We all know where the union hacks stand. We know where the bought and paid for politicians stand. We know where the cathedral stands. But now you can base your statistically insignificant and likely ignorant vote on where I, Fullerton’s most besmirched Malcontent, stand on the issues.
I’ll cover all local, state and federal races on my ballot and the other city council seats in Fullerton for good measure.
I don’t endorse candidates and I don’t vote for the lesser of evils but I do hold grudges and occasionally vote for people out of spite. Sometimes I even vote for people because I like them but that’s exceptionally rare. With that qualifier out of the way let’s just dive right into this nonsense.
Fullerton City Council District 1: None of the Above.
Andrew Cho is a prototypical party backed (R) which just means cronyism of the highest order. We’re just getting Jennifer Fitzgerald in a different form here. Meanwhile Fred Jung is backed by all of the public employee unions and I’ve never met or seen a politician who successfully took their money and then didn’t give them the farm during negotiations. Also, Jung’s endorsements suck on the left as bad as Cho’s do on the right. Neither of these candidates give us any reason to believe that they’ll put the taxpayers and citizens of Fullerton first. I have friends supporting Jung but his heavy union support is a dealbreaker.
Fullerton City Council District 2: Nick Dunlap.
While District 1 is essentially a wasted vote, District 2 is at least interesting. I’ve liked some of what I’ve seen from McKenzie Chang but his “increase the tax base” talking point along with his idea that you can negotiate your way out of our pension mess is too naive for my liking. The union heroes don’t care if the city goes bankrupt or closes everything down in service to their benefits packages or they wouldn’t have negotiated for service models that benefit them at the cost of our quality of life in Fullerton. I liked where some if his ideas were and was hoping to see more from him then I saw his support for a Universal Basic Income and that’s a non-starter for me. Changing how you disperse the money that doesn’t belong to you isn’t a stance I can get behind no matter how technocratic it sounds. I’ve seen too many greenhorns turn into mouthpieces for the city the first time they get slapped with a manipulated staff report & I don’t think Chang quite understands yet how this game is played.
That leaves me with Nick Dunlap. No, I won’t consider Chuck Sargeant. I require a basic level of literacy from my candidates and his Boomer internet ramblings are headache inducing. I was mostly impressed with Nick on the planning commission as he seemed receptive to my criticisms and willing to listen to contrarian views. He’s backed by a lot of terrible people so that honestly gives me pause but he has supporters amongst several friends I trust. I think perhaps the optimum outcome here might be for Dunlap to win the seat and to appoint Chang to a worthwhile commission or oversight seat to get him really ready for prime time but that would wholly depend on the vetting process of Chang and his own interest.
Fullerton City Council District 4: Bruce Whitaker.
Bruce has been a lone voice of reason on council for far too long and despite a few issues here and there on specific policy items he has a voting record worth supporting. He’s more interested in oversight and government reform than anybody from either party running and he believes in putting the best ideas forward as opposed to just smearing his opponents with fear based nonsense as is happening in mailers in District 4. Had Bruce had actual support from within his own party on things his party claims to be about, as opposed to the crony hack & (D) tool Fitzgerald, our financial woes wouldn’t be where they are currently.
He’s also the ONLY voice on council who has wanted police oversight and accountability in his years on council despite other candidate’s promises on the issue.
Local Measure S: NO.
No, double no and then no again. If you need somebody to come pick up your ballot and you’re voting no on Measure S, I’ll come pick it up for you I’m so against S. The page of the other blog I write for, Friends for Fullerton’s Future, have been littered with reasons to vote no on S and that’s because it’s just another tax to bail out our mismanaged city. Fullerton City Manager Ken Domer wrote the following on Measure S:
“In the event the local sales tax measure is not placed on the ballot or if it ultimately fails to gain voter approval in November, the City will continue to operate as efficiently and effectively as possible, but we will be forced to begin to make very difficult decisions regarding service levels and operations of programs in order to achieve balanced budgets over the succeeding years.”
They’ll be forced to BEGIN to make very difficult decisions. Begin. That’s all you need to know. When times are good and the money is a-flowin’ they have no interest in making tough decisions because it’s not their money – it’s yours. The idea that the city has ever operated efficiently or effectively (see how they’re spending hundreds of thousands to sue me for their data screw up) is a joke.
It is literally the sole purpose of government to be as efficient and frugal as possible in all things in order to deliver the services the government won’t let us do for ourselves. But these jackals don’t even try to be responsible until it’s too late and it’s only IF they can’t tax and fee us into oblivion that they’ll really dig deep and start to make “tough decisions”.
No. Double No and No again.
Local Measure U: NO.
I like fireworks and don’t care about your yipping little dog. Most of the fireworks that people complain about aren’t legal in the first place and the police have no desire, let alone resources, to run around town trying to cite everybody that upset poor Fido over a couple of days in July.
Our local community groups do really well financially selling fireworks AND thanks to the “new normal” the fireworks they sell to us are the only fireworks we can expect to enjoy in the future. Remember how the city cancelled the 4th of July displays? Yeah, they’ll do it again. No on U.
North Orange County Community College District: I don’t care.
None of these people are going to demand accountability or budget sanity.
CA Assembly District 63: Cynthia Thacker Or write-in Mickey Mouse.
I honestly don’t know anything about Thacker but she can’t be much worse than Sharon Quirk-Sikva. Sharon voted AGAINST SB1421 which means she supports keeping the citizens in the dark when it comes to police misconduct. Police officer molested a woman on the side of the road under color of authority? Too bad, Sharon (who LARPed as a #MeToo supporter) doesn’t think you have a right to know because screw you. Cops lied on their reports or worse? Tough. She wants that to remain secret as well because she needs their money & support for reelection.
Sharon also voted FOR AB5, the bill that Prop 22 partially undoes.
She’s bad for the economy, bad for transparency and oversight as well as being a disingenuous serial panderer. She claims to support Prop 22 AFTER voting for the very law that made Prop 22 an issue in the first place. No. Hard Pass.
CA State Senate District 29: Ling Ling Chang.
I don’t like Ling Ling. I think she’s fairly useless and she’s a maternalistic big government (R) of the highest order. BUT she’s not Josh Newman and I’ll never forgive Newman for his nanosecond sellout once he hit office. Newman raised our taxes on the perennial lie of fixing roads and infrastructure. If only we ate more taxes at the gas pump things would be better and he was either too stupid or too much of a liar to see how that was going to play out – so well in fact that that now Fullerton is trying to add a sales tax to pay for the exact same thing that Newman’s gas tax was meant to help fix.
He has no principles or standards and will sell out the voters in a heartbeat like he did when he voted against the $400Billion healthcare tax in committee but then voted FOR it on the floor of the Senate because his far left, and economically illiterate base, got mad. He also lied to my face at his swearing in and I have no use for serial liars.
We recalled Newman for good reason and he doesn’t deserve to be back in the State Senate.
California Proposition 14, Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative: NO.
It’s a bond. Always vote no on all bonds. They typically double the cost of whatever it is we’re being promised AND they pass that debt onto future generations.
California Proposition 15, Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative: NO.
This is Prop13 Split Roll nonsense. These newly collected taxes will be passed onto you the consumer all so Sacramento and local governments can bilk you out of more money to fund their schemes and bloated pensions.
California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment: You’ve got to be shitting me. NO.
Racism is bad, mmmkay. Making it legal for the government to discriminate is worse. Nothing good comes from this woke nonsense. If you vote for this you’re supporting racism, it really is that simple.
California Proposition 17, Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment: NO.
The only recourse to crime anybody has in our current legal system is in criminal charges. The “debt to society” isn’t fulfilled until after parole has been completed. Once a sentence (including parole) is completed voting rights should automatically be restored but until that point I’m fine with them being temporarily revoked. I’m not sure people on parole should be able to vote on criminal justice reforms.
California Proposition 18, Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment: NO.
I want fewer uniformed people voting, not more and I see no reason why a 17 year old should be allowed to vote because they’ll be 18 at the NEXT election.
California Proposition 19, Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment: NO.
This is tinkering around the edges of Prop13 reform without fixing the problem – and the problem isn’t that enough people don’t pay enough in taxes, it’s that the State steals too much and burdens the young with the bill. This is a worthless piece of pandering legislation that is ageist. If the older generations had kept government in check they wouldn’t be so worried about losing the houses the younger of us cannot afford.
California Proposition 20, Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative: NO.
The arguments against Prop 20 are ridiculous on their face what with (D)s pretending to care about spending while rationalizing animosity to the proposition through Trump Derangement Syndrome, I cannot support Prop 20 for the DNA provisions. I don’t trust the government with most data and I refuse to support legislation that grows government databases on emotional anecdotes. Yes, it may be true that collecting DNA from a rapist resulted in the solving of a murder from years before but that doesn’t mean we should be collecting, storing (and knowing the State probably selling) the DNA of every person convicted of theft and a petty drug crime. This is a state that struggles to test DNA kits from known rape victims but now they want to collect the DNA from every pothead with an ounce too much of weed.
California Proposition 21, Local Rent Control Initiative: NO.
Rent Control is a device used by people who are economically illiterate to screw the housing market up more than the government has already managed. Go read Henry Hazlitt’s ‘Economics in One Lesson’.
California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative: Yes.
I really don’t WANT to say yes on this one because it does exactly what I loathe about government – it allows large corporations to buy their way out of bad legislation while everybody else suffers. So while certain trade groups were able to lobby their way out of AB5, Uber/Lyft funded Prop 22 to get themselves out of it. This leaves AB5 intact for everybody without the resources or funding to buy an exemption. BUT – this was already the case when the (D)s in Sacramento started handing out exemptions to favored industries. Voting yes here just allows a few more companies to not suffer under the weight of terrible legislation. All of AB5 needs to be repealed. Voting for Prop 22 and removing the alleged reason for the law (Uber/Lyft) from it is a pretty solid smack in the face for Lorena Gonzales and all of the (D) asshats (I’m looking at you Sharon Quirk-Silva) who voted to kick our economy and independent contractors in the teeth.
California Proposition 23, Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative: NO.
This is more government meddling in the medical industry being pushed for by lobbyists. Always vote against regulatory capture.
California Proposition 24, Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative: NO.
This “protection” act is more like a protection racket written by the tech companies themselves. Facebook doesn’t need the government to tell them to respect your privacy, what they DO need the government to do is give them carveouts and exemptions to current laws to favor them which is what this law seems to be all about. This is just regulatory capture.
California Proposition 25, Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum: NO.
This one was a bit confusing but basically a bunch of technocrat (D)s who don’t think anybody should ever be in jail want to replace bail with a computer algorithm that the (R)s, NAACP & ACLU are all against. This is a dumb idea and justice should never be put into the hands of computer models. Did we learn nothing from Captain America: Winter Soldier?
California’s 39th Congressional District: Nobody.
Gil Cisneros is another leftist hack who will screw our entire economy in order to pretend to be doing work that’s better left up to the private sector. He’s just another petty tyrant who thinks he can run your life better than you and I have no use for worthless partisan hacks. Unfortunately Young Kim is the same thing with a (R) behind her name. This woman stands for nothing and the CAGOP doesn’t deserve to win for the sake of being the weak-kneed opposition. Young Kim will just be a less intelligent Ed Royce with his terrible neocon impulses.
President of the United States of America: :blink:
Do I have to say it?