Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: culero on November 06, 2006, 11:30:30 PM
-
If you're Texan, vote Kinky.
culero (finally decided)
-
I don't know what's sadder. The fact that Kinky is a socialist, or that my candidate for Pennsylvania got sued off of the ballot from some insane restrictions.
I think I'll sit this one out and just hope that the revolution is 2 years closer as a result of it.
-
My sig says it all.
-
"“It’s not just another campaign. It’s what Sam Houston fought for, what Davy Crockett died for. The whole landscape is going to change." - Kinky Friedman"
I don't know about a Texan who's heroes aren't even from Texas.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
"“It’s not just another campaign. It’s what Sam Houston fought for, what Davy Crockett died for. The whole landscape is going to change." - Kinky Friedman"
I don't know about a Texan who's heroes aren't even from Texas.
In 1836 there weren't a whole lot of native Texans that one could look up to. I'll give Kinky a pass on this one.
Heck, even Gus and Woodrow were probably only in the late teens at this point.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
In 1836 there weren't a whole lot of native Texans that one could look up to. I'll give Kinky a pass on this one.
Heck, even Gus and Woodrow were probably only in the late teens at this point.
But this is 2006... that's uh... carry the one...170 years ago! You could pick from George Bu... no....George W ... no... Roger Stauba... no
Okay, How about Dan Rath... no... Clyde Barr... no.... T Boone Pick... no...
Ain't there anybody from Texas worth bein' a hero other than Willie and Dandy Don?
-
Skuzzy?
:D
-
something tells me someone named "Kinky" will not get elected in Texas, maybe California but not Texas ...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
something tells me someone named "Kinky" will not get elected in Texas, maybe California but not Texas ...
Maybe not up near Waco and Dallas. Austin, definitely.
-
well you know what they say about texans who don't have horns. kinky for governor seems to fit the picture in perfect stride.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I don't know what's sadder. The fact that Kinky is a socialist
snip
Assumption, not fact. If he does get elected and proves to be too far in that direction, I'll be disappointed. However, he is independent, and the major party candidates are all sold-out political hacks. I'm going with the one candidate I see who will be free to do as he sees fit.
culero
-
he is a socialist of the highest order and dishonest about it besides.. his website is more obscure about what he believes in than any kalifornia politician.
Anyone who votes for him is either a socialist or extremely easily conned or... wants something that kinky is telling them he will take away from someone else to give them.
sad to see texans sinking to the kalifornia mentality..
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
he is a socialist of the highest order and dishonest about it besides.. his website is more obscure about what he believes in than any kalifornia politician.
Anyone who votes for him is either a socialist or extremely easily conned or... wants something that kinky is telling them he will take away from someone else to give them.
sad to see texans sinking to the kalifornia mentality..
lazs
lazs, you missed my point. My vote for Kinky isn't for any of the reasons you express, although I agree he's uncomfortably vague on many issues and does fall too far left on many that he's specific about. My vote is because:
1) The incumbent Republican is a proven scoundrel by virtue of his record as governor.
2) The two Democrat candidates seem like bought-and-paid-for political hacks to me.
3) I believe that in this case its better to throw the bastards out and let in the independent who doesn't have ties with the current major parties - even if its likely I won't like a lot of what he does. What I most want is to shake up the current corrupt bureacracy.
FYI, I am voting pretty much a straight Libertarian Party ticket otherwise. I actually am not happy that Kinky is the clear "least of the evils" candidate. I wish there was a candidate I could vote for because he's the one I really want in office.
culero (does have wide open eyes on this)
-
Lazs, we have more California transplants than native Texans anymore. :)
If Kinky manages to win (doubt it) be prepared for a lot of frustration and disappointment. If you think the seated parties in the Texas houses will allow him to accomplish anything, you are in for a big surprise.
They would, instead, be doing everything they can to discredit him while making him look like the bad guy. Given how many of you actually believe the press, you would be ready to hang him after about 3 months.
Not saying voting ooutside the box is a bad thing, just do not allow yourself to believe it will actually do some good for Texas.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But this is 2006... that's uh... carry the one...170 years ago! You could pick from George Bu... no....George W ... no... Roger Stauba... no
Okay, How about Dan Rath... no... Clyde Barr... no.... T Boone Pick... no...
Ain't there anybody from Texas worth bein' a hero other than Willie and Dandy Don?
Stevie Ray Vaughn!!!
-
The top two in the Texas Governor's race are both Republicans. If Strayhorn wasn't running Perry would probably get twice the votes of second place.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
If Kinky manages to win (doubt it) be prepared for a lot of frustration and disappointment. If you think the seated parties in the Texas houses will allow him to accomplish anything, you are in for a big surprise.
Then how do you change the Texas houses?
-
In order to make any change significant, you have to start at the bottom and work your way up. In politics, you cannot start at the top and work your way down. You are just wasting time if you do that.
You can only break the entrenchment of the current parties by booting them at the lower levels first. Then, and only then, will you be able to gather enough momentum to break the stranglehold they have.
-
But specifically how do you change the houses? Is there a separate vote for the seats, or are they derived from this vote or what?
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
In order to make any change significant, you have to start at the bottom and work your way up. In politics, you cannot start at the top and work your way down. You are just wasting time if you do that.
You can only break the entrenchment of the current parties by booting them at the lower levels first. Then, and only then, will you be able to gather enough momentum to break the stranglehold they have.
The man speaks the truth.
Further, I might add, you can only enact such a BASIC change in the primary races to any real effect. Once you get to the general election, the problem remains that you don't get much of a choice, unless you've been able to make a change at the primary. Otherwise, you choose between operatives of the two machines, AKA the lesser of two evils.
-
Each district has their own representative and votes determine who that rep is. Issues in the house are voted on by each rep who are free to vote their conscience. Most usually vote along party lines.
-
I see, thanks.
-
Too bad the TV series "West Wing" failed. Was a nice safe escape for liberals. Now they're all probably gonna want to vote. :p
-
Originally posted by Viking
But specifically how do you change the houses? Is there a separate vote for the seats, or are they derived from this vote or what?
Each seat is held by an individual. That individual may be a member of any party, however is likely to be a member of one of the two major parties.
But he is elected on individual votes, and not just a strict party line vote.
Meaning you do not HAVE to vote a straight party line. You CAN, but you don't HAVE to. On problem we have is people DO vote a straight party line.
As posted above I voted for a few of each. It was actually close to equal. For various reasons. But unlike some systems, you do not merely make one choice, either or. There used to be that option in places, but I have not seen a voting machine that you could automaticly vote a party line with one choice or switch in a few years. I know people who still do it.
It'd be nice if someone could post a ballot picture so Viking could see what we're talking about. I can't seem to find one. lack of education on my part I'm sure.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
In order to make any change significant, you have to start at the bottom and work your way up. In politics, you cannot start at the top and work your way down. You are just wasting time if you do that.
You can only break the entrenchment of the current parties by booting them at the lower levels first. Then, and only then, will you be able to gather enough momentum to break the stranglehold they have.
especially where concerned with 3rd parties. if ever there is to be a viable one it will have begin on the local level.
ahem (vote libertarian) ahem.
:)
-
My apologies Viking. I misunderstood what you were asking.
-
I don't understand... Are you guys saying that there is no libertarian candidate for governor of Texas?
I am also baffled that any libertarian would vote for kinky. He is the exact oppossite of anything a libertarian would believe in... unless... smoking pot is the biggest issue. I am sure he could get in tune with that.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
My apologies Viking. I misunderstood what you were asking.
I should have framed my question better, it was very open to interpretation. :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't understand... Are you guys saying that there is no libertarian candidate for governor of Texas?
I am also baffled that any libertarian would vote for kinky. He is the exact oppossite of anything a libertarian would believe in... unless... smoking pot is the biggest issue. I am sure he could get in tune with that.
lazs
lazs, yes there is a full ticket from the Libertarian Party, including for governor.
However, I don't believe in mindlessly allowing my prejudices (many of which I share with you) to cause me to vote straight tickets. I look at the candidates as people first, then decide.
In this case, I don't evaluate the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate as having a chance to win. Kinky possibly does, which would put an independent in office. In Texas, much of what government does is done by people the governor appoints. I see this as an opportunity to have some corrupt appointees thrown out. I'm making the choice with eyes wide open as to Kinky's liberal agendas. I'm looking for sunshine, which is certain to be the result of all the scrutiny he will receive if elected.
As to the rest of my vote...
I voted for the incumbent Republican Senator (Kaye Bailey Hutchinson) because I am happy with her.
I voted for the incumbent Democrat congressman because his Republican opponent is a Bible-thumping Christian right-wing fanatic and I wanna help make sure that bastard doesn't get in.
And I voted a straight Libertarian ticket for the 30-odd remaining state offices.
Sometimes practicality is more important than ideology.
culero
-
Ok...still not getting it here... If kinky got in (he didn't of course) then that would send what message?
All I can see is that it would send the message that you were unhappy with the level of taxation and socialism and protection of the environment and wanted to be more your-0-peeean with a much larger government.
how is that a good thing?
Sure.. he might throw out some republicans and keep some radical democrats and appoint some commies but.... How is that good?
lazs