599
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] twistypencil@lemmy.world 146 points 1 year ago

What is up with Newsome vetoing all this shit suddenly?

[-] Shazbot@lemmy.world 83 points 1 year ago

Presumably getting ready to launch his own presidential bid, so he needs to court the center by appearing more moderate.

[-] guacupado@lemmy.world 57 points 1 year ago

Or the opposing side trying to make him look bad. California still sets the standards for a lot of rules that we'd be better off with the rest of the country copying.

[-] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 year ago

Yeah honestly it seems like a targeted media blitz more than anything. If you read the actual article, most of his vetos are done for very good reasons - but they're all being posted with reductive headlines

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago

What was the cost associated with banning caste discrimination and decriminalizing mushrooms?

[-] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago

The caste one he argued that there are already laws in place that cover it, and that what we need instead is to increase education about these existing laws and how they can be used to prevent caste discrimination. There is no point in creating another law that does the exact same thing as existing anti discrimination laws.

For decriminalizing mushrooms he argued that the bill doesn't actually include any provisions for how the medical usage can be implemented or how the required infrastructure can be put in place. When CA was medical only for weed it was frankly a shit show for a long while because it was highly unclear what was actually allowed and what wasn't, he didn't want a repeat.

Whether you agree with either of those arguments is an entirely different question, but the titles of been seeing make it seem like he's just shooting them down for fun - hence my suspicion that this is astroturfing.

One of two things is true - either over the last week he's inexplicably gotten a ton of really controversial bills crossing his desk that are all more newsworthy than anything else over the last few years, and he vetoed every single one. Or half-assed bills like these pass this desk all the time and get vetoed pending better solutions, and they're only now getting overblown coverage as part of a smear campaign. Frankly the latter seems more likely

[-] frickineh@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

The CA legislature passed a buttload of bills right before adjourning, so he's working his way through them now. Plus, CA has a budget deficit, so stuff that costs money has to be more carefully considered - free condoms are a worthwhile thing, but then the question becomes what do you cut instead? It's not always an easy question.

[-] phx@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

How much do they actually expect these to cost? How about they cancel fireworks at the next sports event. That'd probably cover it

[-] mwguy@infosec.pub 13 points 1 year ago

California state government doesn't pay for fireworks.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

How much would prohibiting caste discrimination or decriminalizing psilocybin increase the deficit?

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

That's the wrong question.

"How can this law be exploited." Or "does it make sense to put another law on the books if this is already addressed with existing laws"

If you take the specified reason, then it's explicitly cited as reason #2. But the backlash is manufactured by progressives and exploited by conservatives to incubate in-fighting. Don't fall for it.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"You are forbidden from asking questions we don't like. Those are wrong questions. Being anything shy of worshipful every time your party fails you is working with conservatives because we say so. Now excuse us while we capitulate to conservatives and order you to shut up and be happy about it again."

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You're missing the fire for the smoke, and it's sad how easily progressives fall for it every time

Ensign_Crab, we have a fundraising deadline at midnight tonight, and we’re short $2178! Will you pledge $31 to help bring us over the line?

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

That sounds like a Wrong Question to me.

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

politics

19097 readers
4870 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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