Newsome pushed back against Democracy to achieve his political goals

[The Barbarian]

In the fight over gerrymandering, the DNC is unlikely to outmaneuver the GOP, as there are more swing districts in red states for the GOP to redraw than in blue states for the DNC.

Maybe so. This is what thieves count on.

f Democrats can persuade a few at-risk GOP members—perhaps those vulnerable due to gerrymandering in places like CA or NYC—they might vote with the Democrats to protect their seats.

That's a possibility. In Texas , the republican rush to steal more seats has increased the number of competitive districts, exposing some republican legislators. We'll see how that turns out.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Does the Republican Party employ similar tactics?

You should open a thread on that subject - this one is about what Governor Newsome is doing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You should open a thread on that subject - this one is about what Governor Newsome is doing.

What he is doing is responding to what Texas did first and offering the people of California a choice to accept the proposal in a way that the Gov/Legislature of Texas did not offer to the people of Texas.

 

[The Barbarian]

What he is doing is responding to what Texas did first and offering the people of California a choice to accept the proposal in a way that the Gov/Legislature of Texas did not offer to the people of Texas.

Today's winner. This points up the difference between today's republican party and Americans generally.

 

[Always in His Presence]

What he is doing is responding to what Texas did first and offering the people of California a choice to accept the proposal in a way that the Gov/Legislature of Texas did not offer to the people of Texas.

Did the Governor of Texas circumvent the voters decision to have an independent counsel?

California already has a majority of seats for the state - this isn't about the state, but the national mid terms.

This is nothing but election engineering from a person who has vision on being President.

 

[The Barbarian]

Did the Governor of Texas circumvent the voters decision to have an independent counsel?

They didn't allow the voters a say in the move to Gerrymander the state. Governor Newsome gave the people of California a say.

California already has a majority of seats for the state - this isn't about the state, but the national mid terms.

Yep. He's playing the same game as the republicans in Texas, and they are cross-eyed with rage over it.

This is nothing but election engineering

Republicans are feeling betrayed. "Governor Newsome is doing the same thing we're doing! Whaaaa!"

 

[Hans Blaster]

Did the Governor of Texas circumvent the voters decision to have an independent counsel?

No and neither did the Governor of California. The Governor and Legislature of California proposed a *Constitutional change* that *MUST* be approved by the voters. The voters of California are free to reject their proposed plan. The voters of Texas are not.

California already has a majority of seats for the state - this isn't about the state, but the national mid terms.

This is incoherent.

This is nothing but election engineering from a person who has vision on being President.

It is *counter* engineering. The Texas plan has no other purpose other than influencing the control of the House of Representatives.

 

[JSRG]

They didn't allow the voters a say in the move to Gerrymander the state. Governor Newsome gave the people of California a say.

It's technically true he's giving the people of California a say, but (according to my understanding) he actually doesn't have a choice in the matter. As stated here:

5 things to know about Gavin Newsom’s plan to redraw California’s election maps

California already has an overwhelmingly Democratic delegation in Congress. Gov. Newsom’s plan could give his party five more seats and offset a Texas gerrymander.

calmatters.org

Newsom is proposing to temporarily override the commission and create districts more favorable to Democrats until after the 2030 Census. That requires going to the voters for their approval.

In other words, Newsom is required to put it up in front of the people, whether he actually wants to or not. Doing something you're actually required to do is not a sign of generousness or being nice or anything like that.

 

[Always in His Presence]

No and neither did the Governor of California. The Governor and Legislature of California proposed a *Constitutional change* that *MUST* be approved by the voters. The voters of California are free to reject their proposed plan. The voters of Texas are not.

Did Texas vote in an independent council? Answer - no they did not. Is the Governor operating within his rights - yes he is.

This is incoherent.

That is a shame - it is written quite plainly.

It is *counter* engineering. The Texas plan has no other purpose other than influencing the control of the House of Representatives.

How is that different from Gov Newsoms - especially since he said it out of his own mouth>

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Is the Governor operating within his rights - yes he is.

As is Governor Newsom - which makes me wonder why you have an issue with him. If the only thing you care about is whether or not the action is legal/within the rights of the person doing it, then there is no difference between what Abbott is doing and what Newsom is doing.

How is that different from Gov Newsoms - especially since he said it out of his own mouth>

If you can't understand why there's a difference between taking an action and taking an action in response to someone else's action, I really don't know what to tell you.

 

[The Barbarian]

In other words, Newsom is required to put it up in front of the people, whether he actually wants to or not. Doing something you're actually required to do is not a sign of generousness or being nice or anything like that.

It's the difference between a blue state like California, and a red state like Texas. You're thinking of it backwards. The government in California trusts it's citizens to make decisions. The government of Texas does not. The government and culture of California is why Newsome is governor. His being governor does not explain why California trusts it's citizens to make decisions.

 

[rjs330]

Which bit is 'leftist'? Please define 'lefist'? If you mean "nothing but critical of America" then that's another subject - and a whole range of economic perspectives can do that. Like "The Economist" that we've been discussing!

Your entire post was leftist tripe. Classic.

"A range of studies by academics and think tanks have shown that immigrants do not commit crime at a higher rate than native-born Americans. A more limited universe of studies specifically examine criminality among immigrants in the US illegally but also find that they do not commit crimes at a higher rate."
Hesson, Ted; Rosenberg, Mica; Hesson, Ted; Rosenberg, Mica (July 16, 2024). "Trump says migrants are fueling violent crime. Here is what the research shows". Reuters. Retrieved July 28, 2024.

The research is so dull of holes its silly. They dont have a clue how much crime illegals cause. Most places dont keep track of if a person is an illegal or not. They don't verify whether they are or not. Illegals also don't report because they are Illegals.

Incorrect. We're not the best in many regards - and I'm critical of those areas also.

I bet those areas aren't leftist enough for you.

I'm saying "Look out - there's dog poo on the line!"

No I get it. We've been saying there is dog poo on rhe line for sometime. Particularly since Obama got elected and the left started really pushing their agenda and ideology on rhe rest of us. Dog poo.

Now we have to try and clean it up.

 

[JSRG]

It's the difference between a blue state like California, and a red state like Texas. You're thinking of it backwards. The government in California trusts it's citizens to make decisions. The government of Texas does not. The government and culture of California is why Newsome is governor. His being governor does not explain why California trusts it's citizens to make decisions.

You hold up the government trusting its citizens to make decisions (referring to referendums) as a difference between a red state and a blue state. While in some cases such referendums are good, I think there is actually reason to be wary of the citizens making decisions directly on such things because they generally have far less understanding of what things entail than the legislators--various referendums are carefully written to seem less extreme in the wording than they actually are. It's much easier to fool voters with that sort of thing than legislators.

Regardless of the wisdom of them, however, this idea of it being red vs. blue state is silly, because there's plenty of red states that allow citizen-initiated referendum and plenty of blue states that don't. Let's take a look at a map (from States with initiative or referendum) showing which states allow this and which don't:

This is hardly a red state vs. blue state issue. Republican states like Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, and Oklahoma allow for citizen-led referendums. Meanwhile, Democratic states like Hawaii, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Delaware don't. If anything this is an East State vs. West State issue, as one can see the number of states having such referendums go up remarkably the more one goes west (though Hawaii, the west-most state, doesn't have them).

In any event, you were framing this being set up to referendum as some benevolent act of Newsom in comparison to that of Texas, when it's something Newsom is required to do whether he wants to or not.

 

[Always in His Presence]

If you can't understand why there's a difference between taking an action and taking an action in response to someone else's action, I really don't know what to tell you.

And if the roles were reversed? You would support a Republican Governor changing an established policy where the voters placed an independent committee to make these decisions and when that committee would not change - he calls for another vote to 'temporarily' remove that authority so he can effect the mid term elections -

Tell me you would honestly support a Republican doing it and I will capitulate to your position.

I can unequivocally state that for me personally - if the Governor of California was Republican and doing the very same thing - I would be against it also

 

[The Barbarian]

You hold up the government trusting its citizens to make decisions (referring to referendums) as a difference between a red state and a blue state. While in some cases such referendums are good, I think there is actually reason to be wary of the citizens making decisions directly on such things because they generally have far less understanding of what things entail than the legislators--various referendums are carefully written to seem less extreme in the wording than they actually are. It's much easier to fool voters with that sort of thing than legislators.

The founders assumed that people are better at governing themselves than rulers are. Turns out, the founders were right. Would you like some examples?

If anything this is an East State vs. West State issue,

There's an historical reason for this. Can you guess why? Hint: woman's suffrage was first a western thing.

 

[The Barbarian]

And if the roles were reversed?

I'd still favor a level playing field. My preference is that Gerrymandering be outlawed. But if one party is allowed to do it, then all parties should be allowed to do it. Do you agree?

 

[The Barbarian]

The research is so dull of holes its silly. They dont have a clue how much crime illegals cause. Most places dont keep track of if a person is an illegal or not.

Texas does keep track of it. And the republicans who run Texas admit that illegal aliens commit crimes at about half the rate of native-born Americans. No point in denial.

 

[JSRG]

The founders assumed that people are better at governing themselves than rulers are. Turns out, the founders were right. Would you like some examples?

The founders did not assume that people were better at governing themselves than rulers were--in fact, they outright rejected that entire idea. Yes, they thought people should have a say in the government, but not that they would govern themselves. That's why in the federal government, laws are not passed by the people, but only by their representatives. There is no shortage of quotes from them expressing their--sometimes justified, sometimes not--fears of the problems that would result if the general populace had too much direct power over the government.

Even in that area, only the House of Representatives was actually elected by the people--the Senate was elected by state legislatures, and the President by the electoral college, deliberately moving them farther away from the general populace's choices (in each case, the people didn't vote for senators or president, they just voted for people who would then themselves elect them). Now, nowadays Senators are elected directly by the people, and due to the electoral college just being a bunch of popularly elected robots at this point, the President is--functionally--elected by the people, just with a weird counting mechanism for deciding the winner. However, neither of these were the original goal. And even now, with the executive being elected (functionally) directly by the people, and both Senate and House elected directly by them, people aren't governing themselves. Federal laws do not go up to the people to vote on; they go to their representatives to vote on. People still have only an indirect say when it comes to the federal government, as was the goal. There's no such thing as a nationwide referendum in the United States.

So no, they did not assume people were governing themselves than rulers were. Again, they thought the people should have a say in who was governing them, but not that the people should be governing themselves and being the direct deciders of what laws get passed.

There's an historical reason for this. Can you guess why? Hint: woman's suffrage was first a western thing.

So you acknowledge it isn't, as you claimed, a red state vs. blue state thing?

 

[The Barbarian]

The founders did not assume that people were better at governing themselves than rulers were--in fact, they outright rejected that entire idea. Yes, they thought people should have a say in the government, but not that they would govern themselves.

Well, let's take a look...

From the right-wing Heritage Foundation:
The first usage of the term “independence” refers to the right of self-government. In Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence, he wrote that, “all men are created free and independent,” reflecting the language of the Declaration of Rights in his home state of Virginia. “Equal,” which was the word used in Jefferson’s final draft, is related to this understanding of “independence.” Both carry with them the connotation of self-ownership or self-government. As James Wilson explained, “All men are, by nature, equal and free: no one has a right to any authority over another without his consent: all lawful government is founded on the consent of those who are subject to it: such consent was given with a view to ensure and to increase the happiness of the governed, above what they could enjoy in an independent and unconnected state of nature.” The Founders considered that mankind’s independence exempted him from the arbitrary rule of fellow human beings and that his nature fortified him with the dignity of self-government.

The Founders’ Vision for American Independence

This Independence Day, it is worth reflecting on what the Founding Fathers meant when they used the term “independence.” On one level, July 4th is about our national independence, securing for America the “separate and equal station” befitting of a sovereign country. On another level, the...

www.heritage.org

From the Left-wing Bill of Rights Institute:
The core idea of self-government is that people should have a say in the terms by which we live our lives. Self-government contains the idea that people should be free from unjust control over their lives, but it also means that people are responsible for their own actions.

Representation and Self-Governance | Bill of Rights Institute

How did the argument for "no taxation without representation" lead to the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the formation of the United States

billofrightsinstitute.org

Until the rise of MAGA, pretty much all Americans of all political persuasions accepted the basic American principle of self-government.

 

[JSRG]

Well, let's take a look...

From the right-wing Heritage Foundation:
The first usage of the term “independence” refers to the right of self-government. In Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence, he wrote that, “all men are created free and independent,” reflecting the language of the Declaration of Rights in his home state of Virginia. “Equal,” which was the word used in Jefferson’s final draft, is related to this understanding of “independence.” Both carry with them the connotation of self-ownership or self-government. As James Wilson explained, “All men are, by nature, equal and free: no one has a right to any authority over another without his consent: all lawful government is founded on the consent of those who are subject to it: such consent was given with a view to ensure and to increase the happiness of the governed, above what they could enjoy in an independent and unconnected state of nature.” The Founders considered that mankind’s independence exempted him from the arbitrary rule of fellow human beings and that his nature fortified him with the dignity of self-government.

The Founders’ Vision for American Independence

This Independence Day, it is worth reflecting on what the Founding Fathers meant when they used the term “independence.” On one level, July 4th is about our national independence, securing for America the “separate and equal station” befitting of a sovereign country. On another level, the...

www.heritage.org

By "self-government" here it refers to the ability of the people to choose their rulers, not that the people were actually doing the governing themselves by passing laws. I notice also that the portion you apparently feel was the most important was not even an actual quote from Jefferson or Wilson.

From the Left-wing Bill of Rights Institute:
The core idea of self-government is that people should have a say in the terms by which we live our lives. Self-government contains the idea that people should be free from unjust control over their lives, but it also means that people are responsible for their own actions.

Representation and Self-Governance | Bill of Rights Institute

How did the argument for "no taxation without representation" lead to the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the formation of the United States

billofrightsinstitute.org

Until the rise of MAGA, pretty much all Americans of all political persuasions accepted the basic American principle of self-government.

Which again does not actually address the point I made. The mere fact that there was no mechanism for the people to enact laws disproves your claim--and again, the US government was deliberately set up so that the people would exercise more limited say on various parts of it. Again, the House of Representatives was the only portion actually directly elected, with the Senate and President being indirect. And none of them had people vote on bills or laws themselves.