Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Government The Media United States Politics

Fark's Drew Curtis Running For Governor of Kentucky 120

New submitter AlCapwn writes [Fark founder] Drew Curtis announced on Friday that he will be running for governor of Kentucky. "We have a theory that we're about to see a huge change in how elections and politics work. Across the country, we have seen regular citizens stepping up and challenging the status quo built by political parties and career politicians. They have been getting closer and closer to victory and, here in Kentucky, we believe we have a chance to win and break the political party stronghold for good."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fark's Drew Curtis Running For Governor of Kentucky

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25, 2015 @02:10PM (#48899203)

    I think this should be his campaign motto.

  • by jeffb (2.718) ( 1189693 ) on Sunday January 25, 2015 @02:11PM (#48899207)

    In the same sense that I'm getting closer and closer to Alpha Centauri.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      You'll never make it. Life on Earth will be consumed in a global warming fireball, according to St. Albert of Gore.
  • by Ksevio ( 865461 ) on Sunday January 25, 2015 @02:14PM (#48899231) Homepage
    As his first act - Caturday will be a recognized (weekly) holiday and Kentucky will adopt the squirrel as it's mascot.
  • by paiute ( 550198 ) on Sunday January 25, 2015 @02:15PM (#48899235)
    All he has to do is shadowban all the voters in the other party.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by plopez ( 54068 )

      The Republicans are already working on that.

  • by ohnocitizen ( 1951674 ) on Sunday January 25, 2015 @02:24PM (#48899293)
    This isn't new, we've seen candidates from outside the political establishment try to break in before. What irks me is here is a guy saying "I'm an outsider, support me" as if that and net neutrality ought to be enough. It isn't. I don't know where this guy stands on various matters of civil and human rights, taxation, health care, education, the environment, separation of church and state, etc.

    I'm even more suspicious when I see someone railing against "special interest groups", since many of the groups opposing net neutrality (like the EFF) count as special interest groups. That is just a catch all term for groups of people with money that spend it to influence politics. That includes groups we might oppose (like the Koch Brothers or "The Family") and groups we might support (FFRF and the EFF).

    If he is serious about winning, he needs to put his cards on the table and let the people he is running to represent know how he will support them on the things they care about. Even if it is simply "I will hold public opinion polls and honor their conclusion". Because right now he is a closed book.
    • by MickyTheIdiot ( 1032226 ) on Sunday January 25, 2015 @02:32PM (#48899329) Homepage Journal

      Comparing the EFF to someone like the Koch industries is kind of funny. It's kind of like comparing an ant to a steamroller. Even if the EFF is incredibly strong it isn't going to win.

    • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Sunday January 25, 2015 @02:33PM (#48899339)

      Even if it is simply "I will hold public opinion polls and honor their conclusion"

      So, you'd be OK with him supporting mandatory labeling on all foods that contain DNA? Because 80% of the population says they support their government helping them out with that.

      I'd never support a politician who says he'll do what the majority say they want. We don't need mob rule directly, or by proxy, either.

      • by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

        So, you'd be OK with him supporting mandatory labeling on all foods that contain DNA? Because 80% of the population says they support their government helping them out with that. I'd never support a politician who says he'll do what the majority say they want. We don't need mob rule directly, or by proxy, either.

        Correction: 80% of people said they agreed with the government's food labelling policy on food including DNA.

        That's literally the exact opposite of what you said. That's the majority following the lead of the government.

      • I never said I was ok with it, just that even something that crazy would count as at least letting people know how you would govern.
      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        So you oppose representative government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], hmm, interesting, have you been investigated lately because I am sure that there are a few people that would like to talk to you after that kind of statement. So you oppose the idea of a government of the people, by the people and for the people, interesting.

        So democracy is mob rule, hmm, OK.

        I am sure all the kings and queens of this world agree with you. All the leaders of police states. All those self serving autocrats.

        • So democracy is mob rule, hmm, OK.

          Yes, it is. Which is why the very smart people who wrote the US constitution chartered the country as a republic, not a democracy. And a good thing, too.

          • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            You want to know who also agrees with you, terrorists agree with you, which is why they use terror to force people to do things that the terrorists want them to do. Democracy ie representing the majority and informing them sufficiently so that they can make sound decisions was all about putting an end to the rule of the minority who kept power and maintained power via terror, the terror of public executions. Whether they call themselves kings or emperors or gods, we just call them all terrorists today and

            • You want to know who also agrees with you, terrorists agree with you, which is why they use terror to force people to do things that the terrorists want them to do.

              Really? You equate our constitutional system of checks and balances to terrorism? Terrorism is the simple majority deciding that they can tell you what to do. Are you OK with 51% of the population deciding that you no longer get to speak freely, because they don't like what you have to say? That's democracy. A constitutional republic (which we are, that's not really open for debate, even when you confuse it with something else, like a monarchy - and you're very confused, here) has tools in place to prevent

              • But that's not the only form democracy could take. There are several versions where the number of votes a person has on a given law gets increased the more he or she will be personally affected BY that law.

                So even if you get 90% of the people to vote that all gays should be put to death on a funeral pyre the law STILL wouldn't pass because the 10% voting against it would include the gay people and because they are only ones affected, and the way they are affected is so extreme - they would easily still get

                • So even if you get 90% of the people to vote that all gays should be put to death on a funeral pyre the law STILL wouldn't pass because the 10% voting against it would include the gay people and because they are only ones affected, and the way they are affected is so extreme

                  Really? So, you'd be in favor of the government making sure they know who is and who isn't gay in order properly run skewed elections and referenda? How about simply having a clause in your constitution that says (as ours does) that everyone is treated equally under the law? Isn't that simpler than getting the government involved in keeping lists of who is on which part of a given spectrum of sexual orientation or skin color, etc?

                  • Firstly - I never declared myself in favor of anything at all - I merely mentioned the existence of these ideas. Acknowledging that a concept exists is not, in and of itself, an endorsement of that concept.

                    Secondly - this particular version comes from anarchist philosophy. So there is no fear of what the government may or may not know as there IS no government at all.
                    Or alternatively - since all people get to vote on all laws and nobody ever has to live under any law they didn't get a direct say in... I sup

                    • Either way - in the absence of authority, there is no reason to fear the abuse of authority.

                      That's not really a system of thought, though, because it doesn't define a system. It describes the way that some people may, out of pure irrationality, imagine the world to work in their childish fantasies. When you get a bunch of people together and decide (look, a group decision!) that there will be no group decisions (?) forming any sort of authority or formal structure governing how they all interact, you're basically walking away from civilization. At best, you're setting up for medieval feudalism. T

                    • Erm... yes it does.
                      Anarchism does not equal chaos, it is not the absence of a system at all. It is merely doing away with one aspect of the system: the concept of wielding power over another.

                      That doesn't mean giving the ability to use power to everybody, it means giving it to NOBODY, and having systems and mechanisms to ensure that nobody CAN exercise power over anybody.

                      Anarchism isn't an absence of laws and rights, or even of law and rights enforcement, it's merely a system for passing laws, establishing r

    • by microcars ( 708223 ) on Sunday January 25, 2015 @02:41PM (#48899375) Homepage

      "No experiments. Leave people alone. And don't spend money that you don't have."

      Reference: http://bizlex.com/2015/01/excl... [bizlex.com]

      It should be noted that he is not scheduled to make a formal announcement until Monday (tomorrow).

      • "No experiments. Leave people alone. And don't spend money that you don't have."

        OK, so just that last part alone sounds a lot more like one party than the other. But we can't be uncool and admit that other people had ideas before us.

      • "No experiments. Leave people alone. And don't spend money that you don't have."

        It seems to me that governments should do more experiments, gather data on whether programs are actually working, and base future policies on empirical evidence.

        "Leave people alone" sounds great in theory, but where does he draw the line? If someone is robbing a gas station at gunpoint, should we leave them alone? What if they refuse to pay their taxes? What if they are dumping methyl mercury into a creek that flows into Louisville's water supply?

        "Don't spend money that you don't have" is already the law

    • by rwa2 ( 4391 ) * on Sunday January 25, 2015 @03:03PM (#48899485) Homepage Journal

      http://fark.com/ [fark.com] is as close to a bipartisan "internet tavern" as I've ever seen. They used to have a "political balance meter" to try to link to a roughly equal number of stories / threads with a "leftist" and "rightist" spin. Anyway, it's useful to (occasionally) see well-articulated thoughts and opinions from "the other side", or even just discussion of news events from different perspectives... stuff that more often devolves into flamewars or gets stuck or pigeonholed on other social media.

      That said, yeah, I know next to nothing about Drew, but it sounds like he might be a good moderator of useful discussion. Over beer.

      • by slaker ( 53818 ) on Sunday January 25, 2015 @05:31PM (#48900403)

        To be honest, most of the politics tab trolls (GaryPDX, HellBentForLeather, Bevets) have up and left or been banned and a lot of the former right-wing true believers with a shred of integrity (Weaver95, HubieStewart) of now have pinned some form of "I'm not a republican, I'm a libertarian" badge on in its place. Fark's Politics tab is mostly moderates and left-of-center types condemning republican talking points and making fun of the obvious trolls. That MIGHT change as we move closer to election season, but I think those with truly opposing viewpoints have scuttled off to Reddit or Freeperland.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25, 2015 @05:49PM (#48900493)

          That would be because there is no such thing as a Republican with integrity any more. That's not to say that the Democrats are a bastion of honesty or anything, but the Republican party has become the most repugnant major party in American political history. They are literally cartoon villains at this point. I hope that some day an actual left-wing party (as in, European left-wing) comes into existence, the Democrats can slide about half an inch to the right and take over where the Republicans left off as the right-wing party, and the Republicans can become the equivalent of a European nationalist party, existing only to suck extremist facist votes away from legitimate parties.

          • Democrats can slide about half an inch to the right and take over where the Republicans left off as the right-wing party

            That's already been the case. It's just not the perception.

            There is no left, or even left of center in the U.S. There's only right and far-right.

    • the EFF opposes net neutrality, what?

    • I really wanted to do the "boycott the reds and blues" thing last November. So I seriously looked at my alternative for my state governor. It was a libertarian who wanted to establish our own state currency backed by gold. Sigh.

      Great, so now instead of Fucker vs Fucker it's Fuckers vs Nuts. Is there somebody worth electing, anywhere?

  • by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Sunday January 25, 2015 @02:32PM (#48899327)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
    > I don't care what anyone says, the masses are morons. My own grandmother is an idiot. You can't count on them to pick good stuff. Just check out Network TV to see what the masses want for entertainment. There's certainly a place for that kind of thing but it's not on Fark. Now go away and let me finish taking a crap!

    And now he wants the "masses" help to elect him?

    Do you think that's air you're breathing? Hmmm...

    • by Livius ( 318358 )

      He clearly has less contempt for the masses that most other politicians, so he has that going for him.

    • At least he's honest enough to call you a whore when he nuts in your face rather than whisper sweet nothings in your ear while he fucks you in the ass.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    This can't be allowed to go unpunished. Lowtax needs to run for governor of Missouri...then Missouri should invade Kentucky.

  • Kentucky (Score:5, Funny)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Sunday January 25, 2015 @02:45PM (#48899393) Homepage Journal
    If you live outside of Kentucky you might only know them for their derby. What many people don't know is that Kentucky also makes some of the finest jelly around, and that many stores outside the state carry it. So if you've never had the experience, you should pop 'round to your local grocer and ask about Kentucky jelly today!
  • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Sunday January 25, 2015 @02:54PM (#48899441)
    US politics, thanks to judicial rule-writing, is forever tainted with money. "Regular citizens" have absolutely no chance to get elected, unless they sell-out in exchange for campaign contributions.

    If Jesus Christ returned and was running for congress today, we would probably see attack adds smearing his family, alleging connections to Romans, and questioning the time he spent on the cross.
    • If Jesus Christ returned and was running for congress today, we would probably see attack adds smearing his family, alleging connections to Romans, and questioning the time he spent on the cross.

      Turning water into wine? Bootlegging; producing alcohol without a license or paying taxes on it.

      Healing the sick? Practicing medicine without a license, and violating FDA rules.

      Walking on water? Illegally operating an unlicensed water vessel, without a license.

      Feeding a crowd with just two fish? McDonald's and Burger King would sue him, and demand an FDA inquiry into his kitchen methods.

      And, of course the racist crew would call him a "Jewish Bastard", which is kinda sorta technically correct.

      That'

      • >Turning water into wine? Bootlegging; producing alcohol without a license or paying taxes on it.

        And not charging for it. Clearly anti-capitalist.

        >Healing the sick? Practicing medicine without a license, and violating FDA rules.
        Also didn't charge or demand medical insurance - clearly an Obamacare socialist !

        >Feeding a crowd with just two fish? McDonald's and Burger King would sue him, and demand an FDA inquiry into his kitchen methods.

        Feeding the hungry sounds an awful lot like foodstamps to me.

        Bas

      • Telling the truth about the established politicos? That's a crucifyin'.

    • by mjm1231 ( 751545 )

      Notably missing from Mr. Curtis' statement is anything that would prevent him, or any other "citizen candidate", from taking campaign contributions from the same special interests, lobbyitsts, PACs, and corporate interests as the usual assortment of candidates.

  • I dread to think: what's the IRL equivalent of a shadow-ban?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Not having your own lobbyists.

  • we believe we have a chance to win and break the political party stronghold for good

    That'll last all of about 5 minutes after election, should he win. Then he realizes he has to spend all but about 1/2 hour a day asking rich people for money. One of the senior members of the state legislature will sit him down and explain how everything works and the next thing you hear from Mr Fark is how climate change is a hoax, coal is the cleanest form of energy and the Second Amendment was passed down to Moses dire

  • I assume his plan will be introduce a lot of "original" legislation, which is really just copied legislation he found somewhere else and slapped a huge watermark on.
  • Who would you run alongside Drew Curtis? Maddox to bring the conservative gravitas or moot for his free speech credentials?

  • The ever changing image for CNN has included -4600 for wolf blitzers epic fail on jeopardy to the current one here [fark.net]. The story as I read it was that CNN wanted him to pay for use of their logo and he decided to create his on.

  • Florida

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...