Pop 32 in California

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Yes on 32, Yes on 36, Yes on 40(because it's lulz), No on the rest.

I don't necessarily support removing the death penalty, I support drastically changing the way our court works and the way we deal with the death penalty. I'd rather offer up the option to the guilty party that they can either take the death penalty or rehabilitate learn a trade or skill and pay back restitution to the family(ies) or people they've wronged(also society if taken from us all). If not, they can die, I mean what good is someone like that? Basically would be like replacing a flat tire.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
Corporations can spend money from their general funds. They don't have to take a vote of all shareholders. They don't have to seek voluntary contributions from shareholders. This bill will dry up union funds for political causes while doing ZERO about corporate money in the system. All you've said is that you don't like the unions taking members money without asking them. While I can understand this objection in principle, you haven't said jack about the fact that this does nothing on the other side. This is not real political reform. Real reform doesn't divest one interest group will doing NOTHING about the opposing group. I'll vote to end involuntary union contributions when something is done to limit corporate spending.

My vote is NO on 32.

No matter what the prop does in terms of corporate contributions, it definitely fixes the one problem of union theft of member money to fund their cronies. Corporate money might be a problem in politics, but it's not being taken from the employees paychecks.

I'd say Yes on prop 32, but I'm not in California so it doesn't really matter to me.