Brown opens up an 8 point lead over Whitman (buyers, live)

[LexusNexus]

This is great news.

http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_16390289

[Majin]

Good. She isn't the most attractive thing to have on tv representing california.

[Jay100]

I think people are still struggling with the idea of a female governor. Although I voted for her (absentee) I struggled with it as well but figured Brown's pro-immigration agenda and other issues were a no go.

[BluSpark]

Originally Posted by Majin

Good. She isn't the most attractive thing to have on tv representing california.

I'll be voting for Brown....but I don't base my vote on how attractive or unattractive a candidate looks on T.V.

You were just kidding, right?

[Phil306]

Funny. People complain about employee pensions, but theY are the product of Brown??? Yet, you fools are going to re elect him. As said in other threads: this state is DOOMED to implode.

[UB50]

Originally Posted by Jay100

I think people are still struggling with the idea of a female governor. Although I voted for her (absentee) I struggled with it as well but figured Brown's pro-immigration agenda and other issues were a no go.

I'd love to have a female governor! Unfortunately, I would never vote for Meg Whitman. If she had run as a Democrat, I would have voted for the Republican. I really can't stand her. I've been on eBay as a seller since 1998 and I've seen her in action for many years. I understand her ethics. They are not my ethics. (I'm also a tech investor, so I really understand where she's been coming from all these years.)

Anyway, the fact she is a woman has nothing to do with my choice. If anything, it would have been a PLUS in her column.

The only difference between Brown's immigration policy and Meg's immigration policy is that Brown is transparent about it. Meg would do almost the same things Brown would do. (I have to say "almost" because I don't know if she would be exactly like him -- but close enough.) Meg would hem and haw and go round and round and end up doing what he would do. It would just take her longer to get there. She would get there nonetheless because illegal immigration benefits Republicans.

That's the major difference between the two parties: Democrats say OK to immigration because it makes it easier for the immigrants and they care about the people. Republicans say OK to immigration because it makes it easier for corporations to operate. Either way, you get to OK.

I'm not voting absentee and I'll be voting for Brown. I think he's honest, which is more than I can say about MEg.

[UB50]

Originally Posted by BluSpark

I'll be voting for Brown....but I don't base my vote on how attractive or unattractive a candidate looks on T.V.

You were just kidding, right?

People think Meg looks like the guy on the front of the Quaker Oats box.

[Jay100]

Originally Posted by UB50

I'd love to have a female governor! Unfortunately, I would never vote for Meg Whitman. If she had run as a Democrat, I would have voted for the Republican. I really can't stand her. I've been on eBay as a seller since 1998 and I've seen her in action for many years. I understand her ethics. They are not my ethics. (I'm also a tech investor, so I really understand where she's been coming from all these years.)

Anyway, the fact she is a woman has nothing to do with my choice. If anything, it would have been a PLUS in her column.

The only difference between Brown's immigration policy and Meg's immigration policy is that Brown is transparent about it. Meg would do almost the same things Brown would do. (I have to say "almost" because I don't know if she would be exactly like him -- but close enough.) Meg would hem and haw and go round and round and end up doing what he would do. It would just take her longer to get there. She would get there nonetheless because illegal immigration benefits Republicans.

That's the major difference between the two parties: Democrats say OK to immigration because it makes it easier for the immigrants and they care about the people. Republicans say OK to immigration because it makes it easier for corporations to operate. Either way, you get to OK.

I'm not voting absentee and I'll be voting for Brown. I think he's honest, which is more than I can say about MEg.

Without Meg, you wouldn't even have an ebay business. She might keep her promises or she might not but at least there's a chance. Can't say the same about Brown. He's just going to open the floodgates and no way could I have voted for that.

[UB50]

Originally Posted by Jay100

Without Meg, you wouldn't even have an ebay business. She might keep her promises or she might not but at least there's a chance. Can't say the same about Brown. He's just going to open the floodgates and no way could I have voted for that.

No. You're wrong. I still would have had the same eBay business and it probably would have been better now than it is.

The biggest problem I had with Meg was with her ethics. I got involved in the "Trust & Safety" portion of eBay and for awhile, I spent time trying to track down people hijacking accounts, etc.

The biggest problem that I had with Meg is that she refused to verify sellers even though it would have cut down on the number of fraudulent sellers (people selling cars they didn't own and things like that). There are individual scammers who took eBay buyers for over $1,000,000. Did you know that? That's because eBay refused to get rid of them.

Meg felt that it was more important to sign up more new users (because Wall Street liked that) instead of trying to police the users she had. So a gazillion scammers signed up and weren't kicked off until the authorities got involved.

This is obviously a long and complicated story but I will never trust her to do the right thing. She has NO moral qualms about doing the wrong thing. It doesn't bother her in the least.

[Jay100]

Originally Posted by UB50

No. You're wrong. I still would have had the same eBay business and it probably would have been better now than it is.

The biggest problem I had with Meg was with her ethics. I got involved in the "Trust & Safety" portion of eBay and for awhile, I spent time trying to track down people hijacking accounts, etc.

The biggest problem that I had with Meg is that she refused to verify sellers even though it would have cut down on the number of fraudulent sellers (people selling cars they didn't own and things like that). There are individual scammers who took eBay buyers for over $1,000,000. Did you know that? That's because eBay refused to get rid of them.

Meg felt that it was more important to sign up more new users (because Wall Street liked that) instead of trying to police the users she had. So a gazillion scammers signed up and weren't kicked off until the authorities got involved.

This is obviously a long and complicated story but I will never trust her to do the right thing. She has NO moral qualms about doing the wrong thing. It doesn't bother her in the least.

Coulda shoulda coulda shoulda woulda had a better business. If the site were really that bad then why didn't you stop using it? Jerry Brown is pretty shady himself. He lives in compound, doing who knows what with how many different people. Now he wants to screw every Californian with his immigration policies, etc.. I simply voted for the lesser of two evils and I'm not even a republican.