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

[Loren Pechtel]

Accoding to this guy, we're fucked.

Original: https://cmarmitage.substack.com/p/i-researched-every-attempt-to-stop

I hadn't done the study of history he did but I already reached the same conclusion. Just look at the world--rebellions against local powers are either basically bloodless (people are so unhappy that when the pitchforks show up nobody acts against them), or extremely bloody and if the rebels prevail the result is always very bad. (Note the local power bit--bloody battles against colonial powers are not certain to have bad outcomes.) There's still too much popular support for a bloodless coup unless it was done from within (federal authorities that realize where their true duty lies), and any other scenario we lose no matter what.

 

[Politesse]

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.

I agree that this is no time for passivity. It's tempting in difficult times, to listen to panic over reason and trust anyone who claims to know how to solve all our problems. However, that does not mean that every strategy for combatting Trump is equally salutory. I'm not convinced that this measure would actually hurt him, at least not more than it would directly help his cause. And even if I were convinced of that the momentary advantage would be worth it in the short term, I still do care about what my state will look like after his regime falls. Bad law with no safeguards is just bad law.

I don't understand why you think voting against this law legitimizes gerrymandering. The exact opposite is true. Making gerrymandering a universal practice, relied upon by both parties and backed up by a ballot-supported state law, not only legitimizes it but makes it nearly impossible to eradicate the practice. And whereas Democrats enjoy a clear numerical majority on paper and ought to be able to win elections without help from crooked maps, the Republicans have no such advantage and must use voter suppression and gerrymandered districting to achieve House victories, even in many supposedly "red" states. Taking one of their key strategies and making it effectively the law of the land is handing them an enormous unearned gift, their generous reward for successfully panicking their enemies andvmaking us thoughtless.

 

[southernhybrid]

Next up. The idiot is going to make the false claim that Tylenol causes autism. I suspect that JFKjr put that idea in his head, as there is no evidence that Tylenol causes autism.

 

[bilby]

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.

And George Washington would still be President.

 

[Elixir]

the electorate hasn’t asked for this and this has been initiated by Newsom as a response to whatever Texas is doing.

The CA electorate is being asked if they want it. That’s democracy. Don’t like it? You can (presumably) go back to from where you came.
I’ve explained this numerous times already.

 

[Shadowy Man]

the electorate hasn’t asked for this and this has been initiated by Newsom as a response to whatever Texas is doing.

The CA electorate is being asked if they want it. That’s democracy. Don’t like it? You can (presumably) go back to from where you came.
I’ve explained this numerous times already.

I don't know.. does the following sound like Democracy to you?

"California Proposition 50 qualified for the November 2025 special election ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. The measure was placed on the ballot by the state legislature, which passed the proposal with a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and the Senate. "

Is that what constitutes "abuse of power"?

I personally do not like this approach to insert politics into a Constitution. When I lived in Wisconsin for a bit they routinely tried to change the constitution to make what I considered to be matters of law. Prop 50 calls out Trump by name and states that its intent is political in nature. That is not what a Constitution should be for, in my opinion, but I also don't think sponsoring the proposition constitutes "abuse of power" by Governor Newsom.

And if the concern on some people's part is that California is "one-party rule" then I would say that the Republicans should come up with ideas that appeal to more Californians if they want to win elections. California isn't the only state with an effective "one-party rule". In fact, the majority of states are, with most of them being Republican.

 

[Elixir]

does the following sound like Democracy to you?

Not so much. But this does:
Text of Prop 50
Democracy is messy.
We shall see how it actually appears on the ballot.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Next up. The idiot is going to make the false claim that Tylenol causes autism. I suspect that JFKjr put that idea in his head, as there is no evidence that Tylenol causes autism.

Nothing beats the vulgarity of Trump and Junior pontificating on medical stats that they have no background in or comprehension of, based on urban legends they've decided to promote.
This is second nature to Trump. In March 2020, as covid was claiming American lives by the tens of thousands, he traveled to the CDC in Atlanta and made a series of fatuous remarks to the press, citing his "natural ability" in solving public health crises. "Maybe I should have done that instead of running for President." He expanded on his abilities: "I like this stuff. I really get it. People are surprised that I understand it." He capped this with one of his effortless lies; consider how patently false this sentence is: "Every one of these doctors said, 'How do you know so much about this?'" No, every one of them didn't make the same statement, and it's more believable that not a one of them said that.

 

[Swammerdami]

Accoding to this guy, we're fucked.

The pattern is so consistent it's almost funny if it weren't so terrifying. Every single time it goes like this: Conservatives panic about socialism or progressives or whatever. They ally with fascists as the "lesser evil."

The great prophet of my generation sang on that theme way back in 1962:

Now we all agree with Hitler’s views
Although he killed six million Jews
It don’t matter too much that he was a Fascist
At least you can’t say he was a Communist!
That’s to say like if you got a cold you take a shot of malaria.

There seem to be at least two or three authors named Chris Armitage, none with a Wikipedia page. (The one whom I'm quoting might be the one who heads an organization whose home page doesn't load properly.) The Armitage excerpt continues:

Fascists take power. Fascists immediately purge the conservatives who helped them. Then it's 30-50 years of dictatorship. This happened in Germany, Italy, Spain, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Portugal, Croatia, Romania, and Hungary.

Want to know how many times conservatives successfully "controlled" the fascists they allied with? Zero. Want to know how many times fascists purged the conservatives after taking power? All of them. Every single time.

And here's the part that breaks your heart. Violence works. For them. Fascists use violence while claiming to be victims. They create chaos that "requires" their authoritarian solution. Then they purge anyone who opposes them. Meanwhile, democrats keep insisting on following rules that fascists completely ignore. They file lawsuits. They write editorials. They vote on resolutions. And fascists just laugh and keep consolidating power.

The statistics are brutal. Fascist takeovers prevented after winning power democratically: zero. Average length of fascist rule once established: 31 years. Fascist regimes removed by voting: zero. Fascist regimes removed by asking nicely: zero. Most were removed by war or military coups, and tens of millions died in the process.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Our chief exec (and God's choice to lead us into an exalted age) addresses the UN today. Prediction: once again he will be laughed at by the general assembly. At least I hope so. I love the footage of the first time that happened, in the middle of one of his bragging tirades, and if anything he is even more of a braggart now than back then.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wutta POS.

Thoughts, Emily?

 

[blastula]

We have reached peak Christian nationalism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We have reached peak Christian nationalism.

We aren't even close, but we are trending towards it.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Demented "Epstein List" Donnie says there's no reason to give a baby the hepatitis B vaccine, despite the fact that 1. He knows absolutely nothing about vaccines and has no scientific credentials whatsoever, 2. It can be transmitted through breastfeeding.

Trump suggests changes to childhood vaccine schedule ‘based on what I feel’

President Trump gave personal suggestions Monday on how and when parents should have children receive certain vaccines, offering advice he said was based on his own feelings during a press event that claimed links between Tylenol, vaccinations and autism. “We want no mercury in the vaccine. We...

www.yahoo.com

 

[TV and credit cards]

We have reached peak Christian nationalism.

Geez Louise. I never even bowed my head for an invocation. I would not have done well there.

 

[crazyfingers]

His idiocy, The Trumpkucker, has turned the USA into a pariah state.

Bullying the world on tariffs
Refusing to work with allies on global security
Going against the world on the environment.

I'll bet respect for the US is deeply under water even with those countries that used to be our strong allies before Trump.

Here is just one example

At Global Climate Summit This Week, U.S. Isolation Was on Full Display

On Wednesday in New York, countries lined up to say they would accelerate their efforts to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. In staying away, the U.S. was all but alone.

This is my last allowed share of NYT for the month. If you don't read it I'll be mad.

At U.N. Climate Summit, U.S. Stands Alone

On Wednesday in New York, countries lined up to say they would accelerate their efforts to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. In staying away, the U.S. was all but alone.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Tigers!]

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.

What California should do is both.

Proceed with the independent redistricting and implement the gerrymandered districting now, with a proviso that it automatically switches to what the independent commission comes up with when Texas implements fair districting. Don't make it something to change in the future, make it something that automatically will change.

A sunset clause is a god idea.

 

[Tigers!]

This is my last allowed share of NYT for the month. If you don't read it I'll be mad.

At U.N. Climate Summit, U.S. Stands Alone

On Wednesday in New York, countries lined up to say they would accelerate their efforts to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. In staying away, the U.S. was all but alone.

www.nytimes.com

Thank you for the share.

 

[Politesse]

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.

What California should do is both.

Proceed with the independent redistricting and implement the gerrymandered districting now, with a proviso that it automatically switches to what the independent commission comes up with when Texas implements fair districting. Don't make it something to change in the future, make it something that automatically will change.

A sunset clause is a god idea.

It would be better, for sure. But there isn't one. And even that approach would be flawed. Texas isn't going to stop doing what it is doing until the federal government marches in and forces them to stop, so there would always be an excuse to extend the window legislatively. This sort of emergency-of-the-moment reasoning is exactly how the powers of the executive branch got so dangerously out of proportion to the other balancing powers in the first place, and we are still doing it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Proceed with the independent redistricting and implement the gerrymandered districting now, with a proviso that it automatically switches to what the independent commission comes up with when Texas implements fair districting. Don't make it something to change in the future, make it something that automatically will change.

A sunset clause is a god idea.

I don’t know about Texas, but for California the proposition explicitly states that this is temporary.