Also famously a disadvantage for Nixon and Reagan.
Trivially true, but you’re leaving out two pieces of very important context - namely, the law already requires judges to take a child’s welfare into account, which includes their gender identity; and Newsom opposed this law as written because he didn’t want to set a precedent for the legislature setting such specific guidelines for judges to follow, as he worried about future abuse.
This is not an anti-LGBT position, as many have tried to paint it - that’s precisely what I mean by misinformation. It’s not populist, it is based on how government actually works rather than how some of us may wish it worked, but it’s definitely not anti-LGBT.
It’s always nice when someone does something after someone else does something whether or not they did it because of that other thing, isn’t it?
Newsom’s reasoning, again correct unless you can point out to me where he is wrong about this, was that the law was completely unnecessary because California’s existing laws already give the government full control over autonomous vehicles on the state’s roadways.
It’s not the Populist style “I don’t like Thing therefore we must pass a law saying Thing is banned” but in reality it’s just as effective.
Are you referring to Assembly Bill 7? If so, Newsom vetoed it because colleges already have the authority to prioritize factors like descent from slaves in their admissions process, and because it conflicts with Prop 209.
And? His proposal would have kept emergency and pregnancy related services available, allowed undocumented children to continue enrolling, and kept adults who were already enrolled on the program. That sounds incredibly generous to me.
And your framing also completely ignores two additional crucial points. One, Newsom is the one who championed expanding these services to undocumented immigrants in the first place. So what he had done is say “let’s expand these services” and then, facing a deficit, said “let’s continue expanding these services but a little more slowly”. Two, California is one of only six states that expanded state funded healthcare coverage to undocumented immigrants at all. Federal coverage does not extend to undocumented immigrants. So again, California (under Newsom’s leadership) is already incredibly generous in this respect, so the criticism rings hollow.
Great, homeless encampments are a serious problem and a threat to the health and safety of, first and foremost, their occupants. And the “blueprint” he provided, once again, seems entirely fair and even generous. He told cities to give people advanced warning, to provide them with shelter before clearing the encampment and to provide storage for the belongings of occupants for up to 60 days.
And he’s not just attacking the problem from one end. Newsom has provided billions of dollars in funding for construction of affordable housing and for shelters; expanded mental health and addiction treatment programs; funded homelessness assistance programs; and overall reduced homelessness in California by 9% in 2025, the first year in a long time it has decreased. So he’s not just clearing encampments, he is also getting people in houses.
Not exactly. He pursued the plan for a number of years after his election, but eventually changed his mind, which demonstrates his ability to learn from his mistakes and grow as a politician. Once he came to the conclusion that the single payer plan is seriously flawed and instead pursued universal health coverage through the expansion of existing programs. He got California to 95% coverage; a 5% uninsured rate is about half the national average.
Yes, he had them on his podcast, where he engaged in vigorous debate against their odious views. What’s wrong with that? Didn’t 2016 teach us that cancellation doesn’t work?
You know what would have been an even better way to troll Kirk?
By not giving him a platform.
I’m not sure I understand the question. The guy who manufactured the constitutional crisis didn’t care what the courts said, and in fact the courts ruled against him. But this thread isn’t about that guy; it’s about the guy who had the opportunity to end the constitutional crisis, but instead chose to let it continue and pass the buck.
I stated the reason for my position in the same post as I stated my position. It’s not a “gut feel”. I only trust my gut on matters within its area of expertise, like when it tells me that it’s been long enough since lunch that I should be eating supper, or when it says that that potato salad I had was past its prime.
All that means is that he’s the governor of California. Most governors wouldn’t even have the chance to sign those bills, because their legislatures won’t even pass them. Newsom has also, for the same reason, vetoed more pro-LGBT bills than most governors.
Gee, it’s almost like it was maybe a mistake to go on a podcast with Charlie Kirk?
The president says “go do X”. X is an illegal order.
There are two options open to you.
Option one is you tell the troops “No, don’t do X”. We now have a constitutional crisis. It’s up to the individual commanders of the unit to decide who is legitimate and who is illegitimate and obey orders accordingly.
Option two is you go to the court, they tell the president and the national guard “he can’t make that order”, and the national guard stands down.
You are insisting that option one is better, when it seems pretty obvious that option one can lead to a civil war.
In what way did he pass the buck? He acted like an adult, took Trump to court through the appropriate channels, and won a total victory.
How so? He argued against the points Kirk made very eloquently. Did you watch their debate?
Exactly, every politician from California has been a disaster. Nixon and Reagan were Republicans, Harris gave us Trump.
Obviously being from California isn’t a killer, but even Democrats from other states can find things to really not like about California and Californians. Especially when they keep moving in.
“Manufacturing a constitutional crisis”?
Maybe in upside down land.
Hypothetically, we have a guy named Don. Don slaps a fellow named, say, just to pick a name, Gavin.
Gavin then punches Don in the face.
Gavin did not start, or “manufacture”, a fight. That was Don. Don did that.
Your order of events is off. The President says “Go do X”. X is an illegal order. We now have a constitutional crisis. Closing your eyes and pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away. It makes it worse.
No, because I don’t care to hear what Nazis have to say.
As i have said before, he was trolling Kirk. Just read his later clarification statement, where he more or less just says it is an issue that is many people are concerned over, and you can not just ignore their concern.
Obviously.
Good point.
Right.
Of course I know Ms Harris is from California. Personally I think she is a fine person and would have made a good President. She lost. She lost to Donald Trump.
I stand by my opinion that being from California is a major handicap in the rest of the country. California has an image problem: it is too successful. It represents the future. A future where anyone might do well-or lose what they have. If you are struggling for whatever reason it is tempting to play it safe and avoid the opportunities and risks inherent in the future. California is portrayed by Republicans as the boogyman of American culture and politics. That alone is a serious handicap for a national candidate.
Sure. And you can resolve it in the courts, like Newsom did, or in a civil war. Personally, I am glad he went with the courts; YMMV.
Is this loud full throated fanbois defense of how awesome Newsom is what you were hoping to get answered in this thread?
But you implied that Newsom would have caused a constitutional crisis, which is bullshit.
I left an analogy up above a bit.
I already agreed that being from California can be a handicap, and this is something Newsom will have to deal with- if he runs. But hardly a “major” one.
loud full throated fanbois defense of how awesome Newsom is?? Have you read this thread??
And that is only halfway through the thread. So, unless you are being sarcastic, i do not see any consensus on a loud full throated fanbois defense of how awesome Newsom is. It is running maybe 2/3rd against him, but mostly for reasons like “he looks like the villain in a '90s kids movie”.
I have not read any well reasoned attacks on his policies. But yes, opinions like that are valid- to a degree.
I don’t like him.
If my choice was Trump or Newsom I would absolutely pick Newsom. Otherwise…not a fan no matter how much you tell me I don’t have “reasons.”
IMO he is a slimy politician out for his own benefit. Disagree all you want, that is my view.
I’ll vote for him over any republican though (probably) if it comes to that.
Oh I was only referring to two posters who were posting most vociferously.
I don’t hate him but I don’t see any great reason to enthusiastically support him. He does strike me as ambitious and opportunistic and I just see character flaws. If he were the nominee I would of course support him but I would prefer someone else.
Newsom needs to remember: first you fake sincerity. Then you have got it made.
This is my first ever poll so it is likely I might screw this up. But I have gotten enough responses in this thread that I think I can make a poll now that makes sense. Not sure how well this is going to work with the poll being in the middle of the thread, but here we go.
(Dis)Like Newsom because
- Mostly Vibes. Something about him really bothers me.
- Some Vibes - but there is something else big in addition to this.
- His policy positions. He is too left or too centrist for me.
- He’s the frontrunner. I really prefer X over him
- Electability concerns. I agree with much of what he says, but I think his association with California or his public image would hurt him in a general election.
- I am neutral on Newsom. He can come across as plastic, but I like some of what he has done, so I am waiting for the debates to decide.
- I like Newsom. He took the lead on fighting Trump on Twitter, Gerrymandering, and in the courts.
0
voters
Not sure that a poll about what voters think how other people are voting is all that valid but I am interested in seeing the results.
I think Calder’s hypothesis on there being an Engaged voter split is
- Correct. The engaged voters are the majority of the bad vibes
- Incorrect. This isn’t an engaged vs. unengaged thing.
0
voters