|
Levitate posted:"beat up" isn't really what I'd call assaulting someone with a large hammer and send them to the hospital where they require brain surgery Yeah I wrote that before the hammer detail came out. The stuff I heard was that we was ok. Also not to minimize but it seems like it would pretty easy to kill an old man if you were trying to by hitting him in the head with a hammer.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:how large was the hammer? I remember joking it would take a man 30 years to knock a hole through Paul's skull with a hammer that size. David did it in just 19. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 22:15
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:you'd think the 2nd person in the chain of succession would have a secret service detail for them and their family yeah
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
https://abc7news.com/santa-clara-county-sheriff-laurie-smith-corruption-trial-verdict-found-guilty-resigns/12413963/ Former Santa Clara county sheriff Laurie Smith was convinced. Same lady who stole a the tape of a sexual harrassment complaint against her from internal affairs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 22:15
|
|
|
quote:Smith was accused of providing concealed carry weapons permits in exchange for political donations or other favors. Accusations were brought by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury in 2021. Like I think we all know the state secretly runs on bribery at the county level but lol at this almost approving tone. It gets better when the same guy talks about how shes a champion for being a female sheriff
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
They give that Alexander dude more space in that article than anybody else. Must be somebody really importa-quote:Alexander isn't affiliated with the case. He's an attorney who has practiced in the Bay Area for more than 50 years with experience contributing to the county's Criminal Justice Advisory Board. He's also familiar with Smith. Sydin fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Nov 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
Yeah lol I read that and some of his dumbass quotes and just closed the article. Glad a corrupt top cop actually got pwned for once.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
Sydin posted:They give that Alexander dude more space in that article than anybody else. Must be somebody really importa- Yeah, I saw that too. At least both of the candidates to replace her are pushing back a bit and not doing the fawning bullshit the current acting sheriff is. Sheriffs seems even more sketchy than regular cops, if that's possible. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Nov 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 23:32
|
|
|
Does anyone know who the gently caress all these judges are on the ballot?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 06:27
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Does anyone know who the gently caress all these judges are on the ballot? My general rule of thumb, if there's no information on them online, is to just vote no if they ever worked for a DA's office or had any kind of business background.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 10:09
|
|
|
I was looking them all up and a decent number of them have been on the court for at least like 5 years, sometimes like 20 years. I generally do a google search and if nothing comes up, whatever man. California’s Supreme Court justices and most judges that need election around here seem …  decent
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
lol eat poo poo Laurie Smith.DeadlyMuffin posted:Sheriffs seems even more sketchy than regular cops, if that's possible. * caveat: Also get rid of the requirement that candidates have law enforcement experience/credentials introduced in the 80s by law enforcement lobbyists. There was a bill introduced in 2021 to remove those requirements by Scott Wiener but it didn't go anywhere and was later gutted and amended into a bill about Juries. BeAuMaN fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 04:38
|
|
|
No sheriff in history has been punished by the voters, as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 08:05
|
|
|
We did manage to vote out Ahern, but he was nationally recognized as a shithead out of line with local politics and we probably just replaced him with a different boot and just barely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 08:16
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:My general rule of thumb, if there's no information on them online, is to just vote no if they ever worked for a DA's office or had any kind of business background. San Francisco has elected multiple former members of the Public Defender's Office to judgeships in the last couple of elections. THat's an awesome development and I think that means a more progressive future in SF.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 08:24
|
|
|
Clarste posted:No sheriff in history has been punished by the voters, as far as I know. I suppose we'll see what happens with Alex Villanueva this election? Apart from the Measure A on the ballot measure to remove him from office, I hear he's trailing in the polls against Luna. El Mero Mero makes a point though that often you replace one boot with another. If we removed the requirement that they have police experience to be a candidate in the first place, more possibilities open up (even though I'm not optimistic enough to say that it would result in immediate change).
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 08:39
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:San Francisco has elected multiple former members of the Public Defender's Office to judgeships in the last couple of elections. THat's an awesome development and I think that means a more progressive future in SF. Yeah. Public Defender to judge pipeline is way more preferable than the DA to judge one. PD work is often an instant yes vote from me unless there are some red flags.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 09:14
|
|
|
I'm so confused on prop 30. How is it a cash grab for Lyft?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
Noob Saibot posted:I'm so confused on prop 30. How is it a cash grab for Lyft? From the very good Knock LA voter guide: (original has links to supporting citations) quote:Proposition 30 – Income Tax to Fund Electric Vehicles
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
FWIW, I don't agree, while I agree with almost all of the rest of their guide. Lyft sucks and just laid off a friend of mine along with like 15% of the company. However poo poo's gotta electrify and saying "well we should really be doing public transportation better" is both true and not going to happen in the short term in even the best conditions. We need to do that and electrify the passenger vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:FWIW, I don't agree, while I agree with almost all of the rest of their guide. Agreed. The knock la guide reads kinda like “Don’t do this because it’s not good enough,” but they do have the disclaimer at the end which, fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
I took public transit a few times and it always took so much longer (due to waiting for buses, although this was a trip with many transfers) but I'm still willing to give it a shot. But it's hard to really plan around when octa is still on strike. Sure, they'll work today and tomorrow to support the elections, but not after that unless something is done. Unless octa management can show that they can run a reliable service, people will just avoid the hassle and use their car. And if people have to pay maintenance and fees to service something (like their car), why not use it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
sb hermit posted:I took public transit a few times and it always took so much longer (due to waiting for buses, although this was a trip with many transfers) but I'm still willing to give it a shot. It's OC, public transit being inconvenient is a feature not a bug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
I got to tour OCTA's facilities and have a prolonged chat with their OCR folks, and while it seemed like a really sophisticated operation with some great people behind it, it was also clear the most important thing to them was not their actual public transit operations, but rather administering the 91 express lanes. They glossed over their entire bus operation in one five minute "tour" of a bus and then ushered us into a nearly two hour presentation about how much money the express lanes make them and how much they've invested in license plate scanning to make sure nobody's cheating the system. Rodenthar Drothman posted:Agreed. My issue is less public transit oriented (although we should still do more of that!) and more that California pushing to electrify more cars before adding massive quantities of green energy capacity to the grid is, in my opinion, fatally putting the cart before the horse. We already almost have the grid failing in the summer, and summers are only going to get hotter and drier and longer on average going forward. There's just no capacity to add millions of EV's charging daily to grid demand, even if you mandated most charging took place off peak hours (and I'm not even sure how you'd enforce that). It just feels like we're rapidly barreling towards a situation where we've got laws on the books saying there needs to be tons of EV's and billions spent on EV infrastructure but then come summer emergency orders coming down saying "oops actually no sorry you can't charge those, we don't have the capacity." FWIW I still also voted Yes, because it is a very progressive tax and on the off chance we do get our poo poo together on the energy front in the next decade having EV's and charging infrastructure already built up would be a boon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
It's pretty easy for me: Prop 30 Text: https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2022/general/pdf/topl30.pdf quote:80230. Amendment of Division We pass this initiative statute into law so it may never be amended by the legislature (3/4th majority both houses lol), except for the part where it's easier to amend (2/3rd majority both houses) it to increase the percentage used on administrative expenses, especially since those majorities are only if it furthers the proposition; no amendments allowed if it's determined to go against the proposition! Except, of course, by doing another ballot measure later, funded by some other larger corporation for whatever bullshit agenda! It's an initiative statute. They all have some bullshit amendment provision like above (the Uber one was 7/8ths majority lol) because companies (And various PACs/special interests) generally don't want to spend millions of dollars unless they can get a mostly permanent law passed. gently caress all initiative statutes; vote no on all of them. Lyft can go buy a legislator like everyone else and then at least the bill goes through multiple committees in both houses to at least remove some of the bullshit from it. Oh, also, while I'm voting No on 31 (to repeal the flavored tobacco ban), I noticed that Bloomberg ended up outspending the tobacco companies on it by $12 million  https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_31,_Flavored_Tobacco_Products_Ban_Referendum_(2022) BeAuMaN fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Nov 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
I forgot to drop off my mail in ballot because I didn't bother to fill it out until today (the 7th, look I work nights gently caress you) and did I mention I had to shovel out the street so I could speed racer boost up my drive way just to get home? lol. no way I'm making it to a drop box or a polling place. maybe there's one in grizzly still but uh, I think they burned down. i hope my neighbors are alright, there's a guy across the way who's still living out of tents
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 13:54
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:I forgot to drop off my mail in ballot because I didn't bother to fill it out until today (the 7th, look I work nights gently caress you) and did I mention I had to shovel out the street so I could speed racer boost up my drive way just to get home? lol. no way I'm making it to a drop box or a polling place. maybe there's one in grizzly still but uh, I think they burned down. Are you considering just leaving it in your mailbox or putting it in a mail drop or going to a post office? As long as it's postmarked for election day, it should count. https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration/vote-mail
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
there's no post office here lol. it burned down. so i could stick it in my mailbox but they won't process it till later. im basically just gonna hope that it's clear later today and i can justify running to town
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
their motto might still be neither rain sleet nor snow but in reality that breaks down rapidly when we're talking rural mail carrier contractors who are working outside of their actual assigned zip code
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
BeAuMaN posted:gently caress all initiative statutes; vote no on all of them. Lyft can go buy a legislator like everyone else and then at least the bill goes through multiple committees in both houses to at least remove some of the bullshit from it. e: should also obviously vote yes on explicitly putting abortion rights into the constitution. Making it hard for a future legislature to change that is the point, along with giving courts some text to point at when reviewing local laws now that the implied federal text is gone Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Nov 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
BeAuMaN posted:gently caress all initiative statutes; vote no on all of them. Even 1?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:How do these go together? 31 is from tobacco companies going "the legislature passed a law we don't like, let's fund an initiative to overrule it". Yes is the "initiatives are a terrible system" vote yeah I'm not really getting the logic behind voting no on 30 on the principle that corporations shouldn't interfere with the legislature and then voting no on 31 which is siding with corporations who astroturfed a proposition on to the ballot because they didn't like a law the legislature passed. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:My general rule of thumb, if there's no information on them online, is to just vote no if they ever worked for a DA's office or had any kind of business background. Yep. Public Defenders > Prosecutors is the rule for all these judges, and also for everyone everywhere. DAs are just cops who can read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
jokes posted:Yep. Public Defenders > Prosecutors is the rule for all these judges, and also for everyone everywhere. DAs are just cops who can read. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
as much as i don't want corporations to use plebiscites to do whatever they want, I also don't want the legislature to keep doing stupid poo poo like the ban on handing out napkins without asking or the ban on menthols. im sure if you squint there can be an actual useful purpose derived from these, but personally they both irritate me. I work in pizza and I'm already extremely tired of people getting their pizza and then instantly yelling about how I didn't give them plates, and I smoke menthols, so. mostly my opinion is 'really? these were the most important things to do?'
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2022 00:46
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:How do these go together? 31 is from tobacco companies going "the legislature passed a law we don't like, let's fund an initiative to overrule it". Yes is the "initiatives are a terrible system" vote Jaxyon posted:Even 1? Let me try a TL;DR first: Initiative statutes are an ineffective usually-uninformed way to pass semi-permanent laws usually at the behest of corporations or interest groups compared to the normal legislative process which employs multiple checks and expertise along with some form of accountability. The legislative method is highly flawed and also prone to corruption, but almost infinitely better than the initiative statute system. There's multiple types of ballot measures Initiative Statutes (Like prop 26, 27, 28, 29, 30): These are basically handing a law to the voters to vote on. Constitutional Amendments (Like prop 1): This adds a new provision in the constitution. At the very least they're not very long to read. Initiative Statute + Constitutional Amendments: (Like 26, 27) These essentially are the two things on the same ballot measure. These carry all the problems of initiative statutes. Referendums (Like prop 31) This repeals a law passed within the last 90 days. Further, I'm going to qualify the above by saying that Initiative Statutes and Constitutional Amendment can originate either from direct initiative or from the legislature. I'm less opposed to both of those originating from the legislature. Most of them suck certain ways, but some more than others. I'll start with Initiative statutes, and then compare the others to those. Initiative statutes (That don't originate from the legislature) suck the most, and for a lot of reasons. 1.) They're always bundled with some amendment clause that essentially says the legislative can't amend it: Sure, it provides for amendments, but only if: A. it furthers the original ballot measure and B. only if the legislature meets the voting rules set out in the statute's amendment clause, which is usually some bullshit majority fraction in both houses like 3/4ths or higher. This means most are effectively not able be amended. The only way to effectively "amend" it is to pass another initiative statute in the future. This is bad way to pass laws, especially ones with a bunch of moving pieces where if something has some unexpected and undesirable results, then we have to wait for someone to gather enough money to get signatures to do a ballot measure for the next election. To be clear: They don't need to have an amendment clause, or one that's effectively unamendable, but they always do because companies/groups are spending money on these things and they want to maximize their investment. 2.) These more or less bypass the standard process on how a bill becomes a law: While I'm not a fan of the legislature, I think the system is better than people being presented a bill, and being asked to vote yes or no. If it goes through the legislature, at least it goes through multiple committees in both houses, along with wrangling the votes when it's going to the floor in various houses. On top of that, most of these processes have a decent amount of transparency for the average person to look a bill up and see what happened with it (Some processes could use more transparency); there's documentation on each process on https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/, as well as videos of all of the committee meetings along with analyses summarizing effects and positions on bills, and you can do LORA requests (Legislative version of PRA/FOIA requests) for the stuff that's less transparent usually (i.e. if you want a copy of all the letters people/lobbyists that were sent concerning a bill in a committee, you can ask for those; those should just be posted online by default imo but eh). These processes usually result in a bill having multiple amendments that end up making it a better bill (not always, but usually). Further, if they gently caress up really bad, then they can just amend it with a new bill later, and while the legislative process takes time, it's usually faster on spinning up fixes to its boo boos compared to spinning up a new ballot measure. All of this results in a system that while far far far from being perfect, is much better for effectively handling a bill with multiple parts compared to just slapping it on a ballot with a yes or no. 3.) Voters don't have time to read multiple pages of a bill, nor usually do they have the expertise: Most people have a lot of bullshit to deal with usually, so when voting time comes around they're presented with a bill... and how many people actually read the whole thing? and read text for all the props for that matter? The text of Prop 26 is 6-ish pages; Prop 27 is 24-ish pages, Prop 28 is 3-ish pages, Prop 29 is 4-ish pages, and prop 30 is 11-ish pages. In addition, often times the statutes proposed aren't free standing, so you have to dig into the current statute to get an idea of context, and that context is only apparent if the current statute in question is written in such way that normal people can read it (which is not always the case). How often does the summary convey all the issues? Or how often does the support and opposition arguments actually reflect reality? And then people have to get into fact checking the multiple claims that advertisements and various special interest groups make. Even if people then make a reasonably informed choice, because they're all packed with amendment clauses that are effectively non-amendment clauses, if they gently caress up then it's stuck there essentially forever, until there's another ballot measure. I think the machinery of statutes is best left in the hands of elected representatives; that's what we put them there for. 4.) Diffused responsibility: When some gently caress elected official votes on a lovely law, it's usually going to piss off someone in the voter base (or at the very least some group who's organizing in their voter base, or some corporation, or whatever). Who do you blame for when a lovely prop passes? The corporate interest who paid for it? The people who voted for it? We can't vote the corporate officers of Uber out of office, and we certainly haven't ran those officers through the  yet (I often jokingly call this the "not enough guillotines" problem; certainly I wouldn't be advocating for violence). However, at the very least, when elected officials vote on something, they're at least risking their position by doing so. Arguably they don't suffer enough risk, but at least they suffer some risk, which is better than the alternative. Most of the corporations and groups who buy the ad time for these propositions suffer no repercussions for their positions; only the result (or lack thereof) of the proposed statute.5.) Corporations buying bills with paid signature gatherers & ad time: This is mostly hashed out in the thread as is, but I'd argue since it lacks the amount of checks that usually go in the legislature, and it being unamendable, that it's worse then when they do campaign donations and poo poo for legislators (or other elected officials). They more or less get to write the bill that they think they can pass without having to make little in the way of compromises. This is a more direct way for people to buy the law they want than giving campaign contributions to various legislators. The legislature has the option to refer a bill to be voted on by the voters (or I think certain money bills must be voted on by the voters iirc). While there's still some degree of the diffused responsibility problem, it's less because there's recorded votes by our representatives. It's also at least gone though the various committees and systems that's resulted in it getting some amendments the bill probably needed. Constitutional Amendments, on the other hand, are not as bad. While they too are, by being constitutional amendments, are unamendable except by another constitutional amendment put on the ballot, and they too bypass the standard process of how a bill becomes a law, they also tend to be short and very readable. Prop 1? Look, there's the preamble, and I've highlighted the actual text:  I think this is a reasonable amount of text for voters to deal with. Further, the context of which it's inserted is easily readable in Article 1 of the California Constitution. The legislature, if they pass a constitution amendment, they must submit it to the voters for approval. In the case of Prop 1, it was passed by the legislature (As SCA-10) and referred to the voters. So at least it's gone through the legislative process. Referendums are last on the list. I think Referendums are the least harmful of the three. They do bypass the standard process of... how a bill doesn't become law, they have diffused responsibility, they may be less readable, etc. but the main issue (for me) is that the stakes lower: So Prop 31 repeals the flavored tobacco ban, and all of which that bill entails. What happens if it gets repealed? It won't take effect, the bill is repealed. Does it, like initiative statutes or constitutional amendments, prohibit the legislature from passing any such bills afterward; even the exact same bill? No. After a bill is repealed for referendum, there's no need to construct another ballot measure to be submitted to the voters to change the results. All it does is remove the current bill that was passed in the legislature, and further, referendums can only propose to remove bills that have been passed within the last 90 days. Legislators can still write and craft bills through the normal process; even the same exact bill if they wanted to, and pass it as usual. Of course, most will probably lean into the more prudent approach which is asking, if a bill was repealed through referendum: why was it repealed? So in effect... a referendum is telling the legislators to do better regarding an issue. In the case of Prop 31, assuming flavored tobacco/nicotine products still remains an issue they want to tackle, they'll instead look at passing a different law to do so. Maybe they need to increase enforcement against stores or people who are violating the law prohibiting selling/giving people under 21 nicotine products; maybe they need to not target all flavored tobacco/nicotine products, and instead put more exemptions. I mean there's a lot of different ways they look into solving this problem, but the main point is: If a Referendum repeals a bill, unlike initiative statues or constitutional amendments, the hands of the legislature aren't tied. This is my rant against ballot measures, and particularly initiative statutes. I could probably detail this a bit more, but I've written enough for now I think. As such, I've adopted the position to vote No on all Initiative Statutes (or combination Initiative Statutes + Constitutional Amendments). I then look at Constitutional Amendments and check for any technical issues I have with them. Then I look at any remaining Constitutional Amendments and Referendums for the content and make my vote based on my own analysis, as well as the analysis of others. Now, this is general rule. I'm not saying that if the perfect initiative statute came along I wouldn't break my rule... I'd be sorely tempted. But almost every time there's an initiative statute that comes along that does something that we want, it's almost always layered with some level of poo poo in the sandwich. And that poo poo is going to be there forever until there's another initiative statute that I'd have to vote on changing it. I'd rather have the legislature deal with it, and contact my representative or whatever special interest group I support to try and get the poo poo I want, and then later it can be amended. The many checks in the highly flawed legislative process are bound to get a more successful statute than the initiative statute process will. BeAuMaN fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Nov 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2022 03:46
|
|
|
people actually obey the napkin law? i have a massive stock since every taco truck hands you a ton without asking, in a traditional thin single-use plastic bag ed: i wish we had a ballot prop type that just let us force a floor vote on something in the legislature. still requires it go through people who review laws professionally, but no hiding behind "welp we dont have the votes bill's dead" smokescreen that was the final resting place of the single-payer medical care bill and such. call the "im a democrat in CA out of political necessity but god forbid we actually implement that agenda" rats out Qtotonibudinibudet fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Nov 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2022 03:46
|
|
|
VSOKUL girl posted:people actually obey the napkin law? yeah, the bigger companies do- the enforcement method is basically 'i got napkins when i didnt ask, and i was mad enough to call some office in Sacramento'. which is genius, tbh, but i hate it because it means i can't just be normal about it because the one time someone gets mad that i handed them some paper plates is when we'll get the fine vote-force mechanism would be funny. i don't think it would actually change anything, these people would just vote no and then act like the public were too stupid to understand why MediCare expansion could never work or w.e. but it would be very funny
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2022 04:02
|
|
|
Let us override governor vetoes!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2022 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
We should be able to vote on 25 people per election cycle who have a net worth above $20 million who can be freely hunted for sport.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2022 04:31
|
|
