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.

Fervent said:

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

Click to expand...

That's all I asked at the outset. I simply found it curious when you stopped short of criticizing Abbott for his actions, but not Newsom, when the latter at least allowed the voters to weigh in before taking action.

Fervent said:

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

Click to expand...

Understood. I don't live in either state myself. But if the issue is the act of gerrymandering, surely one isn't required to be a resident of a particular state to voice an opinion.

Fervent said:

Only because he was required to, and he spent outlandish sums to disenfranchise a portion of his voters.

Click to expand...

What did he spend those "outlandish sums" on, exactly?

Fervent said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, I've heard that bit before. Another pithy quote: "Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Winston Churchill)

But, if you don't like democracy as practiced in this country, you do realize that you're free to find a preferable form of governance if you so choose, right? Just a friendly reminder, nothing more.

Fervent said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, morality is a subjective thing, while laws are objective. You can view his actions as immoral if you so choose, but that's only according to your personal moral framework. Others may view the morality differently, and their views are no less valid than your own. Given that, Newsom reacted to an unfair attempt to increase GOP representation in Texas, at the behest of Donald Trump, and asked the voters if they agreed with his plan to counter that. They did. Whether or not that shows integrity or a lack of it depends on individual opinion, I guess.

Fervent said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, California voters do agree with his actions, as evidenced by the measure passing. Sure, not everyone voted for it, but that's how democracy works. You don't have to like that, but I'd suggest it's a better, more fair way to govern than by fiat, as evidenced by Abbott in Texas.

-- A2SG, and Donald Trump, let's not forget he gave the marching orders....

A2SG said:

Well, morality is a subjective thing, while laws are objective. You can view his actions as immoral if you so choose, but that's only according to your personal moral framework. Others may view the morality differently, and their views are no less valid than your own. Given that, Newsom reacted to an unfair attempt to increase GOP representation in Texas, at the behest of Donald Trump, and asked the voters if they agreed with his plan to counter that. They did. Whether or not that shows integrity or a lack of it depends on individual opinion, I guess.

Click to expand...

If this turns into a gerrymandering tit for tat exercise, democrats cannot win . Just look at the red on the US map vs the blue.

Postvieww said:

If this turns into a gerrymandering tit for tat exercise, democrats cannot win . Just look at the red on the US map vs the blue.

Click to expand...

The one where all the major economic and population centers are highlighted in blue?

Desk trauma said:

The one where all the major economic and population centers are highlighted in blue?

Click to expand...

Those are already tilted to the Democrats. My point is there is little left for them to change.

A2SG said:

That's all I asked at the outset. I simply found it curious when you stopped short of criticizing Abbott for his actions, but not Newsom, when the latter at least allowed the voters to weigh in before taking action.


Understood. I don't live in either state myself. But if the issue is the act of gerrymandering, surely one isn't required to be a resident of a particular state to voice an opinion.

Click to expand...

I suppose, but it's more of an issue if you actually live in one of the gerrymandered districts since it's directly affecting your representation.

A2SG said:

What did he spend those "outlandish sums" on, exactly?

Click to expand...

Ads where he claimed it was about having fair elections.

A2SG said:

Yeah, yeah, I've heard that bit before. Another pithy quote: "Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Winston Churchill)

Click to expand...

I'm not as sold as Churchill. I don't see the value in letting people who have no idea what the issues are hold popularity contests.

A2SG said:

But, if you don't like democracy as practiced in this country, you do realize that you're free to find a preferable form of governance if you so choose, right? Just a friendly reminder, nothing more.

Click to expand...

I've never found this argument very compelling..."If you don't like the government, move!"

A2SG said:

Well, morality is a subjective thing, while laws are objective. You can view his actions as immoral if you so choose, but that's only according to your personal moral framework. Others may view the morality differently, and their views are no less valid than your own. Given that, Newsom reacted to an unfair attempt to increase GOP representation in Texas, at the behest of Donald Trump, and asked the voters if they agreed with his plan to counter that. They did. Whether or not that shows integrity or a lack of it depends on individual opinion, I guess.

Click to expand...

I disagree about morality being subjective. And he didn't exactly tell the truth to the voters in the ad campaign he ran, so I wouldn't exactly call it asking the voters to approve of his plan. And that is, of course, not even dealing with the whole vote was asking voters to take away the voting efficacy of a group of voters which is literally one of the main complaints against democracy(where 51% of the voters get to take away the rights of the 49%).

A2SG said:

Actually, California voters do agree with his actions, as evidenced by the measure passing. Sure, not everyone voted for it, but that's how democracy works. You don't have to like that, but I'd suggest it's a better, more fair way to govern than by fiat, as evidenced by Abbott in Texas.

-- A2SG, and Donald Trump, let's not forget he gave the marching orders....

Click to expand...

A portion of voters who were lied to with extensive ad campaigns were convinced to take away the efficacy of another group of voters votes...that's literally one of the biggest knocks on democracy, and here you're holding it up as if it is in the favor of the system.

Postvieww said:

Those are already tilted to the Democrats. My point is there is little left for them to change.

Click to expand...

That's more true of those vast tracts of red you mentioned.

You could fit nearly 100 Rhode Islands into Wyoming, but Wyoming only has one representative (and RI has 2). You can't gerrymander a state with only one district.

Fervent said:

I suppose, but it's more of an issue if you actually live in one of the gerrymandered districts since it's directly affecting your representation.

Click to expand...

Sure, and if you were only complaining about Gavin Newsom, that'd be one thing. But the complaint was regarding gerrymandering, something not exclusive to Newsom, and that practice indicating some lack of integrity or principles. If the practice denoted that lack, then surely the same would apply across the board. I was simply pointing out the apparent double standard.

Fervent said:

Ads where he claimed it was about having fair elections.

Click to expand...

How much is "outlandish," and who paid for those ads? Is your problem with the amount the ads cost, or where the money for them came from? Or is it a general moral objection to the concept of political advertising?

Fervent said:

I'm not as sold as Churchill. I don't see the value in letting people who have no idea what the issues are hold popularity contests.

Click to expand...

I'll grant that politics can often become a popularity contest (largely why we have the president we do at the moment), but this country was founded on the principle of the consent of the governed. And those who may not have a full grasp of any and all issues involved are still the governed, and their consent is still necessary.

Fervent said:

I've never found this argument very compelling..."If you don't like the government, move!"

Click to expand...

I'm not saying you have to, but it's a valid suggestion. One should not live under a form of government they disagree with. The options, of course, are to grin and bear it, work to change it, or leave.

But I'm curious....what form of government would be better, in your opinion?

Fervent said:

I disagree about morality being subjective.

Click to expand...

Well, that's an entire debate all by itself, isn't it? But the fact remains: your moral guidelines are not shared by everyone, nor are they applicable to anyone who disagrees with you. That makes them, by definition, subjective.

Fervent said:

And he didn't exactly tell the truth to the voters in the ad campaign he ran, so I wouldn't exactly call it asking the voters to approve of his plan.

Click to expand...

What did he lie about? As I recall, he was quite clear he was doing this in response to Trump's dictate that Texas increase GOP representatives by redistricting, and intended to balance that. If there was a falsehood in that, I haven't seen it.

Fervent said:

And that is, of course, not even dealing with the whole vote was asking voters to take away the voting efficacy of a group of voters which is literally one of the main complaints against democracy(where 51% of the voters get to take away the rights of the 49%).

Click to expand...

Which speaks to the issue of gerrymandering, which, as has been noted, is not exclusive to Newsom. I agree with you that gerrymandering shouldn't be permitted, but the SCOTUS disagrees with us, and unless Congress decides to enact legislation prohibiting it nationwide, it's legal. Newsom has the same right to practice it as does Abbott, though only with voter approval. Abbott didn't ask his constituents, he just obeyed when Trump ordered him to. If you want to claim that gerrymandering indicates a lack of integrity or principles, I'd contend Abbott is more guilty than Newsom.

Fervent said:

A portion of voters who were lied to with extensive ad campaigns were convinced to take away the efficacy of another group of voters votes...that's literally one of the biggest knocks on democracy, and here you're holding it up as if it is in the favor of the system.

Click to expand...

I'm still unclear on what the lie was here, so maybe you can explain that. But, as to the unfairness of gerrymandering in general, I've already stated my agreement with that. My point isn't to support gerrymandering but to simply point out that when one party does it, it's not unexpected or unwarranted for another to also do it in response. Any criticism of the practice of gerrymandering applies to both equally. However, there is a difference in these cases: one was done with the consent of the governed, the other was not. I do see that as a significant difference.

-- A2SG, and, in California, the bipartisan commission will resume...Texans have no such protection from future politically motivated redistricting moves....