What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Gavin Newsom thread- our next President? (2 Viewers)

timschochet said:
I can accept the argument that these measures are counterproductive. But if that’s so then we need to find other ways to hamper these states who pass anti-Democratic and anti-women legislation. I’m not going to use the word “punish” because I don’t want to punish anyone, but I do want there to be negative consequences for those who push this sort of thing. 
Click to expand...
These mean the same thing in the argument you are making. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
"Restrictions for thee, but not for me."  Where have we seen this before?  If only there was some recent historical example where we could see first-hand whether this sort of thing might be a massive political liability.
Click to expand...
Isn't abortion legal in Montana?  Or maybe I missed a jump -- I didn't read all the way back.

 
Banning interstate travel to certain states is dumb. It's not the job of California politicians to punish other states.  All they are doing is punishing their own workers. Dumb.

 
The General said:
What are the limits regarding universities?
Click to expand...
If you're a state employee, you generally can't be reimbursed for travel to a state on the "naughty" list.  That includes university faculty, along with a whole bunch of other people of course.

This came up a few years ago (before the pandemic) at a conference I attend most years.  A few folks at my table were talking about how they wouldn't be able to attend next year because the conference was scheduled to rotate to San Antonio.  Apparently CA and/or their city had just recently travel to Texas over something or another, and it was way too late for the conference to change locations -- these things get locked in years in advance.  

These were (I assume) solidly left-wing university administrators in good standing with their tribe, and they wanted to travel to a blue island in a red state for perfectly legitimate professional reasons, but Newsom and people like him decided that it's more important to stoke partisan division than to let people manage their own careers.  

Seriously, I consider support for this sort of thing to be disqualifying from the presidency.  You can't be President of the United States if you view half of the states as pariahs.  

Edit: On the plus side, San Antonio was pretty nice.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston said:
So elites like you get to determine what is right and wrong and who should or shouldn’t get penalized?
Click to expand...
Everyone gets to decide what is right and wrong and determine who they want to (or don't want to) do business with.  I'm 100% in favor of individuals and private companies deciding to limit their business with entities that behave in ways that run counter to the beliefs of those individuals and private companies.

I think this gets a lot murkier when we're talking about government entities rather than private individuals/companies.  California, for example, represents a whole lot of conservatives in addition to a whole lot of liberals.  I'm not at all sure I like the idea of the state as a whole limiting business due to political concerns.  However, I recognize there is some gray in here.  For example, I don't think I would be opposed to the state of California refusing to participate in a hypothetical almond-growers convention held in Saudi Arabia or Russia (naturally, the state also shouldn't be able to forbid private companies based in California from participating).

 
IvanKaramazov said:
If you're a state employee, you generally can't be reimbursed for travel to a state on the "naughty" list.  That includes university faculty, along with a whole bunch of other people of course.

This came up a few years ago (before the pandemic) at a conference I attend most years.  A few folks at my table were talking about how they wouldn't be able to attend next year because the conference was scheduled to rotate to San Antonio.  Apparently CA and/or their city had just recently travel to Texas over something or another, and it was way too late for the conference to change locations -- these things get locked in years in advance.  

These were (I assume) solidly left-wing university administrators in good standing with their tribe, and they wanted to travel to a blue island in a red state for perfectly legitimate professional reasons, but Newsom and people like him decided that it's more important to stoke partisan division than to let people manage their own careers.  

Seriously, I consider support for this sort of thing to be disqualifying from the presidency.  You can't be President of the United States if you view half of the states as pariahs.  

Edit: On the plus side, San Antonio was pretty nice.  
Click to expand...
I can see the argument against these state travel bans for agencies who are using state dollars. I can also see the reasoning behind a state doing them. 

I haven’t looked at why they are doing this besides the headline of these articles.

If I were against this CA state wide policy I wouldn’t call Newsome as a hypocrite for going to Montana on a vacation however. 

 
timschochet said:
You act like the states being penalized did nothing wrong. They did. You can’t take away women’s rights and expect everybody is going to treat you the same. 
Click to expand...
There is no right to kill an unborn baby

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Law that allows it?  Sure.  Constitutional right?  Nope
Click to expand...
In some states, Yes, it's in their state constitution.

From: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/abortion-stands-state-state-state-breakdown-abortion-laws/story?id=85390463

"Minnesota - The right to an abortion is protected under the state constitution.

Montana - The right to an abortion is currently protected under the state constitution.

New Jersey - The right to an abortion is protected under the state constitution

Oregon - The right to have an abortion is protected in the state constitution."

Based on the analysis in that article, I disagree with your statement. 

 
The Z Machine said:
In some states, Yes, it's in their state constitution.

From: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/abortion-stands-state-state-state-breakdown-abortion-laws/story?id=85390463

"Minnesota - The right to an abortion is protected under the state constitution.

Montana - The right to an abortion is currently protected under the state constitution.

New Jersey - The right to an abortion is protected under the state constitution

Oregon - The right to have an abortion is protected in the state constitution."

Based on the analysis in that article, I disagree with your statement. 
Click to expand...
Is abortion banned in any state where it's in their constitution?  If no, then the comment about women's rights being removed are still wrong.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Is abortion banned in any state where it's in their constitution?  If no, then the comment about women's rights being removed are still wrong.
Click to expand...
From that same link:

"Louisiana - ... The state constitution also bars the right to abortion, and lawmakers recently approved a bill to ban abortion after "fertilization and implantation."

So, yes. In some places the right to an abortion was removed after Dobbs and in some places it's a right that is defined in the state constitution. 

 
I am not sure he is running - in 2024.  

I typed in another thread that I think he is just escalating the role as governor of CA - which should be in the top 2-3 government positions in the country behind president and maybe VP.

 
The Dude said:
I am not sure he is running - in 2024.  

I typed in another thread that I think he is just escalating the role as governor of CA - which should be in the top 2-3 government positions in the country behind president and maybe VP.
Click to expand...
This has been true for many decades already. 

 
timschochet said:
Victor David Hanson is not a credible writer. If he dislikes Newsom that’s only going to raise my opinion of the governor. 
Click to expand...
Agreed. 

From the article "Over half the nation's homeless crowd the state's major cities. One-third of America's welfare recipients have flooded into the state. " Even if this were true -and I simply cannot believe Hanson on this point - it just goes to show what a good Governor Newsom is: the homeless and those on welfare are voting with their feet!

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
"the highest bracket of income and gasoline rates in the nation, among the highest sales taxes, and property taxes that soar due to inflated assessments in spite of a 1978 state constitutional amendment."

I don't think you can pin this all on Newsom.
Click to expand...


Definitely not, there are a lot of hands that went into that, it did not happen overnight but if he runs for President he will have to answer to those things and it will not be easy.

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
The population dipped from ~39.4MM residents two years ago all the way down to :checks notes: ~39.1MM this year.
Click to expand...
That's just a few hundred thousand. Florida loses that many in 2 years just from alligators. I can easily see that many people fleeing a budget surplus. If you consider how many of those had jobs and were US citizens, it's like a net gain for California.

 
Boston said:
Sure he is...do you dispute the facts in this article?
Click to expand...
Oh...no, his credibility is pretty well shot over his defense of the Iraq War and even specifically Donald Rumsfeld.  His praise of Trump's cabinet members, defense of Trump's name calling and trolling, only surpassed by his "response" to Eric Holder having "the talk" with his son in which he claims his talk would include telling his son to watch out for young black men (which is funny considering he blamed Obama as much as he did for division in this country).

He appears to be a pretty awful person and lacks much credibility from the first part of what I wrote up there...the rest of it just shows he is coming typically from a bad faith and awful position.

 
Insein said:
You say that but Biden is currently president. And Gavin actually speaks coherently. 
Click to expand...
I remember the last time a party nominated a candidate who had zero chance of winning.  It was 2016, and that candidate won.  

I agree that a guy like Newsom has a serious uphill climb if he wants to win a national election.  If the GOP could pick a candidate to run against, and we forced them to pick somebody kind of serious and not AOC or George Gascon or anybody like that, Gavin Newsom might very well be the guy they would select.  But does anybody really think that Newsom wouldn't be competitive against Kristi Noem?  Or Trump?  We underestimate the GOP's ability to nominate a equally-unappetizing candidate at our own peril.    

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I remember the last time a party nominated a candidate who had zero chance of winning.  It was 2016, and that candidate won.  

I agree that a guy like Newsom has a serious uphill climb if he wants to win a national election.  If the GOP could pick a candidate to run against, and we forced them to pick somebody kind of serious and not AOC or George Gascon or anybody like that, Gavin Newsom might very well be the guy they would select.  But does anybody really think that Newsom wouldn't be competitive against Kristi Noem?  Or Trump?  We underestimate the GOP's ability to nominate a equally-unappetizing candidate at our own peril.    
Click to expand...
I'm curious if Newsom would make it through the primaries. Dems are ruthless and pull no punches as Bernie and Kamala are aware. They have plenty of ammo to go after him for. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I remember the last time a party nominated a candidate who had zero chance of winning.  It was 2016, and that candidate won.  

I agree that a guy like Newsom has a serious uphill climb if he wants to win a national election.  If the GOP could pick a candidate to run against, and we forced them to pick somebody kind of serious and not AOC or George Gascon or anybody like that, Gavin Newsom might very well be the guy they would select.  But does anybody really think that Newsom wouldn't be competitive against Kristi Noem?  Or Trump?  We underestimate the GOP's ability to nominate a equally-unappetizing candidate at our own peril.    
Click to expand...
Exactly.  Look at the current Vegas odds of who is the GOP candidate…its not a who’s who of great candidates either.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
But does anybody really think that Newsom wouldn't be competitive against Kristi Noem?  Or Trump?  We underestimate the GOP's ability to nominate a equally-unappetizing candidate at our own peril.    
Click to expand...
:X

GOP needs to get their act together and not pull a stunt like this.  I really hope DeSantis keeps rising as he seems miles better than what you speak of here.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Team Blue Strategist: Gavin Newsom Should Be Biden's Replacement For POTUS 2024 (12/14/21 17:44 PST)
Replies
27
Views
819
LawFitz
LawFitz
timschochet
What do many Republicans and Democrats have in common? They don’t want Biden OR Trump to be the next President.
2
Replies
57
Views
1K
FairWarning
FairWarning
timschochet
Florida vs California and the case for Ron DeSantis
2 3
Replies
101
Views
3K
NorvilleBarnes
NorvilleBarnes

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top