February 5th, 2008
|12:37 pm - How I'm voting.|
President: Barack Obama.
Hillary projects a very strong feeling of a "nanny state". She's on record as having been horrified by the "Hot Coffee" mod of GTA: San Andreas. She's been on record supporting an awful lot of RIAA issues. Obama doesn't have that history.
I like Clinton's plan for universal health care, but Obama is at least for universal access to health care. That's a good start.
I've heard some people point out that Obama's against gay marriage. He's on record bringing his religious beliefs into it as well. However, Obama is also for repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", supports equal rights for alphabet soup folk (read: GLBT + whatever other letters you think need to get tacked on there) in adoption and employment, civil unions, expanding hate crime legislation, and voted against the Defense of Marriage Act and a Federal Marriage amendment which would have prevented gay marriage.
Obama is *not* anti-gay.
91: No. The only argument submitted for this is a "PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS" from the authors of the prop.
92: No. I like the idea of lowering Community College tuition, but I don't like that the funding to make up the difference has to come from somewhere.
93: No. It brings about a reduction of 2 years in term limits, nonspecific to whether they were spent in the state senate or state assembly, while resetting the limits for some 42 members of the state legislature who would term out.
94-97: Yes. The stuff about this being a sweet deal for the four tribes mentioned is true. The stuff about this working against the other ones is false. There's nothing in this that stops any tribe from developing a similar agreement. Additionally, it brings in extra revenue from the state from the pockets of the people who are separating themselves from their money. I'm all for that.
Why aren't you voting yes on 94-97?
It's not that I don't support it, but I think they can do better. Mainly, in terms of where the money goes and how the tribes will be held accountable for it. It's not good enough for me, at the moment.
|Date:||February 6th, 2008 07:08 am (UTC)|| |
once again, i'm with A on this. 9 billion over twenty years is a rosy estimate at best and not even a drop in the bucket with regards to california's budgetary needs. now i'm not saying gambling is a solution to our crisis, but we could do better in those compacts. let's face it, this nation was based on giving raw deals to the natives. why stop now?