Page 1747 of 1818 FirstFirst ... 74712471647169717371745174617471748174917571797 ... LastLast
Results 17,461 to 17,470 of 18176

Thread: Politics

  1. #17461
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,879
    Billi, I'm actually really happy you went through the propositions, woot! I definitely don't find myself in alignment with a number of your conclusions, but that's totally fine, all I'm hoping for is people informing themselves on what they're being asked to vote on and then voting on it.

    The only things I'd point out are:

    Prop 15: This is essentially a rollback of Prop 13 for businesses properties. Since Prop 13, property taxes in CA have been tied to the purchase price of a property, not the current market value, and changing it at all has long been considered the third-rail of California politics. It's great in some ways - my parents have their three bedroom, two bathroom house paid off and pay $800 a year in property taxes, while we pay over $10,000 a year for our 3bd,1 1/2ba condo. It's great that my parents won't find themselves suddenly priced out of their home. On the other hand, it also means there's a missing downward pressure on home values, which I believe is part of the reason why housing prices are so ludicrous here. It's also part of the reason why so many of our other taxes in this state are as high as they are - property taxes are generally a pretty significant amount of tax revenue and people like my parents are paying almost nothing into it. At any rate, Prop 15 would change that back to using the market value to set property taxes but only for larger business properties, small businesses, buildings that are over some percentage residential (I'd have to look up the percentage), and residential properties would be unaffected. I'm personally for it, but given that it's maybe the most significant change to property taxation since the late 70's, I figured I'd fill in some more detail.

    Prop 18: I can't speak to the typical 17 year old, but since primaries are essentially the parties choosing who they want to vote for in the general rather than actually electing anyone, I'm totally for it. Imagine if you were 17, but turning 18 before the general, and you had to watch as you couldn't cast your vote for Bernie and he lost out to Hillary or Joe?

    Prop 21: I actually need to study it further too. I like it, but knowing that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation are supporting it makes me immediately suspicious.

    Prop 24: CCPA is a *huge* pain for tech companies right now. GDPR is already difficult enough (the work I was doing on when I was let go was around adding obfuscating abstractions around email addresses which was going to require a complete overhaul of the entire site to accomplish), and CCPA is worse. That said, I also agree with the goals of CCPA. I don't really know what the right answer is on this one, but I wanted to both throw out that loosening privacy rules isn't that great and that the tech companies pushing for this might not be entirely nefarious, it's been a pretty massive burden to try to adhere to it. As it stands now, some apps/sites you really like would literally not be able to exist if they were to become compliant with CCPA.

    Prop 25: I'm so happy you're a yes on this. I am too. Your financial status shouldn't determine how the legal system treats you.

  2. #17462
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity View Post
    I think I heard this from NPR, somebody said this election, and most likely most elections, we can't really persuade people to switch sides. People will vote for whoever they want to vote for. Perhaps very very small percentage of voters are truly undecided..., but mostly we just need to persuade a greater percentage of registered voters to actually cast a vote.
    Coming from a place where voting is compulsory - if that statement was true here then every election would have a very similar result. Where we actually have times with quite large wins by the two parties.
    We might have 80% of the people vote the same each time, but the other 20% can make a huge impact in a system that is fundamentally balanced (actually Id say it probably leans a bit more to the right than left...)

    Now in the USA it can also depend on how many people vote, but dont underestimate swinging voters. More so when the balance is close.

  3. #17463
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity View Post
    14 Authorizes Bonds Continuing Stem Cell Research. Initiative Statute.
    I'm incline to vote no on this. If we were the federal govt and can print our own money, then for sure this can be a worthwhile investment. I'm just not so sure we absolutely need to borrow billions more to fund this research in the middle of the pandemic. Don't we have other more urgent medical/healthcare related things to borrow money for? Why should this be on the top of the list?
    And if stem cells are a cure for the virus?
    Or more importantly - the cure for the next pandemic?

    18 Amends California Constitution to Permit 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary and Special Elections If They Will Turn 18 by the Next General Election and Be Otherwise Eligible to Vote. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
    This is clearly an attempt by the progressives? I'm really okay either way. I don't really believe a typical 17 soon to be 18 teen will really be that eager to participate in the primaries... might as well just keep it simple. You may vote when you're actually 18. So no for me on this one.
    The "I dont think they will vote" is not a reason to stop them from voting. Its not like its compulsory.
    The US system surprises me - why arent the primaries and how they are run up to the parties themselves?
    Anyway it seems weird to let them vote in the election but not give them a say in the selection. Seems like such an obvious Yes.

    22 Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies From Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers. Initiative Statute.
    No. I think people or companies should be allowed to hire 'independent contractors' and not be forced to hire direct employees.
    The downside is that this isnt really a choice for the contractors, if the whole industry works that way and it exempts them from important things such as sick leave or health coverage. Especially in a place like the US where the costs of health care are expensive.
    Also look at the pandemic - hard to ask people to "get checked, isolate till results come back and then 14 days if positive", if that means they cant earn any money. Having more people working in a gig economy without safety nets means more people who will resist acting in the best interests of society rather than themselves.
    Do you want your ubereats operator to be ignoring symptoms because they cant afford to not work??
    And this especially applies to the pandemic as these people are considered "vital" but also can come into contact with a lot of the general public. I know Id want them to be able to take time off with pay to protect my health
    Bit like a comment I made early in this when someone posted "we should pay a bonus to doctors and nurses" - my reply was we should pay sick people to stay home, that will halt the virus quicker.

  4. #17464
    Junior Potato
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    6,201
    Stem cell research is definitely worth investing in. There is potential there to cure so many ailments, but the early days of it were held back by the anti-abortion lobbyists.

  5. #17465
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,011
    I'd look into the stem cell thing before voting on it - as I recall, due to the 'climate' at the time, a number of states had to do fairly ridiculous things to allow stem cell research due to anti-abortion groups' high levels of mobilized pushback against "MAD SCIENTISTS KILLING BABIES FOR THEIR CELLS!!!!"
    So it might be something along the lines of "State funding for this research must be reapproved every 5 years," when literally no other science requires legislative approval.
    -Formerly Stabulator

  6. #17466
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    7,595
    This is just state government bond, borrowing money to fund research.

    CA got into this because federal govt used to ban stem cell research, but not anymore. Just let the govt who can print their own money do this.

    Itís not that Iím against stem cell research in general, Iím just against embryonic stem cell research, itís just that with our limited resources, I would not mind raising bond measures to ensure every Californians have access to affordable healthcare rather than this.

    This is probably comparable to CA raising money for research to go to the moon. Itís a wonderful idea, but probably best to let the federal govt to fund it. back then, it was controversial for US to go to the moon too, with racial divides, wars... people were already debating whether it was a good idea to waste money for the moon, was it worth it? Anyway, unless CA really does have billions in the bank and donít know what to do...

    As it is, Iím not sure CA can afford to do all that. Just as if back then Kennedy didnít choose to go to the moon and CA decided to do it anyway... maybe if Elon Musk were born during that time period...

    Itís definitely a worthwhile investment IMO, but I just donít think CA or Californians should pay for it.
    Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; September 28th, 2020 at 10:58 PM.

  7. #17467
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    7,595
    The "I dont think they will vote" is not a reason to stop them from voting. Its not like its compulsory.
    The US system surprises me - why arent the primaries and how they are run up to the parties themselves?
    Anyway it seems weird to let them vote in the election but not give them a say in the selection. Seems like such an obvious Yes.
    Primary elections ballots could have other things you could vote for too. You have to draw the line somewhere.

    Iím sure Bernie Sanders failure to draw more younger votes Was not because he missed a bunch of 17.5 yr old votes...

  8. #17468
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    7,595
    Bit like a comment I made early in this when someone posted "we should pay a bonus to doctors and nurses" - my reply was we should pay sick people to stay home, that will halt the virus quicker.
    Yes. I believe itís time for the government to provide healthcare for its own citizens rather than expecting employers to provide these benefits fairly for all.

    As far as Uber is concerned, customers are already abandoning ride sharing, now is probably not the time to expect a private company like that to take care of its Ďemployeesí?

    Anyway, just let businesses figure out how to run their business as long as they are not cheating anybody. Governments who really care about their citizens would act to provide the necessary safety nets for its citizens..., not relying on profit driven private companies.

    Governments just need to figure out how to collect the taxes they are supposed to collect and not allow these private companies to avoid paying their fair share!

  9. #17469
    Venturi3D.com for the FUTURE MR2 Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida
    Posts
    4,204
    via twitter:

    @profgalloway
    Good news: Over 860,000 Americans have already voted, compared to fewer than 10,000 by this point in 2016
    ║]=(86)=[║ Venturi3D.com

  10. #17470

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •