November CA election

[DowningRules]

DR, i had forgotten about the bill of goods they sold us on prop 30, and then a day or two after the election brownie revealed it was going to raise taxes and they knew it all along. thanks for reminding me/us.

 

 

once again, ladies and gents, i urge you to stop voting for incumbents for sacramento. our legislature really blows.

 

Yep.  We often forget these things, especially as time goes on...just like the politicians hope we would.

[floplag]

What is so different now than it was before?

 

Seriously?  this is a troll post right?

[nate]

No it isn't.  CA isn't more liberal now than it was a decade ago.

[floplag]

No it isn't.  CA isn't more liberal now than it was a decade ago.

Considering that it was just 6 years ago that this state passed prop 8, which wouldnt even get close to the ballot today, your entire assumptions is as wrong as wrong can be in this case.

Factor in the Dem patronization of illegals for the hispanic vote, free everything to the lower income brackets, and all the other wonderful nonsnese we've seen in gov moonbeams tenure...

you either have no clue what you are talking about or you are trolling, either way, youre wrong.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Both gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana are being viewed differently around the country as opposed to 6 years ago.  I don't think it has as much to do with people who were previously conservative considering themselves liberal as you seem to be implying.    

[fan_since79]

Does it matter who the Reps run?  i mean at best hes a sacrificial lamb in this bastion of a liberal dem sanctuary.

Brown has turned this state into a joke, a joke on all of us.  The priorities of his entire term in offoice have been nothing less than self serving partisan moonbeam bull.

You need not worry about how to spell the Reps name, he wont be reelvant long anough to make it worth the effort.

 

I don't even know why he's running. To begin with, he's a liberal disguised as a "moderate" Republican. Nothing conservative about him, except perhaps his disdain for the high-speed choo choo train.

 

His campaign is just a waste of time and money. The voters love Brown and he'll win in a landslide. They want big government but not too much of it, and Brown has accommodated them.

Edited October 8, 2014 by fan_since79

[nate]

Considering that it was just 6 years ago that this state passed prop 8, which wouldnt even get close to the ballot today, your entire assumptions is as wrong as wrong can be in this case.

Factor in the Dem patronization of illegals for the hispanic vote, free everything to the lower income brackets, and all the other wonderful nonsnese we've seen in gov moonbeams tenure...

you either have no clue what you are talking about or you are trolling, either way, youre wrong.

 

Prop 8 was voted down by something like 56% of the voters...  Really a civil rights tragedy.

[fan_since79]

Prop 8 was voted down by something like 56% of the voters...  Really a civil rights tragedy.

 

Better check your results. Prop 8 passed by a margin of 52-48. It received more than 7 million votes in favor.

Edited October 8, 2014 by fan_since79

[floplag]

Prop 8 was voted down by something like 56% of the voters...  Really a civil rights tragedy.

on that i agree. prop 8 was a joke that never should have seen a ballot or the light of day

[fan_since79]

on that i agree. prop 8 was a joke that never should have seen a ballot or the light of day

 

Even though more than 7 million voters agreed with it?

 

And Nate's figures are wrong. It passed 52-48. A judge later struck it down.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

I'm guessing Nate got it backwards on accident because just like during that election it was confusing as **** to say supporting prop 8 meant a no on gay marriage.  They even had PSA's about it clarifying that a yes vote meant no.  

[nate]

I meant voted for, I got the % wrong 52 56 same thing.

 

For me it was voted down because I was against it.

 

At least the justice system did its job.

[floplag]

Even though more than 7 million voters agreed with it?

 

And Nate's figures are wrong. It passed 52-48. A judge later struck it down.

 

if 7 million voters wanted to bring back slavery, should we?

Even if it was 98%, is still shouldnt have gone to ballot.

it makes no difference how many want something if that something is a clear violation of anothers person or groups rights.

 

[nate]

By the way, prop 8 was a religious thing.  The biggest group of yes votes came from Hispanic Catholics.

[fan_since79]

if 7 million voters wanted to bring back slavery, should we?

Even if it was 98%, is still shouldnt have gone to ballot.

it makes no difference how many want something if that something is a clear violation of anothers person or groups rights.

 

 

That's a wide-ranging topic for another thread, involving not only the Constitution and the proper interpretation of it by judges, but also the nature of marriage and whether two men or two women have a "right" for their relationship to be legally recognized as such by the citizens of an individual state.

 

Whether a state's definition of marriage between a man and a woman is a "clear violation" of a homosexual's "rights" is very much open to debate.

[floplag]

By the way, prop 8 was a religious thing.  The biggest group of yes votes came from Hispanic Catholics.

 

of course it was, another reason why separation of church and state needs to be an absolute

[nate]

my god man you are all over the place

[floplag]

That's a wide-ranging topic for another thread, involving not only the Constitution and the proper interpretation of it by judges, but also the nature of marriage and whether two men or two women have a "right" for their relationship to be legally recognized as such by the citizens of an individual state.

 

Whether a state's definition of marriage between a man and a woman is a "clear violation" of a homosexual's "rights" is very much open to debate.

 

Not really, if you are using the law to deny another persons right based on your religious view, there is little debate to be had.  Just becasue the slight majority of people in this state are homophobic, doesnt make them right.

 

I said then and i say now treat all marriages as civil unions equal under the eyes of the law whether done by a judge or a priest, problem solved, save the "ceremony" for the churches. Seperate but equal has never really worked, it probably doesnt there either, but it was better than nothing.

 

The problem with that in recent years is that its become clear that isnt good enough since we are now trying to force churches to perform these ceremonies and businesses to support them.. that is another ball of wax.    Not sure i agree with that one as both sides have rights but thats another thread.

[mtangelsfan]

I think California is more liberal now than 10 years ago.  Ask yourself this, who is leaving the state vs. who is coming into the state?

[floplag]

my god man you are all over the place

not really no, but you are consistent in giving me grief even when i agree with you, lol 

[fan_since79]

As long as the state doesn't someday compel pastors to perform same-sex marriages in their churches. Isn't that the next step, if these unions are recognized as marriages with rights equal to traditional marriage?

[nate]

If the state forces pastors to do anything against there religion then that is a definite violation of church and state.

[floplag]

As long as the state doesn't someday compel pastors to perform same-sex marriages in their churches. Isn't that the next step, if these unions are recognized as marriages with rights equal to traditional marriage?

as said this is another ball of wax... but personally i feel it cuts both ways.

just as a church has no right to tell a gay they cant marry, there is also no merit to forcing that church to marry them.

the problem is that there is no possible common ground here aside from those more progressive churches that are willing to do so by choice.

at some point we are going to have to address the issue of churches having the cake and eating it to so to speak, too much power and too little accountability, but hat to is probably an issue for another thread

[TobiasFunke]

We go from talking about the governor race to fighting over marriages. Maybe this is a small sample size of how Sacto works.

Edited October 8, 2014 by TobiasFunke

[floplag]

right?
bottom line, whoever the Reps run is irrelevant, even they know it, they part is find crazy is how they talked the guy into it and why he spent any of his own money.