Well... it's Trump... again. #47, here we go.

[Swammerdami]

I skimmed the dozens of new posts rapid-fire, but this tidbit still caught my eye:

I pay little attention to what you say because most of your posts are glib one liners.

Hilarity ensued.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I used to think that the impending Civil War wouldn't follow state lines. After all, there are more people in California who voted for Trump than in any of 47 states! But now I'm not so sure. Will there come a time when a state like California announces that fascist police forces will not be allowed to operate in that state, and enforces the order with deadly force?

Thankfully insufferable prick Newsom is going to save democracy by redrawing district lines to turn California into even more of a one party state.

You're like a fat little bully kid who pushes around the little kids in P.E. Then one day one of the kids gets fed up and punches you in the mouth. You cry and wonder why anyone would want to hurt you.

I’m not fat and I’m not a bully. You sound like a weakling that gets bullied and goes on Internet forums to sound tough.

Note that I used the word "like" in order to make a point with an analogy.

Or maybe I should've been more blunt, so fine: you're a hypocrite who, when faced with the same tactics you advocate, suddenly become alarmed and concerned with all things ethical that you previously gave not the slightest shit about before.

Better?

 

[jonatha]

The amendment text specifies that the independent redistricting committee will continue to operate in its customary manner, beginning in 2031 after the next census

 

[TSwizzle]

you keep claiming it’s an abuse of power without explaining your reasoning.

It’s an abuse of power because we have already voted to have an independent commission to make the decision, the electorate hasn’t asked for this and this has been initiated by Newsom as a response to whatever Texas is doing. I’ve explained this numerous times already. You disagree, fine but stop pretending like I haven’t explained why. Enough already, I’m done explaining it.

And you keep assuming the thoughts of others. I have already stated I am against it.

Apologies , I didn’t pick up on that because you appear to be defending it.

I prefer the independent commission for democracy’s sake but it is not clear to me that the act of putting it up for a vote is itself an “abuse of power”, at least as long as he followed legal protocols and utilized powers vested In Him as governor.

ffs, it was up for a vote and “we” voted for an independent commission and now on a whim from Newsom we need to vote again?! Fuck off.

But as you state below you don’t care what I say and that it is up to me to prove that your opinion of my thought is not true regardless of what i say.

I pay little attention to what you say because most of your posts are glib one liners.

That’s fair. But the fact you know that means you do pay a little attention. Hehe…

Less than that.

You said you were fine with other abuses of power, like Trump sending troops to police on US soil. So spare me if I don’t consider you an authority on what constitutes abuse of power.

This is an abuse of power but I was fine with it at the time because I live here and I’m sick of the disruption to my daily commute when assholes go on the rampage. If the Marxist mayor was to do her job properly it wouldn’t be a thing.

So the issue for you then isn’t really about abuse of power because you’re ok with abuses when they’re convenient for you personally.

I don’t know if it’s an abuse of power but I know Marxist Bass won’t do anything.

 

[Shadowy Man]

you keep claiming it’s an abuse of power without explaining your reasoning.

It’s an abuse of power because we have already voted to have an independent commission to make the decision, the electorate hasn’t asked for this and this has been initiated by Newsom as a response to whatever Texas is doing. I’ve explained this numerous times already. You disagree, fine but stop pretending like I haven’t explained why. Enough already, I’m done explaining it.

And you keep assuming the thoughts of others. I have already stated I am against it.

Apologies , I didn’t pick up on that because you appear to be defending it.

I prefer the independent commission for democracy’s sake but it is not clear to me that the act of putting it up for a vote is itself an “abuse of power”, at least as long as he followed legal protocols and utilized powers vested In Him as governor.

ffs, it was up for a vote and “we” voted for an independent commission and now on a whim from Newsom we need to vote again?! Fuck off.

I’m not saying that it’s a good thing nor that I would vote for it but how exactly is that an “abuse of power”.

Also, I remember Republicans wanting to recall the governor even though “we” voted for him for a defined term. Was it an abuse of power to make us have to vote again on it?

But as you state below you don’t care what I say and that it is up to me to prove that your opinion of my thought is not true regardless of what i say.

I pay little attention to what you say because most of your posts are glib one liners.

That’s fair. But the fact you know that means you do pay a little attention. Hehe…

Less than that.

You said you were fine with other abuses of power, like Trump sending troops to police on US soil. So spare me if I don’t consider you an authority on what constitutes abuse of power.

This is an abuse of power but I was fine with it at the time because I live here and I’m sick of the disruption to my daily commute when assholes go on the rampage. If the Marxist mayor was to do her job properly it wouldn’t be a thing.

So the issue for you then isn’t really about abuse of power because you’re ok with abuses when they’re convenient for you personally.

I don’t know if it’s an abuse of power but I know Marxist Bass won’t do anything.

You just said “this is an abuse of power” (see bolded quote above).

You also said you were ok with it because it made your life more comfortable. So, you admit that abuses of power, if Newsom’s actually was one, aren’t a problem for you if it is in your favor.

This is the problem with calling anything an elected official does with his power an “abuse” if we just disagree with it. It never ends. If he’s done something illegal or against established protocol then he can be arrested and/or sued, depending on whichever is the appropriate legal remedy to his actions.

 

[TV and credit cards]

and I'm that's why voting against this measure.

But the commission won't do their thing till after the census in 2030. We need the change before the 2028 midterms.
Please consider fighting back against the Undemocratic Party redistrecting of Texas.

I considered my position for months before deciding what to do. But what the governor is asking for is morally and strategically wrong, and the long term reprecussions of making both parties dependent on retributive redistricting as a critical political strategy will be a disaster. Newsom is trying to portray this as a one-time, emergency measure. But once the commission is disbanded, I am certain it will stay that way. If both parties hold seats that they would immediately lose if a fair districting scheme were ever adopted, no fair districting process will ever again be adopted. Unfortunately, this measure seems very likely to pass with or without my vote.

We should fight back against redistricting in Texas. But that's not what this ballot measure will do. It is supposed to counter-balance Texas, which is not the same thing as opposing Texas. Any more thsn shooting a shooter is fighting gun crime. Texas isn't going to watch the news and be like "oh no California is doing it too, we'd better stop doing it right away so they are the ones with an unfair advantage and not us!" What is needed is a legal challenge to what they've done. And if the third most strongly Democratic state in the nation is doing the exact same thing, the odds of such a case ever seeing a judge diminish greatly.

It's like we're all struggling to get out of this dark forest and you keep talking about a sunlit meadow. I fear where your morals would lead us. What is prudent in time may not always seem to be what is right in the moment. I don't think you give enough consideration to the future, the prudent aspect of morality. From your comment, it seems to be based on how your state government might act irresponsibly in the future. So an assumption is what stands in your way?

what happens in any other state is not my concern. My concern is with what happens in California.

Seriously, Are you so self-centered that you can't see that we are all in this mud slide to dicktatership together?
Rump sent troups into LA just to show power. That should concern you more than me.
We all, even you, are loosing our democracy and freedoms anyway. So why shouldn't Newsom bend rules to get it back.
Or are you just a conerarian, saying shit just to piss us off.

Some odd spelling in this but I can just about make it out.

Erm, no we are not in a mud slide to “dicktatership” (is this spelling intentional? “Dick-tatorship”?)

We need more troups/troops in Los Angeles because the Marxist mayor won’t hold up the law.

What freedoms have I lost exactly? The only time I lost any freedoms was when authoritarian control freaks went power mad in 2020/2021.

And what's to stop an ICE agent from slamming you to the ground tomorrow and what would you do about it afterwards?
Many of us are appalled by the near unchecked power the courts give all law enforcement. Federally controlled troops in place against the state's will brings this up to a new and dangerous level in that you now have the potential of three sides in a conflict.

you keep claiming it’s an abuse of power without explaining your reasoning.

It’s an abuse of power because we have already voted to have an independent commission to make the decision, the electorate hasn’t asked for this and this has been initiated by Newsom as a response to whatever Texas is doing. I’ve explained this numerous times already. You disagree, fine but stop pretending like I haven’t explained why. Enough already, I’m done explaining it.

And you keep assuming the thoughts of others. I have already stated I am against it.

Apologies , I didn’t pick up on that because you appear to be defending it.

But as you state below you don’t care what I say and that it is up to me to prove that your opinion of my thought is not true regardless of what i say.

I pay little attention to what you say because most of your posts are glib one liners.

You said you were fine with other abuses of power, like Trump sending troops to police on US soil. So spare me if I don’t consider you an authority on what constitutes abuse of power.

This is an abuse of power but I was fine with it at the time because I live here and I’m sick of the disruption to my daily commute when assholes go on the rampage. If the Marxist mayor was to do her job properly it wouldn’t be a thing.

No, it is not an abuse of power because Newsom sees the urgency of the moment and many Californian voters may also.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

It’s an abuse of power because we have already voted to have an independent commission to make the decision, the electorate hasn’t asked for this and this has been initiated by Newsom as a response to whatever Texas is doing. I’ve explained this numerous times already. You disagree, fine but stop pretending like I haven’t explained why. Enough already, I’m done explaining it.

Re: Bolded: Using that reasoning the US constitution could never have Amendments.

 

[Swammerdami]

and I'm that's why voting against this measure.

But the commission won't do their thing till after the census in 2030. We need the change before the 2028 midterms.
Please consider fighting back against the Undemocratic Party redistrecting of Texas.

I considered my position for months before deciding what to do. But what the governor is asking for is morally and strategically wrong, and the long term reprecussions of making both parties dependent on retributive redistricting as a critical political strategy will be a disaster....

Maybe it's "strategically wrong" but I'm curious to understand your sense of "morality." Can you answer some thought experiments for us?

(A) Your sister is being gang-raped. But you have a gun and the thugs don't. Do you
* Use your gun to stop the rapes. The "end" (saving your sister) justifies the means (murder).
* Recall Yahweh's injunction against killing and that the ends don't justify the means. Close your eyes if you find the rape disconcerting.

(B) The Empire of Japan is in its last throes and U.S. territory is no longer threatened. But the rapes and killings of civilians in Manchukuo and places like Shanghai continue. Do you
* Invade the island of Okinawa hoping to reduce Japan's ability to resist. The "end" (overthrowing an evil regime and saving innocent civilians from continued abuse) justifies the means.
* The ends don't justify the means. Ending a war that is killing millions of innocent civilians has no merit unless the civilians are American.

(C) You live in a country which has recently turned fascist. Citizens are suffering horrific abuse and the global order itself has been placed in real jeopardy by the megalomaniac Fuhrer of the most powerful country. There is some resistance but it's being harshly repressed. One opposition leader has a plan which MIGHT reduce the power of the Criminal-in-Chief. His plan is almost the only serious proposal to return control of the once-great country to rational humanitarians. Do you
* Support the opposition's plan and hope it succeeds. The "end" (increasing the slim chance of salvaging Western democracy) justifies the means (holding a special election to allow that state to join fascist-controlled states in a mid-decade redistricting).
* The ends don't justify the means. Reject the plan since it might be viewed as slightly unethical in the counterfactual case that the country still had a democracy.

Thanks in advance for helping us understand your concept of "morality."

 

[Politesse]

(A) Your sister is being gang-raped. But you have a gun and the thugs don't. Do you
* Use your gun to stop the rapes. The "end" (saving your sister) justifies the means (murder).
* Recall Yahweh's injunction against killing and that the ends don't justify the means. Close your eyes if you find the rape disconcerting.

(B) The Empire of Japan is in its last throes and U.S. territory is no longer threatened. But the rapes and killings of civilians in Manchukuo and places like Shanghai continue. Do you
* Invade the island of Okinawa hoping to reduce Japan's ability to resist. The "end" (overthrowing an evil regime and saving innocent civilians from continued abuse) justifies the means.
* The ends don't justify the means. Ending a war that is killing millions of innocent civilians has no merit unless the civilians are American.

(C) You live in a country which has recently turned fascist. Citizens are suffering horrific abuse and the global order itself has been placed in real jeopardy by the megalomaniac Fuhrer of the most powerful country. There is some resistance but it's being harshly repressed. One opposition leader has a plan which MIGHT reduce the power of the Criminal-in-Chief. His plan is almost the only serious proposal to return control of the once-great country to rational humanitarians. Do you
* Support the opposition's plan and hope it succeeds. The "end" (increasing the slim chance of salvaging Western democracy) justifies the means (holding a special election to allow that state to join fascist-controlled states in a mid-decade redistricting).
* The ends don't justify the means. Reject the plan since it might be viewed as slightly unethical in the counterfactual case that the country still had a democracy.

Thanks in advance for helping us understand your concept of "morality."

In your first scenario, I would act. But by intervening and de-escalating. Not by trying to do the exact same thing that they are doing in reverse. Passing a law that allows the police to rape those guy's sisters in vengeance would be wrong, for instance.

I do not know enough about the second scenario to provide an informed opinion about the merits and costs of invading Okinawa.

Ditto the third scenario, not enough information to make a rational judgement. I certainly wouldn't give a blank check to anyone who says they have "a plan", irrespective of what the plan actually is.

You seem to be confused about my moral stance in general, which is not "the ends never justify the means", bit rather "I think everyone should have an equal right to a vote, without being discriminated against due to race, creed, or party." It's gerrymandering that I oppose on universalized principle. Not fighting Trump. Please fight Trump. Deny, Defend, Depose. If you want to go chuck a wrench in the production line of every business that trades political endorsement for tarriff exemptions, be my guest. Press a thousand lawsuits. Control the media narrative. But passing an openly crooked law that will more easily and effectively be used by Trump than against him is not a very good strategy for curbing electoral misconduct or his coup in general.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

View attachment 52142

In age of AI, these things need a citation. Granted, it'd be hard to confirm. Honestly, we are certainly on the precipice of this going that way. Trump's comments yesterday were chilling.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

you keep claiming it’s an abuse of power without explaining your reasoning.

It’s an abuse of power because we have already voted to have an independent commission to make the decision, the electorate hasn’t asked for this and this has been initiated by Newsom as a response to whatever Texas is doing. I’ve explained this numerous times already. You disagree, fine but stop pretending like I haven’t explained why. Enough already, I’m done explaining it.

It is less an abuse of power as it is an abuse of the power of the majority. It is also anti-Democracy what California is trying to do.

Your concerns over "abuse of power" is quite amusing though.

 

[Shadowy Man]

you keep claiming it’s an abuse of power without explaining your reasoning.

It’s an abuse of power because we have already voted to have an independent commission to make the decision, the electorate hasn’t asked for this and this has been initiated by Newsom as a response to whatever Texas is doing. I’ve explained this numerous times already. You disagree, fine but stop pretending like I haven’t explained why. Enough already, I’m done explaining it.

It is less an abuse of power as it is an abuse of the power of the majority. It is also anti-Democracy what California is trying to do.

Your concerns over "abuse of power" is quite amusing though.

If we were really serious about rooting out anti-democratic aspects of American politics we could start with the Electoral College and the US Senate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

you keep claiming it’s an abuse of power without explaining your reasoning.

It’s an abuse of power because we have already voted to have an independent commission to make the decision, the electorate hasn’t asked for this and this has been initiated by Newsom as a response to whatever Texas is doing. I’ve explained this numerous times already. You disagree, fine but stop pretending like I haven’t explained why. Enough already, I’m done explaining it.

It is less an abuse of power as it is an abuse of the power of the majority. It is also anti-Democracy what California is trying to do.

Your concerns over "abuse of power" is quite amusing though.

If we were really serious about rooting out anti-democratic aspects of American politics we could start with the Electoral College and the US Senate.

And Gerrymandering.

The House of Representatives was the only direct electoral power the Founding Fathers gave the people*. It is being reduced to a representative body as selected by the elected officials in the state. That was what the Senate used to be. And SCOTUS rubber-stamped this unethical planning.

Of course, the selective complaining of "abuse of power" would be funny, it not just how the alt-right works it these days.

 

[Shadowy Man]

you keep claiming it’s an abuse of power without explaining your reasoning.

It’s an abuse of power because we have already voted to have an independent commission to make the decision, the electorate hasn’t asked for this and this has been initiated by Newsom as a response to whatever Texas is doing. I’ve explained this numerous times already. You disagree, fine but stop pretending like I haven’t explained why. Enough already, I’m done explaining it.

It is less an abuse of power as it is an abuse of the power of the majority. It is also anti-Democracy what California is trying to do.

Your concerns over "abuse of power" is quite amusing though.

If we were really serious about rooting out anti-democratic aspects of American politics we could start with the Electoral College and the US Senate.

And Gerrymandering.

I don’t disagree.

The drawing of districts is so fraught with political peril it should probably be replaced by an entirely different system.

But I do believe that the Electoral College and the US Senate (with the state boundaries being the ultimate gerrymander) are worse than intrastate districts.

The House of Representatives was the only direct electoral power the Founding Fathers gave the people*. It is being reduced to a representative body as selected by the elected officials in the state. That was what the Senate used to be. And SCOTUS rubber-stamped this unethical planning.

Of course, the selective complaining of "abuse of power" would be funny, it not just how the alt-right works it these days.

 

[unapologetic]

it was up for a vote and “we” voted for an independent commission and now on a whim from Newsom we need to vote again?!

Relax. Voteing is not required. You don't NEED to. PLEASE feel free to stay home

Control the media narrative.

I think that is unethical. But in the face of FauxNews, it is a necessary front of the battle.

an openly crooked law that will more easily and effectively be used by Trump than against him

That cat is out of the bag. The REPUgnant Party will continue to garrymander other red states, regardless. Passivity does not serve us. We need resistance. The civil war has already started. It just ain't violent yet. Fight with your ballot. Who's side are you on?

OK you don't want to legitimize garrymandering in California. But voteing no, legitimizes garrymandering in Texas, and it will continue in other states.

It is also anti-Democracy what California is trying to do.

If you think so; why aren't you angry about the Texas Repugs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is also anti-Democracy what California is trying to do.

If you think so; why aren't you angry about the Texas Repugs.

Where in the heck did you get that idea from?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, Trump tossed out this Putin-esque threat. This is mob shit. This is supposed to be the President. link

Thank you, everybody. Have a good flight. Fly safely. You know why I say that? Because I’m on the flight. Otherwise I wouldn’t care.”

 

[unapologetic]

Thank you @crazyfingers for alerting me to the upcomming No Kings protest. I found one I can hitchhike to.
My sign at the June 14 protest got destroyed by the rain. So this one is covered with plastic.

​

Also a sign saying "HONK IF YOU HATE TRUMP" came in handy to silence MAGA drive bys.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, at least one of them appears to care.

 

[Elixir]

Well, at least one of them appears to care.

Trump cares. He lost a voice that his idiots listen to, that could say shit that would get HIM in trouble if he said it.
Trump's fingernails look kinda fungus-y.