I wholeheartedly agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
...but hearing him say that it's time to "terminate Davis" made my day.
Printable View
I wholeheartedly agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
...but hearing him say that it's time to "terminate Davis" made my day.
This is most likely going to be a disaster for California.
And you can manipulate facts to make them say whatever you want, too. I mean, if we're going to be ultra-picky here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
I would have rather seen Bill Simon get in, but McClintock had no support. As terrible as it sounds, better to have Arnold in, even if he's just running to others for answers, then see Davis stay imo.
Also, who ever said you had to have long standing as a politician to be a politician? I mean, you said:
I'll take a politician representing me over some actor who thinks that somehow he can change things any day.
When I also hear from people, day in and out, how crooked politicians are, and how when you get in the game you sell your soul, and that no politician represents their public - they just pander for money and votes and special interests (the homies who bring them both at once). So, why have someone like that? Why feel safer and secure in the fact that a greedy troll/liar/backstabber/misappropriater/panderer is the one running things?
You also say that Arnold thinks he can change things any day. It's a nice thing, that level of determination and drive. Now, what direction he uses it for, good or ill, is another matter. But at least, the man has determination to do this.
And for all those thinking its a joke, or ludicrous, or puts us in more of a hell-in-a-handbasket situation; do you really think he he's doing this for fame or money? He already had that, and didn't have to dick around in politics for it. Do you think he's a "omfgrightwingconspiracy" puppet? How could he do that but be all about after-school programs, abortion, anti-prop 54, and all of that? It's either because he's doing his thing or *gasp* if he is a Republican-puppet, then I guess there is more than the stereotyped rich-white-racist-bastard on the right-wing.
And, if you think we're fucked now, where do you think we were when Davis passed a budget that did nothing to cut on spending (all he did was redistribute funds and use creative econ to move money and make it look like we were balancing the budget)? Where do you think we were when the state (and still is afaik) was losing $2 mil. per day on average? Where were we when Davis refused to talk to school officials unless they paid "campaign contributions?" Or when the whole energy thing went down?
Do you really think, in all honesty, that losing Davis somehow damns us further? Geez, I like to be optimistic at least some of the time, and I see this as an opprotunity for new leadership. Sure, it could blow...but it could also work. I for one am not about ready to get up in arms and recall for the sake of recalling - which is exactly what some of you are proposing. I'd rather see the man work, and then we'll see.
though I wish Bill Simon would've stayed in it
I know about the situation with the defecit and the mismanagement of the budget and the infrastructure problems and the poor schools and aliens being given drivers' licenses and all of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral
I voted "NO" because I don't consider those things to be a gross disregard for United States law. The case against Richard Nixon was valid. If you take that Bill Clinton lied to the American public and in court on its own, then the case against him was valid. Has anything Gray Davis done been against the law? You think it's okay to say, "Well, even though we re-elected this guy while he was doing a crappy job, we can now take him out because we want somebody to blame for this stuff" ???
How is it stupid to read up on things and vote INFORMED, rather than by popularity and a need to scapegoat someone immediately? Granted, I don't approve of Davis's job, but that doesn't mean I want to oust him. I voted "no", but picked Camejo because it seems like he's the only one who has looked at California's "alternative tax", is the only one who seems to have gotten information about the stranglehold that companies like Reliant put on the energy here, and being the head of a financial institution means he knows how and where to invest money properly. I hardly disagree with him.
Damn it, I didn't want to get dragged in. ;)
I don't think it will be a disaster, I just don't think that 1) Arnold will change anything or that 2) he is the anti-politician he is making himself out to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
He's an incredible speaker even with that accent, and he tells you want you want to hear. He's great at subtly dodging tough questions. He'll go in, probably change a few things, but I doubt that we will see anything big go down.
And by the way, when will his term end? Four years from now or three?
If you are in a business, and lie about your earnings, or spending, or any of that to auditers, you can get in serious trouble.
How come government is somehow immune? I'd think they should be more accountable, since they function to help our social structure, not just sign paychecks and turn profits.
I have no complaints about most politicians. They do their jobs. Whether they do them for good reasons or bad reasons is what ought to be discussed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
That's true, but I felt that McClintock, Camejo and even Bustamante seemed more determined. To me, it just sounded like Arnold was in front of a mirror practicing his speeches. And he probably isn't some sort of puppet, but he's not convincing me of otherwise with his talk, that's all.Quote:
You also say that Arnold thinks he can change things any day. It's a nice thing, that level of determination and drive. Now, what direction he uses it for, good or ill, is another matter. But at least, the man has determination to do this.
These were all before his re-election, though. I wasn't here at the time. Who voted to re-elect him? I wouldn't have. "Oh wait, let me change my vote ten months into the term!" I remember reading articles back during the worst part of the energy crisis (and it's not over yet) pertaining to the eyes averted from the price-gouging of utility companies and whatnot which were just speculation, but were later proved by info released by the FREC (or FERC?). Why weren't they pressured into revealing the data earlier?Quote:
And, if you think we're fucked now, where do you think we were when Davis passed a budget that did nothing to cut on spending (all he did was redistribute funds and use creative econ to move money and make it look like we were balancing the budget)? Where do you think we were when the state (and still is afaik) was losing $2 mil. per day on average? Where were we when Davis refused to talk to school officials unless they paid "campaign contributions?" Or when the whole energy thing went down?
I'd rather see Camejo work. Hehe. But honestly, I just have a bad feeling about the precedent this recall sets. Wasn't the law being invoked here originally written in the case of a governor breaking the law? (I could be wrong here.)Quote:
Do you really think, in all honesty, that losing Davis somehow damns us further? Geez, I like to be optimistic at least some of the time, and I see this as an opprotunity for new leadership. Sure, it could blow...but it could also work. I for one am not about ready to get up in arms and recall for the sake of recalling - which is exactly what some of you are proposing. I'd rather see the man work, and then we'll see.
I guess you really liked Simon. :)Quote:
though I wish Bill Simon would've stayed in it
Well, he was a business man at heart. No no, not the 'killallhumansandsucktheirblood' type, but a man who could talk sound economics.
And btw, during Davis' reelection, I didn't vote for him ^_^
That other boss sounds like the one I left behind in CT. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
There were far too many candidates on the ballot. And that informational letter that they sent us in the mail had a lot of statements from the lesser candidates saying stuff like, "NO RECALL!" and "I LIKE LEGALIZE WEED! HA HA!"
Did you guys double-check your chads? We don't want another Florida 2000 incident!
If you have an incompetent employee, you fire them. Is that not what our elected officials are? Our employees.
No davis is not at fault for everything thats happened, but he obviously has not helped the situation at all, hell were already bankrupt.
Arnold may not be able to stop it, but with Davis we know he wasn't. My god he cut the school budgets, then even said he wouldnt let a republican get in there and cut school budgets, WTF!. He also used tax money to imoprove his image with the voters during the energy crisis. The man never admits any accountibility. I do agree with licenses for illigal imigrants though, there gonna drive around anyway might as well keep track. The registration fee was too much though, he should have raised sales tax or something else, the fright of that big of a jump will frighten people in not spending money which in turn slow the flow of money crashing our economy further.
Does the Bush Administration count? I'd really like to fire them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral
I agree with you. I just, to steal from George Lucas, have a bad feeling about this.Quote:
No davis is not at fault for everything thats happened, but he obviously has not helped the situation at all, hell were already bankrupt.
Arnold may not be able to stop it, but with Davis we know he wasn't. My god he cut the school budgets, then even said he wouldnt let a republican get in there and cut school budgets, WTF!. He also used tax money to imoprove his image with the voters during the energy crisis. The man never admits any accountibility. I do agree with licenses for illigal imigrants though, there gonna drive around anyway might as well keep track. The registration fee was too much though, he should have raised sales tax or something else, the fright of that big of a jump will frighten people in not spending money which in turn slow the flow of money crashing our economy further.
Although, I guess, in 1921 they recalled the governor of North Dakota or something like that and that didn't set a precedent, so who knows?
And since I work for a small business, let me tell you that raising the sales tax would kill us. However, here's some info - companies who sell products here in California via the mail are not required to collect tax on the products they sell. Food and beverages consumed on premises are not taxed. Shit, I think, if you go into a gas station and buy one of those Starbucks things, there's no tax whereas if you go to the window there is. But that mail-order thing is killing us. My company sells and services Macintosh products and our sales are going down because 1) mail order - people don't have to pay tax on the product and 2) Apple is price-gouging us and making it harder to stay resellers.
So there's some stuff for Governor Schwartzeneggar to address. :)