning to hate" him....and these other claims like this that you make.

Please tell us how you know this. What your sources are. Whether...maybe ya even got..."insiders"....



So it ain't them you are using, obviously. Please tell us who...where you are getting this info. Cuz so far, in similar discussions about Mamdani, you've used some really bad sources. Really bad.

. Originally Posted by rooster

Mamdani is threatening property owners in NYC with a 9.5% increase in property taxes. Everything Mamdani promised he's now walking back on his word, typical politician.

A politician's job is to figure out how to get into your wallet. Mamdani is doing that in NYC and it didn't take long to show his true colors.

...how it is that you are so absolutely deeply fucking tied into the NYC Democratic electorate...that you know all about this....that they are "quickly learning to hate" him....and these other claims like this that you make.

Please tell us how you know this. What your sources are....
. Originally Posted by rooster

Mamdani is threatening property owners in NYC with a 9.5% increase in property taxes. Everything Mamdani promised he's now walking back on his word, typical politician.

A politician's job is to figure out how to get into your wallet. Mamdani is doing that in NYC and it didn't take long to show his true colors. Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

ANSWER MY GODDAM QUESTION.

.

Rooster, relax man. It's not that serious. Take the MAGA brilliance with a grain of salt. Some posts may have merit, most will not. Regardless, whore board political discussions are certainly not worth getting worked up about.

Anyway, who cares about opinion pieces? It's the mayor's 1st real job. He's learning on the fly. Cut the dude some slack. Haha

Rooster, relax man. It's not that serious. Take the MAGA brilliance with a grain of salt. Some posts may have merit, most will not. Regardless, whore board political discussions are certainly not worth getting worked up about.

Anyway, who cares about opinion pieces? It's the mayor's 1st real job. He's learning on the fly. Cut the dude some slack. Haha Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Well, you certainly handle this better, as you don't come in often...and when you do, it is pretty effective. But I have always hated lies. And loved exposing them.

Everyone lies, but MAGA hypocrisy is at the pinnacle of it in our lifetimes. This crap about Mamdani is a perfect example. As I tried to state from the beginning here, many of the "topics" introduced in this sub-forum are not really posted to encourage actual dialog. They are just to vent hate and encourage divisiveness. I'm not accusing the OP of this, btw. But I was warning that others would use it that way. And that he knew it quite likely would happen....

Then again...if I had been right that "no one cares"...this would have died already. Yet here we are. Maybe I even end up with unwanted attention by staff....

.

Rooster, relax man. It's not that serious. Take the MAGA brilliance with a grain of salt. Some posts may have merit, most will not. Regardless, whore board political discussions are certainly not worth getting worked up about.

Anyway, who cares about opinion pieces? It's the mayor's 1st real job. He's learning on the fly. Cut the dude some slack. Haha Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Well, you certainly handle this better, as you don't come in often...and when you do, it is pretty effective. But I have always hated lies. And loved exposing them.

Everyone lies, but MAGA hypocrisy is at the pinnacle of it in our lifetimes. This crap about Mamdani is a perfect example. As I tried to state from the beginning here, many of the "topics" introduced in this sub-forum are not really posted to encourage actual dialog. They are just to vent hate and encourage divisiveness. I'm not accusing the OP of this, btw. But I was warning that others would use it that way. And that he knew it quite likely would happen....

Then again...if I had been right that "no one cares"...this would have died already. Yet here we are. Maybe I even end up with unwanted attention by staff....

. Originally Posted by rooster

I'm sure you guys don't want to hear (read) this, but I can't figure out why you actually give these maggies the real time of day. Like why would you invest real brainpower into pushing back on their bullshit? Just laugh, make fun of, and basically ignore them. No reason to take them seriously, especially since they'll be gone soon.


just saying.

...The only reason I'm encouraged that a liberal named Fareed Zakaria is delivering this message is because it means his fellow libs might actually listen for a change! Instead of unthinkingly dismissing the source and railing against so-called "maggies"... Originally Posted by lustylad

I agree ... and although I'm well to the right of Zakaria on a whole host of issues, I'm decidedly not a "MAGA" sycophant. I have read Fareed's stuff for many years and think he has offered quite a wise take on all manner of issues. And I think the Mamdani adventure is of national import, since young idealistic progressives like AOC seem to draw inspiration from his surge of popularity among Gen Zers and are eager to push a lot of this nonsense on the national debate stage.

In case you missed it, here's an excellent NYT piece from a Michigan law professor. It's in the same vein as Zakaria's take:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/o...or-unions.html


Opinion | Mamdani Will Need to Change How He Governs -
Nicholas Bagley, Robert Gordon

Mr. Bagley is a law professor at the University of Michigan. Mr. Gordon is a visiting fellow at Harvard.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York, in his inaugural address, offered a pledge to create a government “where excellence is no longer the exception.” He now must do so while closing a $5.4 billion deficit, in a state where the governor rejects higher taxes on the rich.

Big budget gaps are not uncommon in American cities. Nor is New York’s high cost of living — one reason that California, New York and Illinois top the list of states with declining populations over the past five years.

If blue-state governors and mayors want to get serious about delivering excellent public services, they will need to do more than battle billionaire elites or embrace abundant housing and energy.

They will have to push back against a core constituency within the Democratic Party that often makes government deliver less and cost more: unions representing teachers, police officers and transit workers.

Democrats have long accepted inefficiencies as the price of support from public sector unions, and this may seem the worst time to demand better. Confronted with the president’s cruelty and lawlessness, the unions have been inspiring: defending wrongly fired workers, fighting federal overreach and organizing against ICE brutality.

But it’s precisely because of increasing authoritarianism that Democratic governors and mayors need to show the public that they can deliver. With the president weaponizing budget cuts against blue states, there is little room for error. Democrats need a new bargain with public sector unions — one that respects their voices and livelihoods but puts public services first.

Begin with the cost of government. Blue-state and blue-city voters pay higher taxes. More than half of city and local government expenditures (and 20 percent of state expenditures) are paid out to employees. These blue states and cities often also pay state and local government workers more than similar jobs pay in red jurisdictions, even after adjusting for the cost of living.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning.

Much of this gap is tied up in pension benefits. Workers generally value higher wages today more than retirement guarantees in the future. But pensions are attractive to politicians who pass future costs to future taxpayers. And it is the job of unions to fight for the largest benefits they can.

Working people should be financially secure in retirement, and government must pay competitively to attract a strong work force. The question is whether one segment of workers should retire with greater security than others, at the expense of services that the public depends on.

Consider Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois. A fearless opponent of President Trump, his bravery failed him when Chicago police and firefighter unions sought to raise pensions, often by thousands of dollars. Against the advice of three civic and business leaders concerned about, as they put it, “grossly underfunded pensions,” Mr. Pritzker signed legislation that partly undid a 2010 attempt to rein in benefits for new employees.

The new law will cost the city $60 million next year — more than enough money to cover the city’s summer job program — before ballooning to $11 billion over three decades. Because of Illinois’s Constitution, the commitments cannot be reversed.

Or consider Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles. Having won a tough election with union support in 2022, she gave public employees substantial raises, celebrated by local unions as the largest in city history. Those raises helped blow a $1 billion hole in the budget, in response to which she proposed to cut important services, including those for the homeless. The city avoided layoffs only by reducing paid work hours for city employees, including police officers. Paying city employees more money for less work is not a win for the public.

Mr. Mamdani will soon have to settle his own labor contracts. He and Gov. Kathy Hochul are offering a sensible proposal to expand child care, but there’s no plan to pay for it beyond two years.

His push to cut wasteful contracts will help, but in a budget that’s more than half payroll, his only path will be a hard bargain with labor. New York is nearly unique in providing zero-premium health plans. The city also offers robust traditional pensions, which Mr. Mamdani (and his primary competitors) endorsed expanding at a union forum last year. If the city already had defined contribution plans with a solid match, as is common in the private sector, it would spend about $4 billion less each year — about half the cost of a universal child-care plan. Workers are entitled to what they’ve earned and a secure retirement. But without any changes to benefits, excellence will be out of reach.

Another thing that makes government less effective: It is incredibly hard to fire blue-state public employees who are awful at their jobs. Police officers who use excessive force are regularly reinstated under the arbitration procedures that unions have fought for; one Florida study suggests that collective bargaining leads to higher levels of police abuse.

Outdated laws can also make it exquisitely hard to hire good people in government. Baroque rules stretch the government hiring process for months, leaving empty roles that would make the cities and states more affordable, like officials who could approve more housing permits. When the last New York City mayor sought to make sensible reforms, the city’s unions sued, and he caved.

Unions also resist technology that could save money and improve lives. They’ve secured laws that forbid using artificial intelligence to make government more efficient, won contracts requiring union consent before autonomous buses can roll out and pushed legislation requiring trains to have two-person crews, when many of the best trains worldwide have zero.

Everyone worries what A.I. will mean for the labor market, but blocking technology in government while it transforms everything else offers no safety. Uber and Waymo will grow while public transit staggers. It is a prescription for fury at government, not investment in it.

Finally, the most obvious case: public education. Deference to labor proved a particular problem in the pandemic, when Democrats kept schools closed long after businesses had reopened, long after it was clear that Covid rarely hurt children and, in some cities, long after vaccines became available. School districts with stronger teachers’ unions kept kids out of the classroom longer. It’s one reason students in blue areas lost more ground academically.

In fact, in American public education’s dismal past decade, it is red states with weak unions and stronger centralized control — states like Mississippi and Louisiana — that offer good news. Fourth graders in these states now read slightly better than students in California and New York, which spend far more per pupil and have lower child poverty rates. Another positive outlier is the District of Columbia, which offers $27,000 raises to help retain great teachers.

New York City could have a program like D.C.’s. Instead, it has a union-backed class size reduction law that will spend billions of dollars to hire thousands of teachers. The evidence indicates this can be cost effective for young children, particularly in poor schools, but this law applies across all grades and neighborhoods. The law is driving money into less needy schools, even elite high schools, and risking an exodus of good teachers from poor areas. Meanwhile, the city provides rigid teacher pay that rewards often useless master’s degrees while leaving teachers who are failing their students in the classroom.

Why are Democratic leaders so quick to take positions that clash with the public good?

An important study released last year found that endorsements from influential groups matter much more than we previously understood. In primary elections, voters depend on those endorsements to distinguish between otherwise similar candidates from their party.

In the many places across the country where general elections aren’t competitive — especially big cities, which are Democratic bastions — those primaries are the whole ballgame. As a result, candidates spend a lot of time courting the interest groups that can give them those coveted endorsements.

You can see this dynamic right now. Last month Ms. Bass won a primary endorsement from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and that may prove critical now that she faces a surprise primary challenge from her left. Mr. Pritzker is cruising to re-election in November, but he is also most likely considering a presidential primary run, in which unions would be vital.

Disagreeing with public sector unions does not make you anti-union. It means you recognize the difference between the public and private sectors.

Private-sector unions negotiate with companies to share business profits and reduce income inequality. Public-sector unions negotiate with public officials who represent us all. Those officials often stand for elections in which unions have outsize influence. When the unions secure undue concessions, it is the public that pays.

Democrats get this argument when it comes to police unions. They tend to overlook that it applies with equal force to the unions that represent teachers and subway conductors.

Declining blue-state populations are not only a failure of Democrats’ governance. They are also a growing problem for the party’s presidential prospects, as electoral votes shift from blue states to red and purple ones.

There are some signs Democratic leaders are toughening up. Mr. Pritzker poured cold water on further pension sweeteners. Ms. Hochul vetoed the bill requiring two-person crews on New York subway trains. Mr. Mamdani abandoned his union-backed campaign promise to give up mayoral control of public schools.

Unions themselves may see the merit in showing greater flexibility. If Democrats can’t govern well with labor at the table, Republicans are likelier to win nationally — and destroy collective bargaining itself.

Today public-sector unions are helping defend democracy. They will always deserve a voice. But Democratic leaders cannot wait for unions to change. They need to break more often with their friends if they want to show that government can succeed.

Nicholas Bagley is a law professor at the University of Michigan and a former chief legal counsel to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan. Robert Gordon is a visiting fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and a former senior official in the Biden and Obama administrations and at the New York City Department of Education.

(Note that these two guys worked in Democratic administrations so are hardly "MAGA" types.)

I think every politician, no matter the party, never governs the way they say they will.

We will have to see what Mamdani does…..

elg…