As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[California Politics] America's Hippie Commune

1192022242542

Posts

  • eMoandereMoander Registered User regular
    Good on Newsom for putting his pride aside and prostrating himself before Trump, which Trump has said many times is the only way he will even take calls from Governors. While some might see it as weakness, I am very happy he did the right thing and put the wellbeing of the people of the state ahead of himself. Newsom is one of my favorite politicians and I eagerly await the day I can vote for him for President.

    And to be clear, FUCK TRUMP for making my state grovel for the aid it fucking deserves. I am literally furious that this was even a goddamn question.

    Xbox: Travesty 0214 Switch: 3304-2356-9421 Honkai Star Rail: 600322115 Battlenet: Travesty #1822
  • KasynKasyn I'm not saying I don't like our chances. She called me the master.Registered User regular
    edited October 2020
    Newsom vetoed a recall rights bill our union and others were supporting.

    His office has backed out of every meaningful thing they've promised us related to COVID. He is petrified of anything that might inconvenience a business.

    I disliked him before he was our inevitable governor and I can't wait to vote against him in a Presidential primary.

    Kasyn on
  • MadicanMadican No face Registered User regular
    Gonna need some concrete details because as things stand I think he's doing a pretty good job from direct observation.

  • KasynKasyn I'm not saying I don't like our chances. She called me the master.Registered User regular
    edited October 2020
    Madican wrote: »
    Gonna need some concrete details because as things stand I think he's doing a pretty good job from direct observation.

    Aside from spiking the recall rights bill I mentioned, very early on we were working with his office on a reopening framework as it related to cleaning and disinfection standards for different types of buildings and industries (important for our membership, with janitorial workers being our largest division), as well as some of the specifics related to the workers who would be charged with enforcement at the buildings (which would oftentimes be security staff - another of our major divisions.) We also had pieces of it that were going to be based on realistic and objectively determined production rates for our workers, to ensure that buildings had adequate staffing in place to achieve the bare minimum cleaning, disinfection, and building control work necessary to actually reopen safely. (That's one of the trickier aspects, since you're getting into something that can be prescriptive from a staffing standpoint, which is obviously a trigger for companies.)

    Newsom's office started out very concerned with protecting essential workers and ensuring that the state's reopening standards adequately protected the public. They'd say they were with us on this part or another of the above, and then then they would drag their heels and finally come back to us with something that was toothless and totally inadequate and wasn't going to do shit to protect our members from much of the horrible conditions that they were facing on the ground during the early months of COVID. We're well aware that there's a balancing act involved, but at every possible juncture where there was an opportunity to side with workers or err on the side of public health vs. even an ounce of concern from business, they would side with business.

    The industry guidance documents the state produced ended up having a lot of input from us and other unions, but it was a lot of the most superficial stuff. None of the enforcement we wanted, weaker assurances on PPE, little to no worker input on the conditions at their worksites, little to no hard requirements for communicating to workers, nothing to ensure that workloads make sense. It just sucks a lot compared to what it could and should have been.

    They know they fucked us and have made promises on a jobs program of ours that's sort of a consolation prize, which is still a developing thing so I can't pass final judgment on THAT yet, but our impression to date is that it's more of the same.

    Even back to his time as mayor in SF, Gavin has always rankled progressives and activists across a number of issues - homelessness, HIV/AIDS, housing, schooling. He's polished, says the right things in public, politically intelligent and has enough surface credibility and charisma to be the type of Democrat that suckers people into buying in as a rising star, but he doesn't actually hold up in my estimation. I was openminded going into his time as governor and have not been happy since. I don't think he's a disaster, but he has been a disappointment.

    Kasyn on
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Voted! A couple of them were a toss up, especially the judges, and the props are all over the place but I hope we're doing the right thing and I'm doing my part...I think.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Sometimes I sell my stuff on Ebay
  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Voted! A couple of them were a toss up, especially the judges, and the props are all over the place but I hope we're doing the right thing and I'm doing my part...I think.

    you voted wrong
    go back and do it again

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • MadicanMadican No face Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »

    This doesn't look like backing down. They got the GOP to agree (however much that's worth) to not place them outside, leave them unattended, or label them as official. They're going to be at local party offices instead and monitored by staff or volunteers, which was the linchpin of the whole case against them by the ballot collection law in that the GOP was designating the boxes as people to try and loophole the law. They're also saying they'll continue to monitor GOP actions to ensure they stick to those terms.

  • CarpyCarpy Registered User regular
    edited October 2020
    How is 19 a potential increase of 10's - 100's of millions of dollars to local governments?

    Edit: it's just limiting tax increases on certain real estate, yeah?

    Carpy on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    Carpy wrote: »
    How is 19 a potential increase of 10's - 100's of millions of dollars to local governments?

    Edit: it's just limiting tax increases on certain real estate, yeah?

    It eliminates the current exemption for people who inherit second and third homes from their rich parents; they will no longer be able to keep the decedent's original property tax rates meaning the property will be reassessed and they'll pay the full current rate based on the current property value. (As opposed to the current rate on the value of the property dozens of years ago when the decedent originally bought it)

    It also sinks the hooks of Prop 13 even deeper: it makes it so you can now change homes three times and keep your property taxes from the original home, forces reciprocity on all counties in CA, (right now it's up to the county whether they'll grant a prop 13 exemption to someone moving from another county) and it makes it so you can now keep your original property tax value even if you move into a more expensive home than the one you are vacating which you currently cannot do.

    Winners: rich boomers
    Losers: wealthy inheritors, everyone else

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    PPIC poll results, LV only:
    Newsom approval - 57-39 (this is a smidge down, I think)
    CA legislature approval - 45-42
    CA direction (right-wrong) - 50-46
    CA divided into economic have/havnots - 67-30
    (self selected into have/havenots) - 55-32 (ie, 55% of people would put themselves in the "have")

    proposition polling
    15 (split roll): 49-45-6
    16 (affirmative action): 37-50-12

    A bunch of questions on policy and opinions of prop process and stuff, too - https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/crosstabs-likely-voters-1020.pdf

    Link is a PDF

  • StraygatsbyStraygatsby Registered User regular
    It felt weird to go online and verify my ballot landed and was approved/received, but it also felt kind of good - like a small invisible weight off my shoulders.


  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Jesus christ I'm about to flip a coin on 25.

    I mean I hate cash bail.

    But I hate the idea of an algorithm denying bail altogether as well.

    I mean usually I can look at the organizations and individuals on the for/against endorsements to tip the scale...but when I see the Republican Party, Orange County Board of Supervisors, and the state's bail bondsmen sitting next to...the ACLU? I AM CONFUSED.

    My first temptation is to vote yes, because cash bail is still an atrocity and a bad algorithm can at least be fixed. But...man, I dunno.

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article246316845.html
    Huffman is correct that Proposition 25 ends bail in the state of California, but is misleading when she says that it replaces bail with a computer algorithm.

    While the pre-trial risk assessment model that weighs whether a person is at risk to re-offend or fail to appear before the court does use computer algorithms, “judicial officers remain the final authority in making pretrial release or detention decisions,” according to the Judicial Branch of California.

    That means that while judges may rely on algorithm-assisted risk assessment models and recommendations, they have the power to override those recommendations.

    It's judges deciding, just like anywhere else that does away with bail

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article246316845.html
    Huffman is correct that Proposition 25 ends bail in the state of California, but is misleading when she says that it replaces bail with a computer algorithm.

    While the pre-trial risk assessment model that weighs whether a person is at risk to re-offend or fail to appear before the court does use computer algorithms, “judicial officers remain the final authority in making pretrial release or detention decisions,” according to the Judicial Branch of California.

    That means that while judges may rely on algorithm-assisted risk assessment models and recommendations, they have the power to override those recommendations.

    It's judges deciding, just like anywhere else that does away with bail

    That helps, though I guess it comes down to whether I trust judges to break with the algorithm as appropriate. Thanks for the link!

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Another article: https://calmatters.org/politics/california-election-2020/2020/10/cash-bail-justice-algorithm-risk-assessment-prop-25/


    With that caveat, a study released this week by the California Policy Lab at the University of California, Berkeley found that in Sonoma and San Francisco counties, the implementation of an algorithm to assist with pretrial release decisions would have led to more releases and less time spent in jail for people arrested in 2017-2018, the period of the study.

    Ultimately, proponents of an algorithm for bail decisions say the computer assist will act as a kind of scorecard. The public will be able to see which judges adhere to the algorithm’s suggestions and which judges go their own way.

    “People are missing the fact that judges are already using their discretion,” said John Bauters of the Yes on 25 campaign, “they’re just hiding behind a cash bail schedule to do it.”

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    “People are missing the fact that judges are already using their discretion,” said John Bauters of the Yes on 25 campaign, “they’re just hiding behind a cash bail schedule to do it.”

    This is a good point. Young me once stood in front of a judge accused of a crime, and had bail set. Luckily my judge did his best for me, basically asking "how much can you afford?" And my answer was "nothing," because I was broke and functionally homeless. His response...apparently unwilling to go straight OR...was to ask whether given the rest of the day I'd be able to "find a money tree" and somehow come up with $50. I said yes, probably, and that's how my bail was set at $50.

    On the one hand I do kinda wonder why he insisted on the $50, instead of just going straight OR, but I don't know how things work behind the curtain. I do wonder if it would have gone lower had I said that I could probably only come up with $25...he really did seem like he was doing everything he could to work with me. And my trial date was months away.

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    OK, back at the computer and can actually type now. I absolutely get where you're coming from - algorithms can be biased in a bad way (looking at YOU facebook, or even at historical things like redlining). But "algorithm" is just being used as a scary word here - it's just a decision making process. "Don't let anyone out of jail" and "let everyone out of jail" are both algorithms. "Let only white people out" is an algorithm. "Let the judges do whatever the hell they want" is an algorithm. It is literally impossible to do this issue - with or without bail - without having some sort of algorithm. So I look at it as bail is a system that inherently favors the privileged and wealthy in a very concrete way - replacing that with a system without bail is an improvement, even if there is some mechanism by which the choice of release or not is dictated. What is important is that said choice is open, and scrutinized, and that humans are kept in the process as a fail-safe. So long as those criteria are met, I definitely feel it's a net gain, but that's just me :)

  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    literally anything is better than being forced to go to jail because you're poor...which is the current system.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Sometimes I sell my stuff on Ebay
  • notyanotya Registered User regular
    ACLU is very against getting rid of cash bail, so that might help your decision making.

  • OrcaOrca Also known as Espressosaurus WrexRegistered User regular
    notya wrote: »
    ACLU is very against getting rid of cash bail, so that might help your decision making.

    What? Why?

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    notya wrote: »
    ACLU is very against getting rid of cash bail, so that might help your decision making.

    I believe you, but don’t get that at all reading, say, this:

    https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/bail-reform

    Or skimming the headlines here:

    https://www.aclu.org/news/by-issue/bail-reform/

    That’s the national org not the Southern California chapter. Still. They definitely seem to have issues with the traditional cash bail system. I guess I can see concerns with specific reform implementations. For me it just definitely gives me pause if the ACLU opposes something. They’re hardly infallible as an organization, but I don’t often find myself breaking with them.

  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    The problem is not using a procedure, the problem is the "risk assessment system". Depending on how much weight it's given in the decision process, it could actually be worse than the status quo.

    In general, those kind of systems will encode and amplify existing biases in the data (i.e. it will somehow be more racist and classist). If the judge just ignore it, not a problem. If the judge trust it, it can make things worse.
    I don't know what the status quo is, so I can't say how bad it is. Given that the proposal does not seem to be "blindly follow the risk assessment", then it will depend on the judges, and how much bias there's already in the existing system.

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    https://www.kcra.com/article/roseville-neighbors-say-they-were-targeted-biden-harris-signs/34546283

    Richer Sacramento suburb which trends Republican has a neighborhood where people are marking the curb outside houses with Biden signs.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    Jragghen wrote: »
    https://www.kcra.com/article/roseville-neighbors-say-they-were-targeted-biden-harris-signs/34546283

    Richer Sacramento suburb which trends Republican has a neighborhood where people are marking the curb outside houses with Biden signs.

    I mean, 99% chance it’s nothing and just some politically motivated mischief.

    And 0.9% chance it’s simply meant as empty intimidation of Democratic voters.

    And of course a 0.01% chance somebody is planning post-election violence, because this is America in 2020. Cool.

    Edit: I’m probably grossly underestimating the likelihood of intimidation as intent. Probably more like 90-9-1. But still, how intimidated would I be if I was already willing to put a sign out? Fuckin come at me bro.

    mcdermott on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    I guess I don't understand the difference between "politically motivated mischief" and intimidation.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    I guess I don't understand the difference between "politically motivated mischief" and intimidation.

    Fair. I guess "intimidation" implies any actual genuine threat and/or possibility of influencing behavior. Whereas this could be simply making people whose tires you intend to slash (or, even less harmful, whose house you plan to egg/TP) later. It's a fine line between the two, for sure.

    Not that I’m defending it either way, obviously.

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    I guess I don't understand the difference between "politically motivated mischief" and intimidation.

    Fair. I guess "intimidation" implies any actual genuine threat and/or possibility of influencing behavior. Whereas this could be simply making people whose tires you intend to slash (or, even less harmful, whose house you plan to egg/TP) later. It's a fine line between the two, for sure.

    Not that I’m defending it either way, obviously.

    Those are both the same thing. There is no fine line. The line you posit is imaginary.

    Mystery graffiti on only politically marked houses is 100% intimidation, the coercive effect is, in part, due to the threat and fear of violence and the uncertainty therein, Painting any of this as mischief is a position you should drop and back away from, rather than double down on.

  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    I guess I don't understand the difference between "politically motivated mischief" and intimidation.

    Fair. I guess "intimidation" implies any actual genuine threat and/or possibility of influencing behavior. Whereas this could be simply making people whose tires you intend to slash (or, even less harmful, whose house you plan to egg/TP) later. It's a fine line between the two, for sure.

    Not that I’m defending it either way, obviously.

    There's a huge difference between having your house egged by rando idiot teenagers vs. grown adults who know exactly what they're doing. Never mind whatever thought process is considering slashing tires as not a genuine threat. Whatever line there may or may not be on this, that's definitely on the wrong side of it.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • schussschuss Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    I guess I don't understand the difference between "politically motivated mischief" and intimidation.

    Fair. I guess "intimidation" implies any actual genuine threat and/or possibility of influencing behavior. Whereas this could be simply making people whose tires you intend to slash (or, even less harmful, whose house you plan to egg/TP) later. It's a fine line between the two, for sure.

    Not that I’m defending it either way, obviously.

    There's a huge difference between having your house egged by rando idiot teenagers vs. grown adults who know exactly what they're doing. Never mind whatever thought process is considering slashing tires as not a genuine threat. Whatever line there may or may not be on this, that's definitely on the wrong side of it.

    But from a practical perspective,people don't know which it is.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    schuss wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    I guess I don't understand the difference between "politically motivated mischief" and intimidation.

    Fair. I guess "intimidation" implies any actual genuine threat and/or possibility of influencing behavior. Whereas this could be simply making people whose tires you intend to slash (or, even less harmful, whose house you plan to egg/TP) later. It's a fine line between the two, for sure.

    Not that I’m defending it either way, obviously.

    There's a huge difference between having your house egged by rando idiot teenagers vs. grown adults who know exactly what they're doing. Never mind whatever thought process is considering slashing tires as not a genuine threat. Whatever line there may or may not be on this, that's definitely on the wrong side of it.

    But from a practical perspective,people don't know which it is.

    Which is what makes it both weird and stupid. "Marking" people who already marked themselves for weeks via a yard sign? Doing so days before the election, when their votes are likely already cast? What's the point here? What are you "coercing?"

    Which again is why this seems to lean more toward the harebrained mischief side of things, to me, than any legitimate intimidation. I doubt any sort of post-election Purge is gonna happen in this neighborhood. Obviously easy to say from my chair, but I doubt I'd feel particularly intimidated by this.
    Never mind whatever thought process is considering slashing tires as not a genuine threat.

    I meant threat of violence. I don't consider vandalism to be violence per se. Vandalism would not surprise me.

    This is obviously part of a deeply concerning trend. We are all on the same page there. We're merely discussing the contours of one specific incident, and where it sits in that trend.

    mcdermott on
  • TuminTumin Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    I am already intimidated enough not to have a sign or a sticker or a sign or whatever because of historical targeting. Displaying political affiliation on your property seems pointlessly risky, stuff like this confirms that. Wearing politically affiliated clothing is the same, it sets you up for confrontation.

    I'm not afraid for my life or whatever bar you think is necessary to have an effect, but why tempt dumbasses and fate?

    Tumin on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Tumin wrote: »
    I am already intimidated enough not to have a sign or a sticker or a sign or whatever because of historical targeting. Displaying political affiliation on your property seems pointlessly risky, stuff like this confirms that. Wearing politically affiliated clothing is the same, it sets you up for confrontation.

    I'm not afraid for my life or whatever bar you think is necessary to have an effect, but why tempt dumbasses and fate?

    Oh, agreed. But the thing is that these individuals were comfortable openly displaying their political affiliation at their home. You're not, and I'm not...but they were. So I'm really struggling to see what a blue dot is going to do. It just seems like a deeply stupid and impotent attempt at...whatever it's an attempt at.

    I don't display mine at home due to just not wanting to feed animosity with neighbors (haven't seen a Trump sign within blocks, but obviously there are a few supporters around). I leave shit off my car both because I don't put anything on my car but also because I don't feel like dealing with vandalism.

    I dunno. There's more important shit to talk about today I guess.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    schuss wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    I guess I don't understand the difference between "politically motivated mischief" and intimidation.

    Fair. I guess "intimidation" implies any actual genuine threat and/or possibility of influencing behavior. Whereas this could be simply making people whose tires you intend to slash (or, even less harmful, whose house you plan to egg/TP) later. It's a fine line between the two, for sure.

    Not that I’m defending it either way, obviously.

    There's a huge difference between having your house egged by rando idiot teenagers vs. grown adults who know exactly what they're doing. Never mind whatever thought process is considering slashing tires as not a genuine threat. Whatever line there may or may not be on this, that's definitely on the wrong side of it.

    But from a practical perspective,people don't know which it is.

    Which is what makes it both weird and stupid. "Marking" people who already marked themselves for weeks via a yard sign? Doing so days before the election, when their votes are likely already cast? What's the point here? What are you "coercing?"

    Which again is why this seems to lean more toward the harebrained mischief side of things, to me, than any legitimate intimidation. I doubt any sort of post-election Purge is gonna happen in this neighborhood. Obviously easy to say from my chair, but I doubt I'd feel particularly intimidated by this.
    Never mind whatever thought process is considering slashing tires as not a genuine threat.

    I meant threat of violence. I don't consider vandalism to be violence per se. Vandalism would not surprise me.

    This is obviously part of a deeply concerning trend. We are all on the same page there. We're merely discussing the contours of one specific incident, and where it sits in that trend.

    The threat isnt if you vote for Biden we'll hurt you, its to mark the homes of Biden supporters to punish them post election.

  • schussschuss Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    I am already intimidated enough not to have a sign or a sticker or a sign or whatever because of historical targeting. Displaying political affiliation on your property seems pointlessly risky, stuff like this confirms that. Wearing politically affiliated clothing is the same, it sets you up for confrontation.

    I'm not afraid for my life or whatever bar you think is necessary to have an effect, but why tempt dumbasses and fate?

    Oh, agreed. But the thing is that these individuals were comfortable openly displaying their political affiliation at their home. You're not, and I'm not...but they were. So I'm really struggling to see what a blue dot is going to do. It just seems like a deeply stupid and impotent attempt at...whatever it's an attempt at.

    I don't display mine at home due to just not wanting to feed animosity with neighbors (haven't seen a Trump sign within blocks, but obviously there are a few supporters around). I leave shit off my car both because I don't put anything on my car but also because I don't feel like dealing with vandalism.

    I dunno. There's more important shit to talk about today I guess.

    Signs don't last, but the blue dots could persist and be associated with other mischief and harassment.

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Vote's 99% in.

    Stem cells won
    Split roll lost
    Affirmative action lost
    Felons on parole voting won
    17 year olds who will be 18 for GE being able to vote in primary lost
    Property tax transfer won
    Redefining misdemeanors as felonies lost
    Rent control options lost
    Uber and lyft won
    Medical unions lost in kidney dialysis
    The mixed-bag digital privacy won
    Money bail won

    Pretty shit results, tbh. 19 and 15 were the only ones that were particularly close.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    The entire proposition system is fuckawful. It’s the average voter thinking they’re smarter than legislators we pay to actually pay attention to shit and understand the issues. So of course the results are always a mixed bag at best.

  • MadicanMadican No face Registered User regular
    Managed to oust Jackie Lacey with George Gascon as the new DA in Los Angeles. I'll take wins where I can get 'em at this point.

  • TetraNitroCubaneTetraNitroCubane The Djinnerator At the bottom of a bottleRegistered User regular
    I'm getting really sick and tired of California being so predictable in proposition outcomes.

    Who's got more money?

    That's who'll win the day. Every time.

    Uber and Lyft ran a dirty campaign on 22. But they had the money to run it so pervasively, and essentially unopposed, that they bilked everyone into thinking 22 is GOOD for their drivers.

    Really upsetting.

    VuIBhrs.png
  • eMoandereMoander Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    I just don't even understand these results. Felon voting is ok, but bail is a step too far? I really thought split-roll and letting 17 year olds vote in the primary were no-brainers, yet apparently not.

    Edit:
    I'd be curious to see a breakdown on spending vs results. I get that 22 is a major outlier, but if it holds for the others, at least that would be a trend I could understand. These results just make my brain hurt trying to discern some kind of pattern.

    eMoander on
    Xbox: Travesty 0214 Switch: 3304-2356-9421 Honkai Star Rail: 600322115 Battlenet: Travesty #1822
Sign In or Register to comment.