Sarah Stephens for Governor (San Diego: crimes, credit, homes)

[Mahayana]

A real woman, wife & mother with the best ideas; let us make her the first female Gov. of CA!

https://www.makecaliforniagoldagain.com/

[joosoon]

Native Californian (bonus for being born in San Diego): Ok, check.


Realistically, everything else looks crazy pants.


Points lost for being the thirty-thousandth person/organization to riff off the MAGA slogan, even making it the web domain.. Every instance of the word "freedom" and other key phrases being in all-caps makes her look weird and hard to take seriously. Whining about school indoctrination. Being anti-vax. Being selectively pro-first amendment. Being pro second amendment (agree in general) but then spinning it to sound revolutionary --not helpful. Vague appeals for business tax credits without explanation. Giving a nod to the prop 187 type immigration reforms (DOA) which the supreme court has struck down already. Integrating homeschool with public school to get the benefits without the tax obligation. Being a woman -- sadly, as progressive as our state likes to pretend to be, the governor's seat is still a total boy's club. Being a nobody too. Again, sadly that is a big strike against someone.


This isn't a winning platform in this state. Sorry.

[semispherical]

Originally Posted by Mahayana

A real woman, wife & mother with the best ideas; let us make her the first female Gov. of CA!

https://www.makecaliforniagoldagain.com/

She lists a bunch of the usual vague platitudes about "lowering taxes" and "educational reform." The repeated mention of God, her "pastorship" and "moral values" is very troubling to those of us who are not Christians. Your personal religion does not qualify or disqualify you from elected office.

She adopts the contradictory stance of asserting that people have the right to refuse to be vaccinated, but women do not have the right to control what happens in their own bodies.

She's emblematic of the toxic and divisive social agenda promoted by the current far-right extreme Republicans.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Mahayana

A real woman, wife & mother with the best ideas; let us make her the first female Gov. of CA!

https://www.makecaliforniagoldagain.com/

Thanks but no thanks. I looked at your link and her facebook page. She should run for office in Montana or Oklahoma, they are far more welcoming to MAGA's than California voters are. She is pro-life, thinks that private schools should be able to participate in public school options (not sure what that means exactly) Wants to allow parents to opt out of all vaccines or skip vaccines that they don't like, cut taxes and end programs that she doesn't see as helpful (probably like public education)

[semispherical]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Thanks but no thanks. I looked at your link and her facebook page. She should run for office in Montana or Oklahoma, they are far more welcoming to MAGA's than California voters are. She is pro-life, thinks that private schools should be able to participate in public school options (not sure what that means exactly) Wants to allow parents to opt out of all vaccines or skip vaccines that they don't like, cut taxes and end programs that she doesn't see as helpful (probably like public education)

I don't usually disagree with you Sleepy, but I don't think we should characterize this viewpoint as "pro-life," it's anti-choice. If the Trumpists were REALLY pro-life they would have more concern for the child's quality of life after he or she is born. They don't have any interest in a social safety net for vulnerable mothers and children.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by semispherical

I don't usually disagree with you Sleepy, but I don't think we should characterize this viewpoint as "pro-life," it's anti-choice. If the Trumpists were REALLY pro-life they would have more concern for the child's quality of life after he or she is born. They don't have any interest in a social safety net for vulnerable mothers and children.

You're absolutely right! Also the 'pro-lifers' usually fully support the death penalty which just drips with hypocrisy.

[st3inwaygrand]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You're absolutely right! Also the 'pro-lifers' usually fully support the death penalty which just drips with hypocrisy.

I’m not fully “pro life” (most pro lifers won’t claim me because I think that there are few particular circumstances early in pregnancy where abortion is a reasonable option) but the whole “you’re a hypocrite for supporting the death penalty and opposing abortion” has always come off to me like a straw mannish take that deliberately ignores nuance and thus ends discussions and debates before they start, because nobody is going to waste their breath going back and forth with someone engaging in bad faith. People who think that all abortion is murder believe that life begins at conception, ie that the fetus is an infant, and that by default infants are innocent, it’s the combination of innocence and personhood that anchors their position. When we are talking about the death penalty, the innocence aspect of the equation is absent and so it’s a different discussion, unless you’re saying that there are people who actively support executing innocent people. Basically the conflation of abortion and the death penalty is like saying “you oppose police shootings, but you were okay with the SEALs killing Bin Laden/think that the allies were justified in bombing German cities/that Sherman was justified in burning Atlanta in his march to the sea – it’s all killing therefore you’re a hypocrite!!1!” Obviously that’s nonsense because there is no nuance there, not all killing and death is inherently equal.

Something to consider.


Btw I oppose the civilian death penalty, not because I think that execution is morally wrong, I am a retributist and do think that there are some crimes which can only be properly punished with death, but because I think that humans are fallible and would rather justice not be served by not executing someone who deserves it as opposed to executing someone who doesn’t by accident.

[2sleepy]

[quote=st3inwaygrand;61020175]I’m not fully “pro life” (most pro lifers won’t claim me because I think that there are few particular circumstances early in pregnancy where abortion is a reasonable option) but the whole “you’re a hypocrite for supporting the death penalty and opposing abortion” has always come off to me like a straw mannish take that deliberately ignores nuance and thus ends discussions and debates before they start, because nobody is going to waste their breath going back and forth with someone engaging in bad faith. People who think that all abortion is murder believe that life begins at conception, ie that the fetus is an infant, and that by default infants are innocent, it’s the combination of innocence and personhood that anchors their position. When we are talking about the death penalty, the innocence aspect of the equation is absent and so it’s a different discussion, unless you’re saying that there are people who actively support executing innocent people. Basically the conflation of abortion and the death penalty is like saying “you oppose police shootings, but you were okay with the SEALs killing Bin Laden/think that the allies were justified in bombing German cities/that Sherman was justified in burning Atlanta in his march to the sea – it’s all killing therefore you’re a hypocrite!!1!” Obviously that’s nonsense because there is no nuance there, not all killing and death is inherently equal.

Something to consider.

I will try to keep it simple. Abortion should always be a decision that is reached by the mother and her doctor. No one has a right to force a woman to have a baby, or to require that she justify aborting a fetus. In regards to the death penalty, innocence is definitely a factor. The National Academy of Science estimates that 1 out of every 25 people sentenced to death are factually innocent. As of January 2020, the Innocence Project has documented over 365 DNA exonerations in the United States. Twenty-one of these exonerees had previously been sentenced to death.

Regarding war, there is no such thing as a just war. War is not part of human nature. War should be limited and directed only toward stopping an immediate threat; not in order to seize land or wealth. Civilians should never be the target of aggression. Almost all wars could be avoided by non lethal sanctions such as restricting the movement of the enemy or denying them goods and services that they need in order to be a threat.