• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

California Doing California Things

Shadowy Man said:
TSwizzle said:
Colonel Sanders said:
What matters is charisma and someone people believe understands them.
Click to expand...
Certainly part of it but solid policies are going to matter more.
Click to expand...
this is part of the problem with this country’s politics. Policy is a function of the Legislative not the Executive. We put too much power in the Executive.
Click to expand...

To a certain extent yes. Something needs to be changed about the way presidents use executive orders, they are far too free and easy with it. That should be curbed.
 
TSwizzle said:
Shadowy Man said:
TSwizzle said:
Colonel Sanders said:
What matters is charisma and someone people believe understands them.
Click to expand...
Certainly part of it but solid policies are going to matter more.
Click to expand...
this is part of the problem with this country’s politics. Policy is a function of the Legislative not the Executive. We put too much power in the Executive.
Click to expand...

To a certain extent yes. Something needs to be changed about the way presidents use executive orders, they are far too free and easy with it. That should be curbed.
Click to expand...
By whom? The other two branches of government barely exist.
 
TSwizzle said:
Shadowy Man said:
TSwizzle said:
Colonel Sanders said:
What matters is charisma and someone people believe understands them.
Click to expand...
Certainly part of it but solid policies are going to matter more.
Click to expand...
this is part of the problem with this country’s politics. Policy is a function of the Legislative not the Executive. We put too much power in the Executive.
Click to expand...

To a certain extent yes. Something needs to be changed about the way presidents use executive orders, they are far too free and easy with it. That should be curbed.
Click to expand...
That is not what I mean. We should be voting on policy priorities when electing legislative personnel. It shouldn’t be that the Congress only decides to do what the President asks them to do. That’s not the president’s role in our constitution. They shouldn’t run on legislative policies since it is not up to them to enact. Too many empty promises that way.
 
Colonel Sanders said:
Swammerdami said:
I know little about Newsom but lately he's almost presenting as a clown, playing to out-Trump Trump! Maybe we need such a foil, but do NOT make him the Democrats' standard-bearer.
Click to expand...
Yes. Let's not actually run someone who might actually be able to win.

The discombobulated notion that AOC should be on the POTUS ticket in '28 is gaining steam among the addle-brained left. I use this as an example of just how adamantly the left refuses to face reality and therefore insists on losing....
Click to expand...

Winning elections is certainly the HIGHEST priority. I love AOC but strongly doubt she'd be a successful candidate for President.

And my comment about Newsom comes from the same place. The ONLY reason why I rejected him in the quote above was fear that he wouldn't win election, that the demeanor I see on display now would turn off many centrists. But, as I admitted I don't know enough about him.

Let's have a thorough vetting with competitive debates, etc. -- something the Ds haven't been doing effectively lately. It's early for the next Presidential election, but the Ds may want to promote some strong national leaders now just to help with the 2026 midterms.

I like Tim Walz. Who are some other top Democratic stars?


ETA: On another matter, some Americans will be confused by the word "fascism." But one can complain against it without using that particular word.
 
Swammerdami said:
Colonel Sanders said:
Swammerdami said:
I know little about Newsom but lately he's almost presenting as a clown, playing to out-Trump Trump! Maybe we need such a foil, but do NOT make him the Democrats' standard-bearer.
Click to expand...
Yes. Let's not actually run someone who might actually be able to win.

The discombobulated notion that AOC should be on the POTUS ticket in '28 is gaining steam among the addle-brained left. I use this as an example of just how adamantly the left refuses to face reality and therefore insists on losing....
Click to expand...

Winning elections is certainly the HIGHEST priority. I love AOC but strongly doubt she'd be a successful candidate for President.

And my comment about Newsom comes from the same place. The ONLY reason why I rejected him in the quote above was fear that he wouldn't win election, that the demeanor I see on display now would turn off many centrists. But, as I admitted I don't know enough about him.

Let's have a thorough vetting with competitive debates, etc. -- something the Ds haven't been doing effectively lately. It's early for the next Presidential election, but the Ds may want to promote some strong national leaders now just to help with the 2026 midterms.

I like Tim Walz. Who are some other top Democratic stars?


ETA: On another matter, some Americans will be confused by the word "fascism." But one can complain against it without using that particular word.
Click to expand...
The Democrats should be promoting strong national leaders because the country is falling into fascism and they are supposedly the opposition party.
 
Politesse said:
Bomb#20 said:
The legal provisions that prevent Indians from undoing 18th- and 19th-century landgrabs were introduced into the law centuries before those landgrabs happened.
Click to expand...
Your claim does not hold water, though. What provisions are you even referring to?
Click to expand...
I told you: the statute of limitations. Courts stopped trying to adjudicate complaints that fifty years ago X stole Y's land, for the very good reason that the witnesses were dead or senile. I've no doubt there are other provisions stopping the Modoc from getting their land back and dollars to donuts the reasons for those are equally unrelated to the Modoc massacres, but as you say I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to post a counterexample.

Not those which I referenced.
Click to expand...
Obviously. Those you referenced aren't what's stopping the return of Modoc land. Prop 13, seriously?

And why would, say, the Modoc Nation, feel compelled to follow European law no matter how ancient it was?
Click to expand...
You'd have to ask them; but if you want me to venture a guess, I imagine they think if they restart the Modoc Wars after a hundred and fifty years they'll just get shellacked again.

Seriously though, this is stupid. There's no reason to have an argument about real estate law when a discussion would suffice. You're not a lawyer or a developer, why are you taking personal offense over this and coming out swinging with personal attacks, etc? It's pointless and time wasting.
Click to expand...
:consternation2: You say that as though I'm the aggressor. You're the aggressor. You were the aggressor when you falsely accused Newsom of being pro-genocide and you were the aggressor when you falsely accused California's property-owning class of developing our labyrinthine law system so we wouldn't have to give the land back to the Indians. You come out swinging and then you whinge when you get swung back at. If you think European property law is something people shouldn't feel compelled to follow, try making a case for that without any ad hominems.
 
Bomb#20 said:
I told you: the statute of limitations. Courts stopped trying to adjudicate complaints that fifty years ago X stole Y's land, for the very good reason that the witnesses were dead or senile. I've no doubt there are other provisions stopping the Modoc from getting their land back and dollars to donuts the reasons for those are equally unrelated to the Modoc massacres, but as you say I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to post a counterexample.
Click to expand...
I wasn't discussing the statue of limitations, though.

You'd have to ask them; but if you want me to venture a guess, I imagine they think if they restart the Modoc Wars after a hundred and fifty years they'll just get shellacked again.
Click to expand...
There is more than one path to legal redress. But yes, it is almost certainly impossible to reverse the past. That doesn't mean I should not be allowed to talk about the past. I am not, in fact, pursuing any legal cases at present. I'm talking about my own state's culture and history, nothing more or less than that.

Bomb#20 said:
You were the aggressor when you falsely accused Newsom of being pro-genocide
Click to expand...
He did, in fact, openly and with a fair bit of publicity endorse Israel's actions in Gaza. How is it a false accusation to repeat what someone has said?

Whereas when you accused me, an IIDB poster who is actually in this thread, of being pro-genocide? That was not in reference to a damn thing I had said, publically of otherwise. You just accused me of complicity with fucking war crimes for no reason.

California's property-owning class of developing our labyrinthine law system so we wouldn't have to give the land back to the Indians.
Click to expand...
I see exactly why you added the constraint to make it look as though I were only discussing a certain social class of people, and accusing "them" of being personally responsible for California's laws, but I was not and did not. Law, public policy, and culture are a bit more complicated than that. In fact, a lot more complicated than that. Nor, for that matter, did I mention "giving land back to the Indians", as you say. I did observe that a major motivation in crafting california's unique legal structures was preventing the return of the lands that were stolen in the wake of the California genocide, and I continue to maintain that is true. Most of the people involved in said genocide were still alive when the foundations of California law. And you do not, in fact, want to give any land back to the Indians, so why are you acting personally offended? It's true, you don't want to give any land "back" to the Indians, no matter how legally or illegally it was taken. And you don't think you should have to. And you think that the law is on your side. Yes? Most non-Native Californians feel much the same way, it is very much a part of the common culture.

You come out swinging and then you whinge when you get swung back at.
Click to expand...
Critiquing a politician, or analyzing a broad social issue, is not the same thing as personally attacking a fellow forumer. It was not even an attack, not really. Tswizzle asked my opinion of the governor, whether I would want him to be president and why, and I supplied a fairly even handed appraisal of what I feel about Gavin Newsom. What did you want me to do instead, exactly? Lie to protect Mr Newsom's feelings? I really don't think he cares all that much either way.
 
Last edited:
Bomb#20 said:
Courts stopped trying to adjudicate complaints that fifty years ago X stole Y's land, for the very good reason that the witnesses were dead or senile.
Click to expand...
This specific claim is very interesting, given that you are also claiming that California's property laws were somehow forced on us by the ancient Normans. Can you provide any documentation from the Norman period that would so much as suggest this legal rationale? Because it sure doesn't sound like 11th century reasoning to me...
 
For the record, I would also be hesitant to vote for William the Conqueror to become president. My family is greatly indebted to the man, for the very reasons being discussed in this thread, but a fantastic democratic leader he would not be. So even if you are correct that California law passed to us en totale from his times, my own position would be consistent. I do not, in fact, think that castle-based feudalism was a good economic system generally speaking, and history has generally borne me out on that point, hence why straightforwardly feudal states have become increasingly rare in the modern world, replaced by capitalistic or pseudo-capitalistic systems in nearly every polity on the planet, and most of the castles have been either blown up, demolished and recycled into factory bricks, or turned into high-minded tourist traps by English Heritage.
 
Politesse said:
or turned into high-minded tourist traps by English Heritage.
Click to expand...
To be fair, most of the castles were turned into tourist traps by Oliver Cromwell, who for pragmatic reasons wanted to let most of his former enemies keep their homes, but for strategic reasons wanted to make those homes useless as fortifications.

Cromwell had these castles "slighted" - their walls reduced in thickness so that only a thin skin remained. Enough to keep the rain out, but not to withstand cannon fire.

Consequently these are no longer castles as such; But they still look like castles, so English Heritage has been able to take advantage of that.
 
When they can! My father's clan had to sell off their family castle to settle some gambling debts, and the new owner, concerned about needing to pay tax, knocked off the roof so it could not be classed as a dwelling. Alas, it is slowly crumbling into the sea.
 
Politesse said:
When they can! My father's clan had to sell off their family castle to settle some gambling debts, and the new owner, concerned about needing to pay tax, knocked off the roof so it could not be classed as a dwelling. Alas, it is slowly crumbling into the sea.
Click to expand...
Supposedly our family also has a castle in Wales. An Aunt did a genealogy search years before the internet. I have no idea how it could be done without the internet.
 
southernhybrid said:
I don't know any Dem who would vote for Newsom in the primaries and my female friends are terrified of having another female run, after how two qualified candidates lost to a felon who has a long history of sexually assaulting women as well as being a terrible business man, and grifting whenever possible.

It's not that they won't vote for a woman. It's just that we know too many people who won't vote for a woman. It's sad that we have so much sexism in this country, but it's a fact. We women know it as most of us have personally been victims of sexism to some extent.. These days, some Republicans want to take away the right to vote from women.

Of course, all the Dems I know personally live in Georgia, but if I think of it, I'll ask all the Dems in Indiana at my atheist meetup this Sunday, if they would support Newsom in the primaries, or if they have anyone in mind who they'd support in the primaries. I still like the idea of someone who is popular in a red or purple state because that's the only way to get enough moderates, conservatives and even some Republicans to vote for the D candidate. Hopefully, the progressives and others who didn't vote last time have learned their lesson. There has never been a candidate who everyone likes, and there never will be. I just hope we never have another cult leader like Trump. How he manipulated so many people to vote for him is something that is still hard to understand, although I think the far right "news" sources that spit out all kinds of disinformation had a hand in that.

Considering what's happening in the US, maybe it's not to early to be thinking of who would be the best candidate in 2028. Sad that it has to be this way, but the US has always dragged out campaigning, for as long as I can remember.
Click to expand...
I asked the group of atheists that I met up with this morning if any of them would vote for Newsom in the primaries. They all said no, but they loved how Newsome was trolling Trump. I agreed that it is pretty funny.

We also all agreed that someone like AOC, would never have a chance of winning as the US is a centrist country, either center right or center left depending on where you live and how you define the left and the right. We all like Mamdani and don't understand all the hate being directed at him, especially considering he's running against a crook, a man who sexually harasses women and a nut job right winger. Plus he's running for mayor of a very blue city. We all agreed that we would vote in the general for whoever ended up as the Democratic candidate, even if it was Newsom. One of the women is pretty far to the left but she has a lot of wisdom and knows that most voters aren't as far left as she is.

I'm already getting texts from Newsome asking for money for the special election in California. I've been getting texts from Ossoff as well. Damn. I'm sick of being asked for money.
 
ZiprHead said:
Politesse said:
When they can! My father's clan had to sell off their family castle to settle some gambling debts, and the new owner, concerned about needing to pay tax, knocked off the roof so it could not be classed as a dwelling. Alas, it is slowly crumbling into the sea.
Click to expand...
Supposedly our family also has a castle in Wales. An Aunt did a genealogy search years before the internet. I have no idea how it could be done without the internet.
Click to expand...
Much more slowly! Though there is something to be said for the old-fashioned methods. I've learned a lot from old geneaology books, much the same way that you learn different things from researching any topic at a library. Much more opportunity to stumble across things you didn't know you were looking for.
 
I must admit, I have no idea which way I'll vote on the redistricting. I'm really the wrong guy to ask to vote for strategy over conscience...

Yeah, I know. Pile on. Throw your acid darts. Tell me what a young fool I am for having principles, how Trump is going to be king because I didn't vote in a crooked voting district map...
 
Politesse said:
I must admit, I have no idea which way I'll vote on the redistricting. I'm really the wrong guy to ask to vote for strategy over conscience...

Yeah, I know. Pile on. Throw your acid darts. Tell me what a young fool I am for having principles, how Trump is going to be king because I didn't vote in a crooked voting district map...
Click to expand...
I say to you to think of it this way. The Democrats have twice put forward bills to ban gerrymandering. Every Democrat voted in favor of the bills. Every Republican voted agaist them.

If the Democrats can gain control of congress there's a very good chance gerrymandering can be eliminated forever.
 
ZiprHead said:
I say to you to think of it this way. The Democrats have twice put forward bills to ban gerrymandering. Every Democrat voted in favor of the bills. Every Republican voted agaist them
Click to expand...
Not just "Democrats". Very specifically, Democrat voters in California, likewise by ballot proposition, 15 years ago. The system Newsom is asking us to dismantle is the very one we ourselves put into place to insure transparency and fairness in the vote. In fact we voted on this twice, once to initiate the redistricting commission and then a few years later to make it permanent. Newsom is asking us to be as inconsistent and unprincipled as he is, blatantly reversing our opinion on things from year to year. I may get talked into this but I sure as hell don't like it. If I wanted to win by cheating I'd just join the Trump train.
 
Politesse said:
ZiprHead said:
I say to you to think of it this way. The Democrats have twice put forward bills to ban gerrymandering. Every Democrat voted in favor of the bills. Every Republican voted agaist them
Click to expand...
Not just "Democrats". Very specifically, Democrat voters in California, likewise by ballot proposition, 15 years ago. The system Newsom is asking us to dismantle is the very one we ourselves put into place to insure transparency and fairness in the vote. In fact we voted on this twice, once to initiate the redistricting commission and then a few years later to make it permanent. Newsom is asking us to be as inconsistent and unprincipled as he is, blatantly reversing our opinion on things from year to year. I may get talked into this but I sure as hell don't like it. If I wanted to win by cheating I'd just join the Trump train.
Click to expand...
The entire premise is revolting. But the Democrats see the GOP re-gerrymandering Texas, effectively removing seats that could have been won in the mid-terms.

I'm absolutely against this type of gerrymandering. The Democrats see it as the only way to keep the upcoming mid-terms fair. And in a sick and perverted way, they are right, but the cost is our representative democracy.

It is appalling. The GOP stole a SCOTUS seat. The GOP has stole the House, any victory by the Democrats won't have undone the fact that the number of seats that are actually elected is vanishingly tiny.

Our Democracy is lost. We lost the war, so is there anything left to actually lose?
 
Well, thank goodness, someone is taking a moral stand in the California Redistricting.
article said:
President Donald Trump said Monday that the Justice Department plans to sue California over legislation aimed at redrawing the state’s congressional maps — an initiative by Democrats to counter Republican-driven efforts in Texas to remake its map.
Click to expand...
Part of me thinks this was all intended, to muddle election results.

Trump is on record saying Texas is owed five seats. But now he thinks only the GOP is allowed to do this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom