Andrew Cuomo to conservatives- Leave NY

75 posts / 0 new
Last post
mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535
Andrew Cuomo to conservatives- Leave NY

Gov. Cuomo to conservatives: Leave NY! | New York Post

Debate question- Is it okay for an elected official to tell a whole group of people that they have no place in a state?

What if another group had been the subject of this rant, like Muslims? Would more of the media be covering it?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

I am from NY and a lot of my family and friends live in NY. And guess what? Most are conservative. The part of NY I am from has a large amount of conservatives. It has always been that way. I do know many people that wish the farming part of NY could break away from NYC area because the values and needs of the two parts of the State are so different.

That said, I have not heard very much about this on FB. Most of them know that the top brass in NY do not care about them or their part of the State. I think if you were to ask most would say that he is an idiot and that they do not care what he thinks.

I also live in one of the most conservative parts of the country, and some of the most die hard "Gun toting, bible believing, anti gay, ect." people I know live in the State of NY.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

Well for one, the New York post is a very trashy newspaper that will distort what anybody says for a polarizing headline.

It looks like he was talking about politicians, not the general population, and he's saying that the extremely conservative Republican values don't match what the majority of people in NY believe, which is accurate (despite personal anecdotes).

But he certainly wasn't telling groups of the general population to move out. Oh, the New York Post.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

Well for one, the New York post is a very trashy newspaper that will distort what anybody says for a polarizing headline.

It looks like he was talking about politicians, not the general population, and he's saying that the extremely conservative Republican values don't match what the majority of people in NY believe, which is accurate (despite personal anecdotes).

But he certainly wasn't telling groups of the general population to move out. Oh, the New York Post.

Yep. :thumbsup:

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

Well for one, the New York post is a very trashy newspaper that will distort what anybody says for a polarizing headline.

It looks like he was talking about politicians, not the general population, and he's saying that the extremely conservative Republican values don't match what the majority of people in NY believe, which is accurate (despite personal anecdotes).

But he certainly wasn't telling groups of the general population to move out. Oh, the New York Post.

I was not saying that the vast majority of NYers are conservative, but that are plenty. If 70% of NYers are more liberal, that leaves 30% that are not. 30% of the population of NY is still a huge amount of people.

ETA - The conservatives that do live in NY are also entitled to representation. It makes no sense to say that conservatives can live in NY but not politicians. To say one has to move out is the same as saying the other should.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I was not saying that the vast majority of NYers are conservative, but that are plenty. If 70% of NYers are more liberal, that leaves 30% that are not. 30% of the population of NY is still a huge amount of people.

ETA - The conservatives that do live in NY are also entitled to representation. It makes no sense to say that conservatives can live in NY but not politicians. To say one has to move out is the same as saying the other should.

He isn't actually telling people to pack up and move. Most cities have their own New York Post equivalent -- some trashy, inflammatory paper with provocative headlines and half-told stories.

The way democracy works is that NOT everybody gets representation. It's about majority. That's the whole concept, isn't it?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

He isn't actually telling people to pack up and move. Most cities have their own New York Post equivalent -- some trashy, inflammatory paper with provocative headlines and half-told stories.

The way democracy works is that NOT everybody gets representation. It's about majority. That's the whole concept, isn't it?

So to clarify, are you saying what he said was not insulting? That is the question isn't? Not that he should not have been allowed to say it, because he can say whatever he wants. But rather that it was a foolish and insulting thing to say. I do not think that you can spin it any other way then yes, people are going to be offended. It is not like anyone would move because he says so. It is that he is being so open about his dislike of a group he represents. It would be no different than a Governor or Mayor in a city that is mostly white saying that he does not represent the Black people of the city and that they are not welcome there. Would he have any legal baring to make them move? No. Would there be back lash and political repercussions? Yes.

ETA - Another example would be such as if the Governor of Texas said that homosexuals were not welcome in Texas and that they did not represent the values of Texas. Even though homosexuals are a minority in Texas, would there be no repercussions for what he said?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I read it like he was sort of "giving advice" to the leadership of the GOP (for lack of a better way to describe it.) In other words "Your extreme right wing candidates don't have a chance of being elected in this state because the majority of people of this state won't vote for them. Run more moderate candidates if you want to win elections." I didn't take it that he was saying that he refuses to represent the very conservative people in his state or anything like that. Laurie is right, while there may be some very conservative people in NY, in a democracy the majority wins, so your candidate has to appeal to the majority of the people in their voting district to win. If your candidate is too extreme (either to the left or the right) to appeal to the majority, they will lose. I don't think that it's "offensive" to acknowledge that that is how democracy works.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

ETA - Another example would be such as if the Governor of Texas said that homosexuals were not welcome in Texas and that they did not represent the values of Texas. Even though homosexuals are a minority in Texas, would there be no repercussions for what he said?

A better analogy would be if the Governor of Texas said that a homosexual has no chance of getting elected to state office in his state, so they'd probably be better off going somewhere else than trying to change the POV of the entire state.

And if the people of New York (or Texas, in our hypothetical situation) are upset enough about what was said, then there will be repercussions. I don't think what Cuomo said warrants any official hand-slapping, though. He gave his personal opinion about whether extremely conservative Republicans are electable in New York, and his answer is no. It's up to the people to prove him wrong.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

Do you have another article that says exactly what he said? This quote from the OP “Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” Seems to be saying something different than what you guys are talking about. Is that a miss quote?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

GOP plans to use Cuomo

I do not see anything to support that he was only saying that conservatives could not win an election in NY. I think that is back tracking to try to cover up what he said.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Do you have another article that says exactly what he said? This quote from the OP “Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” Seems to be saying something different than what you guys are talking about. Is that a miss quote?

Bonita, from the article in the OP -

Cuomo said Friday that members of the GOP with “extreme” views are creating an identity crisis for their party and represent a bigger worry than Democrats such as himself.
Their problem isn’t me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves,” the governor said on Albany’s The Capitol Pressroom radio show.
“Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

I assumed when he was talking about "problem" he meant "problem getting elected to office."

I don't doubt that the GOP is trying to use that quote to make political hay - that's politics as usual. That doesn't mean much to me.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Bonita, from the article in the OP -

I assumed when he was talking about "problem" he meant "problem getting elected to office."

I don't doubt that the GOP is trying to use that quote to make political hay - that's politics as usual. That doesn't mean much to me.

What I was saying is that people are upset and that there are going to be repercussions for saying such an offensive statement.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

What I was saying is that people are upset and that there are going to be repercussions for saying such an offensive statement.

I think it people in NY are seriously going to be upset & offended about this, then they should probably listen to the entire interview instead of taking the Post's summary on it. The Post is like a half step up from the National Enquirer on the truthful media scale. Blum 3

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Do you have another article that says exactly what he said? This quote from the OP “Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” Seems to be saying something different than what you guys are talking about. Is that a miss quote?

You seem to be taking him literally word for word, exactly. The rest of us are acknowledging that this was not a speech, not a prepared statement, but an off-the-cuff interview. We are reading "between the lines," as they say, to what we believe he meant in totality, and not just the few words that came out of his mouth that one minute. He said a lot more in the interview to support our POV than to support yours. You can read the relevant part of the transcript here:
http://www.governor.ny.gov/01192014statement

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

And I'm saying that I don't get why it's offensive to say that extremists that don't appeal to the majority have a problem getting elected.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Spacers" wrote:

I think it people in NY are seriously going to be upset & offended about this, then they should probably listen to the entire interview instead of taking the Post's summary on it. The Post is like a half step up from the National Enquirer on the truthful media scale. Blum 3

You seem to be taking him literally word for word, exactly. The rest of us are acknowledging that this was not a speech, not a prepared statement, but an off-the-cuff interview. We are reading "between the lines," as they say, to what we believe he meant in totality, and not just the few words that came out of his mouth that one minute. He said a lot more in the interview to support our POV than to support yours. You can read the relevant part of the transcript here:
Open Letter to the Editor Regarding New York Post Story "Gov. Cuomo to conservatives: Leave NY" published on Saturday, January 18th, 2014. | Governor Andrew M. Cuomo

When a public figure speaks, often what they say is taken without the entire conversation. With the whole Chick Fil A debate, the owner was asked a question and he answered. The whole conversation was not what people focused on. What they found offensive is what people focused on.

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

And I'm saying that I don't get why it's offensive to say that extremists that don't appeal to the majority have a problem getting elected.

Where are you reading exactly that says that he was only referring to getting elected? If he had said, conservatives would have a hard time getting elected in New York State that would be different. However, that is not what he said. I also do not believe it is what he meant.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

See next post.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Tells Conservatives They Aren't Welcome - YouTube

I just listened to the video of the conversation. He was not talking about getting elected and people have every right to be offended.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Where are you reading exactly that says that he was only referring to getting elected? If he had said, conservatives would have a hard time getting elected in New York State that would be different. However, that is not what he said. I also do not believe it is what he meant.

I'm looking at the entire conversation as reported by the paper and trying to put it into context. He's talking about how extremists are not "who the people of NY are" and how their "problem" is not the Democrats, their problem is themselves. Now, what does he mean exactly by "problem." What is the problem, exactly? Since he is talking about how these people do not represent the people of NY, I assume that the "problem" he is referring to is the "problem" of not being able to get elected. Make sense?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Darnit, I can't watch YouTube on this computer. I'll see if I can find a transcript.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I'm looking at the entire conversation as reported by the paper and trying to put it into context. He's talking about how extremists are not "who the people of NY are" and how their "problem" is not the Democrats, their problem is themselves. Now, what does he mean exactly by "problem." What is the problem, exactly? Since he is talking about how these people do not represent the people of NY, I assume that the "problem" he is referring to is the "problem" of not being able to get elected. Make sense?

I am sure you probably can't watch the video at work, but when you get a chance watch it. He was speaking about the SAFE act and how that republicans are not able to support it because of the conservatives. Conservative voters. That has nothing to do with a conservative not being able to get elected.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

Yeah, I think that that is actually, I don’t think that that is right Susan. I think it is a very important point, but I don’t think it is that I’m less of a Democrat, I think what you are seeing is, you have a schism within the Republican party. You have the Republican party searching for identity; they are searching to define their soul. That is what is going on. It is the Republican party that is it a moderate party or is it a conservative party? That is what they are trying to figure out and it is very interesting because it is a mirror of what is going on in Washington, right? The gridlock in Washington is less about Democrats and Republicans. It is more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans. And a moderate Republican in Washington can’t figure out how to deal with the extreme Republicans. And the moderate Republicans are affair of the extreme conservative republicans in Washington in my opinion.

You’ve seen that play out in New York, their SAFE Act – the Republican-party candidates are running against the SAFE Act. It was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the senate. Their problem is not me and Democrats, their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives, who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay, is that who they are? Because if that is who they are, and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York. Because that is not who New Yorkers are.

Moderate Republicans like in the senate right now and control the senate — moderate republicans have a place in this state. George Pataki was governor of this state as a moderate Republican. But not as what you are hearing from them on the far right not this clash that you are getting from the quote unquote power brokers of the party now: ”We are right-to-life, we are pro-assault-weapon or anti-gay” . . . Well that was planned anyway, I think he did that in reaction to the meets we were having. You know moderate Republicans, I work with – moderate Republicans passed my agenda, for the past three years. They want to criticize my record? My record was passed by the moderate Republicans, so they are criticizing themselves and this really isn’t about me Susan. This is: Who are they? And who is going to win between the conservative Republicans, the extremely conservative Republicans and the moderately conservative Republicans. And literally look at the issues that they pick, are we right-to-life or are we pro-choice? Well if you are right to life, that is your opinion and that’s your religious belief, that is fine but that is not the opinion of this state, which 70% are pro-choice in this state.

“Well we are anti-gun control”, that is fine. 70 percent of this state wants intelligent gun control.

“We don’t agree with gay marriage, we are anti-gay”, that is fine but 70 percent of this. state about, is now pro-gay-marriage so figure out who you are and figure out if you are of a extreme conservative philosophy and if you can survive in this state. And the answer is no.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

For the Record, Most people I know in NY are passionately against the SAFE act, but that is a separate debate. They would never vote for someone in favore of it and therefore some candidates are running on that platform.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I'm looking at the entire conversation as reported by the paper and trying to put it into context. He's talking about how extremists are not "who the people of NY are" and how their "problem" is not the Democrats, their problem is themselves. Now, what does he mean exactly by "problem." What is the problem, exactly? Since he is talking about how these people do not represent the people of NY, I assume that the "problem" he is referring to is the "problem" of not being able to get elected. Make sense?

He says many times the conservatives in the Republican Party. So I would assume that to mean anyone who is a conservative who belongs to the Republican party would be included in the group he states are not welcome.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Everything in that full quote goes to exactly how I interpretted it, that he is talking about who can get elected in that state. the whole exerpt is all about who is in Washington, and what platforms they are running on, which is exactly how I assumed he meant it, that you can't run on an extreme Conservative in NY and get elected.

Also, he says that's exactly what he was talking about:

Open Letter to the Editor Regarding New York Post Story "Gov. Cuomo to conservatives: Leave NY" published on Saturday, January 18th, 2014. | Governor Andrew M. Cuomo

The New York Post distorted Governor Cuomo’s words yesterday, saying that the Governor said "conservatives should leave New York." The Governor did not say that, nor does he believe that.

If you read the transcript (below), it is clear that the Governor was making the observation that an extreme right candidate cannot win statewide because this is a politically moderate state (either moderate Republican or moderate Democratic).

In the same response, the Governor went on to say "it is fine" to be anti-gun control, and anti-choice” – as he respects both positions.

The Post can allow any person they want to publish in their paper but if they are to retain any credibility they cannot be entirely reckless with facts and the truth.

Then it lists the transcript that you posted. So yeah, still not seeing the problem. I just saw this after I went looking for the transcript, and it just confirmed what I already thought he meant. It seemed (and still seems) pretty clear to me from the context that this is what he meant.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

He says many times the conservatives in the Republican Party. So I would assume that to mean anyone who is a conservative who belongs to the Republican party would be included in the group he states are not welcome.

Did you read the transcript? I linked to it, and Bonita quoted it. He is very clearly talking about Republican leadership, not the people who vote Republican.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

Yes, he's talking about politics, not population.

And you can't compare Republicans & Democrats to black people & white people. Politics are opinions, skin color is not.

If I lived in Texas, and the governor said something about how there wasn't a place there for anti-gun Democrats, I would tend to agree. I would know I was in in the minority and I wouldn't expect to be represented politically. My husband knows HE is not represented politically in NY, that's just how it is. (He's a Libertarian, if anything.)

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Spacers" wrote:

Did you read the transcript? I linked to it, and Bonita quoted it. He is very clearly talking about Republican leadership, not the people who vote Republican.

I disagree. After reading it carefully several times I believe he is saving all conservatives in NY. That moderate Republicans can't fully back the SAFE act because they have to worry about the back lash from the conservatives. It may not be what he meant, but it is what he said.

It does not matter at all to me what he says he meant after the fact to try to stem the back lash. He would have said anything at that point.

I was just on the phone with my mom who has lived in NY all her life. I asked her if she was offended and she said very. I asked her if the people in her area were offended and she said yes. She said though, that it will not matter because he is elected by NYC and that what up state NY thinks will not matter.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I disagree. After reading it carefully several times I believe he is saving all conservatives in NY. That moderate Republicans can't fully back the SAFE act because they have to worry about the back lash from the conservatives. It may not be what he meant, but it is what he said.
.

This doesn't make any sense to me, except in terms of an election. It makes sense that a moderate candidate would worry about backlash in an election (i.e. not getting elected!) What "backlash" would a moderate Republican that is not running for office feel over supporting or not supporting any given policy? Like what, your friends won't "like" your FB post about it? "Backlash" to me points to some actual consequence (again, like not getting elected to office.) I disagree with my friends and family members about policies all of the time (I even disagree with my husband sometimes. He is more moderate than I am) but I wouldn't say that there is any "backlash" over it. It just doesn't make sense to me that people think he is talking about voters in this context. It seems as clear as the nose on my face that he is talking about politicians.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

Can any of you tell me that if you were a conservative that you truly would not have been offended? I mean truly? I don't mean sit in a corner and cry all day, but after hearing it you would not have though "Well he is a jerk". I can also tell you from being born and raised in NY that the idea truly is there. That Coumo and NYCers as a whole (obviously not everyone) do not believe anyone from outside of NYC or anyone not liberal does not belong, and that at least the corner of NY that I am from (again, a majority not all) wishes that NYC would break off into the ocean. There is a lot of history of strife and bitterness there. Statements like this just add fuel to the fire. Maybe it did not come out like he meant it, but it still came across as offensive and it is still going to cause back lash. Not that it will matter on this issue any more than any other issue that is voted on State wide because NYC can easily out vote the rest of the State.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

This doesn't make any sense to me, except in terms of an election. It makes sense that a moderate candidate would worry about backlash in an election (i.e. not getting elected!) What "backlash" would a moderate Republican that is not running for office feel over supporting or not supporting any given policy? Like what, your friends won't "like" your FB post about it? "Backlash" to me points to some actual consequence (again, like not getting elected to office.) I disagree with my friends and family members about policies all of the time (I even disagree with my husband sometimes. He is more moderate than I am) but I wouldn't say that there is any "backlash" over it. It just doesn't make sense to me that people think he is talking about voters in this context. It seems as clear as the nose on my face that he is talking about politicians.

An already voted in person being worried about being voted out in the future. For example, An already elected person not voting in favore of the SAFE act because that it would have political ramifications with their constituents. There being the problem the constituents (people) and not the elected official. As I said, I do not believe the SAFE act would not pass in my home district.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

No, I honestly would not be offended by a statement that (to me) clearly says that he is saying "Extreme conservatives will not be able to win elections in a moderate state." I'm pretty liberal and I accept that someone as liberal as me probably wouldn't currently be able to win in my state either. That doesn't mean I'm a bad person or that I don't have a place here, it just means that I am not in the majority. Someone on here used to have a signature that always made me laugh that said "Sometimes the majority just means that all of the idiots agree." I don't take offense to knowing that I am not in the majority (although darnit I wish you people would hurry up and get with the program already!!!! lol)

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

No, I honestly would not be offended by a statement that (to me) clearly says that he is saying "Extreme conservatives will not be able to win elections in a moderate state."

But it does not say that. No where does it say that in the transcript.

ETA - It does say this "...and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York. Because that is not who New Yorkers are." And that is offensive not matter how you spin it.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

An already voted in person being worried about being voted out in the future. For example, An already elected person not voting in favore of the SAFE act because that it would have political ramifications with their constituents. There being the problem the constituents (people) and not the elected official. As I said, I do not believe the SAFE act would not pass in my home district.

I don't understand what you are saying. In your example, you acknowlege that the issue is the election, and what platform would be acceptable. The "problem" isn't the voters - that doesn't make any sense. The person who gets elected is the person that best represents the voters. If someone doesn't get elected (or re-elected) then THEY are the problem - they don't represent the voters.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

But it does not say that. No where does it say that in the transcript.
.

But what else could it mean in that context? That's what I'm trying to get at. The whole quote is talking about representation in Washington and party platforms and running for election. What else could it mean?

I just...I feel like you're taking one peice of one sentence and trying to be offended by it, when (to me) it seems so clear what he was talking about. I guess different people see things different ways, but I just can't understand why anyone would look at that whole quote and think it meant anything other than what he said it meant and what I interpretted it to mean before I even saw what he said. It's not like I'm just accepting his explanation after the fact; that's what I thought he meant before I ever read his explanation. That's exactly what it sounded like to me the first time I read it.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I don't understand what you are saying. In your example, you acknowlege that the issue is the election, and what platform would be acceptable. The "problem" isn't the voters - that doesn't make any sense. The person who gets elected is the person that best represents the voters. If someone doesn't get elected (or re-elected) then THEY are the problem - they don't represent the voters.

I am sorry. I have a terrible headache and am sure I am not expressing myself very well. Elected officials can't just do whatever they want. They have to worry about the people that voted them in. So if a Congressman who would otherwise support the SAFE act does not vote for it because they know there would be repercussions during the next election it is the voters that are against the SAFE act not the Congressman. Does that make sense? In that sense it does not matter that the majority of NY is in support of the SAFE act it matters if the individual districts are in support of it. How it came across to me (again, I have a blinding headache) was that he was mad at the people that would not support the SAFE act because they were worried about the Conservatives in the party. In my opinion he was saying "Don't take those people's opinions into consideration. Those people are not true NYers."

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

I also want say again that if there are 19.57 million (Google) people in NY and 70% of them are liberal, that means that over 5 million that are not. That is a lot of people.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

Did you read the transcript? I linked to it, and Bonita quoted it. He is very clearly talking about Republican leadership, not the people who vote Republican.

No I listened to it on Youtube. I disagree. I think he is talking about both.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

No I listened to it on Youtube. I disagree. I think he is talking about both.

I agree. Listening to it, it definitely sounds like he is talking about all Conservatives in NYS.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

And I'll say it again, if I lived in Texas and the governor said that people with anti-gun views should just get out of Texas, I'd be like, "Yeah yeah, I know. It's a gun-loving state. I just live in it."

In New York, the majority of the population is liberal. That's just how it is. (That's just another reason for me to love it, and another reason for my husband not to....so be it.)

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I am sorry. I have a terrible headache and am sure I am not expressing myself very well. Elected officials can't just do whatever they want. They have to worry about the people that voted them in. So if a Congressman who would otherwise support the SAFE act does not vote for it because they know there would be repercussions during the next election it is the voters that are against the SAFE act not the Congressman. Does that make sense? In that sense it does not matter that the majority of NY is in support of the SAFE act it matters if the individual districts are in support of it. How it came across to me (again, I have a blinding headache) was that he was mad at the people that would not support the SAFE act because they were worried about the Conservatives in the party. In my opinion he was saying "Don't take those people's opinions into consideration. Those people are not true NYers."

I'm sorry, I'm still confused. Are you saying that you think that he was encouraging Republican candidates to ignore the will of their districts? That is also not how democracy works, which I assume he knows.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I'm sorry, I'm still confused. Are you saying that you think that he was encouraging Republican candidates to ignore the will of their districts? That is also not how democracy works, which I assume he knows.

I do think he was speaking of his frustration with Republicans over their lack of support of the SAFE act and sating his desire for those people to go away. Gov. Andrew Cuomo's approval rating drops as he loses Republican support: poll - NY Daily News

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

Sorry to post the NYT article, I didnt realize it is a tabloid. I listened to the whole interview and then just found a article that had quotes to what was said.

I also did not feel like he was talking about who could get elected. I really think he was speaking to conservatives in general. I do think people should be upset, as he did not say "You will be in the minority" he said "you are not welcome"

And I think if he had said "if you are muslim you are not welcome" nobody would be trying to defend what he said as muslims would not be electable. I am sure there would be many calling for him to resign, and I would agree he should. Just as a I believe any politician that is this decisive should not be in office

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

I don't think it's fair to equate religious or racial groups with political views. It's not the same thing at all.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

I don't think it's fair to equate religious or racial groups with political views. It's not the same thing at all.

It is telling one entire group of people that they are not welcome. I maybe can see saying it is not the same as racial groups, but it is exactly the same as religious groups. Especially because many people's political views are based in their religious views.

It absolutely is no different than saying that Muslims do not support the majority view and therefore are not welcome.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

I don't think it's fair to equate religious or racial groups with political views. It's not the same thing at all.

I think it is similar.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

I have to disagree. Aren't religious views sacred and (often) permanent? And wouldn't political views change based on the stance of the party, the politician running, the issues being discussed?

Changing religions would be a huge life change. Changing politics? Not even on the same scale.

I always assumed that religion is in the heart and soul and politics is in the head. No? Politics are about your opinions, I always assumed for religious people that it goes much, much deeper than that.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

I have to disagree. Aren't religious views sacred and (often) permanent? And wouldn't political views change based on the stance of the party, the politician running, the issues being discussed?

Changing religions would be a huge life change. Changing politics? Not even on the same scale.

I always assumed that religion is in the heart and soul and politics is in the head. No? Politics are about your opinions, I always assumed for religious people that it goes much, much deeper than that.

So you do not think changing to a conservative republican would be a major life change for you? What difference does that make anyway? It is a politician saying that he does not like a large group of people that he represents. Would any of you Democrats have been ok with a Republican president at a time when Congress was controlled by republicans, for the president to say that he only represents Republicans? I am fairly confident that no one would be ok with that.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

ITA with Laurie. People change political affiliations all the time, or vote outside their party when they think it will benefit them more. Remember Reagan Democrats? Google "party switching" and you'll find a very long list of notable people who have switched their party over the years. But most adults, once they choose a religion (or lack thereof) stick with it for life. They might change churches, but they don't change their underlying belief systems. And while you might get a dark tan for a while, it doesn't actually change your underlying skin color. Those things are far more basic to who you are as a person than political affiliation, which is only a reflection of who you are.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

So you do not think changing to a conservative republican would be a major life change for you? What difference does that make anyway? It is a politician saying that he does not like a large group of people that he represents. Would any of you Democrats have been ok with a Republican president at a time when Congress was controlled by republicans, for the president to say that he only represents Republicans? I am fairly confident that no one would be ok with that.

That is not what Gov. Cuomo said. He said the ultra-conservative Republicans don't represent the moderate majority of New Yorkers. And he's right.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

I am very surprised that someone with strong religious convictions would consider their political affiliation to be of equal importance. Extremely surprised!!!

Pages