oldhouseman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 838
I'm only left wondering why this didn't happen before Iowa?
Here we go again! In New York
- Thread starter oldhouseman
- Start date
Help Support :
toggleswitch2
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 23, 2008
- Messages
- 5,000
Well, I'd say most of us think of New York State as the very cosmopolitan New York City metropolitan area (downstate; i.e.e south end of the state). But actually there are a number of mid-sized cities and an even greater number more rural areas.
The state of Connecticut, on the other hand, even though much smaller than New YOrk State is much more evenly developed and is the most "urban" state overall in the nation with back to back smaller cities and towns. (Urban and suburban areas.)
Oddly enough, the population of the entire state of Conencticut, IIRC, is lesser than that of the NYC metropolitan area.
Connecticut (snd its residents) think(s) of itself as a unified state, based on the news programs I watch every weekend, whereas New York State is far too large and is more regional in attitude and thought-process.
I'ds say who cares who gets "there" first, as long as everyone does and gets the job done.
The state of Connecticut, on the other hand, even though much smaller than New YOrk State is much more evenly developed and is the most "urban" state overall in the nation with back to back smaller cities and towns. (Urban and suburban areas.)
Oddly enough, the population of the entire state of Conencticut, IIRC, is lesser than that of the NYC metropolitan area.
Connecticut (snd its residents) think(s) of itself as a unified state, based on the news programs I watch every weekend, whereas New York State is far too large and is more regional in attitude and thought-process.
I'ds say who cares who gets "there" first, as long as everyone does and gets the job done.
If I understand
the situation correctly, the problem is that three of the Democrats upon whom the presidency of the Senate is dependent have been and are blackmailing the entire rest of the government - Democrats and Republicans to get their own way.
Because the balance of power rests on the edge of a knife in the Senate, it is all but impossible to do anything which these, gentlemen, don't want done. They tease Republicans, pretending that they are about to change parties, then go to the Democrats and demand concessions.
And the worst of it is, they are social conservatives of the flaming "God hates fags" sort.
So by forcing their hands now, Patterson is trying to do two things. One, ride on the wave of popularity for granting us human status which has led to two states and DC recognizing us as human. This will help. Second, there are elections coming up in 2010 and he is painfully aware that it was the gay and transgendered vote which put the Democrats back into power in the Senate for the first time in centuries. If he wins, automatic bonus for the elections. If he loses, the jerks (not my first choice of words) will face stiff competition in the primaries from Democrats who are more subtle about gaining and maintaining power than to openly blackmail their party's leaders.
Repbulicans will come out of the 2010 elections pretty much no better off than they are now, if even that.
So, it is a win-win for him.
That, at least, is what I gather from all I have read and heard over the last months. If anybody else has a different viewpoint, I'd love to hear it. Especially Toggles or Laundress or someone else in that area.
New Hampshire is up next, isn't it? Won't that one depend entirely on the governor?
the situation correctly, the problem is that three of the Democrats upon whom the presidency of the Senate is dependent have been and are blackmailing the entire rest of the government - Democrats and Republicans to get their own way.
Because the balance of power rests on the edge of a knife in the Senate, it is all but impossible to do anything which these, gentlemen, don't want done. They tease Republicans, pretending that they are about to change parties, then go to the Democrats and demand concessions.
And the worst of it is, they are social conservatives of the flaming "God hates fags" sort.
So by forcing their hands now, Patterson is trying to do two things. One, ride on the wave of popularity for granting us human status which has led to two states and DC recognizing us as human. This will help. Second, there are elections coming up in 2010 and he is painfully aware that it was the gay and transgendered vote which put the Democrats back into power in the Senate for the first time in centuries. If he wins, automatic bonus for the elections. If he loses, the jerks (not my first choice of words) will face stiff competition in the primaries from Democrats who are more subtle about gaining and maintaining power than to openly blackmail their party's leaders.
Repbulicans will come out of the 2010 elections pretty much no better off than they are now, if even that.
So, it is a win-win for him.
That, at least, is what I gather from all I have read and heard over the last months. If anybody else has a different viewpoint, I'd love to hear it. Especially Toggles or Laundress or someone else in that area.
New Hampshire is up next, isn't it? Won't that one depend entirely on the governor?
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Greg:
Toggles has it right - New York City isn't New York State, just like Atlanta isn't Georgia. Those other, smaller cities and towns have their say, and it's not always as progressive as we'd like.
Toggles has it right - New York City isn't New York State, just like Atlanta isn't Georgia. Those other, smaller cities and towns have their say, and it's not always as progressive as we'd like.
Still,
the lower house has recognized us as human for many years and they have representatives from all over.
This link is interesting.
the lower house has recognized us as human for many years and they have representatives from all over.
This link is interesting.
