Landslide victory for Newsom in California

DeSanto

Super Member
What strikes me as odd is those Republicans have had almost a year to make sure voting standards machines envelopes etc are fixed. That they could put guards at all points. But they have done NOTHING. The reason they have done NOTHING is there is NOTHING to fix.
They don’t do it BECAUSE... They would have to admit they are illegitimate office holders too!!!

Hello???????????????

Starting to make a little more sense now?

Coming a little bit more into focus for you?

The implications of the truth getting out?
 
Last edited:

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Vibise did not add that ammendment. In fact she said the opposite, when it came to conservatives
I don’t know what quote by vbise you’re referring to.

Regardless, majority rule with minorities protections is what we have in California, so there no tyranny of the majority here
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
I don’t know what quote by vbise you’re referring to.

Regardless, majority rule with minorities protections is what we have in California, so there no tyranny of the majority here
Back up in the thread. You just jumped in and made an unrelated comment to what we had been discussing
 

Carol

Well-known member
What strikes me as odd is those Republicans have had almost a year to make sure voting standards machines envelopes etc are fixed. That they could put guards at all points. But they have done NOTHING. The reason they have done NOTHING is there is NOTHING to fix.

That doesn't necessarily follow.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Faithoverbelief said:
What strikes me as odd is those Republicans have had almost a year to make sure voting standards machines envelopes etc are fixed. That they could put guards at all points. But they have done NOTHING. The reason they have done NOTHING is there is NOTHING to fix.
That doesn't necessarily follow.
You're more than welcome to offer alternative explanations, but be forewarned that @Faithoverbelief explanation is certainly reasonable.
 

vibise

Well-known member
I have no problem with any state taking this action.

Having said that, Texas is overwhelmingly different than California. That might change in 10 years with all the people running from California to Texas because California politics have ruined the state.
If Texas maintains their draconian abortion and voting restrictions and their lax gun laws, fewer companies that rely on a highly educated workforce will move there.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
I think the Senate gives excessive power to small underpopulated rural states and less power to states where most Americans actually live.
And you are opposed to the founding fathers who saw the majority running roughshod of minorities of states with small populations.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
If Texas maintains their draconian abortion and voting restrictions and their lax gun laws, fewer companies that rely on a highly educated workforce will move there.
So you think you can overrode their decisions because you know better.
 

vibise

Well-known member
The democrat party has been advocating for rights of minorities for many years. Now vibise has expressed her opossition to that goal.
Oh please. Minorities should most definitely have the right to vote, but if a position held by a particular minority does not win in an election or referendum, then too bad, so sad. That is how democracy works.

Are you opposed to elections?
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
Oh please. Minorities should most definitely have the right to vote, but if a position held by a particular minority does not win in an election or referendum, then too bad, so sad. That is how democracy works.

Are you opposed to elections?
Don't be assinine. On the one hand you enough majority rule and on the other hand you criticize people in a state you do not live in because you disagree with them. You are being two faced.
 

vibise

Well-known member
So you are opposed to minority rights for selected groups of people
No, the minority should always have the right to vote, but if the positions they take are unpopular with the voting public, then they lose.

Are you seriously arguing that minorities should be in charge even if they lose elections?
 

vibise

Well-known member
And you are opposed to the founding fathers who saw the majority running roughshod of minorities of states with small populations.
There should certainly be a balance of power, but balance does not mean giving excess weight to small underpopulated states and allowing their positions to prevail against the will of the majority of Americans.
 

vibise

Well-known member
So you think you can overrode their decisions because you know better.
I said nothing about me. I said that companies that employ educated people are not likely to decide to move to Texas given their positions on voting rights, abortion and gun control.

I would not move there and in fact would not visit.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
No, the minority should always have the right to vote, but if the positions they take are unpopular with the voting public, then they lose.

Are you seriously arguing that minorities should be in charge even if they lose elections?
So someone in New York should be able tell some one in South Dakota how to live their lives

By your standards if you lived in a state that passed a law restricting abortions you would accept it because you are in the minority.

The beauty of the Constitution it gives people with a minority opinion somewhat of a say.

And thank you for admitting you are opposed to the Constitutional way our government was construction.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Don't be assinine. On the one hand you enough majority rule and on the other hand you criticize people in a state you do not live in because you disagree with them. You are being two faced.
Huh?

If I am not allowed to criticize Texas, why are out of state conservatives allowed to criticize California?
 
Top