I make zero determination of who to vote for based on their personal campaign websites or their stupid mailers and ads. You have to be a total idiot to think these are the sources you should believe to choose a leader. I don’t trust their lip service. Just documented evidence.
These are my thoughts as I go along who to vote for, for the California Primary this June 5th, 2018.
I’d also like to note the real issue here in the whole race. Thomas Jefferson Cares and Josh Jones are the only candidates who have mentioned police brutality. This is one thing the governor of a state has control over. Do you hate White Supremacists in the police force? Then you vote for people who want to directly deal with it.
Albert Caesar Mezzetti is an absolute no for me.
He is way too “GET OFF MY LAWN!” His campaign comes off as a bold faced lie for what he considers to be a “democrat.” What makes me say that? Well, first getting the fact out of the way that he is old – which isn’t a complete strike; though old age seems to generally indicate horrible cognitive decision making in this day in age. He has an uneasy stance on marijuana legalization. He thinks he understands women’s rights, which, given his chosen gender and his (unchosen) age leaves me questioning the validity of that claim. He is also vocally in support of 2A, and while I am not actually against 2A, I am sick of the loud 2A supporters. They’re rarely the people who should be arguing for it… i.e. mentally unstable.
Hakan “Hawk” Mikado is a no.
He has been fairly funded by a medical device manufacturer, Dexcom – who actually have made some lovely advances in glucose level diagnosis for Diabetes patients, as well as lightly funded by a marketing lead generator, InVert. He is running with no party preference. These are literally the only facts we know about this man that he’s bothered to provide the public about his expectations for the governor’s position. That is, in my opinion, rude. If you want voters then treat your voters with the common courtesy of telling us your stances. He doesn’t even discuss what he does in relation to his business he owns.
Hakan is being written off as shady for not feeling like the voter deserves to know who he is, beyond some generalizing Libertarian sounding verbal diarrhea which is apparently from his own campaign website.
Klement Tinaj is a potential YES.
He is very young, being born in 1990 – which, I am all about giving the younger Millennials a go at fixing what the Boomers have obliterated. He has had an acting profile on Wikipedia since 2016. He’s a world travelled guy, having been in five different schools in his youth between Albania and the US. He went from wanting to be a farmer to wanting to be an actor when he immigrated to the US. Personally, I went from wanting to be a veterinarian to an actor at his age. To me, that’s common with people who value dreams. He is verbally behind supporting affordable housing and fair taxation. He has his focus set on improving public education and holding charter schools accountable. He is pro-small business. He believes in free four year college. He believes in single payer health care. Only strike is he is registered as a democratic candidate. He sounds solid, otherwise.
Jeffrey Edward Taylor is a no.
He is registered under no party. Has provided zero information on his positions on issues or beliefs to the outside ballot sites. His occupation is listed as a “Marketplace Minister”… which, wtf is that? Does he offer thoughts and prayers to Wall Street? That’s it. Just like I’m saying NO for Hakan “Hawk” Mikado, I am saying absolutely not for Jeffrey Edward Taylor. If you want to run for governor then have the common decency to establish yourself in the public’s view. Not even one news article on this dude. Bye.
Delaine Eastin is a YES.
She has had a large chunk of her life living off the taxpayer’s dollar by serving in the California State Assembly from 1986-1994 and then as the state’s public education Superintendent from 1995-2003. As an Assembly Member she represented both San Francisco’s Alameda County, which serve spots like Oakland and Berkley, as well as East Bay and Silicon Valley. Keeping in mind, she served both these locations before they became gentrified and “Techie Libertarianized.” ™
Estin has credentials in women’s studies, her dad was in the Navy, and she experienced overcrowded public classrooms as a child. As an non-political adult she did serve as a corporate planner to telecoms and Silicon Valley, before taking office, but while in office she has done some good. She reduced classroom sizes, invested $2.3 billion into the class size initiative, and raised statewide academic standards in math, science, and language arts. She is also very vocal against prisons over schools.
When she finally completed her public career she went to work with National Institute of Educational Leadership in Washington, DC and now teaches at Mills College. She also currently serves in encouraging leadership roles for women leaders.
One downfall is a controversy of money misappropriation during one of her terms. The claimant said she was mismanaging money, others say the claimant was using the claim to mar her career in politics because she is a woman. Overall, she doesn’t appear to have tangible dirt on her that could stand up to the effort she has put into her public career of helping school children and women. Granted, I haven’t seen anything on her donors on this cursory candidate search. She is registered as a Dem but I would still vote for her.
Amanda Renteria is a no simply because she served as an aid to Hillary and Dianne Feinstein. She may as well register as a Republican and be done with it. That is the end of that.
John Chiang is a YES.
This candidate has been in a public tax dollar funded office since 1997. He served in California’s Board of Equalization from 1997-2007 and as the State Controller from 2007-2015. As in the words of “Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” he’s a glorified accountant.
Chiang grew up around the states, starting with his interest in politics in a high school in Chicago. He actually started his career, back in the day, serving as a tax law specialist for the (rat fink) IRS. Beyond that he served on staff for Barbara Boxer, found retired state employee health benefits would cost the state a cool $2B, annually, made state forfeiture of unclaimed property more fair, stood up to Arnold Schwarzenegger by refusing to cut state worker’s minimum wages, and owned up to his own office being called out for mismanaging $31B.
Looking over Chiang’s career, he’s been very transparent, and in all cases, defiant in allowing crony financial policy that would hurt California workers. He even slapped a ban on Well’s Fargo’s investment work in 2016 for being shady with two million “unauthorized accounts.” My favorite story about this guy is he threatened the State Assembly that he’d dock their pay in 2011 if they didn’t balance the budget in a timely manner.
He is for affordable housing and he is vocal about more Asian Americans in politics. He is a registered dem but I would definitely vote for this man.
Thomas Jefferson Cares is a YES.
This guy is all ideology with his heart in the right place. He wants to free people of fiat currency and has been an advocate for blockchain crypto currency for an amount of time. Though, from there his ideology starts sounding a little Orwellian in that he wants to instate Departments of Dignity and Potential. Again, his heart in in the right place because he wants the government to treat civilians with civility and he wants the government to help people find good paying jobs.
TJC also wants to reduce prison rates, challenge the current public school curriculums in the face of growing job automation, and declare zero tolerance for police brutality. To emphasize his stance on police brutality, he’s into naming public infrastructure after those who have died at the hands of police brutality. No other candidate, other than Josh Jones have attempted to discuss White Supremacy in the police forces. This shouldn’t be overlooked.
There are a few other very interesting concepts TJC wants to do as governor involving decentralizing democracy, implementing self-driving cars, and prepare the states of the US to consider succession. A bit much sounding but reading through his very bright and articulate bio, on an independent campaign evaluation site, he is an exceedingly intelligent and driven young guy with his focus deeply, and rightly, planted into the actual future. His only strike are I haven’t seen anything about his stance on affordable housing and he is registered as a Democrat. Other than that, I would consider voting for him solely based on the fact that he is young, actually does care, and has his heart in the right place.
Christopher N. Carlson is a no.
I believe he is one of the two Green Party people running for California Governor. He is a puppeteer by profession. Cool. He doesn’t support fracking. Cool. He wants to send California Women to Mars. What?
He has some nauseatingly meta style Youtube videos online which leads me to believe he actually doesn’t take the race seriously. I’m almost wondering if he’s a plant to make the Greens look absolutely batshit. They don’t need a lot of help. If he’s legit then you can take confidence in his support of calculus?
This guy is a total no. He’s not stable or he’s a troll.
Michael Shellenberger is a no.
This man is running as a Democrat and has done some work for well known human rights organizations and has some general opinions on the Iraq War. Though, he hasn’t bothered to share them. Only to title them in vague sounding headlines for books I’ll never buy or read.
He founded an ethically questionable think tank in Oakland which believes current day environmentalism should die… in favor of nuclear. He’s worked hard to try to equate his work to Rachel Carson’s… which I don’t know anything about this man but just from his stance in nuclear – he’ll never touch Carson. His think tank has also done a lot of work with right leaning think tanks…. imagine that. And there are a lot of outside call outs about his “think tank.”
From what it sounds like, Shellenberger is against renewables and all about the nukes. That’s really all there is about him online. He is basically just a pro-nuke lobbyist… “Democrat.” No substance. No thanks.
Desmond Silveira is a no.
Why is it, anyone who chooses to not run under a party is actually just a right leaning candidate on the down low? Desmond Silveira is Pro-Life, amongst a bevy of other fraudulently sounding list of “Pro’s.” He’s like the California version of Mike Pence. Lighter on the death penalty but just as stubborn on women’s and LGBTQ rights. He is registered as “no party” but he has a full profile up on another fraudulently named political spin factory called “The Solidarity Party.” You know… “Solidarity” as in – you don’t get to sit with us if you’re a woman or gay.
Good to know who this dude is so I can always vote him out. Nope. Bye.
Johnny Wattenburg is a no.
Looking up Johnny Wattenberg the first thing that comes up is a guy with a genuinely warming smile. This makes me feel weird. His heart is set on high speed rail, the repeal of the gas tax, annnd he is against immigrants. I knew his smile seemed creepy. According to ABC 30’s latest on him, he considers himself “your average blue collar worker…” which… ehhh I think I’ve had enough claimed “blue collar leadership” to last many lifetimes. Oh, and OF COURSE he’s running as “no party.” AKA Republican.
Akinyemi Agbede is a no.
The democratic candidate with my favorite name is Akinyemi Agbede. However, from the preliminary results of searching his name I have a feeling that’s as far as the favoritism will go. I generally don’t look at candidate’s websites but in the google search his site pops up with the wrong title and meta information which terribly mismatches his byline.
Already out of the gate, Agbede looks like he belongs on r/oldpeopleonfacebook. And let me point all those fans of Web 1.0 website design to go to his site to take a gander. It’s a real treat into the old skool days of Geocites.
Beyond poking fun at the man’s bad website design, he has apparently run for Senate back in 2012 and 2016. I guess it didn’t pan out. Also apparently he ran for governor in 2014? The biggest flag is there’s really no information about him other than someone on Quora asking if he’s a fake candidate created to intentionally siphon of African American votes. In this day in age of Russiagate and identity politics… yea I can see that. I don’t recommend voting for him. Not unless he pops up and explains himself somewhere else than a hilariously ancient looking website – and I don’t see that happening.
Shubham Goel is a maybe.
If Thomas Jefferson Cares and Klement Tinaj think they’re the only young people in the race for California’s Governor seat, they’re mistaken. Shubham Goel is the third person under 30 making a run for the seat of leadership and his campaign is essentially him suiciding himself by words. I didn’t make the term “suicided by words up,” by the way. It is a reference to taking yourself out, usually on behalf of a greater cause and Goel’s done it with his campaign slogan, “I am running for governor because I want to show people that you don’t need to be rich, good looking, charismatic, upper class, corrupt, a D-list celebrity or politically well-connected (via nepotism, etc.) to make a difference.” I dig his harshness.
He is running as a no party, btw… which leaves me feeling skeptical. Though, through my skepticism I see he is against taking campaign donations from banks. Cool. He even calls the top five candidates out for doing so and really puts Gavin Newsom through the wringer saying how pathetic the man is for campaigning for three years instead of doing his actual job. Oh snap! I like the cut of this young man’s jib.
Going on he addresses the issue with young people running vs. needing political experience by saying, “People always talk about how you need political experience for office, but you really don’t. I promise you, these guys in office are far from rocket scientists and I promise to always fight for what’s right for all Californians.”
Moving beyond Goel’s appropriate cockiness his governorship focus would be on retooling how the UC school system is governed based on, according to him, their hiding of almost $200 million a few years ago. He also wants to make a social network of public figures in office showing extreme donor transparency, reduce taxes and grow small businesses, limit social media usage because he believes it makes the public unhappy, defund high speed rail, privatize water shortages, and pump more investments into Hollywood. I can’t say I’d support this kid because I don’t appreciate his solution to water retention in the state, his solution for high speed rail (yes I believe in it), or his fairly vague goals for affordable housing but I do appreciate his sharp tongue. He’s definitely not the worst candidate in the race.
Robert Davidson Griffis is a no.
He has himself listed as an entrepreneur, economist, and father on votersedge.org. He has a nice profile picture. Very wholesome. Running as a Democrat. And that’s about all I can find in a cursory search on him. My rule stands. No info? No consideration for a vote.
Juan Bribiesca is a no.
A man who wants to go into politics with a last name with the word brib(e) in it, is an unfortunate thing. But perhaps this is where it ends? He is a retired medical doctor, feels like businesses should be taxed less in California – though seemingly there’s no differentiation on small business vs. Wall Street business, rather ambiguously says he’s for a better school system, and states he’s concerned about the environment and water. He’s also concerned about transparency, justice and accountability for all – which, again – how? He wants safety for everyone, ok? He wants better healthcare. No explanation on how there.
The only thing that seems fairly focused is he wants to protect renewables. He seems like a nice man but there’s just not enough information on how he wants to tackle these problems where I’d feel comfortable voting for him. He’s also running as a democrat.
I forgot to add links for him, sorry. I assume you know how to use search engines?
Josh Jones is a YES.
Governor candidate Josh Jones has a very common name. I have a Josh Jones in my circle of friends. The candidate Jones is also the other California Green Party candidate, of two. And this isn’t a sidetrack but I lived on the outskirts of Occupy LA as a piss poor waitress and saw what an embarrassing clusterfuck that campaign was. Jones was a part of that. Though, to be fair – I don’t know if he was there at the beginning when it was well run, or towards the end when the fake occupiers took it over and attacked anyone who had the “privilege” of a flushable toilet.
At any rate Jones does have a comprehensive view of the state’s problems. He is for affordable housing and against homelessness stating he wants to model California’s approach to both issue in the way Denmark models their homelessness solution. He’s concerned about water and wants to implement better water recycling and desalinization programs. He’s against the current rendition of the prison systems – calling it a form of slavery. Which, it is. He supports Black Lives Matters, wants free college, and is pro-renewables. He also is for Universal Health Care, wants to increase public school funding, wants to amend property tax issues due to Prop 13 (allows old rich people to not pay taxes on million dollar properties), wants to repeal Costa Hawkins – WHICH btw, he’s the only candidate who’s mentioned this, and is into progressive taxation. He’s really not a bad choice for governor.
Gavin Newsom is a meh.
Newsom seems like a lite version of Jerry Brown in that he seems like a sleeper agent. People voted Brown in hoping for strict laws on fracking and Brown basically was like, “Come on in, boys!” Newsom was serving San Francisco at the beginning of the sad combination of Wall Street, tech, and foreign money began sinking the city’s housing market. As far as I’m concerned, Newsom is a part of the current corporate leadership in the country elite faking “democrat” but, hey – at least he’s *nice* to women, LGBQT, and babies.
I think the Sacramento Bee sums his pedigree up nicely by saying, Newsom is “A 29-year-old wine and hospitality entrepreneur backed by Getty oil fortunes and the [San Francisco’s] political elite.” Though in the same breath the Sac Bee also says his platform includes Universal Health Care, a state bank to finance infrastructure, free community schools open every day, and better accountability of charter schools. Those are pros, for sure.
For the cons Newsom’s corporate streak comes out with no discussion on schools over prisons but in privatizing inmate health care, with his close alignment and donations to the GOP from 2000 and 2003, with his shifty association with crony property development, and he slept with a married aide. I do count infidelity against politicians. Unless folks are openly poly, it shows character flaw.
As far as what I am not sure about, Newsom wants to eliminate prison bail all together and privatize high speed rail. I guess those initiatives could go either way. And as for Newsom, I feel like if he is elected he too could go either way.
I’m note even going to dignify Antonio with a consideration because he’s a degenerate womanizing buffoon whose family have criminal ties in Mexico. The people’s opinions I’ve seen in consideration for his governorship don’t go beyond politically lazy, predominantly old white guys who think “he’s a straight shooter.” Gfys – ,,|,,
Final note – of which shitty wordpress so lovingly and randomly deleted – I am an a registered independent voter. I vote on issues that favor both reasonable fiscal responsibility. To me that favors the power of the working class over corporate welfare programs. That means I support Main Street over Wall Street. That means I believe in upholding the worth of ever body who are cognizant of their own consciousness. That means acknowledging indoctrination of ill planned systems of consumerism with grotesquely biased hierarchies built into them. I have been known to vote for all three parties, Dem, Repub, and Libert. Going forward, the Republican party is dead to me with t