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."
Still no cure for cancer. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this should be his campaign motto.
Re: (Score:2)
If he used "Duke Sucks" it would lose him some votes.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah, boobies!
No, they always called it foobies, and moved that stuff to their own domain once they got "serious".
http://foobies.com/ [foobies.com]
They also used to have a "weeners" tag for the ladies (and dudes of a certain persuasion), but not sure what happened to all that content after they cleaned up.
Re: (Score:2)
"getting closer and closer to victory..." (Score:3)
In the same sense that I'm getting closer and closer to Alpha Centauri.
Re: (Score:1)
Official Caturday (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Official Caturday (Score:4, Funny)
Haha, yeah, I remember back when all that was on fark.com was a picture of that squirrel with the oversized genitals. Heck, I knew him before Fark.com, when he was the wizard Cletus on the mud Three Kingdoms.
God I feel old...
Re:Official Caturday (Score:5, Funny)
As a native son of the Great State of Kentucky, it is my solemn duty to inform you that the squirrel is already our state bird.
Re: (Score:1)
and he will officially be at odds with Florida.
He'll win in a landslide (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Republicans are already working on that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Voter fraud is a nonissue fearmongered and blown out of proportion to enact the real disenfranchisement: Republicans pass laws making voting harder for blacks and the poor.
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol... [theatlantic.com]
It's interesting because it's a last ditch desperate effort to preserve a voting base of old white conservative people which is quite literally dying off.
Then there is the gerrymandering to make sure the Republican voters always dominate in any given Rorschach ink blot of a voting "district."
But after that
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
And yet the Democrats won't be satisfied if you help the poor get IDs or anything... no, they want people to be able to vote with no ID at all, so we can't tell what's going on. They bus people around to every which polling place and scream that people are oppressing them if you try to call them on the voter fraud. You note that they're just as happy as the Republicans to keep voting unaccountable.
Re: He'll win in a landslide (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fraud by ineligeable voters is a ridiculously inefficient and costly way to rig an election.
You sound like you think that either party would consider that a reason not to do something.
Re: (Score:3)
Fraud by ineligeable voters is a ridiculously inefficient and costly way to rig an election.
You sound like you think that either party would consider that a reason not to do something.
Nope, I'm thinking from the point of view of someone who wants to win an election. Counting on ineligeable voters to show up is risky, and if I wanted to make sure my guy came out ahead, I wouldn't bet all the marbles on that scheme. I'd mess with the machines or the accounting software. Much cleaner and, if done right, leaves no trace. Or, I'd take advantage of defects in the voting system itself (hanging chads, for example).
Whatever you might think of political parties (and I probably share your fe
Re: (Score:1)
because random bus people are a grave threat to democracy
unlike gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, plutocratic corruption...
Re: (Score:1)
yes, that's real
but do you consider that as big a problem as purposefully disenfranchising poor and black people with ridiculous id hurdles, gerrymandering bullshit districts, and rich people and corporations perverting the people's will with legalized corruption?
Re: (Score:1)
"but do you consider that as big a problem as purposefully disenfranchising poor and black people with ridiculous id hurdles, [...]"
I tried to understand the real issue about these hurdles, but I feel I still do not have a satisfying explanation. Let me explain briefly what is the source of my puzzlement. Please bear with me.
During the civil rights movement it is well documented that people black and white (the latter from the North) who fought for desegragation and for the voting rights for blacks (in the
Re:He'll win in a landslide (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that voting should be mandatory, and to get an exemption one needs to file to be a voting-equivalent of a conscientious objector.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An ID card is free in some states.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: He'll win in a landslide (Score:1)
In Pennsylvania there were issues because you needed a special exemption to have a birth certificate without a raised seal count.
Unfortunatly for the poor Philadelphia and delco residents, many were birthed by midwives in the segregated south.Those certificates didn't have raised stamps.
This probably cost tens of thousands of votes in a state where it really may have been relevant.
I think on principal, id shouldn't be needed, but that it also in general is not a big deal and a whole lotta fighting about not
Re: (Score:1)
Literally every state in the union does this; it is not limited to either party. Look at the "redistricting" that took place in Maryland a few years ago in order to eliminate a Republican-held congressional seat. Maryland was gerrymandered toward the interests of black Democrats in Prince George's and Montgomery counties and Baltimore City, so does that mean that Maryland those people are racist against whites? Obviously not.
It's just politics.
Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score:5, Informative)
Also, in that comparison, one of the entities is pure evil and the other is at least trying to do the right thing.
Also, the GP says that the EFF opposes net neutrality. That is not the case. [eff.org] I think what the oppose is the current FCC's flawed attempts at implementing it with a bunch of special case provisions that completely gut the idea of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aha, I thought perhaps you were seeing something in there position that I was not. :)
Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most politicians who are up to date on their PR/Marketing consider branding to be a key part of their campaign strategy.
Re:foods that contain DNA (Score:4, Interesting)
Why can't we know if there are genetically modified organisms in the food supply?
You can know that. Just look for packages that say "No GMO", or "Organic", as thousands of products do.
You are free to exercise your phobias. Just don't impose them on other people.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score:4, Interesting)
"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).
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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
Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Leave people alone" is a statement so broad that it is completely meaningless. It is impossible to live in a manner that has no impact on other people. The hard and real question is always where the lines should be drawn.
Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
the EFF opposes net neutrality, what?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I think we'd need Rich Kyanka to join the race and oppose Drew Curtis.
Not a career politician? (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
He clearly has less contempt for the masses that most other politicians, so he has that going for him.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But war, war never changes.
I'm not sure about that. Just before Gulf II, Bush the lesser was incredibly popular. By the time that 2008 rolled around, most people didn't want war. So war is just one of those things that goes in and out of fashion.
DEAR RICHARD (Score:2, Funny)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Jelly? WTF?
Whiskey.
Let's get adult here.
Re:Kentucky (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Kentucky (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jelly is the natural end-product of bourbon.
US politics are tainted with money (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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'
Re: (Score:2)
>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
Re: (Score:1)
Telling the truth about the established politicos? That's a crucifyin'.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
If Drew were to rule Kentucky (Score:2)
I dread to think: what's the IRL equivalent of a shadow-ban?
Re: (Score:1)
Not having your own lobbyists.
"game changer" (Score:2, Funny)
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 think I know how this will go (Score:2)
Running Mate? (Score:1)
Who would you run alongside Drew Curtis? Maddox to bring the conservative gravitas or moot for his free speech credentials?
I can't wait for his first CNN interview (Score:2)
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.
Re: This Stunt is Cheap Advertising for His Websit (Score:2)
florida (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
1st past the post.
Re:1st Post (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't you mean boobies?
Re: (Score:2)
He was just testing out to see if slashdot has started transmogrifying posts through filters yet.