1. 

   Compass Rose
   

   offline

   Member

   Just heard it on the radio. What a delusional tool he must be to think he could get reelected.

   Also declared so far, Ed Murray, Tim Burgess and Peter Steinbrueck (who would be McSchwinn on steroids).

   Posted 4 months ago #
2. 

   BuffaloHawk
   

   offline

   Member

   Just say no to bike lanes & free camping in Ballard

   Posted 4 months ago #
3. 

   Compass Rose
   

   offline

   Member

   Word.

   Posted 4 months ago #
4. 

   gracie
   

   offline

   Member

   +1 Compass. I heard that & got vomit in my mouth. The only one i know is Tim Burgess and don't know how he would do. But GAWD, as you said it what a tool to think he could be reelected.

   Posted 4 months ago #
5. 

   Compass Rose
   

   offline

   Member

   From what I've heard about Tim Burgess, I think he could be a really good mayor. He's a former Seattle cop, journalist, business owner and has done anti-poverty work. He seems well-rounded and has a good reputation on city council.

   Posted 4 months ago #
6. 

   Mondoman
   

   offline

   Member

   Yep, looking at that list above, Burgess would be the only one I'd consider.

   Posted 4 months ago #
7. 

   ynh98107
   

   offline

   Member

   A vote for that Douche is a vote against Ballard!!!

   Posted 4 months ago #
8. 

   GAM
   

   offline

   Member

   I recently was told that all those bike sharrows are left over from Nickels. Nickels developed 'em, they're only being implemented under McGinn.

   Really? Any eager fact checkers out there?

   Posted 4 months ago #
9. 

   Compass Rose
   

   offline

   Member

   Technically, that's true. Sharrows were introduced during Nickels' administration, but by the transportation department, not by Nickels himself.

   Posted 4 months ago #
10. 

    GAM
    

    offline

    Member

    Boy, you learn something new everyday. Thanks, Compass Rose.

    Granted, McGinn hasn't distanced himself from the sharrows.

    Posted 4 months ago #
11. 

    Sunset Hill David
    

    offline

    Member

    Well I am voting to re-elect McGinn!

    Posted 4 months ago #
12. 

    gracie
    

    offline

    Member

    Sorry to hear that, SunsetHillDave. But that is your right. My vote is going to be for Burgess.

    Posted 4 months ago #
13. 

    racerX
    

    offline

    Member

    "Well I am voting to re-elect McGinn!"

    🚽

    Posted 4 months ago #
14. 

    Compass Rose
    

    offline

    Member

    Are you two serious, Racerx and SHD?

    Posted 4 months ago #
15. 

    great idea
    

    online

    Member

    are you serious, compass?

    "What a delusional tool he must be to think he could get reelected"

    with such a crowded field, McGinn has a very good chance of getting re-elected.

    as for Burgess, he's your typical glad-handing politician who's trying to make nicey-nicey with all the various groups and interests. guys like that don't get squat done.
    I also don't see his former police career as being important to the mayoral job since our city has a relatively low crime-rate.

    McGinn may have an abrasive style, but he's a smart guy with progressive ideas.
    he'll get my vote, AGAIN.

    Posted 4 months ago #
16. 

    Compass Rose
    

    offline

    Member

    I doubt he'll make it past the primary, GI.

    Sure, vote for McGinn if you want a mayor who campaigned on a lie (to not oppoose the tunnel), has no clue how to run the city and supports homelessness as a viable lifestyle choice that taxpayers should help fund, rather than implementing initiatives to actually help people out of homeless.

    Burgess would be a much better mayor.

    Posted 4 months ago #
17. 

    Ballardguy
    

    offline

    Member

    McGinn is a douche, he has ideas but they are not progressive ones. The amount of our money he has wasted on his ideas thru out our city make me sick.

    Posted 4 months ago #
18. 

    nwcitizen
    

    offline

    Member

    McGinn did oppose the tunnel which is why I voted for him. The tunnel is costing us a lot more than the other options (rebuild/retrofit) and surface option with street improvements.

    We've been in a recession for a very long time and wages have been flat for an even longer time. We truly needed those tax dollars to go toward much needed infrastructure repair (roads, bridges) instead of to a boondoggle that the developers wanted.

    Posted 4 months ago #
19. 

    Edog
    

    offline

    Member

    Whether you like him or not, McGinn has been branded as an abraisive untrustworthy feckless jerk who is difficult to work with. The hatred he inspires in people is deep. I don't know how his campaign gets around that, even with a crowded field. And on that point, I think people who are inclinced to agree with McGinn on the issues but have a problem with how he conducts himself will move to Steinbrueck's camp.

    Posted 4 months ago #
20. 

    great idea
    

    online

    Member

    I don't know edog--they're quite different. McGinn is on the cusp of bringing NBA back to Seattle while Steinbrueck is working for the Port to argue the location (which is perceived as 'low-priority and not in our city' among sports fans).

    Steinbrueck is another weasley politician in my opinion. he is abrasive in a far-worse manner than McGinn, who at least listens to the opposition. I would never vote for him.

    Posted 4 months ago #
21. 

    Edog
    

    offline

    Member

    Could be... we'll get a better picture once the campaigns engage each other. Still I take that last Tunnel vote as a proxy for McGinn. That assumption could be wrong, but if its right, he is f*cked.

    I also don't think the NBA changes the public impression of McGinn. He can hold it out as an accomplishment, and people who disagree with McGinn as mayor might actually appreciate his actions on the stadium, but Mike's issue is "trust". He won the last election on a lie.

    People joke about a politicians being liars, but there is a difference between being expedient with the truth, and being a bold faced liar.

    People who already support McGinn look as his every parsed word to say he was consistent on his evolving position on the tunnel. I suspect those who were actually moved to change their vote for him based on his dynamic position, are the ones who feel they were lied too and betrayed. As for building a winning margin, its this second group who matters more. Whether they forgive him for that betrayal remains to be seen, but in everyone's mind he starts out as someone who can not trusted, and that's a hard one for any campaign to get around.

    Posted 4 months ago #
22. 

    boatgeek
    

    offline

    Member

    I don't know who I'm voting for yet, and McGinn hasn't lost my vote. However, his response to the question about the new NBA team was ridiculous. He basically outright said that he was too busy getting his campaign kicked off. At the least, he should have said something about having to do his day job as Mayor.

    I'm somewhat skeptical of Burgess because he has a history within SPD. I appreciate what the cops do every day, but I think some major changes are needed (eg not stomping on handcuffed people lying on the ground). It's possible that Burgess will have enough trust with the cops that he can get real reform, but he also needs to convince me that's what he's going to do.

    On the horse race side, Steinbrueck being in the race hurts McGinn's chances of getting out of the primary, but the crowded field may split his opposition. On the third hand, I don't think anyone saw Nickels not getting through the primary, so who knows?

    Posted 4 months ago #
23. 

    greenwoodjon
    

    offline

    Member

    There may be others joining this crowd. That would favor McGinn's chances of surviving the primary.

    Posted 4 months ago #
24. 

    bambooboy
    

    offline

    Member

    If I may digress a little bit, about sharrows. All sharrows mean are that you are probably going to be seeing a higher incidence of bikes on those roads. They are only going to put them on routs designated as common bikeways because technically bikes can ride virtually anywhere a car can go. I don't see the uproar over them.

    Posted 4 months ago #
25. 

    great idea
    

    online

    Member

    the only people that don't like them are those that don't understand what they mean.
    confusion = anger.

    "I recently was told that all those bike sharrows are left over from Nickels. Nickels developed 'em, they're only being implemented under McGinn. "
    left over? you make it sound like they made a bunch of them that are sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting to be applied to some lucky stretch of road.

    correct me if I'm wrong, but they're not giant stickers, but a template that's used to apply some gooey white stuff (sorry for the technical jargon). or are these templates stockpiled somewhere?

    Posted 4 months ago #
26. 

    Corvus
    

    online

    Member

    I am not enitiely sure why, but I have gradually moved into the "not voting for McGinn again" camp. One reason I did vote for him before was his supposed opposition to the tunnel but in the end, I don't think there was much he could do about that. I didn't like him appointing Hiller as a transportation policy advisor, I think the green paint at intersections are incredibly expensive and dangerous when wet. I don't think he is a bad guy and I like his progressive attitude but I'm thinking one term is enough. My mind could change once people start lining up for or against issues.

    Posted 4 months ago #
27. 

    onederfullone
    

    offline

    Member

    "Steinbrueck is another weasley(sp?) politician in my opinion."

    Done, and done.

    All it takes is a career weasel to be leader of the great intellectual unwashed yet proud imbeciles of our fair city.

    Look, we elected numb-nuts for Governor, yes, we.

    I'll vote for McSchwinn

    Posted 4 months ago #
28. 

    great idea
    

    online

    Member

    "I'll vote for McSchwinn"

    once again we agree. I think this is twice now.

    Posted 4 months ago #
29. 

    racerX
    

    offline

    Member

    CR, I was being sarcastic.

    Posted 4 months ago #
30. 

    ballardmike
    

    offline

    Member

    I will vote him in for 2nd term just to watch some snide folks heads explode.

    Posted 4 months ago #
31. 

    Ernie
    

    offline

    Member

    ballardmike +1

    Posted 4 months ago #
32. 

    pennygirl
    

    online

    Member

    Once again. Whichever way you vote the government always wins.

    Posted 4 months ago #
33. 

    ballardmike
    

    offline

    Member

    This is true... but nudge it along the best you can in the direction you feel is best and you can sleep good at night.

    Posted 4 months ago #
34. 

    onederfullone
    

    offline

    Member

    I'll sleep well when it's nudged over the cliff...

    Posted 4 months ago #
35. 

    iPlod
    

    online

    Member

    I voted for the anti-tunnel guy. Now we are going to have a tunnel.
    This time I would have voted for the anti-anti-tunnel guy whoever that may be, but I can't because I moved.
    I moved to a tunnel-less community. I knew it remain tunnel-less because all the campaigning local officials who were elected were promising tunnels for everybody.

    Posted 4 months ago #
36. 

    great idea
    

    online

    Member

    iPlod-- I'm seriously considering digging a tunnel from Ballard to whatever bumF*ck community you have moved to.
    is it Maple Valley or 'where in' Carnation?

    either way, I already have routes planned under the ship canal to pop-up in
    Living Room.
    better have your 'whack-a-mole' hammer ready!

    Posted 3 months ago #
37. 

    iPlod
    

    online

    Member

    "A tunnel in every pot!"
    Or, "Pot in every tunnel!"... or something.
    (futilely leafs through old campaign literature searching for substance)

    Posted 3 months ago #
38. 

    VeganBiker
    

    offline

    Member

    Apparently, according to the news today, the tolling system for the tunnel is being questioned. I voted for Mike and I will again this time around, he is a good person and has good intentions for our city.
    And I am a US citizen! Dual citizenship to-boot! Ha!

    Posted 3 months ago #
39. 

    VeganBiker
    

    offline

    Member

    pg - how come you haven't become a US citizen?

    Posted 3 months ago #
40. 

    pennygirl
    

    online

    Member

    Because I am a British Citizen VB. And I have no intention of being anything else. Ernie can tell me that I can't speak about US politics but even that won't phase me :-)

    Posted 3 months ago #
41. 

    Ernie
    

    offline

    Member

    http://www.myballard.com/forum/topic.php?id=15150#post-204605

    http://www.myballard.com/forum/topic.php?id=15150#post-204610

    http://www.myballard.com/forum/topic.php?id=15150#post-204612

    :)

    Posted 3 months ago #
42. 

    pennygirl
    

    online

    Member

    And?

    You said I should keep my mouth shut on another thread because I am not a US Citizen. What do those links prove other than to show that you are very odd when you constantly search for things?

    Posted 3 months ago #
43. 

    Ernie
    

    offline

    Member

    Those links show that I supported your right to speak out on gun control, and against the Facebook people who said you shouldn't because of your citizenship. Also you thanked me for my support, which was nice.

    Last night you suggested that if I didn't have kids, I shouldn't comment on a thread about kids. All I did was note the irony of that position as it relates to the citizenship/politics issue. I guess you didn't get it, no big deal.

    Oh, and for a person who is handy with the search tools available to modern interweb denzines, finding past threads is so easy as to be hardly worth noting. I mean really, how many times has Piers Morgan been mentioned on MyBallard? This is simple stuff.

    Posted 3 months ago #
44. 

    VeganBiker
    

    offline

    Member

    PG - you don't have to give up your UK citizenship to become a US citizen! I still have my UK passport and a US one. I decided I wanted to vote for what happens in my community while I am living here and it looks like I am staying here. And during the process of becoming a US citizen I was never once asked anything about my UK citizenship. Anyway becoming a citizen didn't make me any less British, it just allowed me to participate in my community an a more complete way. And I can board a plane to the UK with my US passport (no hassles) and use my UK passport at LHR, then fly back using my US passport! Never get any stamps on either of them.

    Posted 3 months ago #
45. 

    pennygirl
    

    online

    Member

    I'm wary of doing that VB. For some reason I feel that somewhere down the road the rules will be changed. I'm not willing to take the risk.

    Posted 3 months ago #
46. 

    pennygirl
    

    online

    Member

    Sorry Ernie, I didn't get it. You tend to rail on me so I automatically assume that it's another dig. I think there's a slight difference though. While people said that I shouldn't comment on politics because I am not a citizen I have been subjected to those politics on a daily basis for 20 years. A lot of people have an opinion about children but unless you have actually had one day in day out for a while you might not be as aware as those who have.

    I don't think that really makes sense: I know what I am trying to convey here but someone will probably take it the wrong way.

    I don't really comment on cat threads here (cue search :-)), except for Teigyr's Albert posts because I don't really know about them. I have probably now dug an even deeper hole but so be it.

    Posted 3 months ago #
47. 

    Edog
    

    offline

    Member

    From States website

    "The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause."

    "The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

    That second bit is not to be taken lightly.

    I would never travel with two passports, and I would never become a citizen of someplace unless I was really moved to pledge my allegiance to a government I no longer wanted to call foreign.

    Posted 3 months ago #
48. 

    Ernie
    

    offline

    Member

    I hear what you're saying Penny. I guess I was more commenting on the expressions of shock about the kid being in the theater late at a violent movie, when I felt like the shock and judgement should be reserved for the guy actually perpetrating violence, not the stuff on the screen. As you said, probably a hard thing to convey with a forum post, and I'm more than happy to forget I ever said anything.

    FWIW, I work with several foreign nationals, Canadian, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, etc, and I think to a person, when asked about the dual/change of citizenship thing, they say "what's the point". Several are married to US citizens too.

    Posted 3 months ago #
49. 

    Edog
    

    offline

    Member

    If you are married to national or the parent of a dependent who is a national, you usually get pretty good rights unser the law, so I'm with your colleagues.

    Posted 3 months ago #
50. 

    pennygirl
    

    online

    Member

    This is why I won't ever become a US Citizen. It has nothing to do with how I feel about the country but two things. One. I would worry about rule changes (whether British or US) and two, the fact that my British Citizenship means a lot. I think that many US Citizens living over there feel the same.

    Posted 3 months ago #
51. 

    iPlod
    

    online

    Member

    "...my British Citizenship means a lot. I think that many US Citizens living over there feel the same."

    Well said.

    Posted 3 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.