Source
r/politics•
nullbit

I am truly depressed. I am in California and have no clue on who to vote for.

Mainly, it comes to the governor race. The lead Democrat has a history of spending and is very pro-immigration/services. The lead Republican has a history of proving she can't run a company. Thoughts?

I'm not asking to be told who to vote for... rather, I'm just looking for some things to consider, as everything I've read thus far makes them both look like horrible, horrible choices.

Posted Jul 11, 2010, 2:45 AM UTC

122
mingo83•

Take a closer look at Brown. Whitman's ads are filled with lies.

5
nullbitOP•

That's pretty much what happened. I was well aware of Whitman's failed history at business, then I looked and saw how much bullshit and lies are in her ads (which look very nice). So I decided to check out Brown more.

What I see with brown is:

  • Anti-Marijuana legalization. I know they all are, but its troubling that he is because I am aware of his history and how much of a hippie he used to be, which makes me wonder if any of "what he used to be" is relevant now.

  • Very pro "immigration," which translates into "pro-illegal immigration." He seems to openly support more services and what not for things like AB 540 students (undocumented students). In the budget crisis we are in right now, I'm sorry... but I do not think we have the money to finance the education of anyone other than legal residents.

  • Seems to be very into various state worker unions... which isn't inherently bad, but combined with his other stuff makes me wonder if he will actually improve California or just drain it into more of a clusterfuck situation.

What are your thoughts?

-2
arichi•

Look at Brown's last term as governor.

Look at the comforts of the job he refused.

Look at the taxes he cut. Yes, cut. Look at the budget surplus when he left -- no small feat, considering the overspending the previous governor (Reagan) was doing.

My favorite quote of his:

I'd shrink government in a minute, if I could shrink GM, Bank of America, and all these immoral corporations that operate by an undemocratic code, with no soul and no conscience.

This gives a good summary to my political leanings, at least on the economic side of things.

I'm voting for Brown, hands down.

5
nullbitOP•

First: Thank you for the reply. This is why I love reddit, and this is why I thought I might be able to find some good points/points of view.

With that said...

Look at Brown's last term as governor.

Is it fair to say that he is still the same guy? I know the marijuana thing is only one issue, but it is a fairly big change from how he used to be.

Look at the comforts of the job he refused.

Elaborate please.

Look at the taxes he cut. Yes, cut. Look at the budget surplus when he left -- no small feat, considering the overspending the previous governor (Reagan) was doing.

Is it fair to contribute the surplus to him, or is it possible that it was the result of something he had no part of? Especially if he was cutting taxes, how did he make the surplus?

1
arichi•

I hope I'm able to help on this. I haven't read as much about Brown as I had hoped to, but I do know about some key (to me) points.

Is it fair to say that he is still the same guy? I know the marijuana thing is only one issue, but it is a fairly big change from how he used to be.

It isn't quite fair or unfair; I suspect he's waffling on marijuana due to pressure. How he'll act, I don't know. But I don't think anyone else with a chance of winning will do a damn thing about it, either. I may be using a different rubric for electing than others do: I look at what I think a candidate will do that I like vs. what I think they'll do that I don't like for which some other candidate who might win will probably do different.

An issue on which this is important to me this time through is gay marriage: Brown is in favor, Whitman opposed. And I believe either would use the governor's office however they can in the direction they feel. Meanwhile, I don't believe either would do much about marijuana.

Look at the comforts of the job he refused.

Elaborate please.

He lived in an apartment in Sacramento instead of the governor's mansion. He didn't take a big limousine motorcade everywhere (although he didn't drive himself).

Is it fair to contribute the surplus to him, or is it possible that it was the result of something he had no part of? Especially if he was cutting taxes, how did he make the surplus?

Attributing the surplus to the executive branch is a common mistake, one I make frequently. While he cut taxes against personal income, he didn't cut property taxes (this was probably a mistake, and lead to Prop 13 being passed). He repealed a big tax cut that the oil industry was getting. However, many politicians, faced with a surplus, would have encouraged spending to boost their popularity; he didn't do this, or at least didn't do it enough to lose the surplus.

1
nullbitOP•

(this was probably a mistake, and lead to Prop 13 being passed).

I personally view Prop 13 as a good thing. Stability for working families rather than losing your home because your area is invaded by rich people or big developments. Is it really worth the tax boost to cause so much social harm? Or is there a dark side of Prop 13 I'm not aware of?

2
arichi•

It isn't that Prop 13 is good or bad; it just limits (in a very big way) options. While I'm all in favor of keeping working families from having their home's value increasing to the point that the taxes force them out, it also keeps some wealthy areas (with plenty of old money) from contributing much. This also prices younger families out of some of these markets. Furthermore, it causes a reverse incentive for the government: why bother improving some mediocre areas, keeping them from becoming bad, if they can't see any increased revenue until people sell their houses?

Anyway, there are many good parts of Prop 13; I just gave a few of the bad sides for seeing the balance.

I hope you found my answers in the past few posts informative. Thanks for making me express them more concisely.

1
mingo83•

No one is the same guy he was 20 or 30 years prior, but, in Brown's case, I think he's even better. The comforts of the job he refused include residence in the governor's mansion (he slept on a mattress on the floor of a nearby apartment). He also declined to have a driver and limo. Instead, he drove a Dodge Dart. These are small things that stick out in my memory, but they reflect the type of outlook he possesses.

There was a deficit when he entered office, and a surplus when he left.

Your skepticism reminds me of political partisans in Washington, when the President is from one party and Congress from the other. They attribute all the positive accomplishments during the administration to whomever of the two happen to be from their party, and any negative developments to the other.

There was a deficit when Jerry Brown entered office, and a surplus when he left.

1
nullbitOP•

I'm confused... why does my skepticism (which inherently implies wanting to find out the truth behind claims) remind you of partisanship in washington that always attribute good to their party and bad to the other?

There was a deficit when Jerry Brown entered office, and a surplus when he left.

And if he was responsible for it, I'm asking why you attribute it to him. Or are you just attributing it to him because he's from your party?

So confused.

1
mingo83•

Because I think the executive steers the ship and is generally entitled to claim achievements that occur during his administration. Partisans will consistently attempt to give credit to whichever of the two is from their party. I am contributing the achievement to him because he was the Governor.

1
plutooo•

lookit mah ballsack

-1
nicksauce•

She said that if elected, on her first day[37] she would suspend AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006

Whitman supported California's Proposition 8 in 2008

She said that the legalization of marijuana is not what any law enforcement person would suggest for any reason and that "this is the worst idea [she has] ever seen".[44]

2
nullbitOP•

Yeah, at this point I honestly don't consider her an actual option.

The issue is more that I barely see Brown as a "lesser of evils" when it looks like he might drive us deeper into the ground while trying to make it rain chocolate and kisses.

1
[deleted]•

American third position.

1
wonderworm•

As much as I hate that whale Whitman, California needs some drastic changes in it's spending and social/immigration policies if it is to avoid a bankruptcy or bailout in it's near future.

I have no clue whether Whitman will get tough on the illegals but a pro-spending, pro-illegals platform is not what California needs. I think you are screwed either way. Best of luck.

0
EtherDais•

Nullbit, at first I thought this was a cool post, but then it's clear that rather than running with people's comments and doing any research on your own on the subject, you're just reiterating what you already think over and over.

Welcome to the american political nightmare, numbnut. It's pretty much always like this - clearly inept and incompetent republican against probably ineffectual democrat.

Jerry Brown has some legitimate skills. No, i'm not going to list them for you like everyone else here. Why don't you go learn to google?

Also: your weird 'pro-immigration' issue sounds like an insurmountable problem on your part. Sorry Brown doesn't dislike colored people as much as you hoped, i guess? Money might be a problem right now, but cutting education is not the solution on any planet.

Then you say:

Yeah, at this point I honestly don't consider her an actual option. The issue is more that I barely see Brown as a "lesser of evils" when it looks like he might drive us deeper into the ground while trying to make it rain chocolate and kisses.

Seriously? Why did you make this thread again? Just to complain about the choices? Piss off, dude -- or go to r/trees if you're going to submit things 'bong-in-hand'.

0
nullbitOP•

but then it's clear that rather than running with people's comments and doing any research on your own on the subject, you're just reiterating what you already think over and over.

Actually, it's called "Devil's advocate" and is pretty useful when you're trying to figure out information.

When I am passionate about a topic or candidate, I have no issue with sharing my reasons why. I surely don't tell the person to piss off or "google it."

Sorry you don't like this thread... if only you weren't forced by the Internet to post in it... oh wait.

edit: Oh, and I nearly forgot: Fuck you for trying to turn my position on immigration into one of race. If you don't like that I don't share your ideology on spending money on anyone who crosses the border, fine... but it has nothing to do with what color they are. I include any undocumented Canadians in my pool of "we shouldn't be financing their education" as well.

1
EtherDais•

I apologize for making it sound like a racial thing: I assumed that your concern about education of illegals was localized to, you know, where you live. Since California and Canada don't share much border, I didn't think that was where you were coming from with your concern.

The deeper point to be made is that out of all of the ways in which governmental bodies waste money - cutting education pales in comparison to the other sorts of ways in which reform can be enacted. Even if some of that education funding is going toward untaxed illegal immigrants, there are probably better things to go after than education funding. What would the impacts be on the rest of the school system? Of course, if this is a serious point for you, Meg Whitman would surely be supportive of the sorts of policies you're arguing for.

tl;dr- Those undocumented/illegal canadian children should be educated regardless, and better targets chosen for fiscal restructuring.

Don't be depressed about being without a clue. It's not worth that level of emotional commitment. Also, I think 'Devil's advocate' requires someone else taking a position first, at which point you take an opposing position for the sake of fleshing out the differences between them. What you probably want is more simple - a dialogue. Or whatever.

1
nullbitOP•

I apologize for making it sound like a racial thing Accepted.

I assumed that your concern about education of illegals was localized to, you know, where you live.

Well, realistically it is. But the fact that the illegals I have to deal with so-happen to be brown doesn't matter to me. It's just that they are illegal.

cutting education pales in comparison to the other sorts of ways in which reform can be enacted.

It's already a cut in education. Reducing illegal immigrant education is not a "cut," it is an increase... in American educations. Larger classrooms equate to dilluted education, cut programs, less funding for children who actually have a claim to the funding. Their futures are negatively impacted via the romanticized ideology that it is somehow possible to help every child. I wish that were true, but it isn't. Resources are finite.

What would the impacts be on the rest of the school system?

Beneficial. Not for illegal immigrants, of course, but for legal residents. I have decent chunk of family and friends that work in the public school system, and the amount of money that goes towards things like interpreters and even special-needs education is huge.

This year, the school where my friend works will lose its music program. It will also hire two more full-time interpreters.

That is a trade off and a cost of accomodating citizens of another country within our own. I don't feel like bad person because I want our children to have exposure to great programs, intimate educational settings rather than 45+ students-per-class circuses, and even educational funding later on.

Here's the thing though:

If we honestly stopped the influx of illegal immigration and only had the current population to deal with in terms of education and what not, then I would support your position. Because at that point, it is dealing with individuals who got caught up in a system that was faulty in many ways.

But its an on-going epidemic, and at some point a line has to be drawn. If it could be drawn when all the illegal kids are educated and grown up, I'd go for that... but that's not possible. In 12 years, some will graduate high school as some are entering the first grade. And when those high school grads go to college and get into politics, I'm willing to bet they are only going to work towards making it more acceptable/legal to do what they did. I don't think that is right, nor is it fair (especially when anyone who tries to stop them and care about Americans first is beaten to death with the race card).

I wish our economy would allow us to finance their education, but that means reducing financing to other children/students... and if I have to choose a side, I choose the side that is documented and did nothing more than living in the country that they were born into.

If the goal is really to offer kids a chance at a better opportunity who come from a bad background, then Mexicans are only relevant due to their convenient geographic location. Why not increase the amount of Africans in war-torn countries who could greatly benefit from a US education?

That's the issue I have with all the emotional pleas (and why I got especially angry at you when you turned it into a race thing), because it makes realists like me sound heartless rather than just realistic.

If someone could convince me that this is the right thing to do while justifying the harm it causes to other children (including legal immigrants), or justifying how it is economically feasible, or even how it is poltically feasible, I will happily read and consider any valid points.

But as many times as I have gotten into this argument, all I hear are irrational cherry-picked emotional appeals and illogical, romanticized ideologies about a world where resources are infinite and America can help everyone without hurting anyone.

1