2010 Election

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

The state of California for not legalizing marijuana.

Not exactly a bad thing, for now.

The backers weren't looking to win, they were looking at the percentage of votes they were hoping to get. They wanted 44%, they got 44%. A similar proposition was also on the ballot in Nevada, Washington & Alaska...all got...TA, DA!...44%. Not too shabby considering the anti-drug vibe among the conservatives in those states.

This same proposition was on the CA ballot in 1972...it lost 65% to 35%. So, that's a 9% gain in votes...with how minds change in this country a whole lot faster than before, they're looking to put the proposition back on the ballot in 2012...they'll be looking for a passing vote next time. And, probably worded a bit better and actual processes for the taxation of it put in place (which is why it gained some votes..."hey if we legalize & tax this stuff, maybe it'll help with the deficit!").

For now, I'm satisfied with it being "for medical use only".

And, I'm always aware of the "be careful of what you wish for" thing. Yeah, I'd like it to be legal, but, if we don't take a close look at the possible "downsides" of legalization, it might be a big shock once and if it does become legal. (as in, yeah, it would be legal in California, but the Federal law still making it illegal would still take precedence, so how would the state vs feds reconcile that?)

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

Gaining another source of tax revenue should have been a huge concern, though.

I understand that (though I think that's also kinda cynical--considering who that targets for taxing). Either way: that wasn't the case that was being made here lol.

Generally speaking, I'm against prohibitions (vote homo, not cuomo!) but maybe the answer is to end prohibition and to put those products under the same regulatory provisions as medical drugs (some available otc, some only by prescription, and some, I'm sure, banned). Or would it be regulated like tobacco and alcohol? Or is that the same process? Who decides those things? Clearly I don't know of what I speak.

[daniellaaarisen]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

Gaining another source of tax revenue should have been a huge concern, though.

Exactly, and they could've taxed the **** out of it. Sigh, California..... at least we're on our way to fixing the gay marriage debacle.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

I keep telling myself he can't be worse than Bunning.

I don't see how. As far as the crazy is concerned Rand Paul might actually be an upgrade. He's young enough that Kentuckians won't have to deal with his potential senior dementia for a while.

[chelluversu]

I'm totally loving this thread right now. We are talking about elections in my AP Gov class, and everything here can help me out.

I "love" the Meg Whitman story. She spends MILLIONS for a campaign the we (my class...and others) knew she was gonna lose, tries to take a stand on illegal immigration, finds out her maid is an illegal and fires her, then goes to say that not only should she be deported, she should be jailed as well to set an example. Oh, but she loved this woman like a sister for years (kind of a bitch move btw...)

[estranged4life]

Minus one Democrat win in the bigger elections here in Oklahoma (Douchebag Dan Boren US Congressman from my hometown - Not a fan of this dumbass, his dad was and is STILL a bigger crook), they got hammered heavily in every other race...I was hoping Jari Askins would have won the governor race, but she too fell victim to the Republican candidate. I cannot recall the Democrats losing each major race in an election in this fashion since I started voting years ago.

The following state question that passed is sure to cause a major firestorm (Which is already starting up here one day after it passed):

STATE QUESTION NO. 751 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 351
This measure amends the State Constitution. It adds a new Article to the Constitution. That Article deals with the State’s official actions. It dictates the language to be used in taking official State action. It requires that official State actions be in English. Native American languages could also be used. When Federal law requires, other languages could also be used.

These language requirements apply to the State’s “official actions.” The term “official actions” is not defined.

The Legislature could pass laws determining the application of the language requirements. The Legislature would also pass laws implementing and enforcing the language requirements.

No lawsuit based on State law could be brought on the basis of a State agency’s failure to use a language other than English. Nor could such a lawsuit be brought against political subdivisions of the State.

[GoS]

Any PA ledgies around here? I'm so glad Dan Onorato lost. I'm a democrat and I can't stand that guy. So thanks Tom Corbett!

Originally Posted by JWS

Jerry Brown for Gov. of California.

Do you know the song California Uber Alles by the Dead Kennedys? Look it up if not.

[JWS]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

Well, things are predictably nutty in Kentucky. In our Congressional District, the incumbent Representative (Democrat Ben Chandler) has faced a tough challenge. I think Chandler will win by a slim margin (name recognition, grandfather a popular governor, etc). Even though I will vote for him, Chandler's ads have been really terrible. (He won't even use the word "Democrat," for instance. In one, he's an "independent thinker" who is endorsed by the NRA )

Of course, the real "excitement" is the Senate race. The good: we'll finally get rid of Jim Bunning. The bad: we will replace him with Rand Paul. This guy is a sheer loon. The Democrat (Jack Conway) wasn't a good choice for a candidate IMO. He has little appeal outside of Louisville, unfortunately, and will just get hammered elsewhere.

Bunning once pitched a no hitter for the Cincinnati Reds

[nailatixela]

Originally Posted by GoS

Any PA ledgies around here? I'm so glad Dan Onorato lost. I'm a democrat and I can't stand that guy. So thanks Tom Corbett!

I'm worried that we aren't going to get any/much of a tax revenue from the nat gas companies drilling in the shale now, though. But I was the least enthusiastic about voting for him, as opposed to the PA senate and house candidates. Never expected any of the Dems to win here anyway though.

[KarmaContestant]

Colorado had some interesting ballot measures this year.

*One would have cut car registration & title fees to no more than $10 per year, combined.

*One would have prohibited the state from incurring *any* debt for *any* reason.

*One would have undone all tax increases from the past several years and then cut property taxes to the point where schools, fire departments and police had virtually no funding, leading to an estimated loss of 73,000 jobs the first year alone (this is particularly noteworthy because Colorado already has a law in place that requires all tax increases to be voted on; thus all of the tax increases that would have been rolled back were all voter-approved tax increases)

*One would have exempted the state from Federal healthcare mandates

*One would have defined 'personhood' as beginning at conception and applied all state laws where the word 'person' is used to the moment of conception, rather than the moment of birth.

Thankfully, all of these measures were defeated by ample margins.

Election time makes me angsty, paranoid and truly brings out the worst in my personality, and I'm very relieved that it's over with for now.