Started By
Message
re: Off-Topic: Governor’s Race
Posted on 2/19/22 at 7:18 am to imjustafatkid
Posted on 2/19/22 at 7:18 am to imjustafatkid
I have lived in Huntsville a long time. Without NASA and Redstone the other recent industries would not be here. Engineering and technology drives our desirability. Where do you think that workforce originated? Well over 60% of our jobs are directly or indirectly tied to those agencies.
Posted on 2/19/22 at 8:43 am to FairhopeTider
I have yet to see a single candidate explain what their policies are and how they plan to make Alabama a better state. They all want to ride on the coat tails of trump and claim they will end the mask mandate which lets be realistic, it’s hardly been enforced and is on its last legs anyway.
Posted on 2/19/22 at 9:57 am to 420centraltime
Alabama hasn’t had a statewide mask mandate since April 2021. 
Posted on 2/19/22 at 10:10 am to JustGetItRight
If Ivey is forced to debate, it'll be a disaster for her.
Posted on 2/19/22 at 11:02 am to 420centraltime
quote:It is the responsibility of a Senator to best represent the state majority's political views, AND secure for the state as much federal assistance/funding for its betterment.
I have yet to see a single candidate explain what their policies are and how they plan to make Alabama a better state.
Posted on 2/19/22 at 11:19 am to McGregor
She can't be forced, but that's not really relevant because during this cycle I'm not so sure it wouldn't end up helping her.
The only thing close to a poll I've seen had the top 4 being Ivey (54%), James (17%), Blanchard (13%), and Odle (12%).
Odle embraces every national conspiracy theory on the map and his entire campaign seems to revolve around the second amendment and fighting the new world order - who's Alabama leader is Bob Riley (yes, I am serious. That's what he claims). Literally nothing on his campaign site relates to a single Alabama-centric issue.
Blanchard only got into the Governor's race when Trump told her he would support her in that race instead of the Senate race she'd already entered. She at least talks about education but makes stupid claims about Alabama having bad election security, which is demonstrably false. You can't get more secure than hand-marked paper ballots with non-networked tabulation devices.
James is already a 2 time loser who also mostly campaigns on national issues.
Between the 3 of them, I bet they can't come up with the names and duties of more than a handful of state agencies. They have no idea of how the legislature works or anything else related to how government functions.
Ivey's been in elected office since 2003. She may be a milquetoast but she isn't dumb. Debates run by state media would be full of state issues which her opponents would be totally unequipped to answer. Simply knowing how the pieces fit together means she'd immediately come across far better. A legislator, mayor of a bigger city, or similar person would be able to expose her weaknesses but a crazy preacher, former ambassador to Slovenia, and road builder with a famous father don't have a chance.
I HATE that I come across sounding like a Ivey supporter because I'm not. I'll likely just not vote the race because there's not one single candidate on the ballot that deserves the office.
The only thing close to a poll I've seen had the top 4 being Ivey (54%), James (17%), Blanchard (13%), and Odle (12%).
Odle embraces every national conspiracy theory on the map and his entire campaign seems to revolve around the second amendment and fighting the new world order - who's Alabama leader is Bob Riley (yes, I am serious. That's what he claims). Literally nothing on his campaign site relates to a single Alabama-centric issue.
Blanchard only got into the Governor's race when Trump told her he would support her in that race instead of the Senate race she'd already entered. She at least talks about education but makes stupid claims about Alabama having bad election security, which is demonstrably false. You can't get more secure than hand-marked paper ballots with non-networked tabulation devices.
James is already a 2 time loser who also mostly campaigns on national issues.
Between the 3 of them, I bet they can't come up with the names and duties of more than a handful of state agencies. They have no idea of how the legislature works or anything else related to how government functions.
Ivey's been in elected office since 2003. She may be a milquetoast but she isn't dumb. Debates run by state media would be full of state issues which her opponents would be totally unequipped to answer. Simply knowing how the pieces fit together means she'd immediately come across far better. A legislator, mayor of a bigger city, or similar person would be able to expose her weaknesses but a crazy preacher, former ambassador to Slovenia, and road builder with a famous father don't have a chance.
I HATE that I come across sounding like a Ivey supporter because I'm not. I'll likely just not vote the race because there's not one single candidate on the ballot that deserves the office.
This post was edited on 2/19/22 at 11:20 am
Posted on 2/19/22 at 11:39 am to In Hsv
quote:
I have lived in Huntsville a long time. Without NASA and Redstone the other recent industries would not be here. Engineering and technology drives our desirability. Where do you think that workforce originated? Well over 60% of our jobs are directly or indirectly tied to those agencies.
That's nice. We aren't going to be losing those industries and folks are definitely overstating how much of a hand Shelby had in those things being here.
In the off chance we did lose them, the state would be just fine. But we won't.
Posted on 2/19/22 at 11:41 am to coachcrisp
quote:
secure for the state as much federal assistance/funding for its betterment
This mindset is destroying our country. Our state is responsible for the betterment of our state, not the federal government. We'd all be far better off with senators who want to shrink the size of the federal government overall, even if it means less funding for our state.
This post was edited on 2/19/22 at 11:42 am
Posted on 2/19/22 at 11:43 am to 420centraltime
quote:
claim they will end the mask mandate which lets be realistic, it’s hardly been enforced and is on its last legs anyway
This is about school systems, and yes there are definitely children still being harmed by this and yes our governor could end it at any moment.
Posted on 2/20/22 at 9:57 am to imjustafatkid
quote:NOBODY said anything about expanding our govt.!
This mindset is destroying our country. Our state is responsible for the betterment of our state, not the federal government. We'd all be far better off with senators who want to shrink the size of the federal government overall, even if it means less funding for our state.
Tax dollars are allocated to "run the country" and the Senate decides where that money goes to do it. Now if you seriously don't think that our Senators should be trying to get OUR share as a state, then you are, quite simply put, an idiot!
Start with Redstone Arsenal, and go south on all the interstate and major highways, past the trade schools, colleges and universities down to Mobile where Shelby's been working to get Alabama one of the largest deep-water ports in the country done, THEN tell us that we don't want/need Federal funding!
Posted on 2/20/22 at 12:49 pm to coachcrisp
quote:
NOBODY said anything about expanding our govt.!
Tax dollars are allocated to "run the country" and the Senate decides where that money goes to do it. Now if you seriously don't think that our Senators should be trying to get OUR share as a state, then you are, quite simply put, an idiot!
Yep. This is the mindset destroying our country. Also, the executive branch is responsible for how federal funds are spent. The House and Senate simply allocate the funds. They can insert specific language, but at the end of the day they do not decide how the funds are spent. You are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of how our federal government operates.
quote:
Start with Redstone Arsenal, and go south on all the interstate and major highways, past the trade schools, colleges and universities down to Mobile where Shelby's been working to get Alabama one of the largest deep-water ports in the country done, THEN tell us that we don't want/need Federal funding!
We don't want/need federal funding. The country would be far better off if there was no such thing as "federal funding" at all.
ETA: Yes, if federal spending is going to be allocated, then we want people who will advocate for Alabama in that regard. No, we do not want people who will make "backroom deals" to insert more bloat into spending bills in order to do that. These are two separate matters. Mo Brooks and Katie Britt will both absolutely advocate for Alabama to receive allocated funding. I believe Mo Brooks is less to increase the bloat, and the arguments itt in favor of Britt seem to indicate her supporters feel the same way.
This post was edited on 2/20/22 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 2/20/22 at 2:02 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
We don't want/need federal funding. The country would be far better off if there was no such thing as "federal funding" at all.
Federal funding is NASA. Federal funding is the Department of Defense. Federal funding is the CIA. Federal funding is Customs and Immigration. Federal funding is the Justice Department.
Federal funding is much more than social welfare programs. It’s those things any nation must have in order to simply exist.
quote:
You are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of how our federal government operates.
Pot, meet kettle.
Posted on 2/20/22 at 2:05 pm to JustGetItRight
Agree, look at "the appropriations clause" . Clearly outlines congress responsiblity.
Posted on 2/20/22 at 5:41 pm to JustGetItRight
quote:
Federal funding is NASA. Federal funding is the Department of Defense. Federal funding is the CIA. Federal funding is Customs and Immigration. Federal funding is the Justice Department.
Federal funding is much more than social welfare programs. It’s those things any nation must have in order to simply exist.
If federal funding was just the things the nation needed to exist, we wouldn't have any federal debt and raising taxes would never be mentioned in election years.
ETA: Really would be great if that were the case.
This post was edited on 2/20/22 at 5:44 pm
Posted on 2/20/22 at 5:44 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
We don't want/need federal funding. The country would be far better off if there was no such thing as "federal funding" at all.
You think state funding alone can handle infrastructure needs?
Posted on 2/20/22 at 5:52 pm to In Hsv
quote:
Agree, look at "the appropriations clause" . Clearly outlines congress responsiblity.
Yes it does. It's unfortunate that our Congress has legislated a large amount of that authority to the executive branch. It would be great if we got back to the original intent.
Posted on 2/20/22 at 6:00 pm to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
You think state funding alone can handle infrastructure needs?
If we're talking about federal highways and roads? Probably not. I'm aware that our government has grown to a grotesque size that would be difficult to uncouple from. I'm merely advocating for uncoupling as much as possible and not trying to increase it further.
Outside of that, most of the federal/state/county/local projects I run into when I review them would have absolutely been completed without the federal government, and usually the funds they would have used instead aren't put to great use otherwise.
Posted on 2/20/22 at 6:17 pm to imjustafatkid
If you meant to say "there's a lot of federal funding we'd be better off without and wouldn't have a national debt", that's fine and many if not most including myself would agree.
But that's not what you said.
Just in case you've forgotten what you said so I'll remind you for the second time.
Which is utterly, completely, and laughably false.
But that's not what you said.
Just in case you've forgotten what you said so I'll remind you for the second time.
quote:
We don't want/need federal funding. The country would be far better off if there was no such thing as "federal funding" at all.
Which is utterly, completely, and laughably false.
Posted on 2/20/22 at 6:51 pm to JustGetItRight
Posted on 2/21/22 at 3:06 am to JustGetItRight
quote:
Which is utterly, completely, and laughably false.
It isn't. Being unable to completely uncouple from federal funding is not the same as needing it. We really don't need it, and we shouldn't want it either.
ETA: I have also not at all walked back that stance. That is absolutely the stance we need to be sending to DC. Yes, if the funding exists we should try to get it. At the same time, we should want our politicians to seek tor educe federal spending at every point and be willing to lose said funding because of this because that's what happens when you reduce federal spending.
This post was edited on 2/21/22 at 3:11 am
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top


1




