- 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: Louisiana plain text ballot measures, how are you voting?
Posted on 10/17/18 at 8:57 am to Gaspergou202
Posted on 10/17/18 at 8:57 am to Gaspergou202
quote:this looks how i will vote
1y Should be for life, but 5 is better than 0.
2n Currently works and is Constitutional.
3n Can exchange now for equal value. This is a give away.
4y Infrastructure tax for infrastructure.
5n Don’t like increasing tax exemptions for special groups. This makes it worse.
6y If your tax burden suddenly jumps 50+% you need time to adjust, fight, sell, etc.!
0
Posted on 10/17/18 at 8:59 am to Gaspergou202
quote:
2n Currently works and is Constitutional.
I have some serious philosophical issues with this one even though I know it will be used by people with really bad intentions. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is and should always be the standard. In my opinion, if someone votes "not guilty", then clearly someone had a reasonable doubt. It is the job of the prosecutor to screen and strike potential biased jurors. Also, the concept of jury nullification as a form of protest against unjust or illogical enforcement of laws is a valid one, in my opinion. Even though I KNOW that activists will use the unanimous jury to cause all kinds of bad outcomes, I still believe it is the right policy and the one most in line with our legal traditions and judicial philosophy.
quote:
Can exchange now for equal value. This is a give away.
I would honestly like to get more educated on the issue but I haven't seen PAR put out any kind of guidance on this yet. I am concerned about this being used for corrupt purposes, but I can also see how this policy, as it is currently, would yield some pretty absurd consequences, especially at the local government level (school board and parish works not being able to share equipment). I also wonder if the current law permits the sharing of equipment during states of emergency. If it does, then I don't see too many legitimate reasons why this is needed. However, if it doesn't, then this amendment is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. I probably should have marked this one as undecided because that's a crucial piece of information I'm waiting on the PAR guide to hopefully explain.
EDIT: I am now against because these local entities already can share during emergencies and they can set up reasonable lease agreements to share equipment. This amendment isn't needed and opens the door to a lot of fraud on the taxpayer dime (like using off duty fire fighters with DPW equipment to take down statues). Thank you PAR Guide.
This post was edited on 10/17/18 at 10:24 am
Posted on 10/17/18 at 8:59 am to Ingeniero
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
#7 not listed - N (to legalize Fantasy Sports gambling including gambling on cell phones)
N
N
Y
N
N
#7 not listed - N (to legalize Fantasy Sports gambling including gambling on cell phones)
This post was edited on 10/17/18 at 9:00 am
Posted on 10/17/18 at 9:10 am to pwejr88
quote:
#7 not listed - N (to legalize Fantasy Sports gambling including gambling on cell phones)
Just curious, why are you voting no on the Fantasy Sports betting?
Posted on 10/17/18 at 9:19 am to Ingeniero
1 - No. Voters can make their own judgment call on convicted felons. No need for a law here.
There is no current law related to this one. There was an old 15 year prohibition from holding office on the books, but it was struck down in 2016 after a court ruled that the constitutional amendment that came before the voters was not the one that was ultimately approved.
2 - No. Fine as is. Prevents someone with an agenda from blowing up a should-be conviction and promotes judicial efficiency by preventing hung juries and mistrials.
There is something to be said though of John Adams taking the position that “It is the unanimity of the jury that preserves the rights of
mankind.”
3 - Yes. Seems like a good way to promote governmental efficiency, even if there may be some other negative issues that come with.
4 - Yes. More of that money needs to be used for roads and bridges, which are total shite in LA. Plenty of local police to perform traffic control, I don't see why need to be allocating 20% of the TTF to perform this task.
5 - Yes.
6 - Yes.
The Louisiana Fantasy Sports Contests Act
YES!!!
There is no current law related to this one. There was an old 15 year prohibition from holding office on the books, but it was struck down in 2016 after a court ruled that the constitutional amendment that came before the voters was not the one that was ultimately approved.
2 - No. Fine as is. Prevents someone with an agenda from blowing up a should-be conviction and promotes judicial efficiency by preventing hung juries and mistrials.
There is something to be said though of John Adams taking the position that “It is the unanimity of the jury that preserves the rights of
mankind.”
3 - Yes. Seems like a good way to promote governmental efficiency, even if there may be some other negative issues that come with.
4 - Yes. More of that money needs to be used for roads and bridges, which are total shite in LA. Plenty of local police to perform traffic control, I don't see why need to be allocating 20% of the TTF to perform this task.
5 - Yes.
6 - Yes.
The Louisiana Fantasy Sports Contests Act
YES!!!
Posted on 10/17/18 at 9:22 am to kingbob
quote:
I would honestly like to get more educated on the issue but I haven't seen PAR put out any kind of guidance on this yet.
Here you go.
Posted on 10/17/18 at 9:25 am to kingbob
quote:How is the reasonableness of the doubt clear?
if someone votes "not guilty", then clearly someone had a reasonable doubt.
quote:Could not disagree more.
Also, the concept of jury nullification as a form of protest against unjust or illogical enforcement of laws is a valid one, in my opinion.
Posted on 10/17/18 at 9:27 am to AlxTgr
quote:i guess he didnt see the OJ documentary. They interviewed one of the black jury members. She basically said, I dont care if he did it or not i voted not guilty, and would do the same thing today.
if someone votes "not guilty", then clearly someone had a reasonable doubt.
How is the reasonableness of the doubt clear?
Posted on 10/17/18 at 9:40 am to CarRamrod
quote:
I dont care if he did it or not i voted not guilty, and would do the same thing today.
That’s on the prosecution for not getting that juror screened or struck. They have the right to strike so many jurors for a reason.
Posted on 10/17/18 at 9:45 am to kingbob
quote:What clues did this juror give during voir dire?
That’s on the prosecution for not getting that juror screened or struck.
Posted on 10/17/18 at 9:57 am to kingbob
quote:
That’s on the prosecution for not getting that juror screened or struck
no it is not. That shows the fallacy of a unanimous vote. Posted on 10/17/18 at 10:01 am to Ingeniero
No on all. I vote no on all amendments regardless of content.
Posted on 10/17/18 at 10:02 am to CarRamrod
I have a few friends supporting this. One is a leader(chairman of the legislative committee of the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) in the cause. I asked them to give me their best and to convince me to come over to their side. They did not come close.
Posted on 10/17/18 at 10:13 am to Ingeniero
1 Yes
2 No
3 Yes
4 Yes
5 Yes
6 No
7 Yes
2 No
3 Yes
4 Yes
5 Yes
6 No
7 Yes
This post was edited on 10/17/18 at 10:15 am
Posted on 10/17/18 at 10:18 am to Ingeniero
Definite NO on #2. The fricked up crime and corruption cesspool of Louisiana needs 10/12.
Posted on 10/17/18 at 11:12 am to CarRamrod
quote:
how i read it is a no continues to allow state police to be able to take money dedicated to the improvement of highway system.
You're right, I was reading it incorrectly.
Thanks!
Posted on 10/17/18 at 11:40 am to BigJim
Thanks! I was going to check out PAR eventually but your link got me to do it now ;) Now that I have read up on them...
1. Absolutely. We have enough crooks in politics now, anything we can do to lessen that is something I can get behind.
2. Yes. While I don't think we use the Death Penalty enough, I certainly want there to be a high standard for when we do. More than that though this bill also requires that an acquittal be unanimous as well and that helped move me from No to Yes.
3. No. There's far too much room for shenanigans by not allowing at least some sort of paper trail for agencies allowing normal use of another's resources. The current system already allows for this but mandates paperwork as a means of accountability. I see no reason for this to change.
4. (now that I understand the wording of it) Yes. All day, every day. Our roads are in such bad shape that there's absolutely no reason to even think about allowing another agency to take funds from it.
5. Yes. I hate making little exemptions here and there in the tax code, but for disabled vets I have no problem making an exception (especially as this exemption disappears after they and their spouse pass on).
6. Yes. This is allowing people to keep more of their money even though it's a very small group due to the exacting circumstances. I wouldn't mind seeing this done across the board instead of limiting it to just reassessments that are 50% or more over the previous assessment.
1. Absolutely. We have enough crooks in politics now, anything we can do to lessen that is something I can get behind.
2. Yes. While I don't think we use the Death Penalty enough, I certainly want there to be a high standard for when we do. More than that though this bill also requires that an acquittal be unanimous as well and that helped move me from No to Yes.
3. No. There's far too much room for shenanigans by not allowing at least some sort of paper trail for agencies allowing normal use of another's resources. The current system already allows for this but mandates paperwork as a means of accountability. I see no reason for this to change.
4. (now that I understand the wording of it) Yes. All day, every day. Our roads are in such bad shape that there's absolutely no reason to even think about allowing another agency to take funds from it.
5. Yes. I hate making little exemptions here and there in the tax code, but for disabled vets I have no problem making an exception (especially as this exemption disappears after they and their spouse pass on).
6. Yes. This is allowing people to keep more of their money even though it's a very small group due to the exacting circumstances. I wouldn't mind seeing this done across the board instead of limiting it to just reassessments that are 50% or more over the previous assessment.
Posted on 10/17/18 at 11:55 am to Drunken Crawfish
We have enough gambling and this method would make it easy for minors to participate
Posted on 10/17/18 at 11:57 am to pwejr88
quote:
We have enough gambling and this method would make it easy for minors to participate
So. Why shouldn't minors be allowed to gamble with their own money?
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News