What state has the worst collection of politicians?

[Seano]

Arguing along partisan lines is ridiculously stupid in this debate, but one thing I will say as a general truth about Democrats is that they get so preoccupied with giving away food they sometimes forget to build farms.

Nice paragraph.

 

[Gunny]

I'd say my own state - Illinois - puts them all to shame. I realize that TS meant this as a thread to kvetch about people you disagree with but the thouroughly entrenched corruption in Illinois (mostly at the state and municipal level) is so much worse than just people with different ideologies

 

[PainIsLIfe]

There have now been like 8 posters here who have said California or vaguely proffered that Democrats are just as bad or worse, yet still not a single poster has been able to name names and justify their mention.

Interesting.

I thought you wanted the state with the worst politicians? Not sure why you want names to determine that when it seems that we only need to look at policies enacted or the amount of corruption prosecuted to determine that.

Illinois has by far the largest number of prosecutions among politicians while Cali has the most egregious laws - 'it's ok to not tell sexual partners that you have AIDs'; 'don't bother to put on clothes, just put a towel under your ass', FFS it took them til 2012 to pass a law against prison workers having sex with inmates.

 

[punkmother]

You don’t need fed money when you tax the shit out of everything in the state.

Gots to pay for our awesome 70 billion dollar high speed bullet train connecting SF to LA that lives in Governor Moonbeams head somehow. Never mind the homeless population out of control, roads and infrastructure falling apart, we’ll just make some other taxes to pay for that too. Just got our new gas tax increase so we now pay 41 cents a gallon in taxes on gas.

AB-109, prop 47, prop 57, just rampant dumbassery abounds.

you love locking people up for minor crime?

honestly, i had to look these up to appease my curiosity. prop 47 and 57 deal exclusively with non-violent crimes; one puts them on a path for early release if they comply with a rehabilitation program and the other reduces some felonies to misdemeanors. I read the list and wouldn't be at all against classifying property crimes below $950.00 as misdemeanors.

on ab-109, i don't know enough about the relationship between the doj and the counties but on its face it seems like a less than terrible idea. released parolees become the responsibility of local law enforcement rather than the state.

what exactly is your problem with these statutes?

the one law out of california i have the biggest problem with is the condom prop, requiring condoms on all porn sets in the state.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

you love locking people up for minor crime?

honestly, i had to look these up to appease my curiosity. prop 47 and 57 deal exclusively with non-violent crimes; one puts them on a path for early release if they comply with a rehabilitation program and the other reduces some felonies to misdemeanors. I read the list and wouldn't be at all against classifying property crimes below $950.00 as misdemeanors.

on ab-109, i don't know enough about the relationship between the doj and the counties but on its face it seems like a less than terrible idea. released parolees become the responsibility of local law enforcement rather than the state.

what exactly is your problem with these statutes?

the one law out of california i have the biggest problem with is the condom prop, requiring condoms on all porn sets in the state.

Look deeper. They reclassified things like “rape of an unconscious victim” as a “non-violent” crime so they could save even more money.

They also were super transparent by naming the bills things like “the safe schools and streets act” cause when I think safe schools and streets I think releasing convicts early and reclassifying felonies as misdemeanors.

There are entire threads on all of these I believe so I won’t bother filling this thread up with all the dumbassery those things entail but suffice it to say, they are truly terrible and stupid.

 

[punkmother]

Look deeper. They reclassified things like “rape of an unconscious victim” as a “non-violent” crime so they could save even more money.

They also were super transparent by naming the bills things like “the safe schools and streets act” cause when I think safe schools and streets I think releasing convicts early and reclassifying felonies as misdemeanors.

There are entire threads on all of these I believe so I won’t bother filling this thread up with all the dumbassery those things entail but suffice it to say, they are truly terrible and stupid.

this thread looks about dead anyways at this point.

everything i can find, including the government website, pretty clearly states that offenders with convictions regarding sex crimes will not be able to appeal for a reduced sentence.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/news/prop47.html

i think you may be referring to a nebulous hypothetical rather than the written law itself. like, 'what if sex criminal is granted a plea deal for some lesser charge and then gets a reduced sentence based off that charge?'

federally, i can state, they do a pretty good job at fucking you during sentencing. oftentimes, once convicted, the sentence is based on the initial (and more severe) charge rather than the final conviction. that is how you end up with some of the insanely long terms for seemingly minor-ish offenses. no idea how this plays out in a local or state courtroom though.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

this thread looks about dead anyways at this point.

everything i can find, including the government website, pretty clearly states that offenders with convictions regarding sex crimes will not be able to appeal for a reduced sentence.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/news/prop47.html

i think you may be referring to a nebulous hypothetical rather than the written law itself. like, 'what if sex criminal is granted a plea deal for some lesser charge and then gets a reduced sentence based off that charge?'

federally, i can state, they do a pretty good job at fucking you during sentencing. oftentimes, once convicted, the sentence is based on the initial (and more severe) charge rather than the final conviction. that is how you end up with some of the insanely long terms for seemingly minor-ish offenses. no idea how this plays out in a local or state courtroom though.

https://www.laadda.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Facts-About-Prop-57-Detailed-Analysis.pdf

 

[punkmother]

https://www.laadda.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Facts-About-Prop-57-Detailed-Analysis.pdf

ok, i'll read up on prop 57. i thought you were referring to prop 47 which classified some felonies as misdemeanors.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

ok, i'll read up on prop 57. i thought you were referring to prop 47 which classified some felonies as misdemeanors.

Was referring to all 3 as they are all in the same vein of putting criminals back on the street in the interest of saving money for the state.

 

[punkmother]

Look deeper. They reclassified things like “rape of an unconscious victim” as a “non-violent” crime so they could save even more money.

They also were super transparent by naming the bills things like “the safe schools and streets act” cause when I think safe schools and streets I think releasing convicts early and reclassifying felonies as misdemeanors.

There are entire threads on all of these I believe so I won’t bother filling this thread up with all the dumbassery those things entail but suffice it to say, they are truly terrible and stupid.

ok, prop 57 did not reclassify anything. it simply states that if a convict has served the full term of their primary offense, completes an approved rehabilitation program and is approved by the board they can be released into supervision/parole. in the state of california, the act you are talkin about, "rape of an unconscious person," isn't and wasn't considered a violent crime. but that is irrelevant to prop 57. and here is the kicker, the person who committed that act was already eligible for early release under previous regulations. all prop 57 does is define how the person earns their early release.

california should be looking at an amendment to the definition of "violent crime," but that is separate issue unrelated to prop 57.

 

[punkmother]

Was referring to all 3 as they are all in the same vein of putting criminals back on the street in the interest of saving money for the state.

well prop 47 strictly forbids those convicted of sex crimes the ability to appeal for a reduced conviction.

ab-109 just defines who's problem the parolee is; local law enforcement or state.

and as i just posted, prop 57 simply redefines how an inmate earns their early release but doesn't change who is eligible. the crime you used as an example was already defined in california as "non-violent." that's the issue, now prop 57 itself.

 

[punkmother]

i can't believe i am defending anything regarding california, btw. all californians have ever done for me is add to misery and traffic here in the pnw.

 

[boomertx]

There have now been like 8 posters here who have said California or vaguely proffered that Democrats are just as bad or worse, yet still not a single poster has been able to name names and justify their mention.

Interesting.

Well, Cali is one of the states in the worst financial condition. I think they're ranked somewhere in the mid 40's. Who keeps it in that condition? Politicians.

Who's husband's company is in line to receive a contract on high speed rail? Feinstein I think.

That's just a couple that come to mind.