Maat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-08-05 11:49 PM
Original message |
Handy points for the November 8th Propositions .. |
|
well, our talking points can be found here: http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/protectteens/explanation ("No on 73" answers for progressives). Also, "no" on 74, 75, and 76: www.betterca.com .
|
CountAllVotes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 12:46 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I intend to vote NO on all of them |
|
Dicey bunch of Arhnuld crap; way to steal more from the citizens and workers in California. NO WAY GROPENFUHRER! :grr:
btw ... my Union (CSEA) says to vote no on all of them too it seems (they've sent me several information letters about them).
:kick:
|
mitchtv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. strange, a union advising NO on 79 |
|
it is sponsored by unions and consumer groups , also AARP. I am still researching 80 which at first blush reestablishes PUC regulation on utility companies. I support that.
|
Maat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. Yes, the teachers at our DFA meeting, which is where I got .. |
|
this information, advised us to vote 'no' on 73, 74, 75, 76.
They advised us to vote 'yes' on 79 and 80.
Is there a 77? Or a 78? Researching.
|
CountAllVotes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. My union did not advise on 79 |
|
I just don't like the whole damn thing so it is NO all the way.
:kick:
|
Maat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Still researching 79 and 80.
|
mitchtv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. 79 was passed by the Cal Reps |
|
Vetoed by Groper. Please reconsider 79
|
mitchtv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-09-05 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. 77 is an attempt to redistrict Calf legislative AND Congressional districts |
|
Edited on Sun Oct-09-05 09:25 PM by mitchtv
It takes the power to redistrict away from the Assembly and gives it to retired judges, half of which are GOP. which is a minority party. As in Texas, they cannot wait to accomplish what they couldn't do at the ballot gain more seats and screw Calif. NO ON 77 78 is the competing BIG PHARMA plan which sticks to a voluntary discount plan on the part of the Drug Co's. NO ON 78
|
Ally McLesbian
(395 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-10-05 12:59 AM
Response to Original message |
8. I got the Republican voter guide |
|
Thanks to my neocon father...
The Republicans want me to vote yes on everything, especially 74-77.
Of course, I am voting no.
|
democracyindanger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-10-05 01:16 AM
Response to Original message |
|
I'm dumbfounded by the number of liberals I've talked to that have said they're voting 'yes.'
|
cascadiance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-10-05 07:40 AM
Response to Original message |
10. No on 78 and below... Yes on 79 and above! |
|
Edited on Mon Oct-10-05 07:41 AM by calipendence
It's really a simple equation.
It's important that 79 gets more votes than 78. If both pass, the one with the most votes becomes laws of those two props. 79, not being authored by the Pharmaceutical companies is definitely more friendly towards getting cheaper drugs for us through bulk purchases discounts, etc. that Medicare program is now restricted by a Republican congress from doing.
I got polled this weekend and gave a thumbs down to Arnie and his props. They never got to asking me about props 78 and above. Perhaps it stopped at some point when I voted no on everything below 78... Perhaps Arnie's people were paying for it. Hope he counts my votes and doesn't try to ignore them.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 13th 2024, 03:20 AM
Response to Original message |