Newsome pushed back against Democracy to achieve his political goals

Hans Blaster said:

This is what I meant when I had other values that went into my moral equations and determine my moral priorities. Civil rights and voting rights for all is one of those.

Click to expand...

You mean that denying universal suffrage is not objectively wrong?

Fervent said:

That's nice, but I really don't see how voting rights for all is a universal good. So your personal preference is rather uninteresting to me, though of course that is no reason for it not to be important to you. But since morals aren't real according to you, there's no way to settle the question.

Click to expand...

Morals are real, they just aren't absolute or objective. Let's keep it in the other thread. I just wanted to know what my principles are and that I am judging your anti-democratic statements.

Fervent said:

That's nice, but I really don't see how voting rights for all is a universal good. So your personal preference is rather uninteresting to me, though of course that is no reason for it not to be important to you. But since morals aren't real according to you, there's no way to settle the question.

Click to expand...

From here: The Bible as a Tool · Beyond Supply & Demand: Duke Economics Students Present 100 Years of American Women’s Suffrage · Duke University Library Exhibits

'Women viewed the right to vote as not only a political and social but a moral issue — as did their opponents. The items in this section showcase how pro- and anti-suffragists used God and interpretations of biblical teachings and writings to reinforce their arguments.'

Yeah. Kind of weird. Two groups of Christians using the bible to support diametrically opposed moral views. But yeah, off topic...

Hans Blaster said:

Morals are real, they just aren't absolute or objective. Let's keep it in the other thread. I just wanted to know what my principles are and that I am judging your anti-democratic statements.

Click to expand...

I don't mind being judged, particularly when someone has no real footing to make any kind of judgment. All you're telling me is your personal preference, and your opinion is really none of my business.

Postvieww said:

Texas fixed a district based on race. Good for them.

Click to expand...

Texas redrew the districts to increase the number of Republican representatives, on direct order from Trump. The excuse given doesn't change that.

Is it your contention that gerrymandering is a good thing? Then you shouldn't have a problem with California doing it.

-- A2SG, not sure how race figures into this, but that's your point, not mine....

Fervent said:

I'm not particularly interested in TX politics.

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but you admitted you were not "fully informed" on the issue, I thought some information would be beneficial.

Fervent said:

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. If the democrats cared about free and fair elections,, they wouldn't be moving to gerrymander an already gerrymandered state. Abbot isn't being punished by Newsom gerrymandering CA, voters in CA whose local issues are going to be drowned out by the inclusion of voter bases whose interests are far removed from the localities are the ones who are going to lose. Saying that Newsom went to the voters doesn't excuse it, because his sole intent in the plan is to make elections in CA less fair.

Click to expand...

Hey, if legislation were proposed to eliminate partisan gerrymandering, I'd support it 100%. But no one wants to do that. So, either gerrymandering is legal, or it ain't. If it is, then Texas has every right to do it, as does California. If you have a problem with one state doing it, but not the other, then your problem isn't with the concept of gerrymandering, or its effect.

-- A2SG, playing the "blame game" is just partisan sniping.....

Fervent said:

And Newsom's act got rid of that bipartisan commission...for what purpose?

Click to expand...

He didn't get rid of the commission.

-- A2SG, you may want to research this stuff before you comment.....

A2SG said:

Maybe not, but you admitted you were not "fully informed" on the issue, I thought some information would be beneficial.

Click to expand...

I appreciate it, but I don't really see it as connected since it seems to just be a pretext to me.

A2SG said:

Hey, if legislation were proposed to eliminate partisan gerrymandering, I'd support it 100%. But no one wants to do that. So, either gerrymandering is legal, or it ain't. If it is, then Texas has every right to do it, as does California. If you have a problem with one state doing it, but not the other, then your problem isn't with the concept of gerrymandering, or its effect.

-- A2SG, playing the "blame game" is just partisan sniping.....

Click to expand...

I never said I don't have a problem with other states doing it, but if the response to it is "well, let's do it!" then clearly the Democrats don't have a problem with it and only have a problem with it because Republicans are doing it. The judicial rulings on the issue appear to me to be entirely in the wrong, but my issue is with the governor of my state proving he's a partisan hack since he's more concerned with how his party performs than with protecting the voting rights of the citizens of his state.

A2SG said:

He didn't get rid of the commission.

-- A2SG, you may want to research this stuff before you comment.....

Click to expand...

I've since been corrected, he simply bypassed the commission in order to institute blatant gerrymandered districts. Either way, it shows a lack of integrity on his part and those who are defending the move while bemoaning Republican gerrymandering.

A2SG said:

-- A2SG, not sure how race figures into this, but that's your point, not mine....

Click to expand...

I believe one of the districts carved up was a majority black district that they "legally" sliced and diced to put everyone in it in new "GOP majority" districts under the guise of "legal" partisan gerrymandering. (This is a fiction created by John Roberts and the lesser justices.)

Fervent said:

I appreciate it, but I don't really see it as connected since it seems to just be a pretext to me.

Click to expand...

The pretext given is one thing, but the fact remains: Trump said do it, and Abbott obeyed. If you consider gerrymandering to indicate that a governor "lacks integrity or principles," then the criticism would be the same for Abbott as for Newsom. If you're willing to criticize one, but unwilling to criticize the other, then your issue isn't with integrity, principles or gerrymandering.

Fervent said:

I never said I don't have a problem with other states doing it, but if the response to it is "well, let's do it!" then clearly the Democrats don't have a problem with it and only have a problem with it because Republicans are doing it. The judicial rulings on the issue appear to me to be entirely in the wrong, but my issue is with the governor of my state proving he's a partisan hack since he's more concerned with how his party performs than with protecting the voting rights of the citizens of his state.

Click to expand...

A criticism that would apply to both governors, then. My point was that you're fully willing to criticize Newsome, but seem unwilling to levy the same criticism toward Abbott. Which would indicate to me your issue isn't entirely with the concept of gerrymandering.

Fervent said:

I've since been corrected, he simply bypassed the commission in order to institute blatant gerrymandered districts.

Click to expand...

He didn't do that either. He put it up to the voters, and they decided.

Fervent said:

Either way, it shows a lack of integrity on his part and those who are defending the move while bemoaning Republican gerrymandering.

Click to expand...

As I said before, if there were legislation banning gerrymandering, I'd be fully behind it. But SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, so it remains perfectly legal and within the rights of any state to engineer it. Which means that, if one state doing so, purely for partisan reasons on orders from an authoritarian leader, is entirely legal, then another state doing so with the full consent and support of the voters is also perfectly legal.

Whether or not you like one, but not the other, is entirely your business. But don't try to pretend you're applying the same standard across the board, because you ain't.

-- A2SG, and that's the truthhhpppth....

A2SG said:

Texas redrew the districts to increase the number of Republican representatives, on direct order from Trump. The excuse given doesn't change that.

Is it your contention that gerrymandering is a good thing? Then you shouldn't have a problem with California doing it.

-- A2SG, not sure how race figures into this, but that's your point, not mine....

Click to expand...

Both side have done it but Republicans are playing catch up.

Postvieww said:

Both side have done it but Republicans are playing catch up.

Click to expand...

True enough, both Republicans and Democrats have gerrymandered districts before. But never before has a president explicitly told a governor to do so specifically to increase the representation of one particular political party. That's new.

-- A2SG, and California responded to that with some gerrymandering of their own...but this time, with the consent of the governed....

A2SG said:

The pretext given is one thing, but the fact remains: Trump said do it, and Abbott obeyed. If you consider gerrymandering to indicate that a governor "lacks integrity or principles," then the criticism would be the same for Abbott as for Newsom. If you're willing to criticize one, but unwilling to criticize the other, then your issue isn't with integrity, principles or gerrymandering.

Click to expand...

Sure, and I have no problem extending that criticism since I'm not celebrating Abbot gerrymandering.

A2SG said:

A criticism that would apply to both governors, then. My point was that you're fully willing to criticize Newsome, but seem unwilling to levy the same criticism toward Abbott. Which would indicate to me your issue isn't entirely with the concept of gerrymandering.

Click to expand...

No, I am not unwilling I'm just not invested in TX politics because Abbot is not my governor.

A2SG said:

He didn't do that either. He put it up to the voters, and they decided.

Click to expand...

Only because he was required to, and he spent outlandish sums to disenfranchise a portion of his voters. As I have said elsewhere, I don't find democracy to be a particularly compelling form of governance. Two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner, nothing but mob rule.

A2SG said:

As I said before, if there were legislation banning gerrymandering, I'd be fully behind it. But SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, so it remains perfectly legal and within the rights of any state to engineer it. Which means that, if one state doing so, purely for partisan reasons on orders from an authoritarian leader, is entirely legal, then another state doing so with the full consent and support of the voters is also perfectly legal.

Click to expand...

Legal and moral are not the same, and Newsome showing he is nothing but a party hack who has no integrity is not contingent on his actions being illegal.

A2SG said:

Whether or not you like one, but not the other, is entirely your business. But don't try to pretend you're applying the same standard across the board, because you ain't.

-- A2SG, and that's the truthhhpppth....

Click to expand...

I am, other than the fact that I am not invested in TX politics as I am not in TX. Newsome is my governor, and he has chosen party loyalty over the interests of voters in his state. I already knew he had no integrity, but this is just a cherry on the pie.