California governor says Republican Party is headed 'into the waste bin of history'

While much of what you say is true - it would help if Red Establishment was not even more "socialist" than Blue - using the definition you are using which is "wealth redistribution".

It would also help if Red was not pushing for Totalitarianism/Tyranny at least as hard as Blue - just from a different side of the fence.

Even holding both houses - Trump has not addressed the systemic issues with respect to our immigration policy - losing our sovereignty. People who come here from Latin America are less a threat to our sovereignty than the religious right - unless they are themselves "religious right". The folks who are a threat to our sovereignty are Islamist's - and anyone who thinks like these people - people who hate individual liberty and want to force their religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law). This is the real anathema/threat to the founding principles - not some poor person from Nicaragua.

 

I wish you well with that theory.

 

"Why Texas Is Nearing Battleground Status (It’s Not Just About Beto) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/upshot/beto-2020-texas-battleground-white-voters.html

Hispanics represent the (elusive) upside for Democrats, but it’s a shift in white voters that is making the biggest difference.

The dream of a “Blue Texas” has captured the imagination of Democrats for nearly a decade, and Beto O’Rourke has come closer than anyone to making a statewide victory a reality.

His strengths as a candidate in his narrow loss in a 2018 Senate race against Ted Cruz — by 2.6 percentage points — led his supporters to push him to run for president, and he obliged them Thursday morning.

But his performance may have demonstrated something else: Texas is on the doorstep of emerging as a battleground state, and any number of Democrats might stand a chance to compete there in 2020 for the presidency or the Senate.

His relatively close loss is promising for the party because he did not take full advantage of the longer-term trends that might put it over the top sooner than later. His strength came almost exclusively from white voters, not from the growing Hispanic population in the state . . . "

 

I addressed the immigration law issue - with respect to sovereignty - and the GOP did nothing to address the systemic issues mentioned - nor tried to do anything substantive - despite having both houses and the President.

<Reply to Deleted> Do you know what Tyranny is ? Tyranny is what happened in Missouri and Alabama. Tyranny is "Stop and Frisk" , Tyranny is "asset forfeiture" , Tyranny is laws against pot and prostitution, Tyranny is violating the rule of law - how many examples would you like ? Tyranny is violating freedom of information, freedom of the press and engaging in censorship. Tyranny is going after whistleblowers for trying to out Gov't crimes via legitimate means.

You want "Tyranny" .. this is what Tyranny looks like - you don't have to watch the entire thing but do watch the testimony of at least one.

Tyranny - by definition with respect to the founding principles - is making law on the basis of 50+1 or "Simple Majority Mandate" -where some dude gets elected and makes laws on the basis of some "mandate".

The GOP "LOVES" Tyranny - they love increasing the power of Gov't and Police powers towards a quazi Totalitarian Police Nanny state.

Our sovereignty ceased to exist when we allowed foreign corporate interests to control the mainstream media... along with controlling foreign and domestic policy. How many examples would you like ?

This whole "Russiagate" thing is laughable nonsense. This is like comparing a rain drop to a hurricane. The Establishment is now telling citizens that "The Truth" harmed our electoral process - in a feat of Orwellian doublespeak that would make Orwell blush. The ministry of Truth is now the ministry of State Sanctioned propaganda. In 2013 it became legal for our intelligence agencies to create an disseminate propaganda on US citizens. Now the Establishment is using "Russiagate" as an excuse to trample on freedom of information, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and engage in censorship. OH Happy day.

We arm extremist Islamist Jihadists in other nations (including Al Qaeda and ISIS) with tens of thousands of tons of sophisticated military technology - groups that are raping, persecuting and killing Christians and other marginalized groups. The objective of these "moderate rebels" is to turn Syria into a Strict Sharia Theocracy. This is all done in the name of Freedom. "Moderate Rebels and Freedom" being again Orwellian doublespeak propaganda on steroids.

And you want to talk about some immigrant from El Salvador being some threat to our sovereignty - being some threat of "Tyranny".

Give your head a shake. There are real battles to be fought in the name of fighting Tyranny - that is not one of them. This is just a diversion that keeps people attention on something other than the ball.

Red Establishment "Hates" the founding principles and the constitution. They hate fair and free markets and they hate limits to gov't power.... just like Blue.

 

You have to use the meaning and definition of "tyranny" at the time of writing the Constitution and Second Amendment.

<Reply to Deleted>

<Reply to Deleted>

 

Democrats changed their consumer base.

 

I realize that the Second Amendment defends the right to bear arms - so you are preaching to the choir. Attacking this right is just one example of tyranny though - which was my point.

I gave you the definition of Tyranny with respect to the founders. Just read the Declaration of Independence. Individual liberty is put "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't = the Gov't is not to make "ANY LAW" - OF ITS OWN VOLITION - messing with individual liberty. FULL STOP.

Do you understand what the above means ? Jefferson had this to say: The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

In other words - rights end where the nose of another begins - this is also where Govt authority begins and ends. The legitimate authority of Gov't is protection of citizens from direct harm - murder, rape, theft and so on. This is where that authority begins but more importantly where it ends with respect to essential liberty.

The authority of Gov't comes from "Consent of the Governed" = the Gov't is not to mess with individual liberty of its own volition but also that the authority does not come from "divine right/ God" = no law on the basis of religious belief. This is part of "any law" but in particular not on the basis of religious belief.

The only way Gov't can make law messing with liberty is by consent of the Governed. This is not 50+1 - or "Simple Majority Mandate" that some elected leader got elected. NO NO NO. This is referred to in both Republicanism and Classical Liberalism as "Tyranny of the Majority".

This is "BY DEFINITION" what a constitutional republic is all about. You gave a general dictionary definition of what people colloquially refer to as "Tyranny". While Tyranny encompasses these things .. this has little to do with a discussion of the founding principles.

This is what defines a Republic as opposed to a democracy.

Read it - learn it - and don't forget it. 50+1 and Simple Majority Mandate is "Tyranny of the Majority" ... it is an anathema to a Republic. The whole point of having a republic is to avoid "Tyranny of the Majority".

The bar is at least 2/3rds majority - overwhelming majority. In terms of the Constitution 75% of states is required for a change.

What is the point of limitations to Gov't authority if Gov't can make law willy nilly on the basis of getting elected ? What is the point of individual liberty being "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't - if Gov't can mess with liberty on a whim ?

The bar for messing with liberty is "Overwhelming Majority" - I can get into the reasons for this - as per the founding principles - in more detail if you like but that should be overkill at this point.

Look at it this way - If I ask you the question - "Do you believe in limitations to Gov't power or would you prefer Totalitarianism" - you will respond with a resounding "YES YES YES" Forgive me for assuming your answer but it if is not yes ..the convo is over.

Second question - OK - what then should the authority of Gov't be limited to ? Obviously I have answered this question above and in the previous post but - if not this answer - then what ? My answer is based on the founding principles. What say you ?

 

Here in California the Democratic party has taken away many of our personal freedoms including the freedom of choice.

Every year the Democrats in California pass over one thousand laws.

The Democrats in the state legislature are still writing more gun laws.
They are actually making up new gun laws at this time.

The Democrats even came up with an AR that can fire 30 rounds per 1/2 second.

That's 3,600 rounds per minute.

And every Democrat in the California state legislature believed the lie.

 

Be nice to de Leon. An Angeleno progressive, Kevin ran against Diane Feinstein last year. Why wasn't there a Republican running for US senator from California?

BTW, why didn't the cops in the background speak up/ correct de Leon in the video?

 

California voting system prevents Republicans from running for political offices in California.
California is a totalitarian state, one party rule.

Sometimes there's a slip up and you might see a Republican on the ballot during the general election.

During the midterms you had only two candidates who qualified running for Barbara Boxer's Senate seat, Loretta Sanchez (D) and Mulatto Mafia wisegal Kamala Harris (D)

The cop is a progressive cop who only reacts to crimes after the crime has been committed.

 

This is happening in every State .. and more often than not it is based on lies - the biggest of which is that Gov't (be it State, Federal or Municipal) has the authority to make law messing with individual liberty.

Most often the justification (which is a lie in of itself) given for law is based on a Utilitarian argument = Law on the basis of "what will increase happiness for the collective".

This is not a valid justification for law in a system that has respect for individual liberty. The reason for this is because this justification does not even consider individual liberty - it is then an end run around the safeguards which were put in place to protect individual liberty.

Then you have "fallacious Utilitarianism" - this is justifications that are not even sound Utilitarian arguments - not that this would be valid justification to begin with. Aside from violating the founding principles - Who gets to decide what will increase happiness for the collective - one mans poison is another mans pleasure !?

If you are confused - worry not .. all will become clear with examples upon which you will recognize this plague for what it is.

"If it saves one life" or "Harm Reduction" are often fallacious Utilitarian arguments for law. These arguments are very insidious because they sound good on the surface. "Who does not want to save a life" ? What kind of an evil person are you !!!

You will hear these and similar arguments commonly in the gun debate.

So then .. are these valid arguments ?
IF - "if it saves one life" is valid justification for law - should we not then ban skiing tomorrow ? Would this not save one life ?
What about boating - that is really dangerous - one could drown - should we not ban that as well.
Driving a car ? -forget it - more people die from cars every year than almost anything.
Sugar ? what were you thinking - that stuff kills .. no "super size" for you.
In fact - one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck. Did you not know the risk of harm from walking is 400 times greater than the risk of harm from terrorism ? I kid you not.

In a free society - and especially one premised on respect for individual liberty - the individual has the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm to themselves.

That one person does something stupid - crashes their car into a building or some such thing - is not justification to punish the rest of society. This is Rule of law 101 - One person is not to be punished for the actions of another. Same thing with guns - that one person decides to go out and do what ever - is not justification to punish responsible gun owners.

Is there a "risk of harm" from someone owning a gun ... Absolutely !! There is also a risk of harm from allowing someone to drive a car and at the end of the day there is a risk of harm from walking.

If something is "SO Dangerous" and represents such a harm to society that Gov't should be given power to ban that activity ... Guess what - an overwhelming majority will agree. Regardless - this is the bar for a change to the social contract - construct by which we the people give authority to Gov't .

For example - do you think Guns should be allowed in Universities or Rock concerts ? I say - who cares what you or I think - but that said - if an overwhelming majority agree - then it is legitimate for Gov't to make law. Would people be educated in the founding principles - something we manage not to do through 12 years of school - I think it would be a no brainer to get 67% to agree.

Pot vs Meth or similar. Good luck getting an overwhelming majority to agree to banning the use of pot - the reverse is true. Why ? because the general public simply do not think that Pot is that big of a deal. It is not so dangerous such that the Gov't should be given the power to use physical violence (Law) to prevent people from using Pot. Then there is the huge elephant in the room that Alcohol - something that more dangerous on many levels - is legal. This is a true anathema in law - which is bad. Then there were the insane punishments - also a violation of the rule of law principle that the punishment should fit the crime. Then there is the cost to society- Policing, courts, imprisonment which makes this not even a good Utilitarian argument = fallacious Utilitarianism. Lacking any valid legal justification - this is kangaroo land.

Meth on the other hand .. I don't think it would be a problem getting overwhelming agreement.

So you see - the system devised by the founders works very well if we would just use it.

 

Do you also consider States like Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri and other States that hav been controlled by Republicans for decades fascist?

 

Right wing State Senator Don Mulford, Ronald Reagan, Ed Meese and the NRA pissed all over the 2nd Ammendment here in California back in ‘67. Reagan wasn’t even in office for a year when he crammed a bunch of idiotic gun laws up our ass. When black people started exercising their constitutional rights, right wing scum went all nanny state on them. If you want to blame someone for the gun laws in California look no further than Reagan, Meese and Right wing Senator Don Mulford.

 

Goes to show that when you don't know, you buy BS and think you are informed.

600 rounds/minute is the M-16 military light machine-gun rate of fire. The MG-81 fires around 1500, and that is f-a-s-t. The M-134 minigun will run over 2,000, but it's running six barrels.....

And an AR firing 3600 would melt in short order.

 

California is America’s best, most beautiful and by far richest state. We have it all here. Best wine, best weed, best looking women, best weather, best golf courses, best music scene, best seaports, best agricultural land, best tourist destinations, entertainment capital of the world, 13 world class sports teams, talent and money streaming in from all over the world every day. We just hosted another classic US Open Golf Tournament last week at arguably the best venue...Pebble Beach...While it’s not a place for whiney losers or malcontents, it is truly, The Golden State. Nobody would ever trade California for any 10 red states combined.

 

Californians have much more involvement in the governmental process than other states. Are you forgetting about the propositions on every ballot? Sometimes Republicans convince enough Democrats to support things like anti-gay marriage or limiting access to public services for immigrants. The courts always overturn the rather poorly thought out/ hysteria-prone Republicans impulses.

How do you explain the willingness of Californians to continue taxing ourselves? How do those propositions win?

 

Today's Republican refuses to remember that governor Reagan was an environmentalist pragmatist who readily raised taxes. Today's Republicans don't deserve California anymore. What a stupid loss for them.

 

Your source is Pat Buchanan?

History tells us a different story. It has always been the liberals who propel the world forward. And it has always been the conservatives who oppose every innovation. And time and time again, the conservatives come to adopt and embrace the innovation.

Maybe your whiteness just isn't white enough. Liberalism is a product, in part of Northern European culture. The rejection of religion has long been strongest among Northern Europeans and the descendants who migrated to America. The most liberal parts of the US are very white, and with a high percentage of Northern European ethnicity.

Christianity is a Mediterranean thing, that grew out of the Middle East, the same place Jews and Muslims come from. Not exactly a hotbed of Whiteness. It isn't that liberals are self hating Whites, but rather they see that not all Whites are the same. Within White populations, there are differing levels of evolutionary attainment. It is quite obvious in some quarters.

 

If one does a state by state comparison, the states that have been dominated by Democratic rule consistently outperform those states that have been dominated by Republican rule. So, it is not like Republicans can point out their successes. So in typical conservative fashion, they bash their betters.

 

It was a purposeful change. During the time of Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party, due to the shrinking blue collar segment, they began to shift towards the professional class. It has a lot to do with why Democrats are so supportive of college education. It was this shift that has made the West Coast solidly Democratic. The computer industry is all over the West Coast and it consists of mainly college educated professionals.

Republicans like to pretend that Democratic politics are about welfare for brown people, but Democratic policies reflect the values of the professional class. The professional class sees the value in a national health care system with a single payer option. They also see the value in reducing the wealth gap.

 

The only problem was that professional class wasn't big enough for the necessary votes, so they had to bring in low skill impoverished immigrants too.

Despite popular perceptions, the numbers of tech and software workers aren't really that big compared to the overall size of the U.S. population.
It may just seem that way to certain people because they live in certain areas.

 

The Bay Area is largely Anglo/ highly educated/ upper middle class and not one Republican in office where 4 million people reside. Portland/ Seattle have similar demographics. Republicans can't compete in the world of ideas/ morality. It has to be painful when big business/ corporations boycott/ punish Republican policies, especially in the South. Come along or be left behind; something today's Republican can't grasp. Duh.

 

Interesting & informative post. Nicely said.

 

There are sure no shortage of cheapshot crybabies both here and around the country continually trashing our state. What a bunch of losers.

 

Meanwhile, in the real world they are washing fecal matter out of the streets with fire hoses, and increasingly the only one's staying are the whiny losers. As companies increasingly flee to places where they can actually make some money without most of it disappearing into state and federal coffers, and increasingly even middle Class workers can't afford the rent, and the 15 dollar minimum wage isn't doing anything but debasing the earnings of other workers