this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
631 points (96.6% liked)

politics

18672 readers
2882 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 43 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"We want progressives!"

"You have progressives at home."

The progressive at home:

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Newsom is starting to come around to running things a bit more like his predecessor. Brown was liberal, but Brown was famous for saying no to spending in order to preserve rainy day funds. And CA voters have always loved a governor who was socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

Newsom is trying to tighten the belt again. A pandemic, more fires, more floods, and more drought has meant that CA has been, and will need to, spend a lot on some pretty major things.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

What is socially liberal about preserving caste discrimination? How does keeping psilocybin illegal or capping the price of insulin deplete the rainy day fund?

How is standing in the way of contraception socially liberal?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He vetoed a bill that provides free condoms with cost as a reason. Hardly standing in the way, just not giving a helping hand.

Helping people is leftist, not liberal.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

Helping people is leftist, not liberal.

Well, at least I won't be under the mistaken impression that he's progressive anymore.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Caste discrimination is already illegal.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What harm will explicitly codifying it do, then?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"What harm will it do" is a shit argument. Tell me what good it will do.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

It will explicitly protect people from caste discrimination instead of the weak and easily misinterpreted protections they currently have.

But a Democrat in office did it, so it must be right in all cases and any flimsy justification must be instantly accepted without question.