|
I'd like to see a property tax type thing for vehicles above a certain size. People who are driving small houses around, like Sequoias and Suburbans and the like, should be paying more than people with rational-sized vehicles.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:I'd like to see a property tax type thing for vehicles above a certain size. People who are driving small houses around, like Sequoias and Suburbans and the like, should be paying more than people with rational-sized vehicles. I invite you to throw a stone at Tim Eyman; the closest you can hope for is a per-gallon gas tax as a way to drive equity between vehicle sizes. But honestly the impact of any regular old 4-wheeler is significantly less than your basic hauling semi-truck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Gerund posted:I invite you to throw a stone at Tim Eyman; the closest you can hope for is a per-gallon gas tax as a way to drive equity between vehicle sizes. But honestly the impact of any regular old 4-wheeler is significantly less than your basic hauling semi-truck. My proposition is also based on quality of life issues posed by these monstrous vehicles. They block sight lines, obstruct traffic, don't fit in parking lots, and generally just don't make for good company on the roads. Environmental concerns are certainly valid, but my objection goes well beyond that aspect of outsized vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:My proposition is also based on quality of life issues posed by these monstrous vehicles. They block sight lines, obstruct traffic, don't fit in parking lots, and generally just don't make for good company on the roads. Environmental concerns are certainly valid, but my objection goes well beyond that aspect of outsized vehicles. It's not just environmental. Semis tear up the roads in ways suburbans don't. Seriously, semis are heavy enough to gently caress up the road bed in ways regular passenger vehicles, even big ones, can't. I mean, I'm sympathetic to your points, although I don't see enough suburbans to really think of it as an issue. Edit: also, on a completely different topic, who thought this sign was a good idea? I get what it means, but there has to be a better way to get that across. I mean, the tracks aren't a hazard if you cross perpendicularly. It's when you're riding parallel that you get thrown. The one wheeled bike doesn't really get that across. Anyway, are these new? I've never noticed them before. 
HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
I voted against background checks and the smaller classrooms
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Background checks for classrooms and smaller guns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Lord Waffle Beard posted:I voted against background checks and the smaller classrooms Saw people out with "don't tread on my gun rights" signs out today (during the seahawks game no less!). There should be some sort of automatic pass rule when that snake shows up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
I just got a call from Jason Ritchie's campaign; he's the guy running against Reichert. While chatting with the staffer, I asked how their polling looks. She laughed nervously and said they're "running a lean, mean campaign" and so they haven't seen any polling either. I couldn't tell if she was lying and the polls were really bad, or if they're so broke that they can't afford any polling. Either way, I guess this means Reichert doesn't have anything to worry about on Tuesday. Oh well, at least he's not a Tea Partier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Lord Waffle Beard posted:I voted against background checks and the smaller classrooms I cancelled your vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
bartkusa posted:I cancelled your vote. Phew, now mine'll get through. Thanks! Accretionist fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
I voted for legal weed, the education fund, and GMO labels down here, and against the open primary and letting illegals get licenses. No pet issues on the ballot aside from the weed one which is probably gonna pass, so whatever. I may as well write "fleeble glorp" in for the local elections since they're all unopposed incumbents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:I just got a call from Jason Ritchie's campaign; he's the guy running against Reichert. While chatting with the staffer, I asked how their polling looks. She laughed nervously and said they're "running a lean, mean campaign" and so they haven't seen any polling either. I couldn't tell if she was lying and the polls were really bad, or if they're so broke that they can't afford any polling. Either way, I guess this means Reichert doesn't have anything to worry about on Tuesday. Oh well, at least he's not a Tea Partier. I think the Ritchie campaign is more about having someone to run against Reichert. With the recent redistricting he's too safe in his seat, but you may as well make him work for it. It also gets Ritchie's name out there and gives him some experience with campaigning. He seems like he could be a really strong progressive candidate. edit: His reddit AMA was a masterpiece of courting younger voters. oxbrain fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:I think the Ritchie campaign is more about having someone to run against Reichert. With the recent redistricting he's too safe in his seat, but you may as well make him work for it. It also gets Ritchie's name out there and gives him some experience with campaigning. He seems like he could be a really strong progressive candidate. Ritchie has zero chance against Reichert, but he'd be good to have in the legislature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Javid posted:I voted for legal weed, the education fund, and GMO labels down here, and against the open primary and letting illegals get licenses. No pet issues on the ballot aside from the weed one which is probably gonna pass, so whatever. I voted for everything but the fake "open primary" measure myself. Measure 90 is the one bill I really want to see die, like it did when it was floated last time in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Ritchie has zero chance against Reichert, but he'd be good to have in the legislature. It's really too bad. The 8th was always so close to going blue, now it's solidly red and we'll never get rid of that shitheel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:It's really too bad. The 8th was always so close to going blue, now it's solidly red and we'll never get rid of that shitheel. 2012 redistricting was a game changer. It was legitimately swing, but once redistricting happened, the swing parts went to the 1st and the 8th became safe R.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
xrunner posted:It's not just environmental. Semis tear up the roads in ways suburbans don't. Seriously, semis are heavy enough to gently caress up the road bed in ways regular passenger vehicles, even big ones, can't. I mean, I'm sympathetic to your points, although I don't see enough suburbans to really think of it as an issue. Speaking as someone who's gone head over handlebars by crossing the streetcar tracks, they're fine. A good reminder of the danger lurking beneath your wheels. The point of the sign is to convey meaning, not to be an accurate photo of what might happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
It needs to be clear enough to get the point across to people who haven't had it happen to them before, and I can see how that graphic might not be clear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:2012 redistricting was a game changer. It was legitimately swing, but once redistricting happened, the swing parts went to the 1st and the 8th became safe R. The democrats hosed that one up big time. We created a new swing district and gave the republicans one more safe one. Both parties went into it publicly stating that they wanted to protect incumbents, but with Inslee leaving it was a free for all on his district.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:2012 redistricting was a game changer. It was legitimately swing, but once redistricting happened, the swing parts went to the 1st and the 8th became safe R. To be fair, if you've ever been to Milton it's pretty similar politically to Wenatchee.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Javid posted:I voted for legal weed, the education fund, and GMO labels down here, and against the open primary and letting illegals get licenses. No pet issues on the ballot aside from the weed one which is probably gonna pass, so whatever. CaptainSarcastic posted:I voted for everything but the fake "open primary" measure myself. Measure 90 is the one bill I really want to see die, like it did when it was floated last time in 2008. Oh look, Oregonians voting for a horribly anti-science initiative. How surprising. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
Javid posted:against the open primary and letting illegals get licenses Yeah, I hate it when the drivers I'm sharing the road with are licensed, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
Everyone should want illegals to have licenses. On the one hand, it increases training and accountability. On the other hand, a database of names and addresses. Win:Win Accretionist fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
Mrit posted:Oh look, Oregonians voting for a horribly anti-science initiative. How surprising. Hey. I voted against giving consumers more information. Don't paint with such a broad brush.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
Vavrek posted:Hey. I voted against giving consumers more information. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
Cascadia should use nullification to kick all DEA, ICE, and BATFE agents out imho
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
Do people care that much about immigration in the NW? I got used to the dialogue in CA and by comparison it seems like a background concern.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
Re: Labeling -- You have to be reasonable. Otherwise, why not have labels for 'Sugar Added,' or 'Sodium Added,' or 'HFCS Added,' or 'Pesticide-Crop,' or 'High Mutagenicity,' or 'Hormone-Treated,' or 'Salinomycin-Treated,' or 'Neonicotinoids Used,' or -- I don't find the pro-arguments very compelling. Hell, there's a substantially better case for 'Sugar Added' and we haven't seen any real movement on that. Why not?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:there's a substantially better case for 'Sugar Added' and we haven't seen any real movement on that. Why not? Food fight builds as U.S. regulators weigh 'added sugar' label http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/04/us-sugar-labels-idUSKBN0G40X020140804
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Food fight builds as U.S. regulators weigh 'added sugar' label Haha, welp. There's too much that's real for us to be tilting at windmills. Sugar-intake past a certain point is demonstrably god awful, and a normal diet puts you into that range because nearly everything is laced with added-sugar. There really is a solid, grounded argument here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Haha, welp.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 11:34
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Absolutely. Modern era sugar intake is loving toxic, but every time it gets brought up on the forums the soda addicts scream and burn the thread down so its easier to just move on. Oddly enough sugar free soda also pisses them off as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
That's because diet soda tastes horrible. I'd be down to force them to label everything on that list, but everything isn't on the ballot. How precisely is "food labels must accurately portray their contents" anti-science? FRINGE posted:Do people care that much about immigration in the NW? I got used to the dialogue in CA and by comparison it seems like a background concern. It isn't the issue it is elsewhere, for sure. I expect that one to pass easily.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Javid posted:
A similar law was passed requiring anything that goes through irradiation to be labeled as such. As a consequence, we have salmonella in all of our poultry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A similar law was passed requiring anything that goes through irradiation to be labeled as such. Not to mention listeria and e coli in tons of other foods. I used to work at a rather large food safety laboratory and this is some pretty serious poo poo. But hey, consumers having the right to make irrational choices is way more important, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Vavrek posted:Hey. I voted against giving consumers more information. Don't paint with such a broad brush.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
UnclePlasticBitch posted:If it passes, it'll probably be like that ubiquitous prop-whatever cancer warning in California. Give it a couple years and no one will even notice it's there anymore. Until Monsanto et al takes it to the Supreme Court and it gets treated like those "Does not contain rBST" labels on milk. They can trivially argue that it implies GMOs are dangerous and have a metric ton of independent research showing that GMOs are safe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Do people care that much about immigration in the NW? I got used to the dialogue in CA and by comparison it seems like a background concern. Apple pickers? A bunch of them got scared off a year or 2 ago (and the farmers sure as poo poo aren't raising wages) so fruit was rotting off the trees.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Do people care that much about immigration in the NW? I got used to the dialogue in CA and by comparison it seems like a background concern.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
anthonypants posted:Spend some time in any of our former logging communities. No, no thanks. I'd really rather not go back there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:06
|
|
