this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2026
835 points (98.7% liked)

politics

31379 readers
2663 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Not only has Gov. Gavin Newsom vocally opposed the proposed California billionaire tax, but he also wants to prevent the state from ever passing a wealth tax in the future.

On Friday he endorsed Proposition 42, a ballot measure that would cancel out Proposition 40, the proposed billionaire tax. Prop. 42 would prohibit retroactive taxes like the one-time 5% tax on assets that would apply to any billionaire who lived in California on Jan. 1, 2026 if Prop. 40 passes.

But Prop. 42, funded and placed on the ballot by billionaire and Google co-founder Sergey Brin to defeat the billionaire tax, also would go further, by banning any new taxes on personal property.

That includes pensions and 401K accounts before retirees start drawing retirement income from them. It also includes other investments, financial assets, business holdings, art collections and all other forms of personal wealth that would be affected by the billionaire tax or any future wealth tax.

Newsom’s decision to support Prop. 42 runs counter to his own Democratic Party and some labor unions. It also aligns him with some of the wealthy tech donors with whom he’s maintained longstanding relationships dating back to his days as mayor of San Francisco.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chilicheeselies@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 1 day ago (3 children)
[–] chilicheeselies@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

Right now? I probably won't bother voting. If that day comes what would I really do? Couldn't say. I'm tired though. It's clear that all our problems come from wealth inequality, so if there are no candidates that take it seriously, then I don't really have a choice at all. It would probably come down to how federal workers are going to be treated, as there are federal workers in my family, and it's the thing that directly affects us the most.

[–] bertlewirth@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Doomed no matter who

[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] nieminen@lemmy.world -5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

Ahh yes, a third party with absolutely no support in the house. They'd get so much done, even in the 5% chance they actually get elected because the system is rigged for two parties.

Don't get me wrong. Would love a mamdani or even El sayed (sorry if it's misspelled, going off of memory) to be placed all over every part of our government. More AOC's and Sanders'. But we need to make the best short term option, not just help guarantee the win of the fascists by withholding votes or put them on a third party with no chance of winning. We're not ending this shit hole situation in a single election, so better to make progressive change than let the atrocities continue with full support from the entire government.

[–] chilicheeselies@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

We need to stop negotiating against ourselves.

[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

But we need to make the best short term option

This has been the argument for literally 30 years.

Yes, you're not fixing this in a single election. So giving up all power by agreeing to vote for a supposed "lesser evil" is giving up the future elections as well as this one - because the centrists don't even win.

The reason to vote socialist when you lose the primary is not that third parties will win - the system does give a massive advantage to D or R candidates. It's to record that the centrist Democrats left votes on the table, and exactly how many they did.

[–] nieminen@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

This has been the argument for literally 30 years.

Yes, I totally get this, but Harris would have been better than Trump. And if the public put the same effort and pressure on her that they're putting on trump, it might have actually made some difference. Everything is conjecture though, because it didn't happen that way.

I hope there's enough socialist party support in the 2028 primaries to make a difference. If there's a good candidate, and they get enough of the vote, I'll probably swing that way. Things are so bad right now, that it may end up swinging public sentiment enough.

[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

And if the public put the same effort and pressure on her

How do you propose to put "effort and pressue" on elected officials if you're not even willing to deny them your vote?

Remember how everyone was talking about how they were going to push Biden left after 2020? It's nonsense - your leverage is greatest BEFORE someone is elected, not after.

[–] nieminen@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Which is how we've gotten here. Hundreds of thousands of additional people projected to die because of policies enacted by the current administration (usaid), the absolute silence from trump and his goons on gaza (yes I know Harris also supports Israel, but she seemed like she'd at least attempt to listen to us, and isn't literally buddy buddy with bibi)

[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 2 points 6 hours ago

but she seemed like she'd at least attempt to listen to us

No, she didn't. Her own internal polling showed that her support for the Gaza genocide could lose her the election. . . .and she continued it.

The people involved basically asked her just to lie to them . . . not even to change policy, but pretend she would. That was too much. The only response was "I'm speaking"

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

then go somewhere with ranked choice voting so you aren't throwing away your vote.

[–] chilicheeselies@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

We are talking the federal election for president. There is no place where ranked choice exists for that election

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 12 hours ago

I personally voted in the 2024 presidential election in Alaska And ranked 4 presidents for the instant runnoff election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Alaska

[–] NonconfrontationaI@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Throwing away your vote would be voting for establishment dems or repubs. You're going to gleefully vote for the party that dramatically accelerated the genocide in Gaza?

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I car significantly more about my friends than about strangers on the other side of the planet

[–] NonconfrontationaI@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Of course you do.