How are you voting? Props 1-6

[H Roark]

PROP 1A: SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT.

PROP 2: STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

PROP 3: CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOND ACT. GRANT PROGRAM. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

PROP 4: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

PROP 5: NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

PROP 6: POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING. CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Pulled these off of: http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/
You can read more about each of them there.

(Thanks frankdog)

[H Roark]

I'm sort of conflicted on Prop. 2, which is why I didn't cast a vote on that choice.

On one hand I see this as the state burdening private business with regulations that will drive up the cost of eggs and require farmers the costly expense of re-equipping their encagements.

On the other hand, I do think it is inhumane to not allow an animal the minimal comfort of at least stretching out its limbs and being able to completely turn around. Hmmm, now that I've written this out I'm starting to lean towards Yes...

[blocks]

I'm voting no on all of these ones except Prop 4 and Prop 5.

Prop 4 is common sense to me. Schools need parental permission to give a minor an aspirin. Yet doctors performing a major surgical procedure don't even need to notify anyone in the family?

Prop 5 has its problems. I don't like the idea of government running rehab programs and taxpayers footing the bill. On the other hand, it's cheaper than prison and it's a big step towards decriminalizing non-violent drug offenses. For instance, it make possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, an infraction opposed to its current status as a misdemeanor. An infraction is comparable to a traffic violation.

[tremendoustie]

1A: Heck no.
2: I'm probably going to vote yes on this one, actually. The question is, does government have the right to protect the rights of animals to any extent, as well as humans. Should animals be treated as only property, to be used however the owner prefers, or do they have at least some rights -- some subset of human rights? I think they do have some rights, so I think this is legit.
3: No.
4: Yes, I'm pro-life
5: Yes, absolutely
6: No.

[danberkeley]

how come you didnt include props 7-12?

[H Roark]

how come you didnt include props 7-12?

See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=164907

[danberkeley]

See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=164907

oh ok :)

[H Roark]

Prop 5 has its problems. I don't like the idea of government running rehab programs and taxpayers footing the bill. On the other hand, it's cheaper than prison and it's a big step towards decriminalizing non-violent drug offenses. For instance, it make possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, an infraction opposed to its current status as a misdemeanor. An infraction is comparable to a traffic violation.

+1

I saw a commercial yesterday with the whore Senator Feinstein advocating a NO vote on Prop 5! LOL, as if she still holds any sway after she spit in the face of all her constituents by voting in favor of the bailout twice! I hope they keep airing those Feinstien commercials, its only going to drive more people to vote YES.

[fr33domfightr]

I'd like to respectfully disagree on the vote on Proposition 1A. Here are some comments I've written in our local meetup:


I admire Tom's work to attempt to bring fiscal discipline to the California. It's unfortunate that he had so many liberals in Sacramento. I beg to differ on one of his positions, that of Prop. 1A. On this proposition, we should vote YES.

It's true, it will be expensive, but to suggest it will cost $90 billion is beyond exageration. Since the origination of the High Speed Rail Authority was begun under Gray Davis, this Authority has put in much time and effort into the planning of this rail project. Many studies have been performed, and based on those studies, along with information from other high speed trains systems in France, Germany, and Japan, it has been proven to be self sufficient, unlike Amtrak, which most are basing their decisions on. The routes were carefully crafted to service as many people as possible, while still being environmentally friendly (to environmentalists). The main (and first) route, from Los Angeles to San Francisco, is one of the most heavily traveled points by air. The problem with air travel is, our airports are already getting close to being maxed out in capacity. That means, in order to meet future demand, we must either build more runways, or build more airports. In Orange County, we know what happened to El Toro Marine Base, right? On top of that, when you go to an airport, you must arrive 2-3 hours PRIOR to departure. Hello, this train will get you to San Francisco about the time you'll be boarding your flight in Los Angeles!! On top of that, the trains will be electric, so they're environmentally friendly whether you believe in Global Warming or not. One more thing I'd like to add, an expansion of the main route will bring these trains into Orange County. One of the main destinations from Orange County is downtown Los Angeles. This train will run from Anaheim to Union Station in 20 minutes!!

I don't know about you, but I and my friends have read about high speed trains going to Las Vegas, but those plans have all been put on hold. One day, that route too will be a reality, but we must start somewhere. Japan has had High Speed Train service since 1963! Don't you think we too should finally at least move into the 20th century, since we're already in the 21st century?!?!?!

I know it may not be totally fair to blame ourselves for not doing this sooner. After all, our political leaders of the past wrongly decided it was best to forever subordinate other countries into being totally defended by the United States. This mistake has cost us greatly in the state of our infrastructure. Even Ron Paul stated this, as he talked about our bridges falling down here.

Proposition 1A was scheduled to be put on the ballot 2 times in the past, but our current Governor had it pulled, first to get the budget straight, then after he leaned LEFT, and put every bond measure in existence on the ballot. I understand we have budget issues that need to be worked out. If I had the power, I'd make the cuts necessary to have a balanced budget, and still support Proposition 1A.

If we fail to pass Proposition 1A, it will be the end to any high speed rail in this state. It will be over, period!

Should we pass Proposition 1A, you can look forward to more many more jobs in California, and show the country that California is once again leading the way in environmentally green technology!

Please consider this issue very seriously!! The time is now or never!!

Please vote YES on Proposition 1A.



I'll leave you with a few web links to read more about this. Look them over to verify for yourself what I stated above.

Here is the link for your own California High Speed Rail Authority

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/


Here is the link for Wikipedia on the subject of High Speed Rail around the globe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_speed_rail

************************************************** ************************************************** ********

Someone replied to my comments, so I had to respond to those as well [FF].

Here is the follow up:


From: XXXX

Hello fr33domfightr. XXXX here: Why would you consider government -- at any level, competent to handle such undertaking? All existing projects and "services" of the government require taxpayer subsidies to make ends meet. IF there was sufficient demand for this rail service, don't you think that some dirty, greedy capitalist would form a corporation and seek investors with interests in making profit on their investment? Without the profit motive, those who are in charge of operations -- who have NO accountability to the "investors" -- the taxpayers, waste such large amounts of money that if there ever was some chance of running the operation at a "break even" cost, it never happens.

Governments, by definition do not "make jobs" -- the "government" is just the intermediary between the employer -- the taxpayer, and the service provider and the "mark up" that they must demand is equal to their demand for additional tax payer money to make up for the difference between operating costs and the new, inflated costs of "government" and the money received as income from the operation.

The whole thrust of the Ron Paul liberty movement is to cut the size of government -- NOT to add more functions that properly belong in the private sector. Socialism is where all the means of production and services are in the hands of government. Is THAT what you want?




Hi XXXX,

Thanks for the comments. I know we don't know each other too well, as we've only really seen each other at sign waving events. Let me just say, that I consider myself quite conservative, and lean much in the Libertarian direction.

Having said that, I totally understand what you're saying. I don't have a lot of faith in government to do much of anything correctly. Unfortunately, we must deal with the hand that has been dealt to us. As such, the government in place now, is the entity we must deal with. This means, that should any private company wish to build a high speed train in California, they'll require coordination and approval from every transportation authority, affected City, County, State regulators, Federal regulators, and concerned citizens. They'll be faced with huge capital costs, regulations that could block them at every turn, no guarantee of environmental approval (after expending capital), plus the knowledge that a project of this magnitude will take decades to build, with no "return on investment," until completion.

That's a burden NO private company would be willing to take, since they've got to show something at least a year or two after capital infusion. This project is similar in scope to an interstate highway project. It will take many years to complete, but with the commitment by our government (at all levels), and the people, it can be completed.

The California High Speed Rail Authority has been working on this since 1996. From what I've seen, I must give the authority credit for all they have done on this project. When I first learned about the authority several years ago, I've followed their progress, and I personally put in my public input at every phase. They've been very open about their process, getting public comment at every stage. I truly feel the authority has done as much as they could on this project. It is now time to put our money where our mouths are, so to speak. Much of the planning, environmental work, and local government commitment has already been completed and secured. This project now needs OUR commitment.

By voting and passing Proposition 1A, we will begin the process of building a High Speed Train in California. The work and funding for the California High Speed Rail Authority has shown a commitment on the part of the legislature, even though funding has been difficult. The work of the Authority has shown their desire to do the necessary footwork to secure the regulatory approvals, showing private companies that they can safely bid on subparts of this project without fear of losing investor capital. By passing Proposition 1A, we, the people of this state, show our commitment as well. This commitment will translate into Federal matching funds, which should further prove the government commitment to the completion of this project, which will further drive private investment in this project.

At this moment in time, in October 2008, California is in an extremely good position to receive Federal investment in infrastructure projects. When the Congress and Senate hear about our passing Proposition 1A, it will be one of the first to receive Federal dollars toward completion of this project. This can't be ignored!!

I don't like the Feds printing up money any more than you do, but right now, we can't stop those printing presses. The Congress stated today, that they feel infrastructure projects will help get the country moving again. Whether its true or not can be debated later. Let's get those dollars in OUR state. California taxpayers have been paying more IN to the Federal government over the years, it's about time we get a little of that money back.

For these reasons, I strongly urge you all to vote YES on Proposition 1A.


I strongly stand by these comments.


FF

[timosman]

California Governor Says He's Dropping High-Speed Rail Plan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531457-California-Governor-Says-He-s-Dropping-High-Speed-Rail-Plan

[dannno]

For these reasons, I strongly urge you all to vote YES on Proposition 1A.


I strongly stand by these comments.


FF

Womp womp

[oyarde]

High speed rail to bakersfield making california great.

[timosman]

Womp womp

What a difference can 10 years make. The extent of the 2008 financial crisis must have not been quite visible during the 2008 voting season. :D

[TheTexan]

I voted :cool:

Thanks for poll!

[timosman]

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/california_further_proves_that_public_highspeed_ra il_projects_are_stupid.html


February 13, 2019

Reality has a sense of timing in asserting itself, it seems, and it has chosen to mercilessly mock the radical leftist proponents of the newly proposed Green New Deal.

California governor Gavin Newsom has now abandoned the high-speed railway that would have linked Los Angeles and San Francisco. The ballot measure was proposed in 2008, then estimated to cost $33 billion, with an expected completion date of 2020. Before being scrapped, the expected cost to complete the railway was $77 billion, and the timeline for completion stretched to 2033.

"Let's be real," Newsom told his audience. "The current project, as planned, would cost too much and, respectfully, take too long. There's been too little oversight and not enough transparency."

California committed to a bloated government program that lacks oversight and transparency? You don't say.

This particular project involved one high-speed railway connecting two cities less than 400 miles apart. Construction of this railway began in 2013, and we have to imagine that, given what we've seen, a completion date of 2033 and a price tag of $77 billion is a wildly generous expectation.

And yet, such public high-speed rail projects will undoubtedly continue to be the magic beans of the Green New Deal.

"It's here! Green New Deal calls for national high-speed rail!" says the elated Daily Kos, brandishing a picture of an elaborate network of railways, consisting of thousands upon thousands of miles of track connecting major American cities.

There's a delicious irony in the Daily Kos publishing this diary touting the "concrete, real, and achievable" goal of a "National HSR Network" on the exact same day that California, the state most representative of big-government progressivism that leftists desire, declared that its own little high-speed rail project of just a few hundred miles cost too much, took too long to build, and was plagued by "too little oversight" and "not enough transparency."

Sure, we can expect that the revelation won't make a dent with them. Remember when leftists held up Venezuela as the sterling standard of socialism a few short years ago, only to now claim that it actually didn't do socialism right, and that's why it collapsed? Expect the same thing here. California just didn't do high-speed rail right. What we need to do is spend trillions more, build an even bigger network of railways with thousands of miles of track, and have the whole program managed by an even bigger bloated bureaucracy.

We needed high-speed rail yesterday, they argue, and it doesn't matter how much it costs. After all, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says Millennials are "like, the world is going to end in 12 years, and your biggest problem is how we're going to pay for it?"

So let's play along and listen to their pitch for high-speed rail.

Well, firstly, the trains will all run on good ol'-fashioned electricity. That's okay, because we've got wind and solar power now, which is increasingly accounting for a greater share of electricity generation, says the Daily Kos. Except...

Fossil fuels alone accounted for 78% of all American energy production in 2016. When it comes to electricity, specifically, fossil fuels and nuclear power generate 83% of it, with hydropower creating the largest share of the remainder. Solar and wind combined represent just 7.6% of electrical power in America.

So the logical question a person might ask is this: wouldn't this massive network of thousands of trains, running 24/7 over thousands of miles, require substantially more electricity, which will require substantially more fossil fuels to power, in a practical sense?

They have an answer for that: "Increase solar and wind subsidies!" The problem is, it's not for the government's lack of having tried for it to be otherwise that fossil fuels dominate energy production — non-fossil fuels happen to already enjoy 93% of these already massive government subsidies to prop up their negligible impact in the energy marketplace.

You know the solution to that, don't you? We need to spend more money that our government doesn't have to subsidize wind and solar at an even greater level.

The stupidity of this stuff doesn't stop there.

It's the open aim of high-speed rail proponents that these trains would reduce the need for air travel. They're not nearly as worried about cars, because "electrification is coming for cars, trucks, and buses," but "no battery or fuel cell is going to fly anyone across the Pacific anytime soon." Of course, every car, truck, and bus running on electricity would require their addressing the problem I described above, but no need to revisit that.

Let's consider instead how well high-speed rail would do as an alternative to air travel.

Think of the logistics. Every day, the FAA directs over 2.5 million air travelers, on 43,000 flights, "covering 29 million miles of airspace." Expecting that high-speed rail could transport that many travelers to as many destinations, let alone as efficiently, is nothing short of a fantasy.

Airplanes and passengers are not limited to the physical limitations of the railway infrastructure as to where they can go. Where you can build a suitable landing strip and an airport, a plane and its passengers can typically go, whereas a train can only go to and through those places where you happen to have built all that expensive track.

Coordination of air traffic three-dimensionally in our vast airspace is also much simpler than coordinating traffic on railways, which, again, are subject to the directional and functional limitations of the infrastructure required to move them.

Then there's the more general efficiency of air travel.

First, let's state the obvious. The fastest high-speed trains in the world travel at speeds of 200 to 250 mph. The average cruising speed of a commercial jet is 540 mph. That alone would make my trip from Los Angeles to New York twice as long, but you'd have to account for the fact that my train ride would also be riddled with stops along the way to shuffle people on and off at numerous waypoints.

And God forbid you miss your train. Your options would be limited to waiting for the next train, because there is only one path to reach your destination.

Compare that to missing a flight. You would have ample options available. You could wait, maybe several hours or overnight, for the next plane, or, more likely, the airline would fly you to any number of logical waypoints to reach your destination more quickly. You could fly to Chicago or Denver or Houston — whichever had the shortest layover.

In short, there is nothing about high-speed rail that makes it a suitable alternative to air travel.

Railways are, and will continue to be, in use where it is practical to use them. The problem with this radical leftist proposal to spend trillions of dollars on an expansive network of high-speed rail is that there's nothing practical about it.

In truth, high-speed rail is a just a stupid pipe dream, and enviro-socialists are demanding that you pay for the privilege of having it rammed down your throat. If California's experiment is any measure, it will cost you substantially more than the initially proposed price, and it will benefit very few. If it's ever even built, that is.

[timosman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_1A





Choice

Votes

%


Yes

6,680,485

52.6


No

6,015,944

47.4


Valid votes

12,696,429

92.4


Invalid or blank votes

1,046,748

7.6


Total votes

13,743,177

100.0


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/CA2008Prop1A.svg