Senate US Election 2012: Down the ballot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

 

wikipedia is not a valid source, darth guy

 

Do not use the word "we" when you are not speaking for everyone you are referring to in the term.

 

ill take that as you conceding the rest of my post. thank you and i hope you see the error of your ways and aren't just simply at a loss

 

I conceded a long time ago that I can not change your beliefs.

However, I am glad we can see eye to eye on many issues, such as the irrelevancy of voting in the presidential elections, and the similarity of the 2 candidates.

 

still, arguing with me might sharpen your rhetoric and challenge the beliefs of bystanders that read this thread. you're mistaken if you think im arguing with you because i believe you personally are gaining wisdom from the exchange

 

SO about these election thingys....

There are several races I'm following:

MN-6 Bachmann/Graves: it's close, but it has been in the past and she's never come close to being beat. She still has a magician's silver tongue. She can make any lie seem preferable to Obama's socialism, and people in this area eat it up. I don't know what it is, but there are so many billboards with utter nonsense spouted by the Tea Party about Obama, socialism, gun rights, abortion, and so on. It makes me sad. (On a side note, on a recent tour of my parents' town, I was so happy to see a good number of Obama yard signs. I only saw a few Romney ones. Of course, the real reason is that many people are refusing to vote for either and instead are writing in Ron Paul.)

MN also has two Constitutional amendments on the ballot--Definition of Marriage as one man & one woman, and photo ID to vote. Now this is strange, because we have very little initiative/referendum powers, so the electorate is used to being much more "republican," in the sense that we let our legislators make decisions. However, the Republican legislature is gridlocked against the Democrat governor, and both refused to pass almost any legislation. So instead they put their pet projects into amendments.
I hate this for a number of reasons.
1. They are soooo not doing their jobs, and I hope many are unseated in this election. We have pretty low incumbency, which is maybe part of the problem.
2. The amendments are both poorly written, poorly legislated, with little public discussion before they were sent to the ballot. They're essentially protectionist solutions to non-existent issues that aren't even being discussed. They were explicitly intended to get the Republican base out to vote against Obama. A high-ranking Senate staffer even admitted as much. But the amount of money going into this race (and fuelling unfactual vitriol on both sides) could easily feed a developing country for a year.
3. Something something about the Constitution protecting people's rights, not limiting them.

I guess the "good" news is that after huge efforts in the limited time we as a state have had to discuss and organize around them, we've been very successful in educating people about the consequences of passing them as amendments rather than simply as laws. And we have had marvelous discussion around marriage rights and the voting process. Right now both amendments are polling 50/50 or thereabouts, and their chances of passing are getting slimmer every day. So I hope they eke out a fail.

And, one of my friends is running as a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat for our state House seat, so I hope he wins. But last I checked, his opponent was still 15 points ahead, so whatever.

 

Linda McMahon recieves warning for 'deceitful tactics' from election enforcment agency.

 

How does it demonstrate that? Take the James Byrd case. While what they did was disgusting, it wasn't really all that remarkable in the history of racially motivated terrorism in the American South. As you well know, many blacks were tortured, mutilated and killed by white mobs as a deliberate sort of town event. Are you arguing that every single individual that was involved in such a lynching or killing was permanently irredeemable? Because I'm fairly certain at least a few of them in their latter years reconciled themselves to a more racially enlightened view. Which is, you know, the complete opposite of what you are trying to claim.

Also interesting that you make this "point" at a time when one of the DC shooters is being quite widely noted to have begun expressing remorse. Which, you know, is much more like reform than you ever gave the guy credit for being able to carry off in the first place (I know you cited John Muhammad, but it's really sort of strange to claim one is completely beyond the pale and the other isn't.).

 

CNN's list of key ballot initiatives:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/01/politics/ballot-initiatives/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

So, they didn't mention the condom initiative for California? Sure, it's a stupid ballot initiative, but they should still list it. Especially considering it's a billion dollar industry that will be affected.

 

I voted against Prop 19 (I think that was the number) in 2010 that would've legalized marijuana in California. I now regret that decision, even though my vote wouldn't have made a difference.

It's a local Los Angeles measure.

 

Ah, okay. That still seems like a silly thing to get on the ballot.

 

It is indeed one of the silliest things that there can be on a ballot, and I hope enough people (such as myself) vote no on it tomorrow.

 

Why, exactly, is it "silly"?

EDIT: Basically, requiring that condoms be used in the production of pornography. L.A.'s going to turn into a police state!

 

Well, Bill O'Reilly said that if you legalize marijuana, more kids will be abused. I presume that was your reasoning.

 

@Todd the Jedi: It would require condoms to be worn in porn productions filmed here in L.A. County, and county officials would have to lead the enforcement on this/conduct inspections on porn shoots. So, so unnecessary.


@Darth Guy: I find it silly because this shouldn't be a function of the county bureaucracy... there is no real public wide health risk, and testing is in place in the industry to detect the wide array of ailments that would rise from making porn. This condom issue ought to be left to the companies & performers to deal with, not something forced upon them. I don't how small/a drop in the bucket the cost would be for county officials to inspect/enforce a condom law, but really, bureaucrats going porn productions... that would end well?

 

Why is it unnecessary? There have been periodic HIV scares in the industry, and "lesser" STD's such as herpes, syphilis, and chlamydia run rampant. As far as I'm concerned, Los Angeles is simply proposing a regulation of the workplace safety of a major industry within the city-- an industry that is issued permits, licences, and taxed like any other. The aesthetic appeal for the people jacking off to the fruits of these workers' labors isn't enough of a consideration. Yeah, it could drive revenue away from L.A., but considering that something like 70-80% of all porn in the U.S. is produced there moving would probably be a daunting prospect for most companies.

 

The larger point on measure B, imo, is that the industry has said they'll leave LA County if need be, and conversely, I think Las Vegas said they'd welcome the industry with open arms. I think this has no bearing on the fact that the city of Los Angeles has passed a similar law already. My hope is that Measure B doesn't pass, but we'll see. Given how big porn is as an industry in the San Fernando Valley.... it may have big ramifications, but I figure anyone compiling lists isn't looking at county measures, for the most part.

I am somewhat surprised that they don't have Prop 37, the fairly anti-science GMO labeling initiative, on there. Both with how big of a deal being made of that, and how much money is going into it.

 

Question 7 is also not listed. I think that has larger ramifications for Maryland as it would expand gambling and as a native Marylander I'm really pissed at the fact that West Virginia casinos are funneling money to superPACs to defeat it.

 

Whenever there's a serious scare, the industry does shutdown productions until it's safe to film again, so I don't see the dire need for this specific of a regulation via the country government. these people going into the industry know (duh) what goes on, what's all about, etc... I don't think changing the fundamentals of how they conduct their business is a wise move, even if some companies were to stay here in L.A. County, because eventually enough would move out & that would negatively effect the economy too much.

 

Just because people "know" doesn't mean it is acceptable as a safe workplace standard. For a long time, coal workers "knew" there was a serious risk of getting black lung from working in coal mines, but that doesn't mean it was wrong to implement new safety standards that have reduced exposure to carbon dust and resultant lung disease. It's insane to ignore easy, cheap, widely available improvements like this.

Further, even if none of the above were true, why are you so torn over losing the professional pornography business. Are we so agonized over this most lowly of legally permissible professions? To paraphrase Barnave and Robespierre "Perish the industry, rather than a principle."

 

But with those (obviously needed) safety standards in place, they could still fundamentally do their jobs... condoms in porn would be a fundamental change (from what I've heard, sex with a condom on feels/is different than without it). I care, Wocky, because I happen to live right here in the Valley, the epicenter of the U.S. porn industry, and am civic minded enough to realize the potential & reality of what it would do the business out here.