Mine are fine. You haven’t pointed out where I went wrong.
This is a pointless argument. The latest news is the CBS report I quoted that a bill that makes it a felony to solicit 16-17 year old children for prostitution unless the solicitor is less than 3 years older than the victim received the votes to pass an Assembly committe.
The CBS article states
AB 379 must still pass a full vote in the Assembly and the state Senate.
Let’s see what Bill, if any, gets passed and signed into law.
I was just pointing out that you made false and misleading statements: “The public is not buying this baloney” and “all of a sudden the Democrats saw the light and changed their votes”.
DOGE was sure onto something with this African agency… run by democrats like a typical corrupt African country.
1 Like
But but but they resisted DOGE, so they’re obviously on the side of good.
1 Like
Re public not buying baloney. See the article from Calmatters that I posted above. The vote by the Democrats to remove the felony penalty for child sex trafficking was immensely unpopular despite their rationale that you bought into and the Republicans started blasting the vulnerable Democrats for their vote.
Re All of a sudden, the Democrats changed their vote
per the CBS report that I linked above, the Democrats later introduced a bill that makes it a felony and the Democrat controlled assembly committee reversed their previous vote against rejecting the felony charge.
Your argument style is just to make assertions with no backup or reference. I will no longer be responding to your comments. I am interested in this issue and I will track the progress of the bill through California legislature and discuss it here.
The rationale I provided after reading the bill is not the rationale mentioned in any of the articles you provided. This is what I wrote:
I did not “buy into” or ever mention any other reasons.
It makes sense that this was unpopular. I never mentioned anything about this.
As you wrote above, they also amended the bill to remove penalties when the "solicitor is less than 3 years older than the victim " This was one of the Dem’s rationales for rejecting the earlier version of the bill and it had been addressed, which I’m sure contributed to their decision to change the votes. It was not a “sudden” reversal as you claimed – they got at least this one thing they were asking for. As far as I know they do not vote for the bills piece-meal, they vote for or against the entire bill, don’t they?
This really isnt relevant to our subject, but dont understand why, when soliciting a prostitute, it’s more ok if you’re relatively the same age as the girl you’re trying to hire? Is it really less harmful for a 19 year old to buy a 17 year old hooker, than it is for a 25 year old to buy that same hooker? I get it being worse if the hooker is underage (where the line is drawn is entirely arbitrary, but I understand the need for a such a line), but why does the age of the solicitor matter at all?
1 Like
I have no idea, I’m just stating the facts as I understand them, not whether I agree with them.
If that was their reason for rejecting it initially, then it seems like a pretty dubious reason.
This feels like the typical Democrat philosophy - we must let everyone get away with something, because there’s a chance someone innocent might inadvertantly get pulled into it. So we must give all the johns a pass, because there’s a chance the law may be wrongly imposed on some high school kid who pays for his one night stand’s breakfast in the morning. That’s the only way I see relative age even being a factor, let alone worth tanking the bill.
Supreme Court requested to review and rule on district courts issuing national injunctions.
2 Likes
The felony for buying 16-17/year old for sex bill passed the California assembly on a 74 to 0 vote on May 15. Onto the Senate.
Edit. There are 80 districts in the California assembly so six members did not vote.
Just curious, what about buying 15 year olds? Or has that age already been covered by previous laws?
I do get the hesitation to make it a felony; it only makes sense in the context of existing law. In 31 states (per Google) the age of consent is 16, 16/17 is considered “adult”. Existing California law seems pretty extreme (relatively) for being a liberal paradise, and this only doubles down on the relative harshness.
Biden has bad cancer
On Friday he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 [/10] (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone.”
For some reason, this news came out on the Friday that the Hur-Biden interview tapes came out
1 Like
The fight against ranked choice voting continues
A bipartisan Senate bill would prohibit Ohio from using ranked choice voting and withhold funding from municipalities that adopt it for local races. Backers of Senate Bill 63, which include Democrats and conservative election groups, contend it’s a confusing system that violates the principle of “one person, one vote.”
“It’s the Bernie Sanders left-wing part of my party that thinks this is a good idea, but those people don’t win elections,” said Sen. Bill DeMora, D-Columbus, one of the bill’s sponsors. “Ranked choice voting is a pipe dream. It’s just something that doesn’t work.”
1 Like
Proposed legislation by the American legislative exchange council (ALEC)
SAFEGUARD AMERICAN VOTES AND ELECTIONS ACT (SAVE ACT)
Summary
In American federalism, states are the fundamental level of government. This includes primacy over state and local elections, and over many aspects of federal elections. Special interests are pushing a novel and complicated election process called ranked-choice voting (RCV; and also related systems like approval voting and STAR voting). Often they try to enact these in local jurisdictions, creating a conflict between local and state election processes. They have also introduced federal legislation to force RCV on the states. This legislation would prohibit RCV and similar systems in state or local elections.
(1) In all elections, including primary elections, for any local, state, or federal public office, the following shall be prohibited:
a. Voting systems that permit a voter to vote for more than one candidate for the same office;
b. Voting systems that permit a voter to rank multiple candidates for the same office; and
c. Voting systems that reallocate a voter’s vote for one candidate to another candidate for the same office.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a locality from holding at-large elections or multi-member district elections, so long as voters have one vote per position and no votes are transferred between candidates.
(3) Any existing or future ordinance by any political subdivision of this state which is in conflict with this section is void.
(4) Any election for any public office in this state conducted under a voting system prohibited by section 1 is void, and no candidate shall be elected under such a system.
So this special interest group acknowledges states’ primacy over elections while proposing an Act that handicaps this primacy. The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.
Where do you stand on that issue? Do the states have primacy over elections? At least one Democrat senator does not think they do. See this bill introduced in September 2024 when the Democrats controlled the Senate.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/5048/text/is
S.5048 - Ranked Choice Voting Act
Sponsor: Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT] (Introduced 09/12/2024)
To establish the use of ranked choice voting in elections for the offices of Senator and Representative in Congress, and for other purposes.
I’m all for states’ rights, including this one. But I also don’t know the relevant laws, so I don’t know why Congresscritters think they can do anything about this.
I’m also in favor of RCV at every level. We’ve already debunked the counterarguments, the only one that I might agree with is that it is slightly more complex, but I also believe that we have enough voters who are not too stupid to figure it out. The duopoly in power must be broken, because they keep swinging too far to the extreme and have become dangerous, and I think RCV is the only reasonable way to fix this.
1 Like