Newsom Gets Recalled Tomorrow

Discussion in 'Politics' started by yakpoo, Sep 13, 2021.

  1. yakpoo
    Amused

    yakpoo Well-Known Member

    Maybe not, but wouldn't that be great? The results could go either way. A Newsom recall would be devastating for Democrats. That's why every Liberal "heavy hitter" is heading to California to rally the base.
     
  2. yakpoo
    Amused

    yakpoo Well-Known Member

    The Next Governor of California...Larry Elder!!!

    [​IMG]
     
  3. yakpoo
    Amused

    yakpoo Well-Known Member

    The California Recall And Its Very Real Political Consequences, Explained

    "The president is campaigning for and with Newsom on Monday. That raises the political stakes. If Newsom were to lose — or if it is close — Biden's sway would be in question. And it would come at a time when Biden's approval rating has been slipping nationally, given the resurgent coronavirus due to the delta variant and following the Afghanistan withdrawal."

    https://www.npr.org/2021/09/13/1036...ts-very-real-political-consequences-explained
     
  4. Profiler

    Profiler Active Member

    Didn’t you hear that he is the black face of white supremacy? Come on man!
     
    yakpoo likes this.
  5. charley

    charley Active Member

    All Glory is fleeting.....remember how Arnold worked out.
     
    yakpoo likes this.
  6. yakpoo
    Amused

    yakpoo Well-Known Member

    charley likes this.
  7. charley

    charley Active Member

    Yes, that was my point. Not to ignore that he was frustrated and denied at every attempt of changes and implementation of meaningful policies, because of a stagnant democrat control of the State. So, what is the point? Let Newsom remain; the impact of failure will be much more visible in the next election cycle, and would institute a serious discussion of what do we, as Americans, gain by failed social policy?
     
  8. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Well-Known Member

    Republicans expect to lose--they're already saying the election is rigged/fraudulent on Quora. After all, they're letting Democrats vote, so that automatically disqualifies the whole thing, right?
     
  9. yakpoo
    Amused

    yakpoo Well-Known Member

    Do you know of anything in the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to engage in the creation and implementation of social policy?
     
    charley likes this.
  10. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Well-Known Member


    it doesn't say you can or can't have a peanut butter sandwich for lunch either.
     
  11. yakpoo
    Amused

    yakpoo Well-Known Member

    Here's something you might like. It's total communist BS, which is why you should approve. (Note: The Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness...it only guarantees the Pursuit of Happiness.)

    "As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however-as our industrial economy expanded-these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.... We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all-regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education.... I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights-for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do."

    ...Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message to Congress on the State of the Union (Jan. 11, 1944)

    https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12526&context=journal_articles
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2021
    charley likes this.
  12. charley

    charley Active Member

    Of course not!
    Policy is not, by the very definition of the word, a creation of the Constitution. At best, Policy is the exact opposite of the Constitution.
    Policy is simply a tool of political control.
     
    yakpoo likes this.
  13. charley

    charley Active Member

    Child, try to avoid displaying ignorance in a public setting. Now eat your PB&J sandwich and drink your milk, and go out and play until mom calls you for supper.
     
  14. yakpoo
    Amused

    yakpoo Well-Known Member

    I think of policy (good or bad) as a guiding principle. Everyone has policies. The Constitution is a policy...for what the Federal government is allowed to do. I don't see anywhere in it that gives the Federal government the right to set social policies by law. That's the responsibility of We The People...outside of government force. Government should only be involved in issues which require collective force.

    After all, what is government if not collective force? ...people pooling their resources to create a result that's not naturally occurring in Nature. Whenever you change anything from it's natural state, force is required. Physics 101. Liberty and Force are antithetical...which is why we have a Constitution that limits the power (force) of the Federal government.

    The Left covets collective force...which is why we're in this predicament.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2021
    charley likes this.
  15. GeneWright

    GeneWright Well-Known Member

    Well, the obvious answer, is the general welfare clause.
     
  16. charley

    charley Active Member

    I gave you a "Like" for posting the words of Roosevelt. I think it is possible you are misinterpreting the intent, though.

    He was referring to political Rights, as opposed to the Bill of Rights, and the misguided stance of the Isolationist position that was a thorn in the side of Congress up to and including D-Day.

    At the time of this speech, Roosevelt, Churchill, Marshall and Eisenhower had concluded that an invasion was necessary, and that the U.S. (and GB) would have to engage in conversation and partnership with the Devil....Stalin....if it was to be successful. Roosevelt was conveying the opposite of what your interpretation of the words are: he was speaking out against Communism, a political ideology that denies the very pursuit of happiness and Freedoms that the Constitution provides, and urging Congress to return to the basics of their responsibility as outlined by the Constitution: preparing for and implementing legislative changes that would be needed by a post-war Nation. There were already rumblings in Congress that the Roosevelt Lend-Lease program would be used by the Soviet Union to further their own interests at the expense of U.S. interests at home.
     
  17. charley

    charley Active Member

    No, it is not. This is specifically discussed in the Federalist Papers.
     
  18. yakpoo
    Amused

    yakpoo Well-Known Member

    Ahhh...but no one on the Left completes the "Welfare Clause" as written...

    "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

    https://law.jrank.org/pages/7116/General-Welfare.html

    The underlying structure of Federalism is that the Federal government interacts with States and States interact with their citizenry. This is why the 16th Amendment is such an abomination. Social policy is the right of the States, not the Federal government.
     
  19. GeneWright

    GeneWright Well-Known Member

    Yeah, but those aren't the law.

    Helvering v. Davis (1937) concluded social security was constitutional as a part of promoting the general welfare. They also called it settled law.
     
  20. yakpoo
    Amused

    yakpoo Well-Known Member

    He calls these a "Second Bill of Rights"..."I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights-for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do."

    That's a lie...Congress has neither a right nor a responsibility for setting or implementing social policy. It could, but that would require an Amendment.
     

Share This Page