This is part of such a very terrible pattern of behavior on her part. Armed military on subways, repeal of bail reform. And on and on and on. She is a monster.
Yeah, but just think who the GOP will run against her in 2026.
Santos?
Or will the Bloated Yam just appoint Giuliani as Gauleiter of New York? He's going to have to shut down the state government to end that prosecution of him.
Lifelong resident of the city. It was depressing that we were so close to getting a no drama mayor. Eric Adams won the instant run-off 51-49. Kathryn Garcia is not big liberal but no Eric Adams.
As to Gov. Hochul, it is to be remembered she was Andrew Cuomo's pick. I'm ready to move on from the Cuomo years, myself.
I do think Democrats are much more likely to try to make speech into a crime, evaluate people based on immutable, physical characteristics, and to exercise a police presence that doesn’t accord with due process and a requisite that assumes innocence until proven guilty.
I think most politicians in inner cities like militarization of the police, because they think it means better law and order. However, what it usually means is Increased racial profiling.
I think Republicans are a more law and order-based party, as opposed to the Democrats who try to tell you what to think and say. Ordered liberty is one thing, but dictating speech and defining allowable thought is what the Democrats are all about today.
I definitely do not support this. But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that maybe this is being done for reasons having nothing to do with crime and everything to do with preventing a terrorist incident in an election year.
Tots carrying lunch bags are very, very suspect, as who knows how much fentanyl and blow they're moving for their big bro...well, let's find out by stopping them and doing a li'l shakedown - perfectly legal, you understand.
Is there even any reason to think that those who perpetrated any of the most recent violent crimes in the subway had bags with weapons? And given the usual casual way bags are checked, I doubt that they would find any, if they were there, unless they were really looking at body language, not bags.
Has the expanded presence of the police had any practical effect, other than moving unhoused people along?
I agree with your article for the most part but I don't necessarily have a problem with banning people from the subway if they are convicted of assaulting someone.
In the mid-1980s there were terrorist attacks on public transport in France. I was living there at the time, in Paris. They put soldiers, wearing camo and carrying big, intimidating guns on trains and buses, yet the public and the soldiers were calm. It was, in fact, reassuring to have them there. The difference is that in the US, one cannot trust the police.
I am joining Duncan Black (Atrios, at Eschaton blog) in announcing that I shall not visit NYC as long as this policy is in place. Democrats must condemn this, and some Democrat must make the governor rescind this idiocy.
Thanks for referencing and linking to my case! Sometimes I wonder if I would have won my challenge to the 2005 subway bag search program had the ACLU and I waited 15 years, well after Stop & Frisk was ruled unconstitutional. We had a decent case. But no one wanted to deny law enforcement anything in the years after 9/11. At least I got to see David Cohen in the flesh. He was the NYPD's first ever Deputy Chief of Intelligence. Being a CIA guy, not none photo of him exists online. The man was and is a spook. He floated onto the witness stand. Told the court that the bag search program works, take the NYPD's word. And then ghosted out.
As a fairly frequent user of the subway, I do not think we should have the troops there - are at least they should not be searching bags without someone being a suspect of a crime. However, if there could be an easy way to enforce it and avoid abuse of the regulation, I would support a ban people who commit assault on the subway. Three years is too long, but several months would be good. I work in a public building, and we ban people who assault others in our building to protect both staff and the public and to give the people in the building a break from the person committing assault.
In the subway last week I saw someone forcibly kick a woman riding the escalator up from the platform. If a larger man several steps behind her hadn't caught her, she could have been much more seriously injured. This is the worst assault I have seen in a while, but it was scary, and I would love to come up with ways to reduce these sorts of incidents.
🤦 You can't beat fascism with more fascism.
This is part of such a very terrible pattern of behavior on her part. Armed military on subways, repeal of bail reform. And on and on and on. She is a monster.
Yeah, but just think who the GOP will run against her in 2026.
Santos?
Or will the Bloated Yam just appoint Giuliani as Gauleiter of New York? He's going to have to shut down the state government to end that prosecution of him.
We've just *got* to become Republicans, in order to defeat the Republicans (?)
Lifelong resident of the city. It was depressing that we were so close to getting a no drama mayor. Eric Adams won the instant run-off 51-49. Kathryn Garcia is not big liberal but no Eric Adams.
As to Gov. Hochul, it is to be remembered she was Andrew Cuomo's pick. I'm ready to move on from the Cuomo years, myself.
Now every fucking driver in NY needs to know the the increase traffic from people not taking the subway is her fault. Ugh.
Chris, re: “It is, bluntly, an instinct to be do things that a Democratic governor should not be doing.”
The Democrats have always been the fascists, and they only accuse Republicans of being what Democrats are. Thus it shall ever be.
I do think Democrats are much more likely to try to make speech into a crime, evaluate people based on immutable, physical characteristics, and to exercise a police presence that doesn’t accord with due process and a requisite that assumes innocence until proven guilty.
I think most politicians in inner cities like militarization of the police, because they think it means better law and order. However, what it usually means is Increased racial profiling.
I think Republicans are a more law and order-based party, as opposed to the Democrats who try to tell you what to think and say. Ordered liberty is one thing, but dictating speech and defining allowable thought is what the Democrats are all about today.
To be clear, you believe that Republicans are against the expansion and militarization of police presence?
I definitely do not support this. But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that maybe this is being done for reasons having nothing to do with crime and everything to do with preventing a terrorist incident in an election year.
The last thing this country needs is to become more militarized.
Tots carrying lunch bags are very, very suspect, as who knows how much fentanyl and blow they're moving for their big bro...well, let's find out by stopping them and doing a li'l shakedown - perfectly legal, you understand.
Is there even any reason to think that those who perpetrated any of the most recent violent crimes in the subway had bags with weapons? And given the usual casual way bags are checked, I doubt that they would find any, if they were there, unless they were really looking at body language, not bags.
Has the expanded presence of the police had any practical effect, other than moving unhoused people along?
The "troops" will not look at body language nor check bags for weapons.
The criterion for detention, search, and arrest will be skin color. Solely.
Are you sure she is not a republican? DINO ???
I agree with your article for the most part but I don't necessarily have a problem with banning people from the subway if they are convicted of assaulting someone.
In the mid-1980s there were terrorist attacks on public transport in France. I was living there at the time, in Paris. They put soldiers, wearing camo and carrying big, intimidating guns on trains and buses, yet the public and the soldiers were calm. It was, in fact, reassuring to have them there. The difference is that in the US, one cannot trust the police.
Actually, if citizens of New York were allowed to exercise their second amendment rights they would all be a little more polite.
I am joining Duncan Black (Atrios, at Eschaton blog) in announcing that I shall not visit NYC as long as this policy is in place. Democrats must condemn this, and some Democrat must make the governor rescind this idiocy.
Thanks for referencing and linking to my case! Sometimes I wonder if I would have won my challenge to the 2005 subway bag search program had the ACLU and I waited 15 years, well after Stop & Frisk was ruled unconstitutional. We had a decent case. But no one wanted to deny law enforcement anything in the years after 9/11. At least I got to see David Cohen in the flesh. He was the NYPD's first ever Deputy Chief of Intelligence. Being a CIA guy, not none photo of him exists online. The man was and is a spook. He floated onto the witness stand. Told the court that the bag search program works, take the NYPD's word. And then ghosted out.
As a fairly frequent user of the subway, I do not think we should have the troops there - are at least they should not be searching bags without someone being a suspect of a crime. However, if there could be an easy way to enforce it and avoid abuse of the regulation, I would support a ban people who commit assault on the subway. Three years is too long, but several months would be good. I work in a public building, and we ban people who assault others in our building to protect both staff and the public and to give the people in the building a break from the person committing assault.
In the subway last week I saw someone forcibly kick a woman riding the escalator up from the platform. If a larger man several steps behind her hadn't caught her, she could have been much more seriously injured. This is the worst assault I have seen in a while, but it was scary, and I would love to come up with ways to reduce these sorts of incidents.