Page 1 of 4

Election results?

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:06 am
by coltraning
Seems like an appropriate thread for the off-topic forum, considering how politically aware this group is...looks like Dems swept into the house and may well take back the senate. If that isn't a major league brushback to Bush and Dick, I don't know what is...locally, the reinvented terminator revivified, and cruz bustamante had the dubious distinction of being the only down-ticket Dem to not surf the wave - he and Angelides were pathetic candidates. I still think Rob Reiner would have taken Arnold or come close...

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:39 am
by Big B
This election is basically telling Bush that we are sick of his war and we want out.

It's already been speculated that Dumbsfeild and Cheeney are going to resign. This will allow Bush to use Dumbsfeld as his major scapegoat and pull out of Iraq...

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:04 pm
by Big B
The change is beginning. Rumsfeld steps down. =D>

Click the link for the full story...

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:49 pm
by baytobrooklyn
What is with some California democrats? Why the hell would they run Angelides out there, and Bustamante after getting toasted in the recall? They really were awful, unlikeable candidates. I mean, I voted for both of them, but felt kind of sick about it afterwards. I voted for the Green Party dude, Camejo, in the recall, and wish I had in this election, too.

Watching Bush usher Rummy the hell out right now. Politically, these last couple days have been the only uplifing ones since dubya has been in office. As far as the Dems actually pushing policy back to the left, I don't know how much they'll really be able to promote a progressive agenda. What will most likely happen, is they'll be able to tie up a lot of the ridiculous measures, legislation, and Supreme Court nominations (tha's a HUGE victory in and of itself) that in the last 6 years were just passed without a hitch. The mindset of government and the country needs to move back closer to the center before people can start to think on the 'left' side of things. I was optimistic about the house before the election, but never expected to be so close in the senate. I was up most of the night watching the numbers from Montana, and went to bed with the gap on Tester's lead closing, with about 5% of precincts left. When I woke up, vioala! He's been projected as the winner. Control of the House AND Senate could really move things along for the Dems a lot faster. And it would seriously piss Bush off, as he hasn't encountered any real dissent his whole time in office.

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:59 pm
by TMC
I now feel like adding something to this thread... (attention, migya, this one's for you)



Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:21 pm
by Big B
The country could learn something from the city of Santa Cruz.

Santa Cruz just passed measure K which makes arresting pot smokers their lowest priority. Way to go! =D>

I say take the measure a step further. If a cop arrests a pot smoker and during the time of this arrest a real crime is commited and the villan isn't caught, then that arresting officer is subject to suspension without pay (length of suspension is dependent on seriousness of the crime that was committed while the officer was harrassing the pot smoker), various fines, and community service....

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:12 pm
by baytobrooklyn
The state of Nevada had a proposition to make the use of and possesion of up to an ounce of weed leagl on the ballot yesterday. It was voted down by a wide margin, but the fact that it was on the ballot is a good sign.

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:28 pm
by Big B
baytobrooklyn wrote:The state of Nevada had a proposition to make the use of and possesion of up to an ounce of weed leagl on the ballot yesterday. It was voted down by a wide margin, but the fact that it was on the ballot is a good sign.

That’s too bad.. :x

Gambling = Good
Prostitution = Good
24 Hour Night Clubs and Drinking = Good
Smoking Pot = Bad

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:22 pm
by JayPat
What are the thoughts on Proposition 87?

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:38 pm
by baytobrooklyn
I was down with 87, just because I think it's a good precendent to set to get the idea of alternative energy into the public mind. Anything to help start what will be one of the most important movements of our lifetimes (energy conservation and the switch from fossil fuels to other forms) is necessary as soon as possible. That being said, it was a pretty poorly written proposition, without some necessary parameters to make a measure like that successful. I'm actually surprised it didn't pass, or at least wasn't closer. I guess the ambigiuty of certain aspects of it, along with the whole 'no accountability' claims from the opposition, doomed it.

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:47 pm
by JayPat
Yeah, the problem was A) the whole "no required results means no results" thing and B) the taxes, they can't directly pass the tax on to us by raising gas prices but they will do it eventually and it will hurt long-term.

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:53 pm
by 32
I vote "yes" on very, very few propositions.

Props require signatures to get onto the ballot. Back in the day, somebody could petition with a clipboard to get a certain percentage of the population's signatures. Now, the population is so huge, getting whatever percentage needed to get on the ballot (10%, 15%, whatever) is impossible... unless you're paying a ton of money to get it done.

All these props have major corporations funding them... in hopes that they'll be passed (because, most of the time, those same corporations majorly profit off of them). You don't spend millions of dollars getting something on the ballot unless you expect millions of dollars back for it.

Because of that, it takes A LOT to get me to vote "yes" on something. I think a lot of it is just BS money-making schemes.

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:11 pm
by JayPat
So you're no on 87? What about 86?

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:19 pm
by 32
86 was insane. Even when you disregard the fact that the hospitals are trying to con a buck, the whole idea is sick.

"Let's tax these poor bastards that are addicted to something!"

Nobody expected that smokers would suddenly "stop smoking" because of the tax; the government was just trying to take advantage of people who break into hives when they go without a smoke. If someone starts shaking from a lack of nicotine, they need help... not a ridiculous tax that would exploit them.

Think what you want about smoking and the dangers of it, but I find it morally wrong to tax people for something they are dependent on. It's just not right, in my opinion... and I'm not a chronic smoker, either.

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:26 pm
by xbay
So the Dems are back in control after a 12 year absence. What's going to happen now? Are they really going to bring back the soldiers out of Iraq? Out corrupt government has been divided up and axed out of the picture, hopefully the dems don't bring that in here. The Dems have a lot to prove.

Also did anyone catch if that one woman won Speaker of the House?

And I'm happy Measure K didn't go down. If it did, they'd continue to build more schools over here in Oakley and I don't want it so crowded down here. It's nice and peaceful.

As for migya, I doubt he'll answer to this thread. It's about politics, and that's something he's not into. Unless this thread somehow goes way off topic, then he's probably not in this.