PDA

View Full Version : out of 400-odd people on the ballot in CA, why isn't steve jobs there?


shadowfax
Aug 10, 2003, 02:43 PM
i was just thinking, and perhaps this has been commented on, but if you just need like 11% of the vote to win after this recall thing, shouldn't steve jobs be on the ballot? he could make apple the biggest political interest in the state! and he would probably get enough of the democratic votes; apple is, after all, a religion to most of us. i'm sure he'd be more powerful over the macheads than the pope is over... ok, i didn't say that. but it would be at least as plausible as ahhnold, and probably better for apple, heh. thoughts?

IJ Reilly
Aug 10, 2003, 03:15 PM
Maybe Steve just isn't quite odd enough to share the ballot with the likes of Arnold Swartzenegger, Gary Coleman, Larry Flynt and Gallagher. Now, that should tell you something.

BTW, in the end "only" about 160 people filed their papers.

Doctor Q
Aug 10, 2003, 03:17 PM
Steve could get laws passed making it legal to own a Mac only if you are cool. Oh wait, that's already the case. Never mind.

shadowfax
Aug 10, 2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Maybe Steve just isn't quite odd enough to share the ballot with the likes of Arnold Swartzenegger, Gary Coleman, Larry Flynt and Gallagher. Now, that should tell you something. now, now, i'll admit some measure of elitism, but ultimately, if it's between, "should i appear on a piece of paper with the scum of the state?" and "should i let this state find itself under the power of its own scum?" i think it is better to suffer a little bad association. in politics, running against a complete arse doesn't make you one automatically. in fact, not at all. if you "become" a complete arse by running against him, chances are you were to begin with.

but alas, i was just being facetious.

IJ Reilly
Aug 10, 2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
but alas, i was just being facetious.

Me too. Those of us who live in the Golden State will have much to be facetious about over the next two months.

shadowfax
Aug 10, 2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Me too. Those of us who live in the Golden State will have much to be facetious about over the next two months. they can take your dignity, your honor, and your money, but you're really in trouble if they take your humor. luckily, the government seems to foster it more than anything else... especially in the golden state.

Doctor Q
Aug 10, 2003, 03:33 PM
There are two registered candidates for California governor who are in the running solely to promote their business. Kelly Kimball and Scott Mednick are co-owners of a beer company. In statements to the press, Kelly said "You've got guys like us who will run for governor simply to exploit a product" and Scott said "As marketers we thought it was a great opportunity to at least expose our brand name to people."

So maybe Steve should run simply to promote Apple. His campaign slogan can be "An iPod in every backpack, an iMac in every living room, a Power Mac in every office, and an Apple Store on every corner."

tazo
Aug 11, 2003, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
i was just thinking, and perhaps this has been commented on, but if you just need like 11% of the vote to win after this recall thing, shouldn't steve jobs be on the ballot? he could make apple the biggest political interest in the state! and he would probably get enough of the democratic votes; apple is, after all, a religion to most of us. i'm sure he'd be more powerful over the macheads than the pope is over... ok, i didn't say that. but it would be at least as plausible as ahhnold, and probably better for apple, heh. thoughts?

I have a feeling arnold is going to win, having said that I would be surprised if gary coleman got more than 12 votes :rolleyes:

Desertrat
Aug 11, 2003, 07:17 AM
Anybody see any irony in the contrast of the power we've given governments in these last 20 or thirty years, versus the increasing contempt for government (or politicians--but they run governments) during that time?

shadowfax, being as how you're in Austintatious, is Gonzalo still in Albuquerque? Lord knows, the Texas Lege provides plenty of amusement. Get Molly Ivins to talking about it. :D

156 candidates. Arnold's leading in the polls. "May you live in interesting times."

'Rat

shadowfax
Aug 11, 2003, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
shadowfax, being as how you're in Austintatious, is Gonzalo still in Albuquerque? Lord knows, the Texas Lege provides plenty of amusement. Get Molly Ivins to talking about it. :D aren't almost all the democrats still there? i was hearing on the radio that they are looking to take legal actions about it here in TX. my personal view is that absenting should be abdicating your right to represent the people that voted for you. i mean, it's like electing a horse or a cow to represent you. i really despise people who claim to represent you to the government and then refuse to participate in government...

i have to agree with you though, i am not politically aligned anymore--no respect for politicians. my family likes GW, and i was just reading in the new york times this morning that he dismissed accusations that they exaggerated the danger of Iraq by calling them "purely political." what the hell does that even mean? if you're a politician, doesn't that make them the most important sort of accusations?

it's impossible to find more than a handful of real men these days. especially in politics. who knows, maybe arnold really is a real man.

szark
Aug 11, 2003, 12:13 PM
I'd prefer that Steve concentrate on running Apple & Pixar, and keep giving us new and better things to buy. :D

IJ Reilly
Aug 11, 2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax

it's impossible to find more than a handful of real men these days. especially in politics. who knows, maybe arnold really is a real man.

If your definition of a "real man" is somebody who fondles women and brags about it, then I'd have to say he's exactly what you're seeking.

shadowfax
Aug 11, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
If your definition of a "real man" is somebody who fondles women and brags about it, then I'd have to say he's exactly what you're seeking. well, i guess, then, he is not. a real man is someone who stands up for himself and his beliefs and does not whore himself to get what he wants.

mactastic
Aug 12, 2003, 11:26 AM
Steve would be smart to stay out of this one. Don't forget, the "prize" for winning this election is control of a state with massive debt, a rancorous congress dominated by Dems, but held hostage to a stubborn and hostile Repub minority, and the prospect of another recall at any moment when your popularity goes below 50%.

jefhatfield
Aug 22, 2003, 06:38 PM
(in best ross perot voice)

aw, heck

running a company with a few thousand people is much different than running a state with thirty million

heck, i used to live down the street from apple;) :p :D

Frohickey
Aug 22, 2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by mactastic Steve would be smart to stay out of this one. Don't forget, the "prize" for winning this election is control of a state with massive debt, a rancorous congress dominated by Dems, but held hostage to a stubborn and hostile Repub minority, and the prospect of another recall at any moment when your popularity goes below 50%.

I think that the republican minority is the only thing between Californians and higher taxes.

The democrats have never met a tax hike they didn't like. They also have never met a tax cut they could live with. They are the masters as spending other people's money.

When you spend your own money on yourself, you are careful with how much you spend and what you spend it on.

When someone else spends your money on themselves, they don't care how much they spend, but are careful with what they spend it on.

When you spend your money on someone else, you care about how much you spend, but don't care too much about what you spend it on.

When someone else spends your money, on someone else, they don't care how much they spend, and how they spend it.... this is government!

jefhatfield
Aug 22, 2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
I think that the republican minority is the only thing between Californians and higher taxes.

The democrats have never met a tax hike they didn't like. They also have never met a tax cut they could live with. They are the masters as spending other people's money.

When you spend your own money on yourself, you are careful with how much you spend and what you spend it on.

When someone else spends your money on themselves, they don't care how much they spend, but are careful with what they spend it on.

When you spend your money on someone else, you care about how much you spend, but don't care too much about what you spend it on.

When someone else spends your money, on someone else, they don't care how much they spend, and how they spend it.... this is government!

this is so true, but both parties love to spend our tax dollars

the government, by the very way it is set up today is so wasteful that if it were a private business, it would have been bankrupt a long time ago

imagine if apple were like the government...yeah, ok, we will ship your G5 to you in a year or five, overcharge you, and use the cheapest parts (lowest bidder) we can find:p

IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
this is so true, but both parties love to spend our tax dollars

the government, by the very way it is set up today is so wasteful that if it were a private business, it would have been bankrupt a long time ago

imagine if apple were like the government...yeah, ok, we will ship your G5 to you in a year or five, overcharge you, and use the cheapest parts (lowest bidder) we can find:p

Well, government isn't even remotely like a business, so the analogy is kind of useless.

simX
Aug 23, 2003, 12:53 AM
I'd have to agree that Steve rightly stayed out of this whole race. I dunno if an ego like his would do well in the governor's chair, and I also don't think it would be beneficial to Apple OR Pixar.

Anyways out of the 135 candidates (it's not 156, I don't think), there's at least one honest one. And that's Georgy Russell (http://www.georgyforgov.com/).

Seriously, you should check out her site, read what she has to say on various issues, and also read her Slashdot interview (http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/20/1331235&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=99). She seems up front and honest about all the issues.

Plus, with a motto of "Brains, Beauty, Leadership", you can't go wrong. ;)

jefhatfield
Aug 23, 2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Well, government isn't even remotely like a business, so the analogy is kind of useless.

i know, but i wish there was a little less waste and some common sense

in the government agency where i worked at, the accountant got on the roof with a scope and gun and shot people one day...they said he was a great accountant though but with he saw they said it tipped him over the edge...everybody hated the waste there and were unable to do anything and got in trouble if they said a word

it was an oppressive, dysfunctional funk that you won't understand unless you are there

people end up going postal

:rolleyes:

Desertrat
Aug 23, 2003, 12:09 PM
In the "used to be", it was common for business people to run for political office as a sort of responsibility thing, as a public service payback to society. A few terms, at most, and then back to business. There were relatively few professional politicians who made elected office a long-term career--at least as compared to today.

This changed with the advent of television, particularly after the Nixon-Kennedy debates. (Those who watched it on TV decided that Kennedy won. Those who listened on radio gave the nod to Nixon.)

Nowadays you have idiots of every sort crawling out of the woodwork and from beneath flat rocks to run for office at some level or another. We indeed seem to be winding up with the sort of person described in "Anybody who wants to be President shouldn't be allowed to have the job."

Separately:

Q: What does it mean when the Post Office flag is at half-mast?
A: They're hiring.

'Rat

IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i know, but i wish there was a little less waste and some common sense

in the government agency where i worked at, the accountant got on the roof with a scope and gun and shot people one day...they said he was a great accountant though but with he saw they said it tipped him over the edge...everybody hated the waste there and were unable to do anything and got in trouble if they said a word

it was an oppressive, dysfunctional funk that you won't understand unless you are there

people end up going postal

Once upon a time, I was a local government employee. I did that for over ten years in fact, before enough was finally enough. But one thing about local government that always drove me more nuts then just about anything else were the people running for office under the motto, "run government like a business." This was very big in the '80s, even though you could ask the people spouting this catch phrase it what it meant as a practical matter, and they'd generally be stuck for an answer (beyond "fiscal responsibility" and "no waste"). Okay, so let's be in favor of fiscal responsibility and against waste, but let's not pretend that government sells a product and makes a profit, because that's how business judges its success. Government simply cannot borrow that metric -- it does not fit the case.

jefhatfield
Aug 23, 2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat


Separately:

Q: What does it mean when the Post Office flag is at half-mast?
A: They're hiring.

'Rat

i met so many psychos in govt service, but to be fair, most talked violent stuff but are harmless

i think many who would never get hired in the real world get jobs in government

Frohickey
Aug 24, 2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat In the "used to be", it was common for business people to run for political office as a sort of responsibility thing, as a public service payback to society. A few terms, at most, and then back to business. There were relatively few professional politicians who made elected office a long-term career--at least as compared to today.

Yeah. That what you get when you have low pay for government/political offices. Their counter was that low pay would encourage politicians to take bribes and kickbacks. But what we have now is that they are beholden to monied interests for their reelection warchests. I do not pretend to know how to fix it, but its clearly broken.

Reminds me of when I took a CCW class over in Nevada. It was a time when they were close to their election cycle. In the class, conversation turned to politics and the instructors mentioned that if they want to talk to their state representative, all he has to do is go to his car dealership, SINCE THE STATE LEGISLATURE ONLY MEETS 2 MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR!

Kinda ensures that these people keep their day jobs, no?

As far as career politicians, Dianne Feinswine is a career politician who has probably never held a private industry job in her life. And her daughter is in the same career path. Last I heard, she was a member of a state parole board or some such thing.

Desertrat
Aug 24, 2003, 06:50 PM
The Texas Legislature meets for some 130 days, every two years. Many of us think the state would be better served were it two days, every 130 years.

:), 'Rat

Frohickey
Aug 24, 2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
The Texas Legislature meets for some 130 days, every two years. Many of us think the state would be better served were it two days, every 130 years.

:), 'Rat

I'd approve of a constitutional amendment whereby every single Congressman and Senator would be given $1 billion for every term of office where they DO NOT set foot inside of Washington DC, and DO NOT vote for or against a single tax spending or tax increase bill.

It would be cheap to pay out $234billion a year for 'government services' instead of the $9 trillion (Oct 2000).
:D :p :D