IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags arnold schwarzenegger , California politics , conservatism , frank rich

Reply
Old 18th September 2003, 01:51 PM   #41
SRW
Master Poster
 
SRW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,902
Quote:
Originally posted by Silicon


So what would you have done in summer 2000, were you Governor? What steps would you have taken?

Blame Clinton? Yell and scream louder to the FERC?

Now we can see in hindsight that Davis was right, and the market WAS being manipulated, but how much evidence did he have of that in Summer 2000?

What would you have done differently? Don't say "be a better leader". Give us actual things you would have done, and remember, you have to find a way to do it within the scope of the powers of the Office of the Governor.
Well as the Governor I would never have allowed this situation to develop. I would have made sure California had adequate reserves and capacity to produce energy.

However if I did suspect that some one was manipulating the market I would have launched an investigation, and used my political influence to get relief from the Feds.

Of course I would have much more influence in our little hypothetical world.
SRW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2003, 01:52 PM   #42
Clancie
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,021
Here's the transcript from Arnold with Larry King last night. I wanted to put quotes, but its such a rambling mixture of Republican doctrine, Reagan-style personal anecdotes about meeting "the little people" and topic-related platitudes that selecting quotes was nearly impossible.

Here's a bit of Schwarzenegger on "Workman's Compensation":

Quote:
From Larry King Live, Sept 17, 2003

KING: There's a need for workman's comp, to take care of workers who are in need. Are you telling the workers of California that you're going to cut their compensation?

SCHWARZENEGGER: Larry, the sad story is that we have the highest costs in workers' compensation but not the best benefits. I have just met the other day a man that was in a wheelchair. His name is Frank. He fell off -- through an elevator shaft, and he hurt himself badly, on the job. He's now in a wheelchair. He can never work again.

You know what he gets a month? He gets $800 a month. Now, that is not fair when we have the highest costs here. We are talking about three times as much as the average of other states in this country.

Do you know that it costs five times as much to hurt -- to injure -- to break your arm, let's say, on the job than at home? It is ridiculous. We have to have utilization schedule (ph). We have to have certain things -- how many times should you be allowed to go to the doctor?

People go three times as many times to the doctor. There's this whole scam going on between the lawyers and the doctors. And as soon as someone gets injured, the lawyer comes in, says, "I can represent you..."

KING: This is statewide?

SCHWARZENEGGER: This is statewide. He sends you to a doctor. The doctor examines you five, six times. Then he sends you to an X- ray. Then he does his thing.

Then he sends you to the chiropractor, then he does his five sessions. Then he sends you to the physical therapist. And this is what goes on because they want to ring up the cost. That's because the lawyer collects one third of what...

....KING: Are you saying a lot of people are doing this?

SCHWARZENEGGER: A lot. This is why we have this big problem here.
Difficult to watch. It will run again on Sunday.
Clancie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2003, 01:57 PM   #43
Sundog
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,065
Unbelievable.

Now we know why he isn't talking much.
Sundog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2003, 02:08 PM   #44
Silicon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,644
Wow, the doctor examines you 5 or 6 times BEFORE he orders an x-ray?

COOL! Where can I get THAT doctor?
Silicon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2003, 02:17 PM   #45
Silicon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally posted by SRW


Well as the Governor I would never have allowed this situation to develop. I would have made sure California had adequate reserves and capacity to produce energy.
At which point the Republicans would have lambasted you for spending money on an energy boondoggle before there was a market need.

And they'd be right, because capacity turned out to not be the problem. The problem turned out to be Enron's death-star schemes to buy energy from itself at a markup, and create artificial shortages, which drove the price up further.
Silicon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2003, 02:29 PM   #46
SRW
Master Poster
 
SRW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,902
Quote:
Originally posted by Silicon


At which point the Republicans would have lambasted you for spending money on an energy boondoggle before there was a market need.

And they'd be right, because capacity turned out to not be the problem. The problem turned out to be Enron's death-star schemes to buy energy from itself at a markup, and create artificial shortages, which drove the price up further.
So you are saying that we do not need all the new energy plants that we have been building over the last two years? And Davis knows this?
SRW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2003, 02:54 PM   #47
Silicon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally posted by SRW


So you are saying that we do not need all the new energy plants that we have been building over the last two years? And Davis knows this?

The NEW power plants are to make energy cheaper than the inflated prices arrived at by the market manipulation.

If you bought plants BEFORE the market manipulation, you would have risked millions on a risky venture.


And no, the new power plants are just a drop in the bucket. We would be doing fine without them.

We upped our capacity from 43,000 megawatts to 49,000 megawatts. 6,000 megawatts of new power is online since the crisis.


Let me get this straight, just for the record, SRW, who do you give the credit to for keeping the lights on in California this summer? Who solved this problem, and how did they solve it?

Because if you're saying it's new plant construction, or the FERC responding to California's internal investigations, credit has to go to Davis.
Silicon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2003, 04:40 PM   #48
SRW
Master Poster
 
SRW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,902
Quote:
Originally posted by Silicon



The NEW power plants are to make energy cheaper than the inflated prices arrived at by the market manipulation.

If you bought plants BEFORE the market manipulation, you would have risked millions on a risky venture.


And no, the new power plants are just a drop in the bucket. We would be doing fine without them.

We upped our capacity from 43,000 megawatts to 49,000 megawatts. 6,000 megawatts of new power is online since the crisis.


Let me get this straight, just for the record, SRW, who do you give the credit to for keeping the lights on in California this summer? Who solved this problem, and how did they solve it?

Because if you're saying it's new plant construction, or the FERC responding to California's internal investigations, credit has to go to Davis.
No the reason for the price manipulation was that Davis failed to anticipate the rapid growth in energy needs. High demand in the summer of 2000 coupled with a hodge podge of regulation and an incompetent Governor.

And why do you think we are doing just fine now? could it be because off all the business that have headed for the hills? And if you want to give Davis credit for the loss California business you are welcome to it.

It was the FERC that slapped controls on California. But Davis was the Governor, he could have enacted emergency powers during to crisis as well as waiting for them to take action.


We still have the highest energy rates in the country, can we give Davis credit for that also?
SRW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2003, 04:46 PM   #49
Silicon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally posted by SRW

But Davis was the Governor, he could have enacted emergency powers during to crisis as well as waiting for them to take action.
Oh REALLY?!!?


Wow, a republican saying the GOVERNMENT should control business, declare an emergency and fix prices?

You're sounding more like a demmycrat all the time!


And just where would the Govenor get the power to declare this emergency? I'm sure Enron would have gone right along with anything he said, and just started handing over power for free.
Silicon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2003, 07:06 PM   #50
SRW
Master Poster
 
SRW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,902
Quote:
Originally posted by Silicon


Oh REALLY?!!?


Wow, a republican saying the GOVERNMENT should control business, declare an emergency and fix prices?

You're sounding more like a demmycrat all the time!


And just where would the Governor get the power to declare this emergency? I'm sure Enron would have gone right along with anything he said, and just started handing over power for free.
FYI I am a democrat, and yes the government should decree an emergency and set prices when business is out of control. The Governor has the power to declare an emergency and evoke special powers. But that takes leadership something lacking in Davis. And if Davis had shown backbone Enron would have stepped down, they knew they were doing something wrong.

And please show me the wonderfully piece of legislation that Davis came up with to fix the energy crisis... Oh wait nothing has changed our law are the same as they were in 96.

To get back to where we started you still have not provided any convincing argument for keeping Davis around. I have to commend you on at least not blaming everyone else for the problems.
SRW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2003, 05:26 AM   #51
Kodiak
Illuminator
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,279
Quote:
Originally posted by Silicon



And the 9th Circuit ruled that holding it in October would be in violation of the US Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection.

That trumps the ol California state law any day of the week!
Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Explain the violation, please...
Kodiak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2003, 09:43 AM   #52
Silicon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,644
Ask your Bush v. Gore ruling supreme court. They were the ones that decided that different counting methods disenfranchised voters and therefore violated equal protection.
Silicon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2003, 10:08 AM   #53
Kodiak
Illuminator
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,279
Quote:
Originally posted by Silicon
Ask your Bush v. Gore ruling supreme court. They were the ones that decided that different counting methods disenfranchised voters and therefore violated equal protection.
Evidence please.

Could you provide the decision here with a link, or at least reference it so that I can find it myself?
Kodiak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2003, 10:23 AM   #54
Kodiak
Illuminator
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,279
Never mind...I found it.


US Supreme Court ruling

From the writ:

"This case has shown that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter. After the current counting, it is likely legislative bodies nationwide will examine ways to improve the mechanisms and machinery for voting."

Funny...

I could've swore that's what I suggested earlier. I guess three years isn't long enough for a state like California...

They deserve what they get...
Kodiak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2003, 07:09 PM   #55
Silicon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,644
Perhaps the politicians deserve what they get, but the voters DON'T deserve to be disenfranchised.

How can you say that voters deserve to have their votes not count?

What, is it "OOoopsie, you took too long to achieve fairness according to the Bush v. Gore standard, now suffer!"

The Constitution doesn't work like that.
Silicon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2003, 07:29 PM   #56
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 44,381
Quote:
Originally posted by Silicon
Perhaps the politicians deserve what they get, but the voters DON'T deserve to be disenfranchised.

How can you say that voters deserve to have their votes not count?

What, is it "OOoopsie, you took too long to achieve fairness according to the Bush v. Gore standard, now suffer!"

The Constitution doesn't work like that.
Yeah. I can't understand why people are so upset at the ACLU for trying to make sure that the votes are counted fairly. I think that their history of defending groups on all sides of the issues should be enough to assure people that they aren't doing this to support one candidate or the other.
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2003, 08:56 PM   #57
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
 
peptoabysmal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,466
Quote:
Originally posted by Tricky

Yeah. I can't understand why people are so upset at the ACLU for trying to make sure that the votes are counted fairly. I think that their history of defending groups on all sides of the issues should be enough to assure people that they aren't doing this to support one candidate or the other.
The 9th Circuit Court is a liberal activist group dressed in black robes. This court has quite a few decisions overturned by this Supreme Court.

This court has decided that the same system that re-elected Davis to office is now so broken that the election should be put off until the Democratic presidential primaries in California. How is that fair to the voters?

ACLU legal director Mark Rosenbaum hailed the decision as "a masterpiece."

Quote:
"It effectively tells us because we can do elections better, we can't do elections at all," he said. "I think that's where the 9th Circuit turns off the rails."

Doug Kmiec, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, said the decision misinterprets Bush v. Gore, saying that the justices did not require that the same voting system or recount method be used in every county.

"That simply isn't the law and to declare it to be so at a time when the people of California have exercised their right to conduct an election is a serious federal interference into state governance," Kmiec said.
peptoabysmal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2003, 09:10 PM   #58
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 44,381
Quote:
Originally posted by peptoabysmal

This court has decided that the same system that re-elected Davis to office is now so broken that the election should be put off until the Democratic presidential primaries in California. How is that fair to the voters?

It might have something to do with the unpleasantness in Florida where punch card votes changed the course of the country. While it is probably true that the error bars are insignificant in most elections, the realization of how very important it can be possibly may be important to a lot of people.

As I recall, Davis did not squeak in by a few hundred votes, so it is fortunate that such changes would have not affected the last California gubatorial election. This election is likely to be much closer, what with the numerous candidates. Besides, last I heard, Bustamante is the odd-on favorite to win if the election were held today. Why are the Republicans whining about the delay?
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2003, 09:28 PM   #59
SRW
Master Poster
 
SRW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,902
Quote:
Originally posted by Tricky


As I recall, Davis did not squeak in by a few hundred votes, so it is fortunate that such changes would have not affected the last California gubatorial election. This election is likely to be much closer, what with the numerous candidates. Besides, last I heard, Bustamante is the odd-on favorite to win if the election were held today. Why are the Republicans whining about the delay?
Everyone is wining about the delay not just Republicans. And this decision is a pure crock, 500,000 votes have already been cast. So this court is delaying an election which is already in progress...inorder to raise the complexity of the situation, they will be adding all the primary ballots, republican and democratic, plus a myriads of new initiatives, local and state measures a real mess.

And on top of that the new voting machines cannot handle the recall ballot, so it will go on a separate paper ballot.

Sure lets not disenfranchise 40,000 when we should be able to get a clear million.

The important vote on this is the first one. Davis needs to go, I am not a big fan of Bustamante, but anything is better than Davis.
SRW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2003, 09:53 PM   #60
Silicon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally posted by peptoabysmal


The 9th Circuit Court is a liberal activist group dressed in black robes. This court has quite a few decisions overturned by this Supreme Court.

Half of the bill of rights would be overturned by THIS Supreme Court!

How many unanimous overturnings have they had? That's the real measure of how out in left field they are. Their job isn't to predict what the Supremes will say, expecially what the conservatives on the bench would say. Their job is just to rule as they see it.



Quote:
This court has decided that the same system that re-elected Davis to office is now so broken that the election should be put off until the Democratic presidential primaries in California. How is that fair to the voters?
Again, that speaks to the difference between the margin of error and the margin of victory in this case. This election the former is very likely to be larger than the latter.


Here's part of a particularly well-written opinion printed in the Washinton Post that adresses some of those questions:

Quote:
As the court wrote, "punch-card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean complete way by the voter." The Constitution, the court insisted, requires "some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied."

Isn't that just liberal judicial activism? Only if Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Bush Five are liberal judicial activists. The two quotations you just read come straight from Bush v. Gore. The 9th Circuit's supposedly activist three were just quoting their judicial betters.

Ah, but aren't those 9th Circuit liberals preventing a speedy resolution of the recall? Perhaps, but there are more important issues than speed: "The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees." Yes, that is also a quotation from Bush v. Gore.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep18.html


Here's another quote from Bush v. Gore:


We relied on these principles in the context of the Presidential selection process in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969), where we invalidated a county-based procedure that diluted the influence of citizens in larger counties in the nominating process. There we observed that “[t]he idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government.” Id., at 819.


And another:


It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).


It sounds to me like the 9th Circuit was trying to follow the Supreme Court's lead as closely as they could!


Plus, we're not talking about stopping an election here. Or stopping a recount. Just talking about postponing it until there are adequate measures in place to measure the will of the voters.
Silicon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2003, 09:56 PM   #61
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
 
peptoabysmal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,466
Quote:
Originally posted by Tricky

It might have something to do with the unpleasantness in Florida where punch card votes changed the course of the country. While it is probably true that the error bars are insignificant in most elections, the realization of how very important it can be possibly may be important to a lot of people.

As I recall, Davis did not squeak in by a few hundred votes, so it is fortunate that such changes would have not affected the last California gubatorial election. This election is likely to be much closer, what with the numerous candidates. Besides, last I heard, Bustamante is the odd-on favorite to win if the election were held today. Why are the Republicans whining about the delay?
Davis' re-election was *post* Bush vs. Gore. No one knew before the election by what margin he would win.

The Republicans (and me) are whining about the delay because it puts the vote at the time when the Democratic primaries are being held, and therefore there will be more Democrats at the polls. It is obviously a case of a court being pressured by Democrats to put the odds as much in their favor as possible.

I agree Bustamante will probably win, which is sad, because he is worse than Davis.

What I find funny right now, is that Davis is signing laws and bills left and right that people have been asking for for a long time.

The 9th Circuit invalidated our state constitution to "protect the rights of disenfranchised voters", by pushing the date past the 80 day limit.

Quote:
An election to determine whether to recall an officer and, if appropriate, to elect a successor, shall be called by the Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures. (Cal.Const., Art II, Sec. 15)
Quote:
Shelley noted that the California constitution demands that the vote be taken no longer than 80 days after enough signatures of registered voters had been collected to force the recall.

Recall supporters gathered enough signatures this summer to put the initiative before voters on Oct. 7. The first ballot question asks whether Davis should be recalled, and the second offers a list of replacement candidates if the governor fails to get a majority of the vote.
big ass government PDF

AP story
peptoabysmal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2003, 10:05 PM   #62
Silicon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally posted by peptoabysmal

The 9th Circuit invalidated our state constitution to "protect the rights of disenfranchised voters", by pushing the date past the 80 day limit.
Yeah, they can do that, because they ruled that it violated the Equal Protection guarantees of the US Constitution. That one trumps the measily little California Constitution.
Silicon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2003, 10:12 PM   #63
Silicon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally posted by peptoabysmal

The Republicans (and me) are whining about the delay because it puts the vote at the time when the Democratic primaries are being held, and therefore there will be more Democrats at the polls.
That part IS unfair.

But it's part and parcel of our 2-party system. It happens on ALL elections.

The incumbent gets a butt-load of free press because he IS the President. He gets mega coat-tails for straight-ticket voters, and some really great fund-raising perks.

But the price the party in power pays for that is the fact that he's the de-facto candidate, the OTHER party gets a boost on the other measures on Primary day.
Silicon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2003, 12:02 PM   #64
Kodiak
Illuminator
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,279
Quote:
Originally posted by Kodiak on Sept. 18th, 2003

The right isn't "whining" about the 9th Circuit Court's ruling to block the recall. The rule of law simply contradicts the 9th Circuits ruling as will be shown when either a specially convened judicial board or the US Supreme Court overrules them.

Am I good or what!



Appeals panel overturns decision delaying Oct. 7 election
Kodiak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2003, 04:40 AM   #65
Kodiak
Illuminator
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,279
Where are all the naysayers and liberals who cried "election stealing!"?
Kodiak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2003, 05:25 AM   #66
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 44,381
Quote:
Originally posted by Kodiak
Where are all the naysayers and liberals who cried "election stealing!"?
I don't recall saying anything like that. I'd just as soon get this train wreck started. Of course now the Democrats are pi**ed off, and it is likely (and Davis has even suggested it) that if a Republican wins, the Democrats will start a recall ballot. If I am correct, California requires no reason whatsoever to force a recall, only the correct number of signatures. This is an ugly little monster they have created.

On a lighter note, Ahnold (Remember him? He's the subject of this thread.) does his only debate (if it can be called that) tonight. I'm sure he will have his lines well memorized. Too bad they can't sneak in a surprise question on him.
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2003, 05:35 AM   #67
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 13,414
Quote:
Originally posted by Tricky

I don't recall saying anything like that. I'd just as soon get this train wreck started. Of course now the Democrats are pi**ed off, and it is likely (and Davis has even suggested it) that if a Republican wins, the Democrats will start a recall ballot. If I am correct, California requires no reason whatsoever to force a recall, only the correct number of signatures. This is an ugly little monster they have created.

On a lighter note, Ahnold (Remember him? He's the subject of this thread.) does his only debate (if it can be called that) tonight. I'm sure he will have his lines well memorized. Too bad they can't sneak in a surprise question on him.
You know Tricky, when John Stewart won his Emmy, he issued a warning in his acceptance speech that essentially said:

"Now if Arnold wins, it will not be possible to send someone from the future back into the past to kill him, because he will be ready for that sort of thing!"

__________________
I can barely believe that I made it through the Trump presidency.

On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2003, 05:37 AM   #68
Kodiak
Illuminator
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,279
Quote:
Originally posted by Tricky
I don't recall saying anything like that.
True enough. I wasn't directing that post at reasonable persons on the left like yourself.


Quote:
Originally posted by Tricky
...and it is likely (and Davis has even suggested it) that if a Republican wins, the Democrats will start a recall ballot. If I am correct, California requires no reason whatsoever to force a recall, only the correct number of signatures. This is an ugly little monster they have created.
True, but it's their democratically chosen little monster...
Kodiak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2003, 05:51 AM   #69
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 44,381
Quote:
Originally posted by Kodiak


True enough. I wasn't directing that post at reasonable persons on the left like yourself.
Erm... thanks, I think.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kodiak

True, but it's their democratically chosen little monster...
Yes, but the form of our democracy should be a republic, i.e. we elect our leaders, they vote on the bills. California has become more of a true democracy where the people vote on every bloody issue. Damned inefficient way to run a state, I think. They should stick to republicly deciding things. (Can I use that word?)
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2003, 06:27 AM   #70
Kodiak
Illuminator
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,279
Quote:
Originally posted by Tricky
Yes, but the form of our democracy should be a republic, i.e. we elect our leaders, they vote on the bills. California has become more of a true democracy where the people vote on every bloody issue. Damned inefficient way to run a state, I think. They should stick to republicly deciding things. (Can I use that word?)
A republic, yes, but a constitutionally limited one. Californians amended their State Constitution to allow for a recall as permitted by their Constitution. Nothing is stopping them from repealing it.

That said, I too abhor referendums.
Kodiak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2003, 06:46 AM   #71
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 44,381
Quote:
Originally posted by Kodiak
A republic, yes, but a constitutionally limited one. Californians amended their State Constitution to allow for a recall as permitted by their Constitution. Nothing is stopping them from repealing it.
That is true, and I suspect that the next time one party gets a nice safe margin in both houses, it will be repealed. After watching this circus, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of Californians would say "oops, we fecked up."
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2003, 05:59 AM   #72
Clancie
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,021
Did anyone see his press conference after the debate last night?

A reporter asked why AS wasn't participating in any other debates than this one (the only one where they had the questions in advance).

He said, quite sincerely, that the one last night would be the one with the biggest audience, the biggest ratings and there was no need to participate in the others because they "would only get a 1% share in the ratings" anyway.

Clancie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2003, 06:01 AM   #73
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 44,381
Quote:
Originally posted by Clancie
Did anyone see his press conference after the debate last night?

A reporter asked why AS wasn't participating in any other debates than this one (the only one where they had the questions in advance).

He said, quite sincerely, that the one last night would be the one with the biggest audience, the biggest ratings and there was no need to participate in the others because they "would only get a 1% share in the ratings" anyway.
Reminds me of a line I saw in Doonsbury years ago. I forget to whom it was directed (probably Reagan), but it had a reporter asking the question,

"If we turned off the cameras, would you cease to exist?"
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2003, 06:55 AM   #74
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Arnold also benefitted from the "politics of low expectations". I was amazed that Jeff Greenfield from CNN fell into that trap. He was impressed that Arnold was able to rattle off a few statistics.

The more I hear from Arnold the less impressed and more annoyed I get that he is a couple of votes away from being gov. I can understand (however lame) the argument that yes, while he may not be the best Republican candidate overall, he's the Republican candidate with the best chance of winning. One has to wonder about the thinking behind the Republican machine who allowed this to happen. Although in all honesty, I have to give them credit as I think they understand the minds of voters, which is a little sad, because they are right.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2003, 04:27 PM   #75
Silicon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,644
Strangely enough, I found McClintock the candidate with the best grasp of the facts. Even though he's the very picture of the opposite of my views, he did seem the most "qualified" candidate.

Too bad he doesn't have a snowball's chance.

Oh, would it only be that the MODERATE Republican, or the democrat had such a grasp of the issues, rather than the anti-abortion, anti gay-rights... anti any personal freedoms besides the second amendment candidate.


The main thing that keeps me voting democrat is the dumbass moralizing of the Republicans. Oh, and that whole "we're the party of Jesus, patriotism, apple-pie, and you're the party of Satan, terrorism and Tofu" garbage.
Silicon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2003, 10:46 PM   #76
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
 
peptoabysmal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,466
Quote:
Originally posted by DavidJames
Arnold also benefitted from the "politics of low expectations". I was amazed that Jeff Greenfield from CNN fell into that trap. He was impressed that Arnold was able to rattle off a few statistics.

The more I hear from Arnold the less impressed and more annoyed I get that he is a couple of votes away from being gov. I can understand (however lame) the argument that yes, while he may not be the best Republican candidate overall, he's the Republican candidate with the best chance of winning. One has to wonder about the thinking behind the Republican machine who allowed this to happen. Although in all honesty, I have to give them credit as I think they understand the minds of voters, which is a little sad, because they are right.
Just remember that it's the Republican machine in California. These guys just can't get a grasp on the fact that the majority of Californians won't vote in an ultra-conservative pro-lifer.
peptoabysmal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.