I think not. In an odd twist for a Democrat, I don't think it had to be that way. For most of his first two years in office most of my conservative friends were all talking about how surprised they were at how moderate he was. Several even discussed voting for him next time around. They might not have meant it, but they were talking about it, which is impressive in itself.
The SAFE act marked a change in all of that. Before that, he was a moderate and not a bad guy. After, he was a typical Democrat who hates guns. If he wanted to score votes in Western New York, the SAFE Act was about the worst thing he could do.
I voted no, but I'm afraid that too many people will forget all the bad things Andrew Cuomo has done. He doesn't care what you think or want. It's all about HIM, and his desire to run for presidency.
When it comes close to election time, politicians typically say what people want to hear, they make promises they never intend to keep, people SWOON and vote the idiot right back into office. People never seem to learn. Sounds just like the Obama election.....
Insisting that a single position will make Republicans hate the guy more on a Wednesday than they did on a Tuesday shows partisan colors from the right side of the aisle, not that it matters. Cuomo is going to waltz into a second term no matter how many grumpy WNY Republicans refuse to vote for him (again.) Did he take your guns? No, he didn't.
Cuomo is setting himself up for a Presidential run and has been since before his most recent gubernatorial campaign.
Yawn. A dirty dish rag could have accomplished more from the Governor's mansion if it didn't have to spend half its day dreaming about delegate breakdowns in the big primary states.
Oh I have no doubt he will be reelected. I just think it will be with less help from WNY than he had last time.
And I wouldn't be so sure about how the SAFE act helps his presidential chances. A lot of the swing states take their gun rights very seriously, and the SAFE act is what first put Cuomo onto the national stage.
The SAFE ACT bolsters his primary numbers. General elections are never about guns, nor should they be.
He couldn't possibly do any worse in WNY than he did last time. As a matter of fact, as long as no equine pornography aficionados from the Buffalo area are running, Cuomo's numbers will see at least a 15 percent bump.
WNY is not anything he worries about. He is running to the left of Hillary, who seems to have the upper hand for the Dem. nomination at the moment. Nothing else matters to him.
I voted for him the last time, because he said some things I liked hearing, namely consolidation of government. I recall him using a number like 10,000+ agencies, authorities, districts, etc. From my vantage point, it's the status quo.
Cuomo isn't running to the left of anyone. Maybe the eventual Republican nominee and that's a huge maybe. Cuomo is Mitt Romney without the overt distaste for gay sex.
If Eisenhower and Nixon were around today they would think Cuomo was an extreme conservative. The man's been running off of charisma and New York's electoral power for years.
The man speaks with forked tongue, and he says what he thinks you want to hear. Typical politician, who benefited from daddy's reign. I'll know better next time, even though I believe Chris is right about a landslide re-election. Way more liberals than legal gun owners in NYS.
Plus, Cuomo has no shot in 2016 against Hilary. He will, however, be in a prime position as a Clinton minion for some fat, juicy cabinet position. AG comes to mind.
For the love of God. The repugnicans will put up an utter d-bag both for NY governor in 2014 and US President in 2016. To combat these 2 Democraps, who are absolute lying 2 faced elitists. Please, please, please waste your votes on third party candidates. If everyone "wastes" their votes, you might get an actual representative government. Cuomo does not give a rat's tail about WNY. This is actually playing to his downstate base by saying: see I reach across the aisle, I'm trying to bring us all together, I do things for those hicks and they don't even appreciate it. I can't imagine how much worse it actually has to get. The 2 major controller parties are screwing the average American hard, rough and no kiss or dinner or even lubrication. Wake up would youse?
Except on gun control and social issues, Cuomo is an economic centrist and a budget hawk, and by the way, has a favorability rating of around 60%. He'll win in a landslide because he's doing a good job, and having worked at the State Capitol during David Paterson's abysmal final year in office, where state government almost shut down once a week, just remember how much worse it can be. He gets things done, and this Western New Yorker will be voting for him again.
Tax cuts, sound budgeting, capping property taxes, encouraging regionalism and consolidation, competitive based economic aid, restructuring the tax code, renegotiating outrageously costly labor agreements, investing in education and infrastructure....and that's all in 2 years. The last three governors couldn't get that much done in nearly 20.
Dan,
He also pushed through one of the largest tax increases in NYS history (the so called millionaire's tax) and failed to keep his promise to eliminate costly, unfunded, mandates. He also failed to truly bring Medicaid cost under control, which is killing the budgets of Counties. We'll wait and see.
Did medicaid costs become a problem under his administration? It's a difficult problem that could take some time to solve, but it doesn't detract from his accomplishments. The real problem is still that we have too many layers of governments in New York, but until the voters start opting for consolidation that problem will have to remain on the backburner. Less governments mean less mandates. His tax reform proposal was pretty widely lauded across the board and was supported by business groups.
I also think to say that Cuomo 'pushed through' something is disingenuous, the legislature voted to approve it, if you're unhappy that they approved part of his agenda, then they have an equal share in it.
Um, I said around 60%, the link Howard provided put his favoribility at 58%, which is, well, around 60%. Perhaps some of us need to brush up on our reading comprehension.
I don't get involved in conversations about 'what has so and so done for us' because the person on the other end typically doesn't like said individual in the first place, so they constantly move the goal posts. If you don't think capping property taxes, having 3 straight budgets with no new taxes, tax cuts and regional economic competitions aren't having an impact on WNY, then you're not gonna vote for him anyway. Why brother?
With NY consistently ranking one of the most liberal states in the union, 58% and falling is actually quite dismal. He is not even pulling off liberalism effectively.
Howard - You really need to do something about the hive mind here. Those of us on the left and right that have different opinions are less inclined to comment because we'll get 5 comments either nit picking, saying the same thing or demanding answers (like I have to answer anyway).
58% is a great approval rating for a Governor of New York, especially given that Pataki, Spitzer and Paterson had much lower approval ratings comparatively in the last 10 years. Everyone usually hates the Governor, and most people don't seem to hate this one.
Dan, you are mistaking favorability for job approval. His job approval is at 50%. His Favorability, is 58%. Which I think means there's a number of people who like him as a person who still think he's not doing a good job.
Favorability is a better indicator of how the public views someone than job approval, in fact, his job approval has always hovered around 50% but his favorability ratings are much higher. They are two different standards and two different questions. Favorability is always a better indicator of how people are going to vote. See Obama, Barack in 2012.
On a serious note about polling, if you ask someone about if they approve of the job they're doing directly, then they're going to think about everything they do including one or two things they may disagree with, so they're likely to be unsure and answer 'no'. However, if you ask them if overall they have a favorable or unfavorable impression of the person at hand, chances are they're going to give you a clearer answer. It's how Bush beat Kerry and Obama beat Romney.
Dan, one thing you deserve props for is you'll state your position and then defend it.
A lot of people don't like their position questioned. They take it as a personal attack. Then they stop commenting because they think that other group is attacking them.
I'm of the belief that you're going to hold opinions, you should be ready, willing and able to defend them.
If others did more of what you do, there would be less of that so-called hive mind around here. There's plenty of people on the left around here. It's up to them to join the conversation if they think their position is under represented.
Howard - The best analogy I can come up with is this. Everyone comes down to a park (The Batavian) which is free to visit and which people seem to enjoy because they're always there (good traffic) and is able to convince advertisers to put up banners to keep it that way. There's a sponsorship for the park (The Batavian Club), which helps the park administrator (you) run things more comfortably and you get a special badge to wear and good deals in other local places, but it's not mandatory. Now, there's a snowcone stand (the comments), which is also free and anyone can choose whichever one they like. There's a group of 5 or 6 people that always gather around it that like cherry, but when someone comes up and orders a grape, orange or lime cone, they get heckled for it, are demanded to answer why they didn't order cherry, have their choice get a thumbs down, have the same argument repeated back to them multiple times and are called sheeple. They don't have a problem defending their opinions, but they don't care to engage with the group around the stand all the time either. This becoming a recurring occurrence means that people keep visiting the park, but they don't participate as much as they did, and in some cases, may stop coming to the park altogether.
"New York State voters approve 74 - 13 percent of the job Gov. Andrew Cuomo is doing, his highest score ever and continuing his six-month string of +70 percent ratings. Approval is 68 - 18 percent among Republicans, 82 - 9 percent among Democrats and 70 - 12 percent among independent voters. "
Cuomo has done little to follow through on his promise of consolidating and streamlining sate government. And the SAFE Act has become his achilles heel.
Cuomo's favoribility rating, as Howard's own links point out, remain around 60%. You're citing one poll, quinnipiac, which does not release its methodology or the order in which the questions are asked (key to a good survey). That's not a knock on them either, but polling is best in aggregate, and what's been happening according to nearly all of them I'd that his favorability ratings (when asked as separate from job performance, an entirely different question) has declined among Republicans. That's bound to happen at some point, but George Pataki or David Peterson never had those kinds of numbers in recent years. The SAFE Act, one could argue, put a dent, but opposition to him because of it clearly is not a majority opinion.
The problem is that the "SAFE" act is based on a lie. Assault Weapon Scams always are. Those of us who know about guns and crime understand that the "SAFE" act is based on a disingenuous lie.
So. If that politician would lie to us in a manner as obvious as claiming that grass is neon orange, then anything coming out of his mouth is suspect. Nobody who knows they are being lied to again and again by a politician is going to vote for that liar.
That is why the news media needs to report facts. And why they don't, in the main, when it comes to politics. As long as they refuse to comment on the Emperor's new duds, the majority of the population will assume that he is wearing some awesome and stylish new clothes.
Prince Andrew's biggest challenge on the way to the White House is that Democrat voters in flyover country do know about guns. They also know about assault weapon scams. They will not vote for the liar.
Kyle - Thank you for your service to our country. That said, something isn't a 'lie' because you say it is. After Clinton signed the Assault Weapons ban in 1994 crime dropped dramatically, and after it expired it has been rising exponentially. The Newtown shooting would not have happened as it did had the shooter not been able to have legal access to 30 round clips.
Dan,
Coumo is a gun owner is like Obama and silly picture of him firing the shotgun. And owning a gun does not mean he wants you to have that same right.
John - I don't see how regulating certain features that firearms can have is an infringement on the second amendment. By the way, neither did Ronald Reagan.
Daniel, that is very simple. the so called "regulating certain features that firearms can have" included also limiting the standard manufacturers capacity of some firearms. Making them illegal, what part of the 2nd Amendments text confuses you it says....
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Making handguns and rifles that have more than a 7 round capacity illegal is by definition, infringement.
Dan, I don't see how regulating certain features that firearms has any beneficial effect on reducing gun violence or improving public safety.
Forget for a moment that we're talking about a gun or a portion of a gun. What we're talking about is a piece of property. We have a situation where the government is saying, "you can't own this piece of property." And they're saying it without due process of the law (no trial saying you can't own this because you previously committed a crime using it).
None of us would stand for the government passing a blanket restriction on personal vehicle ownership. We only take a car away from an individual through due process.
On the other hand, we regulate the types of mufflers that might be on a motorbike. Now my libertarian friends would likely argue that this is going to far and is an infringement on personal liberty, but I think that we would all agree that certain types of mufflers on motorbikes are too loud and present a public nuisance. Preventing a public nuisance is arguably a legitimate roll for government (more so, public safety, but I'm reaching for an example where regulating the piece of something has at least arguably a legitimate public purpose).
Since there is no proof -- nor any rational reason -- to believe that a clip filled with seven rounds produces any public benefit -- it doesn't improve public safety, it doesn't reduce public hazard -- then there is no legitimate government reason to enact such a law.
You can argue that such a restriction doesn't violate the second amendment. My gun friends I'm sure feel differently, but let's just stipulate that is true. That still doesn't mean it's a rational, cogent, justifiable law.
A government action to deny property ownership to an individual must take, at a minimum, one of two courses: Either the right is stripped from an individual through due process, or the right is stripped from all people through a demonstrable and inarguable public benefit.
And this is why Cuomo is bad for New York and bad for the U.S. The SAFE Act is a clear demonstration that Cuomo doesn't understands the basics of individual liberty, that he is more interested in putting political gain ahead of individual liberty.
EDITED: I removed a statement I attributed to Dan but now realize was somebody else.
Perception is a wonderful thing... Everyone compares todays society without gun laws as a re-creation of the wild west. But people think hollywood's version of the wild west (Hint their called western dramas)is what it was like. Gunfights werent all that common, shooting for celebrations involved empty guns or blanks as cartridge guns still werent all that common and extremely expensive. But the thing that affected it the most was, everyone was armed, from barmaids with derringers, to little Billy w his .22 for hunting rabbits and squirrels. Like a knife the gun was a tool and people didn't just run around with attitude like they would as soon shoot someone as look at em. Back then yeah you shoot someone there will probably be several guns pointed at you before the second shot could be made. So people were more polite with each other. I have that from a person whom I had a conversation with a decade ago on her 110th birthday. Her mind was as clear as you and I and she had NO qualms telling someone what rubbish westerns were. Ask any historian as well of the period.
Cuomo's Safe Act made no one safer, it limited or discourage current and future LEGAL gun owners from bothering to renew or seek legal gun ownership, which I think was it's real purpose. It also was a legislative act that was pushed through illegally and in violation of the procedures set by the constitution designed to avoid public input which surely would have defeated it.
So no matter what pro andy argument you use Daniel he has a taint of corruption by showing he will use whatever means necessary to get done what HE wants to get done no matter what the people that put im in his position have to say. Thats why he is falling in favorability and his job ratings.
Cuomo's SAFE act was nothing but a stunt to get some mileage out of a tragic school shooting to help with the liberal base of his party in the coming fight with Hillary for the Democratic Party nomination.
Daniel, the lie is that an assault weapon scam can have any effect on anything. Long arms are used in less than 1% of homicides. Long arms which are semi-automatic, have a detachable magazine and a vile, evil, scary feature are a subset of that 1%.
There is no way that you can deny that banning evil features on firearms used in less than 1% of homicides has any purpose other than a political one.
Crickets... Really? Crickets? Fer F***S sake, Rrrreeeeaaaaallllllly?
I would have expected accusations about my membership in the Tea Party, the Ku Klux Klan, the Republican Party, the Chamber of Commerce, the Catholic Church, the Church of Latter Day Saints, the John Birch Society, the Bilderburgers, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or, at least some other ridiculous something.
Damn. Maybe George Soros' money hasn't reached this far yet. I gotta say, I'm not buying that. A complaint will be filed with www.georgesoros.com about this lack of character assassination in response to an unauthorized and unapproved opinion.
An early post in this conversation stated "General elections are never about guns, nor should they be"... I COULD NOT DISAGREE MORE!
Anyone who believes this nonsense needs to monitor the NRA - ILA news. More than ever there is a battle going on in many states and areas of this country. Membership in 2nd Amendment advocacy groups [like NRA, SAF, GOA] has increased dramatically, and gun/ammo sales and pistol permit applications are BOOMING so much that there's huge backlogs/backorders.
With right around 100 million gun owners in the USA [and most don't own just one gun and one box of bullets], the goals of the gun grabbing goons who seek to be elected will certainly depend on their positions regarding the 2nd Amendment right. {Of course unless we are talking about the Constitutionally mentally ill liberal areas of the nation, like NY, MD, CT, MA, NJ... (funny how they are all grouped together)... but let's don't forget the "left coast" CA}
I think not. In an odd twist
I think not. In an odd twist for a Democrat, I don't think it had to be that way. For most of his first two years in office most of my conservative friends were all talking about how surprised they were at how moderate he was. Several even discussed voting for him next time around. They might not have meant it, but they were talking about it, which is impressive in itself.
The SAFE act marked a change in all of that. Before that, he was a moderate and not a bad guy. After, he was a typical Democrat who hates guns. If he wanted to score votes in Western New York, the SAFE Act was about the worst thing he could do.
I voted no, but I'm afraid
I voted no, but I'm afraid that too many people will forget all the bad things Andrew Cuomo has done. He doesn't care what you think or want. It's all about HIM, and his desire to run for presidency.
When it comes close to election time, politicians typically say what people want to hear, they make promises they never intend to keep, people SWOON and vote the idiot right back into office. People never seem to learn. Sounds just like the Obama election.....
Doug is a lot more correct
Doug is a lot more correct here than Jason.
Insisting that a single position will make Republicans hate the guy more on a Wednesday than they did on a Tuesday shows partisan colors from the right side of the aisle, not that it matters. Cuomo is going to waltz into a second term no matter how many grumpy WNY Republicans refuse to vote for him (again.) Did he take your guns? No, he didn't.
Cuomo is setting himself up for a Presidential run and has been since before his most recent gubernatorial campaign.
Yawn. A dirty dish rag could have accomplished more from the Governor's mansion if it didn't have to spend half its day dreaming about delegate breakdowns in the big primary states.
Oh I have no doubt he will be
Oh I have no doubt he will be reelected. I just think it will be with less help from WNY than he had last time.
And I wouldn't be so sure about how the SAFE act helps his presidential chances. A lot of the swing states take their gun rights very seriously, and the SAFE act is what first put Cuomo onto the national stage.
The SAFE ACT bolsters his
The SAFE ACT bolsters his primary numbers. General elections are never about guns, nor should they be.
He couldn't possibly do any worse in WNY than he did last time. As a matter of fact, as long as no equine pornography aficionados from the Buffalo area are running, Cuomo's numbers will see at least a 15 percent bump.
WNY is not anything he
WNY is not anything he worries about. He is running to the left of Hillary, who seems to have the upper hand for the Dem. nomination at the moment. Nothing else matters to him.
I voted for him the last
I voted for him the last time, because he said some things I liked hearing, namely consolidation of government. I recall him using a number like 10,000+ agencies, authorities, districts, etc. From my vantage point, it's the status quo.
Cuomo isn't running to the
Cuomo isn't running to the left of anyone. Maybe the eventual Republican nominee and that's a huge maybe. Cuomo is Mitt Romney without the overt distaste for gay sex.
If Eisenhower and Nixon were around today they would think Cuomo was an extreme conservative. The man's been running off of charisma and New York's electoral power for years.
The man speaks with forked
The man speaks with forked tongue, and he says what he thinks you want to hear. Typical politician, who benefited from daddy's reign. I'll know better next time, even though I believe Chris is right about a landslide re-election. Way more liberals than legal gun owners in NYS.
Plus, Cuomo has no shot in 2016 against Hilary. He will, however, be in a prime position as a Clinton minion for some fat, juicy cabinet position. AG comes to mind.
For the love of God. The
For the love of God. The repugnicans will put up an utter d-bag both for NY governor in 2014 and US President in 2016. To combat these 2 Democraps, who are absolute lying 2 faced elitists. Please, please, please waste your votes on third party candidates. If everyone "wastes" their votes, you might get an actual representative government. Cuomo does not give a rat's tail about WNY. This is actually playing to his downstate base by saying: see I reach across the aisle, I'm trying to bring us all together, I do things for those hicks and they don't even appreciate it. I can't imagine how much worse it actually has to get. The 2 major controller parties are screwing the average American hard, rough and no kiss or dinner or even lubrication. Wake up would youse?
Except on gun control and
Except on gun control and social issues, Cuomo is an economic centrist and a budget hawk, and by the way, has a favorability rating of around 60%. He'll win in a landslide because he's doing a good job, and having worked at the State Capitol during David Paterson's abysmal final year in office, where state government almost shut down once a week, just remember how much worse it can be. He gets things done, and this Western New Yorker will be voting for him again.
Tax cuts, sound budgeting,
Tax cuts, sound budgeting, capping property taxes, encouraging regionalism and consolidation, competitive based economic aid, restructuring the tax code, renegotiating outrageously costly labor agreements, investing in education and infrastructure....and that's all in 2 years. The last three governors couldn't get that much done in nearly 20.
Dan, He also pushed through
Dan,
He also pushed through one of the largest tax increases in NYS history (the so called millionaire's tax) and failed to keep his promise to eliminate costly, unfunded, mandates. He also failed to truly bring Medicaid cost under control, which is killing the budgets of Counties. We'll wait and see.
Did medicaid costs become a
Did medicaid costs become a problem under his administration? It's a difficult problem that could take some time to solve, but it doesn't detract from his accomplishments. The real problem is still that we have too many layers of governments in New York, but until the voters start opting for consolidation that problem will have to remain on the backburner. Less governments mean less mandates. His tax reform proposal was pretty widely lauded across the board and was supported by business groups.
I also think to say that
I also think to say that Cuomo 'pushed through' something is disingenuous, the legislature voted to approve it, if you're unhappy that they approved part of his agenda, then they have an equal share in it.
Daniel, please give me
Daniel, please give me specifics as to what he has *ACTUALLY* gotten done for western NYers.
The examples above are simply political stances than in reality have little or no impact on real people.
He's even created government agencies to study ways to reduce the number of state agencies!
"by the way, has a
"by the way, has a favorability rating of around 60%"
Do you know the percentage of NY's population that lives in Albany and counties east/southeast of Albany? Hmmmm, about 60%
Actually, Mark, his approval
Actually, Mark, his approval ratings are high nearly all over the place, and at the worst are mixed in some regions. He's a popular Governor.
(Edited to correct grammar and names, was typing on my phone earlier)
"Down to 50 percent ..."
"Down to 50 percent ..." approval rating so low, his legislative agenda is in danger, says the NY Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cuomo-agenda-peril-approval-rating-…
Favorability rating at 58 percent, the lowest it's been since he became gov.
http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-Top-Stories-c-2013-06-17-841…
Isnt it terrible Daniel Jones
Isnt it terrible Daniel Jones when you work so hard to convince us of Cuomo's popularity then BAM facts get in the way.... LOL Thanks Howard :)
Dan, when are you going to
Dan, when are you going to answer Bob Harker's question?
Dave...that would probably be
Dave...that would probably be when Gov. Cuomo ACTUALLY does something for western NY specifically. (Which will be never in my guesstimation)
Um, I said around 60%, the
Um, I said around 60%, the link Howard provided put his favoribility at 58%, which is, well, around 60%. Perhaps some of us need to brush up on our reading comprehension.
I don't get involved in
I don't get involved in conversations about 'what has so and so done for us' because the person on the other end typically doesn't like said individual in the first place, so they constantly move the goal posts. If you don't think capping property taxes, having 3 straight budgets with no new taxes, tax cuts and regional economic competitions aren't having an impact on WNY, then you're not gonna vote for him anyway. Why brother?
With NY consistently ranking
With NY consistently ranking one of the most liberal states in the union, 58% and falling is actually quite dismal. He is not even pulling off liberalism effectively.
Howard - You really need to
Howard - You really need to do something about the hive mind here. Those of us on the left and right that have different opinions are less inclined to comment because we'll get 5 comments either nit picking, saying the same thing or demanding answers (like I have to answer anyway).
58% is a great approval
58% is a great approval rating for a Governor of New York, especially given that Pataki, Spitzer and Paterson had much lower approval ratings comparatively in the last 10 years. Everyone usually hates the Governor, and most people don't seem to hate this one.
Oh boo hoo.............
Oh boo hoo.............
Dan, you are mistaking
Dan, you are mistaking favorability for job approval. His job approval is at 50%. His Favorability, is 58%. Which I think means there's a number of people who like him as a person who still think he's not doing a good job.
Favorability is a better
Favorability is a better indicator of how the public views someone than job approval, in fact, his job approval has always hovered around 50% but his favorability ratings are much higher. They are two different standards and two different questions. Favorability is always a better indicator of how people are going to vote. See Obama, Barack in 2012.
Dave - Such fantastic insight
Dave - Such fantastic insight and depth in that comment. My mind is blown. See what I mean?
On a serious note about
On a serious note about polling, if you ask someone about if they approve of the job they're doing directly, then they're going to think about everything they do including one or two things they may disagree with, so they're likely to be unsure and answer 'no'. However, if you ask them if overall they have a favorable or unfavorable impression of the person at hand, chances are they're going to give you a clearer answer. It's how Bush beat Kerry and Obama beat Romney.
Dan: your Uncle Dave
Dan: your Uncle Dave vocabulary builder word for today is "specious"
How adorable.
How adorable.
Dan, one thing you deserve
Dan, one thing you deserve props for is you'll state your position and then defend it.
A lot of people don't like their position questioned. They take it as a personal attack. Then they stop commenting because they think that other group is attacking them.
I'm of the belief that you're going to hold opinions, you should be ready, willing and able to defend them.
If others did more of what you do, there would be less of that so-called hive mind around here. There's plenty of people on the left around here. It's up to them to join the conversation if they think their position is under represented.
At least you do that.
Howard - The best analogy I
Howard - The best analogy I can come up with is this. Everyone comes down to a park (The Batavian) which is free to visit and which people seem to enjoy because they're always there (good traffic) and is able to convince advertisers to put up banners to keep it that way. There's a sponsorship for the park (The Batavian Club), which helps the park administrator (you) run things more comfortably and you get a special badge to wear and good deals in other local places, but it's not mandatory. Now, there's a snowcone stand (the comments), which is also free and anyone can choose whichever one they like. There's a group of 5 or 6 people that always gather around it that like cherry, but when someone comes up and orders a grape, orange or lime cone, they get heckled for it, are demanded to answer why they didn't order cherry, have their choice get a thumbs down, have the same argument repeated back to them multiple times and are called sheeple. They don't have a problem defending their opinions, but they don't care to engage with the group around the stand all the time either. This becoming a recurring occurrence means that people keep visiting the park, but they don't participate as much as they did, and in some cases, may stop coming to the park altogether.
From a Quinnipiac poll,
From a Quinnipiac poll, 12/12/2012:
"New York State voters approve 74 - 13 percent of the job Gov. Andrew Cuomo is doing, his highest score ever and continuing his six-month string of +70 percent ratings. Approval is 68 - 18 percent among Republicans, 82 - 9 percent among Democrats and 70 - 12 percent among independent voters. "
Cuomo has done little to follow through on his promise of consolidating and streamlining sate government. And the SAFE Act has become his achilles heel.
Cuomo's favoribility rating,
Cuomo's favoribility rating, as Howard's own links point out, remain around 60%. You're citing one poll, quinnipiac, which does not release its methodology or the order in which the questions are asked (key to a good survey). That's not a knock on them either, but polling is best in aggregate, and what's been happening according to nearly all of them I'd that his favorability ratings (when asked as separate from job performance, an entirely different question) has declined among Republicans. That's bound to happen at some point, but George Pataki or David Peterson never had those kinds of numbers in recent years. The SAFE Act, one could argue, put a dent, but opposition to him because of it clearly is not a majority opinion.
The most accurate NY
The most accurate NY pollsters, at least from personal experience, are Siena and Zeplowitz and Associates.
The problem is that the
The problem is that the "SAFE" act is based on a lie. Assault Weapon Scams always are. Those of us who know about guns and crime understand that the "SAFE" act is based on a disingenuous lie.
So. If that politician would lie to us in a manner as obvious as claiming that grass is neon orange, then anything coming out of his mouth is suspect. Nobody who knows they are being lied to again and again by a politician is going to vote for that liar.
That is why the news media needs to report facts. And why they don't, in the main, when it comes to politics. As long as they refuse to comment on the Emperor's new duds, the majority of the population will assume that he is wearing some awesome and stylish new clothes.
Prince Andrew's biggest challenge on the way to the White House is that Democrat voters in flyover country do know about guns. They also know about assault weapon scams. They will not vote for the liar.
"No one needs 10 bullets to
"No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deeah!"
I love all of the thumbs down
I love all of the thumbs down on my comments, some people have a way of unintentionally proving my point. Howard, hive mind.
Kyle - Thank you for your
Kyle - Thank you for your service to our country. That said, something isn't a 'lie' because you say it is. After Clinton signed the Assault Weapons ban in 1994 crime dropped dramatically, and after it expired it has been rising exponentially. The Newtown shooting would not have happened as it did had the shooter not been able to have legal access to 30 round clips.
Some interesting reading on the impact of Clinton's gun regulation measures:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf
Jeff - Cuomo is a gun owner.
Jeff - Cuomo is a gun owner.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.or
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-sin…
http://news.sky.com/story/108
http://news.sky.com/story/1087965/report-us-gun-crime-down-sharply-sinc…
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thet
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gu…
http://www.wjla.com/articles/
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/05/u-s-gun-homicides-down-since-1990s…
http://m.theatlanticcities.co
http://m.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2013/05/why-do-so-many-peo…
http://www.prepperpodcast.com
http://www.prepperpodcast.com/report-us-gun-crime-down-sharply-since-19…
Dan, Coumo is a gun owner is
Dan,
Coumo is a gun owner is like Obama and silly picture of him firing the shotgun. And owning a gun does not mean he wants you to have that same right.
Mark - Some reason why you
Mark - Some reason why you posted all of those links as separate comments? Oh, and prepper podcast, ha haha hahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
John - I don't see how
John - I don't see how regulating certain features that firearms can have is an infringement on the second amendment. By the way, neither did Ronald Reagan.
Dan, tell me how this act
Dan, tell me how this act made you safer.
Daniel, that is very simple.
Daniel, that is very simple. the so called "regulating certain features that firearms can have" included also limiting the standard manufacturers capacity of some firearms. Making them illegal, what part of the 2nd Amendments text confuses you it says....
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Making handguns and rifles that have more than a 7 round capacity illegal is by definition, infringement.
Dan, I don't see how
Dan, I don't see how regulating certain features that firearms has any beneficial effect on reducing gun violence or improving public safety.
Forget for a moment that we're talking about a gun or a portion of a gun. What we're talking about is a piece of property. We have a situation where the government is saying, "you can't own this piece of property." And they're saying it without due process of the law (no trial saying you can't own this because you previously committed a crime using it).
None of us would stand for the government passing a blanket restriction on personal vehicle ownership. We only take a car away from an individual through due process.
On the other hand, we regulate the types of mufflers that might be on a motorbike. Now my libertarian friends would likely argue that this is going to far and is an infringement on personal liberty, but I think that we would all agree that certain types of mufflers on motorbikes are too loud and present a public nuisance. Preventing a public nuisance is arguably a legitimate roll for government (more so, public safety, but I'm reaching for an example where regulating the piece of something has at least arguably a legitimate public purpose).
Since there is no proof -- nor any rational reason -- to believe that a clip filled with seven rounds produces any public benefit -- it doesn't improve public safety, it doesn't reduce public hazard -- then there is no legitimate government reason to enact such a law.
You can argue that such a restriction doesn't violate the second amendment. My gun friends I'm sure feel differently, but let's just stipulate that is true. That still doesn't mean it's a rational, cogent, justifiable law.
A government action to deny property ownership to an individual must take, at a minimum, one of two courses: Either the right is stripped from an individual through due process, or the right is stripped from all people through a demonstrable and inarguable public benefit.
And this is why Cuomo is bad for New York and bad for the U.S. The SAFE Act is a clear demonstration that Cuomo doesn't understands the basics of individual liberty, that he is more interested in putting political gain ahead of individual liberty.
EDITED: I removed a statement I attributed to Dan but now realize was somebody else.
Perception is a wonderful
Perception is a wonderful thing... Everyone compares todays society without gun laws as a re-creation of the wild west. But people think hollywood's version of the wild west (Hint their called western dramas)is what it was like. Gunfights werent all that common, shooting for celebrations involved empty guns or blanks as cartridge guns still werent all that common and extremely expensive. But the thing that affected it the most was, everyone was armed, from barmaids with derringers, to little Billy w his .22 for hunting rabbits and squirrels. Like a knife the gun was a tool and people didn't just run around with attitude like they would as soon shoot someone as look at em. Back then yeah you shoot someone there will probably be several guns pointed at you before the second shot could be made. So people were more polite with each other. I have that from a person whom I had a conversation with a decade ago on her 110th birthday. Her mind was as clear as you and I and she had NO qualms telling someone what rubbish westerns were. Ask any historian as well of the period.
Cuomo's Safe Act made no one safer, it limited or discourage current and future LEGAL gun owners from bothering to renew or seek legal gun ownership, which I think was it's real purpose. It also was a legislative act that was pushed through illegally and in violation of the procedures set by the constitution designed to avoid public input which surely would have defeated it.
So no matter what pro andy argument you use Daniel he has a taint of corruption by showing he will use whatever means necessary to get done what HE wants to get done no matter what the people that put im in his position have to say. Thats why he is falling in favorability and his job ratings.
Cuomo's SAFE act was nothing
Cuomo's SAFE act was nothing but a stunt to get some mileage out of a tragic school shooting to help with the liberal base of his party in the coming fight with Hillary for the Democratic Party nomination.
Daniel, the lie is that an
Daniel, the lie is that an assault weapon scam can have any effect on anything. Long arms are used in less than 1% of homicides. Long arms which are semi-automatic, have a detachable magazine and a vile, evil, scary feature are a subset of that 1%.
There is no way that you can deny that banning evil features on firearms used in less than 1% of homicides has any purpose other than a political one.
Crickets... Really?
Crickets... Really? Crickets? Fer F***S sake, Rrrreeeeaaaaallllllly?
I would have expected accusations about my membership in the Tea Party, the Ku Klux Klan, the Republican Party, the Chamber of Commerce, the Catholic Church, the Church of Latter Day Saints, the John Birch Society, the Bilderburgers, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or, at least some other ridiculous something.
Damn. Maybe George Soros' money hasn't reached this far yet. I gotta say, I'm not buying that. A complaint will be filed with www.georgesoros.com about this lack of character assassination in response to an unauthorized and unapproved opinion.
An early post in this
An early post in this conversation stated "General elections are never about guns, nor should they be"... I COULD NOT DISAGREE MORE!
Anyone who believes this nonsense needs to monitor the NRA - ILA news. More than ever there is a battle going on in many states and areas of this country. Membership in 2nd Amendment advocacy groups [like NRA, SAF, GOA] has increased dramatically, and gun/ammo sales and pistol permit applications are BOOMING so much that there's huge backlogs/backorders.
With right around 100 million gun owners in the USA [and most don't own just one gun and one box of bullets], the goals of the gun grabbing goons who seek to be elected will certainly depend on their positions regarding the 2nd Amendment right. {Of course unless we are talking about the Constitutionally mentally ill liberal areas of the nation, like NY, MD, CT, MA, NJ... (funny how they are all grouped together)... but let's don't forget the "left coast" CA}