|
|
On November 01 2012 05:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:08 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:05 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:02 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32? Of course it's a reply to what you said. Who do you think these "backers" are? Just because they say something I'm supposed to believe them? Well, going from that logic, we should listen to the dissenters as well! It says they can be voluntary with written permission, but sub (a) says it cannot be automatic. It's as clear as day. Oh God this is hilarious. Yes it is as clear as day, automatic means it just happens. With written permission, it's not automatic, is it? ogawd you really are not reading what the text of the ballot says, are you? It's pretty obvious you haven't. I guess you're just that much better at reading than the five people who are arguing otherwise. I shall concede to your awesome reading superiority. Show nested quote +85151. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee’s wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes.
(b) This section shall not prohibit an employee from making voluntary contributions to a sponsored committee of his or her employer, labor union, or public employee labor union in any manner, other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a), so long as all such contributions are given with that employee’s written consent, which consent shall be effective for no more than one year. Yes, I am better at reading than you and HunterX. You both read at a very low and self-serving level. "OGawd," section (b), directly under section (a), makes it clear that section (a) is talking about involuntary deductions and that section (a) cannot prevent voluntary deductions! Yet we still have you parroting talking points that make absolutely no sense when you read Proposition 32 as a single document, not a bunch of chopped-up sections with no apparent relation to each other. (b) has no meaning whatsoever under your interpretation, (a) totally cancels it out, so why would it be there? Obviously because it is a clarification of (a), to the meaning that voluntary deductions cannot be prevented.
No, the proposition makes its intent clear in the first section. From the actual text of the bill,
3. Prohibit corporations and labor unions from collecting political funds from employees and union members using the inherently coercive means of payroll deduction
Notice the lack of voluntary/involuntary? That is because the bill bans all forms of payroll deductions.
|
On November 01 2012 05:16 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:05 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:02 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32? Of course it's a reply to what you said. Who do you think these "backers" are? Just because they say something I'm supposed to believe them? Well, going from that logic, we should listen to the dissenters as well! It says they can be voluntary with written permission, but sub (a) says it cannot be automatic. It's as clear as day. Oh God this is hilarious. Yes it is as clear as day, automatic means it just happens. With written permission, it's not automatic, is it? ogawd you really are not reading what the text of the ballot says, are you? It's pretty obvious you haven't. I guess you're just that much better at reading than the five people who are arguing otherwise. I shall concede to your awesome reading superiority. 85151. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee’s wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes.
(b) This section shall not prohibit an employee from making voluntary contributions to a sponsored committee of his or her employer, labor union, or public employee labor union in any manner, other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a), so long as all such contributions are given with that employee’s written consent, which consent shall be effective for no more than one year. Yes, I am better at reading than you and HunterX. You both read at a very low and self-serving level. "OGawd," section (b), directly under section (a), makes it clear that section (a) is talking about involuntary deductions and that section (a) cannot prevent voluntary deductions! Yet we still have you parroting talking points that make absolutely no sense when you read Proposition 32 as a single document, not a bunch of chopped-up sections with no apparent relation to each other. (b) has no meaning whatsoever under your interpretation, (a) totally cancels it out, so why would it be there? Obviously because it is a clarification of (a), to the meaning that voluntary deductions cannot be prevented. (a) says they cannot deduct from an employee's wages, earnings, or compensation. (b) says anything that is prohibited by (a) will not be allowed. Section (a) does not make any distinction between voluntary or involuntary, and section (b) says it doesn't matter if it's voluntary because it's prohibited anyway. So. Simple.
Except any time there is ambiguity, a Court can bring into record the statements of intent from the drafters. A liberal judge will find a way to do this (it wouldn't be hard to make this leap). If I'm judging it, I would side with you simply because I think the language is quite clear. However, any judge that disagrees would easily be able to bring intent into play and find the other way. I think Souma might be right in a technical sense, but DeepElm is right in a practical sense.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 05:09 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Charles Munger is an "experimental physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.[1] In 2006, Munger was a member of California's Curriculum Commission, an advisory commission of the California State Board of Education.[1]" He's not some corporate shill, he's a political activist.
Here's Charles Munger for you:
Charles Thomas Munger (born January 1, 1924, in Omaha, Nebraska) is an American business magnate, lawyer, investor, and philanthropist. He is Vice-Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Corporation, the diversified investment corporation chaired by Warren Buffett; in that capacity, Buffett describes Munger as "my partner." Munger served as chairman of Wesco Financial Corporation from 1984 through 2011 (Wesco was approximately 80%-owned by Berkshire-Hathaway during that time). He is also the chairman of the Daily Journal Corporation, based in Los Angeles, California, and a director of Costco Wholesale Corporation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Munger
What was that about corporate shill?
On November 01 2012 05:19 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:16 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 05:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:05 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 05:02 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source... That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32? Of course it's a reply to what you said. Who do you think these "backers" are? Just because they say something I'm supposed to believe them? Well, going from that logic, we should listen to the dissenters as well! It says they can be voluntary with written permission, but sub (a) says it cannot be automatic. It's as clear as day. Oh God this is hilarious. Yes it is as clear as day, automatic means it just happens. With written permission, it's not automatic, is it? ogawd you really are not reading what the text of the ballot says, are you? It's pretty obvious you haven't. I guess you're just that much better at reading than the five people who are arguing otherwise. I shall concede to your awesome reading superiority. 85151. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee’s wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes.
(b) This section shall not prohibit an employee from making voluntary contributions to a sponsored committee of his or her employer, labor union, or public employee labor union in any manner, other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a), so long as all such contributions are given with that employee’s written consent, which consent shall be effective for no more than one year. Yes, I am better at reading than you and HunterX. You both read at a very low and self-serving level. "OGawd," section (b), directly under section (a), makes it clear that section (a) is talking about involuntary deductions and that section (a) cannot prevent voluntary deductions! Yet we still have you parroting talking points that make absolutely no sense when you read Proposition 32 as a single document, not a bunch of chopped-up sections with no apparent relation to each other. (b) has no meaning whatsoever under your interpretation, (a) totally cancels it out, so why would it be there? Obviously because it is a clarification of (a), to the meaning that voluntary deductions cannot be prevented. (a) says they cannot deduct from an employee's wages, earnings, or compensation. (b) says anything that is prohibited by (a) will not be allowed. Section (a) does not make any distinction between voluntary or involuntary, and section (b) says it doesn't matter if it's voluntary because it's prohibited anyway. So. Simple. Except any time there is ambiguity, a Court can bring into record the statements of intent from the drafters. A liberal judge will find a way to do this (it wouldn't be hard to make this leap). If I'm judging it, I would side with you simply because I think the language is quite clear. However, any judge that disagrees would easily be able to bring intent into play and find the other way. I think Souma might be right in a technical sense, but DeepElm is right in a practical sense.
In any case it's iffy and nonsense. Just make it easier for people to opt out or have fair campaign finance reform. Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.
|
On November 01 2012 05:17 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:04 Risen wrote:
I make an organization you voluntarily join. This organization is run by a board which is voted on. The board chooses how to spend collections. You voluntarily join this organization for the security it brings, while recognizing that you might not agree with all the decisions the board makes. At any point in time if you disagree with the board enough that you do not value the security the organization brings, you may leave.
WhatHow the fuck does the government sticking its fingers into this help?
Edit ^
Double Edit: Holy shit it's a libertarians wet dream. And yet the so called "libertarians" want the government to fuck with it. I think "libertarians" are being intellectually dishonest with themselves because the majority of these organizations aren't politically aligned with them. Except how a government distributes it's paychecks is within the governments realm. It's only a contradiction when the law is extended to non-public employees.
What are you trying to say with this post?
|
lol... Charles Munger JR. Which is the son. The reason he can affford $35million donations is because his father is a Berkshire billionaire, yes. But he isn't the Vice-Chairman of Berkshire, that's his father. The son is a physicist.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 05:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol... Charles Munger JR. Which is the son. The reason he can affford $35million donations is because his father is a Berkshire billionaire, yes. But he isn't the Vice-Chairman of Berkshire, that's his father. The son is a physicist.
Oh really? Well damn, can I use guilty-by-association here? :p
|
This conversation is getting painful.
|
On November 01 2012 05:27 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol... Charles Munger JR. Which is the son. The reason he can affford $35million donations is because his father is a Berkshire billionaire, yes. But he isn't the Vice-Chairman of Berkshire, that's his father. The son is a physicist. Oh really? Well damn, can I use guilty-by-association here? :p
Sure, go ahead. Can I have permission to use the Tim Robbins "Corporations are all corporationy" clip from Team America?
Bah, damn copyright infringement, they took all the clips down... 
At least I found the audio. http://www.hark.com/clips/mnmxrspbsm-let-me-explain-to-you-how-this-works
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 05:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:27 Souma wrote:On November 01 2012 05:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol... Charles Munger JR. Which is the son. The reason he can affford $35million donations is because his father is a Berkshire billionaire, yes. But he isn't the Vice-Chairman of Berkshire, that's his father. The son is a physicist. Oh really? Well damn, can I use guilty-by-association here? :p Sure, go ahead. Can I have permission to use the Tim Robbins "Corporations are all corporationy" clip from Team America?
Not familiar with it, so sure, sounds fun!
|
On November 01 2012 02:23 farvacola wrote:
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Edit: Wait, Kwark, are you telling me we should not be discussing Martin Luther's 95 theses in a US political debate thread? Heresy!
incidentally, its the anniversary of that event.
|
On November 01 2012 05:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 02:23 farvacola wrote:
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Edit: Wait, Kwark, are you telling me we should not be discussing Martin Luther's 95 theses in a US political debate thread? Heresy! incidentally, its the anniversary of that event.
Yes indeed, on a fateful October 31st in Wittenberg......
|
On November 01 2012 05:52 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 01 2012 02:23 farvacola wrote:
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Edit: Wait, Kwark, are you telling me we should not be discussing Martin Luther's 95 theses in a US political debate thread? Heresy! incidentally, its the anniversary of that event. Yes indeed, on a fateful October 31st in Wittenberg......
was that intentional?
|
On November 01 2012 05:56 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:52 farvacola wrote:On November 01 2012 05:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 01 2012 02:23 farvacola wrote:
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Edit: Wait, Kwark, are you telling me we should not be discussing Martin Luther's 95 theses in a US political debate thread? Heresy! incidentally, its the anniversary of that event. Yes indeed, on a fateful October 31st in Wittenberg...... was that intentional?
Yep, I cannot help but fall victim to the occasional passing Protestant Reformation reference, 'twas one of my focuses in undergrad.
More to the topic at hand, many are predicting a possible split in the electoral/popular vote this Tuesday. I like Nate Silver's take on why this might not be the case.
Mitt Romney and President Obama remain roughly tied in national polls, while state polls are suggestive of a lead for Mr. Obama in the Electoral College. Most people take this to mean that there is a fairly good chance of a split outcome between the Electoral College and the popular vote, as we had in 2000. But the story may not be so simple
For both the swing state polls and the national polls to be right, something else has to give to make the math work. If Mr. Obama is performing well in swing states, but is only tied in the popular vote nationally, that means he must be underperforming in noncompetitive states.
But polls of noncompetitive states don’t always cooperate with the story. Take the polls that were out on Tuesday.
Mr. Obama trailed by “only” eight points, for instance, in a poll of Georgia that was released on Tuesday. Those are somewhat worse results than Mr. Obama achieved in 2008, when he lost Georgia by five percentage points. But they’re only a little bit worse, whereas the national polls are suggestive of a larger decline for Mr. Obama in the popular vote.
Or take the poll of Texas, also out on Tuesday, which had Mr. Obama behind by 16 points there. He’s obviously no threat to win the state or come close to it, but that still represents only a 4-point decline for Mr. Obama from 2008, when he lost Texas by 12 points instead.
High-population red states like these, Texas and Georgia, are just the sort of places where Mr. Obama would need to lose a lot of ground in order to increase the likelihood of his winning the Electoral College while losing the popular vote.
538
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I feel like Hurricane Sandy is going to affect voter turnout in the North East (heavily Democratic states) a lot. Obama may lose the popular vote afterall.
|
On November 01 2012 06:27 Souma wrote:
I feel like Hurricane Sandy is going to affect voter turnout in the North East (heavily Democratic states) a lot. Obama may lose the popular vote afterall.
It is supremely difficult to predict; whose to say large numbers of otherwise apathetic voters aren't now energized by having Obama dedicate time to storm relief efforts? I realize these efforts themselves may be less than revolutionary, but some people only need a little real world push to line up their votes.
|
On November 01 2012 06:27 Souma wrote:
I feel like Hurricane Sandy is going to affect voter turnout in the North East (heavily Democratic states) a lot. Obama may lose the popular vote afterall.
Why? They'll think it's his fault lol?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 06:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:27 Souma wrote:
I feel like Hurricane Sandy is going to affect voter turnout in the North East (heavily Democratic states) a lot. Obama may lose the popular vote afterall. It is supremely difficult to predict; whose to say large numbers of otherwise apathetic voters aren't now energized by having Obama dedicate time to storm relief efforts? I realize these efforts themselves may be less than revolutionary, but some people only need a little real world push to line up their votes.
Yeah but conditions don't look very great right now with all the flooding and destruction. Voting may be the last thing on their mind (and may be hindered by the flooding/destruction).
|
On November 01 2012 06:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:56 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 01 2012 05:52 farvacola wrote:On November 01 2012 05:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 01 2012 02:23 farvacola wrote:
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Edit: Wait, Kwark, are you telling me we should not be discussing Martin Luther's 95 theses in a US political debate thread? Heresy! incidentally, its the anniversary of that event. Yes indeed, on a fateful October 31st in Wittenberg...... was that intentional? Yep, I cannot help but fall victim to the occasional passing Protestant Reformation reference, 'twas one of my focuses in undergrad. More to the topic at hand, many are predicting a possible split in the electoral/popular vote this Tuesday. I like Nate Silver's take on why this might not be the case. Show nested quote +Mitt Romney and President Obama remain roughly tied in national polls, while state polls are suggestive of a lead for Mr. Obama in the Electoral College. Most people take this to mean that there is a fairly good chance of a split outcome between the Electoral College and the popular vote, as we had in 2000. But the story may not be so simple
For both the swing state polls and the national polls to be right, something else has to give to make the math work. If Mr. Obama is performing well in swing states, but is only tied in the popular vote nationally, that means he must be underperforming in noncompetitive states.
But polls of noncompetitive states don’t always cooperate with the story. Take the polls that were out on Tuesday.
Mr. Obama trailed by “only” eight points, for instance, in a poll of Georgia that was released on Tuesday. Those are somewhat worse results than Mr. Obama achieved in 2008, when he lost Georgia by five percentage points. But they’re only a little bit worse, whereas the national polls are suggestive of a larger decline for Mr. Obama in the popular vote.
Or take the poll of Texas, also out on Tuesday, which had Mr. Obama behind by 16 points there. He’s obviously no threat to win the state or come close to it, but that still represents only a 4-point decline for Mr. Obama from 2008, when he lost Texas by 12 points instead.
High-population red states like these, Texas and Georgia, are just the sort of places where Mr. Obama would need to lose a lot of ground in order to increase the likelihood of his winning the Electoral College while losing the popular vote.
538
aren't the big blue states like New York and California even more important for the popular vote? Unfortunately this analysis is lacking a more indebt look at those.
|
Funny watching Christie talk up Obama.
I'd wager a large amount of money that he is voting for Obama if we had a way of knowing the answer.
|
On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 04:36 StarStrider wrote:
Standing in a line for an early vote today. Gary Johnson has absolutely zero chance of getting elected... but I feel that if my vote is wasted on a mainstream candidate, then I might as well use it to send a message, and truly vote for the principles i believe in, instead of the lesser of two evils. 5% does the LIbertarian Party WONDERS. I don't understand why they don't spread that message more. 5% gets them a lot of benefits for the next cycle.
i have seen some information from both the Libertarian Party and the Green Party about the 5% vote being a big goal. I think it's much more likely for Gary Johnson than Jill Stein(there are a surprising amount of libertarians in this country 0.o, I know liberals who liked Ron Paul after all, no clue)
I really think it's just their financial situation that prevents them from spreading the message more, also "begging" for a mere 5% of the vote might turn people away, maybe some of the people voting for them actually truly believe in miracles, and they might not vote otherwise as a waste of time, I mean 4 years is a long time. I really don't know about voter psychology, I'm just making stuff up, but I think a vote for a third party candidate is worth it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
