And of course anyone not in the state is welcome to comment. Finally going through the guide tonight. Yuck. What a mess. Prop 19 - it's not well-written, but it's a good start. Yes, somewhat reluctantly, especially because the arguments against it presented in the guide were shrill and basically stemmed from a lack of principles, and didn't tell the whole story. The best argument against it is the misdemeanor->infraction change in consequence for possession. Prop 20 - A commission is not as good as having judges do it, but it's a vast improvement over the legislature doing the redistricting. Yes. By extension, no on 27. Prop 21 - Acquiesce to blackmail and extortion by the state legislature? Not a fucking chance. Not sure what happens if 26 passes, and this passes with less than a 2/3 majority; that's not addressed in the guide. Prop 22 - It's like two issues in one, one of which is worth supporting (stopping the tax fund raids), one worth opposing (locking in property tax allocations). I'm really not sure. Help me out here, Wordforge. Prop 23 - For sure. AB32 was bad. This doesn't go far enough, but it's a start. Prop 24 - Carrybacks leave a bad taste in my mouth conceptually, but I suppose they make accounting sense. I don't think there should be a limit on carryforwards. Voting No, without enthusiasm. Prop 25 - Not just no, hell no. The lure is the pay cuts, but have you ever seen a fish actually benefit from biting on the lure? Prop 26 - Looks good at first glance, but something about it leaves me leery. What am I missing? Or is it really as good as it looks? Prop 27 - No by reason of wanting Prop 20 to pass. Governor - Dale Ogden (LP). Finally a gubernatorial candidate from the LP who doesn't strike me as a nut, so I can skip voting between the stabbing and the cyanide with Whitman and Brown. Lt. Governor - Well I'm sure as hell not voting for "Nanny-State Newsom" - he treated San Francisco like it was a game of SimCity, but with even more micromanaging. Maldonando strikes me as a RINO. I'm leaning towards Pamela Brown (LP), but I could be convinced Maldonando was better. Secretary of State - Given what little SecState does in CA (records and elections), this isn't a terribly crucial race, so I'll vote for Damon Dunn (R) as he has the best chance to beat the incumbent. Controller - I don't know Chiang's record, but I've heard good things about Strickland. Thoughts? Treasurer - This race seems to have attracted a special type of stupid. Lockyer's (D - inc) a liar. Teyssier (LP) doesn't seem to understand what the Treasurer does. Crittenden (G) and Reiger (P&F) want to create a state bank and Reiger wants to politicize investments. Lauten (American Independent - the CA branch of the Constitution Party) doesn't seem to realize he's running for a state position rather than a federal one, is a LaRouchie, and talks about illegal immigration. By default, I'm left to vote for the utterly-vague-but-well-endorsed and possibly narcissistic Mimi Walters (R). Attorney General - Cooley scares me, and Timothy Hannan (LP) makes some sense, so I'm voting for him. Insurance Commissioner - The only Republican I'm somewhat enthusiastic about, Mike Villines (R) gets my vote for explicitly saying he wants to allow out-of-state insurance companies to compete. The invisible hand works better than Dave Jones' iron fist. Superintendent - Torlackson sucks. Aceves by default. US Senate - While Lightfoot is a little more cogent and comprehensible than usual, unfortunately for her, I remember some of her earlier campaigns . Fiorina and Boxer suck. I may not vote in this contest. Convince me otherwise. Whew.
Yes. Sure, who cares. Vehicle license fee? No. It's too confusing and speculative to vote yes - so No. Apples controlled by oranges - no. Probably no. Yes. More info needed...I'll lean towards no. No. Brown, sadly. Newsom. I'll flip a coin. Chiang. Flip a coin. Harris. Abstain. Abstain. Abstain?
19 - yes - Poorly written and will create chaos, if it passes. But it's the start of a much needed conversation about legalizing. Plus, cheap weed! 20 - no - Why is one person pouring $11 million into another attempt to re-write California's constitution? 21 - no - Another VLF? No thank you. 22 - no - Local governments are hurting enough without the state government being able to steal from them. 23 - no - Not a fan of Texas oil companies making law in California. 24 - yes - California needs LESS tax revenue? Okay. How about getting rid of Prop 13 in that case? Fat fucking chance. 25- yes - The 2/3'rds majority to pass a budget is insane and one of the biggest causes of California's fiscal crisis. Couldn't care less about legislators not getting paid if there's not a passed budget. That's meat for the masses. But the 2/3rds majority has to go. 26 - no - No more minority rule! 27 -yes - Never liked the idea of a redistricting commission. Reluctantly voting for Jerry Brown. But I like Gavin Newsom for Lt. Gov, Bowen, Chiang and Harris.
I don't see the relevance. I read over the text of the measure. It'll finally put an end to gerrymandering, doesn't remove avenues of appeal. One of us has missed something here, and I'm pretty sure it's you. Or is the rest of 22 that bad? Despite the ads, the actual text isn't nearly as special interest-y as its detractors say. At least its deliberations are open and transparent, unlike the legislative redistricting process. And other states have shown that the farther from the legislature the process is, the less gerrymandered the districts are. You LIKE Newsom? Are you brain-damaged, ignorant, or require a nanny state?
I meant yes on 22. It's confusingly written, and I had to look at it again to figure out the wording. And I actually do like Newsom. His stance on LGBTQ issues impressed the hell out of me. Plus conservatives hate him so much that he must be doing something right...
Conservatives hating him so much merely makes it highly probable that he is doing something right. There's no must about it, although it's a reasonable presumption if you have no other data. But you really should try to have other data before you vote.
I liked that stance too. But it doesn't make up for the rest of his time as mayor: outlawing plastic bags at grocery stores, prohibiting any store with a pharmacy from selling cigarettes, trying to make the media forget about the homeless problem (and his lack of doing anything about it) at any cost, the extortion of small businesses via the health insurance mandate, his failure to do anything about corruption in the city government, banning smoking in outdoor designated public spaces... the list goes on.
Actually, you answer your own question - the conservative hate him BECAUSE of the LGBT issues - which you already are impressed with in the first place. I don't know or care what he's running for or who he's running against. My only advice is if the opponent is good on that same issues, then you need more information - if the opponent is bad on that issue, then you decide if being right on that issue is enough to convince you to vote for him. Edit: the conservative also hate him on the whole sanctuary city business so there's another place you probably like him.
I know that people here hate more taxes, but I would like to implore people to vote yes on 21. The state parks are really hurting for money and the $18 does away with the day use fee. To get a yearly day use pass, it costs $100. Now everyone Californian gets to the pass for less than 80% of that cost. The daily fee is around $8 I believe. California has some beautiful parks that have had their staffs cut drastically the last 15 years and can't afford upkeep. Private organizations like the California State Parks Foundation have done much to help raise money for much needed repairs, but there is still a huge gap.
The car tax was nearly trippled in 2009 because of an irresponsible, corrupt legislature. The state can afford to maintain the parks with the revenue already brought in. They choose not too. They employ the same logic you have in your post when justifying more "fees" which are really taxes. Well it's only $18. It's only a half cent increase in the sales tax. I am already paying the highest income tax rates in the nation. I'm paying the highest sales taxes, some of the highest gasoline taxes, the highest vehicle taxes. No this states government needs to learn to live on a budget and cut spending when revenues aren't as high as their rosey predictions. That is what I have had to do. They can too.
Prop 19 - Yes Prop 20 - Yes Prop 21 - No Prop 22 - Yes Prop 23 - Yes Prop 24 - No Prop 25 - No Prop 26 - Yes Prop 27 - No Governor - Whitman, not really a big fan of hers but more of Governor Moonbeam would be a bad, bad thing. Lt. Governor - Newsom? No fucking way. Maldonado for me. Secretary of State - Dunn Controller - Strickland Treasurer - Walters Attorney General - After hearing all about what Harris has done in SF for the past couple of years I have to vote for Cooley. Insurance Commissioner -Villines Superintendent - Aceves US Senate - Fiorina
I don't like Newsom but I refuse to reward Maldanado after he lied when he took a no tax pledge. The same goes for Mike Villines.
The state parks are hurting only because Sacramento wants them to hurt so that people will vote for a VLF increase. It's extortion. That's why they always cut state parks, libraries, etc. first, because that's the easiest thing to con people into tax hikes over. 2 years from now, if 21 passes, they'll defund state parks further (they haven't gone all the way yet, and 21 doesn't stop them from doing so), and boom, prop 50 or something will be another VLF. Don't give in to extortion. Vote NO on 21.
That was a typo. That's what I get for trying to post something like that from the cellphone. I'm voted no on that.
The state receives plenty of revenue. It needs to learn how to live with the revenues it takes in. Does anyone remember in 2009 when they claimed the history making tax increases were put into place it was going to solve the budget problems? The reason it didn't solve the budget problems is simple. The state did absolutely nothing to curb, or cut how it spends money. The more money the state takes in via taxes, the more it spends.
Prop 19 - Yes. It's a step in the right direction; legalize it & tax it. Prop 20 - Yes. Fuck the gerrymandering politicians. Prop 21 - Yes. The parks need it and I like the parks. Prop 22 - No. I hate these moves to mandate funds always be spent on some item. We elect people to decide the budget so we need to let them do their jobs but if we don't like what they've done we can vote their asses out. Prop 23- HELL NO. Fuck you Texas! Prop 24 - Yes. No one likes paying taxes but it must be done. Prop 25 - HELL YES! Fuck the 2/3rds rule. Prop 26 - No. A back door way to try to make the 2/3rds rule stronger; that's the last thing we need. Prop 27 - No. The shit bag politicians want to regain the power to gerrymander districts. They can suck my dick.
http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2365.pdf That's the last field poll taken before election day. Order2Chaos won't like those numbers but it's looking like California is going to get some real reform (Prop 25 is polling very well) while the "Global Warming is fake" crowd is set for a disappointment. Sadly, the pot heads aren't getting any love but it's still with in the margin of error.
73% of the Registered Voters polled by Field are "Likely Voters"? The likely voter screens of most polls this year have been complete shit.
You really don't understand Prop23 do you? It suspends AB32 that was passed solely by the legislature and something that will kill millions of the jobs over the next few years. Do you really think suspending it until unemployment is at a reasonable level is that bad? Not to mention AB32 is based off of fraudulent data created by a man named Han Tran that wasn't qualified to be doing the work he was paid a lot of money to do. Do you think that Mary Nichol's should be held responsible for not providing that information to her fellow CARB members prior to their decisions based off of the bogus study they were provided by Tran? I'm also curious why you think it is a good thing giving the irresponsible legislature a blank check? Oh and by the way the whole green job is complete crap. Green jobs make less than 1/10 of 1% in this state. Do you really think the need is there to bring our near 20% unemployment down?
I understand it very well, thank you. I don't remotely believe the lies that "it will destroy millions of jobs" and so I'm very happy it is going down in flames.
Then you don't understand the unchecked power of CARB and you are supporting a fraud perpetrated by Mary Nichols.
Just voted: 19: Yes 20: Yes 21: Yes 22: Yes 23: Yes 24: No 25: No 26: Yes 27: No Straight Libertarian for the partisan offices, and voted no on all the judges. Also voted against a Santa Cruz utility rate hike disguised under doublespeak about caring for the poor, et cetera.
