California Democrats and liberals are not one and the same. Marijuana leaning liberals are pretty much confined to the Bay Area and the youth population. California Democrats tend to be lower income. Those who tend to partake of all the social programs that California offers. California Republicans aren't just the religious white type. They also include upper-middle class and wealthy minorities. About every successful minority I know are Republicans.
Good points... America's left would be considered moderate or right of center compared to Canada and much of Europe on most topics.Ilocano wrote:
California Democrats and liberals are not one and the same. Marijuana leaning liberals are pretty much confined to the Bay Area and the youth population. California Democrats tend to be lower income. Those who tend to partake of all the social programs that California offers. California Republicans aren't just the religious white type. They also include upper-middle class and wealthy minorities. About every successful minority I know are Republicans.
Sure... Cal-Tech, JPL, and a significant amount of engineering firm headquarters here...Ticia wrote:
It's a scientific fact that if you stay in California you lose one point of your IQ every year
yes, and when institutions like the LDS are running ad campaigns and contributing tens of millions of dollars toward one side of an issue there tends to be an influence. How can you say any voting where around half the people eligible (being generous with that figure) show up to pull the lever is an accurate reflection of public perception?
I'm utterly surprised at the ignorance of people. This so-called extremism that y'all say is endemic to CA isn't really reflected at the polling station.
I'm utterly surprised at the ignorance of people. This so-called extremism that y'all say is endemic to CA isn't really reflected at the polling station.
But aren't the Hispanic and black minorities usually Democrat? California's large Jewish and Asian populations coming into play with the Repubs (funny how those minorities are stereotypically the more successful, too )
Outside influences play a part, but honestly, if the active voting populace is that easily manipulated, then it's relevant to ask if they really should have the right to vote.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
yes, and when institutions like the LDS are running ad campaigns and contributing tens of millions of dollars toward one side of an issue there tends to be an influence. How can you say any voting where around half the people eligible (being generous with that figure) show up to pull the lever is an accurate reflection of public perception?
I'm utterly surprised at the ignorance of people. This so-called extremism that y'all say is endemic to CA isn't really reflected at the polling station.
Seriously, democracy only works when the people are intelligent enough to understand what they are voting for. If they can't think for themselves, then it's time to consider an alternative.
But as you said, if half of the electorate doesn't even show up to vote, then voting slowly becomes irrelevant in its own right anyway.
Complacency is killing this country equally as much as extremism.
Nah, I know plenty of lower income asians who are Democrats. They like taking advantage of lower income government handouts just like other lower income grooups.mtb0minime wrote:
But aren't the Hispanic and black minorities usually Democrat? California's large Jewish and Asian populations coming into play with the Repubs (funny how those minorities are stereotypically the more successful, too )
Look at the latest results. Quite a few hispanic Republicans congressman on the way to Washington.
RIP Prop. 19
I think that Cali is yeah, basically both extremes.
Also it has a large Asian and Mexican population, which tend to be very issue-based voters, rather than standard Dem/Rep divisions.
Also most rich Asians are republican, and most poor Asians are Democrat.
One only needs to see the candidate for state rep in my district to see that (www.changforchange.com)
I think that Cali is yeah, basically both extremes.
Also it has a large Asian and Mexican population, which tend to be very issue-based voters, rather than standard Dem/Rep divisions.
Also most rich Asians are republican, and most poor Asians are Democrat.
One only needs to see the candidate for state rep in my district to see that (www.changforchange.com)
Last edited by Trotskygrad (2010-11-03 10:07:13)
Yeah the vast Jewish and Muslim population in the eastern part don't count towards that?JohnG@lt wrote:
We have extremists and religious nutters here. They're just relegated to the rural parts of western New York and thus don't have popular support.Turquoise wrote:
I think the extremes analogy works. There aren't that many extreme conservatives in NY.SenorToenails wrote:
Is it that the state isn't liberal? Or is it that the conservatives vote in greater numbers?
In California, they have both extremes, so the net effect is actually more moderate (or swinging) than California's image suggests.
But then again it's not just the Nutters voting against it, there's also a vast majority who vote against it for personal gain. Also just because it passes doesn't really make it legal.
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-11-03 10:07:38)
Loretta Brixey failed as a Republican. She became Democrat and ran as Loretta Sanchez...Turquoise wrote:
Outside influences play a part, but honestly, if the active voting populace is that easily manipulated, then it's relevant to ask if they really should have the right to vote.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
yes, and when institutions like the LDS are running ad campaigns and contributing tens of millions of dollars toward one side of an issue there tends to be an influence. How can you say any voting where around half the people eligible (being generous with that figure) show up to pull the lever is an accurate reflection of public perception?
I'm utterly surprised at the ignorance of people. This so-called extremism that y'all say is endemic to CA isn't really reflected at the polling station.
Seriously, democracy only works when the people are intelligent enough to understand what they are voting for. If they can't think for themselves, then it's time to consider an alternative.
But as you said, if half of the electorate doesn't even show up to vote, then voting slowly becomes irrelevant in its own right anyway.
Complacency is killing this country equally as much as extremism.
LOL... She should have Geraldo Rivera (Gerald Rivers) campaign for her.Ilocano wrote:
Loretta Brixey failed as a Republican. She became Democrat and ran as Loretta Sanchez...Turquoise wrote:
Outside influences play a part, but honestly, if the active voting populace is that easily manipulated, then it's relevant to ask if they really should have the right to vote.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
yes, and when institutions like the LDS are running ad campaigns and contributing tens of millions of dollars toward one side of an issue there tends to be an influence. How can you say any voting where around half the people eligible (being generous with that figure) show up to pull the lever is an accurate reflection of public perception?
I'm utterly surprised at the ignorance of people. This so-called extremism that y'all say is endemic to CA isn't really reflected at the polling station.
Seriously, democracy only works when the people are intelligent enough to understand what they are voting for. If they can't think for themselves, then it's time to consider an alternative.
But as you said, if half of the electorate doesn't even show up to vote, then voting slowly becomes irrelevant in its own right anyway.
Complacency is killing this country equally as much as extremism.
Prop 19 was making it legal to grow a certain amount of pot, right?
It legalized and taxed marijuana possession and production. I think there were certain limits applied to it, but for all practical purposes, it made it legal outright to use and distribute.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Prop 19 was making it legal to grow a certain amount of pot, right?
Ohh I can see why most people don't want that to pass. That's one of those laws that isn't really going to directly help anyone, nobody really thinks about all the people in jail and how much it would save us in the short/long run.Turquoise wrote:
It legalized and taxed marijuana possession and production. I think there were certain limits applied to it, but for all practical purposes, it made it legal outright to use and distribute.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Prop 19 was making it legal to grow a certain amount of pot, right?
yeah, because it's so hard to get marijuana around here:
http://mccdirectory.org/
http://mccdirectory.org/
That's the thing though... Why bother with the current system if it's not actually functioning like a clinic system?
Don't half-ass it. Legalize it and tax it.
California looks so silly for doing this.
California needs all the revenue it can get at this point. I guess 55% of California didn't see it that way.
The only real benefit to legalizing it is the taxing of it and the release of jailed current offenders. Other then that people don't really care cause it's so easy to get anyway.
But that saves a lot of money. People should realize this fairly easily when they find out that we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.cpt.fass1 wrote:
The only real benefit to legalizing it is the taxing of it and the release of jailed current offenders. Other then that people don't really care cause it's so easy to get anyway.
But isn't that reason enough? California is in a major budget crisis and could use the tax revenue, as well as not spending money enforcing such a petty drug.
e: thwarted by a few seconds
e: thwarted by a few seconds
Last edited by mtb0minime (2010-11-03 10:24:06)
what makes you guys think that prison spending would go down? The prison-guard lobby throws insane amounts of money to politicians and candidates to make sure spending goes up every year. You have to cut the head off the beast, not trim the nails.
There's a simple solution to that. Put forth a referendum on outlawing prison guard unions.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
what makes you guys think that prison spending would go down? The prison-guard lobby throws insane amounts of money to politicians and candidates to make sure spending goes up every year. You have to cut the head off the beast, not trim the nails.
The public would likely be in favor of breaking them up.
Come to think of it, they should do the same with teacher unions.
Not with Jerry Brown in the office now...Turquoise wrote:
There's a simple solution to that. Put forth a referendum on outlawing prison guard unions.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
what makes you guys think that prison spending would go down? The prison-guard lobby throws insane amounts of money to politicians and candidates to make sure spending goes up every year. You have to cut the head off the beast, not trim the nails.
The public would likely be in favor of breaking them up.
Come to think of it, they should do the same with teacher unions.
Most people wouldn't see it that way though. They just see it as a littlely controled substance getting taxed and not really benefiting them, the cost of legal drugs would probably be high.Turquoise wrote:
But that saves a lot of money. People should realize this fairly easily when they find out that we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.cpt.fass1 wrote:
The only real benefit to legalizing it is the taxing of it and the release of jailed current offenders. Other then that people don't really care cause it's so easy to get anyway.
But it's already legal for the most part anyway. The reason to make it purely legal is to tax it more (which benefits the system) and to drop the silly illusion of it being legal for medical reasons.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Most people wouldn't see it that way though. They just see it as a littlely controled substance getting taxed and not really benefiting them, the cost of legal drugs would probably be high.Turquoise wrote:
But that saves a lot of money. People should realize this fairly easily when they find out that we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.cpt.fass1 wrote:
The only real benefit to legalizing it is the taxing of it and the release of jailed current offenders. Other then that people don't really care cause it's so easy to get anyway.
Very few people actually buy into the medical marijuana bullshit. That was just an excuse to get around admitting that legalization outright makes the most sense.
We just seem to cling to these irrational Puritanical ideals that look so painfully outdated among the First World.
Granted, I have to concede that we at least don't have any silly figurehead monarchies. Those are pretty outdated too.