Trump blasts Zohran Mamdani as a ‘100% Communist Lunatic' in scathing NYC mayoral rant: ‘Democrats have crossed the line'
President Trump blasted Zohran Mamdani's politics – and looks – Wednesday after the socialist's stunning upset in New York's Democratic mayoral primary.
'Democrats have crossed the line' by elevating '100% Communist Lunatic,' Trump railed in a Truth Social post.
'We've had Radical Lefties before, but this is getting a little ridiculous,' he added.
Donald Trump unloaded on Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani, in a scathing rant on Truth Social Wednesday.
AFP via Getty Images
Mamdani held a decisive lead over Andrew Cuomo after Tuesday's first round of voting, with the former governor conceding.
REUTERS
The president then attacked Mamdani's appearance and his speaking voice.
'He looks TERRIBLE, his voice is grating, he's not very smart, he's got AOC+3, Dummies ALL, backing him, and even our Great Palestinian Senator, Cryin' Chuck Schumer, is groveling over him.'
This is a developing story. Please check back for more information.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' is getting more expensive as the world's attention is on Iran
The long-awaited summer collision course for President Trump's economic agenda is here and now competing for attention with geopolitics. The competing storylines are playing out — just in parallel — after a weekend where the president's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" saw a new, higher price tag and the removal of key provisions in developments that were fully overshadowed by a weekend attack on Iran. Trump's priorities for taxes and the debt ceiling — not to mention tariffs — still face key deadlines in the weeks ahead, even as foreign affairs take center stage. On Saturday evening, shortly after the attacks on Iran commenced, Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) even released an analysis that made official how recent Senate changes to Trump's tax-cut bill are likely to increase the package's price tag by hundreds of billions of dollars. The group found that the Senate's changes on the tax front — once economists untangled a key budget gimmick — mean the bill will potentially add about $4.2 trillion to the deficits in the years ahead if passed as is. The bill is also undergoing a close examination by the Senate parliamentarian, who is moving section by section and has already deemed some provisions — such as defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and making cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — are not in line with Senate reconciliation rules. More changes are likely coming this week that could further increase the price tag and political pressure, even as key Republicans are still saying they will vote no, throwing into doubt a GOP goal of final votes within days. It all could also have near-term economic impacts. Wells Fargo head of global fixed income strategy Brian Rehling said in a recent Yahoo Finance appearance that developments in the bill could be "more consequential" to things like interest rates for the time being over even signals from the Federal Reserve. These developments come just weeks before Trump and the Republicans' self-imposed deadline to get the bill signed into law by July 4. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said that means the Senate will need to pass this bill this week to keep the timeline on pace. The weekend's Joint Committee on Taxation analysis focused specifically on the Senate Finance Committee's tax proposals and offered a headline number that would appear to be good news for fiscal hawks: It found the projected cost of the revised bill comes to about $441 billion over the coming decade. But that calculation came from an accounting maneuver known as a "current policy" baseline, which allows the bill to be calculated assuming current tax levels stay the same. That means Congress can say the cost of extending expiring provisions in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is free, at least for accounting purposes. Republicans defend the practice, with Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo offering that it "more accurately reflects reality." But the bottom line is that these zeroed-out tax extensions are projected to add about $3.8 trillion to the national debt, versus the scenario of Congress doing nothing. "Ignore the $441 number, which is both trying to hide the cost of extensions and gimmick some specific policies to make them look cheaper," offered Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget following the release. Andrew Lautz of the Bipartisan Policy Center also offered a detailed breakdown of the differences brought by the assumptions, such as how it makes the approximately $2.1 trillion in costs from extending individual tax rate cuts look like they instead come to $83 billion. Goldwein, Lautz, and others say the full price tag that should be considered is the total impact to the nation's debt of $4.2 trillion over the next decade. The new price tag projections also come as Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is going through the bill line by line to see if it complies with the Senate's strict reconciliation rules. It's part of a wonky Senate process known colloquially as a "Byrd bath," after a rule enshrined by Robert Byrd of West Virginia, that sets limits on what can be fast-tracked and what is subject to the normal 60-vote threshold. MacDonough has already analyzed the Banking, Commerce, Judiciary, and Homeland Security committee portions of the bill and found a series of provisions that must be taken out. So far, pieces that appear set to be removed from the bill include one that would have placed a funding cap on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and others that cut the SNAP program. The apparent removal of cuts to the SNAP program around state matching funds could have a significant fiscal impact. Those provisions were previously estimated to save roughly $128 billion. One other closely watched provision by the tech community — to cut broadband funding for states that regulate artificial intelligence — has been allowed to stay in but still faces political opponents pushing to have it struck from the package. It's a series of rulings that Republicans contend aren't yet final but appear set to change the makeup of the overall package. "The Byrd Rule is enshrined in law for a reason, and Democrats are making sure it is enforced," Oregon's Jeff Merkley, the top Democratic senator on the Budget Committee, said in a statement. Even more significant changes could be coming in the days ahead, with the parliamentarian scheduled to take a pass at the Senate Finance Committee's portion of the bill. That's where the biggest ticket items reside, such as tax provisions and Medicaid cuts. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The US and Iran have had bitter relations for decades. After the bombs, a new chapter begins.
A B-2 bomber arrived at Whiteman Air Force Base Mo., on Sunday, the same aircraft used to carry out the US's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities over the weekend. David Smith/Associated Press This change of tone, however fleeting, came after the intense U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear-development sites this week, Iran's retaliatory yet restrained attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar and the The U.S. attack on three targets inflicted serious damage but did not destroy them, Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Here are some questions and answers about the long history of bad blood between the two countries: Advertisement Why did Trump offer blessings all around? In the first blush of a ceasefire agreement, even before Israel and Iran appeared to be fully on board, Trump exulted in the achievement. 'God bless Israel,' he posted on social media. 'God bless Iran.' He wished blessings on the Middle East, America and the world, too. When it became clear that all hostilities had not immediately ceased after all, he took to swearing instead. 'We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f— they're doing,' he said on camera. Advertisement In that moment, Trump was especially critical of Israel, the steadfast U.S. ally, for seeming less attached to the pause in fighting than the country that has been shouting 'Death to America' for generations and is accused of trying to assassinate him. Why did U.S.-Iran relations sour in the first place? In two words, Operation Ajax. That was the 1953 coup orchestrated by the CIA, with British support, that overthrew Iran's democratically elected government and handed power to the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Western powers had feared the rise of Soviet influence and the nationalization of Iran's oil industry. The shah was a strategic U.S. ally who repaired official relations with Washington. But grievances simmered among Iranians over his autocratic rule and his bowing to America's interests. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, with a heavy escort, as he entered a car to leave the airport in Tehran in 1979 after arriving back in the country. FY/Associated Press All of that boiled over in 1979 when the shah fled the country and the theocratic revolutionaries took control, imposing their own hard line. How did the Iranian revolution deepen tensions? Profoundly. On Nov. 4, 1979, with anti-American sentiment at a fever pitch, Iranian students took 66 American diplomats and citizens hostage and held more than 50 of them in captivity for 444 days. It was a humiliating spectacle for the United States and President Jimmy Carter, who ordered a secret rescue mission months into the Iran hostage crisis. In Operation Eagle Claw, eight Navy helicopters and six Air Force transport planes were sent to rendezvous in the Iranian desert. A sand storm aborted the mission and eight service members died when a helicopter crashed into a C-120 refueling plane. FILE - Remains of a burned-out U.S. helicopter lis photographed in the eastern desert region of Iran, April 27,1980, one day after an abortive American commando raid to free the U.S. Embassy hostages. (AP Photo, File) Uncredited/Associated Press Diplomatic ties were severed in 1980 and remain broken. Iran released the hostages minutes after Ronald Reagan's presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981. That was just long enough to ensure that Carter, bogged in the crisis for over a year, would not see them freed in his term. Advertisement Was this week's U.S. attack the first against Iran? No. But the last big one was at sea. On April 18, 1988, the U.S. Navy sank two Iranian ships, damaged another and destroyed two surveillance platforms in its largest surface engagement since World War II. Operation Praying Mantis was in retaliation against the mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts in the Persian Gulf four days earlier. Ten sailors were injured and the explosion left a gaping hole in the hull. Did the U.S. take sides in the Iran-Iraq war? Not officially, but essentially. The U.S. provided economic aid, intelligence sharing and military-adjacent technology to Iraq, concerned that an Iranian victory would spread instability through the region and strain oil supplies. Iran and Iraq emerged from the 1980-1988 war with no clear victor and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, while U.S.-Iraq relations fractured spectacularly in the years after. What was the Iran-Contra affair? An example of U.S.-Iran cooperation of sorts — an illegal, and secret, one until it wasn't. Retired Air Force Major Gen. Richard Secord recieved some advice from his attorney Thomas Green while testifying on Capitol Hill before a congressional committee holding hearings on the Iran-Contra affair, in 1987, LANA HARRIS/Associated Press Not long after the U.S. designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984 — a status that remains — it emerged that America was illicitly selling arms to Iran. One purpose was to win the release of hostages in Lebanon under the control of Iran-backed Hezbollah. The other was to raise secret money for the Contra rebels in Nicaragua in defiance of a U.S. ban on supporting them. President Ronald Reagan fumbled his way through the scandal but emerged unscathed — legally if not reputationally. How many nations does the U.S. designate as state sponsors of terrorism? Only four: Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Syria. The designation makes those countries the target of broad sanctions. Syria's designation is being reviewed in light of the fall of Bashar Assad's government. Advertisement Where did the term 'Axis of Evil' come from? From President George W. Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address. He spoke five months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the year before he launched the invasion of Iraq on the wrong premise that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He singled out Iran, North Korea and Saddam's Iraq and said: 'States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.' In this January 2002 photo, former President George W. Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil" during his State of the Union address on Capitol Hill. DOUG MILLS/Associated Press In response, Iran and some of its anti-American proxies and allies in the region took to calling their informal coalition an Axis of Resistance at times. What about those proxies and allies? Some, like Hezbollah and Hamas, are degraded due to Israel's fierce and sustained assault on them. In Syria, Assad fled to safety in Moscow after losing power to rebels once tied to Islamic State terrorism but now cautiously welcomed by Trump. In Yemen, Houthi rebels who have attacked commercial ships in the Red Sea and pledge common cause with Palestinians have been bombed by the U.S. and Britain. In Iraq, armed Shia factions controlled or supported by Iran still operate and attract periodic attacks from the United States. What about Iran's nuclear program? In 2015, President Barack Obama and other powers struck a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear development in return for the easing of sanctions. Iran agreed to get rid of an enriched uranium stockpile, dismantle most centrifuges and give international inspectors more access to see what it was doing. This image released by the official website of the office of the Iranian Presidency shows President Hassan Rouhani has he listened to explanations on new nuclear achievements at a ceremony to mark "National Nuclear Day," in Tehran in April 2018. Uncredited/Associated Press Trump assailed the deal in his 2016 campaign and scrapped it two years later as president, imposing a 'maximum pressure' campaign of sanctions. He argued the deal only delayed the development of nuclear weapons and did nothing to restrain Iran's aggression in the region. Iran's nuclear program resumed over time and, according to inspectors, accelerated in recent months. Advertisement Trump's exit from the nuclear deal brought a warning from Hassan Rouhani, then Iran's president, in 2018: 'America must understand well that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace. And war with Iran is the mother of all wars.' How did Trump respond to Iran's provocations? In January 2020, Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, Iran's top commander, when he was in Iraq. Then Iran came after him, according to President Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland. Days after Trump won last year's election, the Justice Department filed charges against an Iranian man believed to still be in his country and two alleged associates in New York. Coffins of Gen. Qassem Soleimani and others who were killed in Iraq by a US drone strike were carried on a truck surrounded by mourners, in the city of Kerman, Iran, in January 2020. Uncredited/Associated Press 'The Justice Department has charged an asset of the Iranian regime who was tasked by the regime to direct a network of criminal associates to further Iran's assassination plots against its targets, including President-elect Donald Trump,' Garland said. Now, Trump is seeking peace at the table after ordering bombs dropped on Iran, and offering blessings. It is potentially the mother of all turnarounds.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Austin's toyed with ranked choice for years. Why the system, recently used in NYC, hasn't been used here
AUSTIN (KXAN) — On Tuesday, voters in New York City ranked the candidates who they felt should be mayor on their mayoral primary election ballots. The process led to progressive Zohran Mamdani earning the Democratic nomination for Mayor of New York City. New York City is using ranked choice voting in its Democratic mayoral primary. Here's how it works This system, called ranked choice voting, was approved by Austin voters in 2021 following a successful proposition initiative. The city also considered adopting the system in 2001. But why hasn't Austin used it yet? Blame state law. KXAN's Grace Reader reported in 2022 that the issue goes back to 2001, when the city's legal office asked then-Secretary of State Henry Cueller for his legal opinion. In his response, Cuellar said that Texas' elections law requires a majority vote and that it defines 'majority' in such a way that would prevent ranked choice ballots. 2022 | Why are you voting in a runoff if Austin voters approved ranked-choice voting? 'We conclude that state law conflicts irreconcilably with, and thereby preempts, instant runoff voting. Consequently, a home-rule municipality may not adopt instant runoff voting,' wrote then-Attorney General Greg Abbott in 2003. However, KXAN isn't aware of any precedent in Texas courts involving a city adopting ranked choice. The legal opinions issued by Cuellar and Abbott aren't settled law, just interpretation of the law. Whether or not Austin could successfully win such a case before the Supreme Court of Texas remains a hypothetical for now. Prior to 1985, Texas' election code allowed for ranked choice. A bill passed by the Texas Legislature in that year removed the option. Departing Rep. Vikki Goodwin, D-Austin, tried unsuccessfully across multiple sessions to restore the option desired by her constituents. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
