-
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
- Thread starter Always in His Presence
- Start date
Hans Blaster
I march with Sherman
- Mar 11, 2017
- 23,070
- 17,170
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
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.
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 24,268
- 16,609
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
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...
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 7,269
- 3,299
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
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.
Upvote
0
A2SG
Gumby
- Jun 17, 2008
- 10,114
- 4,006
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
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....
Upvote
0
A2SG
Gumby
- Jun 17, 2008
- 10,114
- 4,006
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Maybe not, but you admitted you were not "fully informed" on the issue, I thought some information would be beneficial.
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.....
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 7,269
- 3,299
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I appreciate it, but I don't really see it as connected since it seems to just be a pretext to me.
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
I march with Sherman
- Mar 11, 2017
- 23,070
- 17,170
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
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.)
Upvote
0
A2SG
Gumby
- Jun 17, 2008
- 10,114
- 4,006
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
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.
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.
He didn't do that either. He put it up to the voters, and they decided.
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....
Upvote
0
A2SG
Gumby
- Jun 17, 2008
- 10,114
- 4,006
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
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....
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 7,269
- 3,299
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Sure, and I have no problem extending that criticism since I'm not celebrating Abbot gerrymandering.
No, I am not unwilling I'm just not invested in TX politics because Abbot is not my governor.
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.
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.
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.
Upvote
0
A2SG
Gumby
- Jun 17, 2008
- 10,114
- 4,006
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
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.
What did he spend those "outlandish sums" on, exactly?
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.
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.
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....
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 7,269
- 3,299
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
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.
Ads where he claimed it was about having fair elections.
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.
I've never found this argument very compelling..."If you don't like the government, move!"
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%).
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.
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 44,093
- 47,104
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
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.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
