California Crew: Please vote on June 8th, and please vote no on 16.

[heyheybooboo]

...

Name one thing that the government has run efficiently.

Trillion-dollar Wars.

Oh, wait ...




--

 

[Kappo]

Trillion-dollar Wars.

Oh, wait ...




--

You see my point, then

 

[Amused]

Translation of 'wall of text' usually: unable or unwilling to discuss the issue.

Keep it to bumper stickers to repeat!



Straw men, ideological buzzwords, you disappoint and fall short consistently.

Exactly the expected response from the ideologue to his ideology being exposed.

No one's advocating soviet-style car manufacturing. Indeed I specifically praised having private care manufacturers.

But don't let that get in the way of you having to lie about my position to make the straw man you can deal with.

There are the things it makes sense for the government to do, and things it doesn't, and even gray areas. But you have the simple answer: it's always bad.

Unless, of course someone calls you on any specific exceptions to your nonsense, which you can then call another 'wall of text' to hide your inability to tell which is which.

Power is not the same as car manufacturing. It has its own sets of different factors. Sorry for the inconvenience of you having to not just say 'it's always bad'.

Of course, you have shown it's a waste of time to discuss the issue with you, the responses are for anyone else who can get something from your post getting addressed.

At least your type is predictable - just as so many issues devolve into "you're Hitler!", your type similar devolves to the never tired "you're the USSR!"

To my noting the complete lack of any facts on the good or bad of when the government has actually gotten involved in power - silence.

Why the black and white, uninformed, simplistic post from you? That's what ideologues tend to do.

Sorry, but the failure is yours. This thread is about stopping governments from TAKING OVER utilities. Not regulating them.

Try again.

 

[Patranus]

If you can't get 2/3rs of the state on board you have a bad law.

 

[nonlnear]

Actually you shouldn't vote IMO.

Here's the thing: this is clearly an initiative being pushed by a group with very deep pockets. I don't have a problem with that, but it shapes my expectations of how they should campaign in order to show good faith. For initiatives that really do come from the grassroots I would take the time to do a lot of research to educate myself before voting. However if an initiative is put forward from a group that could afford to educate but chooses not to, there is ALWAYS a reason for that. The answer is to vote no.

Why should the people who did get informed be prevented from deciding by your no?

The thing is they generally are not prevented. There are plenty of ignorant people on either side, and society is better off in general if the balance of uneducated people are in opposition to a new law rather than in favor of it. You are intentionally slanting the question by depicting the people in favor as being generally educated when there are typically many ignorant partisan hacks who let their votes be decided for them on both sides of any issue.

Also nothing in my posts should be interpreted to mean that I intentionally remain ignorant of issues. Only that my vote is by default a no, and that the threshold for me to change that opinion is very high.

 

[Anarchist420]

I couldn't ask for a better power company than the one I have, and it's privately owned. The power hardly ever goes off, they just cuts rates like 33% (maybe more), and they work their asses off to get the power back on after it goes off.

 

[Craig234]

If you can't get 2/3rs of the state on board you have a bad law.

Wrong.

 

[nick1985]

Wrong.

Right.

 

[nonlnear]

If you can't get 2/3rs of the state on board you have a bad law.

Wrong.

Right.

I'm going to have to side with Craig on this one. People are idiots, and the vast majority of them have no business mucking about with the creation of laws. Now the repeal of laws is a power that I wouldn't mind turning over to the people as we have far too few effective ways to get bad laws off the books...

 

[Amused]

Wrong.

Absolutely right.

 

[Kappo]

Absolutely right.

When you have the mindset of "minority rules", then I can see how you would be misguided.

 

[Patranus]

I'm going to have to side with Craig on this one. People are idiots, and the vast majority of them have no business mucking about with the creation of laws. Now the repeal of laws is a power that I wouldn't mind turning over to the people as we have far too few effective ways to get bad laws off the books...

So if "people are idiots, and the vast majority of them have no business mucking about with the creation of laws" wouldn't it be more logical to have a super majority of voters (something that is harder to get) needed to pass laws compared to a simple majority (which is easier to get) thus giving the ability to pass laws easier to those same "idiots"?

Your mentality pushes this idea of "one size fits all" and because 51% have a solution that fits them doesn't mean that it works for the other 49%.

I can't wait until those 47% who don't pay federal income taxes bumps up to 51%. Should be fun for those of use who do work hard and pay taxes.

 

[Harvey]

So if "people are idiots, and the vast majority of them have no business mucking about with the creation of laws" wouldn't it be more logical to have a super majority of voters (something that is harder to get) needed to pass laws compared to a simple majority (which is easier to get) thus giving the ability to pass laws easier to those same "idiots"?

No, because nothing would ever get done, and even if it did, it would take too long and cost too much to go through an election cycle.

WTF is wrong with you? Representative democracy is about electing representatives to do the work of running our cities, counties, and states, as well as the nation.

Try doing your homework before you vote for those representatives. Then, stand back and let them do the jobs the majority in your areas elected them to do, instead of fucking things up further by trying to micro-manage their day to day work... at least until those elected officials really get it wrong or actually commit crimes like murder, treason and torture.

 

[Kappo]

No, because nothing would ever get done, and even if it did, it would take too long and cost too much to go through an election cycle.

WTF is wrong with you? Representative democracy is about electing representatives to do the work of running our cities, counties, and states, as well as the nation. Do your homework before you vote for those representatives. Then, stand back and let them do the jobs the majority in your areas elected them to do, instead of fucking things up further by trying to micro-manage their day to day work.

I don't hire ANYONE to micromanage my life. I also don't look to my government to try to stamp out those pesky businesses in favor of their own. The person who makes the rules and can change them at will should NOT be allowed to play the game.

 

[Harvey]

I don't hire ANYONE to micromanage my life. I also don't look to my government to try to stamp out those pesky businesses in favor of their own. The person who makes the rules and can change them at will should NOT be allowed to play the game.

Enron, BP are examples of businesses that are way beyond "pesky." Each, in their own ways, were criminal in the way they abused the public trust while charged with delivering critical resources. Enron's employees were bragging to each other about how they raped Californians, and BP lied about their safety precautions and their ability to prevent and contain a major oil spill. Both companies had previous histories of ignoring the law and the public interest.

"Free" enterprise is anything but "free" when the enterprise in the business of providing critical goods and services and has no competition. Governmental oversight and control of such companies is the ONLY protection we have.

California Prop. 16 and the campaign to pimping it are bought and paid for by Pacific Gas & Electric with the specific goal of hamstringing any attempt by our elected representatives to break the stranglehold they have on energy.

Some things are too critical to the public welfare to trust to greed driven private businesses, at least without public oversight and control. The way to accomplish that is to elect competent representatives to act in our behalf, NOT to hamstring them and micro-manage them at every turn.

 

[sandorski]

So if "people are idiots, and the vast majority of them have no business mucking about with the creation of laws" wouldn't it be more logical to have a super majority of voters (something that is harder to get) needed to pass laws compared to a simple majority (which is easier to get) thus giving the ability to pass laws easier to those same "idiots"?

Your mentality pushes this idea of "one size fits all" and because 51% have a solution that fits them doesn't mean that it works for the other 49%.

I can't wait until those 47% who don't pay federal income taxes bumps up to 51%. Should be fun for those of use who do work hard and pay taxes.

Why stop at 2/3 then? Make it 90% or 99%, hell 100% would be perfection! Apply it to all considerations, want a Tax Cut, get 100% of the Vote or Fail. Sounds good, you should try it.

 

[nick1985]

Why stop at 2/3 then? Make it 90% or 99%, hell 100% would be perfection! Apply it to all considerations, want a Tax Cut, get 100% of the Vote or Fail. Sounds good, you should try it.

You are over exaggerating and its making you look dumb

 

[Harvey]

Why stop at 2/3 then? Make it 90% or 99%, hell 100% would be perfection! Apply it to all considerations, want a Tax Cut, get 100% of the Vote or Fail. Sounds good, you should try it.

You are over exaggerating and its making you look dumb

Your failure to understand his point uggests you're the dummy.

 

[nick1985]

Your failure to understand his point uggests you're the dummy.

This coming from the guy that screams racism over Arizona passing laws to crack down on illegals, a law that is weaker than existing federal law.


Racism!!!

 

[sandorski]

You are over exaggerating and its making you look dumb

No shit am I exaggerating! Congrats on that realization. Requiring 2/3's is also exaggerating, it's exaggerating the Power of the Minority and making a Mockery of the Majority.

 

[Amused]

When you have the mindset of "minority rules", then I can see how you would be misguided.

Ah yes. And I see how you could be misguided having a mob rules mentality.

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

By your logic, we would still have Jim Crow laws.

Meanwhile, it is quite funny to see the left crowing about majority (mob) rule in this thread, while bashing it in the Arizona thread.

Make up your fucking minds.

 

[sandorski]

Ah yes. And I see how you could be misguided having a mob rules mentality.

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

By your logic, we would still have Jim Crow laws.

Meanwhile, it is quite funny to see the left crowing about majority (mob) rule in this thread, while bashing it in the Arizona thread.

Make up your fucking minds.

Strawman. How does Minority Rule become preferable than Majority Rule? The idea of Tyranny of the Majority is not the same as Majority Rule, hell, requiring an even bigger Majority doesn't even prevent Tyranny of the Majority. What addresses those issues are Constitutions and Declarations of Citizens Rights.

 

[nonlnear]

So if "people are idiots, and the vast majority of them have no business mucking about with the creation of laws" wouldn't it be more logical to have a super majority of voters (something that is harder to get) needed to pass laws compared to a simple majority (which is easier to get) thus giving the ability to pass laws easier to those same "idiots"?

No, that's silly. I just said that I don't' think voters need to be involved directly in the law making business, so how could any reasonable person think that I could be appeased by simply changing the goalposts for a game that I believe to be fundamentally broken?

Your mentality pushes this idea of "one size fits all" and because 51% have a solution that fits them doesn't mean that it works for the other 49%.

You don't seem to have the slightest inkling of what my mentality is!

I'll give you a clue: I believe that laws should be very difficult to create, and very easy to repeal. A bicameral process with complicated rules and multiple opportunities to stall or kill legislation is a good start for a mechanism to create legislation. A straight up or down vote by the general population (most of whom will not comprehend the larger ramifications of said measure) is a recipe for overlegislation. IT doesn't even matter how high the bar is set; the process is too simple.

And then there is the fact that most of the public are not truly capable of evaluating their cost/benefit implications of any piece of legislation. They tend to favor or oppose bills based on what is fashionable, and what their favorite talking head says is good without truly comprehending the interests of the parties that have invested millions of dollars in affecting their opinion. The upshot is that because the general public is incapable of evaluating the merits of technical legislation, they can not be trusted to vote rationally. So what is so much better about throwing the process to professionals who are money grubbing whores? Well I'll happily concede that most politicians are selfish and vain and lie through their teeth. The good news is that they do so in reasonably predictable ways; they are more or less rational about it.

Cliffs: Give me a rational evil despot over a well intentioned idiot despot any day.

 

[Cotswolds]

Harvey, I thought you were smarter than this.

This was your first mistake.

 

[blackangst1]

If you can't get 2/3rs of the state on board you have a bad law.

Well, CA cherry picks which laws to enforce, so does it matter what the people think? Everyone knows this.