Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 40sondacurb
 what was he thinking? You might as well run an inisiative to regulat oil in texas.
None of his measures were bi partisan, not one. It was close though. If he just made them a little more universal to dems and repubs some might have passed.
He should have left the unions alone. |
I don't understand why anyone who actually read the full text of these props would vote against them, unless you are one of the people losing power as a result.
They had nothing to do with demo vs repub.
Most liberal papers in California endorsed all of them. All the libby papers stated that they were very logical propositions, that would only help. Why would liberal papers support Arnold? Does anyone pay attention in this country? The mob mentality ftw.
Why would people elect Arnold to change the way California works if they aren't going to review his ideas with an open eye? Every single argument against these props that I've heard, was brought up by someone who conveniently omitted, or didn't know certain facts from the props. Prop77 in particular, the main beef ppl had was "who's going to pick these judges," WHEN IT STATED VERY CLEARLY IN THE FREAKING PROP ITSELF. Read the stupid thing plz? gg nub.
Leaving unions alone is a terrible idea. They have too much power. They spent an enormous amount of money opposing these props, and their ads were just "bad props, bad!! they kill babies!! vote no if you hate government!!!"
because they knew that if they actually said what the props were doing, they would pass. And not many people know that the proposition most directly affecting the MEMBERS of the unions only receieved about 20% of the money spent. Because we all know unions are only about the members... cough.
Arnold is just about the only genuinely good person left in any sort of office, he doesn't care what party you are in unless you're a girly man. He and Tom McClintock could get California out of this craphole... But no... for some reason California voted to stagnate.