Export thread

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/08/breaking-perry-not-seeking-re-election-for-governor/

I literally jumped up screaming up and down cheering at this news.

We finally have a chance to actually join this century in every single aspect of morality and common sense.

Good I hate Gov goodhair I hope Debra Medina runs again she'll have my vote again!

Yeah, you can cheer all you want, but he's likely doing it to run for president in 2016. Look for him to be big against Hillary "OMFG BENGHAZI!!!" Clinton. I guarantee Benghazi will be the clarion call against her.

"And you should've been gooooone!!"

Oh wait, that's STEVE Perry.

Cheesy1 said:

"And you should've been gooooone!!"

Oh wait, that's STEVE Perry.

Click to expand...

I said no more Journey psyche outs!

"Oooo, tough break Squeak!"
"Yeah, now you gotta go fetch the ball Bitch."

Dave said:

Yeah, you can cheer all you want, but he's likely doing it to run for president in 2016. Look for him to be big against Hillary "OMFG BENGHAZI!!!" Clinton. I guarantee Benghazi will be the clarion call against her.

Click to expand...

Whats more likely is that Perry is gonna lose in the primaries and just be done with politics. There are a lot of conservative nutjobs in the US, but I think he's just going to get less and less popular as time goes on.

I think I speak for all Texans when I say we're glad he's dropping out.

I can't remember how often I heard "Man I hate having Rick Perry as governor. I just wish there was some way to get rid of him WITHOUT electing a Democrat."

Yeah, he seems to do a lot of social conservative stuff that is not appealing to those who just want the politically conservative aspects of the GOP.

GasBandit said:

I think I speak for all Texans when I say we're glad he's dropping out.

I can't remember how often I heard "Man I hate having Rick Perry as governor. I just wish there was some way to get rid of him WITHOUT electing a Democrat."

Click to expand...

And you said... So vote for a different republican and they were all like" durr that's stoopied "I've had that discussion with people before.

CrimsonSoul said:

And you said... So vote for a different republican and they were all like" durr that's stoopied "I've had that discussion with people before.

Click to expand...

Kay Bailey Hutchison would not have been much of an improvement.

Actually, I said "vote for a Libertarian" and the rest of the discussion was similar.

/go go gadget Kathie Glass

GasBandit said:

Kay Bailey Hutchison would not have been much of an improvement.

Actually, I said "vote for a Libertarian" and the rest of the discussion was similar.

/go go gadget Kathie Glass

Click to expand...

And I'm out & ignoring everything else you have to say on the subject. Her ramblings include such gems as, "Mexico is a failed state." and the abolition of property taxes to fund schools. Indeed, she proposes to defund ALL schools and also remove truancy laws. Who needs all them poor kids getting themselves learnin'? Her platform should be "privatize everything", which we all know just does not fucking work. When you privatize everything and have no governmental oversight, you get things like Enron, the housing crisis, the bank bailouts, the prison-industrial complex, etc. etc. etc. Big business is already running everything, last thing we need is another lunatic championing them and catering to their every whim.[DOUBLEPOST=1373314919][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh, and don't forget she wants interstate sales of all guns without licensing restrictions. Yeah, she's not a nutjob at all.[DOUBLEPOST=1373315050][/DOUBLEPOST]

Tress said:

Perry is not going to make it through the primaries, and he certainly won't win a general election. He's got problems with three major voting groups: women, minorities, and...the uhhh...what's the third one there...let's see...uh...I can't think of the third. Sorry.

Oops.

Click to expand...

You underestimate the power of the idiot voting block. Poor, under-educated people voting against their own issues. We call these people Southern Republicans and "Libertarians". I say that in quotes because I've never met one that didn't espouse republican ideologies out of one side of their mouth without denying their obvious roots from the other.[DOUBLEPOST=1373315080][/DOUBLEPOST]And weird how I posted after you and it quoted you in a double post above. Huh.

Dave said:

Yeah, you can cheer all you want, but he's likely doing it to run for president in 2016. Look for him to be big against Hillary "OMFG BENGHAZI!!!" Clinton. I guarantee Benghazi will be the clarion call against her.

Click to expand...

Perry is not going to make it through the primaries, and he certainly won't win a general election. He's got problems with three major voting groups: women, minorities, and...the uhhh...what's the third one there...let's see...uh...I can't think of the third. Sorry.

Oops.

Dave said:

You underestimate the power of the idiot voting block. Poor, under-educated people voting against their own issues. We call these people Southern Republicans and "Libertarians". I say that in quotes because I've never met one that didn't espouse republican ideologies out of one side of their mouth without denying their obvious roots from the other.

Click to expand...

First of all, my main goal was to make a joke. Let's be clear on that.

Second, you are dramatically overestimating Perry and his support. I could understand thinking he has a shot in 2016 if he had lost to President Obama in the general. Maybe I could have understood if he came in a close second to Romney in the primary. But he went up in flames early on, and he's done nothing to fix his problems since then. It's not going to happen.

The poor idiots will find someone else to support against their own interests.

Dave said:

And I'm out & ignoring everything else you have to say on the subject. Her ramblings include such gems as, "Mexico is a failed state."

Click to expand...

It is. Dude, haven't you seen the least bit of what's going on in mexico the last decade? The government has pretty much lost all control of the north half of the country to direct control by drug cartels. They've been hemorrhaging citizenry over our border for as long as any of us have been alive and longer. The only other nation that loses citizens that fast that I can recall was East Germany when the wall came down.

and the abolition of property taxes to fund schools. Indeed, she proposes to defund ALL schools and also remove truancy laws. Who needs all them poor kids getting themselves learnin'? Her platform should be "privatize everything", which we all know just does not fucking work. When you privatize everything and have no governmental oversight, you get things like Enron, the housing crisis, the bank bailouts, the prison-industrial complex, etc. etc. etc. Big business is already running everything, last thing we need is another lunatic championing them and catering to their every whim. Oh, and don't forget she wants interstate sales of all guns without licensing restrictions. Yeah, she's not a nutjob at all.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree that she's got a lot of ideas that won't work. But to have a Libertarian, ANY Libertarian, in the governor's office would be a strong impetus for the reduction of government. The more out-there ideas will get shot down by the still-just-Rs-and-Ds state legislature, but the tone will be set for the momentum of government to start moving in the right direction.

IE, it doesn't have to be Glass. Any Libertarian will do. She's just the one who ran in 2010. It'll more than likely be someone different this time.

Dave said:

Yeah, you can cheer all you want, but he's likely doing it to run for president in 2016. Look for him to be big against Hillary "OMFG BENGHAZI!!!" Clinton. I guarantee Benghazi will be the clarion call against her.

Click to expand...

Let's hope so. This guy is the best thing to happen to the Daily Show in ages.

I still day Debra Medina

You know who I'd vote for for President? Chris Christie. You know why? Because even though I don't agree with all of his platforms, I believe that he believes what he says. Also, I believe he takes his responsibility to his constituents seriously, so much so that he pissed off his own party to do so. I'd take a guy I don't agree with but can trust any day over someone I thought I could trust but couldn't...Obama.

I still don't understand the appeal of a reduced government. The way I see it, we tried that already. It was called "most of human history".

fade said:

I still don't understand the appeal of a reduced government. The way I see it, we tried that already. It was called "most of human history".

Click to expand...

Not sure which human history you're talking about, but most of ours consisted of absolute authoritarianism.

But surely you don't think that, at 9 trillion a year and rising fast, the one thing we can't possibly try is maybe a little less government?

Well, technically,
First appearance of modern man: 160 kA
First appearance of organized cities: ~40-20 kA

Before that, the evidence is for more egalitarian, hunter-gatherer type life.

But I was really being more philosophical. I kind of meant that I see a monarchy or dictatorship as the direct result of removing some sort of imposed structure.

fade said:

Well, technically,
First appearance of modern man: 160 kA
First appearance of organized cities: ~40-20 kA

Before that, the evidence is for more egalitarian, hunter-gatherer type life.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is, when we really gave minimal government a chance, it was idyllic?

But I was really being more philosophical. I kind of meant that I see a monarchy or dictatorship as the direct result of removing some sort of imposed structure.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I would argue the "size" of government is more measured by how much control and influence it has in the lives of the governed. Even monetarily, however, most monarchies have sucked up a great deal of the available wealth.

But this concept of the overriding importance of individual liberty is a pretty new thing, since we stopped wearing animal skins and figured out the trick was to bang the rocks together.

GasBandit said:

So what you're saying is, when we really gave minimal government a chance, it was idyllic?

Click to expand...

I know you're joking, but that idyllic life worked in a radically different world. It didn't have constant interaction of 7 billion people, nor did it have resource shortages. The personal merit reward idea worked perfectly because if you went out and busted your chops for a mammoth, well there was actually a mammoth to take.

I do take issue with the idea of unchecked personal liberty. Freedom at the expense of someone else's is no longer freedom, it's a tyranny, no matter how small.

fade said:

I know you're joking, but that idyllic life worked in a radically different world. It didn't have constant interaction of 7 billion people, nor did it have resource shortages. The personal merit reward idea worked perfectly because if you went out and busted your chops for a mammoth, well there was actually a mammoth to take.

Click to expand...

You're right, I was poking fun at how you started out saying it'd "been tried" as if to say it was discounted as a failure, then referred to it as "egalitarian."

I do take issue with the idea of personal liberty. Freedom at the expense of someone else's is no longer freedom, it's a tyranny, no matter how small.

Click to expand...

Ah, the tyranny of the individual! Only the thoroughly subjugated are truly free, eh?

Of course one's rights to swing his fist end where the face of his neighbor begins, but it doesn't take trillions to maintain civil order. It does take trillions to impose social dogma.

Whoa, I hold you above the "if you disagree with my point, you must hold the extreme opposite belief" argument.

There's always social dogma. Social is dogma. The idea that personal liberty trumps all is a social dogma. It just costs less. Well, dollars anyway.

Dave said:

Yeah, you can cheer all you want, but he's likely doing it to run for president in 2016. Look for him to be big against Hillary "OMFG BENGHAZI!!!" Clinton. I guarantee Benghazi will be the clarion call against her.

Click to expand...

Just send him some syrup and he'll forget he's even running.

fade said:

Whoa, I hold you above the "if you disagree with my point, you must hold the extreme opposite belief" argument.

There's always social dogma. Social is dogma. The idea that personal liberty trumps all is a social dogma. It just costs less. Well, dollars anyway.

Click to expand...

Then I ask again - surely you are not of the opinion that, at 9 trillion a year and rising fast, the one thing we can't possibly try is maybe a little less government?

I'm not an anarchist here. I'm not saying abolish government, I'm saying reduce it. Hell, compared to today, Clinton's government was downright libertarian.

Could this news BE any better?

... I was doing Matthew Perry there, in case anyone couldn't tell.

Also, what are the chances of the Republican Party nominating an even bigger nutjob as Perry's successor?

bhamv3 said:

Could this news BE any better?

... I was doing Matthew Perry there, in case anyone couldn't tell.

Also, what are the chances of the Republican Party nominating an even bigger nutjob as Perry's successor?

Click to expand...

It'd be pretty hard to top Perry, he was pretty high up there with everything that's wrong with a Politician/Republican/Person.

Gilgamesh said:

It'd be pretty hard to top Perry, he was pretty high up there with everything that's wrong with a Politician/Republican/Person.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know anything about anyone in the running, so I'll take your word for it. It's just that every time humanity has ever said "this is the worst it could possibly get", things would usually get even worse.

Right now, the field for the republican primary is as follows, according to wikipedia (since Lt. Gov David Dewhurst has declined to run):

• Larry Kilgore, perennial candidate and Texas secessionist[1]
• Miriam Martinez, former Univision personality[2]
• Tom Pauken, former Texas Workforce Commissioner, former chairman of the Republican Party of Texas[3]

Did any of those folks try to run last time and just get ignored? Because It's getting so hard to tell the nutjobs from the frontrunners in the republican party that I have to ask that question. That secessionist could be leading the pack in a year and I wouldn't be surprised.

Espy said:

Did any of those folks try to run last time and just get ignored? Because It's getting so hard to tell the nutjobs from the frontrunners in the republican party that I have to ask that question. That secessionist could be leading the pack in a year and I wouldn't be surprised.

Click to expand...

I don't believe so. The 2010 tx gov R primary I think was just three people, and two of them were Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison. So I may be mistaken but I think these are all fresh faces.

GasBandit said:

I don't believe so. The 2010 tx gov R primary I think was just three people, and two of them were Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison. So I may be mistaken but I think these are all fresh faces.

Click to expand...

One of them was Debra Medina she's just the best she's on paper as a republican but has a lot of libertarian learnings

CrimsonSoul said:

One of them was Debra Medina she's just the best she's on paper as a republican but has a lot of libertarian learnings

Click to expand...

Is your keyboard broken i mean i dont see any punctuation you just have this awful run on sentence word vomit

Tress said:

Is your keyboard broken i mean i dont see any punctuation you just have this awful run on sentence word vomit

Click to expand...

I was on my phone, I almost always post on my phone.

Generally speaking, it's not very common for electable candidates who've lost previous elections to engage in consecutive elections. If Perry's not running for re-election, it's because he needs to distance himself from his failure in 2012 in order to become electable again. Even then, it's unlikely he'll ever see the same success again.

2016, Republicans realize that if they want to win, they have to be even more extreme religious right--dark ages style.

AshburnerX said:

Generally speaking, it's not very common for electable candidates who've lost previous elections to engage in consecutive elections. If Perry's not running for re-election, it's because he needs to distance himself from his failure in 2012 in order to become electable again. Even then, it's unlikely he'll ever see the same success again.

Click to expand...

I would wager it is more likely to establish his conservative credentials to a wider audience and turn it into a business, a-la Newt Gingrich.

Krisken said:

I would wager it is more likely to establish his conservative credentials to a wider audience and turn it into a business, a-la Newt Gingrich.

Click to expand...

That's what they do when their political aspirations have dried up, so that would be the most obvious next move. It really does show where Republican priorities lie when most of the politically successful ones give up politics to make money on the convention circuit, while most Democrats turn their attention toward advancing actual causes.

AshburnerX said:

That's what they do when their political aspirations have dried up, so that would be the most obvious next move. It really does show where Republican priorities lie when most of the politically successful ones give up politics to make money on the convention circuit, while most Democrats turn their attention toward advancing actual causes.

Click to expand...

I think quite a few Democrats do that, but there are those few who turn it into a business. When Spitzer was disgraced he ended up on the talk show circuit, and we all know Al Gore turned his attention to making money by pushing clean fuels.

Quotemander Prime said:

2016, Republicans realize that if they want to win, they have to be even more extreme religious right--dark ages style.

Click to expand...

It has often been said that the countries closest resembling where the extreme religious wing of the Republican party wants to go, are Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Moving ever-further into religious extremism will either be a winning move, plunging all of the US back into a dark cesspool of ignorance, or it'll see that part of the party imploding/breaking up and may modernize American politics along some new lines. Let's hope for the second.

Rick Perry doesn't run for president again. While I'm sure he's delusional to try again, he won't. He'll end up going to Fox News as a contributor to condemn the lamestream media for not supporting him, joining all the other washed out conservatives with a persecution complex. Because he never caused anybody harm, you know.

Zappit said:

Rick Perry doesn't run for president again. While I'm sure he's delusional to try again, he won't. He'll end up going to Fox News as a contributor to condemn the lamestream media for not supporting him, joining all the other washed out conservatives with a persecution complex. Because he never caused anybody harm, you know.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, besides Fox, what other networks should conservatives go to/would be welcomed at? Correct me if I'm wrong, but networks like CNN or MSNBC aren't overflowing in their love for the conservative viewpoint. It's fun to point and laugh when a politically aligned conservative ends up at Fox, but where else were they supposed to go?

I call bullshit. There's quite a few conservatives on both those networks, either with their own show or as contributors. The conservatives who end up on Fox get made fun of because they're always the people who can't handle having their views challenged.

Krisken said:

I call bullshit. There's quite a few conservatives on both those networks, either with their own show or as contributors. The conservatives who end up on Fox get made fun of because they're always the people who can't handle having their views challenged.

Click to expand...

So, does that logic apply then to liberals who end up as contributors for Fox?

Terrik said:

So, does that logic apply then to liberals who end up as contributors for Fox?

Click to expand...

Sure, why not? The liberals I've seen in Fox have either been wet noodles or else they get their mic pulled. THAT is why Fox gets so much shit from people. CNN is just sad and MSNBC is trying too hard to be liberal Fox. I honestly can't stand any cable 'news'.

I agree with Krisken but I'll go one step further: ALL the 24 news channels are shit and people should be ashamed if they use them as a source of news.

Espy said:

I agree with Krisken but I'll go one step further: ALL the 24 news channels are shit and people should be ashamed if they use them as a source of news.

Click to expand...

I use Jon Stewart and then Stephen Colbert. That way I get both sides. Am I doing it right?

Gilgamesh said:

I use Jon Stewart and then Stephen Colbert. That way I get both sides. Am I doing it right?

Click to expand...

Yes. You are doing it right.