2017 Mayoral Election

[northernburbs]

Definitely not asking from a political standpoint, but how could you dislike Bloomberg??? He rescued the city from certain financial ruin after 911 when the budget was so far in the red from a lack of corporate tax revenue and companies were relocating to jersey and ct? The city also enjoyed a green space/parkland renaissance and animated all of the water front with wonderful public spaces. I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I'm pretty sure the city had the lowest amount of crime in generations. Sure he had his own brash way of doing things, and he acted like he knew it all (which he did - the man's brilliant), but he was never the irrational bully that Giuliani enjoyed being and he had the people's best interest in mind.

As far as the low crime rate the country as a whole had a very low crime rate,with the exception of Chicago, and has seen all crime and violent crime especially dropping since the early 90's.
Rudy Guiliani like to take credit for this but crime dropped everywhere.
I think it had to do with the crack epidemic of the 80s. Anyone doing or selling crack were killing each other off at such a crazy rate, over 2000 murders a year back then. With all the crack dealers killing each other on street corners and the crack heads dying off there was a Darwinian effect on the criminal element.
Even the cops were using crackheads to kill crack dealers, like Larry Davis.

 

[Ulrich]

The voters of NYC put in term limits and Bloomberg and Quinn overrode the will of the people somehow.

The City Council voted 29-22 to allow the third term, but if the voters didn't actually want Bloomberg again, he wouldn't have won the election, so the will of the people was the technically still intact.

Interesting side note: A lawsuit was filed to try and stop the City Council vote allowing the third term - care to guess who the plaintiff was????

Spoiler

Bill de Blasio

 

[northernburbs]

The City Council voted 29-22 to allow the third term, but if the voters didn't actually want Bloomberg again, he wouldn't have won the election, so the will of the people was the technically still intact.

Interesting side note: A lawsuit was filed to try and stop the City Council vote allowing the third term - care to guess who the plaintiff was????

Spoiler

Bill de Blasio

Bloomberg spent over a billion $ to get elected and re-elected, so a third term was his for the buying.
In one of the elections I think he spent close to $400 per vote or some crazy #.

Like the BdBside note.

 

[FootyLovin]

I disliked (loathed) Bloomberg and as for Giuliani in the grand scheme of things was meh but certainly better than whatever Dem would of replaced him. Im not a Republican btw but DeBlasio is the worst combination of corrupt, incompetent, and radical that will ruin this city.

You have to be a certain type of idiot for Obama, the Clintons, and Cuomo to despise you considering DeBlasio is supposed to be their ally and asset.

All the more my point. You hate BdB. Fine. But the blanket statements that get thrown around about parties ...

DeBlasio will repeat the same cycle that plagues NYC. Dems wreck the city for a few cycles than they elect a Republican to clean it up. Once things are better Dems are elected again to wreck it all up again.

My point here isn't about NY. It is about the systemic problem of party politics. Comments like this perpetuate all or nothing, one side vs the other thinking. It strengthens the psychological brain washing we've all been fed since childhood. One side is good; the other is bad. One takes care of money; the other takes care of people.

In the end all of these blanket statements are marketing lies. Perhaps built around historical truths, but currently marketing lies. The Democrats aren't progressive. The Republicans are horrible with fiscal responsibility. They both want to forever expand our military way beyond what the generals say they want or need.

My point is just to view all of these bums for their individual contributions and flaws and not to party wash your view of them.

 

[Goodfella]

Fred Dicker is possibly the least objective journalist I have ever read. He has a deep-seated hatred for Cuomo. If all you could read were his articles, you'd think Cuomo was Vito Corleone and would have been jailed years ago.

yeah, I don't read a whole lot of political articles but this one jumped out based on the prior comment. There's been quite a bit of press regarding shady activity related to Cuomo and his cronies. I don't dislike him but where there's a lot of smoke there tends to be fire. Not dissimilar to DeBlasio's situation.

 

[Gavin23]

Definitely not asking from a political standpoint, but how could you dislike Bloomberg??? He rescued the city from certain financial ruin after 911 when the budget was so far in the red from a lack of corporate tax revenue and companies were relocating to jersey and ct? The city also enjoyed a green space/parkland renaissance and animated all of the water front with wonderful public spaces. I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I'm pretty sure the city had the lowest amount of crime in generations. Sure he had his own brash way of doing things, and he acted like he knew it all (which he did - the man's brilliant), but he was never the irrational bully that Giuliani enjoyed being and he had the people's best interest in mind.

He was good in some senses but towards the end he started to lose it. His nanny state policies and trying to ban everything went too far. Also I especially dislike his politics on the national stage. Funding pretty leftist organizations. I would take him in a heartbeat over DeBlasio but that isnt saying much and is a low bar.

 

[Gavin23]

All the more my point. You hate BdB. Fine. But the blanket statements that get thrown around about parties ...

My point here isn't about NY. It is about the systemic problem of party politics. Comments like this perpetuate all or nothing, one side vs the other thinking. It strengthens the psychological brain washing we've all been fed since childhood. One side is good; the other is bad. One takes care of money; the other takes care of people.

In the end all of these blanket statements are marketing lies. Perhaps built around historical truths, but currently marketing lies. The Democrats aren't progressive. The Republicans are horrible with fiscal responsibility. They both want to forever expand our military way beyond what the generals say they want or need.

My point is just to view all of these bums for their individual contributions and flaws and not to party wash your view of them.

Your making more of an argument against 2 party duopoly than party politics specifically. This dichotomy is pretty unique to American politics which have been dominated by the same 2 parties for over 100 years. Very few countries if anything have this sort of dynamic that we have. Most countries have new parties coming and going and affiliation between them changing at a higher pace each cycle.

 

[Rimil]

He was good in some senses but towards the end he started to lose it. His nanny state policies and trying to ban everything went too far. Also I especially dislike his politics on the national stage. Funding pretty leftist organizations. I would take him in a heartbeat over DeBlasio but that isnt saying much and is a low bar.

Are you referring to his limit on drink sizes? What other policies of his were nanny state-esque? its funny that people where so hyped up on him limiting drink sizes calling it a sugar ban. He wasn't banning sugary drink, he was trying to add a "speed bump" in what people were consuming. You could still buy 6 drinks and consume them all, but you actually had to actively choose to do so rather than mindlessly consume the empty calories. I think it was massively clever. In attempts to lower ridiculous future healthcare cost he was trying to get people to think about their food choices. These same people he was trying to educate are the same people who are going to apply for free healthcare and be a burden on the system. These are the same people who are disproportionately advertised towards because the foodstuffs they consume are cheaper and of lower quality. He was trying to help people who can't help themselves because they don't know any better (read: stupid) and help keep the cities healthcare budget in check for future mayors. The guy is a thinker and tried to pass smart policies even in the face of what was going to be fierce lobbying and smear campaign calling tenure a nanny state.

 

[Ulrich]

Are you referring to his limit on drink sizes? What other policies of his were nanny state-esque? its funny that people where so hyped up on him limiting drink sizes calling it a sugar ban. He wasn't banning sugary drink, he was trying to add a "speed bump" in what people were consuming. You could still buy 6 drinks and consume them all, but you actually had to actively choose to do so rather than mindlessly consume the empty calories. I think it was massively clever. In attempts to lower ridiculous future healthcare cost he was trying to get people to think about their food choices. These same people he was trying to educate are the same people who are going to apply for free healthcare and be a burden on the system. These are the same people who are disproportionately advertised towards because the foodstuffs they consume are cheaper and of lower quality. He was trying to help people who can't help themselves because they don't know any better (read: stupid) and help keep the cities healthcare budget in check for future mayors. The guy is a thinker and tried to pass smart policies even in the face of what was going to be fierce lobbying and smear campaign calling tenure a nanny state.

Yep - he was/is brilliant and one of the few politicians that are truly altruistic on a macro level.