The shred of hope I currently cling to is the approximate 10% undecided voters in Iowa. Hopefully they are waiting to pick a candidate and go with Braley over Ernst as she does her best to trip on her way to the finish line.
Honestly america deserves the dumb shit we are about to unleash on ourselves. Our problem remains people "don't want to talk politics" and then either don't vote or choose shit on stupid reasons and then complain that both sides seem the same due to their complete indifference in investigating the choices.
Its like a mid twenties co worker who relies on Planned Parenthood for her womanly stuff, but doesn't like the democratic party because "well they just don't do enough for me."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The shred of hope I currently cling to is the approximate 10% undecided voters in Iowa. Hopefully they are waiting to pick a candidate and go with Braley over Ernst as she does her best to trip on her way to the finish line.
I'm looking around for a bubble. I'm hoping I can get a good deal on a two year old model.
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
There was a large conversation in the lunchroom at my work place, and pretty much everyone on the staff besides me said, "both parties are the same and equally bad, so there's no point in voting."
My mouth was open in shock. I didn't want to call everyone at work lazy, because I have to work with these people, but it really just seemed like everyone at work was lazy.
There was a large conversation in the lunchroom at my work place, and pretty much everyone on the staff besides me said, "both parties are the same and equally bad, so there's no point in voting."
My mouth was open in shock. I didn't want to call everyone at work lazy, because I have to work with these people, but it really just seemed like everyone at work was lazy.
A coworker of mine who I consider a good friend and very intelligent person said he refuses to vote unless he genuinely likes everything about a candidate.
There was a large conversation in the lunchroom at my work place, and pretty much everyone on the staff besides me said, "both parties are the same and equally bad, so there's no point in voting."
My mouth was open in shock. I didn't want to call everyone at work lazy, because I have to work with these people, but it really just seemed like everyone at work was lazy.
A coworker of mine who I consider a good friend and very intelligent person said he refuses to vote unless he genuinely likes everything about a candidate.
It's cray
I understand that completely, I don't do anything unless I 100% enjoy it, its why I haven't done anything in twenty years.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So, after digging around (fb page for the county voter registrar had pictures of the same ballots, I have the following ballot measures to decide on:
Proposed constitutional amendment
Shall section 6-A of Article X (Taxation and Finance) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to exempt from taxation the real property of the surviving spouse of any member of the armed forces of the United States who was killed in action, where the surviving spouse occupies the real property as his or her principle place of residence and has not remarried?
Given this was something that has come out of the Virginia general assembly, I already suspect there is some trick behind this. Maybe @spacekungfuman can explain how this would work in principle since it's dealing with taxes and whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. I suspect it's going to be a bad idea because I'm starting to wonder if this means that the property will not ever be taxed as long the surviving spouse never remarries and continues to live there (I feel for people that lose a spouse, who dies in the line of duty, but I'm not sure this is an appropriate setup). I guess best case scenario, is that it's a useless ass amendment that does nothing and lets the GOP claim they did something, but I don't think that's going to be the case. I suspect this is going to pass though without people given it much thought because "taxes bad, military good" thinking.
I won't bore people with the local ballot measures. I'm inclined to vote for them since they seem geared towards issuing bonds to address several areas that need improvement; especially, the roads. Sadly, I could see all of them failing because people have this notion that any sort of debt is bad, while ignoring how the various improvements are likely to create both permanent and temporary jobs and greatly improve the quality of life for people. I think the only one of the bond measures I might vote no on is the one involving improvement of the government building because I don't trust the current county leadership to not turn it into a pointless boondoggle that is a waste of money. Also the irony of a bunch of teapers issuing bonds, to take up debt, is not lost on me.
Bum, if that is in response to concern that I'll let my emotions get the better of me. Not a chance, I'd rather side with an unpopular policy that does the right thing, over a popular one that fucks things up.
I'm leaning towards no on that amendment becomes very rarely do good things come out of the Virginia General Assembly these days. I'm opened to being convinced (the whole stopped clock being right at least twice a day thing), but my gut tells me that this is very poorly thought out amendment and that it's likely to compound bad decisions (likely bad GOP decisions because it seems like they like getting us into stupid ass wars).
Moving on, yeah, it pisses me off that so many Americans don't vote because we have too many people that carry this fucked up belief that both parties are the same (they aren't, otherwise we wouldn't have two parties) and that it's possible to be apolitical (if you live in a society, that isn't possible because politics is the result of disagreements over how to do things).
So, after digging around (fb page for the county voter registrar had pictures of the same ballots, I have the following ballot measures to decide on:
Proposed constitutional amendment
Shall section 6-A of Article X (Taxation and Finance) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to exempt from taxation the real property of the surviving spouse of any member of the armed forces of the United States who was killed in action, where the surviving spouse occupies the real property as his or her principle place of residence and has not remarried?
Given this was something that has come out of the Virginia general assembly, I already suspect there is some trick behind this. Maybe @spacekungfuman can explain how this would work in principle since it's dealing with taxes and whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. I suspect it's going to be a bad idea because I'm starting to wonder if this means that the property will not ever be taxed as long the surviving spouse never remarries and continues to live there (I feel for people that lose a spouse, who dies in the line of duty, but I'm not sure this is an appropriate setup). I guess best case scenario, is that it's a useless ass amendment that does nothing and lets the GOP claim they did something, but I don't think that's going to be the case. I suspect this is going to pass though without people given it much thought because "taxes bad, military good" thinking.
I won't bore people with the local ballot measures. I'm inclined to vote for them since they seem geared towards issuing bonds to address several areas that need improvement; especially, the roads. Sadly, I could see all of them failing because people have this notion that any sort of debt is bad, while ignoring how the various improvements are likely to create both permanent and temporary jobs and greatly improve the quality of life for people. I think the only one of the bond measures I might vote no on is the one involving improvement of the government building because I don't trust the current county leadership to not turn it into a pointless boondoggle that is a waste of money. Also the irony of a bunch of teapers issuing bonds, to take up debt, is not lost on me.
Just from that small block of text, I suspect it's actually being honest in what it's saying: 0 property taxes (and likely also estate taxes) on property owned by a person whose spouse was killed in combat. I can't imagine this is a high percentage of people, and I don't know what percent of VA's revenue is from property taxes, but I can't imagine it'll have huge impact one way or another. It's a "feel good" thing.
I've forgotten how spoiled I've gotten by CA. They're so good about making sure we know what's on the ballot.
I would vote against that amendment if I still lived in VA.
Secret GOP tricks aside, it doesn't seem like it really does anything positive? I don't really like the idea of special privileges for the military in the first place (beyond things directly relating to their duty, like funding for medical care if an IED blows their legs off or they get PTSD). We should have a good safety net for everyone. Even in the case of specifically dealing with military families, it's unbalanced. Some widows will have more than enough money to pay those taxes and now you're getting rid of that revenue source for nothing. Some won't have much of an income and not worrying about a certain type of tax will be a drop in the bucket and they'll sell the place anyway. Some will rent and it won't benefit them at all. There's an avenue for abuse where people move around and let a family member live there (like the rent controlled apartment in Friends!), but I'm not too worried about that.
So it just seems like a poorly thought out feel-good amendment. I'd rather it fail, especially if it means the legislature will have to think of something better to pass on their own.
Which 1) is the problem and 2) maybe the Democrats should do more for young voters. Make Warren's student loan reform a priority, for example.
That idea is bad economically. It can be good politically, but the federal government getting involved in student loans on a massive scale is largely blamed for tuition inflation (I'm not talking the G.I. Bill.)
Warren isn't really a scholar of economic knowledge. She peddles feel-good "solutions" that don't really work. Even Colbert couldn't take it when she came on his show to stump for the CFPB during the Dodd-Frank debate.
...That is basically completely wrong. What is to blame for tuition inflation is states cutting budgets to the bone and beyond.
it can be both
even public universities are loathe to leave money on the table when it comes to money available to students
I would vote against that amendment if I still lived in VA.
Secret GOP tricks aside, it doesn't seem like it really does anything positive? I don't really like the idea of special privileges for the military in the first place (beyond things directly relating to their duty, like funding for medical care if an IED blows their legs off or they get PTSD). We should have a good safety net for everyone. Even in the case of specifically dealing with military families, it's unbalanced. Some widows will have more than enough money to pay those taxes and now you're getting rid of that revenue source for nothing. Some won't have much of an income and not worrying about a certain type of tax will be a drop in the bucket and they'll sell the place anyway. Some will rent and it won't benefit them at all. There's an avenue for abuse where people move around and let a family member live there (like the rent controlled apartment in Friends!), but I'm not too worried about that.
So it just seems like a poorly thought out feel-good amendment. I'd rather it fail, especially if it means the legislature will have to think of something better to pass on their own.
That's the other thing that doesn't sit well with me in regards to this. Is that it's very inequitable. Some spouses won't need this at all because they are already well off or maybe come well off and frankly, that's probably individuals that are already not paying their fair share. Some this will do jack shit for. It'll likely get abused quite a bit. I also don't like this idea of special rights because someone did X, when those rights don't even seem geared to facilitating the special needs of X. I also kind of like the irony that the GOP is pretty much setting up something that may encourage people to forgo marriage because if they do, that means they lose out on having a tax free property if they find a new partner after a spouse passes away.
I'm also starting to wonder if this just merely sets stage for stupid ass legislation. It says the GA can exempt for taxation the real property. That sounds like, if it does pass, they have to pass legislation. I'll be damned if I vote for this because that sounds suspiciously, like setting it up so that GOP has an easy to use cudgel to use for their whims. I can fucking guarantee they'll attach that to every fucking thing they can, so they can scream "see they're voting down this bill because they hate our troops."
I would vote against that amendment if I still lived in VA.
Secret GOP tricks aside, it doesn't seem like it really does anything positive? I don't really like the idea of special privileges for the military in the first place (beyond things directly relating to their duty, like funding for medical care if an IED blows their legs off or they get PTSD). We should have a good safety net for everyone. Even in the case of specifically dealing with military families, it's unbalanced. Some widows will have more than enough money to pay those taxes and now you're getting rid of that revenue source for nothing. Some won't have much of an income and not worrying about a certain type of tax will be a drop in the bucket and they'll sell the place anyway. Some will rent and it won't benefit them at all. There's an avenue for abuse where people move around and let a family member live there (like the rent controlled apartment in Friends!), but I'm not too worried about that.
So it just seems like a poorly thought out feel-good amendment. I'd rather it fail, especially if it means the legislature will have to think of something better to pass on their own.
That's the other thing that doesn't sit well with me in regards to this. Is that it's very inequitable. Some spouses won't need this at all because they are already well off or maybe come well off and frankly, that's probably individuals that are already not paying their fair share. Some this will do jack shit for. It'll likely get abused quite a bit. I also don't like this idea of special rights because someone did X, when those rights don't even seem geared to facilitating the special needs of X. I also kind of like the irony that the GOP is pretty much setting up something that may encourage people to forgo marriage because if they do, that means they lose out on having a tax free property if they find a new partner after a spouse passes away.
I'm also starting to wonder if this just merely sets stage for stupid ass legislation. It says the GA can exempt for taxation the real property. That sounds like, if it does pass, they have to pass legislation. I'll be damned if I vote for this because that sounds suspiciously, like setting it up so that GOP has an easy to use cudgel to use for their whims. I can fucking guarantee they'll attach that to every fucking thing they can, so they can scream "see they're voting down this bill because they hate our troops."
Yeah generally the worst shit ever gets passed with feel good legislation that no one can oppose.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Amendment #2
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that it will be permissible to allow relevant evidence of prior criminal acts to be admissible in prosecutions for crimes of a sexual nature involving a victim under eighteen years of age?
If more resources are needed to defend increased prosecutions additional costs to governmental entities could be at least $1.4 million annually, otherwise the fiscal impact is expected to be limited.
Amendment #3
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
• require teachers to be evaluated by a standards based performance evaluation system for which each local school district must receive state approval to continue receiving state and local funding;
• require teachers to be dismissed, retained, demoted, promoted and paid primarily using quantifiable student performance data as part of the evaluation system;
• require teachers to enter into contracts of three years or fewer with public school districts; and
• prohibit teachers from organizing or collectively bargaining regarding the design and implementation of the teacher evaluation system?
Decisions by school districts regarding provisions allowed or required by this proposal and their implementation will influence the potential costs or savings impacting each district. Significant potential costs may be incurred by the state and/or the districts if new/additional evaluation instruments must be developed to satisfy the proposal's performance evaluation requirements.
Amendment #6
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to permit voting in person or by mail for a period of six business days prior to and including the Wednesday before the election day in general elections, but only if the legislature and the governor appropriate and disburse funds to pay for the increased costs of such voting?
State governmental entities estimated startup costs of about $2 million and costs to reimburse local election authorities of at least $100,000 per election. Local election authorities estimated higher reimbursable costs per election. Those costs will depend on the compensation, staffing, and, planning decisions of election authorities with the total costs being unknown.
Amendment #10
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require the governor to pay the public debt, to prohibit the governor from relying on revenue from legislation not yet passed when proposing a budget, and to provide a legislative check on the governor's decisions to restrict funding for education and other state services?
State governmental entities expect no direct costs or savings. Local governmental entities expect an unknown fiscal impact.
I'm thinking yes on #2 and no on the rest. I was thinking I might vote yes on #6 on the premise that any early voting is better than no early voting, but after reading the actual fine print in the bill, the initiative really does jack squat to fix the problems early voting measures are suppose to help fix, and that the legislation in Jeff City can pull the plug on it at any time without another amendment is kinda unsettling.
I think prosecutors should have to prove guilt based on the evidence in that case, not based on prior acts.
That entire education proposal strikes me as awful.
I agree some early voting > no early voting. Being unable to expand it without another amendment would be my concern. But I'm not familiar with the Missouri Constitution so maybe it has to be?
The last one is just dumb.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I would say no on #3 just because removal of collective bargaining is bad, and that's not even getting into the difficulty that is this:
• require teachers to be dismissed, retained, demoted, promoted and paid primarily using quantifiable student performance data as part of the evaluation system;
It puts teachers into a position where, say, all the 3rd grade teachers are shit at a school. All 4th, 5th, etc grade teachers will be at an inherent disadvantage compared to other schools because of how prepared the students are when they arrive, through no fault of the teacher on their own.
Pretty much what bum said. My concern with #6, is that the goal is to make it lackluster, hoping that people vote no, so that the GOP can then scream "see, people don't want early voting, so we don't need it." Maybe there is some fine print that makes it incredibly shitty and deserving a no vote.
#3 is just fucking awful on some many levels, but I'd say the attempt to kill collective bargaining should be an instant deal breaker. #2 is bad because it just more of the half-assed "I'm tough on crime and 'criminal scum,' but not really doing anything to fix any issues." #10 is also pretty dumb.
I mean the evidence rule change seems like it's just removing a ban on prior criminal act evidence. The offered acts would not be automatically admissible but if the court determined them relevant then they could come in in those very specific prosecutions.
Meh
+2
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
#10 protects specific areas of the budget so that areas not protected will be forced to be cut in response.
Yeah do not budget through your constitution, I mean its working GREAT in California but you should probably not.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
I think prosecutors should have to prove guilt based on the evidence in that case, not based on prior acts.
That entire education proposal strikes me as awful.
I agree some early voting > no early voting. Being unable to expand it without another amendment would be my concern. But I'm not familiar with the Missouri Constitution so maybe it has to be?
The last one is just dumb.
I thought the same way for #2, but after some digging, found out that propensity evidence for sex crimes is the norm for most of the country, including at the federal level, which is what made the part of me concerned about fair prosecution bowing to the part of me who has no sympathy for people who sexually abuse kids.
As for early voting, there was a petition attempt to get a six week voting period, which would have included weekends and opening sites other than the local election authority for early voting, but that version died shortly after the Missouri Legislature started pushing through this version, which some people think was only introduced as an attempt to kill the petition version. According to Ballotpedia, at least one of the groups that supported the petition has supported the legislative amendment as well, so it appears that they believe any early voting > no early voting as well.
For those who want to know more about #2, this is what the actual amendment would be in the Missouri Consitution if it passed:
Section 18(c). Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 and 18(a) of this article to the contrary, in prosecutions for crimes of a sexual nature involving a victim under eighteen years of age, relevant evidence of prior criminal acts, whether charged or uncharged, is admissible for the purpose of corroborating the victim's testimony or demonstrating the defendant's propensity to commit the crime with which he or she is presently charged. The court may exclude relevant evidence of prior criminal acts if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
...and also, the currently existing federal evidence law that covers the same thing:
Rule 414. Similar Crimes in Child-Molestation Cases
(a) Permitted Uses. In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other child molestation. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant.
(b) Disclosure to the Defendant. If the prosecutor intends to offer this evidence, the prosecutor must disclose it to the defendant, including witnesses’ statements or a summary of the expected testimony. The prosecutor must do so at least 15 days before trial or at a later time that the court allows for good cause.
(c) Effect on Other Rules. This rule does not limit the admission or consideration of evidence under any other rule.
(d) Definition of “Child” and “Child Molestation.” In this rule and Rule 415:
(1) “child” means a person below the age of 14; and
(2) “child molestation” means a crime under federal law or under state law (as “state” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 513) involving:
(A) any conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 109A and committed with a child;
(B) any conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 110;
(C) contact between any part of the defendant’s body — or an object — and a child’s genitals or anus;
(D) contact between the defendant’s genitals or anus and any part of a child’s body;
(E) deriving sexual pleasure or gratification from inflicting death, bodily injury, or physical pain on a child; or
(F) an attempt or conspiracy to engage in conduct described in subparagraphs (A)–(E).
Posts
pleasepaypreacher.net
Its like a mid twenties co worker who relies on Planned Parenthood for her womanly stuff, but doesn't like the democratic party because "well they just don't do enough for me."
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm looking around for a bubble. I'm hoping I can get a good deal on a two year old model.
My mouth was open in shock. I didn't want to call everyone at work lazy, because I have to work with these people, but it really just seemed like everyone at work was lazy.
History's greatest crosstabs.
A coworker of mine who I consider a good friend and very intelligent person said he refuses to vote unless he genuinely likes everything about a candidate.
It's cray
I understand that completely, I don't do anything unless I 100% enjoy it, its why I haven't done anything in twenty years.
pleasepaypreacher.net
So, after digging around (fb page for the county voter registrar had pictures of the same ballots, I have the following ballot measures to decide on:
Proposed constitutional amendment
Given this was something that has come out of the Virginia general assembly, I already suspect there is some trick behind this. Maybe @spacekungfuman can explain how this would work in principle since it's dealing with taxes and whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. I suspect it's going to be a bad idea because I'm starting to wonder if this means that the property will not ever be taxed as long the surviving spouse never remarries and continues to live there (I feel for people that lose a spouse, who dies in the line of duty, but I'm not sure this is an appropriate setup). I guess best case scenario, is that it's a useless ass amendment that does nothing and lets the GOP claim they did something, but I don't think that's going to be the case. I suspect this is going to pass though without people given it much thought because "taxes bad, military good" thinking.
I won't bore people with the local ballot measures. I'm inclined to vote for them since they seem geared towards issuing bonds to address several areas that need improvement; especially, the roads. Sadly, I could see all of them failing because people have this notion that any sort of debt is bad, while ignoring how the various improvements are likely to create both permanent and temporary jobs and greatly improve the quality of life for people. I think the only one of the bond measures I might vote no on is the one involving improvement of the government building because I don't trust the current county leadership to not turn it into a pointless boondoggle that is a waste of money. Also the irony of a bunch of teapers issuing bonds, to take up debt, is not lost on me.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Mill nooooooooooooooooo
I'm leaning towards no on that amendment becomes very rarely do good things come out of the Virginia General Assembly these days. I'm opened to being convinced (the whole stopped clock being right at least twice a day thing), but my gut tells me that this is very poorly thought out amendment and that it's likely to compound bad decisions (likely bad GOP decisions because it seems like they like getting us into stupid ass wars).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This article has some great numbers showing the disparity in who votes and who doesn't and how that affects policy.
Moving on, yeah, it pisses me off that so many Americans don't vote because we have too many people that carry this fucked up belief that both parties are the same (they aren't, otherwise we wouldn't have two parties) and that it's possible to be apolitical (if you live in a society, that isn't possible because politics is the result of disagreements over how to do things).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I'll just have them shout "benghazi" and the first person that doesn't blame it on Obama, bam gotcha.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Just from that small block of text, I suspect it's actually being honest in what it's saying: 0 property taxes (and likely also estate taxes) on property owned by a person whose spouse was killed in combat. I can't imagine this is a high percentage of people, and I don't know what percent of VA's revenue is from property taxes, but I can't imagine it'll have huge impact one way or another. It's a "feel good" thing.
I've forgotten how spoiled I've gotten by CA. They're so good about making sure we know what's on the ballot.
Secret GOP tricks aside, it doesn't seem like it really does anything positive? I don't really like the idea of special privileges for the military in the first place (beyond things directly relating to their duty, like funding for medical care if an IED blows their legs off or they get PTSD). We should have a good safety net for everyone. Even in the case of specifically dealing with military families, it's unbalanced. Some widows will have more than enough money to pay those taxes and now you're getting rid of that revenue source for nothing. Some won't have much of an income and not worrying about a certain type of tax will be a drop in the bucket and they'll sell the place anyway. Some will rent and it won't benefit them at all. There's an avenue for abuse where people move around and let a family member live there (like the rent controlled apartment in Friends!), but I'm not too worried about that.
So it just seems like a poorly thought out feel-good amendment. I'd rather it fail, especially if it means the legislature will have to think of something better to pass on their own.
Two lose with you're looses
it can be both
even public universities are loathe to leave money on the table when it comes to money available to students
The kind of polling data for something like this can't be put to good use.
Nope.
"You know what the alternative is though, right?"
Yes, which is why he's got my vote. He isn't nearly liberal enough me to wave the flag for him though.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
That's the other thing that doesn't sit well with me in regards to this. Is that it's very inequitable. Some spouses won't need this at all because they are already well off or maybe come well off and frankly, that's probably individuals that are already not paying their fair share. Some this will do jack shit for. It'll likely get abused quite a bit. I also don't like this idea of special rights because someone did X, when those rights don't even seem geared to facilitating the special needs of X. I also kind of like the irony that the GOP is pretty much setting up something that may encourage people to forgo marriage because if they do, that means they lose out on having a tax free property if they find a new partner after a spouse passes away.
I'm also starting to wonder if this just merely sets stage for stupid ass legislation. It says the GA can exempt for taxation the real property. That sounds like, if it does pass, they have to pass legislation. I'll be damned if I vote for this because that sounds suspiciously, like setting it up so that GOP has an easy to use cudgel to use for their whims. I can fucking guarantee they'll attach that to every fucking thing they can, so they can scream "see they're voting down this bill because they hate our troops."
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Jesus is a bit of a jerk like that.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah generally the worst shit ever gets passed with feel good legislation that no one can oppose.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm thinking yes on #2 and no on the rest. I was thinking I might vote yes on #6 on the premise that any early voting is better than no early voting, but after reading the actual fine print in the bill, the initiative really does jack squat to fix the problems early voting measures are suppose to help fix, and that the legislation in Jeff City can pull the plug on it at any time without another amendment is kinda unsettling.
I think prosecutors should have to prove guilt based on the evidence in that case, not based on prior acts.
That entire education proposal strikes me as awful.
I agree some early voting > no early voting. Being unable to expand it without another amendment would be my concern. But I'm not familiar with the Missouri Constitution so maybe it has to be?
The last one is just dumb.
It puts teachers into a position where, say, all the 3rd grade teachers are shit at a school. All 4th, 5th, etc grade teachers will be at an inherent disadvantage compared to other schools because of how prepared the students are when they arrive, through no fault of the teacher on their own.
#3 is just fucking awful on some many levels, but I'd say the attempt to kill collective bargaining should be an instant deal breaker. #2 is bad because it just more of the half-assed "I'm tough on crime and 'criminal scum,' but not really doing anything to fix any issues." #10 is also pretty dumb.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Meh
PM me with yours if you add me
Have I mentioned how bad you people are at elections yet this cycle?
Yeah do not budget through your constitution, I mean its working GREAT in California but you should probably not.
This is also a problem I have with it.
I thought the same way for #2, but after some digging, found out that propensity evidence for sex crimes is the norm for most of the country, including at the federal level, which is what made the part of me concerned about fair prosecution bowing to the part of me who has no sympathy for people who sexually abuse kids.
As for early voting, there was a petition attempt to get a six week voting period, which would have included weekends and opening sites other than the local election authority for early voting, but that version died shortly after the Missouri Legislature started pushing through this version, which some people think was only introduced as an attempt to kill the petition version. According to Ballotpedia, at least one of the groups that supported the petition has supported the legislative amendment as well, so it appears that they believe any early voting > no early voting as well.
...and also, the currently existing federal evidence law that covers the same thing: