The results are in, and Zohran Mamdani will be the next mayor of New York City, after winning a raw majority of the vote and easily besting former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa.

Over at Cuomo's election night party, independent journalist Michael Tracey captured one of the former governor's supporters engaging in some blunt analysis of the results.

"Hey Curtis [Sliwa], you're a fucking scumbag like I said all along," he says in the video. "You split the fucking vote."

A message to ⁦@CurtisSliwa⁩ from the Cuomo party pic.twitter.com/4FIWf1MYV7

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) November 5, 2025

This unnamed "Cuomosexual" wasn't alone in expressing these sentiments.

Hear, for instance, former Republican Congressman and pardoned fraudster George Santos saying something similar:

Fuck you @CurtisSliwa I HATE YOU, your dumb wife, that stupid Beret of yours and all your fucking cats!

— George Santos (@MrSantosNY) November 5, 2025

To be sure, neither are official campaign spokesmen. But both the level of their rage and their target for it says a lot about the purely negative pitch of the Cuomo's mayoral campaign and why that proved so completely unconvincing for voters.

In both the primary and the general election, Cuomo never seemed to be able to get beyond the idea that all he had to do to win was point at the other candidates and say, "you're really going to vote for them?"

On election night, that proved woefully insufficient.

To start with some pure arithmetic, contrary to our video subject, it couldn't matter less that Sliwa "split the vote." Mamdani is walking away from this election with a raw majority, meaning that if even every single Sliwa voter lined up behind Cuomo, he'd still have lost.

More substantively, Cuomo was never able to articulate why people should line up behind him besides the fact that he wasn't Mamdani.

The obvious strategy for an experienced politician running against a young, inexperienced ideologue is to emphasize one's own record of achievement and administrative acumen.

But Cuomo couldn't convincingly do this, given that he spent the last year or so of his governorship stumbling from one incompetence scandal after another, before eventually resigning in response to sexual harassment allegations.

It was Cuomo's administration that forced nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients, and then tried to cover up the deaths that resulted from this deeply mistaken policy.

It was under his governorship that New York had the worst-administered emergency rental assistance program in the country.

It's hard to argue that you are a steady, capable alternative to the starry-eyed socialist when your administration can't do something as simple as not recklessly endanger senior citizens or cut checks to people.

Even less helpful was that Cuomo had seemingly no positive agenda for New York City to counter Mamdani's simple, catchy (and to be sure, ill-conceived) plans to make New York affordable with free buses and free childcare.

Mamdani was, famously, the candidate of "freeze the rent." Cuomo rightly argued this was an irresponsible policy that would push more landlords into insolvency. And yet the governor had no plan to improve the sorry state of New York's rent-stabilized housing stock either.

His campaign's housing policy platform was a bunch of AI-generated pablum. In an effort to score a cheap hit on Mamdani for living in a rent-stabilized unit, Cuomo proposed "Zohran's law" that would, if anything, make life harder for the owners of rent-stabilized housing.

It bears repeating that Cuomo also signed the 2019 rent law that has done so much to damage the financial position of New York City housing.

With no decent record to run on and no positive visions to pitch, Cuomo fell back on aristocratic entitlement. If you didn't like Mamdani, you had to vote for him as the only realistic alternative. Sliwa voters weren't worth convincing; they simply owed loyalty to Cuomo.

This was hardly a winning attitude. Now that's failed, his supporters are directing their rage at Sliwa for not simply giving up, instead of Mamdani for actually winning.

Cuomo's faults obviously don't mitigate any of Mamdani's own flaws, to be sure. The mayor-elect's remarks during his victory speech about how there's no problem too large or small for the government to solve are alarming, to say the least.

"No problem too large for government to solve, and [none] too small for government to care about."

Oh my sweet summer child.

— Matt Welch (@MattWelch) November 5, 2025

While fiscal realities will do a lot of work to check Mamdani's ideas, one shouldn't expect city policy to improve during his tenure.

It's not good to see Mamdani win. But, as a consolation prize, it is good to see Cuomo lose.

Whatever else one wants to say about them and their choices, New York voters were right to decide that they don't want a disgraced politician with a bad record, a worse attitude, and no vision running their city government.

The post Good Riddance, Andrew Cuomo appeared first on Reason.com.

In April, President Donald Trump announced stiff tariffs on goods from nearly every country on the planet, saying they were necessary to "deal with" a "national emergency" involving an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to "the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States." According to a Supreme Court brief signed by 45 American economists, Trump's description of that huge, unilateral tax increase was fundamentally mistaken.

That assessment, which reflects what a leading textbook on international trade calls a "virtually complete consensus among economists," should be of more than passing interest to the justices as they weigh the legality of Trump's tariffs. It goes to the heart of the powers Trump is asserting under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

One question for the Supreme Court is whether IEEPA, a 1977 law that does not mention import taxes and has never before been used to impose them, gives the president any tariff authority at all. Assuming it does, another question is whether the law empowers him to completely rewrite the tariff schedule approved by Congress—a proposition that three lower courts have rejected.

The economists' brief focuses on a third issue: Does Trump's use of IEEPA meet the law's criteria for invoking it? That depends on whether he is right to portray the "large and persistent" gap between U.S. exports and imports of goods as a national emergency.

Trade deficits "have existed consistently over the past fifty years in the United States, for extended periods in the United States in the nineteenth century, and in most countries in most years in recent decades," the economists note. "They are thus not 'unusual and extraordinary,' but rather ordinary and commonplace."

The brief adds that there is nothing inherently problematic about aggregate or bilateral trade deficits, such that they would constitute a "threat" to the United States. Even the term deficit is misleading in this context, the economists note, since the situation that Trump bemoans necessarily corresponds to a "foreign investment surplus."

When a country "imports more than it exports," the brief explains, that means it "receives more foreign investment than it invests abroad." That is why "the leading explanations of the U.S. trade deficit view it as a sign of U.S. strength, not weakness."

Trump seems to view foreign investment as a good thing. Yet "absent offsetting adjustments elsewhere," the brief says, "these investments will increase the U.S. trade deficit."

In addition to worrying about the overall difference between imports and exports, Trump thinks it is inherently suspicious whenever another country runs a trade surplus with the United States. But because of variations in demand, specialization, and comparative advantage, the economists note, "bilateral trade deficits are a virtual logical certainty."

It is therefore "odd to economists, to say the least, for the United States government to attempt to rebalance trade on a country-by-country basis," the brief says. And contrary to Trump's presumption of unfairness, "foreign tariff rates on US exports do not correlate positively with the size of US trade deficits."

Nor is it reasonable to expect that Trump's tariffs will "deal with" this supposed national emergency by shrinking U.S. trade deficits. While "tariffs unambiguously reduce total trade flows," the economists note, "they generally do so in both directions—both in and out."

Consequently, "the volume of trade will fall," but "the level of the trade deficits may remain unchanged." Consistent with that observation, the U.S. trade deficit in goods rose between January and June, "despite a very large increase in tariffs."

Although Trump's tariffs are not working as advertised, the economists note, they will have "a massive impact across the United States," amounting to trillions of dollars during the next decade. That fact is also legally relevant.

The "major questions" doctrine requires "clear congressional authorization" when executive agencies "claim the power to make decisions of vast economic and political significance." If Trump's tariffs do not fall into that category, it is hard to imagine what would.

© Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

The post Trump's Economic Fallacies Are Legally Relevant in His Tariff Case appeared first on Reason.com.

MAE HONG SON — Thai authorities have launched urgent measures following the detection of arsenic contamination in the Salween River at levels five times higher than safety standards, according to researchers from Chiang Mai University who made the discovery last week.

Assistant Professor Dr. Wan Wiriya, Assistant Director of the Environmental Science Research Center at Chiang Mai University, reported on October 28 the results of water samples collected from the Salween River as it flows through Mae Sariang District, Mae Hong Son Province, in early September 2025. Three locations were tested for water quality.

Dr. Wan noted that prior to this study, someone had submitted water samples from the Salween River for testing, which also revealed arsenic levels exceeding safety standards.

Beyond arsenic, other heavy metals were found at concentrations approaching dangerous thresholds, creating significant health risks. He urged relevant agencies to conduct immediate investigations and issue public warnings.

Emergency Response Underway

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Suchart Chomklin on November 4 ordered immediate action from key agencies, including the Pollution Control Department and the Department of Groundwater Resources, to address the water quality crisis.

The findings have sparked alarm among communities along the riverbanks in Mae Hong Son province, prompting swift government intervention.

Officials Issue Warnings

The Department of Water Resources has been directed to deploy teams to distribute clean drinking water to affected residents immediately. Officials are working to ensure communities stop drawing water directly from the contaminated source.

Authorities are also conducting public education campaigns to inform residents about health and hygiene safety measures during the crisis.

Khamphan Mokthaisong, District Chief of Sob Moei District in Mae Hong Son, has instructed riverside communities to avoid direct contact with the river water and refrain from consuming fish caught from the Salween.

Mining Activities Under Scrutiny

According to information from the Stimson Center, a foreign affairs think tank, there is extensive mining of various minerals and rare earth elements in the upper reaches of the Salween River.

The situation mirrors pollution problems that occurred in the Kok River and Sai River in Chiang Rai Province, which faced contamination from mining operations in Myanmar and required international cooperation to resolve.

However, since the mining sites are located very far from where the water samples were collected, it remains uncertain whether mining activities are the direct cause of the contamination. Investigations into the source of the pollution are ongoing.

____________

The post Thai Government Responds to Elevated Arsenic Levels in Salween River appeared first on Khaosod English.

President Trump says he still doesn’t know who Binance founder and former CEO Changpeng Zhao is, despite having pardoned Zhao last month.

CBS correspondent Norah O’Donnell asked Trump about the pardon in a 60 Minutes interview that aired yesterday, noting that Zhao pleaded guilty to violating anti-money laundering laws. “The government at the time said that C.Z. had caused ‘significant harm to US national security,’ essentially by allowing terrorist groups like Hamas to move millions of dollars around. Why did you pardon him?” O’Donnell asked.

“Okay, are you ready? I don’t know who he is. I know he got a four-month sentence or something like that. And I heard it was a Biden witch hunt,” answered Trump, who has criticized his predecessor for signing pardons with an autopen.

Zhao was charged with failing to maintain an adequate anti-money laundering program as required by the Bank Secrecy Act and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to four months in prison in April 2024, and released in September 2024. The US government’s sentencing request asked for three years in prison.

Trump family wheeling and dealing

Trump pardoned Zhao on October 21 in a move that is likely to help Binance fully return to the US market. (Since 2019, Binance has operated a separate exchange for US customers.) Months before the pardon, the Trump family reportedly held talks with Binance about taking a financial stake in the crypto exchange’s US arm.

Binance facilitated a $2 billion purchase of the USD1 stablecoin offered by the Trump-backed World Liberty Financial and built the technology behind USD1, a Wall Street Journal report last week said. Trump sons Eric and Donald Jr. have played a leading role in making lucrative crypto deals for the Trump family business.

“My sons are involved in crypto much more than I—me,” Trump said on 60 Minutes. “I—I know very little about it, other than one thing. It’s a huge industry. And if we’re not gonna be the head of it, China, Japan, or someplace else is. So I am behind it 100 percent.”

Did Trump ever meet Zhao? Did he form his own opinion about Zhao’s conviction, or was he merely “told about it”? Trump doesn’t seem to know:

This man was treated really badly by the Biden administration. And he was given a jail term. He’s highly respected. He’s a very successful guy. They sent him to jail and they really set him up. That’s my opinion. I was told about it.

I said, “Eh, it may look bad if I do it. I have to do the right thing.” I don’t know the man at all. I don’t think I ever met him. Maybe I did. Or, you know, somebody shook my hand or something. But I don’t think I ever met him. I have no idea who he is. I was told that he was a victim, just like I was and just like many other people, of a vicious, horrible group of people in the Biden administration.

Trump: “A lot people say that he wasn’t guilty”

Pointing out that Trump’s pardon of Zhao came after Binance helped facilitate a $2 billion purchase of World Liberty’s stablecoin, O’Donnell asked Trump to address the appearance of a pay-to-play deal.

“Well, here’s the thing, I know nothing about it because I’m too busy doing the other… I can only tell you this. My sons are into it. I’m glad they are, because it’s probably a great industry, crypto. I think it’s good… I know nothing about the guy, other than I hear he was a victim of weaponization by government. When you say the government, you’re talking about the Biden government. It’s a corrupt government. Biden was the most corrupt president and he was the worst president we’ve ever had.”

Even though Zhao pleaded guilty, Trump said shortly after the pardon that he was told Zhao “wasn’t guilty of anything.” The statement came when CNN correspondent Kaitlin Collins asked Trump at a press conference why he pardoned Zhao and whether it had anything to do with the Trump family’s crypto business.

Trump answered, “I don’t know, he was recommended by a lot of people… are you talking about the crypto person? A lot people say that he wasn’t guilty of anything. He served four months in jail and they say that he was not guilty of anything.”

Trump told Collins, “you don’t [know] much about crypto, you know nothing about nothing, you fake news… I don’t know him, I don’t believe I’ve ever met him, but I’ve been told… he had a lot of support and they said that what he did is not even a crime, it wasn’t a crime, that he was persecuted by the Biden administration. And so I gave him a pardon at the request of a lot of very good people.”

Zhao is no longer CEO of Binance but maintains a controlling stake in the company and has an estimated net worth of $52.6 billion. After being pardoned, Zhao said in an X post that Binance “will do everything we can to help make America the Capital of Crypto and advance web3 worldwide.”

Planning its return to the US, Binance “is considering a range of options including consolidating Binance.US into its global operation or having its global exchange enter the US market,” Bloomberg reported.

Read full article

Comments