California voter initiatives

[cannabineer]

I'm surprised that Politics hasn't had a thread about these! They are influential bits of law on which we vote directly ...

... which means I have a deep distrust of them. Now, in the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour, I suggest we discuss some of them here. Anybody spot the real stinkers hidden in the pack? cn

 

[budlover13]

They all stunk imo.

 

[cannabineer]

They all stunk imo.

Some more than others. I'm especially intrigued by Prop 35, which has an unlikely champion in an Erotic Services Provider. But a bit of digging shows that the proposition is a fairly naked (!) effort to get the worst bits of Drug War tactics approved for a problem whose severity hasn't been demonstrated ... and I doubt its urgency. But if you're asking me to vote for or against a new law that expands forfeiture, which i consider to be a spectacular excess beyond not just the Constitution but any human decency ... it's a no-brainer for those who've penetrated the crocodilian moral outrage of the measure's proponents.

~shrug~ cn

 

[beenthere]

Proposition 30 is asking California tax payers for even more money to fund education.
What they don't tell you is, none of the money is guaranteed to go for educating kids, it all can go directly to the general fund!
This is just another tax to help pay for the $billions in unfunded public union pensions.

I remember years ago when we voted on the California lottery, all of our problems funding education would disappear, yeah right!

A yes vote on proposition 32 would stop unions from using employee deductions to fund the democrat party, fat chance this will pass in this God forsaken state!

 

[cannabineer]

Proposition 30 is asking California tax payers for even more money to fund education.
What they don't tell you is, none of the money is guaranteed to go for educating kids, it all can go directly to the general fund!
This is just another tax to help pay for the $billions in unfunded public union pensions.

I remember years ago when we voted on the California lottery, all of our problems funding education would disappear, yeah right!

A yes vote on proposition 32 would stop unions from using employee deductions to fund the democrat party, fat chance this will pass in this God forsaken state!

Thanks for bringing that one up.

We have Prop 30 and Prop 38 going toe-to-toe. Of the two, I favor the 30. The 38 will only find k-12, and imo the most pressing need is for the community colleges.

I will say ... I am gratified to see not one bond initiative. Damned debt generators. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

Thanks for bringing that one up.

We have Prop 30 and Prop 38 going toe-to-toe. Of the two, I favor the 30. The 38 will only find k-12, and imo the most pressing need is for the community colleges.

I will say ... I am gratified to see not one bond initiative. Damned debt generators. cn

bonds depend on a market to sell the notes, and california debt notes currently sell about as well as pork chops in a hassidic kibbutz.

nobody would even try to shift notes on californias credit rating. you'd have to be retarded to sell em, and brain dead to buy one.

niether of these shitbars will fund anything except governor moonbeam's hubris.

the real stinker on the ballot this time is prop 37, the moronic GMO Terror Bill.
followed closely by the millionaire's tax, which would be our third straight millionaire tax. the last two failed to do shit, the next one is even LESS likely to do shit. california's problem is SPENDING.

sacramento taxes like a grasping fuedal baron, but spends like a drunken sailor

 

[desert dude]

I voted no on all propositions except:

1. yes to revoke death penalty.
2. yes to require a serious crime for the three strikes penalty.

I absolutely agree with Kynes about the utter foolishness of prop 37, and that CA has a spending problem.

 

[althor]

Proposition 30 is asking California tax payers for even more money to fund education.
What they don't tell you is, none of the money is guaranteed to go for educating kids, it all can go directly to the general fund!
This is just another tax to help pay for the $billions in unfunded public union pensions.

I remember years ago when we voted on the California lottery, all of our problems funding education would disappear, yeah right!

A yes vote on proposition 32 would stop unions from using employee deductions to fund the democrat party, fat chance this will pass in this God forsaken state!

Yep, we get one of those every few years in my area. Idiots rush to the polls to vote in favor of it, thinking it is somehow going to help schools. Money never finds it's way to the schools and the school system is just as bad now as it was before the constant increase in taxes to help "fund" them.

 

[cannabineer]

The one that's confusing me right now is Prop. 39. I don't quite agree that CA has a purely spending problem. It has a huge revenue problem as well. But is Prop 39 really just "closing a loophole", or is there some skulduggery there i'm not ferreting out? cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

I voted no on all propositions except:

1. yes to revoke death penalty.
2. yes to require a serious crime for the three strikes penalty.

I absolutely agree with Kynes about the utter foolishness of prop 37, and that CA has a spending problem.

dude...

1: repealing the death penalty? i want to INCREASE our death penalty's rate of execution! some of these cumstains hang around for decades before they get scrubbed out of our gussets, and a few (like richard alan davis) fairly demand the death penalty.
2: not serious crime. the law currently requires a "serious crime" for the third strike. the prop changes the requirement to a "Violent Felony" which was deliberately not a requirement when the law was initially drafted. if one commits 2 violent felonies, it should not require a capital crime to get the 25 to life minimum. the third strike should be a fairly low standard, since the two previous violent felonies already showed the dirtbag to be a dirtbag.

 

[cannabineer]

dude...

1: repealing the death penalty? i want to INCREASE our death penalty's rate of execution! some of these cumstains hang around for decades before they get scrubbed out of our gussets, and a few (like richard alan davis) fairly demand the death penalty.
2: not serious crime. the law currently requires a "serious crime" for the third strike. the prop changes the requirement to a "Violent Felony" which was deliberately not a requirement when the law was initially drafted. if one commits 2 violent felonies, it should not require a capital crime to get the 25 to life minimum. the third strike should be a fairly low standard, since the two previous violent felonies already showed the dirtbag to be a dirtbag.

I do not wish to confer onto the Government the right to execute someone. Not when I consider a life in prison to be the greater punishment.

And as a pure bonus, I'm starving a lawyer somewhere. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

The one that's confusing me right now is Prop. 39. I don't quite agree that CA has a purely spending problem. It has a huge revenue problem as well. But is Prop 39 really just "closing a loophole", or is there some skulduggery there i'm not ferreting out? cn

california's revenue problem is that sacramento gets TOO MUCH revenue. you would not believe what goes on here behind the scenes. only living here can reveal the madness.

prop 39 is not about loopholes. it's a grab for the power to tax people and companies in other states. nothing more. it's gonna cost us millions in litigation fees before it is ruled unconstitutional.

 

[desert dude]

dude...

1: repealing the death penalty? i want to INCREASE our death penalty's rate of execution! some of these cumstains hang around for decades before they get scrubbed out of our gussets, and a few (like richard alan davis) fairly demand the death penalty.
2: not serious crime. the law currently requires a "serious crime" for the third strike. the prop changes the requirement to a "Violent Felony" which was deliberately not a requirement when the law was initially drafted. if one commits 2 violent felonies, it should not require a capital crime to get the 25 to life minimum. the third strike should be a fairly low standard, since the two previous violent felonies already showed the dirtbag to be a dirtbag.

1. You make good points, and there are some criminals that I personally want to execute, but I have seen enough factually innocent people sent to prison to decide that I never want the state to execute anybody, ever.

2. I would be perfectly content to see people with two violent felonies get life without parole, no third crime of any kind required. What I do not want to see is some guy with a burglary, a possession with intent to distribute, and a shoplifting conviction vacationing at Pelican Bay on my dime.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I do not wish to confer onto the Government the right to execute someone. Not when I consider a life in prison to be the greater punishment.

And as a pure bonus, I'm starving a lawyer somewhere. cn

the government already has the right to execute people. you may consider life in prison a fate worse than death, for an institutionalized convict, life in prison is life in Home. shit gets expensive. look how much we have to spend to keep charles manson in the manner to which he is accustomed. look how little richard aalan davis feared being sent back to prison, where he had already spent 2/3 of his life. examine tookie williams and his absolute disregard for the prison time that makes normal people shudder. after a certain point prison becomes a free extended stay hotel for those times between crimes.

sometimes when the turd stinks too much and for too long you gotta flush.

 

[cannabineer]

the government already has the right to execute people. you may consider life in prison a fate worse than death, for an institutionalized convict, life in prison is life in Home. shit gets expensive. look how much we have to spend to keep charles manson in the manner to which he is accustomed. look how little richard aalan davis feared being sent back to prison, where he had already spent 2/3 of his life. examine tookie williams and his absolute disregard for the prison time that makes normal people shudder. after a certain point prison becomes a free extended stay hotel for those times between crimes.

sometimes when the turd stinks too much and for too long you gotta flush.

And I am interested in revoking it. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

1. You make good points, and there are some criminals that I personally want to execute, but I have seen enough factually innocent people sent to prison to decide that I never want the state to execute anybody, ever.

2. I would be perfectly content to see people with two violent felonies get life without parole, no third crime of any kind required. What I do not want to see is some guy with a burglary, a possession with intent to distribute, and a shoplifting conviction vacationing at Pelican Bay on my dime.

1: the safeguards against snuffing an innocent man are as tough as they can be without actually ending capital punishment. anything tougher would prevent anybody from ever getting the last ride, and thus would be a backdoor repeal.

2: the three strikes law REQUIRES 2 violent felonies and one ordinary felony. your example would not get a single strike since burglary, selling weed and shoplifting are not violent felonies. the lefties always cite the dude who's third strike was "stealing a slice of pizza" which sounds like penny ante shit, but consider this, when did stealing a slice of pizza become a felony? the actual charge mister "stole a slice of pizza" was charged with was "Assault with grievous bodily injury on a minor under 14", Battery on a minor under 14" and petty theft. he grabbed an 8 year old, pushed him to the ground breaking the kid's arm, and jacked him for his pizza, which is actually a violent felony assault not a les miserables style bread theif getting le guillotine for trying to prevent starvation. always look deeper.

 

[Dr Kynes]

And I am interested in revoking it. cn

i respectfully disagree. i would like a bit of spectacle in our executions, perhaps even a gameshow, like The Running Man, but without the corruption.

in fact i would like to see a "three strikes and youre dead" law.

Strike One: get convicted of a violent felony
Strike two: after release commit another violent felony.
Strike Three: after release, spit on the sidewalk

Result: thrown into a pit full of hungry hyenas.

 

[desert dude]

1: the safeguards against snuffing an innocent man are as tough as they can be without actually ending capital punishment. anything tougher would prevent anybody from ever getting the last ride, and thus would be a backdoor repeal.

2: the three strikes law REQUIRES 2 violent felonies and one ordinary felony. your example would not get a single strike since burglary, selling weed and shoplifting are not violent felonies. the lefties always cite the dude who's third strike was "stealing a slice of pizza" which sounds like penny ante shit, but consider this, when did stealing a slice of pizza become a felony? the actual charge mister "stole a slice of pizza" was charged with was "Assault with grievous bodily injury on a minor under 14", Battery on a minor under 14" and petty theft. he grabbed an 8 year old, pushed him to the ground breaking the kid's arm, and jacked him for his pizza, which is actually a violent felony assault not a les miserables style bread theif getting le guillotine for trying to prevent starvation. always look deeper.

OK, I made a mistake on item 2, you have convinced me.

You have not convinced me that repealing the death penalty is a bad idea. I am not some sappy hippy who objects to hydrogen cyanide on philosophical grounds. I would be perfectly content to execute a violent criminal that I know is guilty. What I have seen in literally hundreds of cases across the country is the conviction of innocent people. See the innocence project for examples. Read Radley Balko's blog, the agitator, for examples. I simply cannot allow the government the power of life and death when I am certain that the government is corrupt a substantial percentage of the time.

 

[althor]

I am for the death penalty in cases with irrefutable evidence. A case like Jeffrey Dahmer is an example. A rabid dog has to be put down.

 

[cannabineer]

I am for the death penalty in cases with irrefutable evidence. A case like Jeffrey Dahmer is an example. A rabid dog has to be put down.

Interestingly, I see this with a majority of pro-death-penalty posters ... the description of the convict in dehumanizing terms. You did it. Dr. Kynes did it. They're scum, but they are still humans, and we cannot simply flick'em off the end of our figurative shoe after declaring them nonmembers in humanity. It's a logic of double standards. Jmo. cn