Newsome pushed back against Democracy to achieve his political goals

Again - America has been a thing since 1776.
Australia since 1901.
How has this not been sorted yet?
Are any Americans on this list able to devote an hour a week to setting up an online campaign to get this thing rolling? To generate a conversation around Constitutional reform?

eclipsenow said:

Again - America has been a thing since 1776.
Australia since 1901.
How has this not been sorted yet?
Are any Americans on this list able to devote an hour a week to setting up an online campaign to get this thing rolling? To generate a conversation around Constitutional reform?

Click to expand...

Get what thing rolling?

Always in His Presence said:

And that is the sum total of the Democratic Party in action. Stand against Trump. Followed to a much smaller part by letting men participate in women’s sports. Embracing perversion and promoting homosexuality.

And in my opinion, that’s why their approval ratings are in the toilet.

There is such a fixation on Trump This last week as a prime example the president doesn’t schedule any public events and suddenly everybody saying he died.

His predecessor isn’t seen in public for weeks and he’s at the top of his game.

It’s a fixation and come January 2029. What do you have left? Unless you’re gonna follow the man to his grave trying to jail him or destroy his life

It’s not much of a political platform to run on.

Click to expand...

I understand that you will not see my posts because you have chosen to place me on your ignore list. That is your decision. I will continue to respond to your posts, as my intention is to discuss the broader issues affecting our country, rather than focus on personal disagreements. Political differences have become very divisive, making it difficult for people to recognize that those with opposing views also wish to improve America. It is your prerogative to ignore my comments, but I will keep replying so others can review and evaluate the points being raised. If you decide to engage in discussion, we can participate in a rational and intellectual debate.

Adding me to your ignore list doesn't make me or the issue disappear. Like the Japanese proverb about the three monkeys—Mizaru, Kikazaru, and Iwazaru—ignoring a problem doesn’t solve it. Blocking me simply means I'll keep criticizing your posts without your ability to respond.

Now going back to the original post you made…

Democrats' criticism of President Trump is often not constructive; their constant focus on minor issues has caused many voters to ignore Democratic opinions. You are absolutely right about that. but , You avoid discussing the other side, which is why you put me on your ignore list—you prefer one-sided conversations and dislike honest political assessments from someone with more insight.

Republicans, like Democrats and liberals, have criticized President Biden about his health and public appearances, particularly focusing on incidents such as his pace or missteps on stairs.

To overcome political divisions in America, we must recognize our own actions instead of only blaming others. Honest self-reflection is essential, but it’s often lacking today.

11 pages later and Op has still not answered this question.

wing2000 said:

Why didn't Texas wait until 2031 - after the census?

Click to expand...

ozso said:

Topic please.

Click to expand...

In my experience on this forum, the phrase “Topic please” often functions as a signal that only one perspective is desired in the discussion. The original poster frequently initiates multiple threads each morning that portray the opposing side negatively. However, when participants attempt to present alternative viewpoints, they are directed to start separate threads. The original poster added me to his ignore list because he isn't interested in honest debate and prefers support over discussion. I have no interest in being a cheerleader; I'll continue engaging with his posts to consider both perspectives and seek common ground, regardless of his actions.

For a debate to be considered genuine and constructive, it is important to allow for input from all sides and thoughtfully evaluate differing perspectives. Honest discourse requires self-reflection and a willingness to examine one’s own position.

I would like to ask you a question. Are you not weary of the divisiveness present in our current political climate? Does it not concern you that meaningful dialogue between differing sides has become so difficult? It is troubling when family members cannot sit together at the dinner table and engage in honest discussions about our country. Similarly, it is unfortunate that our churches are divided and Christians struggle to communicate openly with one another. As a fellow Christian with differing political views, I believe it would be beneficial if we could seek common ground through mutual understanding and respect.

Always in His Presence said:

My apologies, I was side tracked by personal complaints instead of topical conversation.

Texas didn’t wait because they did not have an independent commission put in place by their voters.

The control was still under the legislature

Which further demonstrates that this is nothing more than a political maneuver to influence the national mid terms.

Click to expand...

Well I'm glad that we are at least in agreement that the move by Texas is exactly what you said it was in that last paragraph.

Hans Blaster said:

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.

Click to expand...

No wonder they’re avoiding the question.

Always in His Presence said:

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

Click to expand...

As a California resident, I have to ask why you would even care? You don’t live here. I doubt you even want to visit the state.

So why is this such a big deal for you?

Always in His Presence said:

It's not his fight - unless he is running for office.

Click to expand...

lol. It’s much more his fight than it is yours. You don’t even live here. How about you worry about Oklahoma and leave California issues for California voters to resolve? Just a suggestion.

Always in His Presence said:

You should really read posts from the person you are debating with

Click to expand...

Has Newsom said he’s running for president?

Always in His Presence said:

I am asking respectfully as possible - please stop. I am trying to be patient, but my patience is coming to and end.

Click to expand...

Oh brother

Always in His Presence said:

My apologies, I was side tracked by personal complaints instead of topical conversation.

Texas didn’t wait because they did not have an independent commission put in place by their voters.

The control was still under the legislature

Which further demonstrates that this is nothing more than a political maneuver to influence the national mid terms.

Click to expand...

I oppose gerrymandering everywhere—whether in Texas, California, or my own state of Wisconsin. It is wrong regardless of who benefits and should be abolished. Politicians won't end gerrymandering because it serves their interests, but Americans concerned about democracy should speak out. Only voters can fix this situation.

Always in His Presence said:

For the same reasons people in California talk about what happens in other states.

It is the political forum.

My condolences to you. I had a dear friend who lived in Crestline. I loved the drive from Ontario. Beautiful scenery Lake Tahoe was just down the road.

He found his freedom in Texas.

Click to expand...

Freedom is found throughout the United States and in most Western democracies. It is not unique to America; countries like Canada, the UK, Germany, most of EU nations, Japan, and South Korea also enjoy freedom.

For a long time, some conservatives have asserted that true freedom exists only in the United States and not in other Western nations. Recently, certain conservatives have advanced this argument further, now suggesting that freedom can be found exclusively in red states rather than blue states. These claims were inaccurate when made about the United States as a whole, and they remain unfounded when applied specifically to red states.

Always in His Presence said:

Is he trying to ‘temporarily’ circumvent an independent commission!

Click to expand...

Abbott is trying to rig elections to favor his party and to take away choice from the voters. That's what Gerrymandering is. The amusing thing is, republicans are in pearl-clutching rage that a democrat is playing the same game they are.

The Barbarian said:

Actually we merely were discussing the founders' explicit endorsement of self-government. Neither they nor we limited it to the federal government.



Self-government.

I showed you where Jefferson explicitly endorsed it.

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.

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.


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

Click to expand...

I feel you have, once again, essentially ignored or bypassed what I was saying. None of what you refer to is referendums--which, again, they didn't set up at all--but as it seems we're talking in circles at this point, and no one else seems particularly interested in this tangent, I'll let it drop.

eclipsenow said:

Again - America has been a thing since 1776.
Australia since 1901.
How has this not been sorted yet?
Are any Americans on this list able to devote an hour a week to setting up an online campaign to get this thing rolling? To generate a conversation around Constitutional reform?

Click to expand...

Constitutional amendment is an incredibly difficult process (I think it's the hardest constitution to amend in the world? I could be wrong) to the point that people, perhaps not wrongly, generally just have to sigh and shrug at the idea and try to seek results elsewhere. The US constitution being so astoundingly difficult to amend certainly made some sense back in the late 18th century when states had a fear of signing up for the Constitution only for the other states to pass a bunch of amendments stripping away their sovereignty, so a very difficult to amend Constitution was a strong guard against that (it was actually easier to amend the Constitution than the original Articles of Confederation, which required unanimous agreement for any amendments). Nowadays, unfortunately, it means that problems with the Constitution must go unfixed because of the difficulty in fixing them.

That said, strictly speaking, no constitutional reform is needed, at least for the federal House of Representatives. The Constitution says:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

So things like districting are normally left up to the states, but the federal government can override those and set up its own fairer districts if it wants, or even abolish districts and set up proportional representation (they would probably need to expand the House's size to do this effectively, but the House needs an expansion in size regardless). So the federal government could end gerrymandering for the House of Representatives (it has no power over gerrymandering for state legislature races, though).

Then again, it could also do the opposite and make gerrymandering far worse, and all in one direction rather than a mixture of Democratic-gerrymandered and Republican-gerrymandered states. If one party captures the trifecta of president/house/senate and is daring enough to abolish the filibuster, it seems to me they could absolutely gerrymander every state in their favor to likely give themselves perpetual control of the House of Representatives.