|
Doc Hawkins posted:Scott "tallest stack of poo poo in Sacramento" Weiner Wait a sec - why does Scott Weiner suck? I thought he was good??
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:She'll be buried in earthquake rubble only to be released by greedy dwarven miners in 10,000 years https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkpS2Sdu2io
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 22:07
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Wait a sec - why does Scott Weiner suck? I thought he was good?? loves cops and takes more money from the real estate industry than any other politician in the state
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Wait a sec - why does Scott Weiner suck? I thought he was good?? Doc Hawkins posted:loves cops and takes more money from the real estate industry than any other politician in the state Also is beholden to tech companies and will abandon all that he claims he stands for if tech companies oppose something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
Here's a pretty good datapoint for your consideration (nb: the opponent is scott (nbps: vote for jackie fielder or be destroyed)): https://twitter.com/Wagnerian/status/1278436304640974848
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:loves cops and takes more money from the real estate industry than any other politician in the state Oh wow that sucks. I last heard of him trying to work on some kind of rent control bill, and thought, hey that's great! But yeah that's terrible. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
He's your standard model vat grown California Democrat. Loudly supportive of progressive social issues but is otherwise beholden to his masters in propping up the oligarchy. California is very liberal but not very progressive, which is why despite Newsom sweeping into power with a super majority in both chambers of Congress nothing came of our rumored Universal Healthcare push, or aggressive clean energy and emissions legislation put forth, or any kind of serious talks to alleviate the untenable housing and rental price situation in the coastal areas of the state, or any serious threats of nationalizing PG&E.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
Sydin posted:alleviate the untenable housing and rental price situation in the coastal areas of the state https://twitter.com/anthemos/status/1278345720588689408
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
State level propositions have been finalized https://twitter.com/dillonliam/status/1278498391446532097 The Glumslinger fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Jul 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 03:18
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Wait a sec - why does Scott Weiner suck? I thought he was good?? represented the Castro when he was a supe, banned public nudity in the Castro because property values thus pissing off all the queer folk who elected him
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 03:56
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:State level propositions have been finalized My quick/drunk analysis: 14: Yes 15: Yes but it won't pass because roughly all the money that's ever existed will fund a billion "FIRST THEY CAME FOR BUSINESS PROPERTY, BUT I DID NOT SPEAK OUT BECAUSE-" ads trying to tell you this all about a slippery slope to kicking Grandma out of her house. 16: Yes 17: Yes but it won't pass because we're loving terrible about convict rights in this state. 18: Yes 19: Yes I guess? I'm honestly not sure on this one. I have to think on this. Prop 13 needs to be rolled back entirely but this might inject some much needed property tax revenue into the state in the near future with boomer die offs? 20:  21: Yes but it sucks the 2018 prop failed a couple years ago. 22: 23: Yes but it sucks the 2018 prop failed a couple years ago. 24: Yes 25: Yes but it won't pass because we're loving terrible about convict rights in this state and the wording where "Yes" means "No cash bail" raises the specter of another Prop 8 fiasco. Also gently caress OFF with 11 goddamn propositions. The proposition system loving sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 04:12
|
|
|
Boredumb posted:gently caress Isn't Steyer considerably to the left of DiFi? I mean not nearly as much as I'd prefer, but a definite upgrade from what we've got Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Jul 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 04:16
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Isn't Steyer considerably to the left of DiFi? Almost anyone we could put in the seat would be to the left of Feinstein. She's a goddamn monster. But out of all of the bad options we have to replace her withered husk, somehow the literal billionaire isn't the worst one. Someone mentioned Loretta Sanchez earlier, and of course Garcetti and Breed are both salivating at the potential grifting they could get access to by moving to higher office. The Glumslinger posted:State level propositions have been finalized Surprised how many of these I'm going to vote yes on, and will be unsurprised when all the good ones fail and all the bad ones pass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 04:37
|
|
|
Sydin posted:19: Yes I guess? I'm honestly not sure on this one. I have to think on this. Prop 13 needs to be rolled back entirely but this might inject some much needed property tax revenue into the state in the near future with boomer die offs? My reading of this would be a no, just based off of who's pushing it. It looks like it's by the same people who were pushing Prop 5 (2018) that would end up cutting taxes on already-wealthy homeowners. They added some stuff in there about revenues going to wildfires to keep it nice and topical. As opposed to those years where a lot of the props are like "Issue bond to pay for education" or something, quite a few of the props seem to be to modify the effect of earlier props or already-passed laws, or to retry props from the last time around: Prop 14 (2020): Extend Prop 71 (2004) Prop 15 (2020): Weaken Prop 13 (1978) Prop 16 (2020): Repeal Prop 209 (1996) Prop 19 (2020): Trying Prop 5 (2018) again Prop 20 (2020): Weaken Prop 47 (2014) and Prop 57 (2016) Prop 21 (2020): Trying Prop 10 (2018) again Prop 22 (2020): Trying to weaken AB 5 (2019) Prop 23 (2020): Trying Prop 8 (2018) again Prop 25 (2020): Overturn SB 10 (2018)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 04:46
|
|
|
Loretta Sanchez came to visit my middle school once and in her speech she got the name of our school wrong pissing off literally everyone. It was like babbys first politicians are bad at their job moment for me
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
In San Jose news, the city council just voted 6-5 (business has 5, labor has 5, mayor is a shithead bloomberg stan) to put a measure on the ballot that would extend the current mayor's term by an extra 2 years, give him executive powers to hire/fire city officials, and realign the mayoral election to presidential election years. They also have stuff in there about campaign finance reform that they know is popular and widely accepted by both factions, but refused any calls to separate out the issues of campaign finance b/c they know the mayoral power grab would be unpopular by itself. https://twitter.com/SJSpotlight/status/1278488764973641729?s=20 They sprung this at the last moment to be discussed at the last meeting before their July summer break - two of the business faction's seats have credible challengers this time (one is a mushy liberal but the other is a real comrade) and they seem to be desperate to get something in before the balance of power may shift. Oh, plus, if they shift the mayoral race that still leaves half the city council seats getting voted on in an off-year, which cover a good chunk of the east side (poorer, harder-hit by COVID, latino, people getting gentrified by the techbros to the west) In summary, fuuuuuuuuuck Sam Liccardo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
droll posted:I heard Von's union is dogshit anyway. their union is my union, and even though i don't have much experience with other unions, it's pretty... meh. our top two union heads make over $200k a year each and our best paid union worker makes like a third of that at most. the last union rep we had never wanted to do anything and always whined like a loving baby any time someone wanted him to confront their manager. the one we have now is chill and cool and a nice person and seems to enjoy getting into people's faces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
Mitsuo posted:In summary, fuuuuuuuuuck Sam Liccardo. Thread reminder: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 07:02
|
|
|
Mitsuo posted:In summary, fuuuuuuuuuck Sam Liccardo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 07:27
|
|
|
OK I reviewed the text of the propositions. Here's my initial analysis, which is done without reference to any other analysis: I may amend this after I read what the smart people and lawyers and media pundits etc. have to say. I wrote a billion words but hopefully this is helpful to someone. Prop 14: $5.5B ($7.8B with interest) bonds to fund medical research, training, and facilities. Includes funding for "educational, non-profit, and private entities. Max $540M annually. No payments for the first five years. Vote: No, but solely because this initiative has no mechanism to force private corporate recipients of funds to provide resulting therapies at-cost. E.g., companies can patent therapies developed with public funding and then extract profits from patients. If I've misunderstood this part (maybe there's already such restrictions in place elsewhere in law) then I'd switch to a Yes. Prop 15: Repeals prop 13 restrictions on commercial and industrial property tax increases. Exempts residential, agriculture, and owners who possess less than $3M total property, and small businesses, and the first $500k of personal property for all other businesses. Vote: Yes. This is a tiny, pathetic watering-down of the desperately needed prop 13 repeal, but a resounding Yes vote would signal to the legislature that a more aggressive repeal of prop 13 could be politically feasible. Note: specifically allocates the tax revenue increases to schools (40%) and local government (60%), but previous cases of money allocated in this way shows that the state legislature often offsets such increases by robbing from general funds spent on those targeted areas. For example, lottery money for education immediately resulted in general funds for education being reduced by a compensatory amount, IIRC. This is why our constitution is packed full of obligate spending (and this is another constitutional amendment creating obligated spending). Using the constitution to overrule the state government's ability to apportion funding is stupid and short-sighted and creates disasters during recessions. But we're stuck with this for now. Prop 16: repeals section 31 of article I, created by Prop 209 in 1996 which prohibits both discrimination, and granting preferential treatment, based on protected classes; which prevented the state from doing affirmative action, preferring minority-run contractors, etc. Prop 16 restores the state's ability to proactively support disadvantaged classes through policy decisions. Vote: Yes. Prop 209 used the bullshit guise of "we have to treat everyone equally" to defend the status-quo of white male advantage. Prop 17: Amends Sections 2 and 4 of Article II. Explicitly restores voting rights to felony convicts upon completion of their prison term. The current law also disenfranchises those serving a prison sentence or on parole. Also does something I don't understand, having to do with the disenfranchisement of those who are "mentally incompetent" (also already the law, so this is some sort of modification). Vote: Yes, provisionally, Prop 18: Amends Section 2 of Article II. Extends the franchise to citizen residents aged 17, who will be 18 at the time of the next general election, allowing them to vote in a primary or special election occurring before the next general election in which they'd be 18. Vote: Yes. I honestly think anyone the law considers tryable-as-an-adult in court, also deserves the vote, and the total percentage of the population that is between the ages of 16 and 18 is small enough (and young people vote at low enough numbers) that this isn't going to matter in the vast majority of elections anyway; this law doesn't even go that far, but at least it recognizes that it's silly to permit someone to vote in a general election who couldn't participate in the primary because they were still a few months away from turning 18. Prop 19: Amends the constitution to grant the transferability of artificially-low property tax assessments (per Prop 13) to victims of wildfire or natural disasters. Also amends the transferability restriction that currently permits selling a primary residence and buying another residence, for old people, disabled people (and with this measure, also wildfire and disaster victims) to permit that transference to anywhere in the state (currently it's limited to only certain nearby counties); and gives a maximum of 3 total transfers for those over 55 or disabled. Also amends the current transferability of the low tax assessment on homes and farms between parents and children or grandchildren, to require that the family keep the property; and they have to take the homeowner's or disable d veteran's exemption within one year of the transfer. Applies to transfers occurring before next February 15th. Further, creates a new Fire Response Fund, with required transfers of money, specifically for fire suppression staffing by the dept. of forestry and fire protection and underfunded special districts that provide fire protection. Also creates a County Revenue Protection Fund to provide money to eligible local agencies that have a "negative revenue gain" as determined every 3 years. Vote: Yes, with reservations. First, I hate that this is a bundled measure. I'm in favor of the prop 13 modifications, the most important of which is preventing families from transferring prop 13 suppressed taxes to poo poo like vacation homes and rental properties, and removing the stupid and weird requirement about which counties old people can move to (I don't actually think old people need a prop 13 tax break at all, but if we're going to let them have it and also let them transfer it between properties, it's dumb to say they have to move to specific counties but not other counties within the state in order to keep their tax break.) I love fire protection money, but it's yet another constitutional amendment defining specific expenditures of revenues along complicated formulas: why can't the goddamn legislature just direct the money appropriately, including into savings, without having to be forced by the constitution? And this proposition is a legislature-proposed one! Finally, I definitely do not understand the County Revenue Protection Fund. But the first bit, about ramping up tax on inherited rental properties, overrules all other objections for me. Prop 20: Restricts non-violent offender parole; authorizes felony sentences for certain misdemeanors including certain theft crimes where the value is between $250 and $950; requires certain misdemeanor offenders to submit DNA for the state database. Vote: No. Bullshit "tough on crime" initiative. You might like that it prevents early parole of sex traffickers, but it also prevents early parole of someone convicted of "battery on a police officer or firefighter," "Sodomy," "Oral copulation," and attempted and conspiracy to attempt a whole host of crimes, most of them awful but a few more minor ones thrown in, and tells parole boards to for example be harsher on convicts who were members of a street gang, or had juvenile offenses. It also forces misdemeanor drug crime and petty theft offenders to have their DNA added to the state's database, on the terrible presumption that drug offenders are probably rapists and murderers. There's a bunch of decent to really good ideas in this measure, including allowing the state to change the county of release of a parolee if, for example, there's another county that has a work offer, or a family member who could provide support, or the lack in the release county of outpatient treatment programs. Overall, this is far, far too complex of a law to be enacted by voter referendum. Every provision deserves proper deliberation by informed legislators. Prop 21: Expands local governments' ability to enact rent control. Vote: Yes. It's a slight expansion of rent control, which is itself an inadequate patch over the gaping wound that is outrageous housing costs: but a minor improvement in the situation is still an improvement, and a resounding yes vote will signal to legislators that California voters support more policies to help the victims of spiraling housing costs. Prop 22: Changes employment laws for gig delivery drivers. Revokes the controversial attempt to force Uber, Lyft, Grubhub, et. al. to treat their driver employees as employees rather than independent contractors. Provides a health care subsidy consistent with the ACA, a new minimum earnings guarantee, compensation for vehicle expenses, accident insurance, and discrimination protections. Prohibits companies from stealing drivers' tips. Requires the actual paid amount to drivers be at least 120% of the minimum wage in the location the passenger was picked up, plus 30 cents per mile, adjusted annually by consumer price index. Drivers who manage at least 25 hours per week over a calendar quarter also get 100% of the average Covered California premium; 15-25 hours averaged get 50% of ACA premiums. Hours are counted for being engaged on the app, which I think means not necessarily driving. Vote: Maybe. I really want to see the courts decide to uphold, or not, the requirement that gig companies treat their employees as employees. I think there's a good chance the courts won't uphold it, in which case, Prop 22 would be a big improvement over the status quo; on the other hand, prop 22 disposes of that attempt to enforce proper employment law, so if it's enacted before a final court decision (almost certainly will, since cases will certainly drag out beyond this November) we'll never find out if the better option could have been provided. I think I might wind up voting for this, but I'd totally understand anyone choosing to vote against it in hopes that the previous law sticks. Prop 23: Adds state-level regulations to dialysis clinics. Vote: Yes. Check out John Oliver's show on dialysis. It's a hell of a weird section of health care, the Nixon administration created a nationally funded health care program but specifically and only for dialysis, and the industry is crowded with horrible for-profit companies that literally suck people's blood for profits. Anything that improves the conditions under which our poorest segment have to endure for life-sustaining dialysis treatment is worth supporting, even though the proper thing to do would be national heath care that eliminated private for-profit blood suckers completely. Prop 24: Toughens consumer privacy laws and increases certain penalties for violating consumer privacy. Vote: Yes. You can delve into the new rules if you want but everything I see is an improvement, in that it's 100% additional restrictions on how businesses can collect and use our private info to endanger people and destroy their privacy in the pursuit of profits. Prop 25: Forces a voter referendum on the 2018 cash bail reform law. Vote: Yes. Cash bail is harshly punishes poor people disproportionately, including poor people who are eventually acquitted. If you can't afford bail, you may lose your job, your home, cause horrible hardships to your family, and have your reputation destroyed, merely for being arrested and charged. Bail bond companies are gross and usurious. Rich people get to go home, while poor people get hosed. 100% gently caress cash bail forever, and extra gently caress the people who put this attempt to roll back the desperately needed reforms by forcing a ballot initiative. Note: I originally said No, but the next post shows that what I meant was Yes, because that's how we get to keep the cash bail reform. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jul 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 07:29
|
|
|
You actually want to vote YES for 25. A Yes vote on Prop 25 means you oppose cash bail, a No means you support it. This is the exact thing I was worried about 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 07:32
|
|
|
Sydin posted:You actually want to vote YES for 25. A Yes vote on Prop 25 means you oppose cash bail, a No means you support it. Reason #42069 why propositions are bullshit: this sort of (often intentional) confusion about what a yes or no vote actually means.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 07:34
|
|
|
Jesus, really? So, the wording implies that you're voting for whether or not we should repeal the law, but I guess it's the case that we've already had the decision about whether or not to have a referendum on it (because it got enough signatures to get on the ballot), so what we're voting for is... whether or not to have the law that is already the law, that eliminates cash bails. OK, I'll update my recommendation, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 07:35
|
|
|
So I wanted to just pop back in here to thank the various other parents who posted after me to share their feelings. I honestly went to bed that night thinking I had made a stupid post and expected some light ribbing in the morning. Your support and good posts helped me out a lot, and helped me get my priorities in order. I ultimately chose to enroll my two younger girls in a summer school/program that is still open and my older one is going on these weekly field trips now with people her own age where they spend most of their time outside. After a few days of this I can honestly say that it was the right decision for everyone's emotional and psychological well being. The kids are upbeat and happy for the first time in months and my wife and I feel rested and able to focus on getting tasks done now that we're not trying to act as playmates AND parents. Schools need to re-open. Especially elementary schools where the children need some type of supervision (so parents can't just leave them at home to work). The harm these shutdowns are doing to children is going to last a generation. I was listening to NPR about two weeks ago, and one of the whispering news-readers casually mentioned that LA Unified School District had lost track of some ungodly number of children. These were kids that were not showing up to or turning in online classwork and who were no longer even coming in for free meals. These are obviously mostly poorer, POC, or other marginalized groups that do not have the resources to keep their kids on track AND also go to work to stay fed, clothed, and housed. For these groups, schools are more than just a place for education, but lifeboats that keep children afloat. A chunk of these kids might never come back once the schools reopen (WHEN?). My own experience talking to students at UCR is that the shutdown literally made some of them homeless. They didn't have houses or families to go back to, and were living on campus or nearby housing because that was the lifeboat they had managed to grab onto. Others came from abusive homes and have been unable to keep up with online classwork in the hostile environments they now find themselves in. But lets leave emotions aside here. Let's look at this from a purely pragmatic point of view. From reading lots of articles and talking to many people, I think these two assumptions are held by almost everybody: 1) Online learning is impractical, pointless, or even harmful as a means of teaching most K-12 students in the United States. 2) Sending children back to school during the COVID-19 pandemic would require massive changes to the class sizes and structures to prevent them from becoming hotbeds for infection. Most people take assumption (2) and decide that sending children back to school is impractical, but in doing so they are saying that assumption (1) apparently does not matter, or that we have to choose between two poo poo sandwiches and keeping schools closed is the less lovely sandwich. I disagree. If we start by saying "Children NEED to return to schools.", then the problems brought up in assumption (2) are not telling us to stop, but rather to ask, "HOW can we structure schools to accomplish this?" "How many new buildings must we quickly get built?" "How many new teachers do we need to hire?" "What sacrifices are we willing to make to fund this endeavor?" This is what I mean when I say that our leaders have been feckless and incompetent. This is why I reject the notion that simply "preventing deaths" was any kind of success within this shutdown. We closed things down in March. We accepted that we might lose the rest of the Spring 2020 school year, but that gave 5 months before the new school year starts in August. We had 5 months to start mass hiring teachers. We had 5 months to start building new schools, or start turning building into schools. Five loving months to make a plan besides "Maybe this disease will go away by August." Instead local, state, and the Federal government have discussed cutting funding to education to make up for budget shortfalls. Newsom is just as guilty of this as every other governor. I listened to his speeches in March. The idea that schools needed to be restructured was there as early as the first week of the shutdown, but nothing was done. Ultimately money to change our school systems would have to come from somewhere. Ideally a competent Federal government, led by a strong President and a willingness to print money to make it happen. In the absence of that, Gavin should have started by saying "Education NEEDS [this much money] to achieve a re-opening by August, now what can we cut to get there?" and then worked from there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 07:42
|
|
|
Sydin posted:You actually want to vote YES for 25. A Yes vote on Prop 25 means you oppose cash bail, a No means you support it. It's gonna be bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 08:06
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:Ultimately money to change our school systems would have to come from somewhere. Ideally a competent Federal government, led by a strong President and a willingness to print money to make it happen. In the absence of that, Gavin should have started by saying "Education NEEDS [this much money] to achieve a re-opening by August, now what can we cut to get there?" and then worked from there. You're absolutely right. Most districts in my area, instead of hiring teachers, are laying them off (and classified positions, and loving custodians! during a pandemic!) in anticipation of serious budget cuts. The space situation is really thorny though. As far as I know most schools in the state are overcrowded. There isn't any place to put the new buildings we'd need to properly social distance. The only place my school could expand into is uh, we could close down the adjacent street and plop portables on it. That's it. There's seriously no more room on campus. Our PE periods take up every single inch of our outdoor space every period, doubly so now that they'll need to distance. Every classroom is full. We have three lunch periods to accommodate all the students. 5 months, even used wisely, would not have been enough time to address all this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 08:10
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Prop 17: Amends Sections 2 and 4 of Article II. Explicitly restores voting rights to felony convicts upon completion of their prison term. The current law also disenfranchises those serving a prison sentence or on parole. Also does something I don't understand, having to do with the disenfranchisement of those who are "mentally incompetent" (also already the law, so this is some sort of modification). Mental incompetence is at the level of "gibbering lunatic" or "literally cannot communicate with another person." It generally requires a ruling by a judge or jury that the person isn't capable of caring for themselves or understanding what is going on around them. No one is getting disenfranchised because they see a therapist once a month or because they take Zoloft.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 08:19
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:So I wanted to just pop back in here to thank the various other parents who posted after me to share their feelings. I honestly went to bed that night thinking I had made a stupid post and expected some light ribbing in the morning. Your support and good posts helped me out a lot, and helped me get my priorities in order. Let me respond to this from (another) California teacher's perspective. We also really want kids to be able to return to the classrooms. You are absolutely right that online learning was not a success. I personally had about a 50% attrition rate among my classes - meaning that only about half of my students stuck around through the end of the semester, the other half disappeared at one point or another. A lot of students got in touch with me to let me know how hard being stuck at home all day every day was and any teacher that had kids of their own to deal with while trying to teach online was tearing their hair out. You are right that option 2 would be the best outcome here. Unfortunately nothing I've seen has shown that we're going to get anything near what is necessary. My district reduced its teaching staff by about a dozen teachers this summer due to budget problems. The school where I worked at this last year was built to serve 800 students, but has over 1,200. I teach English and History, but taught 35-student classes out of a science lab designed to hold 20 for part of the year because there was no where else to put us. Just like many other aspects of our society, we've spent decades neglecting and underfunding our education system, and now the stress test is here and it's not gonna be able to take the extra weight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 08:24
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Also gently caress OFF with 11 goddamn propositions. The proposition system loving sucks. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 08:44
|
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:Let me respond to this from (another) California teacher's perspective. We also really want kids to be able to return to the classrooms. You are absolutely right that online learning was not a success. I personally had about a 50% attrition rate among my classes - meaning that only about half of my students stuck around through the end of the semester, the other half disappeared at one point or another. A lot of students got in touch with me to let me know how hard being stuck at home all day every day was and any teacher that had kids of their own to deal with while trying to teach online was tearing their hair out. We could cut police budgets in half and send all that extra money to schools and it would be a huge boon to education in this state. Particularly during the pandemic. Leperflesh posted:Jesus, really? So, the wording implies that you're voting for whether or not we should repeal the law, but I guess it's the case that we've already had the decision about whether or not to have a referendum on it (because it got enough signatures to get on the ballot), so what we're voting for is... whether or not to have the law that is already the law, that eliminates cash bails. Yeah it is like Prop 8 so many years ago seemingly intentionally worded to confuse voters and it sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 10:06
|
|
|
Sydin posted:We could cut police budgets in half and send all that extra money to schools and it would be a huge boon to education in this state. Particularly during the pandemic. Yup. It would go so much further too, since teachers don't get overtime and our tank/grenade launcher requirements are very modest. Class Warcraft fucked around with this message at 10:34 on Jul 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 10:29
|
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:Yup. It would go so much further too, since teachers don't get overtime and our tank/grenade launcher requirements are very modest. I've seen the documentary "the substitute", you can't fool me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:So, the wording implies that you're voting for whether or not we should repeal the law, but I guess it's the case that we've already had the decision about whether or not to have a referendum on it ..., so what we're voting for is... whether or not to have the law that is already the law, that eliminates cash bails. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
Mitsuo posted:In summary, fuuuuuuuuuck Sam Liccardo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Propositions effortpost Thanks for doing this, it's much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:OK I reviewed the text of the propositions. Here's my initial analysis, which is done without reference to any other analysis: I may amend this after I read what the smart people and lawyers and media pundits etc. have to say. I wrote a billion words but hopefully this is helpful to someone. Repost a final version about a week before the election please.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
droll posted:But San Francisco is so 'Liberal' ! welcome to america lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Mental incompetence is at the level of "gibbering lunatic" or "literally cannot communicate with another person." It generally requires a ruling by a judge or jury that the person isn't capable of caring for themselves or understanding what is going on around them. No one is getting disenfranchised because they see a therapist once a month or because they take Zoloft. Is that "how the law actually works," e.g. there's clear protections to prevent the occasional disenfranchisement of someone for being (for example) temporarily committed because they checked themselves into a hospital when they were feeling suicidal? Or, is this simply " how the system is functioning today," e.g., for the most part reasonable people don't want or try to disenfranchise such folks, but there's no actual legal mechanism preventing it, so occasionally abuse could happen? I'm not sure if I wouldn't switch my vote decision regardless, but this is a detail I want to feel sure about. mllaneza posted:Repost a final version about a week before the election please. I'll try to do so, although probably more than a week in advance, because I vote absentee (and these days, so should everyone) and so usually vote two or three weeks ahead of the election.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Seriously though, the balance of power in San Jose is pretty drat close (6 to 5). If we can flip District 6 from Dev Davis to Jake Tonkel and District 4 from Lan Diep to David Cohen, that would be such a big deal. D6 will especially be hard - Davis was a Republican up until ~2018 and still pretty much is one. She's a bloodless apparatchik spreadsheet of a person, and has deep pockets due to support from SVO, realtors, developers, etc. She missed out on hitting the 50% mark against three other candidates all to her left, despite having spent something like 150k to tonkels' 50. Sole member opposed to ending the curfew that happened at the beginning of June. Tonkel, on the other hand, is a comrade. Labor-endorsed, DSA-endorsed, Green-endorsed. Stonewall Dems and other Dem clubs actually changed their rules to allow them to endorse him. Local engineer in his late twenties, worked on public banking, doesn't take corporate or developer money, Peace Corps, etc. Holy poo poo is there going to be a lot of spending on this one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
Sydin posted:You actually want to vote YES for 25. A Yes vote on Prop 25 means you oppose cash bail, a No means you support it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX1x7pfH8fw
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 20:44
|
|
