The Real timschochet 6,769 Posted June 16 14 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:Wait...Tim and Trump? Oh this is a good one. I am uh…not too fond of this comparison. In any event: my support for Newsom or any other candidate is not based on my personal advantage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,769 Posted June 16 2 hours ago, TheNewGirl said: By letting millions back into the country and bankrupting the NATION's medicare vs just the states? Increasing gas prices across the nation because of "green" policies? He's isolated CA from our oil production, to where we HAVE to import it, we don't have a choice and it's just driving things up and up. His policies aren't going through because they are unconstitutional; gas powered cars/mowers, gun laws, etc. He keeps trying to push through things that are against the foundation of our state and country. Talk about democracy "being threatened." He's the one who's doing it. 1. No, but allowing nonviolent undocumented workers to stay here brings more money into social services than goes out. I keep trying to point this out and have provided numerous studies to show this is true. 2. I actually agree with you about his green restrictions. Nonetheless we’re going to have to find alternatives to oil and coal. I’ve heard Newsom talk about this; he is open to nuclear energy investment, which is more than most Democratic or current Republican politicians. 3. Importing or producing oil has no effect on the price which is controlled by the global marketplace. This is true of almost all global commodities and it’s why Trump’s “America First” ideas are so silly. 4. Your third paragraph is right. A lot of those proposals won’t go through. But let’s look at what will: he’s for lower tarrifs and free trade. Just based on that alone, if Newsom becomes President YOU will be more prosperous, with more spending power. Your life will improve. 5. He doesn’t threaten democracy. Quite the opposite. He stands up for it as he did last weekend. Do you really want people arrested without due process? You want hard working people dragged away and imprisoned because they don’t have proper papers? It’s unAmerican. Most people don’t want this. Look I get that some of my ideas are extreme and I’m not asking you to agree. But Newsom would overall be a centrist, a return to sanity and level headed governance. I’m not going to like everything he does but at this point it’s all hands on deck. We need another Reagan. Newsom’s the closest. Someone else might emerge and I’ll be for that if it happens. But I’ll also be content with this. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,438 Posted June 16 1 hour ago, squistion said: Yeah, nothing like Trump...oh, wait. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,438 Posted June 16 49 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said: 1. No, but allowing nonviolent undocumented workers to stay here brings more money into social services than goes out. I keep trying to point this out and have provided numerous studies to show this is true. 2. I actually agree with you about his green restrictions. Nonetheless we’re going to have to find alternatives to oil and coal. I’ve heard Newsom talk about this; he is open to nuclear energy investment, which is more than most Democratic or current Republican politicians. 3. Importing or producing oil has no effect on the price which is controlled by the global marketplace. This is true of almost all global commodities and it’s why Trump’s “America First” ideas are so silly. 4. Your third paragraph is right. A lot of those proposals won’t go through. But let’s look at what will: he’s for lower tarrifs and free trade. Just based on that alone, if Newsom becomes President YOU will be more prosperous, with more spending power. Your life will improve. 5. He doesn’t threaten democracy. Quite the opposite. He stands up for it as he did last weekend. Do you really want people arrested without due process? You want hard working people dragged away and imprisoned because they don’t have proper papers? It’s unAmerican. Most people don’t want this. Look I get that some of my ideas are extreme and I’m not asking you to agree. But Newsom would overall be a centrist, a return to sanity and level headed governance. I’m not going to like everything he does but at this point it’s all hands on deck. We need another Reagan. Newsom’s the closest. Someone else might emerge and I’ll be for that if it happens. But I’ll also be content with this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nobody 2,673 Posted June 16 1 hour ago, squistion said: She was the one who brought up "nepobaby" in the discussion, and there isn't a better of example of that than the current POTUS. No way. There some pretty good examples of nepo babies. Belichick's kids for one. The lesser Baldwins? But so what? just pointing out hypocrisy? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nobody 2,673 Posted June 16 1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said: 5. He doesn’t threaten democracy. Quite the opposite. He stands up for it as he did last weekend. Do you really want people arrested without due process? You want hard working people dragged away and imprisoned because they don’t have proper papers? It’s unAmerican. Most people don’t want this. Your idol here locked down the state on threat of legal intervention while he threw lavish dinners at one of the most expensive restaurants in the country. Then he supported people's livelihoods being threatened if they didn't get a jab. If that ain't some authoritarian shìt I don't know what is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheNewGirl 1,494 Posted June 17 20 hours ago, The Real timschochet said: 5. He doesn’t threaten democracy. Quite the opposite. He stands up for it as he did last weekend. Do you really want people arrested without due process? You want hard working people dragged away and imprisoned because they don’t have proper papers? It’s unAmerican. Most people don’t want this. Newsom signed an EO despite Trump admin voting down his gas powered vehicle "law" he was trying to pass; eliminating the freedom to purchase gas powered cars. https://ktla.com/news/california/newsom-signs-executive-order-advancing-californias-clean-car-goals-amid-pushback-from-the-trump-administration/ Boo hoo....Congress/House/President literally signed this away...but he does his own thing and signs Eos - because the current admin is "unlawful." Please tell me how this bill going all the way to the top and being voted down is "illegal action" and yet his signing of EOs without the chance for us to VOTE is democracy? Quote “We won’t let this illegal action by Trump and Republicans in the pockets of polluters stand in the way of commonsense policy to clean our air, protect the health of our kids, and compete on the global stage,” Newsom said in a statement. Here are a few more where California voters voted NO, and Gavin just did what he wanted anyways. Whether you agree if the rejections were "good" or not...voter REJECTED THEM. IF we reject props, and the State pushes them through anyways, THAT is not a constitutional republic where the VOTERS decide. Proposition 36 (Nov 2024): Tougher penalties for crime What voters did: Approved Prop 36 by ~68% to increase criminal penalties on some offenses—undoing part of Prop 47 (2014) ogletree.com+15calmatters.org+15nbclosangeles.com+15. Newsom’s stance: He actively opposed it and then refused to allocate funding for its implementation in the state budget . Result: The measure passed, but the governor and Legislative Democrats stalled follow-through—leaving voter intent undone. Proposition 25 (Nov 2020): Retention of the cash bail system What voters did: Rejected a plan to replace money bail with algorithm-based release. They voted No (~56%) to keep cash bail sfchronicle.com+15en.wikipedia.org+15kqed.org+15. Newsom’s stance: He had supported the reform (voted Yes on Prop 25)calmatters.org+9en.wikipedia.org+9voterguide.sos.ca.gov+9, effectively overruling the voters who wanted to retain cash bail. Death penalty moratorium (Mar 2019): Executive order What voters did: In past elections, Californians repeatedly voted to keep the death penalty on the booksen.wikipedia.org+5en.wikipedia.org+5calmatters.org+5nbclosangeles.com. Newsom’s action: Issued an executive order placing a moratorium on executions, pausing capital punishment despite voter-approved laws, interpreting it as upholding public safety while sidestepping elected intent . Proposition 32 (Nov 2024): Minimum wage increase to $18 What voters did: Narrowly rejected Prop 32, which would have raised the state minimum wage to $18 an hourapnews.com+2ogletree.com+2calmatters.org+2. Newsom’s stance: Even after the vote, he continued pushing higher minimum wages, citing broader policy objectives—though he can’t legislate directly on statewide wage via executive order. Proposition 13 (Mar 2020): School facilities bond What voters did: Turned down a $15 billion school bond (Prop 13 in 2020) —the first school bond defeated since 1994 en.wikipedia.org. Newsom’s position: He still prioritized school construction and repairs, incorporating bonds in later budgets or legislative packages that effectively revived what voters rejected. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,769 Posted June 17 39 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said: Newsom signed an EO despite Trump admin voting down his gas powered vehicle "law" he was trying to pass; eliminating the freedom to purchase gas powered cars. https://ktla.com/news/california/newsom-signs-executive-order-advancing-californias-clean-car-goals-amid-pushback-from-the-trump-administration/ Boo hoo....Congress/House/President literally signed this away...but he does his own thing and signs Eos - because the current admin is "unlawful." Please tell me how this bill going all the way to the top and being voted down is "illegal action" and yet his signing of EOs without the chance for us to VOTE is democracy? Here are a few more where California voters voted NO, and Gavin just did what he wanted anyways. Whether you agree if the rejections were "good" or not...voter REJECTED THEM. IF we reject props, and the State pushes them through anyways, THAT is not a constitutional republic where the VOTERS decide. Proposition 36 (Nov 2024): Tougher penalties for crime What voters did: Approved Prop 36 by ~68% to increase criminal penalties on some offenses—undoing part of Prop 47 (2014) ogletree.com+15calmatters.org+15nbclosangeles.com+15. Newsom’s stance: He actively opposed it and then refused to allocate funding for its implementation in the state budget . Result: The measure passed, but the governor and Legislative Democrats stalled follow-through—leaving voter intent undone. Proposition 25 (Nov 2020): Retention of the cash bail system What voters did: Rejected a plan to replace money bail with algorithm-based release. They voted No (~56%) to keep cash bail sfchronicle.com+15en.wikipedia.org+15kqed.org+15. Newsom’s stance: He had supported the reform (voted Yes on Prop 25)calmatters.org+9en.wikipedia.org+9voterguide.sos.ca.gov+9, effectively overruling the voters who wanted to retain cash bail. Death penalty moratorium (Mar 2019): Executive order What voters did: In past elections, Californians repeatedly voted to keep the death penalty on the booksen.wikipedia.org+5en.wikipedia.org+5calmatters.org+5nbclosangeles.com. Newsom’s action: Issued an executive order placing a moratorium on executions, pausing capital punishment despite voter-approved laws, interpreting it as upholding public safety while sidestepping elected intent . Proposition 32 (Nov 2024): Minimum wage increase to $18 What voters did: Narrowly rejected Prop 32, which would have raised the state minimum wage to $18 an hourapnews.com+2ogletree.com+2calmatters.org+2. Newsom’s stance: Even after the vote, he continued pushing higher minimum wages, citing broader policy objectives—though he can’t legislate directly on statewide wage via executive order. Proposition 13 (Mar 2020): School facilities bond What voters did: Turned down a $15 billion school bond (Prop 13 in 2020) —the first school bond defeated since 1994 en.wikipedia.org. Newsom’s position: He still prioritized school construction and repairs, incorporating bonds in later budgets or legislative packages that effectively revived what voters rejected. Actually you’re wrong about this, in principle. Truthfully California should not have propositions at all. The whole idea behind a constitutional republic is that we elect legislators to decide on the law. The public doesn’t decide on the law directly. Putting this specific issue aside, I want a governor, and a legislature, which makes informed decisions without worrying about what the public wants at any given time. That’s how our system was designed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350 Posted June 17 4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said: Actually you’re wrong about this, in principle. Truthfully California should not have propositions at all. The whole idea behind a constitutional republic is that we elect legislators to decide on the law. The public doesn’t decide on the law directly. Putting this specific issue aside, I want a governor, and a legislature, which makes informed decisions without worrying about what the public wants at any given time. That’s how our system was designed. wow youre against the people determining policy in its state and that one person can decide things without the approval of the people, thats not the way things work, but I am not surprised, lets just flip it the other way, I am sure youd be calling a republican governor a dictator fascist hitler if elected and did that these aren't laws people are voting on, as a matter of fact none of the things listed were actual law Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,769 Posted June 17 11 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said: wow youre against the people determining policy in its state and that one person can decide things without the approval of the people, thats not the way things work, but I am not surprised, lets just flip it the other way, I am sure youd be calling a republican governor a dictator fascist hitler if elected and did that these aren't laws people are voting on, as a matter of fact none of the things listed were actual law Again: in principle I support the idea of voting for people to make decisions, not voting directly for decisions. That’s why I believe in a republic and not a pure democracy. That doesn’t mean I always get what I want. Far from it. But as a general rule I oppose the whole state proposition thing, always have. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350 Posted June 17 24 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said: Again: in principle I support the idea of voting for people to make decisions, not voting directly for decisions. That’s why I believe in a republic and not a pure democracy. That doesn’t mean I always get what I want. Far from it. But as a general rule I oppose the whole state proposition thing, always have. rule me harder daddy 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrahmaBulls 765 Posted June 17 42 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said: Again: in principle I support the idea of voting for people to make decisions, not voting directly for decisions. That’s why I believe in a republic and not a pure democracy. That doesn’t mean I always get what I want. Far from it. But as a general rule I oppose the whole state proposition thing, always have. Until Trump starts making decisions then you're against it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheNewGirl 1,494 Posted June 17 1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said: Actually you’re wrong about this, in principle. Truthfully California should not have propositions at all. The whole idea behind a constitutional republic is that we elect legislators to decide on the law. The public doesn’t decide on the law directly. Putting this specific issue aside, I want a governor, and a legislature, which makes informed decisions without worrying about what the public wants at any given time. That’s how our system was designed. Being wrong in principle doesn't matter here; it's our CA Constitution. It really doesn' matter what CA SHOULD have or what Neobaby Tim WANTS, it's about what we DO have whether you believe in it or not. And Gavin is against our Constitutional right to vote on these that are put before us; he just does what he wants anyways. YOU want a dictator that does what they what to do, regardless of the public. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,769 Posted June 17 14 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said: Being wrong in principle doesn't matter here; it's our CA Constitution. It really doesn' matter what CA SHOULD have or what Neobaby Tim WANTS, it's about what we DO have whether you believe in it or not. And Gavin is against our Constitutional right to vote on these that are put before us; he just does what he wants anyways. YOU want a dictator that does what they what to do, regardless of the public. No you’re misstating my position. Either you don’t understand me or you doing it deliberately. I offered my position pretty clearly in two posts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 5,553 Posted June 17 1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said: No you’re misstating my position. Either you don’t understand me or you doing it deliberately. I offered my position pretty clearly in two posts TNG is right. You're wrong. You use pretzel logic to try to fit what you want to happen in to each situation. That's why you have to contort every time to try not to conflict with a previous stance you've taken. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheNewGirl 1,494 Posted June 17 1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said: No you’re misstating my position. Either you don’t understand me or you doing it deliberately. I offered my position pretty clearly in two posts You used a lot of "should" and "I want." It doesn't matter what SHOULD happen, nor what you WANT. CA has a Constitution and we vote on propositions. That's how it IS. And yet, our voice isn't heard. This isn't democracy by literal definition. If you want a governor who makes decisions without the public at their interest and suppresses their choices, then you have a dictator. Quote A dictatorship is a form of government where one person or a small group holds absolute power, typically without the consent of the governed. This power is often maintained through force, repression, and the suppression of dissent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,769 Posted June 17 11 minutes ago, Strike said: TNG is right. You're wrong. You use pretzel logic to try to fit what you want to happen in to each situation. That's why you have to contort every time to try not to conflict with a previous stance you've taken. No she isn’t right. And it’s not pretzel logic either. Do you even understand what is meant by a constitutional republic? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,769 Posted June 17 1 minute ago, TheNewGirl said: You used a lot of "should" and "I want." It doesn't matter what SHOULD happen, nor what you WANT. CA has a Constitution and we vote on propositions. That's how it IS. And yet, our voice isn't heard. This isn't democracy by literal definition. If you want a governor who makes decisions without the public at their interest and suppresses their choices, then you have a dictator. OK let’s try this again, slowly. 1. I don’t want a dictator. I want an elected legislature passing laws that the governor can sign or veto. 2. I understand we have propositions. I don’t like that idea. If I had my way I would do away with them. In the meantime I have to live with them. But if, as in the case you cited, a proposition says one thing and the legislature says another, then the courts need to adjudicate it. I don’t believe that the proposition necessarily takes precedence over the legislature, and I certainly don’t believe that if it does, that makes the governor a dictator (your words). To me that’s a simplistic, asinine and foolish assumption. is that more clear? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,769 Posted June 17 Let’s get back to the main point: IF Gavin Newsom decides to run for President in 2028 and IF he is elected, that will lead to a better and more prosperous United States- not just for myself, but for @TheNewGirl and @Strike and everybody else reading this. He is a clear improvement over what we have now. I don’t even think it’s a question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meglamaniac 510 Posted June 17 1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said: I don’t even think it’s a question. Oh its a question alright Love how you post in absolutes, it's amusing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 5,553 Posted June 17 18 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said: No she isn’t right. And it’s not pretzel logic either. Do you even understand what is meant by a constitutional republic? Yes. But that doesn't really matter. That's a general term describing a government from a very high level. But every government varies and the specifics are in the governing documents. And CA's constitution allows the voters to overrule the government. You may not like it but that's how it is. But just like you think it's ok for people to break laws YOU don't like, especially illegals, you want to deviate from the constitution of the state you live in because it suits your agenda. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,769 Posted June 17 8 minutes ago, Meglamaniac said: Oh its a question alright Love how you post in absolutes, it's amusing It’s supposed to be. That was in jest and directed at @EternalShinyAndChrome who ends every argument with “It’s not even a question”. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,769 Posted June 17 1 minute ago, Strike said: Yes. But that doesn't really matter. That's a general term describing a government from a very high level. But every government varies and the specifics are in the governing documents. And CA's constitution allows the voters to overrule the government. You may not like it but that's how it is. But just like you think it's ok for people to break laws YOU don't like, especially illegals, you want to deviate from the constitution of the state you live in because it suits your agenda. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Again it depends on the issue. It doesn’t always allow the voters to override the legislature. Sometimes, not always. It’s for the courts to decide. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 5,553 Posted June 17 3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said: Again it depends on the issue. It doesn’t always allow the voters to override the legislature. Sometimes, not always. It’s for the courts to decide. WTF are you talking about? TNG gave you examples of things that were passed by the voters in the state and Newsom just ignored. He didn't go to court. He just ignored them. Now you're moving the goalposts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,769 Posted June 17 1 minute ago, Strike said: WTF are you talking about? TNG gave you examples of things that were passed by the voters in the state and Newsom just ignored. He didn't go to court. He just ignored them. Now you're moving the goalposts. He believes the legislature gives him the power to act otherwise. That doesn’t make him a dictator. It’s up to the courts to decide who’s right. So long as Newsom ultimately obeys the courts we’re fine. That’s exactly what I wrote about Trump as well. It’s only if you ignore the courts that it gets to dictator status. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,769 Posted June 17 It’s incredibly ironic that as I write this there is a live court case being fought in which Newsom is defending the state of California from a federal dictatorship, and yet some of you here are actually accusing Newsom himself of being a dictator. Only in the bizarro world of this forum where everything is twisted…. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seafoam1 3,031 Posted June 17 1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said: It’s incredibly ironic that as I write this there is a live court case being fought in which Newsom is defending the state of California from a federal dictatorship, and yet some of you here are actually accusing Newsom himself of being a dictator. Only in the bizarro world of this forum where everything is twisted…. What's really great, is that Trump won in a landslide last November. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iam90sbaby 2,611 Posted June 17 On 6/17/2025 at 1:18 AM, The Real timschochet said: 1. No, but allowing nonviolent undocumented workers to stay here brings more money into social services than goes out. I keep trying to point this out and have provided numerous studies to show this is true. 2. I actually agree with you about his green restrictions. Nonetheless we’re going to have to find alternatives to oil and coal. I’ve heard Newsom talk about this; he is open to nuclear energy investment, which is more than most Democratic or current Republican politicians. 3. Importing or producing oil has no effect on the price which is controlled by the global marketplace. This is true of almost all global commodities and it’s why Trump’s “America First” ideas are so silly. 4. Your third paragraph is right. A lot of those proposals won’t go through. But let’s look at what will: he’s for lower tarrifs and free trade. Just based on that alone, if Newsom becomes President YOU will be more prosperous, with more spending power. Your life will improve. 5. He doesn’t threaten democracy. Quite the opposite. He stands up for it as he did last weekend. Do you really want people arrested without due process? You want hard working people dragged away and imprisoned because they don’t have proper papers? It’s unAmerican. Most people don’t want this. Look I get that some of my ideas are extreme and I’m not asking you to agree. But Newsom would overall be a centrist, a return to sanity and level headed governance. I’m not going to like everything he does but at this point it’s all hands on deck. We need another Reagan. Newsom’s the closest. Someone else might emerge and I’ll be for that if it happens. But I’ll also be content with this. Stop, California operates at a 12 billion dollar deficit now when it should easily but one of if not thee most profitable state. Its broke. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,769 Posted June 17 Newsom showing up on Fox News and making Trump look petty and ridiculous: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/grow-up-newsom-slams-trump-after-doj-rules-can-strip-biden-era-protections-from-ca-lands.amp This is how you win future elections. Newsom is coming across as reasonable and centrist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seafoam1 3,031 Posted June 17 1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said: Newsom showing up on Fox News and making Trump look petty and ridiculous: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/grow-up-newsom-slams-trump-after-doj-rules-can-strip-biden-era-protections-from-ca-lands.amp This is how you win future elections. Newsom is coming across as reasonable and centrist. He's an absolute mess and a hypocritical ahole to boot. I hope he runs. His record in California is absolute garbage and even the liberals (other than yourself) know it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nobody 2,673 Posted June 17 7 hours ago, TheNewGirl said: Newsom signed an EO despite Trump admin voting down his gas powered vehicle "law" he was trying to pass; eliminating the freedom to purchase gas powered cars. https://ktla.com/news/california/newsom-signs-executive-order-advancing-californias-clean-car-goals-amid-pushback-from-the-trump-administration/ Boo hoo....Congress/House/President literally signed this away...but he does his own thing and signs Eos - because the current admin is "unlawful." Please tell me how this bill going all the way to the top and being voted down is "illegal action" and yet his signing of EOs without the chance for us to VOTE is democracy? Here are a few more where California voters voted NO, and Gavin just did what he wanted anyways. Whether you agree if the rejections were "good" or not...voter REJECTED THEM. IF we reject props, and the State pushes them through anyways, THAT is not a constitutional republic where the VOTERS decide. Proposition 36 (Nov 2024): Tougher penalties for crime What voters did: Approved Prop 36 by ~68% to increase criminal penalties on some offenses—undoing part of Prop 47 (2014) ogletree.com+15calmatters.org+15nbclosangeles.com+15. Newsom’s stance: He actively opposed it and then refused to allocate funding for its implementation in the state budget . Result: The measure passed, but the governor and Legislative Democrats stalled follow-through—leaving voter intent undone. Proposition 25 (Nov 2020): Retention of the cash bail system What voters did: Rejected a plan to replace money bail with algorithm-based release. They voted No (~56%) to keep cash bail sfchronicle.com+15en.wikipedia.org+15kqed.org+15. Newsom’s stance: He had supported the reform (voted Yes on Prop 25)calmatters.org+9en.wikipedia.org+9voterguide.sos.ca.gov+9, effectively overruling the voters who wanted to retain cash bail. Death penalty moratorium (Mar 2019): Executive order What voters did: In past elections, Californians repeatedly voted to keep the death penalty on the booksen.wikipedia.org+5en.wikipedia.org+5calmatters.org+5nbclosangeles.com. Newsom’s action: Issued an executive order placing a moratorium on executions, pausing capital punishment despite voter-approved laws, interpreting it as upholding public safety while sidestepping elected intent . Proposition 32 (Nov 2024): Minimum wage increase to $18 What voters did: Narrowly rejected Prop 32, which would have raised the state minimum wage to $18 an hourapnews.com+2ogletree.com+2calmatters.org+2. Newsom’s stance: Even after the vote, he continued pushing higher minimum wages, citing broader policy objectives—though he can’t legislate directly on statewide wage via executive order. Proposition 13 (Mar 2020): School facilities bond What voters did: Turned down a $15 billion school bond (Prop 13 in 2020) —the first school bond defeated since 1994 en.wikipedia.org. Newsom’s position: He still prioritized school construction and repairs, incorporating bonds in later budgets or legislative packages that effectively revived what voters rejected. Newsom and trump are two sides of the same coin. They are both overly confident in their competence. And they both are all for democracy as long as you do what they want. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nobody 2,673 Posted June 17 On 6/17/2025 at 12:14 PM, The Real timschochet said: It’s incredibly ironic that as I write this there is a live court case being fought in which Newsom is defending the state of California from a federal dictatorship, and yet some of you here are actually accusing Newsom himself of being a dictator. Only in the bizarro world of this forum where everything is twisted…. Newsom is a carbon copy of that dude from Canada who's name escapes me right now that put down the trucking protest by taking all their money. Make no mistake. Both trump and Newsom can both be horrible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nobody 2,673 Posted June 17 Justin Thoreau... Or however you spell it. Just came to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seafoam1 3,031 Posted June 19 Heck yeah!! Go Trump!! Winning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 5,553 Posted July 16 So someone responded to a Gavin Newsom tweet and called California a sh*thole, and Newsom responded by posting 4 pictures of beautiful California. Except one of them was of Nevada. He couldn't even get that right. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106 Posted July 16 21 minutes ago, Strike said: So someone responded to a Gavin Newsom tweet and called California a sh*thole, and Newsom responded by posting 4 pictures of beautiful California. Except one of them was of Nevada. He couldn't even get that right. Yeah, I can post pictures of scenic wilderness too, except it's not scenic wilderness people are talking about when they say He and the Democrats have turned CA into a sh#thole over the last 60 years. They can't even understand the context, much less post the right pictures. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,438 Posted July 16 California of the fifties and early sixties. Peak civilization. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106 Posted July 16 1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said: California of the fifties and early sixties. Peak civilization. The 60's was where the downfall of America started. Not even debatable at this point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 5,553 Posted July 16 1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said: California of the fifties and early sixties. Peak civilization. Two things: 1) CA was actually pretty great well in to the 80's, somewhat great in to the 90's. 2) You can trace it's downfall, as slow as it was, back to the 60's when they enacted a full time legislature. Prior to that, the legislature was part time so it consisted of people who actually owned their own businesses and convened for a month or so to enact the legislation for the year. They got their sh*t done and then went back about their REAL business. Now you've got career legislators with limited or no real world working background. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 5,553 Posted July 16 Have you Californians checked out SB 549 yet? Just another way to screw over the homeowners and cities that got destroyed in the wildfires earlier this year. Yay California!!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.png.e7e823d59b397cf0d775539228c70980.png)