Jump to content

  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. If you become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Adam & Glen’s Political Primer, California Edition 2016

Spirit

By Spirit
in LA Angels | MLB Daily

 Share

Recommended Posts

Spirit Hall of Fame

Spirit

Posted
Posted

Adam & Glen’s Political Primer, California Edition 2016

Screen Shot 2016-10-11 at 8.26.09 PM.png

By Adam Dodge & Glen McKee, Senior AngelsWin.com Political Analysts

 

(Editor’s Note:  If there’s one thing we love talking and arguing about at AngelsWin.com, it’s baseball.  If there’s a two things we love talking and arguing about at AngelsWin.com, it’s baseball and politics.  It’s fun, it’s good natured and it’s often hysterical.  We invite you to join in the conversation in our Politics Forum.)

 

So, how ‘bout that election, eh?  Yeah, to steal a quote from Bender (the Futurama robot, not the Breakfast Club character), we’re boned.  Boned on the left and boned on the right with the two main choices, boned with the alternate choices.  However, keep in mind that in addition to reluctantly choosing our new President, there are a lot of down-ballot issues that will have as much of a personal impact, if not more.  Adam and Glen will now break down the main race as well as a few cherry-picked propositions, and the dreadful California Senator race. 

 

Madam or Mister President?  In California, our vote for President is moot (even for those like me that vote by mail).  The last time California went Republican was for Reagan in 1988.  By the time California’s votes are tallied the election is usually already over.  With that in mind, you have a few options for your vote.  You can vote D or R, you can vote independent, you can write somebody in, or you can leave your vote blank.  Note: after a few minutes of research I discovered that in a general election, in CA you cannot write in a candidate. 

Glen – Let me be clear: either Clinton or Trump will be elected as our next President on November 8.  Of those two, without a doubt I prefer Clinton.  She’s still a horrible choice but when compared to Trump, she looks fantastic.  She has foreign policy experience, she knows how to play the political game, and of the two she’s the only one that is remotely presidential.  Trump is a thin-skinned blowhard of a man-child who would undoubtedly be a disaster at foreign policy, and domestic policy, and any policy.  I don’t want Trump (or by surrogate, Pence) appointing one Supreme Court justice, let alone two or perhaps even three.  All that said, I’m still going to vote for somebody without an R or D after their name.   It’s my vote to waste, that’s how I’m doing it.

Adam – If I were a single, childless alcoholic, void of anything meaningful in my life I wouldn't only vote for Donald Trump, I'd pay an entourage of white rappers to escort me to the voting booth to punch his name. Every time I see a poll about Congress, Americans hate it more and more. A BIG part of me (I'll give you a hint... my penis) would love to saddle those crony dirt bags with the greatest douche in Presidential history. Shake that tiny, tangy hand Pelosi! Call him "Mr. President," Cruz! While I have no hope for a government that will ever function in a more humane way, powerless to regulate our individual choices, I have too much to lose to be willing to roll the dice on the D. Like her opponent, Hillary Clinton is a lock to use the US Military to kill far too many human beings overseas for my taste.

Instead, I'll cast my vote for Gary Johnson, not because he exudes Libertarian principles, but because in my opinion he's the only candidate whose presidency would result in fewer lives lost globally. 

Senator: Kamala Harris versus Loretta Sanchez.  If you think our choices for president are bad, hoo boy, check out this race.  Holy cow, it’s awful.  No matter who wins, well, you know.  We could really use that write-in option here.

Adam – In an effort to differentiate between these two repulsive female scumbags I did a little Googling. I wanted to see who their spouses were. They both married white lawyers. Now I'm no racist, but there is nothing worse in this world than a white lawyer. How could we trust the judgment of a woman who would marry one? I'll write in Jerry Brown.

Glen – Damn, man.  I looked and looked for one thing, just one thing that I could latch onto as a reason to vote for either of these two.  I came up with two.  One, if I vote for Sanchez I can refer to that as pulling a Dirty Sanchez.  Two, according to her statement she voted against the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and the Wall Street bailouts.  That’s all I have.  Dirty Sanchez it is.

Prop 51 – School Bonds, Funding for K-12 School and Community College Facilities, Initiative Statute.  Summary: Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds for new construction and modernization of K-12 facilities.

Glen – I have this rule about bond initiatives, and this includes the initiative to replace current James Bond with Idris Elba.  A black James Bond?  What’s next, Laotian Bond?  Can’t we middle-aged white guys keep one thing?  Anyhoo…my rule is that I always vote “no” on bonds. Bonds are like loans that the state makes to itself that have to be repaid with interest.  No matter how sweet the reasoning for the bond is, my answer is no.  You could have the “Bond to Replace Patchouli Oil Stench with Puppy Breath Aroma” and I’d still vote no on it, despite it sounding like a wonderful idea.  No to black James Bond, and no to bonds. 

Adam – Guessing the real purpose of this prop is to funnel a few billion to a few friends in the construction industry. GFY Cronies!

 

Prop 52 – Medi-Cal Hospital Fee Program.  Summary: Extends indefinitely an existing statute that imposes fees on hospitals to fund Medi-Cal health care services, care for uninsured patients, and children’s health coverage. 

Adam – I would generally vote the opposite of the Union position on bills like this, but it appears as though the Union is currently "neutral." Instead, I'll leave it to chance. Ini Mini Miny No!

Glen – I don’t have much of a pony in this race, as I’m retired military and have pretty damn good health care, despite what you may have heard.  I’m going to go with my bleeding liberal heart and vote yes on this.

 

Prop 54 – Summary: Prohibits Legislature from passing any bill unless published on the Internet for 72 hours before vote.

Glen – This one seems like a slam dunk, which means I’m probably missing something.  Yes on 52.

Adam – Estimates claim it is going to cost taxpayers roughly $1 Million dollars a year so some dickwad tech guy from Humboldt State can record and post legislative meetings and bills online.  That probably means more like $20 Million a year and like Glen I'm sure we're getting it deep and dry on this one, but this has to be a Yes vote on the surface. I look forward to not reading the bills online!

Prop 58 – Summary: Preserves requirement that public schools ensure students obtain English language proficiency…Authorizes school districts to establish dual-language immersion programs for both native and non-native English speakers.

Adam –I don't care what language people speak. The market determines the need for language(s) proficiency.  In many cases it pays to speak English. In others it pays to speak Spanish and other languages. It shouldn't be the State's responsibility to mandate language proficiency. I guess that's a Yes vote for me. Orale, fokers!

Glen – Looking in my voter guide, I see that in the “AGAINST” section for this prop is just a website: KeepEnglish.org.  It looks like it was made about six years ago.  I’m tired of America being proud of being monolingual.  Our proud ignorance has the entire world leaving us behind, and being afraid of our kids learning a second language is a symptom of that retardation.  Quit being proud of being an idiot.  Yes on 58.

Prop 63 – Summary: Requires background check and DOJ authorization to purchase ammunition.  Prohibits possession of large-capacity magazines.  Establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons.  Requires DOJ participation in federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Glen – I have to throw out the baby with the bathwater and say no on this one.  I have a small dick so it seems natural that I’d be a 2nd Amendment nut, but I’m not.  I have no problem with guns but I wouldn’t mind seeing the gun show loophole closed and proficiency standards – much like we have for driving cars – established and checked periodically.  This bill doesn’t address either of those ideas, and it’s way too broad in scope.  To further use my car analogy, it’s like requiring a license to get gas in addition to having a license to drive a car.  Muh guns.  No on 63.

Adam – No. I don't own a gun. I don't want to own a gun. I DO want the right to own a gun and I don't want the DOJ to be party to my decision to purchase a gun or ammunition for one. There doesn't seem to be community on Earth immune to evil. Oh, and I recently watched the movie The Road. If the shit hits the apocalyptic fan and I find myself with my son Ethan roaming the dusty roads of a bitter, gray land I don't want to rely on a Phillip's head as my sole source of protection.

Prop 64 – Summary: Legalizes marijuana under state law, for use by adults 21 or older.  Imposes state taxes on sales and cultivation.

Adam – I'd prefer a proposition that simply and completely decriminalizes possession of ALL drugs. That said, this is a decent start and an obvious Yes vote. I look forward to voting No on 2028's Prop 64 which seeks to impose a $10 per joint tax for Alzheimer's research and the Firemen.

Glen – This shit again?  It seems like we vote on this every election, and it seems like it would be a slam dunk in CA, and yet we keep missing like Shaq at the free-throw line.  Maybe the stoners keep forgetting when to vote?  I dunno.  That said, legalize it already.  Let people smoke a joint if they want.  Get an assload of extra tax revenue and then waste it on a train nobody wants. 

Prop 65 – Summary: Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through mandated sale of carryout bags. 

Glen – Ya know what I have in the trunk of my car?  A bunch of stashed reusable carryout bags.  You know what I have in my pantry?  A lot more stashed reusable carryout bags.  You know how often I use those reusable carryout bags?  Almost effing never.  I do use the giant Costco bags and the Ikea bags because you can carry a dead body (up to a certain size) in them (or so I’ve heard).  I’m a tree-hugging hippie but I know people are going to keep resisting this.  Pick your battles.  No on 65.

Adam – You know what I have in my trash cans, both inside and out? A bunch of plastic grocery bags. I also have them in my downstairs closet and in one of my kitchen cupboards. You know how much I pay for them? Nothing. Well I'm sure the cost is hidden in what I pay for my regular grocery items like milk, eggs and pickled pigs' feet.  I hate mandates. I hate redistribution. No.

 

If there are any other propositions that you the voter are undecided about, please let us know! Adam will be happy to give you his two cents! Glen will be happy to give the seven bucks he stole off the dude he murdered in the high desert. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Angel Oracle Hall of Fame

Angel Oracle

Posted
Posted

The conspiracist in me still thinks the two parties made a deal to put Trump in position to be nominated, so that Billary Clinton could win.

Neither candidate is appealing at all!   They are in fact probably about as appealing to me as the Chargers are to Glen right now.

I'm voting to put a Johnson in the WH.

Great blog, Glen and Adam!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Angel Oracle Hall of Fame

Angel Oracle

Posted
Posted
On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 11:06 AM, Angel Oracle said:

The conspiracist in me still thinks the two parties made a deal to put Trump in position to be nominated, so that Billary Clinton could win.

Neither candidate is appealing at all!   They are in fact probably about as appealing to me as the Chargers are to Glen right now.

I'm voting to put a Johnson in the WH.

Great blog, Glen and Adam!

You can thank me now Glen, for the Chargers win yesterday over Denver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...