3rd Newcastle Brown not helping - watching CA election results... :-(

EXTREMEOPS1 said:

Guess there were only two in the governors race ...Brown and Meg the Rino shame on Californians for not voting for someone with California in their best interests ... spooky how all the networks never mentioned Chelene once!!!!

Click to expand...

I voted for Chelene...she was the ONLY gubnatorial candidate that I could easily find info on that was pro-2nd amendment. Even the "Republican" candidate was against freedom.

caskydiver said:

I voted for Chelene...she was the ONLY gubnatorial candidate that I could easily find info on that was pro-2nd amendment. Even the "Republican" candidate was against freedom.

Click to expand...

Jerry Brown told me to tell you thanks.

caskydiver said:

I voted for Chelene...she was the ONLY gubnatorial candidate that I could easily find info on that was pro-2nd amendment. Even the "Republican" candidate was against freedom.

Click to expand...

Dale Ogden (libertarian candidate) was very pro-gun. He said the following on his website:

I would also issue an executive order to all state and local law enforcement agents that the second amendment applies in California, just like it does in the other 49 states and D.C., and that they should (1) not arrest or prosecute anyone for exercising his or her right to bear arms; (2) that anyone arrested or prosecuted for such will be pardoned by me; and (3) that the laws identifying some arms as assault weapons are unlawful infringements on the unalienable right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed, not granted, by the US Constitution (I am open to strengthening such an order and would seek legal and other assistance before issuing such an order).

He got my vote.

RockertFor2A said:

I'd be right behind you only It would cost me an extra $30k to pay off the mortgage on my house if I were to sell it. And because I don't believe in just walking out on my mortgage and stiffing my lender because I had bad timing, I'm stuck. Cracks me up that some people think it's just fine to stick the bank with the bill just because they bought at a bad time.

Click to expand...

The bank also agreed to the mortgage because they thought the price wouldn't go down. While 30k might not be enough to convince you to exercise the "walk away" portion of your contract, it is for others. I'm sure some people would walk away at 50k vs. 30k, or 100k, or 250k. At some point losses should be cut. The banks also have received lots of money from the government and the fed. Somehow I think they'll manage.

Kamala D. Harris (Dem) 3,302,221 45.9%
Steve Cooley (Rep) 3,293,191 45.8%

Down to a 9030 vote separation...

bigtoe416 said:

The bank also agreed to the mortgage because they thought the price wouldn't go down. While 30k might not be enough to convince you to exercise the "walk away" portion of your contract, it is for others. I'm sure some people would walk away at 50k vs. 30k, or 100k, or 250k. At some point losses should be cut. The banks also have received lots of money from the government and the fed. Somehow I think they'll manage.

Click to expand...

Ah, so because the bank is a large business it's okay to screw them? Perhaps you could point out just where the "walk away" portion of the contract is?

Let me ask you-- say a friend asks me to borrow $10k to buy a vintage guitar. I give him $10k-- cash-- and he promises he'll make payments over time. A month later, the value of vintage guitars plummets. The guitar is now worth about $5k. He stops sending me payments. I ask him about it. Did he lose his job or something? Is everything okay? He tells me he that yes, he has a job and he could pay, but he's upset that the guitar is only worth $5k and doesn't think it's fair that he owes me $10k. "But that's how much I loaned you" I tell him. "You told me you needed $10k and you promised to me you'd pay me back. You still have your job. What's up?" He tells me that I can have the guitar. "But I don't want that guitar. YOU wanted that guitar. In fact, wanted it so bad you came over here, dressed all nice, told me how important it was to you to have this guitar and promised that if I could just help, you would pay me back."

"Yeah, well," says my friend, "At some point, losses should be cut."

"}#%^*+^%# YOU!!!!" I now say to my former friend.

It's all well and good to rationalize cheating one party in a business deal just because you think they can afford it. Making someone else bear the consequences and burden of YOUR mistakes is BS. Thank God not everyone thinks that way.

its getting really close. hopefully Cooley can pull out a win.

RockerFor2A said:

Ah, so because the bank is a large business it's okay to screw them? Perhaps you could point out just where the "walk away" portion of the contract is?

Click to expand...

I don't own any real estate, so I'm not familiar with mortgages, but I imagine somewhere in your mortgage it states what happens to the property if you cease paying the bank. I imagine that section says the bank becomes owner of the property.

In your guitar example you are making it sound like you would only get 5k and your friend would keep the guitar. That is a false analogy because if you stop paying your bank then you do not keep your house.

The correct guitar analogy would be you buy the guitar from a guitar store for your friend who says he will pay you back for the guitar in installments as well as pay you over 100% of the value of the guitar since you loaned him the money and incurred a level of risk since he could not pay you and leave you with the guitar. After paying you half of the guitar's original worth (5k, half of which is for principal, half of which is interest on the loan), the guitar has fallen in value by 50% (from 10k to 5k). Now the friend says he doesn't want to pay you anymore for the guitar because he owes 7.5k more in principal but it's only worth 5k. He stops paying, you get the guitar.

Now lets look at how screwed you are. You loaned 10k in cash, got 5k in cash back, and you now own a guitar worth 5k. You broke even on your investment (after tax deductions on your investment, you will come out ahead). Not bad for investing in something that lost 50% of its value.

Now lets look at how screwed your friend is. He paid 5k to you for the guitar, but he also lost the guitar, so he is down 5k and has nothing to show for it. In the case of a real estate investment he would be able to deduct 2.5k on his taxes, saving him roughly $800. So for investing in something that lost 50% of it's value, he only lost 42%. Also not that bad considering his poor investment decision.

So now that the analogy is properly framed, who do you feel more sad for? The loaner or the borrower? They both made an equally poor investment in the guitar, except one managed to make money on the deal after taxes.

ETA: Actually the TRUE analogy would include the government stepping in to buy investments from the loaner to give him lots of cash in order to encourage him to loan more money out....

And if my friend only paid me $1k before he walked out? I have guitar worth 5k and 1k. I'm out $4k which was the principle. The amount I gave him out of my pocket.

It all boils down to whether the lender is supposed to shoulder the risk for people who borrow money and make a bad investment.

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about people who have list their jobs and can't pay. I know people who bought million dollar homes who are pissed off that it's only worth $550k now. They still have good jobs, same income as when they bought the house, yet for some reason, even though they would have felt entitled to any appreciation (the upside), they stop paying and expect someone else the bank and taxpayers to eat the loss. And I fail to see how the lender is to blame or responsible.

RockerFor2A said:

And if my friend only paid me $1k before he walked out? I have guitar worth 5k and 1k. I'm out $4k which was the principle. The amount I gave him out of my pocket.

Click to expand...

Right. Your poor investment lost you 4k, and your friend is out a grand. You might be able to claim that 4k loss as a deduction on your taxes since you're a bank and the government wants you to lend money. It must have been a spectacularly bad investment if the guitar lost 50% of its value in the time your friend was only able to pay back 1k.

RockerFor2A said:

And I fail to see how the lender is to blame or responsible.

Click to expand...

Let's suppose you're married. You have some buddies that want to build a time machine as a business idea. They don't have any plans or PhDs in physics or anything, but they think strapping some gold wings onto a 1963 VW Beetle will transform the Beetle into a time machine. You think it's a great idea and loan them 50k for a proof of concept in exchange for 10% of their future company's stock. When your friends wild idea fails completely and your wife starts to yell at you for spending money on such a horrible investment you simply turn to her and say, "I fail to see how the lender is to blame or responsible."

Think that will convince her?

It takes two parties to conduct a loan. Both parties weigh the risk of the object being purchased increasing or retaining value, but the lender also weighs the risks of the borrower. You are their investment, your house is their collateral. It's like a fancy pawn shop. Pawn shops loan money for goods that people bring in. If somebody doesn't pay back their loan, the pawn shop keeps the collateral and sells it to somebody else. Ever been in a pawn shop with nothing to sell? I haven't (actually I've never been in a pawn shop, but I've walked passed them and they always have stuff in the windows).

Well, yep... I guess being a poor judge of character cost me 4 grand in that I had a friend of low character who would stiff me.

We're not talking here about people who don't have the ability to pay due to some difficult circumstances. If the friend said "I lost my job. I can't pay you back the $10,000 I borrowed from you. Here's the guitar back, sorry it's only worth $5,000 now." I'd be bummed. Obviously, I'd never loan him another dime. Not even in seven years.

But if that friend said, "You know what man... just have this guitar back. It's gone down in value and I don't want to have to pay $10,000 for it since it's only worth $5K." He didn't lose his job... still has income... but he wants to stick me with an asset worth half of the amount of money I borrowed from him. Not that he doesn't have the ability to pay... he just wants ME to carry the burden for his mistake. I was his best bud when he came to me wanting the loan, but when it turned sour, he's going to saddle me with the loss for his screw up.

Walking out on one's mortgage, barring that you were somehow mentally unfit to sign a contract, just because your property depreciated and you're angry about it, is passing your mistakes onto others. I'm not sure what your defense is of that. I think you're saying that it's my fault for not trusting him and he bears no responsibility for being a dead beat?

Of course, I just used the guitar analogy. Maybe a vintage guitar wouldn't lose 50% of its value, but houses have! And in a recession when money is tight, something is worth whatever you can sell it for. And the point here is, I'm not talking about people who lost jobs, were laid off, and due to terrible financial hardship find themselves with no other option but to go into foreclosure. I feel sorry for those people. The people I DON'T feel sorry for, who I think are gaming the system, are the people who KNEW full well what they were doing, bought that property hoping to make a bundle, they STILL have plenty of income, but they for some reason feel that they should make someone else pay the price for their bad decision. They make a calculated decision to push the loss off on someone else, and cause another party to lose an investment, so they can keep their money and do the same deal again some day.

Yes... I suppose the person could just say to the lender "Sorry... your fault for trusting me and expecting me to keep my word." I just was never taught that blaming the person I cheated for trusting me was acceptable. I know there are certain cultures in the world where that's the prevailing attitude, but not the culture in which I grew up. I'm just sayin'. To each their own. Every one can get to decide what is ethical and what isn't. Moral relativism and all that.

I'm amazed that Brown won and Prop 19 lost, all on the same ballot.

I mean... you've gotta be baked to vote for Moonbeam, right?

KBCraig said:

I... you've gotta be baked to vote for Moonbeam, right?

Click to expand...

If you're a 2a single issue voter and RINO MEG is on the ballot and you could vote for the one person who could keep the leg. in line and declared that the 2A should be incorporated against the state he is the AG for...not really.

Okay,

I stopped at 4 Nukie Browns (the other night)... All, let's agree that our choices for Gov (and other offices) for the CA elections were limited, at best, this time around. Can we also agree that Jerry Brown is (based on his previous actions and statements over the years) not good for California?



Livermoron

If we could get enough people off of the bipartisan bandwagon, I bet we could make some changes. Dale Ogden.......

I plan to appoint a voluntary commission to help me pardon those convicted of victimless crimes, like gambling and marijuana possession (and there are many thousands), and gun possession not connected with a violent crime. I would also issue an executive order to all state and local law enforcement agents that the second amendment applies in California, just like it does in the other 49 states and D.C., and that they should (1) not arrest or prosecute anyone for exercising his or her right to bear arms; (2) that anyone arrested or prosecuted for such will be pardoned by me; and (3) that the laws identifying some arms as assault weapons are unlawful infringements on the unalienable right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed, not granted, by the US Constitution (I am open to strengthening such an order and would seek legal and other assistance before issuing such an order).

Click to expand...

Currently, the Attorney General contest is still too close to call. However, Cooley has a marginal lead of about 20k votes with approximately 1 million left to count.

Current Results
Unprocessed Ballots

Livermoron said:

Ugh. How can soooo many people in the once golden state be soooo stupid? Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsome, Barbara Boxer, etc, etc, etc. This state is truly broken folks. Time to look for emergency exits. Nevada or Arizona anyone?

Livermoron

Click to expand...

Can you believe this state was first settled by people who wanted to get away from all the controls back east?

What we need is another huge immigration of conservatives who love their freedoms, who believe in earning the money they have, and overturn this corrupt welfare state.

Now you know why the people north of Sacramento want to break away and start another state.

Only problem is conservatives would sooner jab themselves in the eyes with a fork than move into high tax, low freedom PRK. They'd be insane, just like I was insane not to unload my house while I could've cleared a nearly $200k profit and paid CASH for a nice house in Texas, etc. Why on EARTH would they come here? The beach? I don't surf and haven't set foot on the beach in ages.

kittyhawk63 said:

Now you know why the people north of Sacramento want to break away and start another state.

Click to expand...

Don't forget about those south of San Fransicko who want the same. Maybe we could carve out SF just like DC and make it so they don't have a voice in Washington or in North or South California.