California Governor

Who should I vote for?

Who is the most logical choice?

>>39
http://boards.4chan.org/b/

>>40
Whitman.  I've been reviewing Brown's economic policies and don't see anything of significance that would actually help California.  I do see a lot of the things that California has been doing thus far and if I have to wager what caused California's sinkhole ...

There are more important things at stake right now than Proposition 8.

>>42
What would Whitman specifically do to help? If it has anything to do with pumping more stimulus money propping up the failing economy, taxing to death the little people, asking the Federal government for more bailout money threatening to cut off welfare entirely and riots in the streets if they don't, and other such nonsense, then I don't want to hear about it.

>>40
Meg whitman.
She's really California's only hope. She's a business woman who can start to clean up the fiscal mess that is CA.
Forget all the prop 8 bullshit and all the side issues. CA's problem is that it's been run like a failing business for the last 30 years.

>>43
Why don't you do a little research and find out. You can see her plans on her website.
Be an informed voter.

>>45
Be an informed voter.
I don't live in California so I cannot vote in this election. Regardless, I'm concerned since California is the most bankrupted state in the entire nation, and there's a rule that whatever happens in California, eventually reaches the rest of the nation (minus the really sustainable states thus far). So instead of being honest with me, you redirect me to her Website, which can say blue pigs fuck while flying in the sky. This leads me to believe my suspicions are correct. Great.

>>40
Brown. The Republicans are an intellectually bankrupt party. The whole reason California has its insane financial crisis is that they are the only state to require a 2/3rd's majority (67%) to raise or cut taxes and TO PASS A FUCKING BUDGET.

The California Dems want to end this fucking stupid 2/3rds requirement but the California Republicans (who happen to have about 35% of the seats in the California State Legislature) don't. The 2/3rds requirement allows 1/3rd of the legislature to fucking everything up. A budget never gets passed because the Republicans wont agree to the tax changes and then they bitch and moan like its the Dems holding up progress.

Schwarzenegger (and Whitman) are the worst thing to happen to California in the last 10 years. Elect Brown and watch California dominate again.

>>47
The Republicans are an intellectually bankrupt party.
The Republicans this, the Democrats that, fuck you, fuck them, and fuck the partisan bullshit. Political parties should be abolished. How's that for fucking progressive thinking huh?

If you just go by the statistics, Democrats have run CA for the last 40 years.
The state is in the toilet....You do the math.

>>47
Yes, it only makes sense to blame the MINORITY party for the states woes..
Just like at the Federal level right? The Dems have complete control and still can't fix things...must be the Republicans fault lol

>>47
California never dominated anything; it was a mess before Schwarzenegger and I've long wondered why it's an origin of any of the sociopolitical ideas that migrate around the country via DC in the first plac (I mean good reasons).  It's primarily a Democrat Party's state and has been since before I was born but that's neither here nor there.  It doesn't matter who dug your state into a hole, it's what actually is the cause of the hole and how to get out of it without tempting to fight fire with fire.  That's tricky, especially in a state that keeps trying to burn itself to the ground.  I'm not voting in hopes of Republicans or Democrats or Independents: I'm voting in hope of an inch of logic.

At this point, the only way any state with finances in the red is pulling their bacon out of the fire is doing nothing of the sort of thing that California has been trying to force for the last forty-fifty years.  Don't focus on parties, focus on individuals and ideas tied to the string of debt; if you find an individual, cut him out, if you find an idea, cast it off.

This is why I always felt that California should be split up into at least two, or more states. It holds way too much political (Jesus, look how many reps you have in the House) power, way too much economic power (the GDP alone rivals many countries), and way too much power on the wider culture, and it's actually killing, not helping your state at all.

I'd say let the southern half become part of Mexico, let the central and northern half be the rest of California, if not, join to become part of Oregon.

>>52
implying CA from Frisco south isn't already part of Aztlan

>>53
implying
http://boards.4chan.org/b/

>>52
>northern half be the rest of California, if not, join to become part of Oregon.

We have our problems here in the Pacific Northwest (Oregon and Washington state) too. Eastern Washington and Eastern Oregon are just as conservative as the fucking Bible belt. Take Northern California, Western Oregon and Western Washington and make a new state: Cascadia. It will have the borders from Ecotopia in the Nine Nations of North America and the name and flag from Cascadia. The rest of California can stay as California and Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington can become a new (red) state: Lincoln.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America#The_Nine_Nations
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29

>>55
(Northern) Californian here. I would endorse this idea if we didn't have the Senate. As it is now, CA/OR/WA have six senators who are all Democrats. If we made that Cascadia state, there would be three states: California (without Northern Cali), Cascadia, and Lincoln. Without the the liberal centers in CA/OR/WA, California and Lincoln would elect 4 republicans while Cascadia would elect 2 Democrats. Sorry brah. We can't let the stupid get any more power.

>>56
>Implying LA and huge population centers won't offset the rest of the rural state population in California

Eastern OR/WA (Lincoln) would pretty much be a goner though.

>>56
I thought we had already transitioned this thread beyond stupid party rhetoric.  Vote based on what will help in the long run and against what will hurt in the long run.

Besides, you could have phrased that concern better.  You make it sound like Democrats are being elected in those states because their constituents don't have the majority vote throughout their respective states.  (My first variation on the former sentence was "A Democratic tumor in a Republican body ... if you break it up it doesn't matter anymore" but I removed it because it sounded too hostile.  I still feel I should apologize for it.)

>>58
I thought we had already transitioned this thread beyond stupid party rhetoric.

Political parties publish a platform of their stances on various issues and anyone who aligns them self with a political party generally aligns themselves with that party's stances on the issues. No country in the world functions without political parties. Don't undermine legitimate criticism of a party's positions as "party rhetoric".

tl;dr - Fuck off you ignorant faggot.

Political parties publish a platform of their stances on various issues and anyone who aligns them self with a political party generally aligns themselves with that party's stances on the issues.
I'd like to hope that it's actually the other way around.  You know, rather than "I'm a Democrat therefore I must believe this this and this" it's "I believe this this and this and the Democratic party shares my belief on (most of) those things too."

Besides, re-read >>56 and my criticism.
We can't let the stupid [Republicans] get any more power.
That's not objective criticism in the least.  Breaking up the state of California is not the most orthodox solution to determining the root of California's problem's or mitigating the damage potential it has on the rest of the country and may not work anyway, but his argument of opposition is biased in the same selfish ways that have mired politics forever.
Not the kind of thing you want to do when facing those endgame situations that have brought sturdy countries to their knees in the past.

Both the Repubs and the Dem. parties are going through major transitions at the moment.
The Dems have been co-opted by Communists or "Progressives", as they like to be called now.
The Repubs are currently shedding the religious right in favor of a more Libertarian stance. Freedom for all on social issues ie, "Who gives a shit if gays want to marry?.." and emphasis on the free market.

>>55
I like the idea, and I can see a balkanization of the United States at some point. I disagree with Detroit being the capital city of The Foundry though. But I give the author slack as this was postulated back in 1981.

>>57
>Implying
http://boards.4chan.org/b/

>>58
Fuck off you ignorant faggot
Rude. Back to /b/.

>>60
Breaking up the state of California is not the most orthodox solution to determining the root of California's problem's or mitigating the damage potential it has on the rest of the country and may not work anyway
True, but I would say that throughout history, what brought down most empires and grand unions was economic bankruptcy, political in-fighting and instability is a symptom of that. "No, it's your fault!" "NO! IT'S YOUR FAULT WE'RE IN THIS MESS!", etc.

>>61
I agree. It's basically boils down to whether or not you believe in statism.

Sorry, I meant to cite >>59 not >>58 in >>62.

It's too late anyway. Maybe the rest of California is fine, but Southern California is gone.