4um: A Huge Texas Thank You: Medina Concedes. What Next?

Title: A Huge Texas Thank You: Medina Concedes. What Next?
Source: Official Debra Medina Campaign Site
URL Source: http://www.medinafortexas.com/getPost?p=302
Published: Mar 3, 2010
Author: Debra Medina
Post Date: 2010-03-04 17:56:32 by Deasy
Ping List: *Sarah Palin 2012* Subscribe to *Sarah Palin 2012*
Keywords: paul, alamo, mises, paleoconservative
Views: 488
Comments: 38

A Huge Texas Thank You

A huge Texas thank you to all who worked so hard to get the freedom candidate elected as governor of this great state! I cannot tell you how humbled I am to have been able to carry your banner forth. Even though we didn't win this battle, we will not give up fighting for the people and we will remain ever vigilant to hold our elected officials accountable.

What We Texans have accomplished has not only caught the attention of the nation and the world but it has inspired as only truth can inspire. We have not lost hope. We have energized and will strengthen our resolve to fight another day.

While I must concede the loss of this battle, I will not make concessions that reduce this fight to the level of mere sport. Our freedom is being stripped away and I will continue to press our cause. Our message was nothing less than what the original Founders were fighting for...our Life, our Liberty and our property.

To whomever wins the Texas governorship in November, the eyes of Texas will be upon you.

God Bless Texas,

It's time to reassess the entire liberty movement. Post your thoughts. Are we going to do this again and again? For what? How many donated money that should have been spent on their own futures? What value did this campaign add to the future of politics in Texas? In the entire United States?

There's no inarguably correct answer. We can look at the end result and say it was a complete waste. On the other hand, maybe her campaign enlightened more people, waking them up from a life of mundane sheeplism.

Is there anyone here who hasn't been counted among the sheep at some point? I have.

I think this is a question that each person has to answer for himself. For me, I've paid a lot over the years for the cause, both in time and effort, and a little money, but far more than that in missed opportunity, as in missing out on decent paying jobs that could have made life much more comfortable. I'm now putting my own priorities first, justifying it, for good or ill, with the idea that freedom is NOT just "another word for nothing left to lose". I've also convinced myself that (right or wrong) the USA as a whole is beyond saving.

Still, as I mentioned above, there's always potential value in waking others up. Not because it'll save the country but because it'll save those who are awoken. And the more the better.

but this is what we're up against--this is an email i got from an acquaintance with whom i discussed Medina and tried to get onboard before the 9/11 issue.

Alright, Christine, is it OK if I tell you 'I told you so!' now? Medina being in the race made Perry's win a slam dunk, when before it was only a likely probability (because of a poorly run campaign by Kay Bailey).

Medina took critically needed votes from Kay Bailey, but probably didn't take a single vote from Perry. I would not be shocked to learn that Perry helped fund Medina's campaign, although I have heard no rumors to that effect. It is a strategy he is certainly capable of employing though. Divide and conquer is an often used strategy in politics.

Well, strategically, Jim is absolutely correct. But it's not Medina's fault any more than it's Bailey's. And it's not Jim's fault either, really. The problem is the very voting system itself, and I'm not even talking about Diebold. There are 3 candidates but the stone-age voting system we use only allows voters to express an opinion about 1 of them. This is the source of the "wasted vote syndrome" which inspires people to vote for one of the only 2 candidates the media declares viable, and it's why strategies such as described by Jim can be used.

I'm a fan of approval voting, where voters vote for as many of the candidates as they like, aka indicating which candidates they "approve" of. Whoever has the highest approval vote count wins. It's simpler and less complicated than Instant run-off voting (IRV), and in extreme situations avoids weird end results based on early counts. AV is not a perfect voting system either (it's been proven there is no perfect voting system) but the vote-for-one system in place now is the worst one in existence.

Did I mention the voting system is just one more thing that's broken? And of course there's Diebold doing who-knows-what to the results.

given that the mass media is dedicated to spreading disinformation, what's the point of any voting system at all?

elections are pointless until we get people who are capable of making rational judgments... and rational judgments are impossible when you're ignorant.