I'm not crazy about the idea of celebrity candidates, but if they know what they're talking about (Sen. Franken we miss you), then I'm willing to listen.
"Some of us want to get rid of the problem without creating a new one."
So how do you intend to do that? Oh I get it- an overwhelming vote for Cuomo will make him a serious presidential candidate. So you get rid of the problem by making Ratface Andy the Commander in Chief. Shrewd thinking.
What's not important is whether I see things like they do; what's important is that they exist and are problems, though of different kinds.
Conservatives are racist misogynistic assholes who crave power; every single policy they champion is terrible (except their opposition to EFCA, where they stumble upon legitimate objections entirely by accident), but the worst thing about them is they vote in numbers in damn near every election.
"Progressives" have a lot of good instincts in terms of sharing the wealth, but when push comes to shove they prove only slightly less racist and misogynistic than conservatives (they talk a much better game than they actually practice). And yes, there are plenty of ideologues among the "progressive" ranks, I would say in roughly the same proportion as the ideologues among the conservative movement (which is to say, they dominate). But the worst thing about them is they have it in their heads that withholding votes is how you win.
Together, conservatives and "progressives" are turning America into hell on earth. That makes them worth listening to -- not for the sake of agreement, but so I can understand the harm they will cause. And in the case of "progressives" I will call them on their shit, because somebody's got to try to snap them out of it.
> a hell of a lot of "progressives" think they're qualified for the job.
That is true, in the same way there are a lot of conservatives who think they're the best qualified people to decide whether a woman should carry a baby to term. Both of those groups are composed of self-important, deluded, narcissistic individuals, and they're both wrong in harmful ways. I suggest you don't listen to either of them.
I agree with you. I wasn't trying to argue for Nixon(I think I could argue this point much better than her, lol), maybe I just keep hoping that people upstate would realize that city folk are just like them in so many ways, that our subways are their roads, that there's many more average Janes and Joes in the NYC area than they realize, we're just much more liberal(except for Staten Island of course).
And that's not good enough. Like it or not, a vote for Nixon is you choosing Nixon and all her strengths and weaknesses. A spite vote against Cuomo that gets nothing better in return doesn't actually help anyone. If you ran a toddler against him, using that same logic would get you a toddler in charge. Morons like you don't care about qualifications, just getting rid of people you don't like. Some of us want to get rid of the problem without creating a new one.
Hear about it?Pics or...................
Goodness me. What lousy writing.
Nor: "I’ll take the old retread who knows how to get stuff done."
Me: "What has Cuomo ever gotten done"
Nor: "Don't know"
A lot of people seem to be under the misapprehension that rich people can't be bought. That's how we ended up with the Governator.
I'm not crazy about the idea of celebrity candidates, but if they know what they're talking about (Sen. Franken we miss you), then I'm willing to listen.
william f buckley was articulate...there's no saving these people...fuck em all
Reagan is to be considered but at least he had the experience of governing a huge state.
Seem to recall HRC whipped Bernie w/o carrying one upstate county.
"Some of us want to get rid of the problem without creating a new one."
So how do you intend to do that? Oh I get it- an overwhelming vote for Cuomo will make him a serious presidential candidate. So you get rid of the problem by making Ratface Andy the Commander in Chief. Shrewd thinking.
She needs to wear a different outfit when debating him next time or when on TV. That color doesn't do anything for her.
Mr. Robinson, you're quickly becoming one of my favorite Wonkers.Also, I did NOT expect the comments on this article to be so vitriolic. O_O
What's not important is whether I see things like they do; what's important is that they exist and are problems, though of different kinds.
Conservatives are racist misogynistic assholes who crave power; every single policy they champion is terrible (except their opposition to EFCA, where they stumble upon legitimate objections entirely by accident), but the worst thing about them is they vote in numbers in damn near every election.
"Progressives" have a lot of good instincts in terms of sharing the wealth, but when push comes to shove they prove only slightly less racist and misogynistic than conservatives (they talk a much better game than they actually practice). And yes, there are plenty of ideologues among the "progressive" ranks, I would say in roughly the same proportion as the ideologues among the conservative movement (which is to say, they dominate). But the worst thing about them is they have it in their heads that withholding votes is how you win.
Together, conservatives and "progressives" are turning America into hell on earth. That makes them worth listening to -- not for the sake of agreement, but so I can understand the harm they will cause. And in the case of "progressives" I will call them on their shit, because somebody's got to try to snap them out of it.
> a hell of a lot of "progressives" think they're qualified for the job.
That is true, in the same way there are a lot of conservatives who think they're the best qualified people to decide whether a woman should carry a baby to term. Both of those groups are composed of self-important, deluded, narcissistic individuals, and they're both wrong in harmful ways. I suggest you don't listen to either of them.
Winning comment! ^^^
I agree with you. I wasn't trying to argue for Nixon(I think I could argue this point much better than her, lol), maybe I just keep hoping that people upstate would realize that city folk are just like them in so many ways, that our subways are their roads, that there's many more average Janes and Joes in the NYC area than they realize, we're just much more liberal(except for Staten Island of course).
And that's not good enough. Like it or not, a vote for Nixon is you choosing Nixon and all her strengths and weaknesses. A spite vote against Cuomo that gets nothing better in return doesn't actually help anyone. If you ran a toddler against him, using that same logic would get you a toddler in charge. Morons like you don't care about qualifications, just getting rid of people you don't like. Some of us want to get rid of the problem without creating a new one.