2010 November Election past….

[CAwireman]

Okay, back to the overall intent of the post – who/what are you voting for?

Lot’s of offices and other props/ballots.

My wife and I listened to some of the debates. Still mulling it over.

My thinking at the moment:
19 – [Update – US Govt to
prosecute usage regardless of how prop 19 goes. So, no real reason to vote it in unless trying to make a statement….]
20 – No, save money.
21 – No
22 – Yes
23 – No
24 – No
25 – No
26 – No
27 – Yes

[enron_by_the_sea]

Gov. – Whitman [ Nothing against Brown, but we need a republican there to guard against the 64% democrats in the assembly.]

Senate – Boxer [Would have voted for Fiorina, but thinking that Boxer is a better choice if we have President Palin in 2012 which we will.]

Lt. gov, Treasurer, controller, Att General – Republicans. Their philosophy is best for these offices

Sec. of State, Ins. Commissioner – Democrats. Their philosophy is best for these offices

Prop. 20 – YES.

All other prop.s – NO

– “Preserve the gridlock” voter

[enron_by_the_sea]

Gov. – Whitman [ Nothing against Brown, but we need a republican there to guard against the 64% democrats in the assembly.]

Senate – Boxer [Would have voted for Fiorina, but thinking that Boxer is a better choice if we have President Palin in 2012 which we will.]

Lt. gov, Treasurer, controller, Att General – Republicans. Their philosophy is best for these offices

Sec. of State, Ins. Commissioner – Democrats. Their philosophy is best for these offices

Prop. 20 – YES.

All other prop.s – NO

– “Preserve the gridlock” voter

[enron_by_the_sea]

Gov. – Whitman [ Nothing against Brown, but we need a republican there to guard against the 64% democrats in the assembly.]

Senate – Boxer [Would have voted for Fiorina, but thinking that Boxer is a better choice if we have President Palin in 2012 which we will.]

Lt. gov, Treasurer, controller, Att General – Republicans. Their philosophy is best for these offices

Sec. of State, Ins. Commissioner – Democrats. Their philosophy is best for these offices

Prop. 20 – YES.

All other prop.s – NO

– “Preserve the gridlock” voter

[enron_by_the_sea]

Gov. – Whitman [ Nothing against Brown, but we need a republican there to guard against the 64% democrats in the assembly.]

Senate – Boxer [Would have voted for Fiorina, but thinking that Boxer is a better choice if we have President Palin in 2012 which we will.]

Lt. gov, Treasurer, controller, Att General – Republicans. Their philosophy is best for these offices

Sec. of State, Ins. Commissioner – Democrats. Their philosophy is best for these offices

Prop. 20 – YES.

All other prop.s – NO

– “Preserve the gridlock” voter

[enron_by_the_sea]

Gov. – Whitman [ Nothing against Brown, but we need a republican there to guard against the 64% democrats in the assembly.]

Senate – Boxer [Would have voted for Fiorina, but thinking that Boxer is a better choice if we have President Palin in 2012 which we will.]

Lt. gov, Treasurer, controller, Att General – Republicans. Their philosophy is best for these offices

Sec. of State, Ins. Commissioner – Democrats. Their philosophy is best for these offices

Prop. 20 – YES.

All other prop.s – NO

– “Preserve the gridlock” voter

[davelj]

I just got a “Cops Voter Guide Endorsed” in the mail which is basically how the Police Departments want us to vote in the upcoming election. Interestingly, they are pushing folks to vote YES on Prop 19, under the rationale that, “Prop 19 enables police to focus more on stopping violent crime and cuts off funding to drug cartels.” Let me be the first to applaud them on their endorsement. I didn’t expect to see that. In some ways, I think that’s voting against their best interests (in a certain sense – that is, expansion of their bureaucracy), which I respect.

[davelj]

I just got a “Cops Voter Guide Endorsed” in the mail which is basically how the Police Departments want us to vote in the upcoming election. Interestingly, they are pushing folks to vote YES on Prop 19, under the rationale that, “Prop 19 enables police to focus more on stopping violent crime and cuts off funding to drug cartels.” Let me be the first to applaud them on their endorsement. I didn’t expect to see that. In some ways, I think that’s voting against their best interests (in a certain sense – that is, expansion of their bureaucracy), which I respect.

[davelj]

I just got a “Cops Voter Guide Endorsed” in the mail which is basically how the Police Departments want us to vote in the upcoming election. Interestingly, they are pushing folks to vote YES on Prop 19, under the rationale that, “Prop 19 enables police to focus more on stopping violent crime and cuts off funding to drug cartels.” Let me be the first to applaud them on their endorsement. I didn’t expect to see that. In some ways, I think that’s voting against their best interests (in a certain sense – that is, expansion of their bureaucracy), which I respect.

[davelj]

I just got a “Cops Voter Guide Endorsed” in the mail which is basically how the Police Departments want us to vote in the upcoming election. Interestingly, they are pushing folks to vote YES on Prop 19, under the rationale that, “Prop 19 enables police to focus more on stopping violent crime and cuts off funding to drug cartels.” Let me be the first to applaud them on their endorsement. I didn’t expect to see that. In some ways, I think that’s voting against their best interests (in a certain sense – that is, expansion of their bureaucracy), which I respect.

[davelj]

I just got a “Cops Voter Guide Endorsed” in the mail which is basically how the Police Departments want us to vote in the upcoming election. Interestingly, they are pushing folks to vote YES on Prop 19, under the rationale that, “Prop 19 enables police to focus more on stopping violent crime and cuts off funding to drug cartels.” Let me be the first to applaud them on their endorsement. I didn’t expect to see that. In some ways, I think that’s voting against their best interests (in a certain sense – that is, expansion of their bureaucracy), which I respect.

[Anonymous]

[quote=afx114]Even if there is no additional tax revenue from Prop 19, don’t forget to factor in the money that will be saved by not having to arrest, prosecute, and imprison people for marijuana-related infractions. How much does the state currently spend on these things?[/quote]

“Money saved” means money not paid as salaries of prosecutors, cops, lawyers, judges, jailers, workers at drug testing centers. Isn’t that a bad thing for unemployment and housing prices?

[Anonymous]

[quote=afx114]Even if there is no additional tax revenue from Prop 19, don’t forget to factor in the money that will be saved by not having to arrest, prosecute, and imprison people for marijuana-related infractions. How much does the state currently spend on these things?[/quote]

“Money saved” means money not paid as salaries of prosecutors, cops, lawyers, judges, jailers, workers at drug testing centers. Isn’t that a bad thing for unemployment and housing prices?

[Anonymous]

[quote=afx114]Even if there is no additional tax revenue from Prop 19, don’t forget to factor in the money that will be saved by not having to arrest, prosecute, and imprison people for marijuana-related infractions. How much does the state currently spend on these things?[/quote]

“Money saved” means money not paid as salaries of prosecutors, cops, lawyers, judges, jailers, workers at drug testing centers. Isn’t that a bad thing for unemployment and housing prices?

[Anonymous]

[quote=afx114]Even if there is no additional tax revenue from Prop 19, don’t forget to factor in the money that will be saved by not having to arrest, prosecute, and imprison people for marijuana-related infractions. How much does the state currently spend on these things?[/quote]

“Money saved” means money not paid as salaries of prosecutors, cops, lawyers, judges, jailers, workers at drug testing centers. Isn’t that a bad thing for unemployment and housing prices?

[Author]

Posts