NYers' miserable options for mayor: Letters to the Editor — June 20, 2025
The Issue: The candidates running for NYC mayor in the upcoming Democratic primary on June 24.
I've lived in New York City my entire adult life, and I've felt apathetic during the mayoral elections, in which I've mostly failed to participate ('Mamdani gaining on leader Cuo,' June 18).
But this election is different: Zohran Mamdani is running on a set of beliefs that are antithetical to New York City.
Advertisement
Mamdani wants to raise taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations, which have already demonstrated that they will simply leave New York for more favorable economic climates, like Miami, if city policy becomes too prohibitive.
That would not only cause unemployment, it will also reduce the operating budgets of the many cultural institutions that rely on donations.
If you want to protect the greatness of New York City, simply leave Mamdani off of the ballot.
It doesn't matter who wins.
Advertisement
It only matters that Mamdani loses.
If Mamdani loses, New York City wins.
Quinn Larrabee
Manhattan
Advertisement
To all the New Yorkers who are concerned about the upcoming mayoral election, please understand that none of the Democrats in this primary have the city's best interest at heart.
The only candidate that cares for you and this once-great city is Republican Curtis Sliwa.
Yes, as a Democrat, you can vote for Curtis in the general, and you should if you want to live in a safe New York.
Advertisement
Tom Falanga
Brooklyn
Has anyone stated the obvious?
This upcoming election for mayor is a casserole of disaster that needs all new ingredients.
There's not one person running who I'd vote for with the belief that they have what's best for the voters in mind.
They are all delusional, selfish individuals with themselves in mind.
Alfred Bonnabel
Manhattan
Advertisement
Why does The Post constantly run op-eds and editorials criticizing Andrew Cuomo?
While no candidate, including Cuomo, is perfect, he is our best hope of defeating Mamdani, who would ruin New York City if he becomes mayor.
The upcoming primary is pivotal.
Bashing Cuomo could contribute to a disaster.
Advertisement
Anne J. Roth
Forest Hills
It is inconceivable that New Yorkers may have to choose between Mamdani, Cuomo and several other low-lights in the race for mayor.
Mamdani, a radical socialist, espouses ideas that are absurd and would ruin New York's economy. Cuomo's audacity to even think about running after his callous and moronic decisions during COVID killed countless people, which he then tried to cover up, is beyond belief.
Advertisement
The rest of the Democratic field is pitiful as well.
Robert DiNardo
Farmingdale
Since Cuomo is the supposed frontrunner, I'd like to remind New Yorkers of several things: He issued an order that resulted in the deaths of numerous seniors, and he shut down the Moreland Commission investigation when it was getting too close to his office.
Advertisement
He gave New York bail reform, which resulted in a crime wave.
He's using New York as a springboard to the White House.
You can do better.
Robert K. Greco
Milford, Pa.
Will the moron Democrats in New York City ever wake up?
I guess they like lying politicians, who tax the hell out of them and are more worried about illegals than Americans.
Vote for a Republican, and things will get better for the working man.
Donald Coles
Boynton Beach, Fla.
The race for mayor makes me thankful I don't live in New York City.
The leading candidates are a disgraced former governor who was forced to resign amd a pure socialist who wants to give away everything for free and defund the police and hates Israel.
And the incumbent, running as an independent, smokes cigars with a pair of antisemites.
I can't vote in New York, but if I could, my choice would be 'none of the above.'
Warren Goldfein
Mount Arlington, NJ
Mamdani is gaining on Cuomo?
With all the upheaval going on in the city, you'd think people would be ready to jump ship.
But if they vote Mamdani into office, then they deserve what they get!
Patti Brazzi
Punta Gorda, Fla.
Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump can retain control of California National Guard for now, appeals court rules
Trump can retain control of California National Guard for now, appeals court rules Show Caption Hide Caption LA mayor says Trump is 'usurping' Gavin Newsom's authority Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is asking the Trump admin to stop immigration raids in order to curb responses from protesters. A U.S. appeals court let Donald Trump retain control over California's National Guard while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Republican president's use of the troops to quell protests and unrest in Los Angeles. A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 19 extended a pause it placed on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's June 12 ruling that Trump had called the National Guard into federal service unlawfully. Breyer's ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump's action brought by Gov. Gavin Newsom. Breyer ruled that Trump violated the U.S. law governing a president's ability to take control of a state's National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor, and also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist. Breyer ordered Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom. Hours after Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel put the judge's move on hold temporarily. Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Trump's immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California's National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against the wishes of Newsom. Trump also ordered 700 U.S. Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilization. At a court hearing earlier this week on whether to extend the pause on Breyer's decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Trump's authority to deploy the troops. The law sets out three conditions under which a president can federalize state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the government or a situation in which the U.S. government is unable with regular forces to execute the country's laws. The Justice Department has said that once the president determines that an emergency that warrants the use of the National Guard exists, no court or state governor can review that decision. Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tensions in the second most-populous U.S. city. The protests in Los Angeles lasted for more than a week, but subsequently ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed. California argued in its June 9 lawsuit that Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state's sovereignty and U.S. laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. The lawsuit stated the situation in Los Angeles was nothing like a "rebellion." The protests involved sporadic acts of violence that state and local law enforcement were capable of handling without military involvement, according to the lawsuit. The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying that they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden. (Reporting by Dietrich Knauth in New York and Kanishka Singh in Washington, Editing by Will Dunham and Alexia Garamfalvi)
Boston Globe
33 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court lets Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles
In its decision, the court concluded that 'it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority' in federalizing control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. Advertisement The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Advertisement Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents can take control during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
Newsweek
44 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Mike Johnson Reacts After GOP Lawmaker Was 'Run Off The Road': 'Outrageous'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. House Speaker Mike Johnson called the roadside threat against Representative Max Miller "yet another outrageous example" of political violence stoked by extremist rhetoric after the Ohio Republican said he was targeted by a man displaying a Palestinian flag who forced his vehicle off the road. "What happened to Max this morning is yet another outrageous example of unhinged rhetoric inspiring unstable people to threaten and attack elected officials who are serving their communities," Johnson said in a post on X, formerly Twitter. "We must turn down the temperature in this country. The U.S. Capitol Police is engaged with local law enforcement to help handle this case and ensure justice is served." Representative Max Miller said Thursday he contacted Capitol Police after a driver with a Palestinian flag forced him off the road in his district. Representative Max Miller said Thursday he contacted Capitol Police after a driver with a Palestinian flag forced him off the road in his district. Getty Images This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
