Which posters are RIABNs?

[Sbane]

I just don't think she would have been a good governor. She would have been a clueless outsider like Schwarzenegger. Tom Campbell could have actually dealt with the legislature imo. Brown can do that too. Or he can sell out to the unions, not cut spending and try to get voters to raise taxes. That is not going to end well.

[tpfkaw]

I just don't think she would have been a good governor. She would have been a clueless outsider like Schwarzenegger. Tom Campbell could have actually dealt with the legislature imo. Brown can do that too. Or he can sell out to the unions, not cut spending and try to get voters to raise taxes. That is not going to end well.

I'll bet you any amount of money you want that is exactly what he'll do.

[Sbane]

I just don't think she would have been a good governor. She would have been a clueless outsider like Schwarzenegger. Tom Campbell could have actually dealt with the legislature imo. Brown can do that too. Or he can sell out to the unions, not cut spending and try to get voters to raise taxes. That is not going to end well.

I'll bet you any amount of money you want that is exactly what he'll do.

You're probably right. And now that you can pass a budget with a majority vote, the blame will fall squarely on them. California already has some of the highest taxes in the nation. Except for maybe repealing Prop 13 for businesses, I don't see any new taxes the legislature can convince voters to implement (and even prop 13 is basically untouchable). Spending needs to be cut, there is no other option.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

As it's amusing for Mechaman to watch Liberals and Cosnervatives argue, it's amusing for me to watch two Libertarians duke it out to say what's Libertarian and what isn't.

[Sewer]

Why wouldn't you vote for Meg Whitman?  She's quite moderate, and certainly a very qualified and intelligent individual.

fail

[Vepres]

Vepres probably is. His support for Buck confuzzled and disappointed me.

It was more anti-Bennet near the end there.

[Хahar 🤔]

Why wouldn't you vote for Meg Whitman?  She's quite moderate, and certainly a very qualified and intelligent individual.

Because she's a terrible person and would make a terrible governor, perhaps?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why wouldn't you vote for Meg Whitman?  She's quite moderate, and certainly a very qualified and intelligent individual.

500,000 new H-1Bs per year, and eliminating the capital gains tax is moderate? I'd hate to know what an extremist is like.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

As it's amusing for Mechaman to watch Liberals and Cosnervatives argue, it's amusing for me to watch two Libertarians duke it out to say what's Libertarian and what isn't.

Who's duking it out with regard to "what's Libertarian and what isn't?" That's not what's going on.

It's just a bit baffling to consider some of the candidates wormyguy is supporting as a libertarian.

I certainly can't see any reason to have voted for Meg Whitman.

[Хahar 🤔]

As it's amusing for Mechaman to watch Liberals and Cosnervatives argue, it's amusing for me to watch two Libertarians duke it out to say what's Libertarian and what isn't.

Who's duking it out with regard to "what's Libertarian and what isn't?" That's not what's going on.

It's just a bit baffling to consider some of the candidates wormyguy is supporting as a libertarian.

I certainly can't see any reason to have voted for Meg Whitman.

See, he's a Republican, and Meg Whitman was the Republican candidate. I can certainly see the reason.

[Franzl]

Jerry Brown will be a better governor than Whitman could ever have hoped to be....totally disregarding political views, IMO

[Torie]

Jerry Brown will be a better governor than Whitman could ever have hoped to be....totally disregarding political views, IMO

It will be interesting to see if Brown becomes to public employees what Clinton was to welfare reform. I don't think anyone will be tempted to mess with Prop 13 while real estate is in the tank.

[tpfkaw]

FYI I wouldn't have voted for Meg Whitman.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

As it's amusing for Mechaman to watch Liberals and Cosnervatives argue, it's amusing for me to watch two Libertarians duke it out to say what's Libertarian and what isn't.

Who's duking it out with regard to "what's Libertarian and what isn't?" That's not what's going on.

It's just a bit baffling to consider some of the candidates wormyguy is supporting as a libertarian.

I certainly can't see any reason to have voted for Meg Whitman.

See, he's a Republican, and Meg Whitman was the Republican candidate. I can certainly see the reason.

I'm not arguing for or against voting for Whitman (though I most likely would have voted for her), I'm saying that it's amusing just to sit back and watch two Libertarians (I'm assuming Libertas is basically Libertarian) fight over what's Libertarians and what's not, specifically because it has no beargin on the rest of the world unless you're a Libertarian.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I don't consider myself to be democrat, thus I am not one, correct?

I voted for Tom Campbell in the primary and I certainly would have considered voting for him in the general. The national Republican party really scares me though, so maybe not. Definitely would have raised the level of discourse in the senate if he had been elected and Boxer defeated. I would have most likely voted for Campbell for the governor's race, if he had stuck with it and won the primary. The problem is that the Republicans never nominate a candidate I can vote for. And many of their candidates in other parts of the country really piss me off. If that makes me a Democrat, then so be it.

Yes, it does. There's a reason why you're criticizing only the Republican party. That's why I'm not buying into your being an "independent". You may not be a Democrat on paper, but you have too much in common with them, so I can't really consider you an independent.

[Sbane]

I don't consider myself to be democrat, thus I am not one, correct?

I voted for Tom Campbell in the primary and I certainly would have considered voting for him in the general. The national Republican party really scares me though, so maybe not. Definitely would have raised the level of discourse in the senate if he had been elected and Boxer defeated. I would have most likely voted for Campbell for the governor's race, if he had stuck with it and won the primary. The problem is that the Republicans never nominate a candidate I can vote for. And many of their candidates in other parts of the country really piss me off. If that makes me a Democrat, then so be it.

Yes, it does. There's a reason why you're criticizing only the Republican party. That's why I'm not buying into your being an "independent". You may not be a Democrat on paper, but you have too much in common with them, so I can't really consider you an independent.

The Republican party annoys me/ has way more disgusting personalities within it than the Democratic party. Doesn't mean that everything the Democratic party does is golden.

 I am an independent because I don't wish to identify with either political party. Though I realize the two party system traps you with two false choices. I vote for who I think is the best candidate who also has a chance of winning. And if I view the Democrats as the lesser of two evils in most cases, so what? It is quite possible that in the future the Democrats will go hard left on economic issues, like trying to create universal daycare or something. And if Republicans at that time are more moderate, for example realizing that healthcare is a right but it can be delivered more efficiently, I can certainly entertain voting for them. I actually did vote for a moderate Republican this year, but it was for state legislature. I doubt he could win a Republican primary in California, especially due to the crazies in the central valley and OC. Or at least he would have to go hard right. And therein lies the issue.

[Mechaman]

As it's amusing for Mechaman to watch Liberals and Cosnervatives argue, it's amusing for me to watch two Libertarians duke it out to say what's Libertarian and what isn't.

Who's duking it out with regard to "what's Libertarian and what isn't?" That's not what's going on.

It's just a bit baffling to consider some of the candidates wormyguy is supporting as a libertarian.

I certainly can't see any reason to have voted for Meg Whitman.

See, he's a Republican, and Meg Whitman was the Republican candidate. I can certainly see the reason.

I'm not arguing for or against voting for Whitman (though I most likely would have voted for her), I'm saying that it's amusing just to sit back and watch two Libertarians (I'm assuming Libertas is basically Libertarian) fight over what's Libertarians and what's not, specifically because it has no beargin on the rest of the world unless you're a Libertarian.

Yeah those kind of debates have been bothering me for the past few months.  Which is why I have stopped interjecting myself into so-called "purist" debates.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Yeah those kind of debates have been bothering me for the past few months.  Which is why I have stopped interjecting myself into so-called "purist" debates.

So, why are you still on this forum?

[Mechaman]

Yeah those kind of debates have been bothering me for the past few months.  Which is why I have stopped interjecting myself into so-called "purist" debates.

So, why are you still on this forum?

Search: Alternate History and What If?