Californians How Do You Plan To Vote On the Propositions.

[blankslate]

I think Yes on 37 is a no brainer I hope you guys pass it.

 

[zinfamous]

Proposition 30 (Taxes Jerry Brown's Tax Increase): YES
Proposition 31 (State budget Two-Year Budget Cycle): NO
Proposition 32 (Ban on corporate and union contributions): YES
Proposition 33 (Car insurance rates): NO
Proposition 34 (End the Death Penalty): YES
Proposition 35 (Human Trafficking): NO
Proposition 36 (Three Strikes): YES
Proposition 37 (Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food): NO
Proposition 38 (Taxes Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase): YES
Proposition 39 (Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses): NO
Proposition 40 (Redistricting): NO

lol...why do people vote Yes on 30 and 38? These are conflicting props and only one can pass. This is like voting No on both, more or less...

as for me:
Proposition 30 (Taxes Jerry Brown's Tax Increase): YES
Proposition 31 (State budget Two-Year Budget Cycle): NO
Proposition 32 (Ban on corporate and union contributions): NO
Proposition 33 (Car insurance rates): NO
Proposition 34 (End the Death Penalty): YES
Proposition 35 (Human Trafficking): NO
Proposition 36 (Three Strikes): YES
Proposition 37 (Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food): YES
Proposition 38 (Taxes Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase): NO
Proposition 39 (Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses): Forget...NO?
Proposition 40 (Redistricting): NA


37 is the most difficult one for me: As I work in a similar field and have done these things my entire professional life, I know that the concern over GMO are by and large completely unnecessary. I know that the legislation is garbage--it does not distinguish that mutagenesis through irradiation, EMS, UV, etc are simply other means of achieving a very similar thing, though potentially more concerning (shear randomness of the procedure) that mutagenesis through recombinant DNA technology, and that there is, indeed, a stark lack of information on these supposed labels as to what "GMO" means.

As far as science and simply fear-mongering go--this is terrible legislation. As far as being yet another ridiculous sticker to put on crap in CA, this is terrible legislation.

However--I feel that much of this is due to the fact that the majority of consumers simply don't know shit about recombinant DNA technology or GMO and are simply willing to swallow the fear fed to them by ill0informed activist groups. This legislation continues with the no-information policy, but I believe that these labels popping up on nearly everything in the supermarket will create a profound effect on consumers...and that conversation will finally begin. People can't suddenly stop eating everything, so they will have to learn.

Of course, the other major reason I am voting yes? Monsanto. Fuck them in the ass and may they burn in fucking hell. Not just for the GMOs that appear in our food products, but every fucking god damn thing they do to farmers and the Ag industry.

This is the one chance someone like me gets to outright punch them in the gut, and so to quote a fellow P&N loony tune: "May great fuck be upon them."

 

[Fayd]

NO on everything but 32.

Yes on 32.

 

[bfdd]

Proposition 30 (Taxes Jerry Brown's Tax Increase): NO
Proposition 31 (State budget Two-Year Budget Cycle): NO
Proposition 32 (Ban on corporate and union contributions): YES
Proposition 33 (Car insurance rates): NO
Proposition 34 (End the Death Penalty): YES
Proposition 35 (Human Trafficking): NO
Proposition 36 (Three Strikes): YES
Proposition 37 (Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food): NO
Proposition 38 (Taxes Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase): NO
Proposition 39 (Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses): NO
Proposition 40 (Redistricting): YES


Also voting NO on 40 is what reveals if you're an informed voter. 40 is YES even if NO wins the vote because it's a dead prop. Yes means you want to keep the new districts. The districts we just voted for, the one that changed Maxine Waters into being my Rep. It literally cannot be undone, Judge has already ruled and the people who brought it up orpohaned the cause.

37 is not a no brainer. I voted NO because it's a terrible prop. While I agree with labeling, I will not pass such ridiculous legislation. Especially since it ignores so many things. It's a perfect example of legislation written by the elite interests in their favor. Plus this is mostly a consumer education problem anyways. Nanny state non sense I can't support. PS I just shifted to a glut ten free diet that I have to try for a few months to see If it will help relieve my IBS symptoms so I can appreciate things being labeled, but it is up to me to go out of the way. Not force others to cater to me, which they will anyways because there is a profit to be had as obviously people want the labels and the person who brings it out the cheapest will win.

 

[zinfamous]

Proposition 33 (Car insurance rates): Yes -- don't see anything wrong here.

The problem here is that the (nearly) sole supporter of this proposition is the wealthiest, largest, insurance CEO in CA.

This will have some effect on reducing rates for certain drivers, sure...but the real affect is that rates will drastically increase for the vast majority of drivers.

Proposition voting in CA is always hilarious.

 

[Screech]

@zinfamous: hmmm.........you might have changed my vote.

Screech

 

[Imported]

Proposition 30 (Taxes Jerry Brown's Tax Increase): No.
Proposition 31 (State budget Two-Year Budget Cycle): Yes.
Proposition 32 (Ban on corporate and union contributions): Yes.
Proposition 33 (Car insurance rates): No.
Proposition 34 (End the Death Penalty): Yes.
Proposition 35 (Human Trafficking): No.
Proposition 36 (Three Strikes): No.
Proposition 37 (Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food): No.
Proposition 38 (Taxes Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase): No.
Proposition 39 (Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses): No.
Proposition 40 (Redistricting): Yes.

 

[Drako]

When in doubt vote NO, especially on the tax increases.

 

[Drako]

I think Yes on 37 is a no brainer I hope you guys pass it.

If you're lawyer, you love prop 37

 

[TheNinja]

You can vote yes on both 30 and 38 even though only one of them can pass. Basically if you want to ensure that at least one of them passes and you don't care which, then you'd vote yes on both. If you think both will pass anyway and want to put one ahead of the other (or if you only want 1 to pass) then vote yes on one and no on the other.

38 is better than 30 IMO. I probably vote no on both, unless I think they are going to both pass, then I vote yes on 38. It's the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[Yreka]

I was intrested in the propositions ca is voting on so I looked into the tax hike proposals and found this in relation to 30:

But more to the point, the tax hike will fund the hefty pensions of school employees, as Bloomberg’s David Crane explained months ago:

Most Californians would be surprised to learn that 100 percent of education’s share of the tax increase proposed by Governor Jerry Brown will go to pensions instead of classrooms. . . .

Where is this from ?

I am still somewhat on the fence on 30.. I WANT to vote yes.. I don't mind paying more taxes if it means investing in education. Problem is, 50% of what we spend currently doesn't even makes it into the classroom. Seems like a problem throwing money at will not fix.

Also having a tough time finding info on 39.. Specifically looking for counterpoints to the FOR's claim that it closes a tax-break loophole for companies HQ in CA, but moving jobs out of state.

Also:

Proposition 30 (Taxes Jerry Brown's Tax Increase): Tentative NO
Proposition 31 (State budget Two-Year Budget Cycle): NO
Proposition 32 (Ban on corporate and union contributions): YES
Proposition 33 (Car insurance rates): NO
Proposition 34 (End the Death Penalty): YES
Proposition 35 (Human Trafficking): NO
Proposition 36 (Three Strikes): NO
Proposition 37 (Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food): YES
Proposition 38 (Taxes Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase): NO
Proposition 39 (Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses): Tentative NO
Proposition 40 (Redistricting): YES

 

[ichy]

It's sad to see so many people voting yes on 34. Our country needs more executions, not fewer.

 

[CrystalBay]

No on all the tax increases and any props that creates more
bureaucracy.

 

[bfdd]

Also, I forgot to mention about 40. A yes is a no and a no is a yes. If you read it carefully you'd know that lol.

Ichy, I changed my position on it simply because I disagree with the current system of doing it. I do agree with a death penalty, I just don't agree with the current system of implementation. So I'd rather get rid of it for now, change the way we approach the death penalty and reinstall it. I basically think we spend to much time just locking people up and getting nothing out of them for their crimes. It makes absolutely no sense. They should be trained or educated and be forced into the job market and to pay back restitution for their crimes as most crimes are simply financial burdens. Crimes that would constitute the death penalty, give them the choice either or. They can choose to be put down or they can work it off. Seems far more just to me.

 

[zinfamous]

It's sad to see so many people voting yes on 34. Our country needs more executions, not fewer.

morally bankrupt sockpuppet says what?

 

[diesbudt]

BUT BUT BUT, think of the children!!!! How are they supposed to learn the alphabet without a billion dollar network of ipads and administraitors retiring with 300k pensions?

By sticks and sand.

 

[badboyeee]

No on all the tax increases and any props that creates more
bureaucracy.

can you tell me which way to vote to on each prop to achieve this. im getting a headache reading the booklet. i dont know who to believe. everybody are liars!

 

[zinfamous]

37 is not a no brainer. I voted NO because it's a terrible prop. While I agree with labeling, I will not pass such ridiculous legislation. Especially since it ignores so many things. It's a perfect example of legislation written by the elite interests in their favor. Plus this is mostly a consumer education problem anyways. Nanny state non sense I can't support. PS I just shifted to a glut ten free diet that I have to try for a few months to see If it will help relieve my IBS symptoms so I can appreciate things being labeled, but it is up to me to go out of the way. Not force others to cater to me, which they will anyways because there is a profit to be had as obviously people want the labels and the person who brings it out the cheapest will win.

agreed.

funny thing--you agree with labeling, and voted No.

I disagree with labeling..and voted Yes.

 

[zinfamous]

can you tell me which way to vote to on each prop to achieve this. im getting a headache reading the booklet. i dont know who to believe. everybody are liars!

I posted this in the other thread, but I find it's the best no-BS guide out there--rather concise and generally just gives you the salient facts of each prop--what they say they do, what they actually will (and won't do--the important part), what they cost and, of course, who is paying for support/opposition.

http://www.kqed.org/news/politics/election2012/statepropositions-guide.jsp

 

[AstroManLuca]

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.

 

[blankslate]

If you're lawyer, you love prop 37

Actually Zinfamous has provided what is to me a very interesting take on proposition 37.

For me. I'd rather have the information even if I am fucked and can't really find alternatives.

I'm more of a would want to know guy instead of a would rather not know guy even if I can't do shit about it.

I think that what Monsanto is really afraid of is it it passes in CA then similar measures will have a much better chance of passing in other states.


In Europe there is labeling and things of this nature for GMOs and a distinct portion of the populace opts out of GMO consumption.

Not everything from Europe is the devil in disguise looking to destroy the USA

 

[TheNinja]

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.

 

[ichy]

morally bankrupt sockpuppet says what?

Not everyone's life has value.

 

[zinfamous]

Actually Zinfamous has provided what is to me a very interesting take on proposition 37.

For me. I'd rather have the information even if I am fucked and can't really find alternatives.

I'm more of a would want to know guy instead of a would rather not know guy even if I can't do shit about it.

I think that what Monsanto is really afraid of is it it passes in CA then similar measures will have a much better chance of passing in other states.


In Europe there is labeling and things of this nature for GMOs and a distinct portion of the populace opts out of GMO consumption.

Not everything from Europe is the devil in disguise looking to destroy the USA

the reason the attitude is a bit different in Europe is that they actually have more reasonable options--there is no major industrialized agriculture compared to what we have here. For generations, Europeans have preferred and always had access to much higher quality food--organic, free range-grass fed, whatever you want to call it. It wasn't a lifestyle change or choice, it's simply what they always preferred. Labeling GMOs in Europe really is a no-brainer and has little significance, as it only effects the foods that they rarely eat, anyway.

Here, we've been raised on Nabisco. Just wait until you see those labels on every box of cereal, cracker, snack food, frozen food...etc. I contend that the labels won't tell you anything legitimate as to what is in the food, but it is going to open a lot of eyes. I still think it is a big "negative" for the very good things that can be involved with GMOs, but I feel it is necessary for getting the conversation going in a hopefully intelligent way.

 

[zinfamous]

Not everyone's life has value.

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

that fact that it is far costlier should even appeal to the "cut everything" type of republicans out there....but that is yet another line of hypocrisy to come forth from that echo chamber

...not to mention the fact that plenty of death row inmates have already been exonerated due to DNA evidence, and further investigations into shoddy criminal trials that put them there. We are certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we have already murdered innocents due to this sham of justice.

--for justice
--for spending cuts


....except when it comes to killing people. Oh, right...



It is pure, willful, cowardice to let this practice continue