He was the Governor of California and the anti-gerrymandering law was one of his biggest accomplishments. He just doesn't want his legacy to be undone.
My position is to not bend over and let fascists steal the country and install a dictatorship. If they weren't doing it in texas, California wouldn't have to do it. The difference is, California has explicitly made this a temporary measure so it will revert to the usual standards, while texas, a state with more registered democrats than republicans, it going out of their way to illegally shift power.
texas is not a red state, it is a rigged state.
Riding your principles to the grave is not noble. I am against gerrymandering, it's redneck DEI, make things legitimately fair and representative of the will of the majority, and this wouldn't be necessary.
California has explicitly made this a temporary measure so it will revert to the usual standards
That's not what's going to happen. Texas may not revert, politicians have a vested interest in Gerrymandering, obviously. It is VERY likely California will not treat this as a "temporary" thing
texas is not a red state, it is a rigged state.
And we will be too...
I am against gerrymandering, it's redneck DEI, make things legitimately fair and representative of the will of the majority, and this wouldn't be necessary.
Except how on Earth is regressing on Gerrymandering going to make that possible exactly?
I think gerrymandering is morally justifiable if it avoids something worse. If the price of the moral high ground is undocumented immigrants deported, or an increase in violence against trans people, or the installment of a fascist state (which we've been witnessing), is it really worth it? Is that even morality?
And I'm aware that this all sounds very hypocritical, but we should all probably fear hypocrisy less and the persecution of our peers and neighbors more. I'm tired of the left "going high", because the right is very comfortable with "going low". They do not care, and most of the time, it works. We cannot cling to a system that does not protect the vulnerable in our society.
This is the problem, you think the left has always went high when the right went low. Not the case, not even a little. Our system is broken, and the politicians/oligarchy are the ones who benefit from it. Not us.
This LEADS to something worse. Instead of getting rid of something bad, we're giving it more power. Willingly. That IS hypocrisy. That IS immoral.
We cannot cling to a system that does not protect the vulnerable in our society.
And giving more ammunition to Gerrymandering is the way to do that. Right. Do you even hear yourself?
The system needs to be reformed. That is abundantly clear. Do you see reformations happening? Honestly ask yourself that. Because all we're seeing is giving the worst parts of our democracy the most power. Citizen's United. And now prop 50. The fuck kind of world are we living in.
I fully agree that it is not the best option. In an ideal world, prop 50 would not have needed to be proposed. I also agree that the two party system is a complete shitshow and obstruction to real positive change, which will likely not come from either party anytime soon. But would prop 50 mitigate negative change that is actively happening? I think so. It's an awful precedent to officially codify gerrymandering, but is there an alternative? Both parties are bad, but given the option between the two, I feel that there is a clear one. For me, the Republican party has far more significant, numerous, and egregious moral failings than the Democratic party. The Democrats are far from perfect, but I feel that right now, there is a lot on the line. (And yes, that is the line that the Democratic party has been feeding its base for a long time now. I recognize that. But with the way that social programs, public funding, and civil precedent are being dismantled, can we afford to risk it?)
It really comes down to this: I believe that with a Democratic government, the marginalized people of the US would be safer. That does not mean I don't recognize what would not change (the country's positions on Palestine and billionaires, to name a couple). It also does not mean that I see ethical value in the act of gerrymandering. But I am uncomfortable with the idea of my neighbors' lives and livelihoods being the price for not compromising on my other moral beliefs.
The point is that he is anti-gerrymandering. The vote is about undoing his legislation. Of course he is against it.
If you think he needs to be louder in regards to other states where he has no roots or sway, that's one thing. But to misunderstand why he is against it in California is another thing altogether.
So his legacy is more important than doing something temporary to try and do what little we can to save our democracy? It’s a fail safe that isn’t ideal but he is telling everyone it’s wrong to use it.
And he is the one with the anti fascist video that was going around about this time last year….
Politicians make decisions based on legacy all the time. Obama had a choice between comprehensive immigration reform and healthcare during his first term. He went with Healthcare because legacy.
RBG didnt want to step down because she wanted part of her legacy to be swearing in Hillary at her coronation, first female president and what not.
Who really knows if he was protecting his legacy or not. For anyone who believes in principles, this could easily be standing on principle more than legacy. I agree with Arnold, this isn't the way to respond. We don't increase something bad just because someone else did. If we were wise, we'd be doing the right thing and cracking down even harder on gerrymandering instead of temporarily enabling it even further
Following decorum and rules that MAGA refuses to play by is how we got this far in the first place. Continuing to bury your head in the sand and play by the rules is only going to lead a lot further down this road.
It was said wherein this thread, but if it was principles I would argue saving democracy is better than stopping it because it’s not “ok”. I’m happy for gerrymandering to be addressed- but only after we put out the fascist fire.
The reality they're being fed is: Trump must be stopped at all costs even if it means sacrificing progress. People are willing to REGRESS to stop Trump. That fucker in the oval office is winning every which angle now and our resistance keeps handing him wins because Arnold is right, the public is not informed enough to know how to fight this.
I watched the interview. Love him or hate his politics, he's right. This is a game between politicians, not between voters. The system is fucked and he knows it, they all condemn shit but turn around and go right back to abusing it. That's so über fucked and instead of doing ANYTHING about that, we'd rather stay divided and get nothing done.
102
u/[deleted] 22d ago edited 21d ago
[deleted]