• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Newsome pushed back against Democracy to achieve his political goals

Always in His Presence

Jesus is the only Way
Site Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
50,157
18,105
Broken Arrow, OK
✟1,068,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What? It's about gerrymandering. And you can't seem to make up your mind if it's ok or not. Well, apart from 'It's ok if we do it but not if the opposition does it'.
Seems comprehension could be an issue - you seem to fixate on what I think and say - this thread is about Newsome - I am not Newsome.

Newsome did EXACTLY what the OP and title said - he is attempting to usurp established Democratic process for political gain - and he got the gain he was looking for
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
25,438
21,498
✟1,776,984.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Newsome did EXACTLY what the OP and title said - he is attempting to usurp established Democratic process for political gain - and he got the gain he was looking for

That may be part of his motivation. But of course we all know why Gov Newsom is asking California voters to suspend their districting board:
To counter Texas (and now other states) in their mid-decade gerrymandering scheme. Trump instinctively knows he'll lose the House next year unless he changes the rule.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FAITH-IN-HIM
Upvote 0

Always in His Presence

Jesus is the only Way
Site Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
50,157
18,105
Broken Arrow, OK
✟1,068,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
To counter Texas (and now other states) in their mid-decade gerrymandering scheme. Trump instinctively knows he'll lose the House next year unless he changes the rule.
link requested -
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,805
16,377
72
Bondi
✟386,132.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Seems comprehension could be an issue - you seem to fixate on what I think and say - this thread is about Newsome - I am not Newsome.
No, you're not. But this is a discussion. We give our opinions on the matter at hand. You can't seriously expect not to be asked about your opinion on it. Which, from what you have posted so far, seems completely contradictory. So I'm asking, again, for you to clarify why you can support it in one instance but reject it in another?

It's the very basis of the thread. You are complaining that California is proposing to gerrymander some areas. But you support Texas in doing the same. That makes no sense. So please explain as to why you can hold two contradictory positions about the very subject matter of the thread at the same time.
 
Upvote 0

Always in His Presence

Jesus is the only Way
Site Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
50,157
18,105
Broken Arrow, OK
✟1,068,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No, you're not. But this is a discussion. We give our opinions on the matter at hand. You can't seriously expect not to be asked about your opinion on it.
I gave my opinion numerous times including the title and OP

Sorry you missed it.
 
Upvote 0

FAITH-IN-HIM

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2024
2,333
1,605
WI
✟63,519.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That may be part of his motivation. But of course we all know why Gov Newsom is asking California voters to suspend their districting board:
To counter Texas (and now other states) in their mid-decade gerrymandering scheme. Trump instinctively knows he'll lose the House next year unless he changes the rule.
Gavin Newsom's actions is undemocratic, but conservatives in the thread ignore similar behavior from Republicans. Opening of this thread highlights a noticeable lack of impartiality among certain members of this forum. What is most surprising, however, is that when they present such biased opinions, they do not appear to feel any sense of embarrassment.
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
9,505
10,291
PA
✟441,958.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Gavin Newsom's actions is undemocratic,
Why is it undemocratic? He has a proposal and is putting it up for a vote from the people of his state. That's the literal definition of "democratic."

The proposal itself is mildly undemocratic in that it (temporarily) reduces representation, but the actions that Newsom is undertaking are not.
 
Upvote 0

FAITH-IN-HIM

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2024
2,333
1,605
WI
✟63,519.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why is it undemocratic? He has a proposal and is putting it up for a vote from the people of his state. That's the literal definition of "democratic."

The proposal itself is mildly undemocratic in that it (temporarily) reduces representation, but the actions that Newsom is undertaking are not.
Governor Newsom and Governor Abbott are employing state law in the process of redistricting. Governor Newsom is utilizing state law and a citizen vote to approve his proposed undemocratic map, while Governor Abbott is relying on the legislative branch for approval of his undemocratic map.

Ultimately, both sides using state law to create an undemocratic system.
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
9,505
10,291
PA
✟441,958.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Ultimately, both sides using state law to create an undemocratic system.
That I agree with. However, the process for doing this under California state law (and therefore Newsom's action) is democratic in that it's a direct vote by the people of the state. The process in Texas is less so in that it is a vote by elected legislators.

Newsom's actions would be undemocratic if the voters turn down his proposal and he decides to just do it anyways.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

FAITH-IN-HIM

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2024
2,333
1,605
WI
✟63,519.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That I agree with. However, the process for doing this under California state law (and therefore Newsom's action) is democratic in that it's a direct vote by the people of the state. The process in Texas is less so in that it is a vote by elected legislators.

Newsom's actions would be undemocratic if the voters turn down his proposal and he decides to just do it anyways.
A majority vote does not necessarily make a decision democratic. Suppressing minority voices or excluding representation in the process remains undemocratic, even if supported by most people.
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
9,505
10,291
PA
✟441,958.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
A majority vote does not necessarily make a decision democratic. Suppressing minority voices or excluding representation in the process remains undemocratic, even if supported by most people.
Again, people can democratically decide on an undemocratic policy. The result of the decision being undemocratic does not make the decision itself undemocratic.
 
Upvote 0

FAITH-IN-HIM

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2024
2,333
1,605
WI
✟63,519.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Again, people can democratically decide on an undemocratic policy. The result of the decision being undemocratic does not make the decision itself undemocratic.
Do you agree that Governor Newsom's policy / map is undemocratic? If so, what exactly are you defending?
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
9,505
10,291
PA
✟441,958.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Do you agree that Governor Newsom's policy / map is undemocratic?
Yes.
If so, what exactly are you defending?
1. I'm clarifying the difference between an undemocratic policy and an undemocratic action. You said "Newsom's actions are undemocratic," which is incorrect. The action that he is taking - proposing a change to the way that the state draws its election map and putting it to a statewide vote - is explicitly democratic. The proposal itself may not be democratic, but if the people want that, then they are entitled to get it. Who knows - they might vote "No."

2. I think your posts are ignoring the context here - namely that the only reason why Newsom made this proposal is that Texas did it first.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,805
16,377
72
Bondi
✟386,132.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I gave my opinion numerous times including the title and OP.
It's that you are holding two diametrically opposed positions I'd like your opinion on. That gerrymandering is ok and gerrymandering is not ok. That makes no sense. Perhaps you can explain.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
9,919
2,571
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟203,412.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
We see here again broad claims, but without saying where these things are (certainly I spotted various blatant falsehoods on your linked page, such as its absurd claim that Project 2025 wanted "a ban on in vitro fertilization" despite not mentioning in vitro fertilization once in the document).




Schedule F and the war-on-drugs​

The challenge is sometimes the language in the PDF does not spell out "Schedule F" in each and every instance where it speaks of stacking the ranks with MAGA. EG: Page 62 is about the White House push to continue the so-called 'war on drugs'.

The National Drug Control Program agencies represented a total of $41 billion in fiscal year 2022. Whereas the position for overseeing budget activities is tradi￾tionally held by a career official, it is imperative that a political appointee lead the ONDCP budget office to ensure coordination between the OMB Program Associate Director and the ONDCP budgetary appointee.
... While it makes sense to transfer these programs eventually to the Department of Justice and Department of Health and Human Services, respectively, it is vital that the ONDCP Director ensure in the immediate term that these grant programs are funding the President’s drug control priorities and not woke nonprofits with leftist policy agendas. Thus, the President must insure that the ONDCP is managed by political appointees who are committed to the Administration’s agenda and not acquiesce to management by political​
or career military personnel who oversaw the prior Administration’s ONDCP.​

What they call 'woke nonprofits with leftist policy agendas' is probably the very stuff I studied (many years ago) in my Advanced Diploma Social Sciences. It's harm minimization. It's robbing the cartels of their business model. It's about ending the war on drugs - which limits street supply therefore driving up the street price and increasing the financial reward and incentive to cartels that are now bigger than Walmart - indeed - bigger than many governments!

Instead, do what the Europeans do and offering safe drug injecting rooms, and alternatives like free methadone programs, while having social workers in there that can gently encourage these victims of addiction and help guide them out of drugs and into rehab, safe housing, and work programs. It works.

The USA has 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of the world’s inmates.
That's 5 times the jails! How much does that cost in extra policing, legal cases, court time - let alone the penal system?
Are Americans really 5 times more criminal than the rest of the world?
No - they are suffering from a failed drug criminalisation scheme.
Comparison of United States incarceration rate with other countries - Wikipedia

With your war on drugs and your for-profit healthcare costing twice as much as OECD nations - no wonder your country is getting into debt and cannot cover everyone's healthcare!


Schedule F and general civil servant protections​


The end of page 80.
Frustrated with these activities by top career executives, the Trump Adminis￾tration issued Executive Order 1395724 to make career professionals in positions that are not normally subject to change as a result of a presidential transition but who discharge significant duties and exercise significant discretion in formulating and implementing executive branch policy and programs an exception to the competitive hiring rules and examinations for career positions under a new Schedule F. It ordered the Director of OPM and agency heads to set procedures to prepare lists of such confidential, policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating positions and prepare procedures to create exceptions from civil service rules when careerists hold such positions, from which they can relocate back to the regular civil service after such service. The order was subsequently reversed by President Biden at the demand of the civil service associations and unions. It should be reinstated, but SES responsibility should come first.​


It could be argued that ''policy-advocating" could mean anyone in the civil service! Chatting about sensible harm minimization drug programs over the water cooler could get someone replaced with a 'loyalist'. As the wiki says:

Schedule Policy/Career, commonly known by its former name Schedule F, is a job classification for appointments in the excepted service of the United States federal civil service for permanent policy-related positions. The purpose of the provision is to increase the president's control over the federal career civil service by removing their civil service protections and making them easier to dismiss, which proponents stated would increase flexibility and accountability to elected officials. It was widely criticized as providing a means to retaliate against federal officials for political reasons, impede the effective functioning of government, and creating risk to democracy. It has been estimated that tens or hundreds of thousands of career employees could be reclassified, increasing the number of political appointments by a factor of ten. Schedule F appointment - Wikipedia

It undermines professionalism​

It erodes their freedom of speech in what should be neutral matters of handling bureaucracy - and can create partisan political bias in hiring decisions. As the wiki says:

The creation of Schedule F was controversial. Critics feared a transition from a non-partisan government of subject-matter experts to one where partisan or presidential loyalty tests had a role in the hiring process.[4] At the time, it was estimated that tens or hundreds of thousands of career employees could lose their civil service protections including union representation,[4][41] and that it would increase the number of political appointments by a factor of ten.[42] Conversely, there was concern that political appointees of Trump, whose appointments are supposed to expire at the end of his term, could "burrow in" by being converted to positions that are harder to dismiss.[19][41]
Rebecca Beitsch, writing for The Hill, wrote that unions were criticizing Trump's executive order as "the biggest change to federal workforce protections in a century, converting many federal workers to 'at will' employment."[43] The National Treasury Employees Union sued the administration in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia over the executive order, arguing that the administration did not properly justify it satisfied the legal requirement that the changes are "necessary" and as "conditions of good administration warrant."[17][44]
An official statement from Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) further stated that the executive order was "alarming".[43] The six authors, all infectious disease specialists and epidemiologists, wrote:​
We rely on the judgment of civil service experts to lead responses against the pandemic, inform the public, drive research, update guidance and review data supporting the use and distribution of vaccines and treatments to address the impacts of COVID-19. Replacing our scientists and public health experts with politically motivated staff will reduce our ability to respond, and reduce public confidence in our response, to COVID-19 and other public health crises.[45]
It reduces constraints on stupid political decisions that fly in the face of good science and public policy. It's another shift in the road to Kingship - in having the King's orders followed no matter the cost to the public!

I mean - it's concerning enough that the very top roles have such bizarre picks. An anti-vaxxer gets health, a real-estate buddy gets to play peacemaker with Putin (and goes into the meeting without an interpreter! - that's junior high school behaviour!), and "Big Lie" believers who challenged the legal authority of the democratic institutions that 64 courts validated duly elected Biden - these anti-law, anti-election Tinfoil hat types get placed in charge of law enforcement agencies like the FBI and DOJ!

I guess in that light - strip the civil service of anyone competent. When the leaders are spitting in the face of reality, who cares if the rank and file employees know what's going on? Hire MAGA QANON Anti-vax anti-climate Big Lie tinfoil hat types. I don't care anymore. American leadership of the western project is over. With 75% of American scientists considering fleeing the country, I'm just going to sit back and watch as America kneecaps itself.

Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year.

(Sighs). Maybe - but it depends what we are talking about! Laws should be shaped by a sound knowledge base of the latest scientific studies into medicine, vaccines, climate, and even social sciences such as the European mental health model for drug addicts - rather than the punitive "war on drugs" model of the USA.

Countries run on Federal Laws, State laws, local by-laws - and sometimes the policies and procedures determined by the latest expertise of various departments. Sometimes Federal bodies SHOULD hand over decision making to the experts in these areas! EG: Climate science determines there's a problem, some energy systems modellers determine the cheapest mix of energy sources and create a Federal program to encourage the right energy mix gets deployed across the country, and various social sciences are employed to help consumers make better choices, live in better Ecocities that radically reduce climate impact and increase quality of life, etc! And that's just climate science! In some of these instances the various expert departments would make recommendations that then head back up the chain of command to congress and become new laws.

Which is why having ALL available voices, from the most professionally educated experts, is important in the civil service to ensure most perspectives are heard when developing these reports.

You're just not going to get that when the place is loaded with Antivaxxer RFK MAHA loyalists!

And when it comes to JD Vance and Trump spanking Zalenskyy in the Oval Office, or Trump sending Witkof in to Putin who then reports back that there will be some land swaps and they have a 'deal' when Witkof completely misunderstood the whole meeting because of the lack of an interpreter - the whole Trump regime is a JOKE!

Expertise? Who needs it.
We may as well be in North Korea with the "Great Leader" in the White House. (Which will soon be the "Trump House" given he's adding a gaudy ballroom to it. Gold plated toilet seats included?)

As the NYT said:-
“President Trump does not seem to notice or care that if you betray people, or jerk them around, they will revile you. Over the last few weeks, the Europeans have gone from shock to bewilderment to revulsion. ...​
This is not just a Trump problem; America’s whole reputation is shot. I don’t care if Abraham Lincoln himself walked into the White House in 2029, no foreign leader can responsibly trust a nation that is perpetually four years away from electing another authoritarian nihilist...​
NATO is over ... The West is (temporarily) over ...”​
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
9,086
4,607
82
Goldsboro NC
✟269,322.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Newsom signs an executive order to ban plants and fences near their homes, for some home owners.
Good idea; most sensible people do that already. My brother in law lives on a property in wildfire country (which is almost all of California these days) and Cal Fire has been very helpful--they come around regularly with hazard mitigation advice. Of course, people who don't do it will whine when their house burns down and want to be bailed out. Then, big government will seem like a good idea to them.
 
Upvote 0