Californians How Do You Plan To Vote On the Propositions.

[Drako]

I would also like to know why people say no to 37. Many countries force the labeling of GMO foods. America is supposed to be ahead the the pack and supposed to understand risks and promote health. Why is this a bad thing to label the foods?

Have you noticed the biggest opponents to this are PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Kellogg, General Mills, Sara Lee, Kraft and Nestle. Monsanto, a leading producer of GE seeds, is the largest donor against the campaig. These aren't exactly companies that care about your health.

It's simple economics IMO.

Oh, and man has been "genetically modifying" food since he started farming. The lawyers are going to have fun with this one for years to come.

 

[zinfamous]

Wow, I'm not from California but that car insurance one is scary. I traveled to China for nearly a year when I was in college. So basically they want to make it so I have to choose between paying for unused insurance or having my rates go up if I cancel it and have gaps.

Glad to see most people are voting no on 33.

35 is scary too. I'm always wary when I see someone pushing for tougher sentences on a specific category of offenders. Not that sex offenders shouldn't be punished but you have to be careful about who you label as a sex offender and not inordinately punish people who commit nonviolent crimes.

yeah, 35 is horribad. It's one of those "You don't want to punish the evil sex traffickers!" type of bill, but there is far more behind it.

--now, there is the very real possibility that the teenagers sexting each other not only get the preposterous "sex offender" label carried with them for life, but are now upgraded to "sex traffickers," with mandatory prison sentencing. It further increases the suspect pool for the already criminal practice of exploiting low-threat offenders for the often ineffective and highly dangerous informant strategy of policing. This, alone, is something that needs its own legislation for regulation. 35 makes that even worse.

 

[Todd33]

If you're lawyer, you love prop 37

I voted yes just because Monsanto was funding the no campaign. Fuck them.

 

[CrystalBay]

Exactly, while I may or may not agree in the death penalty. It costs the taxpayers over a million for each case. The only folks benefiting from this is legal counsels, psht.

 

[TuxDave]

/facepalm for anyone voting No on Prop40. It's the biggest no-brainer one out there.

Yes = Keep the current district maps (what all parties want)
No = Redo them again (no one is supporting this, it was put on the ballot and the group that wanted it changed their mind and don't care for it anymore but can't remove it from the ballot)

The only props that I really want a YES is:
Prop 30 (Taxes, yeah I hate them too but you gotta do what you gotta do right now)
Prop 34 (End death penalty, we hardly use it and I'm voting for every way for CA to save money)
Prop 40 (So dumb, don't waste time and money to redo something that everyone is happy with)

I have a couple other YES and NO but I'll be really following the above (Prop 40 just for laughs)

 

[Drako]

I voted yes just because Monsanto was funding the no campaign. Fuck them.

It seems like that's the mentality of the typical California voter. Too short sighted to see the implications the prop may have on the general population.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Am curious why so many are voting YES on 32. This is a horribly slanted amendment that only tackles on side of the problem, whilst completely ignoring the real problem which is out of control corporate spending on elections.

 

[Yreka]

Am curious why so many are voting YES on 32. This is a horribly slanted amendment that only tackles on side of the problem, whilst completely ignoring the real problem which is out of control corporate spending on elections.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2280620&highlight=prop

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2271927&highlight=prop

 

[ivwshane]

Am curious why so many are voting YES on 32. This is a horribly slanted amendment that only tackles on side of the problem, whilst completely ignoring the real problem which is out of control corporate spending on elections.

Most people were for it say it's a start.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Am curious why so many are voting YES on 32. This is a horribly slanted amendment that only tackles on side of the problem, whilst completely ignoring the real problem which is out of control corporate spending on elections.

You tell me out of control political spending by corps here in CA? When the governor, state legislature leaders, AND union leaders are the only ones in closed door meetings discussing the budget tells me who has TOO much power in this state!

HELL yes on 32, 40
HELL no on 30 & 38 and the others

 

[ichy]

the point being that the death penalty serves no form of justice, and simply does not work.

Um, it certainly does serve justice. It provides a measured and proportional response to the worst crime out there, committed by those whom we rightfully hate and despise.

As for it working, nowhere in the US is the DP applied with any kind of consistency. Even in so-called execution happy states like Texas only something like 3% of murderers end up on death row. Singapore's experience shows that capital punishment can work. Besides, it's purpose is not to deter it is to punish. If it provides a deterrent that's great, and if it doesn't then we've killed a bunch of murderers. Sounds like an acceptable price.

 

[lozina]

LOL @ Reason to vote NO on Prop # 37 citing costs rising...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/05/prop-37-food-gm-bill

Opponents spend $45 million on the campaign to vote no.

Wow and the labels would have cost them a fraction of that....

 

[zinfamous]

You tell me out of control political spending by corps here in CA? When the governor, state legislature leaders, AND union leaders are the only ones in closed door meetings discussing the budget tells me who has TOO much power in this state!

HELL yes on 32, 40
HELL no on 30 & 38 and the others

corporate spending on campaigns over the previous decade outweighs Union spending by about 30%+++ according to the above link I posted.

No way this prop makes any sense (unless like some, you are personally affected by CTA--I can get that).

This just further expands corporate influence, and does nothing to Super PAC spending. fuck this prop

 

[techie81]

Prop 30 is just another tax hike to a completely broken educational system. Throwing more taxpayer money at it will not help.

I really hope 32 passes. Union dues should not be used for political influence or gain.

 

[zinfamous]

LOL @ Reason to vote NO on Prop # 37 citing costs rising...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/05/prop-37-food-gm-bill

Opponents spend $45 million on the campaign to vote no.

Wow and the labels would have cost them a fraction of that....

labels cost them nothing. It is actually the responsibility of Vendors (so, Safeway) to label the products. I think that is one of the many BS issues with this prop.


still, voting YES

 

[ivwshane]

corporate spending on campaigns over the previous decade outweighs Union spending by about 30%+++ according to the above link I posted.

No way this prop makes any sense (unless like some, you are personally affected by CTA--I can get that).

This just further expands corporate influence, and does nothing to Super PAC spending. fuck this prop

So what you are saying is that corporations already have an advantage. Nothing will change the balance but it's a start to get money out of politics.

 

[bfdd]

/facepalm for anyone voting No on Prop40. It's the biggest no-brainer one out there.

Yes = Keep the current district maps (what all parties want)
No = Redo them again (no one is supporting this, it was put on the ballot and the group that wanted it changed their mind and don't care for it anymore but can't remove it from the ballot)

The only props that I really want a YES is:
Prop 30 (Taxes, yeah I hate them too but you gotta do what you gotta do right now)
Prop 34 (End death penalty, we hardly use it and I'm voting for every way for CA to save money)
Prop 40 (So dumb, don't waste time and money to redo something that everyone is happy with)

I have a couple other YES and NO but I'll be really following the above (Prop 40 just for laughs)

Prop 40 is dead in the water. It doesn't matter if it gets all the No votes necessary for it to pass as they won't be redrawn regardless. So voting "No" is simply being uninformed.

Also, I voted Yes on 32 because no one has a right to take from another and use it for purposes they may not support unknowingly. The reason you see people saying Corporations are exempt is because they already don't do this. Only Unions do this. Now we're going to require all entities to play on equal footing. There is NO different between a Union or a Corporation. Both are driven by their independent profit motive, to ignore this is to ignore reality.

 

[hal2kilo]

I voted yes just because Monsanto was funding the no campaign. Fuck them.

First, I have no money in the game as I don't live in CA anymore, but voting Yes would be my first reaction (in reaction to Monsanto), but it's like the other prop that claims they're going to stop the unions and corporations from collecting political contributions. Problem is the corporations will be able to work around that prop with no sweat. Problem with the other prop is that the dairy industry and meat industry big players have all kinds of exemptions. Biggest result is that it will cost more money to eat and the food supply won't really be any safer and you won't be more informed.

 

[zinfamous]

Um, it certainly does serve justice. It provides a measured and proportional response to the worst crime out there, committed by those whom we rightfully hate and despise.

As for it working, nowhere in the US is the DP applied with any kind of consistency. Even in so-called execution happy states like Texas only something like 3% of murderers end up on death row. Singapore's experience shows that capital punishment can work. Besides, it's purpose is not to deter it is to punish. If it provides a deterrent that's great, and if it doesn't then we've killed a bunch of murderers. Sounds like an acceptable price.

so, you accept the fact that we have absolutely killed innocents? you have not yet addressed that.


and--what you describe is not justice. It is revenge. plain and simple

 

[zinfamous]

So what you are saying is that corporations already have an advantage. Nothing will change the balance but it's a start to get money out of politics.

they will have an even greater advantage. It gets no money out of politics--it simply shifts the influence over to corporate interests. The only thing it serves to do is nearly completely neuter the Unions.


it's pure garbage legislation, and should be treated as such.

 

[ivwshane]

they will have an even greater advantage. The only thing it serves to do is nearly completely neuter the Unions.


it's pure garbage legislation, and should be treated as such.

I'm sorry but their advantage is already greater. Union members deserve a say in how union leaders spend their money.


We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[ichy]

so, you accept the fact that we have absolutely killed innocents? you have not yet addressed that.


and--what you describe is not justice. It is revenge. plain and simple

It's retribution, not revenge.

Re: innocent people being killed, most of those claims are vastly overhyped. Even the argument for Cameron Todd Willingham's innocence isn't nearly as strong as his supporters make it out to be. If we expect our legal system to be 100% free of error then we need to give up on the idea of punishing criminals and just let everyone go.

 

[Yreka]

It's retribution, not revenge.

Re: innocent people being killed, etc

Even one is too many.. Needs to be repealed.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm sorry but their advantage is already greater. Union members deserve a say in how union leaders spend their money.


We will have to agree to disagree.

I don't disagree with the Union problem. I have an issue with the wrting in such propositions that claim "equal treatment" when the reality could not be further from that. It fundamentally pisses me off.

I don't give a dick about the Unions--I dislike them in principle, but accept the general necessity of them, even today--but I have a much larger problem with shifting influence squarely over to corporate interests?

If you really don't want money in politics, you would toss this to the can. Prepare to see far more money, and all of it coming from 2 or 3 "people."

good luck.

 

[TheNinja]

It's simple economics IMO.

Oh, and man has been "genetically modifying" food since he started farming. The lawyers are going to have fun with this one for years to come.

I guess I don't really understand "simple economics" arguement. Companies and vendors change labels all the time, it's really not that much more expensive for them to add a small GMO tag. It's not like they'll have to instantly pull all their products and re-label them tomorrow.

Also, I do think it could become a bit sticky with lawyers, but there is a difference between hybrid seeds like corn and genetically modified corn and genetically modified organims like rice "infused" with beta-carotine, or papaya that has been altered at a genetic level to be resistant to the ringspot virus.

To me it's a difference between selective breeding in animals, people, plants, like taking the best of the best and breeding it. vs taking a cow and putting certain bacteria DNA in it to try and make it resistant to certain disease or taking a tomato and putting fish DNA in it to make it resistant to freezing.

We don't know the long term effects on people, environment, and soil. But even if you don't care about that stuff. Sure there may be no harm in GMO foods, but people should at least know what they are eating and have a choice.