Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'politics'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Server Information
    • Server Information
    • Features Showcase
    • Announcements
    • Server Continuity
  • Out Of Character
    • General Discussions
    • Player Support
    • Suggestions
    • Community Showcase
  • Factions
    • Faction Information
    • Factions
  • Property Management
    • Property Information
    • Property Management Requests
    • Property Section
  • In Character
    • Business Section
    • Advertisements
    • Official Press
    • Internet
  • Bug Reports
  • Other
    • Off Topic
    • Other Games
  • Links
    • Discord Server
    • Quickdate (BETA)
    • Facebrowser
    • LSPD Forums
    • LSSD Forums
    • SAPR Forums
    • SFM Forums
    • LSFD Forums
    • SAGOV Forums
    • GOV Forums
    • JSA Forums
    • SAAA Forums
    • PHMC Forums
    • DMEC Forums
    • ULSA Forums
  • Government & Laws Discussion (OOC)'s Topics
  • Government & Laws Discussion (OOC)'s Topics
  • Los Santos Golf Club's Brooks Koepka wins 2019 PGA Championship
  • GTA World British's What do you love about Britain
  • GTA World British's Games Area

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Member Title

About Me





Character Name




Custom Song

Found 24 results

  1. NEWS • Politics Written by Yunisa DELGADO-FLORES • May 19th, 2022 9:35AM Abortion and religion, thoughts by Edward Ulf, Senator Lu and GOP's Jonathan Spencer The debate surrounding abortion in the state of San Andreas rages strong. Democrat Senator Jackie Lu, SAGOP Chairman Jonathan Spencer and former senator Edward Ulf shares their thoughts about religion, while Spencer and Lu gives details as to their plans for future legislation. Edward Ulf (left), Senator Jackie Lu, (middle) and SAGOP Chairman Jonathan Spencer (right) - courtesy of Edward Ulf, the office of Jackie Lu, and Jonathan Spencer respectively. Edward Ulf, back in late 2021, proposed a bill dubbed the Woman's Health Act of 2021. The act served as a piece of legislation that aimed to protect women's access to abortion clinics; enshrining the Roe vs. Wade ruling into law. Roe vs. Wade is a US Supreme Court case which ruling still is felt to this day. The ruling deemed state legislation that forbade abortion without regard to a fetus’ development, a woman’s health or to be unconstitutional. This, in addition to a ruling made in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey which strengthened the case, meant states cannot give a blanket ban abortion nor make legislature or institutional policies to create any 'undue burden' for women who wish to carry out an abortion. However, due to a leaked opinion draft which shown that the majority of Justices intend to reverse it, many worry for its future. The Women’s Health Act of 2021, if passed, would have locked the Roe vs. Wade ruling into the San Andreas legislature. Since the act did not pass, there is no legislation currently within San Andreas that either protects or, if Roe vs. Wade were to be overturned, restricts abortion. The bill failed to reach the floor. Senator Adrian Rossi, majority leader of the Senate (R), reported that the reason for this was due to the existing ruling still withstanding. “The Women's Health Act of 2021 did technically fail though it wasn't voted on the floor.”, Sen. Rossi shared in a previous written statement to the Daily News. “This is because the case-law of Roe vs. Wade exists, and that was simply a restatement. Therefore, other bills were given priority as there were many important pieces that we focused on.” Edward Ulf however alleges that the reason for the bill’s failure was due to alleged negligence from a state attorney, as well as alleging due to his fellow senators neglecting to remember. “It was ignored and put away on the shelf despite it getting voted out of the committee and into the floor but stopped there because the state attorney ‘wanted to review’ it.” Edward Ulf told the Los Santos Daily News. “She did. Did not tell anyone about it. Then when attempts [were] taken to get it voted on, it was again shelved because ‘nobody remembers that it was voted to the floor’.” The Daily News has reached out to the office of the State Attorney for a comment on May the 16th. ADDED 05/22/22 10:15PM by Chief Editor Yunisa Delgado-Flores The State Attorney's office issued a response to Edward Ulf the following week to this article being published. The response denied the claims that the bill was left indefinitely in review. "In regards to the Women's Health Act of 2021, the bill was merely put on hold for 24 hours to be reviewed by the State Attorney's Office, which consisted of my staff reviewing it to ensure it had all it needed to continue. It was released back to the committee to continue onto the Senate floor with full knowledge of both the Democratic and Republican parties, and their respective leadership." The State Attorney's office further distanced itself from Ulf's claims, saying that his allegations are "complete hearsay". "If Senator Ulf wished for the Women's Health Act of 2021 to be taken back onto the State Senate floor, he should've brought it back up on behalf of his constituents." Senators and leaders from both parties have announced an intent to submit legislature surrounding abortion, however the contents of either drafts remain unknown. In a prior statement from SAGOP Chairman Jonathan Spencer to the Daily News, he stated that he and his party will submit a bill that includes ‘bipartisan points’ and says they are “seeking to make it as fair as possible to men and women across San Andreas” “I'm unable to comment on it at the moment due it being unfinished currently, and would prefer to comment on it in its fullness at a later date once it's complete. However, I would like to make clear we are indeed including bipartisan points in our draft and are seeking to make it as fair as possible to men and women across San Andreas.” Sen. Rossi, when asked about the SAGOP's plans for future bills in a previously written statement, noted how the SAGOP's legislation for abortion would only be submitted if Roe vs. Wade were to be reversed. "To further answer your question, the GOP does plan to submit a bill regarding abortion should the Court overturn Roe v. Wade." In an interview with Senator Jackie Lu (D), when asked if there are any plans for any bills to be introduced surrounding abortion, she stated that she “intends to do something about it.” “Women should assert their rightful place in society.”, wrote Sen. Jackie Lu. “And I have not and will not forget about them; We will not be denied the authority to make choices about our own bodies. I will not stop working until everyone, and I mean everyone, regardless of poverty, zip code, or race, has access to safe, legal, and accessible abortions. “If [women] are not prepared. How can you maintain a child if you are still in education with over more than $50,000's in student debt? The correct response is no; you cannot.” When reached out for a comment regarding what he believes the senate should do in regards to abortion legislature, Edward Ulf was highly critical of the current make-up. "I suggest they, both sides, actually bothers to talk to the people they are supposed to represent instead of going to bars, clubs, yachts or hang out in their Mansions in Vinewood." Ulf wrote in their statement to the Daily News. "I suggest they worry less about the stakeholders and what people will think about them and work towards a better future for the entire state." Edward Ulf currently serves as the CEO for a local web-hosting company named Dot IT Hosting. Dot IT Hosting’s and Ulf's stance on the topic of abortion was shared through a public post on its Facebrowser page on May the 5th, two days after the leak. A screengrab of the post by Dot IT Hosting and Edward Ulf from Dot IT's Facebrowser page, May the 19th 2022 One of the core issues surrounding abortion is the religious ramifications where differing religious views - both within Christianity, between religions, and between theists and atheists - debate at what point a fetus is considered to have life, and whether or not abortion is equal to the act of killing. SAGOP Chairman Spencer equates abortion to “murder”, citing the federal legislature Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and explains how his religious beliefs has shaped this opinion. "Even though the victim is yet to be born, it is unethical to kill an innocent human being. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government." Spencer detailed how exactly the Unborn Victims of Violence Act operates. "Under federal law, anyone intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should 'be punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being', according to the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted 'to protect unborn children from assault and murder.' The act also states that an unborn child is a 'member of the species homo sapiens.' Multiple states have passed similar fetal homicide laws." In accordance of Roe vs. Wade, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act specifically excludes abortion. It notes that the legislature cannot be used to prosecute either the woman undergoing the procedure or the medical practicioner performing it. (ad serving as placeholder) Spencer’s argument for abortion equaling murder also derives from a biblical standpoint, where he notes how the language used in the bible doesn’t distinguish between a fetus and an infant. “The killing of a human being contradicts God's word; the Bible does not distinguish between fetuses and babies, using the Greek word brephos to refer to both an unborn child and an infant. God recognizes a newborn by the time he or she is conceived, as Jeremiah 1:5 demonstrates: ‘Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.’” Spencer explained to the Daily News in a written statement last week. “The Sixth Commandment of the Bible’s Old Testament, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ (Exodus 20:13), applies to all human beings, including unborn babies.” Democrat Sen. Jackie Lu however, a fellow Christian, holds a different perspective. They believe that God would be understanding as to the reasons a woman would want and need to get an abortion. “I am a religious person, but I am confident that God understands why we think this is a good idea” Lu shares. “Having children is a life-altering decision, not a simple choice. And when you can't even say anything about it, the situation gets quite nightmare-like. It will make your life 10 times more difficult, so I think it's a fantastic idea for women to be able to remove it. "I believe that rituals and customs contribute to local culture and are an integral part of who we are, but we must abandon those that are obstructive and demeaning." Pillbox Medical Center, Alan Kim. May the 15th 2022 Former Senator Edward Ulf stands with an atheistic viewpoint, where he dismisses the notion that religion should be regarded in abortion legislature. “Personally? I follow the consensus of the scientific community, when there is a heartbeat.”, Edward Ulf shared when questioned about what point he believes a fetus has life. In an ultrasound, a heartbeat can be discovered as early as five and a half weeks after gestation, but is usually found six and a half to seven weeks in. He ended with “I do not believe religion should have any say in this.” Sen. Rossi’s resolution to condemn the US Supreme Court leaker, Resolution 28, is set to take the floor towards the end of this week. Editor's Note: 22/05/2022. 10:15pm At the time of this article being released, the state's attorney's office was unable to provide a comment regarding allegations of negligence from Edward Ulf. This evening, at 6:00:AM, the state's attorney's office issued the following response. The article has been amended to include these comments, read as the following: Comments are enabled: Username: Comment: ((monster is the GOAT))
  2. Current Vacancies Operations [Blue Collar] - Refinery Operator - Aurum Energy Refinery [UNLIMITED] [OPEN] - Refinery Foreman - Aurum Energy Refinery [3 POSITIONS] [OPEN] - Head of Operations - Aurum Energy Refinery [1 POSITION] [CLOSED] Corporate [White Collar] - Human Resources Specialist - Aurum Energy Field-Office [2 POSITIONS] [OPEN] - Marketing Specialist - Aurum Energy Field-Office [2 POSITIONS] [OPEN] - Business Development Analyst - Aurum Energy Field-Office [2 POSITIONS] [OPEN] - Junior Engineer - Aurum Energy Field-Office [2 POSITIONS] [OPEN] - Finance Officer - Aurum Energy Field-Office [3 POSITIONS] [OPEN] - Sales Representative - Aurum Field-Office [3 POSITIONS] [OPEN] - Executive Assistant - Aurum Field-Office [1 POSITION] [OPEN] Application Process Archived Roles
  3. NEWS • Politics Written by Yunisa DELGADO-FLORES • May 14th, 2022 Resolution to condemn Roe vs. Wade leaker enters the SA State Senate The SAGOP shares their theories as to the leaker's identity, as well as expressing their stance on abortion following the Roe vs. Wade leak The State Capitol building, May 13th, 2022 - Alan Kim. Resolution 28, a resolution seeing to condemn the leaker of the Roe vs. Wade opinion draft, was recently introduced to the State Senate by Senator Adrian Rossi (R). On May the 3rd, 2022 an opinion draft was leaked to the press regarding the overturning of the 1973 case Roe vs. Wade, a landmark case that secured a woman's right to access abortion clinics and treatments without government restrictions, as well as the 1993 case Planned Parenthood vs. Casey which disallowed states to place an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions. The draft, written by Justice Alito of the US Supreme Court, contains The removal of Roe vs. Wade would put a woman's right to abortion at risk across the nation. As it stands, there are 16 states that have the right to abortion enshrined in law, including the democrat-leaning states of Colorado, New Jersey and Illinois, and 14 states that have laws in place ready to restrict abortions following Roe vs. Wade's reversal, which include the republican-leaning states of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. San Andreas, by the time this article has been released, has no law neither protecting a woman's access to abortion clinics nor any bill planning to restrict a woman's access to abortion treatments. An attempt to pass a bill enshrining a woman's right to access safe and legal abortions was introduced by former senator Edward Ulf (D) in 2021. The Women's Health Act of 2021 would have secured the right of medical clinics across San Andreas to legally conduct abortions, while also enabling and supporting a woman's choice to either abort or keep the fetus in the legislature. It would have enshrined the Roe vs. Wade ruling into the San Andreas Legislature. The Women's Health Act of 2021 failed to reach the floor. Sen. Rossi stated in an interview that the reason for this was due to other bills being "given priority", partially due to the ruling of Roe vs. Wade still standing. Resolution 28, named A Resolution to Condemn the U.S. Supreme Court Draft Leaker, was proposed by Sen. Rossi. The resolution claims that the leak was politically motivated and suggested it undermines the Justices' ability to act impartially. It calls for the leaker's immediate disbarment and removal from the US Supreme Court. The resolution also commends Justice John Roberts for a "swift response" in confirming the validity of the leak. On the day of the leak, Justice Roberts directed the court marshal to launch an investigation into the identity and source of the leak. If the resolution were to pass, the State Senate would officially condemn the leaker on the national stage. The San Andreas GOP made a press release condemning the leaker as a party not long after the resolution was introduced to the Senate. The release states that the leakage should not be tolerated, and claims that the leaker is "undoubtedly" a "left-wing law clerk who's upset at the court's directive" Jonathan Spencer, former republican senator and current chairman of the SAGOP, expanded upon the press releases' claims when asked for a comment. He stated that he believes the intent of the leak was to "put pressure" on the justices to "sway" their votes. Likewise, he also claims that the leak was orchestrated by a "left-wing group." As of May the 14th, the identity of the leaker is still unknown. Sen. Rossi reaffirmed their party's beliefs in a brief interview with LSDN, where he stated that he was "shocked and deeply disappointed" in the culprit. Sen. Rossi connects the leak towards the protests, "calls to arms" across the nation - specifically noting Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot's tweet - and alleged threats towards the Supreme Court Justices. The "Call to Arms" in question, tweeted by Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot on May the 10th. Sen. Rossi also told the Daily that there are plans by the SAGOP to introduce a bill related to women's abortion rights if Roe vs. Wade were to be repealed, however he was not at liberty to say what the bill would entail. The SAGOP Chairman Spence likewise refused to comment on key details to what this bill may include, telling the Daily News that it was still in it's draft. However, he did note that the bill's draft includes "bipartisan points" with the expressed goal of making it "as fair as possible to men and women across San Andreas". When Sen. Rossi was questioned on his views on a woman's access to abortion clinics, he stated women should be permitted access to abortion clinics under "right and lawful circumstances". The SAGOP chairman Spencer however took a more hard-line stance where he told the Daily News of his belief that abortion is "murder". Describing themselves as a Christian, they note how in the bible a child is recognized upon conception, as said in Jeremiah 1:15. and that the bible doesn't distinguish between an unborn fetus and an infant. He also explained how the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes fetuses as human beings and grants them personhood in the eyes of the law. Under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, if a fetus were to be killed due to an act of violence against the mother, the culprit would be charged with the death as if they killed a person. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act contains provisions that specifically exclude abortions from it's rulings, where neither the mother nor the medical practitioner can be charged for choosing to abort the baby. However, if Roe vs. Wade were to be repealed, the Senate and Congress would be free to be amended the bill to remove these provisions. If Roe vs. Wade is reversed, then abortion clinics will continue to be permitted to operate and provide services in Los Santos and throughout San Andreas, providing no legislation changes that. Women would also be free to seek out legal methods of abortion throughout the state. If the possible repeal of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey's ruling goes through too, there would be no requirement of the state, clinics nor cities to ensure there isn't an "undue burden" in seeking abortions. This means that women, while legally having access to abortions, may find the process harder or more costly. This could be due to new laws brought forth in the senate or changes in policies at medical clinics. Minority Leader Diana Jones declined to comment, saying that they will be expressing their views on the matter during the next senate hearing; it is scheduled to take place next week. They have expressed their interest in sharing their thoughts and answering questions after the hearing. The Los Santos Daily News is awaiting further comments from a number of Democrat Senators who have also stated that they are interested in sharing their thoughts and beliefs with us. Comments are enabled: Username: Comment: ((all mother that is holy i want bbcode))
  4. The topic will follow Tucker Meier's life.
  5. SAN ANDREAS STATE GOVERNMENT "Eureka!" History of San Andreas Spanish Rule The first Europeans to explore the San Andreas coast were the members of a Spanish sailing expedition led by Portuguese captain Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo; they entered San Diego Bay on September 28, 1542, and reached at least as far north as San Miguel Island. Privateer and explorer Francis Drake explored and claimed an undefined portion of the San Andreas coast in 1579, landing north of the future city of San Fierro. The first Asians to set foot on what would be the United States occurred in 1587, when Filipino sailors arrived in Spanish ships at Morro Bay. Sebastián Vizcaíno explored and mapped the coast of San Andreas in 1602 for New Spain, sailing as far north as Cape Mendocino. After the Portolà expedition of 1769–70, Spanish missionaries led by Junipero Serra began setting up 21 San Andreas Missions on or near the coast of Alta (Upper) San Andreas, beginning in San Diego. During the same period, Spanish military forces built several forts (presidios) and three small towns (pueblos). The San Fierro Mission grew into the city of San Fierro, and two of the pueblos grew into the cities of Los Santos and San Jose. Several other smaller cities and towns also sprang up surrounding the various Spanish missions and pueblos, which remain to this day. Mexican Rule In 1821, the Mexican War of Independence gave Mexico (including San Andreas) independence from Spain. For the next 25 years, Alta San Andreas remained as remote, sparsely populated, northwestern administrative district of the newly independent country of Mexico. The missions, which controlled most of the best land in the state, were secularized by 1834 and became the property of the Mexican government. The governor granted many square leagues of land to others with political influence. These huge ranchos or cattle ranches emerged as the dominant institutions of Mexican San Andreas. San Andreas Republic and conquest In 1846, a group of American settlers in and around Sonoma rebelled against Mexican rule during the Beaver Flag Revolt. Afterwards, rebels raised the Beaver Flag (featuring a beaver, a star, a blue stripe and the words "San Andreas Republic") at Sonoma. The Republic's only president was William B. Ide, who played a pivotal role during the Beaver Flag Revolt. This revolt by American settlers served as a prelude to the later American military invasion of San Andreas and was closely coordinated with nearby American military commanders. The San Andreas Republic was short lived; the same year marked the outbreak of the Mexican–American War (1846–48). When Commodore John D. Sloat of the United States Navy sailed into Monterey Bay and began the military occupation of San Andreas by the United States, Northern San Andreas capitulated in less than a month to the United States forces. After a series of defensive battles in Southern San Andreas, the Treaty of Cahuenga was signed on January 13, 1847, securing American control in San Andreas. Early American Period - the Gold Rush In 1848, only one week before the official American annexation of the area, gold was discovered in San Andreas, this being an event which was to forever alter both the state's demographics and its finances. Soon afterward, a massive influx of immigration into the area resulted, as prospectors and miners arrived by the thousands. The population burgeoned with San Andreas citizens, Europeans, Chinese and other immigrants during the great San Andreas Gold Rush. By the time of San Andreas' application for statehood in 1850, the settler population of San Andreas had multiplied to 100,000. By 1854, more than 300,000 settlers had come. Between 1847 and 1870, the population of San Fierro increased from 500 to 150,000. San Andreas was suddenly no longer a sparsely populated backwater, but seemingly overnight it had grown into a major population center. Government and politics San Andreas State Government - Overview The capital of San Andreas is located within Los Santos. The state is organized into three branches of government—the executive branch consisting of the governor and the other constitutional officers; the legislative branch consisting of the Senate; and the judicial branch consisting of the Supreme Court of San Andreas and lower courts. The state also allows ballot propositions: direct participation of the electorate by initiative, referendum, recall, and ratification. Executive branch The San Andreas executive branch consists of the governor and five other constitutional officers: lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state treasurer, and state superintendent of public instruction. Agencies under the direction of a secretary that report directly to the governor are cabinet-level agencies. Some agencies such as the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and State Treasurer are headed by independent appointed officials. The vast majority of state government agencies and departments are headquartered in Los Santos or in parts of Los Santos County near the city of Los Santos; in turn, the larger agencies and departments also have local offices around the state which report to headquarters in Los Santos. Legislative branch The San Andreas State Legislature is a unicameral legislature composed of the San Andreas State Senate. The State Senate convenes at the San Andreas State Capitol in Los Santos. The San Andreas State Senate consists of a 40-member Senate. Senators serve four-month terms. Members of the Senate are not subject to term limits. The Lieutenant Governor is the ex officio President of the Senate, and may only cast a vote to break a tie. The President pro tempore is elected by the majority party caucus, followed by confirmation of the full Senate. Other leaders, such as the majority and minority leaders, are elected by their respective party caucuses according to each party's strength in the chamber. Judicial branch San Andreas' judiciary system is the largest in the United States with a total of 1,600 judges (the federal system has only about 840). At the apex is the three-member Supreme Court of San Andreas, while the San Andreas Courts of Appeal serve as the primary appellate courts and the San Andreas Superior Courts serve as the primary trial courts. (( The Judicial Branch is managed by the JSA faction. )) ((Out of Character)) Our goal is to create a realistic portrayal of a US State Government heavily influenced by the California Government and bring many elements of government that was handled OOC to its associated IC institutions. If you have any questions about this faction or looking for ways to get involved feel free to contact us anytime IC or OOC. Join us on discord!
  6. She's a senator, smart and single! Swipe right on Valeria Reyes and discover more about her. Senator Valeria Reyes shares details of her personal life and introduces her new bill: legalization of sex work. By Nina Garavano Hello Ms. Reyes, welcome. Can you tell me about your background? How did you manage to become the senator you are now? Sure, so I was born in Rancho but grew up in Chamberlain Hills, Forum Drive and Carson. I went to Davis High School, and worked on the side at my dad's small restaurant. Mostly cooking the finest Hispanic food in South LS. After saving up some money, and with the help of my family, I went to ULSA with my sister. We both studied Criminal Justice. She joined the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, whilst I went more into politics. I've done a lot of community events and activities in Chamberlain, and still continue to do so. I eventually got noticed by Senator Jones from the Democratic Party. I applied to become a candidate, and made it through the party's selection. Won the elections, and that is how I'm now here! That's great! Must be very rewarding for you, but with a lot of responsibilities.How do you handle the pressure of being a senator? Is it hard to achieve balance between your work and personal life? Friends, relationships? Obviously, it was somewhat of a challenge to adapt. I had to experience the harshness of politics right from the start of my campaign, in regards to the rivalry with the Republic Party and my opponent Joseph Hoffman. It's also been very time-consuming, I unfortunately haven't got a lot of time left for personal things. Then of course the more simpler things. From being able to wear jerseys and sneakers, to suits and heels. Having to wear heels everyday was the most difficult part. Well, even the most busy people need some time for themselves. What do you enjoy doing in your free time? I don't want to be that person— but I usually spend my free time watching Netflix. I also love cooking, and sports wise I love watching basketball, football and soccer. I'm a big supporter of the ULSA football team, actually. Oh that's great! They've had a great campaign this year. A very good one. Shout out to their captain, Justin! And are you currently in a relationship? Aha— during my campaign I was in a relationship, and after my victory in the elections I turned single. I suppose one of the sacrifices I had to make, I haven't got a lot of time for dating now to be honest. Have you tried Quick Date yet? Well, I've registered on that site out of curiosity, and didn't actually use it to meet anyone to be honest. And what happened with you and your last partner? Can you share more details? I'd like to keep that part private if you don't mind. I'm going to get criticized on everything I say or do, so that's the part I want to keep private. Don't want people getting involved in that part of my life. Ah yes, that's understandable. Moving on, we all know that Los Santos and San Andreas as a whole host one of the biggest LGBT communities in the country. Yet that creates a lot of hate from conservative people. What are your thoughts about the subject? I'm a proud supporter of the LGBTQ community, and so is my party. We've recently voiced our support on Facebrowser. We've long fought towards a more inclusive society where everyone can live openly without fear, no matter their religion, racial background, and yes, sexual preferences too. Despite the hate from some conservatives indeed, I think we can be proud as a state that we're one of the most progressive states in the United States. Of course, personally while being a straight woman, I see I get a lot of attention from girls too. Did that ever happen to you? Hah, I can relate. Yes.I see it as a positive. It's good that there is no fear for people of being who they are. Though I do feel like men may struggle more than women in this topic, as being gay as a male is often less tolerated than being gay as a female. It's a bridge we have to build together. Yes, that's true. I see your point. But as a woman, what do you feel when you are approached, either by men or women, trying to flirt in a pushy or straightforward way? I give them hints or let them verbally know I am interested or not interested, so I don't waste people's time, nor my own time. Yes, I believe your time is very valuable. Let me know more about the bills you are currently working on. Sure. I recently tried pushing a bill that combats crime caused by illegal firearms, but it was blocked unfortunately. I am now focusing on a new bill I recently introduced with Riley King, my staffer. It's the state legalization of sex work. I've been approached by many women who struggle in the adult industry, be it strip clubs or escorts. I've heard concerning stories about how they are often mistreated by both customers and employees, and because it is a questionable topic in terms of law, they are not able to do anything about it. Rather than prohibiting it, we should regulate it so the illegal human and sex trafficking comes to an end. This topic is often compared to when alcohol was prohibited, it only made things worse. Now there is a regulation for it, and all is perfectly fine.Of course, this is a sensitive topic that conservatives will be strongly opposed to and that I am perhaps entering dangerous waters, but I hope they see the bigger picture and that regulation is needed to end terrible crimes happening in our cities. I see, who holds the responsibility in those struggles you mention? Is it the State? The clients? The employees? At first, the state— because the issue is that we're trying to prohibit it, which only makes it worse. And what would you say to all the girls working in this business, what is your message to them? If you are being mistreated or abused, get out of there. If you think you might be in danger trying to leave the business, seek out help from law enforcement regardless of the law right now. I will try my best to provide a safe working environment for you, and I hope my colleagues will support the bill to get this done. And why do you think a girl would choose that career path, instead of any other? Out of desperation, I'd say. This career path is usually a last resort, I believe. But very well, it is their bodies, their choices, their freedom and their responsibilities to do it, and I respect and support their rights. We should acknowledge it like a profession and business like any other.It is however our duty as a government to provide safety and care, and respect their rights. Any final words do you want to add? A message to our readers? I hope that we can strive to become a community where everyone respects each other. Let people be who they are, and treat each other with respect and dignity. Say no to hate, say no to discrimination, and say no to racism. If you witness it, help each other out. Do not be afraid to come to someone's aid. Be the change this society needs you to be. > Comments are enabled Username: Comment:
  7. Political Reform Act of 2021 advances to Senate Floor after tense hearing; bipartisan agreement wins out. BY RANA KHATI Los Santos, SA - The State Senate convened on the 15th of February 2021 for a hearing of the Senate Rules & Ethics Committee to deliberate on the Republican-proposed Political Reform Act of 2021; an act aiming to shore up election integrity and set much needed campaign finance regulation in place for elections throughout San Andreas. Notably absent were Senators Dwight Burris and Daniel Cardenas, leaving the committee with the minimum required for quorum. Cecil Grosvenor, former Senior Policy Advisor & Legislative Assistant to Senator Frank Ernst was called to the hearing before the Senate. Mr. Grosvenor is also notably on the shortlist for nomination to the State Treasurer position. Senate Rules & Ethics Committee convenes with Senator Ernst (Left) as Chairman Cecil Grosvenor (Right) provides his opening statement while seated. Cecil Grosvenor's Opening Statement: LSNN found broad bipartisan agreement on the spirit of the bill with Senator Ernst on behalf of Republicans telling us that it's "necessary to ensure transparency in our electoral process" and that "(g)iven San Andreas' history of corruption in its politics, this bill seeks to alleviate the issue. Ultimately, sunlight is the best disinfectant to corruption" and spokeswoman for the Democratic Party and Candidate for State Senate, Ms. Chloe Knight, telling LSNN that it is "obviously something that Democrats align strongly with. Transparency, honesty, and accountability in elections is paramount to the integrity of elections." While Mr. Grosvenor began with a strong opening statement on questioning he appeared confused at times with regard to the content of the bill, particularly regarding a provision that Democrats took particular issue with: Political Reform Act- Ch III. Sec II. (a) Marijuana Activist Baba Black outside of the first historic marijuana hearings held by SA State Legislature. Senator Morales pressed Grosvenor on the provision: With Mr. Grosvenor seemingly arguing that the $50,000 minimum donation to be some form of maximum cap, Senator Ethan Schmidt claimed time and concurred with Senator Morales line of questioning, driving the point home further. The gallery descended into whispers as Chairman Ernst rose from the Speaker's Chair and descended for a sidebar discussion with Senator Schmidt before Mr. Grosvenor offered his response. LSNN asked the both the Democratic and Republican Caucus about the exchange. We provide the two responses below. Ms. Chloe Knight (D): Senator Frank Ernst (R): Senator Morales and Ernst nonetheless shared a particularly contentious exchange before Mr. Grosvenor continued to defend the provision which was swiftly motioned to be struck down be motioned by Schmidt, one of the cosponsors of the bill. The impromptu sidebar on the Senate Floor between Senators Schmidt and Ernst. Senator Ernst informed LSNN that the $50,000 dollar minimum amounted to a "clerical error during the drafting process" and noted to LSNN that the purpose of the hearing and amendment sessions were to look for errors like this and clarify them before put up for final vote. He provided no indication whether they intend to expand the maximum cap of $250,000 to individual donors rather than it's current purview over PAC's and Political Parties. Ms. Knight acknowledged it was an error but stated "absolutely, an error was made. An error that if left unaltered would have disenfranchised all poor voters in the state." With the impending election season heating up, it's clear that even routine hearings are becoming tests of public policy chops and will be more and more highly scrutinized by the public. The Committees discussion turned to the topic of who should hold the reins on election integrity in Los Santos. With the bill proposed establishing an Office of the State Clerk, Chairman Ernst claimed time to press on the issue with Grosvenor, prompting a follow up by Senator Jones on the limited nature of the Special Counsel. Both found bipartisan compromise however in putting the purview of setting such authority under the office of the Attorney General: The hearing thereafter went smoothly, the entire Committee voting unanimously to strike the donation minimum, to amend the Office of the State Clerk to an analogous role under the Attorney General's purview, and finally to advance the much-needed legislation to the Senate floor for amendment, debate, and a final vote. But despite the three unanimous votes, recent events begged the question, will this bill if it passes in the Senate be spared the red VETO stamp by the elusive Governor Brandt? LSNN got final statements to see if either party was able to scry the potential of the bill in the executive branch. Senator Ernst: Ms. Knight: Voters will certainly be looking at election integrity in this upcoming campaign cycle and LSNN will work ardently as ever to provide you the news you need to make informed decisions in choosing your next elected State Senate. > Comments are enabled Username: Comment:
  8. THE RANA REPORT Your source for the latest Los Santos news, investigative journalism, and city-wide updates. Former LS COO Charles Lockhart confirmed as State Attorney General BY RANA KHATI Alta City Hall. On Wednesday, January 20th, 2021, the Senate Public Safety and State Security Committee convened for the confirmation hearing of Mr. Charles Lockhart for Attorney General. Mr. Lockhart was most recently the City Operations Officer for the greater Los Santos area. Throughout the hearing, Mr. Lockhart clarified and espoused his approach to criminal justice. He indicated that with regard to the death penalty that it should only be used only as a “last case resort” reserved for acts of mass murder or terrorism but ultimately should remain an option for those cases. With regard to organized crime, he expressed that there is a lack of manpower with regard to both the LSPD and LSSD task forces and indicated his office would attempt to increase support in this regard, whether that means a recruitment drive or seeking out of city transfers is unclear. Senator Ernst pressed Mr. Lockhart on what his office might do to tackle fraudulent charities, Mr. Lockhart referred back to his previous answer of ‘increasing resources’ to the relevant departments. With regard to the recent corruption blowout from Former Mayor Oswald Halford, Senator Burris asked him if there was anything that can be done to prevent this situation from ever happening again. Mr. Lockhart simply stated that as Mr. Halford was caught and prosecuted, “there isn’t much more that can be done when the system worked” Senator Burris pressed him and challenged the idea that the system worked with regard to the corruption and Mr. Lockhart’s reply was that “nobody knew of these allegations prior to him taking office” and then remarked as if Senator Burris was calling for a global surveillance of citizens home, office, and vehicles. Senator Burris has made no such proposal at any point during the hearing. On marijuana criminalization, Mr. Lockhart expressed that there are too many resources going towards the policing of marijuana that could be better expended in other areas of criminal justice which shows a willingness for his office to pursue a more lenient policy towards marijuana offenders. Mr. Lockhart was confirmed with a majority vote of four Yeas, those voting in the affirmative being Senator Frank Ernst, Senator Ethan Schmidt, Senator Gabriela Morales, and Senator Dwight Burris. Senator Gabriela Morales leaving the confirmation hearing. Senator Gabriela Morales, a prominent member of the city and state Democratic Party offered her comments after the hearing: When asked about the recent civil unrest with regard to former Mayor Halford’s corruption scandal, Senator Morales offered words of encouragement: UPDATED January 21, 2021: Lockhart in the Hearing - Taken by Ms. Nayeli Greyfeather @Greyfeather Thank you for supporting independent journalism Remember to like and subscribe for more city-wide news! > Comments are enabled
  9. THE RANA REPORT Your source for the latest Los Santos news, investigative journalism, and city-wide updates. State Senate unanimously clears Marijuana Decrim to move to a final floor vote. BY RANA KHATI State Senate Hearing on Marijuana Legalization On Sunday January 24th, 2021, the San Andreas State Senate Public Safety and Security Committee convened to debate a resolution calling for the decriminalization of the use and sale of marijuana throughout Los Santos and San Andreas. Senator Dan Cardenas (R) chaired the debate and present for questioning was Dr. Danielle Shaw of Pillbox Hill Medical Center, Sheriff Dale Kelly of the Los Santos Sheriff's Department, LSSD Captain Isabella Ramirez, Unit Captain of Twin Towers Correctional Facility and LSSD Civilian Administrator Jameela Calvin. Activists came out in support of the measure in favor of decriminalization as well as with hesitation towards some of the senators: Baba Black, 44, a "Right to Blaze" activist: “Republican(s) lie… [regarding] herb. I think.. Republican will make a big lie and stop legalization.” Rana Khati: Would you be surprised if they supported it at the end of the debate? BB: “Ja, mon, but they are heavy into.. greed 'n de poison world.” (Quotes rendered from West Indian patois.). Prior to the debate, Senator Dwight Burris (D) shared his expectations regarding how it might go: Senator Burris: I'm expecting us to get this over with, we have a lot more on our plate, weed should have been legal a long time ago. If you see anybody making a fuss, it's clear cut party politics, I'm expecting my colleagues to use common sense. Senator Ethan Schmidt (R) provided an optimistic viewpoint prior to the hearing: RK: I wanted to get your impressions beforehand. Whether you have an open mind to the idea or not. Senator Schmidt: I do have an open mind to the idea, any idea. I think that's what democracy is about. Senator Dan Cardenas chaired the historic hearing and ensured an orderly and time efficient proceeding, he operated with impartiality as chairman and assigned and enforced time evenly across the board. He afforded time in the beginning to opening statements from those invited which are reproduced below. Dr. Danielle Shaw & Captain Isabella Ramirez opening statements on behalf of Pillbox Hill & the LSSD respectively Opening statement of Dr. Danielle Shaw of Pillbox Hill Medical Center: Opening statement of Captain Isabella Ramirez, Unit Commander of the LSSD Twin Tower Correctional Facility: Sen. Gabriela Morales (D), unfortunately photographed nearby a trash-can during her opening statement. Senator Gabriela Morales (D) is the primary sponsor of the resolution, which ultimately calls on the Senate to convene on a vote to a final bill that addresses the core issue- the decriminalization of marijuana use and distribution throughout the state. While largely seen as a symbolic vote to prioritize a hot-button issue, Senator Morales's floor time was sharply focused on inquiring about the potential positive effects of such decriminalization: DC: Senator Morales is recognized for 5 minutes. Senator Morales: Sheriff Kelly, Captain Ramirez, Doctor Shaw, thank you for your statements today, I'm sure many in the audience watched on with happiness at hearing your candidness. Legalizing marijuana is at the forefront of the Democratic agenda, but I hope that we can move this resolution beyond party lines, so again, thank you. I'd like to just ask, Doctor Shaw, whether you have statistics or even anecdotal knowledge of health complications at PHMC (Pillbox Hill Medical Center) in regards to consumption of cannabis? DC: I am yet to see such a case Senator, its far more like we'd encounter issues with other prescription medication like Oxycodone. The worst you'll get from Marijuana is a hungry stomach and feel a bit sleepy. GM: Thank you, Doctor Shaw, can I ask a further question, is it likely you would prescribe marijuana, or cannabis, to treat certain aliments in accordance with scientific evidence? DS: Correct, there are many conditions which would benefit from Marijuana. To list a few, Parkinsons, Anxiety, HIV or AIDS, or even as a pain relief in cases of severe trauma. GM: And therefore, do you believe that it is beneficial, from a healthcare standpoint, to have cannabis as a valid option for medical and recreational use? DS: I do. Senator Frank Ernst (R) challenges the issue, questioning those called to the hearing. The most critical of the resolution in it's current form, Senator Frank Ernst (R) used his floor time to question the Law Enforcement witnesses on potential drawbacks of decriminalization from a criminal justice standpoint. The debate was tense between the Senator and the Sheriff, but became contentious particularly with interjections from LSSD Civilian Administrator Jameela Calvin and Dr. Danielle Shaw. Senator Frank Ernst's questioning: Senator Ethan Schmidt (R) and Senator Frank Ernst (R) seated at the Republican side of the dais. Senator Ethan Schmidt (R) offered a brief line of questioning with regard to the witnesses stances on the various categories of legalization and medical use-cases: Senator Ethan Schmidt: I have a question for all three of the witnesses. If we are to separate medical usage of marijuana, decriminalization of marijuana, and recreational use of marijuana into three different categories. Which categories would you support, not support, or remain neutral on? DK: To start off, I do believe of marijuana for medicinal reasons should be left to medical professionals. They probably know whether it is safe to do better than I ever will. As such, I won't be commenting on medicinal use. Decriminalizing the use of marijuana, thus making sure the users are not treated as criminals has my support however. I believe Captain Ramirez has already shed some light into why that may be. I have no comments on recreational use, however. DS: Senator, if I may. I'd be in strong support for its medical use, as well as decriminalizing it. I'm also in support of recreational. ES: Thank you. One more question. Marijuana is currently decriminalized under 15 grams. Under what use case would more than fifteen grams be necessary for medical usage? DS: Senator, such quantities would be akin to allowing patients to not make frequent trips to the hospital. Same type of scenario goes to if we allow them to grow their own plants. It helps reduce the workload on my staff for such prescriptions ES: Thank you, I yield the rest of my time to the chair. Senator Dan Cardenas (R) offered his own line of questioning: Senator Dan Cardenas: Sheriff Kelly. Are you in favor of legalizing marijuana distribution... and giving people the power to wholesale marijuana? My question extends to the Sheriff's deputies as well. DK: I'm neutral on the matter. DC: Thank you. I extend the same question to Ms. Shaw. To repeat, are you in favor of legalizing marijuana distribution and giving people the power to wholesale marijuana? DS: I am Senator, provided provisions are made to ensure correct taxation, regulation to ensure its sold to those of age, and general safeguards akin to that of alcohol distribution. With those accounted for yes, otherwise, no. DC: Correct taxation, as in... tax which would effectively fall on distributors? DS: Correct. DC: Thank you. I don't believe in new taxes, but OK ... so you say we should raise taxes on small business, dispensaries and even individual growers? DS: I'm saying, if you'll allow me, to introduce a small tax like we do on alcohol sales, which can be used to generate income in support of communities, to use against tackling real crime or healthcare from its aftermath. DC: Essentially sales tax for marijuana. I see. My time has expired. LSSD Sheriff Dale Kelly answering questions. The Senate voted unanimously, all six senators voting yea to move the resolution to a final floor vote when a full bill is presented. The Democratic Senators were naturally elated regarding the results. The Rana Report got the impressions from the Republican Senators to get their view of how the hearing went and how they wish to move forward on the pressing issue. Rana Khati: Did todays session adequately ease any of your concerns regarding this resolution's decriminalization of marijuana? Senator Ernst: This resolution is a non-binding procedure that simply expresses a sense of the Senate. It's unknown to me why Ms. Morales didn't draft an actual bill to present to the Senate. As soon as I see an actual bill discussed, you'll know my exact thoughts. RK: Did the information from Dr. Shaw or Kelly inform you more greatly? Was this a productive use of your time? Senator Cardenas: Yes indeed. I feel it's important that we hear from our law enforcement on the matter. They're the ones on the street actually keeping citizens accountable. We learned that the police don't even charge for marijuana unless it comes along with additional charges. Now whether these arrests make it to court... that's a question for the district attorney. RK: And did this ease any of your concerns with regard to the proposed resolution, potential amendments nonwithstanding? DC: I believe so, yeah. It seems like we're not enforcing this anyway— why should it be there, right? But I don't want my name on saying that we should strike all notions of cannabis and marijuana from the penal code. Not without proper legislation. RK: Do you know whether your constituents are in favor any form of Marijuana decriminalization initiative by the Senate? FE: Polling indicates that this is a popular issue, sure. But, it's on us as public servant to ensure that any form of decriminalization and legalization doesn't harm the public, our children, or our economy. DC: I know Central wants to see marijuana legalization. We all heard Dr. Shaw today and Dr. Shaw and her hospital are exactly in my district. I can't overlook the sensational... nature of the issue. Indeed. I support Frank in his statement here. RK: Senator Schmidt, did todays hearing resolve any questions you may have had regarding this issue? Senator Schmidt: It sure did. I believe we've set the right foundation to look into fully legalizing marijuana. The people of Blaine County have made it clear they are in favor of legalization, therefore I am obligated to fulfill it. But as Frank said, as public servants, we must make sure it is done through thorough deliberation. FE: Which is precisely why I took issue with some of the language in the resolution. How can we make commitments if we don't even know what an outline of the marijuana bill looks like? RK: Do you believe your colleagues across the aisle are providing this level of due diligence? ES: I believe my colleagues across the isle should've proposed a bill with specifics on how they wish to carry out legalization. Which authorities get delegated licensing. And everything else which needs to be discussed. FE: Again, I'm not sure why Morales proposed a resolution, but I'm sure it's because she wants to look like she's doing something on the issue without actually proposing something concrete. RK: Thank you for your time Senators. The Rana Report has reached out to the office of Senator Morales regarding the insinuations on her motives in bringing the resolution to the floor and we are currently awaiting a response. The article will be updated when we receive one. All in all, activists elated as they left the courtroom; the sense that the government was actively listening to the will of the people was undeniable. We caught up with Baba Black, the activist we spoke to prior to the debate: Rana Khati: So before the hearing you stated you thought the republicans might vote against. How do you feel about the result... an unanimous motion for this to proceed... with the republicans [Yea] vote? Baba Black: Ja, mon. I think dem Republican hide dey rasism nao, seen? Dem wanna be I and I savior nao widde Biden adminis-tray-shun 'n ting, seen? Dey wanna be moa moderate widdey policy. RK: Do you think they will vote yea on the final bill? BB: I no-no. Dem sneks inna grass, yano. We also spoke with Ms. Nora Patterson, the Curator of Culture Los Santos City Government RK: Are you able to give your impressions of today's events? Nora Patterson: Well. It's nice to see that they have opened the floodgates regarding marijuana use. I fully agree on the legalization of marijuana. It's silly of them to keep it illegal for any longer. The Rana Report will continue to update the public regarding the fate of marijuana decriminalization legislation throughout the State of San Andreas and the city of Los Santos. Remember to like and subscribe for more city-wide news! Thank you for supporting independent news!
  10. THE RANA REPORT Your source for the latest Los Santos news, investigative journalism, and city-wide updates. INTERVIEW: LSFD Junior Journalist Edgars Gudlevskis kicks off campaign for state office BY RANA KHATI Edgar Gudlevskis (R) The airwaves have no shortage of offers, deals, and sparkling advertisements, but Edgars Gudlevskis is the only candidate for an as-yet-undetermined State office who has begun to sell his campaign in the early month of January. With six months until the elections, Los Santans will undoubtedly see a chorus line of candidates dance before them in the months to come and the Rana Report will endeavor to interview each and every one of them with the thoroughness you might expect from a job interview- after all, they are vying for the most important job in representing the public interest. We sat with Mr. Gudlevskis in at The Rotten Apple bar in Strawberry for a beer and a quick interview on his campaign, his political goals, and his background. RK: Let's start off with the basics. What's your name, age, and the office you are running for? EG: Edgars Gudlevskis. I'm 27. I've filed paperwork to represent the Republicans in the upcoming election. I expect to run for a Senate District position, possibly Blaine County. We're also looking at the Mayor Election situation, but we're not too sure on that yet. RK: When you say "We" are you speaking about the city-wide Republican party or you and your team? EG: Well, I've filed as a Republican, but I don't believe in party labels. I'm more of an independent with policies that focus on freedom. That can be seen on my campaign website. RK: Okay so you don't have particular coordination with the local Republican officials just yet? EG: The initial paperwork has been filed. I've been in contact with party officials about my plans. We're moving forward right now, so far so good. RK: Mr. Joseph Hoffman is the Republican City Council District Representative for Blaine County. Is he someone that you've worked with in the past? Do you have any opinion on how his work has been as a District Representative? EG: I'm not a fan of any of the Senate District Representatives [sic], that's partially why I'm so passionate about running. I support the Republicans slightly more than the Democrats, but it's really just a formality. RK: Let's talk about your past. How long have you lived in Los Santos, what has your job history been like, and how has it made you the perfect candidate? EG: Well. The people will be glad to hear that I love to fight for them. I've been here for a little while, not too long, but I love this city and its citizens. I have volunteered at many local businesses, including the Grand Casino in Rockford. I also have a connection with the Los Santos Fire Department in their Public Relations division. EG shows RK a badge issued by the Los Santos Fire Department denoting him as a Junior Journalist. They serve the people. That's why I associate myself with them. I want to serve the people as well. RK: Recently the Senate convened to nominate former City Operations Officer Charles Lockhart to be Attorney General. In his hearing, he was asked about the recent corruption scandal from former Mayor Oswald Halford. He was asked whether he thought anything could be done to have stopped the corruption before it happened. He said "the system worked" [and implied] that there was nothing really that could have been done. Do you agree with this or do you have a plan to make our elections less prone to this sort of corruption? EG: I must say that I think there are things that we can do. RK: What would some of those be? EG: What that is... It's going to be tough to really look at those changes. But I think we need a system centered around people, transparency, and freedom. Freedom is my major platform. I reiterate this over and over and over… It's stamped all over my website too. But I want freedom. Elections need to be free and fair. People need to have faith in the system and I'm going to fight to make that happen. RK: In the Senate, if you are elected you will have the power to write and propose legislation. Do you have any experience in writing legislation in your personal history? EG: Writing legislation is important. I went to the University of Latvia and earned a degree in Economics. I would focus a lot of my legislation on the Economy, but also on freedom. I want gas prices to be lower for the Trucking and Taxi Cab industries. So I need to take a look at supply and demand. I think the Senate also needs to look at supporting the farmers. One way we can do that is to provide them with grants and ensure that their crops remain valuable in our markets. RK: I'm seeing freedom is a big theme. Can you give me your positions on the following hot-button issues: The Housing Shortage, Marijuana Criminalization, LGBT Rights, and Second Amendment Rights? EG: Marijuana should be legal. LGBT will have equal rights, I am fighting to protect and 'EXPAND' the Second Amendment. Three very important... issues. I'm very clear. Legal. Equal. Protect. RK: Do you have a plan for expanding housing so people are not living out of hotels? In Blaine, the housing shortage has people living in the city who work in the County. EG: Expanding housing, well there's pros and cons to that issue. At the same time, I've lived in a Motel and I loved it. So I'm looking at that carefully, but I really think I'm pretty neutral on that issue. I'd probably vote to expand housing due to the shortage. I'd love to hear more about it from the people. RK: Public housing you mean? EG: Er. Yes. Look. I've been around all of the districts. I've been in restaurants, bars, gas stations, all of it. The people are starting a movement behind Edgars. Behind... me... You know? That's important. People are going to be shocked real soon. RK: You, like so many Los Santos citizens, are someone who made Los Santos their home but still have a culture from another place. I am like this too. How does your Latvian culture inspire you to be a better Los Santan? EG: Well. I love my home country of Latvia, but it had its problems. So does Los Santos. One thing that I've learned about being here in Los Santos is that I love working with the people. I love farmers, fishermen, bartenders, dealers at the casino, citizens, police, firemen. I think we can find unity in that because we're all the same. Our backgrounds may be different but we're all from Los Santos, we're all living here. We need to work together to make it better, and even though I'm from Latvia, I'm fighting for them regardless. For more information about Mr. Gudlevskis and his campaign, you can find his website linked here. Are you part of the movement, do you have questions for Mr. Gudlevskis? Sound off in the comment section below and have your voice heard! Remember to like and subscribe for more city-wide news! Thank you for supporting independent journalism > Comments are enabled
  11. An Independent Platform for an Independent Los Santos We live in one of the wealthiest cities in one of the wealthiest countries on the face of the earth. In a just society, we should be judged not solely on the heights of achievement that the wealthiest among us achieve, but by the extent of the deepest suffering our society allows for those most cast-aside and neglected. It is my belief that when my neighbor suffers, I suffer. When my neighbor’s child goes hungry, that is my child who goes hungry. When my neighbor is uplifted, their rise is ours too. In a just society, nobody should have to wonder where their next meal will come from if at all, nobody should have to wonder whether they’ll be incarcerated for smoking or possessing marijuana, nobody should have to wonder whether they’ll be shot while going to the 24/7 or by merely doing their job as a transportation worker. In a truly just society, these every-day horrors are addressed with meaningful legislation. I am Malikah Saleh and I am doing everything in my power to make that just society a reality.. A Mayor is your employee, so a mayoral campaign should be a resume. Here’s mine. For as long as I've been in Los Santos, I’ve defended those who end up on the wrong end of the criminal justice system. I’ve defended folks who often couldn’t afford to have a lawyer at all and I’ve often defended them free of charge- believing that it should not be just the very wealthy who should have access to the very best the best legal representation. In my time in Los Santos, I’ve seen tragedies much like you no doubt have. I’ve seen young people shot and murdered before they’ve had a chance to live. I’ve seen police officers gunned down for the simple fact of doing their job. I’ve seen people at their lowest and I’ve seen exactly how the system keeps them down. I am running for Mayor because I know what needs to be done to start building a just society. Don’t just take my word for it. Let's look at the facts. . When I saw the marijuana arrests that take young kids smoking a blunt and rack their record up with fines, misdemeanors, and eventually felonies, I saw society keeping young people living in economically troubled areas down. My response wasn't to make a big speech, talk a big game, 'advocate' without action. My response was to write the Marijuana Decriminalization Act of 2020. I pushed for change by being the change, I did the work needed, and this act has been given and supported by democratic District Representative George Valencia. When I saw the spike in sex crimes plaguing our city, I also heard the cries of victims of domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault. I took their pleas to heart, thinking of my students and how every single person in Los Santos should not live in fear of sexual violation. My response wasn't to make a big speech, talk a big game, 'advocate' without action. My response was to write the Sex Offender Registry Act of 2020 so that nobody needs to wonder where these .predators are living. I’ve given that bill to the republican District Representative Jonathan Spencer. When I noticed that the law of the land states that folks ought to have the freedom to hunt within hunting zones, yet there were no hunting zones actually listed, I didn’t wait for change, or advocate for change. I made change. I wrote the Hunting Zoning Commission Act of 2020 because I know how to make change a reality. I’ve given that bill to the republican District Representative Joseph Hoffman who is just as committed to real change as I am. When I experienced a hate crime firsthand in Vespucci beach and heard about my neighbors dealing with neo-nazi elements in one of the youngest and most diverse parts of the city, I didn’t hope, pray, or wish for change. I made the change. I wrote the Hate Crime Act of 2020 to empower judges to harshly punish hate crimes and to show that Los Santos is in the year 2020, not 1950. I’ve given that bill to the democratic District Representative Tanya Sun who is putting it forward with professionalism, passion, and grace. And I'm not stopping there, those are just the laws that have been drafted and are on their way to being finished. There's so many issues facing the people of Los Santos and half of the laws I'm writing haven't been completed yet, but the problems still plague us. For example, when we look at the southside we often see young people who are lured into a life of crime. The opportunity it provides for quick and easy money is a lure when there's a desert of outreach and a sense that the government has abandoned an entire group of citizens. These young people get arrested on small time charges which quickly snowball into big time charges and before you know it they’ve got a felony,. Society tells them then that they can’t exercise their right to vote and that any job they apply for will be haunted by the crimes of their past. Oftentimes, they turn right back to what seems like the only open door. Crime. I’m here to say it doesn’t have to be that way. We don’t have to settle for trying to slow down the cycle of violence when we can break it. With a mixture of public and private investment into educational programs directed at people in the neighborhoods that experience the highest rates of crime, a jobs program that will not only strengthen in our cities crumbling infrastructure but but provide folks of all backgrounds honest labor for honest pay, the decriminalization of marijuana, and the shortening of expungement times for nonviolent offenses, we can offer real tangible hope to those who need it most and we can offer them a path out of crime and out of poverty. None of this empathy means that I'm in any way soft on crime. I am drafting legislation to ensure that there are mandatory minimum sentences of twenty-five years to life on all murders of law enforcement across Los Santos and Blaine. Nobody who is proven guilty of having murdered an officer of the law should be set free due to undue clemency. No exceptions. I’m not a magician and I'm not trying to promise you the world. The path ahead relies on two things: hard work and the right people willing to actually do it. This is why it is my personal belief that through hard work, dedication, and a true commitment to change, I will be able to bring to Los Santos better and more meaningful quality of life for those who need it most.. Through smart decisive legislation, an inclusive attitude, and a willingness to get the work done rather than just talk a big game, you’ll see what kind of leadership an Independent Mayor can provide for ALL Los Santos citizens, not just a wealthy few. If any of what I’ve said here resonates with you in any way, I ask you to stand up with me on election day and vote for me, Malikah Saleh, to be the first Independent Mayor of Los Santos. I’m not someone who appeared out of the blue just to be elected Mayor, I’m a mother, a lawyer, and a Los Santos citizen who has lived among you, danced with you, sung at Karaoke night, cried in a police station, and defended clients in their lowest moments. I won’t vanish when this election ends and I pray that you hold me accountable with the passion I expect from an Independent Los Santos should I be elected by your will. With love and bravery. Ms. Malikah Saleh Independent Candidate for Mayor > Comments are enabled:
  12. The 'Winners' Where are they now? The sun sets on this election cycle. Both Charles Galloway and Oswald Halford sweep the remaining crumbs of cocaine from their respective large mahogany desks and prepare their battle-mechs for the Mayoral race next month, realizing almost instantly that they can now comfortably not answer any of losing candidates calls ever again unless they are particularly wealthy. A new day dawns on Los Santos, a new day where half the council is Red, the other half is Blue, and one hundred percent of the citizens are just curious what they will actually do for them. The Los Santos Vixen was curious about that question as well. We tracked down the winners and interrogated them on their plans after the big win! © 2020 Los Santos Vixen. All fights deserved. Candidate: Jonathan Spencer (R) District Representative for the Northern District Where we found him: Lurking masked under the bleachers at ULSA. What are your plans? "Oh-ho Jonny-boy is just enjoying a little 'me-time' right now. Pass that bottle of lotion for me and give me a little privacy." Candidate: Tanya Sun (D) District Representative for the Western District Where we found her: In the bathroom mirror of the iSeoul Cafe after saying her name thrice. What are your plans? "Prossssssssssssssssssperiiiittty" Ms. Sun then vanished into thin air after the lightbulb flickered. Candidate: Alex Flynn (R) District Representative for the Central District Where we found him: Desperately trying to be recognized at a coffee shop What are your plans? "Wait? You recognize me? Thank god, people keep saying I only won because of my whole opponent beating his girlf-" We got incredibly bored and decided to move onto the next winner. Apologies. Candidate: George Valencia (D) District Representative for the Eastern District Where we found him: Actively choking out a prostitute in the Havana Sauna with a permanent smile. What are your plans? "Fuck bitches, get money." Candidate: Wallace Abbasi (D) District Representative for the Southern District, Ayatollah of Los Santos. Where we found him: Shedding his 'human' skin after his mid-morning prayer. . What are your plans? "<:// SHARIALAW.exe initialize. 01001001 00100111 01101101 00100000 01100001 01101100 01110011 01101111 00100000 01101100 01101111 01101111 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110100 01100001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01110011 01101111 01101101 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101001 01101101 01100101 00100000 01101111 01100110 01100110 00100000 01101010 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01101101 01100101 00101100 00100000 01111001 00100111 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 00111111 >" Candidate: Joseph Hoffman (R) District Representative for Blaine County Where we found him: Fully inebriated outside of a Waffle Hut at 6:20 AM What are your plans? "Wai-wai-wai-wait yersay'n -hic- I'm the fuckin' mayor?" Disclaimer: -> Comments are enabled ADD US ON FACEBROWSER OR PERISH.
  13. As the city's election approaches, a wide array of candidates vie for seats in the Greater Los Santos area. The two main parties, Democrats and Republicans, present their plan for the city and have already managed to make rounds of news, with more to come in the days ahead. In the spirit of this election, LSNN presents the 2020 Los Santos Election Special, which aims to inform voters on key issues and familiarize you with the candidates running for District Representative. This page will constantly be updated with top news stories and other revisions. KASPER KARTOWSKI AND THE LSNN TEAM © 2020 Los Santos News Network. All rights reserved. (( COMMENTS ARE DISABLED ON THESE PAGES. EACH PAGE IS A SUB-SITE OF THE MAIN LSNN WEBSITE AND NOT AN ARTICLE. )) PARTY QUESTIONNAIRE We asked the leaders of both political parties the following hot topic questions. Feel free to read if you would like greater detail on both of the parties' policy positions and the reasoning behind them. Does your party believe that mandatory minimum sentences for convicted felons must be upheld by courts? Democrats: As long as a penalty prescribed in the penal code is not cruel and unusual, judges have no choice but to apply it.  It is often said that judges have discretion to be lenient or severe; that is true, but also true is that their discretion not unfettered.  The lower and upper limits are set by the policymakers and put in the penal code by them. The court should have no choice but to sentence in the prescribed range of the Penal Code. Republicans: We do not believe in arbitrary enforcement of the law. We believe that a minimum is a minimum, therefore it is mandatory. Should the death penalty should be handed down on violent offenders? What about non-violent ones? Democrats: We believe that there should be an automatic, mandatory appeal whenever a death sentence is handed down.  No convicted person should condemned to capital punishment without the approval of our highest court. San Andreas does not currently have automatic direct appeal for any convict sentenced to capital punishment.  In such cases, higher courts should review the offenses and unanimously agree to a verdict. For non-violent offences, we think it would not only be barbaric, but might even rise to cruel and unusual punishment to impose capital punishment. Republicans: Murder and rape are crimes that we consider irredeemable. It goes against our principles to allow people who have committed great harm against defenseless victims to go unpunished. Violence against children, the elderly and other helpless individuals absolutely deserve the maximum punishment prescribed by law. We believe non-violent offenders should both be punished and rehabilitated. Today, hundreds of Los Santos citizens sit behind bars in the county's correctional facility. The overwhelming majority are people of color. What will your party do to address this issue? Democrats: Sometimes, we hear explanations that amount to perpetuating stereotypes — we hear variations of “they don’t want to contribute,” or “they just need a job." The issue is often treated as if it is the result of a single barrier.  But it is usually not just the lack of a job.  If you address only one barrier, the response becomes ineffective.  Our approach must recognize the complexities behind these realities, and it must involve multiple disciplines if it emerges that the issue is a number of barriers rather than a single barrier. Our response would involve four stages: (1) identify exactly where the problems are, (2) consulting the broader community about their needs, such as relevant experts, the policing community, social workers, (3) design, which would include drafting solutions, and (4) implementation, where we would pass the finished bill into law. Republicans: We wish to give those who suffer at a disadvantage because of discrimination or mental illness a chance to fight and appeal their conviction. Most importantly, we want to prevent this kind of statistic from increasing. We plan to do this by partnering with local clinics and outreach organizations to help keep every citizen looked after and cared for, along with keeping them employed and successful. In recent months, several protesters have called for a cut in police funding and suggested placing it into the hands of other services. Does your party support extracting and rearranging police funding? Democrats: We do not support the ‘defund the police’ movement. Instead, we aim to start with offering people alternatives to turn to. Welfare checks and mental-health related calls will be coordinated with new health departments, and mental health hotlines will work together with public service departments to keep people safe. This way, the police can use their assets and funding to focus on the areas where they need it most, including violent crimes, traffic, and community patrol. We do not want our police to be underfunded, and we hope that this way, we can ensure their funding is stable while still offering the potential of redistribution, should it be necessary or beneficial. Republicans: We do not believe in defunding the police, nor creating another entity to replace them. This defeats the purpose of reforming justice and law enforcement, at least at a local level. We do believe mental health services need a buff, our city lacks an official provider, apart from local clinics that are not nearly as supported or funded as much as they should be. We want to increase oversight with every department, in order to quell discrimination and corruption. We believe, in order for this to be possible, these departments will require more funding and guidance. It is a long journey of oversight and community outreach that will effectively hinder discrimination and corruption. If in power at City Hall, how will your party ensure that no one tries to profit off of their political success? Democrats: Our candidates, collaborators and employees have been scanned and checked multiple times before receiving an offer of employment from The Democratic Party. In addition, the Chairman and the Vice Chairman lead a specific internal control team which keeps track of any suspicious movement by our collaborators. We strongly believe in our team, supporting them as much as possible in the operative field as well in the political environment, but all our members are aware of the constant checks we run on them to keep things clear and fair for everyone but mainly for the citizens of Los Santos. Republicans: Oversight is very important. Under previous administrations, we have been kept in the dark. Very little was published and there are not many points of contact for people to connect with in order to voice their concerns. We plan to totally reform the government by implementing strict no-nonsense anti-corruption and oversight laws that will ensure job activity is upheld and corruption is non-existent. This also means implementing new positions that interact with the public more frequently, much like the LSPD's MRCAD division. Will your candidates be mandated to release their tax returns to the public? Democrats: All our candidates (i.e. District Representative, Deputy District Representative) will be mandated to release their tax returns to the public and have them visible to everyone. The Democratic Party has no secrets and we also put a lot of effort into what we do because we want to deliver only the best for our supporters and everyone in the City of Los Santos. In the upcoming weeks we will be releasing our tax returns to the public domain in order to let people understand that paying taxes is something necessary to have our city grow and become a better place. Republicans: No, but if we win, we would publish salaries for each title within the government. If elected, how would your party deal with obstacles from the opposition? Democrats: Our party was the first to reach out to the Republican Party’s leadership in order to set up meetings to discuss our communication during these elections. We find it important to establish a proper channel of communication so we can deal with the elections and campaigns in a fair and just way. We aim to continue the trend of communication throughout the next term. While we may disagree with our political opponents’ opinions, we respect their intelligence, skill and experience. By keeping communications stable throughout the term, we aim to get the best out of everyone’s capabilities. Our motto is Forward, Together, and that’s together with everyone. Republicans: As civilized people, we must frequently appeal to others, through logic and reason. Everybody uses these tactics, whether it's during a simple conversation or a full on debate. Even if there is opposition in power, we'll be doing our best to make sure there are policies in place that will benefit the people of Los Santos. Does your party plan on raising, lowering, or maintaining the current tax rate? Democrats: We will neither lower nor raise the tax rate. To ensure renovations for hospitals, set up a new health department, fund education properly and provide child services, as well as institute numerous other programs, lowering the tax rate is not feasible. To ensure families prosper, we do not wish to raise the tax rate, either, as higher taxes can be burdensome. Our research into the finance department has shown that the government is able to afford our plans, as long as the current tax rate remains in place. Republicans: While we are traditionally inclined to cut taxes, we believe the current rates in place by the city are fair. We will not be increasing or cutting them. This is subject to change though. If elected, would your party introduce any new taxes? If so, explain what the purpose of this tax would be. Democrats: Our party supports programs that aim to fight against climate change. On a federal level, the United States of America turned its back on the Paris Agreements of 2015, municipal and state governments now have the duty to take the task of climate change prevention upon themselves. This includes setting a clear price on greenhouse gas emissions. This tax would aim to give companies incentive to switch to cleaner power sources. On the other hand, we wish to reduce the taxes and registration costs on electric vehicles to incentivize people to look at cleaner alternatives to gasoline. Republicans: At the moment, the only potential tax we have thought of introducing is one on tobacco. Tobacco is indeed harmful substance, but we have yet to fully negotiate the possibility or specifics of this tax. If elected, what kinds of infrastructure, housing, or other projects would your party support and how much would these projects cost? Democrats: We will look to landlords and real estate managers to help solve this problem. One of our policies is the Rental Housing Assistance Program, which would create a website that gives landlords and tenants the tools to make renting properties easier. By creating a clear overview of sort-able listings, people can search based on district, price, and the amount of rooms of each type in the property. After the tenant and landlord have come to an agreement, the website would automatically help set up a contract based on the information the landlord provided, which protects people against tenant fraud. Republicans: We intend on building low income housing projects, as well as temporary housing for the homeless and destitute veterans. The housing program for veterans would be much like a shared quarters in a shelter. Proof of service will be required, obviously. Projected costs for this project are not yet final, but we believe them to be in the four hundred-thousand range. This includes acquiring real estate and renovations. Does your party support running budget deficits (creating debt when expenses exceed profit) to fund city projects or other city services? Why or why not? Democrats: We are willing to bring the government into debt only should it be a good thing for the economy in the long-term. Government debt is not a bad thing for the economy in the short-term, as it opens a way for foreign bodies to invest in our growth by purchasing government bonds. Investors help economic growth when government debt is active, since it is less risky. If a reasonable amount of debt is necessary to improve our citizens' quality of life, Democrats are open to it on a short-term basis. However, we will always be dedicated to a stable economy and this will come first when weighing the pros and cons of any sort of debt, and will not go into debt should it not be absolutely necessary. Republicans: In most cases, we do not support running deficits and we seek to cut unnecessary expenses. But there will always be certain programs that are a necessity to the people and rely heavily on financing. For example, we hope to help charitable organizations through incentives such as grants. How does your party plan to protect the LGBT community? Democrats: In the first release of our party manifesto, we included a section under rights that extends the ban on discrimination on account of orientation in employment, housing, public accommodations, and other areas, to include discrimination based on gender identity, gender expression and sexual characteristics. This is only our first step in helping the LGBT community. Our team consists of people of various backgrounds, walks of life, ethnic groups, religions, sexual orientations and gender identities. These people were chosen not because of their backgrounds, but because each of them is exceptionally capable in their positions. We believe every person should be given the chance to prove their ability without hindrance in regards to their background. Republicans: We are currently not aware of any major local dilemma or statistics that prove the LGBT community suffers. We are aware that there has been incidents across the nation regarding discrimination and abuse, however it is hard to tackle these issues on a local level when there is no data available to work with. If in power, will your party continue the affordable housing initiative? Democrats: At the moment, we think that the affordable housing initiative is not correctly brought to the poorest neighborhoods as it should be. If in power we will continue this noble cause but we won't just sit there and see how it goes, but we'll be enforcing this initiative and give the possibility to everyone to afford a decent and safe place. Republicans: Yes. In a recent study, researchers listened to 1.2 million 911 calls and found that police officers use their firearms more often than in previous years, and that most cases involving police firearms being pulled occur in black communities. Can this statistic be lowered? If so, how will your party work towards that goal? Democrats: There is no easy, quick solution to cure the problem of racism. But we believe the statistics can be lowered by thoroughly lobbying to the government of San Andreas to take inspiration from a number of progressive acts throughout America. The Police Integrity Transparency and Accountability Act from Colorado aims to collect racial profiling data and demographic data on police arrests. An act like this would ease the process of filing lawsuits in the event of unfair treatment. On top of that, it would prevent the transfer of problematic officers to different departments, make the use and release of body cameras mandatory, and require officers to intervene if they see their coworkers using unreasonable force against citizens. There is no easy, quick solution, no clear answer to the cure of precariousness problem of racism. But we have many options, and there are many steps we could take in the right direction. Republicans: It absolutely can. We have plans to work with the LSPD's leadership and staff to help review and reform policies that result in these kind of incidents. We wish to also implement more outreach programs to help create a safer environment in these communities, without the need of increasing police presence or harsh action. Should your party form government, what would its first priority be? Democrats: Our top priority will be to satisfy Los Santos' citizens' needs. We are now listening to their problems one by one, giving a voice to everyone. For example, we're currently working on city’s public health system. No more will people be discharged within hours due to a lack of space and good rooms in hospitals. No longer will the mental health epidemic be neglected. We intend to work with the COO to make the establishment of the Department of Public Health one of our top priorities. Republicans: Implementing oversight/transparency/anti-corruption laws and policies. What is the biggest problem we face as a city right now? How does your party wish to solve it? Democrats: The biggest is hard to say. There are many problems within our city, from racial segregation to homelessness, to the lack of mental health resources and support groups, to the lack of education. Our hands will be full, but we have a good number of people ready to solve everything. With the cooperation of the bright minds of both parties, we can work towards solving multiple problems at a time. Our motto Forward, Together is also our approach to solving the city’s problems: together. Republicans: Unemployment and lack of access to medical facilities. Unemployment is a major issue across the nation. It is imperative we work with organizations such as ULSA and unions to help quell this issue. Medical facilities require our support across the city to ensure people are healthy and cared for, they desperately need our support to make this a reality. What is the biggest problem we face as a city right now? How does your party wish to solve it? Democrats: The biggest is hard to say. There are many problems within our city, from racial segregation to homelessness, to the lack of mental health resources and support groups, to the lack of education. Our hands will be full, but we have a good number of people ready to solve everything. With the cooperation of the bright minds of both parties, we can work towards solving multiple problems at a time. Our motto Forward, Together is also our approach to solving the city’s problems: together. Republicans: Unemployment and lack of access to medical facilities. Unemployment is a major issue across the nation. It is imperative we work with organizations such as ULSA and unions to help quell this issue. Medical facilities require our support across the city to ensure people are healthy and cared for, they desperately need our support to make this a reality. If elected, how will you judge your success or failure as a party in government? Democrats: We would judge our success based on the effectiveness of our initiatives on our citizens, including the communications program, the poverty resources program, the suicide prevention lifeline program, the immigration resources program and other policies in our manifesto. Republicans: The measurement of our success can be judged in the way we have benefited the people of Los Santos and the policies we implement. 1. LSNN will follow up with parties to verify that promises made during the campaign are scrutinized. This article is not verifying the truth of the statements, however LSNN will report should changes occur. 2. The policies reflect currently available information provided by the parties, which may fluctuate between candidates. Candidates are subject to change and are based on the most recent available information, as per the City Clerk. 3. No third party candidates are running in the 2020 Los Santos election. © 2020 Los Santos News Network. All rights reserved. (( COMMENTS ARE DISABLED ON THESE PAGES. EACH PAGE IS A SUB-SITE OF THE MAIN LSNN WEBSITE AND NOT AN ARTICLE. )) Mayor of Los Santos Charles Galloway (D) Oswald Halford (R) Northern District Manjot Singh (D) Jonathan Spencer (R) Central District Richard Orosco (D) Alex Flynn (R) Southern District Wallace Abbasi (D) Jose Ortiz (R) Western District Tanya Sun (D) Joshua Shepherd (R) Eastern District George Valencia (D) Thomas Busch (R) Blaine District Badar Khan (D) Joseph Hoffman (R) © 2020 Los Santos News Network. All rights reserved. (( COMMENTS ARE DISABLED ON THESE PAGES. EACH PAGE IS A SUB-SITE OF THE MAIN LSNN WEBSITE AND NOT AN ARTICLE. )) Los Santos City Hall is divided into six (6) electoral districts, with each getting one representative. You must reside in the district in which you are planning to vote. To find out which district you'll be voting in, refer to the map below. Central District Pillbox Hill, Mission Row, Alta, Hawick, Burton, West Vinewood and Downtown Vinewood. Northern District Vinewood Hills, Richman, GWC and Rockford Hills. Western District La Puerta, Little Seoul, Vespucci, Del Perro, Morningwood and Pacific Bluffs. Eastern District Cypress Flats, Murrieta Heights, El Burro Heights, La Mesa, Mirror Park and Eastern Vinewood. Southern District Strawberry, Davis, Rancho, Banning, Chamberlain Hills and southern La Puerta. Blaine County District The entirety of Blaine County, including the towns of Paleto Bay, Sandy Shores, Strawberry, and the areas of Grapeseed and Harmony. City Property The Los Santos International Airport and the roads around it, and the industrial docks. This area is known as a non-district zone, which means it is governed by city hall as a whole - no representative is given due to low population, but the area is still under Los Santos city limits and government. 4. Maps not to scale and are to be used as a general aid. Maps may have slight inaccuracies as there is no official district map provided by the government. Some dwellings may be part of a different district than expected, so refer to your address and ballot information. Contact City Hall if you are unsure where to vote. © 2020 Los Santos News Network. All rights reserved. (( COMMENTS ARE DISABLED ON THESE PAGES. EACH PAGE IS A SUB-SITE OF THE MAIN LSNN WEBSITE AND NOT AN ARTICLE. )) Democratic party campaign disunity? An interview with county-hopeful Democrat, Badar Khan Special Report: Parties battle for the youth vote Special Investigation: Democratic party candidate Richard Orosco accused of beating ex-girlfriend Democratic Party statement regarding recent allegations towards Mr. Orosco Ex-girlfriend of fired GOP candidate Orleans speaks out Alexander Orleans acquittal reveals Faggio used as sex aid © 2020 Los Santos News Network. All rights reserved. (( COMMENTS ARE DISABLED ON THESE PAGES. EACH PAGE IS A SUB-SITE OF THE MAIN LSNN WEBSITE AND NOT AN ARTICLE. ))
  14. The hottest tea, the spiciest gossip, the fiercest commentary and no fucking censorship. We are the Los Santos VIXEN. Buckle your seat-belts, fuckers. Letter from that bitch editor: People with very smooth brains like to pretend that because the Vixen is a little mean to their favorite objects of celebrity/political worship that I can be pinned down as some sort of partisan hack . Here's the deal loves. Fuck Republicans. Fuck Democrats. I don't fit into the boxes you try to cram everyone you don't like or understand. The only box I'll be crammed in is when I get WAY too drunk at a club and a chick looks vaguely androgynous. Grow up. The red team and the blue team are the same team. Simping for them doesn't make you cute or edgy Also Like, Subscribe, Share, is this your first time online? https://face.gta.world/pages/LSVIXEN KISS KISS XOXO ❤️ Humane Lab Clones Running for Office! It was a stormy day in May of 2020. I was wearing all black, with a lacy veil and a large black hat dragging on a cigarette in a long black cigarette holder. I stood in the rain outside of the Humane Labs with my butler holding the umbrella ever so gently above me as I waited for the lanky man to approach; He had a scar across his right eye at the time and introduced himself as Doctor Charles Galloway. I was touring the facility under the guise of a wealthy inexplicably french Blaine County widow looking to remake my husband in flesh once-more. "We can help you with that Miss Faux-nom, we have the technology. Allow me to show you" That is when he began the tour that would open my eyes to the truth. First we entered the high security area at Humane Labs, where they removed my veil, hat, and butler from my person. I never felt so naked. Then we proceeded through to the cloning labs and Galloway would stop at the first tube. (An artists rendition of the Humane Labs Democratic HQ) A prototype Abbasi-bot was flexing his rippling muscles in his clone-tube, you could see his lips moving but could not hear him speak. Just like in real life. Galloway clicked a small intercom and Abbasi's voice became audible, "-and peace and prosperity and success to this district and together and we will and rise and salaam alaikuMOTHERFUCKER!." Embarassed, Galloway cut the intercom off quickly and looked over at me sheepishly, "We're still working out a few bugs. Moving forward." ' We stopped at another half-formed politi-bot. Galloway patted the tube lovingly, the half-formed politibot writhing inside. "This is a very popular model. We're going to just give this one a quick copy and paste for the final three politicians, they can just rattle on about this and that for hours without really saying anything that'd strain their CPU." I did not know then but I was looking at the prototypical base for what would become Khan-bot, Singh-bot and Orosco Mark II. You could already see the half-formed prototype practicing decisive hand gestures to use during tepid speeches. As the tour ended, I pressed Galloway for more information while still maintaining my deep cover. "But Monsieur Galloway, how shall you reign victorious with these... newly formed clones!" "Miss Faux-nom, our plan is simple! All we must do is place these clone-candidates onto a stage and give them some randomnly generated speech. Our strategy is summed up by the assumption that if we stick anyone with a heartbeat into the positions, folks will just end up voting Democratic by default. It's a winning strategy!" "Yet you still have no clone for the West District!" He visible panics, counting out on his fingers the clones, and then shaking his head. "Damn, you are absolutely correct Miss Faux-nom, I must have been focusing on- Give me a moment, I'll call for takeout. I'm afraid you must leave now Miss Faux-nom, we must prepare for the election!" He took his cellular phone out and placed a call which I overheard in part as I was escorted away by shirtless muscular security clones. "Hi, I'd like to place an order for delivery. Yes. One 'Tanya Sun' please and if you could just add every single Korean voter on the side, that'd be great. Don't forget the extra gochujang." Disclaimer -> Comments are enabled Remember to answer the latest FB poll: "What do you want from me?!" LIKE SHARE AND SUBSCRIBE, motherfuckers!
  15. President Trump Addresses the Media Outside the Whitehouse on Thursday (Leah Mills/Reuters) Commentary: Trump's Ukraine Dilemma Deepens Ryan D. Price Well, he's really gone and done it. On Thursday, President Donald Trump spoke to the media outside the White House and basically admitted to everything House Democrats hoped to prove in their impeachment inquiry. "I would say that President Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens." That quote came shortly after the President exclaimed, out of the blue, that China should also investigate the Bidens. It's important to note here that he at no time during his ever-familiar stream-of-consciousness ranting admitted that he himself had already put pressure on either Ukraine or China to investigate. He simply said he'd recommend they do so. However, Trump's bold attitude about this whole thing isn't surprising. House Democrats can move to impeach and bring the case before the Republican-led Senate who will not convict. With the latest Gallup poll showing 87% job approval for Trump among GOP voters, it'd be political suicide for any GOP senator to vote to convict the President. In the meantime, the entire impeachment process can be spun easily as a "witch hunt" by the Trump Administration - a tactic they're already putting to use. By spending the entirety of his first campaign and first term in office lashing out at the media, Trump's solidified among his base a complete distrust for basically any news story that doesn't come out of his mouth (or from his fingers on Twitter). What Democrats hope will shine a damaging light on alleged corruption and harm the President's reelection bid might just end up rallying the President's base more than ever. But is any of this real? Did Trump use or attempt to use his office to pressure Ukranian President Zelensky into investigating his political rival's family? A round of text messages released by the House Intelligence Committee seems to at least add a bit of credence to the notion. These texts between US diplomats aren't just bad optics. They're downright damning. Bill Taylor, the US's top diplomat in Ukraine, expressed his opinion that it was "crazy" to withhold military aid in an attempt to benefit Trump's reelection. Taylor has served under four administrations as US Ambassador to Ukraine. Gordon Sondland, who quickly replied to the text (shown in the picture above), is the US Ambassador to the European Union, and also a Trump megadonor. Sondland put more than one million dollars towards Trump's campaign in 2016 before being appointed to his current position. Particularly suspicious is his insistence that the conversation be taken offline, away from text messages. As President Trump's public persona becomes more erratic than ever in the face of an impeachment inquiry it's hard to look at the mounting evidence and not see something unsettling. The oath the President took upon inauguration was this: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If Trump is indeed abusing the power of his office to pressure foreign leaders into helping his reelection bid, as the texts seem to show, it's hard to say he is faithfully executing the Office. MORE FROM SAINTS [Saints Radio] Missed Our Interview With Chief Hughes? [Saints News] Opinion: Is "Medicare For All" A Good Idea? [Saints News] DRESS TO IMPRESS (Night-Out Wear) Saints News
  16. Bernie Sanders, US Senator from Vermont, Presidential Candidate, and Vocal Proponent of "Medicare for All" [New York Times] Opinion: Is "Medicare for All" A Good Idea? Ryan D Price Vermont is one of the wealthiest (per capita) and smallest states in the Union. It’s also the state that Democratic Socialist darling Bernie Sanders has represented in Congress for the past twenty-eight years. In the small, wealthy state of Vermont, a bill was passed by its State Legislature in 2011. It was called H 202, or “Single-Payer and Unified Health System”. This law, which was enacted in the state, creating “Green Mountain Care”. This taxpayer-funded healthcare pool was meant to provide universal healthcare coverage for all of Vermont’s citizens. The kicker was that it was also expected to reduce healthcare costs. It all sounded wonderful. Fast forward to 2013. Under the provisions of the law, Vermont was supposed to have, by this time, figured out how to fund the thing. They hadn’t. An 11% payroll tax hike was proposed, but this was - naturally - determined to be unfair and even crippling to small businesses in the state. By 2014 the state had still not figured out how to fund the law with the $2 billion in additional state spending it required. The law was abandoned by the state. What happened? Two-thirds of Vermont’s citizens agreed that even if it meant a tax-hike, they wanted universal healthcare. The people felt ready to pay up for the collective good of their state. Reality set in though. That’s what happened. A line touted by opponents of single-payer healthcare is simple - nothing is actually free. This is important, especially today, as we hear the terms “free healthcare” and “free college” being thrown around. It’s easy to say that we can tax the rich to Hell to pay for these things. It feels good. It feels like the right thing to do. However, it’s just not how things work. A national “Medicare for all” plan, like the plans touted by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, would establish a costly and ineffective government bureaucracy overseeing all aspects of our healthcare system. Let’s take a second to think about that. The Federal Government, along with its low approval ratings and generally accepted inability to govern effectively, would be in full control of the entirety of our healthcare system. That doesn’t sound like a good idea to me, and you can take a quick look at the failures of the Veteran’s Affair’s healthcare system for reference. Then comes the other issue. How do we fund this? “Medicare for all” would cost the Fed over $32 trillion in its first ten years. Let’s take a shot in the dark here. Let’s say we doubled the corporate tax rate as well as the individual income tax rate. Obviously a 100% increase in taxing would cover this, right? No. It’d fail to cover the expense of this program. These programs don’t work on the state level once the invoice hits the desk. They’re great to think about, and well-intentioned. But the reality of the situation is that they can’t feasibly be funded in the United States - whether it be at the State or Federal level - without crippling our economy. If a doubling of corporate and individual income tax - something I think most voters would not get behind - can’t cover something, then the writing is on the wall. “Medicare for all” is a dud that would never be enacted even if it passed in the house and senate and was signed into law. Just like Vermont, the cost would come in, and the plan would fail. Focusing on other common sense ways to reduce already existing healthcare costs is the way to go here - not a wholesale handover to the Federal Government with all of us expected to foot the bill. The opinions expressed in this piece do not reflect those of Saints News as a whole, but those of its author Ryan D. Price. Saints News
  17. Faction Introduction: The San Andreas Government is the newest legal faction on GTA:World. This faction aims to simulate a realistic state government, without clear parallels to any particular real-life state, with a general non-binding nod to California. Its primary purpose is to develop and portray a unique system for this community that is plausible, effective and engaging for role-play. As the umbrella of the branches of government and respective government organizations, SAGov offers something for everyone with an interest in legal role-play. Whether you work as an official in a nonpartisan bureaucracy, or as a cut-throat political operative vying for influence in the battleground that is the State Senate - this faction offers a canvas for players to create their own character stories with a meaningful impact on the broader server sandbox. This faction encompasses the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the State Government. The San Andreas State Government will emphasize roleplay around political activity and state legislation, while the City of Los Santos will focus more on the administration of the municipality and the services it provides. Given time, we aim to strike a balance between the two that will benefit everybody involved. Welcome to the Government of the State of San Andreas. The State of San Andreas - History The State of San Andreas, formerly known as the Republic of San Andreas, was established in the aftermath of the Mexican-American War, which concluded in July of 1848. San Andreas was granted statehood in the United States after the subsequent Treaty of Alta Hidalgo with Mexico. The state would come to encompass a large portion of the landmass of the south-western seaboard. Typical of new American states, an ad hoc government was established in September of 1848. The first gubernatorial elections took place on November 13, 1849, with the renown abolitionist William Tobias Rutford winning office for the then progressive Republican Party. His cabinet would constitute the first cabinet of the Executive Branch for the state. The San Andreas State Legislature was also formed, which comprised a unicameral 20-member Senate, whose composition has changed over time. Simultaneously, the Judicial Branch was also established, bringing the Rule of Law to an otherwise uncivilized and often harsh environment. During the American Civil War, San Andreas officially supported the Union, making significant financial contributions. Due to the significant presence of pro-Confederate sympathizers, the state did not actively take an official role in hostilities. At the conclusion of the war, San Andreas benefited immensely from this position of effective neutrality, being relatively undamaged by the conflict. The political landscape would gradually change in the wake of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Reconstruction period, with progressive Republicans and status quo Democrats generally contesting each other for the remainder of the century, right through the Prohibition era. Throughout both World Wars, San Andreas emerged as a prominent center of industry and commerce on the west coast, eventually rivaling the north east of the country in economic capacity. The political climate of San Andreas, like that of the U.S. in general, would see a realignment in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. The progressive wing of the Republican Party would gradually defect to the Democratic Party, now absent the more conservative Dixiecrats, who found a new home in the Republican Party. San Andreas remained a progressive state, and the once dominant Republican Party would eventually give ground to the Democrats as the new face of progressive politics. This trend has held, with a few deviations over the past half century, with moderate Republicans occasionally winning power, despite the clear progressive demographic. Rural conservatives however, formed a strong base for the Republican Party through the 20th Century, and the trajectory held into the 21st Century. The Government of San Andreas - Current State San Andreas is a predominantly ‘blue’ state, trending toward Democratic governments and frequently voting Democrat during presidential elections. Within the state itself, the Democratic Party has held supermajorities in the Senate throughout the 1990s into the mid-2000s. While the state can be characterized as politically progressive, the conservative opposition has grown considerably in reaction to the polarization of Democratic state politics. In the 2010s, the Republican Party began to regain ground with moderate senators turning once safe districts into swing seats through balanced agendas encompassing moderated social policies and conservative economics. The administration of Governor Robert Brandt began in January 2017. Brandt, a prominent urban Democrat born and raised in the city of Los Santos, ran on a platform to balance the budget and strengthen private sector growth. Brandt’s policy proposals were more moderate than his progressive predecessor, Governor Enrique Cortez. Despite Brandt’s moderate policies, the Republican Party began to reassert itself through successful campaigns in the State Senate, corresponding with a rise in conservatism in San Andreas politics. State political pundits continue to speculate the causes of Republican resurgence, with some hypothesizing that decades of Democratic control are bringing about voter fatigue. Others point to a growing desire for balance among undecided voters. Whatever the actual reason, the Republican Party has continued to grow in spite of a once inhospitable political environment for conservativism. The 2019-2020 session of the State Senate was rocked by the unexpected announcement by Secretary of State Helen Marshal, that Los Santos County would effectively be redistricted to grant the city greater representation within the legislature, in line with census data which indicated that population growth had outpaced its present allocation of a single senator. The proposal would see Los Santos represented by five state senators. The political fallout of the redistricting plan was significant. Republicans vehemently denounced the move, with Republican leadership labeling the decision as “radical” and “another step toward tyranny.” The San Andreas GOP, appealing to their rural base and undecided voters, secured sweeping victories in the Senate elections for the 2020-2021 session. These electoral wins represented the largest Republican Senate gains in decades, even earning the GOP senators in the historically Democratic stronghold of Los Santos. As of the current 2020-21 session, the Democratic Party holds a slim majority, with the Republican Party in clear ascendance - aiming to turn the State Senate firmly ‘red’ for the first time in nearly twenty years. Organizational Chart: (( OOC Information: )) (( The faction leaders at this time are @Copacetic as the Lieutenant Governor, head of the faction in general. The leadership of the Judiciary of San Andreas will be awarded to @TNG. The leadership of the Department of Justice will be awarded to @Brett. The leadership of the Senate of San Andreas will be invested in a President Pro Tempore, themselves elected by the elected members of the Senate of San Andreas. If you have any questions referencing the Senate of San Andreas, please contact your respective senator, the one that represents your district. Current Senators: Northern District: @Eriks Southern District: @Certified Lover Boy Jola Eastern District: @MrValencia Western District: @SunFun Central District: @liq Blaine County: @vrb If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us ICly or OOCly. It is our privilege to help solve issues and get people involved in government RP. Please note that this faction thread is a display of our faction and any screens posted on it must have approval from faction leadership. Finally, we want to show massive appreciation to @Nervous @Notbond @Sharvit @HaveADream and @Doosty for helping set this idea up and allowing us to RP something so very new to the community. )) Join our discord
  18. Chloe Knight Attorney at Law Democratic Candidate for State Senate Flawed Individual
  19. As Nervous announced before, we can expect an election system coming really soon. Personally, I am really curious about your opinion about political roleplay. The reason for this thread is to create a place where you can share ideas and concerns about political and government RP. To start the thread, I will ask three questions: 1.) What do you expect from an in-character political party? 2.) How would you change the current politics in Los Santos? 3.) Do you roleplay any political identity in your character currently? Please keep the thread civilized and avoid real-life politics.
  20. Hey there! I was wondering what actually is GTA World's position within the US system? I know we have been told we are roleplaying the 51st State of San Andreas, as island state in the Pacific Ocean. But that makes me wonder; are we really? States have legitimate primairy's and can vote in presidential elections, yet we did not have such events in the past. Legit states also have representatives in the House and 2 senators per state in the Senate. Obviously; we can't have that. This leaves us with numerous options; Organised, Unincorporated Territory Like Puerto Rico, Guam and Mariana Islands. We are self-governing with a State and City government (organised), but that all of the US Constitution does not automaticly apply to the island (unincorporated). These territories are pretty much treated as a state. The main difference is that people in OUT's can not vote in Presidential elections and that the Congress members can only observe, not participate. Unorganised, Unincorporated Territory Like Howland Island, Navassa Island, Jarvis Island, Wake Island and Kingman Reef. These places have no local government and the US Constitution does not automaticly apply here. Given we do have a local government and the US Constitution applies with us, the least likely option. Citizens can not vote in presidential elections. Unorganised, Incorporated Territory Only one; Palmyra Atoll. It is an uninhabited nature reserve, but the US Constitution does apply here. We are clearly inhabitated, so this automaticly rules out this option. Citizens, if people live there one time, can not vote in presidential elections. Organised, Incorporated Territory No current territory has reached this spot, and it is a ''transition place''; right before becoming a state, the territory is moved to this category. It has a self governing body (organised) and and the US Constitution fully applies to the territory. This spot was last occupied IRL by Hawaii and Alaska. Citizens can not vote in presidential elections. The two most likely options are either the Organised, Unincorporated Territory, or the Organised, Incorporated Territory. What are your takes on this? Where in the below graph is ''San Andreas''?
  • Create New...