Comments by joshanders_84
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on January 9 at 10:23 a.m.
snugspout, I share your perspective in terms of Pappas and his recount, but don't you think saying "exactly the reverse is true" completely undermines your whole point? You're saying there's this horrible bias from the northern part of the third district toward the southern part, but it sounds like the bias is returned in kind by you. Additionally, I don't see how one psychopath from Solvang is somehow related to Pappas' attempt at taking away voters' votes.
Couldn't it be less indicative of the north district's "hatred" for the south district, and more about this one particular person who is trying to overturn his missing out on being elected? This says everything about Pappas and Crawford-Hall, who both clearly do not respect students or their ability to vote in the district, but doesn't represent anything about either portion of the district. I think the focus should be on them, instead of some pseudo-deep-seeded "disrespect" for the southern part of the district.
For the record, I live in Goleta.
Posted on January 8 at 12:25 p.m.
Clearly it's not that simple or we wouldn't have this challenge. But hey, a fellow can wish, can't he? :0)
I don't want to turn this into a debate about other challenges (specifically prop 8), so I will agree in the sense that the votes are often challenged, but disagree that prop 8 and the 3rd district race are being challenged on any form of comparable grounds (I support a challenge of the prop 8 vote, for full disclosure).
My biggest argument here is the grounds for the challenge don't appear to hold water in my oh-so-unprofessional opinion, and as such should not be used to take away the votes of thousands of students. Would he have contested the voting registration if he had won the elected office? No. Would Doreen have challenged the voting registration had Pappas won? I must say, I do not believe she would. I guess we will see what happens next.
Posted on January 8 at 8:50 a.m.
According to the article in today's Daily Nexus, the basis for the challenge is that (a) (some/many/most?) requests were held for longer than the standard 3 days before being turned in, and (b) box 12 in (some/many/most?) of the voter registration cards was not filled in.
As for the three days, it seems logical to me that if the county voting office allows for an extension, due to the volume, that this would be acceptable. So long as the registration cards are turned in before the registration deadline (they were), then I don't see why this should invalidate the voters. Additionally, the people filling out these cards had nothing to do with the length of time between when they filled it out and when it was turned in -- why would you want to punish well meaning voters, Steve, if you really care about our democratic process?
As far as the box 12 issue, this is from the California Secretary of State's website (http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/guidetov...
Elections Code § 2150 provides that if any person helps a citizen complete a registration form, that person must sign and date the form below the signature of the person registering.
Elections Code § 2159 requires any person who is paid to take back and turn in the completed registration form to sign the card in his or her handwriting.
Addressing these in order, it would seem that code 2150 was not violated unless the person doing the registration assisted the voter in filling out the form -- they gave them the forms and told them how to fill them out. Is this "helping"? My definition would be active helping, not giving one a form and instructions on how to fill it out. As for code 2159, the people performing these registrations were volunteers, and as such not bound to associate their name with each form.
I think it's pretty clear that invalidating votes based on either of these criteria is sour grapes. It also seems clear to me that neither of these criteria were violated, and as such, the votes count. If you ask me, I think Mr. Pappas is frustrated -- he doesn't understand why bottles of water and free food don't inherently translate into votes. Maybe it's because people disagree with your policy, Mr. Pappas, and you can't by their vote, Steve. I should hope this will be laughed out of court, but we will watch this drama unfold in the near future. I personally wish that Mr. Pappas would accept the will of the voters, even by a slim margin of roughly 2%, and return to his civilian life.
2 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 21 at 11:30 a.m.
"what's it to ya?"
To me, a heterosexual who despises proposition 8, it means quite a lot. For me, it's not about some sort of "guilt", it's about equality for all. I believe all people should be given equal chances. I do not think legislation which discriminates based on sexual orientation is valid. To me, that is as arbitrary as picking any other attribute about someone and saying that attribute disqualifies them from something others in society enjoy. As I've said before, it's not the word, but rather equality. If we want to change the word for all from [civil] marriage to something else, that's fine. But if we aren't going to, then I believe we need to afford marriage to couples, regardless of their sexual orientation. Separate but equal is not the same as equal, in my opinion.
Posted on November 20 at 9:24 a.m.
LMAO ironically enough I misspelled common. Yes, I do have the common sense to spell that right. Usually.
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 20 at 9:22 a.m.
jasonmcd101:
You've posited that marriage is intrinsically linked with reproduction. This is a biblical definition of the word marriage. This is not in any way representative of the civil marriage we are herein discussing. Nothing in the California Family Code says that the ability to have children is a prerequisite for civil marriage. I would suggest that this in and of itself invalidates the argument that marriage is solely for the propagation of our species.
And can you further explain this?
"To say two people of the same sex cannot marry because they have no reproductive potential is just common sense"
It seems plenty of people have no "commen sense", including myself, because this makes NO sense to me. I guess it depends on what you view as the purpose of marriage. Of course, ultimately, it's not what WE deem the purpose of marriage, but rather what the state does -- and as yet I can find nothing implying it is solely for reproductive purposes. People can have kids WITHOUT marriage, can they not? Do they not? Gay people have always had (and will continue to have) relationships whether they can marry or not. Why would we exclude them from the same legal protections as heterosexual couples receive? Is it just the word?
3 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 19 at 1:13 p.m.
drowsysb, good point, i agree with you. It's not acceptance per se, but being allowed to live their life without fear of harm or retribution from others in society or the government itself. Live and let live.
3 of 4 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 19 at 1:02 p.m.
*sigh*
"I decide every day of my life to be of the straight variety. I could choose otherwise, but do not feel that is what is best for my life."
You could choose otherwise? I don't think I could. So I guess you fall in the middle of the scale I mentioned above then? Or did you not look at it?
I don't think you realize it, but what you are saying is actually extremely offensive to me as an ally of the homosexual community, and I would presume for the homosexual community itself. Of COURSE homosexuals want to be accepted. What's wrong with that? Doesn't everyone want to be accepted for who they are? And how does it affect you if homosexuals are treated equally and fairly? And what's wrong with teaching about homosexuality in schools? It's found in hundreds of species in the world, not just humans. It's a natural fact. This includes creatures humans would never say had the cognitive abilities to "choose" their sexual orientation. And ignoring homosexuality doesn't make it go away. it just breeds ignorance, fear, and hatred of an entire group of people. Or at least that's the way I see it.
3 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 19 at 12:21 p.m.
Tell me, PangZhu, when did you decide you were going to be straight?
I know I never made a choice to be straight. It just happened that way.
Have you heard of the Kinsey scale?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scal...
What about the theory of a sliding scale of sexuality in general? While some people do fall in the middle and find themselves attracted to both genders (often labeled as "bisexuals"), most people fall closer to one extreme or the other, and are attracted to those of either the same or opposite sex with no choice in the matter. Homosexuals "choose" to be attracted to people of the same sex in the same way that heterosexuals "choose" to be attracted to the opposite sex: it's innate.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on January 9 at 3:21 p.m.
Coming back full circle (that is, back to the purpose of the article), the only reason Pappas feels it's unfair is that he didn't win. It's only fair if he wins! If he actually cared about the democratic process, he wouldn't try to strip voters' votes for actions they did not have control over. Also, why stop in IV? Why not try to find all the other places in the district where a registration card was held for more than three days? As far as box 12, I already addressed that, but can he really think it's "fair" to strip people of their votes because the person collecting them didn't turn them in within the requisite three days (despite having permission to do so)?
On Pappas Suit Contests 3rd District Election