Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

OK, I'm receiving e-mail to vote for Kashkari ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • #91
    sl0re10
    Calguns Addict
    • Jan 2013
    • 7242

    Originally posted by bonusweb
    Nonetheless from what I see on this forum, they would get a sizable vote of republicans. That was my point, they would vote for Stalin if had "r" next to his name. They would not care about policies just the name republican.

    I can't believe I even need to explain this again. FYI brown as republican was an example to illustrate a point. I did not mean that they should or could run as republicans in reality Just if they did run as republicans, they would get support by some republicans.
    a lot of us skipped this guy... and some of us voted for Brown. So; not buying your argument.

    Comment

    • #92
      Jimi Jah
      I need a LIFE!!
      • Jan 2014
      • 17934

      I picked cash-carry as a protest vote, everyone knew he couldn't win so it was safe. Last thing we need is Brown running around like he thinks he has a mandate from the people. 40% against says to him, "not everyone is with me".

      That will help.

      Comment

      • #93
        sl0re10
        Calguns Addict
        • Jan 2013
        • 7242

        Originally posted by CAguy
        The majority of that 40% (my self included) are worried about schools and our children's educations. I'd say the vast majority who voted for Kashkari also voted for Tuck Marshall for superintendent of public instruction. Even a good deal of Brown supporters did as well even though doing so is a bit of a oxymoron since we all know Brown/Torlakson are both in the unions pocket.

        Some people vote for other reasons besides magazine capacities/guns. All the votes for Brown/Torlaskson were a vote against our children's educations.
        I kinda thought Brown wasn't in the union's pocket.. you know; they agree a lot since he is a democrat but they don't own him. Am I wrong? I could be; this is just my impression based on him trying to control spending some.

        Comment

        • #94
          bonusweb
          Banned
          • Aug 2007
          • 1189

          Originally posted by CAguy
          The majority of that 40% (my self included) are worried about schools and our children's educations. I'd say the vast majority who voted for Kashkari also voted for Tuck Marshall for superintendent of public instruction. Even a good deal of Brown supporters did as well even though doing so is a bit of a oxymoron since we all know Brown/Torlakson are both in the unions pocket.

          Some people vote for other reasons besides magazine capacities/guns. All the votes for Brown/Torlaskson were a vote against our children's educations.
          Kaskari would have figured out how to swindle California, and give it all to his international banks like he did under tarp. Arnold had his bogus stem cell research (how funds were spent are secret by law) he also meeting with enron before the election. Arnold let them off cheap by canceling the lawsuit against enron. They paid back 1/10 of what they stole.

          Kaskari would have done the same. Would that have helped schools? Did Kaskari giving away trillions on the national level to banks help schools?

          Browns not great but these banker supported RINOs certainly are not conservative with tax payer money. Voting for them is not conservative. Giving billions/trillions to scams is not gonna help schools.



          Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, breaking with fellow Republicans to flex his own political muscle, persuaded his California constituents to spend $3 billion on stem-cell research

          Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “solutions to California’s energy woes” reflect those of former Enron chief Ken Lay. On May 17, 2001, in the midst of California’s
          The energy trader agrees to pay $1.52 billion for its role in the 2000-01 power crisis, but California is likely to get only one-sixth of that.


          Enron Settles State Claim of Price Gouging
          The energy trader agrees to pay $1.52 billion for its role in the 2000-01 power crisis, but California is likely to get only one-sixth of that.

          Still, state officials said they were pleased to nail down the settlement, which includes a hefty penalty and exceeds the $60 million they once demanded from Enron as part of a quest for $9 billion in alleged overcharges from power suppliers during the energy crisis.
          Last edited by bonusweb; 11-07-2014, 1:14 PM.

          Comment

          Working...
          UA-8071174-1