While this post is unique to California’s ballot, much of what California does tends to crop up elsewhere so it’s worth your reading. Ditto the political skulduggery. And there’s always the entertainment value of bad actors losing their masks, unintended consequences and so on.
This is the second election in which I’ve been forced to vote by mail. Liberals love such “motor voter” laws because proving vote fraud is difficult when it can happen anywhere instead of only in heavily policed specific locations where you have to sign in with a photo ID.
My normal election rule is 1: Never vote for a woman; God doesn’t want women to rule men, 2: No new debts/taxes, 3: not the Democrat and 4: Not the incumbent, in that order. It hurts when this means I vote for a male Dem over a female Rep but until con-art-servatives figure out what they’re supposed to be conserving, they’s just as much a liability.
On that note, four of the five new high-level judges up for unopposed appointment are female. We’re doomed.
The choice for US Senator was Dianne Feinstein the incumbent liche or Kevin de Leon the La Raza puppet. I left that one blank.
Moving on to the nationally popular California Propositions, #1-4 are the sort of new debt instruments that keep me voting. I can’t drain the swamp but I can slow the accumulation of stupidly unnecessary debt. About $17b worth of debt this year.
#7 will end daylight savings time for California. Given the size of our economy, this will probably ripple-effect throughout the USA. #9 was the latest effort to split up California, pulled by its proponent after some court ruling. Context here:
https://gunnerq.androsphere.net/2018/06/13/tim-drapers-non-solution/
You’ve probably heard about Prop 13, the 1978 voter initiative that has kept property taxes low enough for ordinary people to continue owning their homes even as home values spike through the roof. Legislators have tried annually to get it overturned, lusting for new property tax revenue, but the Baby Boomer voting bloc thwarts them every time. Prop 13 has even been amended a couple times to ensure that baby Boomers can carry their low tax policies when they sell their home and move. Boomers got greedy this election’s effort with Prop. 5: “Removes certain transfer requirements for homeowners over 55, severely disabled homeowners, and contaminated or disaster-destroyed property.” When I see vaguely worded bunk like that, I do my homework. The truth is always interesting.
Screw you, you Baby Boomers. First you ruined our country, then you ruined our economy, now you want legal exemptions from paying taxes? Die already.
Proposition #6 is a fuel- and car-tax reduction. It became controversial when Caltrans workers stopped traffic in San Diego County to pass out anti-Prop 6 fliers. Read about it here:
Carl DeMaio: Caltrans Illegally Distributed Anti-Proposition 6 Material
The actual tax is old news. The State spends general funds on welfare handouts and other election kickbacks then offers earmarked taxes/debts to address the neglected infrastructure. Voters know the gov’t will burn the world before they favor the good of humanity over reelection and cooperate. As with men and women, the men-and-gov’t relationship is controlled by the side that cares the least about the other. This explains much about how MGTOW is a threat to the powers that be.
Proposition #8 is a curious one, imposing cost controls on dialysis treatment. Rather specific, eh? The opposition weighs in:
An independent study by the state’s former Legislative Analyst and the economic think tank, Berkeley Research Group, found that, under Prop 8, eighty-three percent (83%) of dialysis clinics in California would operate at a loss. …
Prop 8 is funded by United Healthcare Workers West (UHW) union through a front group called “Kidney Patients Deserve Better,. as part of an attempt to pressure dialysis clinics to unionize workers. While unions have the right to try to organize workers, it’s not right to abuse the initiative system and use vulnerable patients as political pawns.
Since 2012, UHW has spent $35 million in California and other states on more than 20 punitive state and local ballot measures in an attempt to force hospitals and other healthcare providers to accept their union organizing and contract demands.
Labor unions are organized criminal syndicates and fronts for Leftist political activism/terrorism.
Similarly, Proposition #11. What it says: “Requires Private-Sector Emergency Ambulance Employees to Remain On-Call During Work Breaks. Eliminates Certain Employer Liability. Initiative Stature.” But here’s the catch: “Private-Sector Emergency Ambulance” means the company American Medical Response, which paid for this Proposition and has a near-monopoly in California on emergency ambulance services. An op-ed I found compelling:
http://www.dailycal.org/2018/10/26/vote-no-on-proposition-11/
In order to understand why AMR would spend nearly $22 million to codify common sense practices . such as EMT and paramedic meal and rest breaks . it’s necessary to understand current California labor laws and AMR.s history of violating them. … In 2017, a group of first responders led by dispatcher Laura Bartoni alleged they were denied pay for these interrupted rest breaks over several issues, filing the lawsuit Laura Bartoni, et al., v. American Medical Response West.
Separate from the lawsuit against AMR, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that on-call breaks violate state labor laws in Jennifer Augustus v. ABM Security Services, a case involving private security guards and their employers, who required they keep their radios on during breaks. The court ruled in favor of the workers, stating that employers must provide breaks that are off-duty and not interruptible. In order to adhere to this ruling and make sure employees get uninterrupted, off-duty breaks, AMR would need to operate more ambulances and have more first responders on duty, increasing costs. It’s likely that this cost factors into AMR.s support and funding of the proposition.
Under Prop. 11, AMR seeks to eliminate the possibility for further lawsuits stemming from meal and rest break violations and circumvent the Augustus v. ABM Security Services ruling.
I generally don’t care for California’s busybody employment laws but the way to handle it here is AMR charging its costs to its municipal customers, not AMR spending eight digits to carve an exception out of the law. We can change the law but all must be equal under the law. No pay-to-play!
And the Proposition that might just nuke Sodom Fransicko: Number Ten. “EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. ”
That sounded horrific because rent control is how one destroys a city if he doesn’t have an army. Landowners are invariably denied the rents needed to maintain the infrastructure and are then punished in real estate analogues of frivorce court until they abandon their properties entirely. Squalor and plague settle in. The Hondurans will get here and wonder why they ever left.
But as I read up on it, I found out rent controls had already been enacted at the State level and were rather obsolete. Okay, then. If I can’t stop the concept of rent control then local-level rent control is preferable to Moscow-level rent control… and I voted for Prop #10.
This will crank economic stratification to ten kerjillion. All the Leftoids will swiftly act to lower rents way below market rate in the areas they control, which means the Libturd exodus from California into other states will cease. Eventually, they’ll all be prisoners in shanty towns of their own making but hey, shanty towns are cheap rent. Only the landowners screwed & shamed by Leftists will be leaving.
You’re welcome, Texas.
Meanwhile, local control means I have a better chance of stopping rent control irrationality in my own neighborhood.
‘ 1: Never vote for a woman; God doesn.t want women to rule men
It hurts when this means I vote for a male Dem over a female Rep but until con-art-servatives figure out what they.re supposed to be conserving, they.s just as much a liability.’
My first rule is to vote for the pro life candidate…however if they show no difference either way then I vote for the man even if he is of different political affiliation. As was the male dem-female repub case. It was for a minor office…but principle is principle.
Frankly if all male candidates were pro-life this would be a moot point…if a man supports abortion then he shouldn’t be in the position of any political office in my opinion.
‘Screw you, you Baby Boomers. First you ruined our country, then you ruined our economy, now you want legal exemptions from paying taxes? ‘
They were also of the ilk during the time of artificial contraception, legalized abortion, and no fault. If there’s a responsibility out there from their actions…they surely want no part of it.
GQ ..
Good luck to ya’ .. you’ve got a mess in Cali .. and no one is coming to save yenz’.
“Frankly if all male candidates were pro-life this would be a moot point.if a man supports abortion then he shouldn.t be in the position of any political office in my opinion.”
More than this, it’s a question of identity politics. We’ll never have patriarchy back so long as a single judge or legislator is female. Neither will we have a return to healthy sexuallity when a percentage of our leaders are openly deviant. For both groups, God’s plan for humanity is an existential threat. They can be reliably expected to behave accordingly.