- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: St George organizers fail to get enough signatures for Nov vote
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:19 pm to Sprocket46
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:19 pm to Sprocket46
I've been reading these topics for weeks now when they pop up and I've never responded. This has spurred me to make an account just to reply.
The majority of your posts that I've seen are 2 things: 1)rehashing nonsensical "facts" that aren't facts at all 2) Posting a list of things that Russian has said that you think wins you arguments, despite his polite responses to the list you keep posting.
It is very silly, but most importantly, it is boring. Get some new material. It makes lurking less amusing when petty shite gets repetitive.
On another note, I would wonder if it is possible to challenge petition signatures on ethical grounds as it has been witnessed that petition gatherers/volunteers are misrepresenting the actual petition. The petition is supporting the incorporation of SG, notthe right to vote on the issue. If people were misled to think that all the petition does is "bring it to a vote" then they need to be expunged as those signatures are not in good faith towards what the petition actually says. I get the feeling that a chunk of people signed because the "right to vote" is something they want to have while not understanding how petitions actually work. And unfortunately some SG volunteers have been quoted to using this line of thinking in order to drum up more signatures. Which is ethically wrong.
The majority of your posts that I've seen are 2 things: 1)rehashing nonsensical "facts" that aren't facts at all 2) Posting a list of things that Russian has said that you think wins you arguments, despite his polite responses to the list you keep posting.
It is very silly, but most importantly, it is boring. Get some new material. It makes lurking less amusing when petty shite gets repetitive.
On another note, I would wonder if it is possible to challenge petition signatures on ethical grounds as it has been witnessed that petition gatherers/volunteers are misrepresenting the actual petition. The petition is supporting the incorporation of SG, notthe right to vote on the issue. If people were misled to think that all the petition does is "bring it to a vote" then they need to be expunged as those signatures are not in good faith towards what the petition actually says. I get the feeling that a chunk of people signed because the "right to vote" is something they want to have while not understanding how petitions actually work. And unfortunately some SG volunteers have been quoted to using this line of thinking in order to drum up more signatures. Which is ethically wrong.
1
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:30 pm to Barrymanalow
quote:
On another note, I would wonder if it is possible to challenge petition signatures on ethical grounds as it has been witnessed that petition gatherers/volunteers are misrepresenting the actual petition. The petition is supporting the incorporation of SG, notthe right to vote on the issue. If people were misled to think that all the petition does is "bring it to a vote" then they need to be expunged as those signatures are not in good faith towards what the petition actually says. I get the feeling that a chunk of people signed because the "right to vote" is something they want to have while not understanding how petitions actually work. And unfortunately some SG volunteers have been quoted to using this line of thinking in order to drum up more signatures. Which is ethically wrong.
Excuse me sir, but I don't follow your logic here.
The vote can only be taken if enough people sign the petition. If they do not sign there will be no vote.
And if they do sign that doesn't mean they can't vote against incorporstion either.
So I really don't know what your point is.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:31 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
We've all been pissed at one point or another, but there are a few people who routinely spread misinformation and call opponents names when called out on it. Its certainly an issue that people are passionate about, either for or against.
I was being "diplomatic"
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:32 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
Are you seriously saying that we weren't dismissed from the legislature because we weren't a city? I've never heard ANYONE question that.
Correct. There's no legal requirement to be a city. The partisan democrats that voted against it will never support it. Never.
Show me these swing voters in the legislature that said they only vote for districts if they are cities.
Give names.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:37 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
There's no legal requirement to be a city. The partisan democrats that voted against it will never support it. Never.
Show me these swing voters in the legislature that said they only vote for districts if they are cities.
This. That was a good excuse to vote against the school district. I think the black caucus will make this a top issue. This is barrier number 1.
Unfortunately barrier number 2 will be the eventual lawsuit. Not a fan of this, but I see it coming.
I doubt St. George happens in next 10 years (the school district, the city has a better shot).
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:57 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Correct. There's no legal requirement to be a city. The partisan democrats that voted against it will never support it. Never. Show me these swing voters in the legislature that said they only vote for districts if they are cities. Give names.
You may be correct in saying the partisan Dems would never vote for this and you may be correct in saying the law doesn't require SG to become a city to get a school district; however, in the real world Bogalusa, Monroe, Baker, Zachary, and Central are all ISDs inside parishes with parish wide school systems and they are all municipalities.
I see other districts such as the RSD, but none for unincorporated areas only.
So while the law may allow a district that isn't based in a city, the real world says otherwise.
But I'm not really hell bent on having a city of SG. I would gladly drop the incorporation in exchange for our ISD.
What say you?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:58 pm to Asgard Device
I understand that their is no legal requirement. I am Telling You what is the opponents in the legislature said.
LINK
quote:
Correct. There's no legal requirement to be a city. The partisan democrats that voted against it will never support it. Never.
Show me these swing voters in the legislature that said they only vote for districts if they are cities.
Give names.
LINK
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:02 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
Are you seriously saying that we weren't dismissed from the legislature because we weren't a city? I've never heard ANYONE question that.
I am pretty sure I have posted that on here at least twice. Now you can choose not to believe me, which is totally fine since it's just my opinion. No politician has come out and said "I using not being a city as an excuse to vote against it, but I really just don't like the idea and was too cowardly to admit it." Though I suspect you might be waiting awhile.
Moral of the story, don't trust what politicians say, trust what they do (and even then don't trust it 100%).
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:04 pm to Sprocket46
So you base all this on what Sharon Broome said? 
Are you truly so gullible as to believe that the black caucus will change their vote when the city is formed?
Like I said, show me the swing voter.
Are you truly so gullible as to believe that the black caucus will change their vote when the city is formed?
Like I said, show me the swing voter.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:21 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
So you base all this on what Sharon Broome said?
You challenged someone to find a link of someone besides Bodi White who said SG needed to be a city and the gentleman did.
He found one of the leaders of the anti SG crowd.
Now who are the swing voters? Maybe no one. Maybe people are playing politics and won't commit unless there is a city of SG.I don't know, but we might find out if push comes to shove.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:38 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
So you base all this on what Sharon Broome said?
Are you truly so gullible as to believe that the black caucus will change their vote when the city is formed?
Like I said, show me the swing voter.
You're changing the argument, and reverting to name calling again. You told me to prove that someone in the legislature told us to form a city. I did. I never mentioned voting once. I simply stated the relation between St.George, and incorporation, as it relates to our experience in the legislature.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:39 pm to doubleb
Right, let me try to explain it better.
Signing the petition for SG means that the individual signing the petition is in favor of the creation of a new city. Now, with enough of these people there will come a vote for the proposed area to reach a simple majority in order to form a new city.
This is inherently different than proposing that people sign the petition in order to have a vote. The way that some SG volunteers have framed the idea of signing it is that even if you don't agree with the formation of SG, you get to vote "against" it in the ballot box.
There is a disconnect between the two ideas. The representation of the 18k+ signatures should be representative of 18k+ people that are for the formation of a new city. Notfor the opportunity to vote on it.
In other words, the 18k+ signatures need to all be people that want SG and are not sold the idea that the petition = right to vote. That isn't what petitions are.
Signing the petition for SG means that the individual signing the petition is in favor of the creation of a new city. Now, with enough of these people there will come a vote for the proposed area to reach a simple majority in order to form a new city.
This is inherently different than proposing that people sign the petition in order to have a vote. The way that some SG volunteers have framed the idea of signing it is that even if you don't agree with the formation of SG, you get to vote "against" it in the ballot box.
There is a disconnect between the two ideas. The representation of the 18k+ signatures should be representative of 18k+ people that are for the formation of a new city. Notfor the opportunity to vote on it.
In other words, the 18k+ signatures need to all be people that want SG and are not sold the idea that the petition = right to vote. That isn't what petitions are.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:50 pm to Barrymanalow
I disagree with your "thesis.
What do the undecided do?
Some might not be opposed to an election where the run up to the election will provide ample opportunity for both sides to prove their points.
They might sign believing they can vote for or against later.
But I do understand your point, I would guess most people who have signed or FOR SG. I'd bet over 90%, but there is no way to prove that.
What do the undecided do?
Some might not be opposed to an election where the run up to the election will provide ample opportunity for both sides to prove their points.
They might sign believing they can vote for or against later.
But I do understand your point, I would guess most people who have signed or FOR SG. I'd bet over 90%, but there is no way to prove that.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 4:02 pm to doubleb
Disagreements are perfectly fine. But I find it intellectually dishonest to not grasp the premise of the concept of petition.
Undecideds are just that. They should not be coerced into signing under a false premise of "right to vote". That is what makes it ethically unsound. If they are undecided then they ideally would continue to wait until they are convinced to sign by the proponents with current arguments. I would argue that there has been "ample" opportunity.
And I can see that a reasonable person would guess towards that figure, but that does not mean that volunteers who have used this tactic should not be under scrutiny, or had their lists reviewed again. If and when it is going to happen, it needs to happen the right way.
Undecideds are just that. They should not be coerced into signing under a false premise of "right to vote". That is what makes it ethically unsound. If they are undecided then they ideally would continue to wait until they are convinced to sign by the proponents with current arguments. I would argue that there has been "ample" opportunity.
And I can see that a reasonable person would guess towards that figure, but that does not mean that volunteers who have used this tactic should not be under scrutiny, or had their lists reviewed again. If and when it is going to happen, it needs to happen the right way.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 4:20 pm to Barrymanalow
I checked around and yes, the city is going to sue to stop the incorporation. At first I was flabbergasted because this only turns people against the city-parish, but after given some of the reasons why I sort of understand.
Apparently, the St. George politicians have been collecting money to run a political campaign to effect change in policy or law. However, they have done so as a private, for-profit business - and are not disclosing their financials.
The La Board of Ethics is part of the political machine that is bankrolling LR3 and senator Boss Hogg, so they will not go after the St. George organizers. However, they have set a precedent already by going after teachers who donated money to a group that was trying to get a petition filled out. The petition in question was to recall Jindal. They've interpreted the law to be very discretionary.
There were other reasons given. One SG "community organizer" used his position as head of the union at the fire dept to campaign, on public property. There's one incident where a firefighter allegedly felt pressured to help out even though he was against it.
The courts will have to hear this one out, so yeah, it'll be tied up in court. I'd actually rather it go to a vote.
Apparently, the St. George politicians have been collecting money to run a political campaign to effect change in policy or law. However, they have done so as a private, for-profit business - and are not disclosing their financials.
The La Board of Ethics is part of the political machine that is bankrolling LR3 and senator Boss Hogg, so they will not go after the St. George organizers. However, they have set a precedent already by going after teachers who donated money to a group that was trying to get a petition filled out. The petition in question was to recall Jindal. They've interpreted the law to be very discretionary.
There were other reasons given. One SG "community organizer" used his position as head of the union at the fire dept to campaign, on public property. There's one incident where a firefighter allegedly felt pressured to help out even though he was against it.
The courts will have to hear this one out, so yeah, it'll be tied up in court. I'd actually rather it go to a vote.
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 4:27 pm
Posted on 7/23/14 at 4:23 pm to Barrymanalow
quote:
Right, let me try to explain it better.
Signing the petition for SG means that the individual signing the petition is in favor of the creation of a new city. Now, with enough of these people there will come a vote for the proposed area to reach a simple majority in order to form a new city.
This is inherently different than proposing that people sign the petition in order to have a vote. The way that some SG volunteers have framed the idea of signing it is that even if you don't agree with the formation of SG, you get to vote "against" it in the ballot box.
There is a disconnect between the two ideas. The representation of the 18k+ signatures should be representative of 18k+ people that are for the formation of a new city. Notfor the opportunity to vote on it.
In other words, the 18k+ signatures need to all be people that want SG and are not sold the idea that the petition = right to vote. That isn't what petitions are.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 4:28 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
checked around and yes, the city is going to sue to stop the incorporation. At first I was flabbergasted because this only turns people against the city-parish, but after given some of the reasons why I sort of understand. Apparently, the St. George politicians have been collecting money to run a political campaign to effect change in policy or law. However, they have done so as a private, for-profit business - and are not disclosing their financials. The La Board of Ethics is part of the political machine that is bankrolling LR3 and senator Boss Hogg, so they will not go after the St. George organizers. However, they have set a precedent already by going after teachers who donated money to a group that was trying to get a petition filled out. The petition in question was to recall Jindal. They've interpreted the law to be very discretionary. The courts will have to hear this one out, so yeah, it'll be tied up in court. I'd actually rather it go to a vote
So the city thinks that private citizens have no First Amendment rights to organize, and to raise money for political reasons?/
How un-American is that?
I hope they do sue and use Mary Olive to do it. She can turn off a crowd quicker than anything.
The people you are talking to should know better.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 4:30 pm to doubleb
quote:
that private citizens have no First Amendment rights to organize, and to raise money for political reasons?/ How un-American is that?
It's actually very American and such behavior has been illegal for a long time. That's why citizens united was such a big deal.
On a personal level, I'm in favor of freedom.
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 7/23/14 at 4:34 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
It's actually very American
So if I called my friends and relatives to collect money to further the SG School District, I'm somehow being unethical and I am violating the law????
How could this happen????
Posted on 7/23/14 at 4:42 pm to doubleb
quote:
So if I called my friends and relatives to collect money to further the SG School District, I'm somehow being unethical and I am violating the law????
If you collect money to campaign for specific ballot initiative and collect over certain amount of money, then yes.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News