politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
He's not actually doing anything, and less than six months ago he was sucking up to Alex Jones and Charlie Kirk and telling them he agrees with them and the Dems need to move to the right on "social issues" like the existence of LGBT and racism.
Newsom is who the billionaires want, he'd be the worst possible pick for anyone else.
Thank God this is the top comment here. I keep seeing these posts about him and I'm just worried all the liberals are falling for his bullshit pandering.
God I’ve hated watching the way that this shitshow has turned Newsom into the Dem’s new darling rising star. He’s just more of the same neoliberal shit that got us here in the first place.
Still, though, I’ll acknowledge that he’s at least publicly fighting back, and the more voices that we have screaming “this isn’t normal, this isn’t okay,” the better imo. I think he’d be a shit president, but in comparison to the situation we have going on now? He’d be a fucking dream.
He's not....
He's making a lot of noise and saying he's fighting back. But he got the Texas Dems to return to Texas so their redistricting can happen.
But Cali isn't redistricting. Right now it might be something that people can vote if they want it to happen, and even if that vote passes it might not happen.
We're losing actual battles because of his lies and misrepresentations about what he is doing in Cali.
My guy, you know that it's in the state constitution via the Prop 11 ballot measure in 2008 that redistricting cannot happen outside an independent commission. Voters need to approve side stepping that. Newsom is doing something by quickly putting it to a special vote, but he can't just overrule the constitution. He's not the president...
I don't like Newsom any more than anyone else here, but when the progressive leaders you imagine are now running the Democratic Party step up publicly and take concrete steps to stop this creeping coup, then we can talk.
So...
It's not guaranteed to happen...
But because Newsom kept saying it would happen, Texas Dems already returned, and it will happen in Texas...
But you don't understand why this is a bad thing?
You don't understand that Texas Dems should have never returned?
You can down vote me every time I point out something you don't like, but it won't make you right. The people of California are pissed. LA just had mass protests and Trump called in the US military to silence them. They've drawn up a new map and it's going to a vote. The odds are very good it'll pass.
People aren't going to decamp for over a year away from their families because you demand it. What are you doing?
Decamp?
If they don't have what it takes to fight fascism, why the fuck are they in office?
People (including their constituents) are being kidnapped and sent to motherfucking concentration camps, but staying in a hotel is too much to ask of them?
With standards this low, no wonder you like Newsom
If you think you would be a better legislator, then go ahead and run for office.
If you can't be bothered to run, then you know why they are in office.
Fair. My intention was more to say ‘giving the appearance of fighting back’. My thinking on it was that it is, on net, better to have even an ineffectual example to serve as a reminder that dissent is a choice which both has been and remains available to us all. Your concern about the potentially performative nature of the situation doing damage by muddying the decision making of how that dissent should be handled, however, is extremely valid. Hell, a misunderstanding of what was happening in California even skewed my analysis of the situation until I just looked into it more.
Either way, though, I still fucking hate the guy. I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised, either; talking a big game and then doing exactly nothing while shit falls apart around you is a textbook Democrat move.
And people are actually doing things. They're just not neoliberals so billionaire owned media won't talk about it.
That's my whole point...
Too bad cathartic gestures win elections, not logic.
We’re so short sighted and bad at making long term beneficial decisions. Idk how humanity is gonna survive
Newsom sounds like a typical Democrat then
He's not a Dem, he's a neoliberal.
It's way past the time to stop pretending there isn't a distinction. We can't just let them keep lying about what they are, because they're trashing the image of the entire Democratic party.
They don't have the same goals, strategy, or process.
Neoliberals are fundementally different than Democrats. And now that neoliberals no longer control the democratic party, it's time to differentiate the two camps.
Um what?
Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Kamala Harris, Andrew Cuomo, and Gavin Newsom are some of the major leaders of the democratic party. They're still running the party as they have been for the past few decades. Maybe accept that and stop supporting the party.
Who is in a leadership position in the DNC that isn't a neolib?
Because the neo liberals controlled the DNC for decades, and if reps didn't vote for who the DNC wanted in those positions, the DNC would fuck with them and withhold the money that was stolen from their state via Victory Fund out of spite.
They'd fuck over any incumbent that went against them, even if that meant a republican kept the seat.
But the voting members of the DNC finally kicked the neoliberals out of power at the DNC.
The people you are talking about are still coasting off the last leadership elections in the House/Senate when the neoliberals were in charge. They won't win the next ones without the threats from the DNC.
Does it make sense now?
This is important to understand and billionaire owned media sure as shit aren't going to explain it, so if you have more questions I'll try to answer them.
The chair, who unilaterally controls everything for the next 3 years...
If you think he's going to fight against progressives, look at the decade he ran Minnesota, it went from a purple state to deep blue and home to some of our most progressive House reps.
If Martin is a neo liberal who wants to keep progressives out of office, he's so bad at it he might as well not be trying.
Logically that means the reason he was picked is the voting members of the DNC want to listen to voters again instead of screeching at them.
Quick edit:
But it seems you're conflating House/Senate leadership with DNC leadership...
They should be separate things, but decades of neoliberalism has intertwined the two.
It's going to take another House/Senate leadership election cycle to fix that, because the last vote happened with the old DNC.
I guess time will tell. Though I'd still rather go for real socialism than progressivism
Martin ran Minnesota up till the day he became DNC chair...
He's not some random unknown person, there is zero indication to show he's going to run the DNC differently than he did Minnesota.
If he does start fucking around, believe me I'll be the first to call him out on it. But right now there is zero logical reason to expect any difference.
That's the great part about Martin.
It's not that he has a view of what voters want, and is going to try and make that work.
He runs fair, unbiased primaries, and whoever wins he'll put the full weight of the party behind them in a general.
It's why billionaires are trying to convince people they shouldn't vote in the next dem presidential primary, and why it's essential we counter that
From what I've seen, he's further to the right than even many of the utterly useless center-right Democrats.
Out of curiosity, why did you reply to a comment about the importance of differentiating neoliberals from Dems, by conflating the two?
Because they haven't left the Democratic Party yet, and though the party may be starting to move away from neoliberalism, most of its most prominent voices today are still neoliberals. Running Newsom as a presidential candidate would seal the deal.
Right on, just making sure there wasn't a good reason. Thanks for confirming