2010 Midterm Election

The November midterms draw closer by the hour. The public is set to deliver a stinging rebuke of everything Obama. Tea Party candidates across the board are in solid leads in most polls. All sings point to a Republican takeover of the House, with a huge majority swing possible. Chances are even fairly good that the Senate will swing back to the Republicans as well. At last check, 14 Senate seats are "in play" which has the Democrats in a panic. Meanwhile, many states are also electing governors and other officials, and of course here in California we have the ever present flood of propositions to vote on.

In the governors race here, we're in another situation of voting for crap and crappier. The race has boiled down to Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay on the Republican side, and Jerry Brown, former two-term governor of California and the current state Attorney General. Neither one of these candidates is worth a sack of marbles, but given Jerry Brown's horrible progressive voting record and his policy stances in the past, there's no way in hell I'd ever vote for him even if his opposing candidate were Satan himself. Chances are Whitman won't be much better for us, but at least there's some hope that her business background will bring a ray of common sense to the state. Frankly I would have preferred if Steve Poizner had won the Republican primary.

An interesting, and quite infuriating, sidenote here - Jerry Brown has already served two terms as governor. We enacted term limits on the office in 1996. Guess who turns out to be exempt because both of his terms were before that? Yeah, you guessed it, Jerry Brown. Anyone smell a rat here? I can't understand why he's even being allowed to run, his candidacy should have been invalidated because of that. God damn loopholes.

For our US Senate seat, Barbara Boxer is facing a major battle against Carly Fiorina. This is the first significant threat Boxer has faced since being elected 17 years ago. Yep, another liberal lifer in office. Nobody is surprised, right? But wait, before that she was a Congresswoman for 10 years. I think 27 years of screwing up the country is quite enough, so kindly get out. Fiorina appears to be in decent position to take her out, but it's too close to call it yet. Sadly Feinstein isn't up this time around, so we'll have to get rid of her on the next shot.

I wonder what happens if we all cast votes saying none of the judges up for the CA Supreme Court should be seated... that would be fun. I don't know squat about any of these people, yet they are arguably the ones who will have the most impact on things since the courts just love to legislate from the bench whenever it suits them. I love how they've fooled everyone into thinking these are non-partisan offices because nothing could be further from the truth.

Now for the meat of the ballot. This election has some pretty nasty contradictory measures up for vote. It looks like the people who drive these initiatives have learned how to play the game in a whole new devious way. No way am I typing out the entire headings on these things either, they're all insanely long (which can't be good).

Proposition 19: Legalization of Marijuana

Means just what it says. Pot will become legal under state law for anyone over 21 to grow, possess, transport, and consume. I have to assume that this can only apply so long as the pot isn't transported across state lines, because then it's a DEA matter and the feds don't take kindly to drug trafficking. The state will also be able to impose gigantic taxes on the stuff, claiming they're going to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars every year, and saving about as much in incarceration costs. Honestly, I'm somewhat torn on this one. I'm leaning in favor of legalization only because pot isn't an entirely useless thing, unlike tobacco and alcohol, and it's certainly not as dangerous. No mention is made of how it'll be regulated though. One would assume it will fall under existing DUI laws.

Proposition 20: Redistricting of Congressional Districts

Definite yes vote. This one strips all power for drawing up congressional districts from the hands of the elected representatives and puts it in the hands of the 14 member redistricting panel that was enacted during one of our last proposition cycles. Surely this MUST be better than letting the politicians decide their own district boundaries.

Proposition 21: Impose $18 Additional Tax on Vehicle Registrations

No. God dammit, NO. No more taxes!!! I don't care what you claim it'll be used for. You people in Sacramento have lied to us repeatedly about these things so often it hurts. So just no. They claim this one will be to pay for maintenance at state parks, and as a result, all vehicles who got smashed over the head with the new tax can visit any state park for free. Well guess what guys? There's a damn recession going on and we can't afford to have you jackals raising our registration fees for your planet worshiping crap. Yes, I'm rather pissed off about this one. People aren't going to the parks because they can't afford to.

Proposition 22: Prohibition Against "Borrowing" From Transportation Funds

Hell yes. California has an addiction to indiscriminately raiding the transportation funds to cover shortfalls in the general budget, despite the tax money being legally directed to transportation. While I would obviously prefer they just cut taxes and reduce spending, this is a step in the right direction to weening Sacramento off of their destructive habits which have led this state to ruin.

Proposition 23: Suspension of some pollution control law (yeah, this one's title is longer than the damn explanation of it!)

There's some sort of law on the books which is requiring "large polluters" to report on their emissions that supposedly cause global warming. This proposition is suspending enforcement on that, or something, until state unemployment rates drop below 5.5%. Another step in the right direction, since suspending this will help boost the economy and in the end that will generate larger revenues. Pass this one, and then snicker in the corner at the realization that it will be 50 years before unemployment ever drops back below 5.5% here. Even during the Bush years CA never got down that far.

Proposition 24: Repeal Recent Legislation Allowing Businesses to Lower Tax Liability

Um. No. Clearly this one got slipped in by progressive morons who still have not figured out that punishing businesses with more taxes causes them to pack up and leave the state. No other possible result will come of this. The phantom revenues you claim will be generated simply won't happen, and chances are it will cause unemployment to rise as well.

Proposition 25: Change Vote Requirement to Pass Budgets from 2/3 to Simple Majority

Pay attention. This is one of the two deceptive propositions I mentioned earlier. You'd have to be crazy to let this one go through in a state that's already been completely screwed over by Democrats. That buffer we have right now of Republicans that stop them just short of getting a 2/3 majority is the only reason this state hasn't been given back to Mexico due to being utterly worthless. You remove this protection, and you can kiss any chance of ever saving this state good-bye.

Proposition 26: Requires That Certain Fees Be Approved By 2/3 Majority

There's a lot of double and triple speak in this one, but the basic thing boils down to requiring a 2/3 majority to raise taxes. You can call them fees if you want, they're still taxes. Pay attention here though, see Prop 25 above. This would be worthless if 25 passes, because this very thing is covered by the change to a simple majority, which would make passing 26 pointless.

Proposition 27: Eliminate the Recently Approved Redistricting Commission

Pay attention again here folks. Refer back to Prop 20. That commission we approved that's going to get ALL of the power instead of being hamstrung like they are now? Not if 27 passes, because 27 wants to completely eliminate that commission. If 27 passes, 20 becomes moot. Don't be fooled, these guys are gaming the system! Prop 27 would put things right back into the hands of the very people who have destroyed California.
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

« Helmet Cam
Liberty on the Line »

Posted on Oct 17, 2010 3:01 am by Samson in: | 23 comment(s) [Closed]
And I though the last election in Australia felt pretty hopeless...(actually, it wasn't really any better at all, our leaders are all pretty woeful at the moment)

Anyway, with Proposition 23, if all that large polluters have to do is report on their pollution levels, hows that going to be anti-business (or stop global warming)? I mean, I suppose really heavy polluters might (would) get their pollution levels published in the media, which might in turn cause people to avoid their products, but, well, there's some stuff you can only get from heavy polluters anyway.

I went back and took a closer look at 23. It isn't just about reporting. Companies are also expected to actively reduce the emissions, which I'm sure you're aware costs a great deal of money. Given that man-made global warming has been thoroughly debunked as a hoax, it makes zero sense to impose any sort of restrictions at all based on that. However, since the proposition isn't offering to repeal the regulations, we'll have to accept suspending them as the next best thing until saner minds return to the government and repeal damaging legislation that was enacted based on bogus science.

Francis [Anon] said:
Comment #3 Oct 17, 2010 4:21 pm

These are the most critical points to bear in mind, when arriving at the polling stations to vote. The most treacherous person to re-elect is Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Part of his main formula in issues, is the passage of Amnesty for all illegal immigrants squatting in this country. Second to go should be Senator Barbara Boxer as she has been conditioned by the Liberal hierarchy, and has attributed to the out spending rampage, the illegal alien benefits in California. Hopefully Carly Fiorina will win on her merits and stop this third country, banana republic, low income poor importation. This must be sterilized as the cost to compel another Path to Citizenship should terrify every prudent American. The most nonpartisan organization known as the Heritage Foundation, has calculated the dollar numbers and projected that that to create this new law will cost US taxpayers--$ 2.6 TRILLION DOLLARS. This is just at the federal level and doesn't take into account State and local government expenditures.

America already owes foreign governments 11 to 13 Trillion dollars and an additional 2.6 Trillion dollars is an incomprehensible financial nightmare. Then again, Liberal-Democrats want to share our Social Security with illegal aliens (Voted May 2006)? This is the height of disgusting, when retirees and the disabled have been told no increase next year, owing to low inflation. Many recipients cannot even manage on the Social Security check as it is, yet the US government has money to hand out to illegal labor and their families.

GOOGLE--Harry Reid; Amnesty; Path to Citizenship; always add illegal alien costs. Investigating these keywords will offer hundreds of articles and reports of taxes you’re paying to support this pestilence. The welfare entitlement programs from federal, state and local government are being compromised by foreign nationals, who are pilfering your money through over-taxation; blue and white collar jobs; the lowering of wages.

Gubernatorial Wannabe Jerry Brown ideology is one of the same as Reid, Boxer and the Mayor of the Sanctuary City of San Francisco Gavin Newsom, while California's budget remains crippled. All these Liberals disguised as Centralist Democrats are pro--AMNESTY. All would pass bills to open tuition fees to illegal alien children on the taxpayers back in colleges and state universities and keep the massive welfare programs from Sacramento.We must clean the rancid air in this sanctuary state and stop catering to illegal aliens, who are criminals; they broke the law. The second most disgraceful issue is that of voter fraud resurfacing around the country. In most states there are no compulsory regulations to identifying the voter and so the federal system can be effortlessly compromised. The "Honor System" died back in the early 1990, and trust went out the window. Just GOOGLE--Voter fraud and highlight registration groups such being (ACORN) Association of Community Organization for Reform Now with workers complicit in changing the direction of the vote as in previous elections.

This can be a serious threat in races, which are within a hairs breath of each candidate winning. With just 20 days left until the Nov. 2 midterm election, party tensions in Houston Texas are running high over allegations of enormous voter fraud. Amid the conclusion were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. Elicit registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of illegal aliens; so many applications from one of the Houston Voters collectors in one day, that it was deemed to be beyond human ability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same individual multiple times, often with different signatures. Now the Liberal nonprofit Houston Votes 2010, along with Tex Together Fund, are being investigated by the state’s attorney general’s agency over allegations of fraud, conspiracy and ties to the New organized Black Panthers. Other voter fraud has began to materialize elsewhere across the country, more so in registrations.

If it wasn't for the Tea Party's vigilance this type of voter fraud would have remained likely undisclosed, especially now the Liberal-Democrats party is under the axe. We must be particularly heedful of illegal aliens voting--either deliberately or because both parties have not illustrated federal regulations strong enough, warning of the consequences. Illegal aliens have already broken laws on illegal passage into the US, so affecting the course of any general election has no significant risk with imprisonment or a hurtful fine; just deportation. The third issue is to enforce laws we already passed in 1986 by Congress. If enforced the regulations would have curtailed employers hiring. Build the--REAL--double fence at the border and stopped There is also evidence that illegal immigrants without exclusionary criminal convictions are being released at ICE discretion back on the streets, which according to the Simpson/Mazzoli law is illegal.

Being in this country illegally should require deportation, as it will obviously compel more people to enter America. Sen. H. Reid and Senate Democrats of nearly tabling E-Verify, limiting the effect of this labor verification program to a voluntary law. The 287(g) local police enforcement authority is now in the justice system as a class action law suit, to overturn the law. The usual court filing excuse is it leads to racial profiling, particularly among Latinos, creating a dread of authority in non-citizen communities. The crisis being that we have been invaded and over the last two decades of people attracting to jobs and accessing public benefits. This is why Border States have condemned themselves to a massive influx of illegal households subsisting on freebies, using bogus documents or bringing babies here for citizenship to exploit the nationwide entitlement system. Research on any Computer Search Engine Browser and seek your own truths and not the lies fabricated by the Liberal media or the colluding politicians.

Prop 19: Actually, Samson, I believe it already is covered by the existing DUI laws in (almost?) every state. :shrug:

Prop 20: Not being a California resident myself, this, along with most of the rest, doesn't really impact me, but yes, establishing real district divisions has to be better than letting the politicians assign their own constituency.

Prop 21: I can fully appreciate your stance on this one, though if they're going to inflict new taxes, at least this one's a small set amount and not yet another percentage of something.. on the other hand, you're right, the public can't afford to visit the parks right now, overall, as much as they could before Obama came into power and forcing everyone to pay their annual park admission in advance isn't going to help that.

Prop 22: Um, yeah.. y'all's politicians are so crooked they've gotta get John Q. Public to vote on whether they should quit raiding the cookie jar... :facepalm:

Prop 23, including the first two follow-up comments so far: Even if the whole global warming thing is purely bogus, the heavy polluters are still polluting heavily and, frankly, forcing them to reduce those emissions isn't a bad thing for plenty of other reasons. So, I wouldn't consider this one just another global warming holdover myself.

Prop 24: Agreed

Prop 25: You have to wonder why anyone reading that proposition would endorse it, but bet it still either passes or comes bloody close to it.

Prop 26: Talk about double talk, isn't this basically a counter to Prop 25?? Was this list of propositions put forth individually by folks who didn't know what was in any of the other propositions on the table this year?

Prop 27: And, just like 26, we've got another absolutely contradictory one on the ballot. How do these get approved for the ballot in the first place??

Greetings Francis, welcome to the party.. um, I don't mean that politically.. though, from what you've shared with us today, maybe it could apply that way too. :shrug:

Initiatives can get on the ballot in basically one of two ways:

1. The legislature drafts an initiative and offers it to the voters.
2. The voters themselves circulate a petition to get an issue on the ballot. This is by far the most common way it happens here, and once the required number of signatures is gathered, it gets certified and added. It makes no difference if there's directly contradictory stuff going on, the Secretary of State has little choice but to approve it.

It's a double-edged sword. On one hand, things like Prop 8 never would have been voted on if the state legislature had the only power. On the other hand, some really stupid shit gets in every now and then.

Prop 23 is specifically about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions though. It isn't actually dealing with true pollution, although as you can see, the spin doctors who drafted the proposition made sure heavy polluters got mentioned.

You have to keep Prop 21 in perspective. California already has one of the highest vehicle registration costs in the country and they want to add even more to that. Combine with our having the highest gas taxes and (pretty sure) the highest sales taxes and highest state income taxes, you can see why yet another tax is something sane individuals can't support. The state can't be trusted to spend it properly anyway, so why let them have it?

Francis said:

All would pass bills to open tuition fees to illegal alien children on the taxpayers back in colleges and state universities and keep the massive welfare programs from Sacramento.

First off, welcome. :)

Second - This has already happened. California currently offers the in-state tuition discount to illegal aliens. Many native born residents of the state can't even get those! But sneak across our border, steal someone's identity, illegally get a job, and you'll have the world handed to you on a gold platter.

That's a little crazy, but I suppose it is a bit more democratic than the process in most of the rest of the states.. or we just don't see it often enough in other states to realize they're doing it too. :shrug:

Prop 23: Oh, I see, so the heavy polluters thing was just a bit of eye candy to catch those who didn't read the whole thing. :sigh:

Prop 21: Well, yeah, and on top of all that no one likes new taxes especially when they're badly timed and for poorly chosen reasons, but as I said, if they're going to add yet another tax on you, at least it's for a small set amount. Thank God for small favors, right?

In-state tuition discounts and such: :facepalm:

Proposition 19: Legalization of Marijuana

I cannot agree with this more, for a multitude of reasons. But the main one has nothing to do with pot smokers at all, it has to do with the hemp fiber industry which cannot currently operate because the plant itself is illegal to grow, no matter what the THC levels.

The fact that recreational drug users will not end up in jail for drug use or posession is a bonus. It will be interesting to hear how the excicse collected gets used, hopefully on health services and education programs that help to stop the use of drugs in the first place.

This is California. If it's legalized and excise taxes imposed, trust me when I tell you they won't earmark it for anything other than the general fund which they raid repeatedly to waste on welfare until the fund is dry.

Also, I can't find the link to the article, but I recall reading that the plants that hemp are made from don't contain THC to begin with, and the guy who wrote it was going on about how the government has duped everyone into thinking the smoking plant is the same as the rope making plant. Our founding fathers AND native Indians can both tell you for certain which plants are which - because they both knew that firsthand. Sadly, they're all dead now so we can't hear it right from them.

:shrug: I wouldn't mind seeing a boon (rebirth?) to the hemp producers of the world, but frankly I'm all for the legalization of marijuana because, as Samson indicated earlier, I don't believe that marijuana's nearly as bad as alcohol, in fact, marijuana actually has some perfectly valid medical uses whereas non-rubbing alcohol is much more limited in medicinal value... (Note that I do not feel that way at all about the vast majority of other currently "controlled substances".) I think I'd much rather legalized marijuana than legalized alcohol and I'm already stuck with the legalized alcohol.

This is California

Maybe Prop 19 is because the governator wants legal access to steroids and growth hormones.

I don't believe that marijuana's nearly as bad as alcohol,

I think it is equally as bad, just in different ways. Pot smokers tend to end up with mental illness compared to liver damage and other alchohol releated issues. Pot smoke is equally as bad as tobaco smoke in the ways that it harms the lungs, its just that people dont smoke a packet of joints a day :). It also impares ones ability to make decisions when driving etc.

It is certainly no worse than tobacco and alchohol in its effects on the body, it probably wins out over alchahol in that it does not tend towards voilence when taken to excess, thus it has the ability to reduce the amount of violent crimes and domestic abuse.

But we might see a sharp rise in petty thefts from 7-11 stores, when everyone gets the munchies.

Right, it's about equal in terms of the long term damage that it does to the body compared to either tobacco or alcohol, so you've got to compare other aspects to determine which is worse. Tobacco and Marijuana compare fairly closely though tobacco does considerably less toward impairment but alcohol is a major factor in all sorts of violent affairs whereas marijuana's clearly not. Even as far as vehicular accidents, someone stoned is less likely to decide to go for a drive rather than macramé themselves to the couch. :blues: As for those poor 7-11 stores, they already budget for theft anyway, a few extra slurpee and hot dog/twinkie sales/thefts aren't going to make a huge difference to their budgets. :evil:

Marijuana is also much less addictive than tobacco and alcohol to (by which I the proportion of users who become dependent on it is smaller. I'd give the exact figures, but unfortunately I've lost the science article I got that from), which is another reason why legalizing it shouldn't really be an issue.

Yes, that's said to be true as well. Both alcohol and tobacco are more addictive than marijuana. (Especially tobacco these days with all the extra stuff the major tobacco companies have added to their products specifically the enhance the addictiveness of it.)

I'd give the exact figures, but unfortunately I've lost the science article I got that from

Did you loose it, or forget where you put it because of pot induced memory loss ; /humor.

From experience, pot is much easier to quit than cigerettets, not that i was much of a pot head, i cannot really compare with alcohol because i have never really been much of a drinker, a beer or 2 is about all i do these days and even in the hey day of my youth, it might have been a much as a 6pack on the weekend.

Edited by The_Fury on Oct 18, 2010 1:28 am
Did you loose it, or forget where you put it because of pot induced memory loss ; /humor.

No, I used the paper to make some roll-your-owns :smile:

That is what the bible is for.

Careful there, don't make me call on The Almighty to strike you with lightning bolts!

@Fury: I agree, quitting pot is much easier than quitting tobacco, though, from what I understand, once you become a serious alcohol addict that's even harder to quit than tobacco.

@Samson: I think he's got a pretty good take on the situation. I can't help but wonder if he's being a touch optimistic in his forecast, but I think he's right about the voter motivation involved and the general way it's likely to play out.

He usually does. Only I think he's underestimating the Senate races. Dick Morris was on Fox the other night predicting that we'd also take the Senate, capturing 12 of 16 seats he says are in play. That's enough to get a majority, but not a bullet proof one.

Samson said:

Careful there, don't make me call on The Almighty to strike you with lightning bolts!

By all mighty, do you mean Bruce

Edited by The_Fury on Oct 18, 2010 5:29 pm
@Samson: :nod:

@Fury: Bruce, Evan, George.. somebody. ;)

<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.

Forgot Password?

 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30