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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I have no idea what the red line is for "leftists" defending this guy both as governor and a presidential candidate.
Do people who call themselves leftists support him?
They don't
As a leftist, I would vote for him for the same reason I'd vote for Hilary Clinton. To prevent the Republicans from taking over. That's about it.
If he wins the Republicans take over anyway
If Hilary had won, we would still have pro choice rights along with ALL the other awful decisions th 6-3 majority has made.
Not the same at all.
As a leftist, he’s the same as voting for right wing if he’s not a queer ally. I don’t give a shit about muh economee or gas. We can easily crash the economy by rejecting consumerism to make the capital class suffer.
If he’s against vulnerable groups, he’s a fascist like the rest.
And this is how the rufhr wins. Because they are not the same.
No the furher won because people weren’t willing to stand up to him across the board. They appeased and compromised.
A liberal democracy focused on money cannot stop the rising tide of fascism. History proves this.
It’s not your privileged body being sold out for votes.
Who says he's not a queer ally? I've seen him say and do plenty of things that are pro lgbtq. He disagrees with you on one issue and loses all credibility? This is how you lose allies and give power to people that genuinely want what's worse for you.
A sell out to the queer community will absolutely negotiate with fascists to maintain their power, if they’re willing to do it while seeking power.
A true leader of character has a spine and is willing to fight for the rights of vulnerable populations and refuse any notions of taking their rights. I don’t care how many neat things he’s said before. He’s backtracked like every other slimy politician and can no longer be trusted.
He’s only a queer ally when it’s convenient for him to be one.
Stop. Trying. To. Appeal. To. Fascists. It’s like people completely fail at learning from history.
Or maybe he just disagrees with you on this one issue. I don't think the Trans community has done a good enough job convincing people why they're right. Which is why over the past few years polling data, even amongst democrats, is moving away from the Trans community.
The trans community just wants to be treated like human beings and not have their rights to their bodies stripped away. How is that not convincing? What more of an explanation do people need?
If the Dem community is drifting away, it’s because someone is enabling their latent transphobia.
And most of these people want the same thing. It's possible to disagree on individual issues.
About what? Our existence? That we should be given the same rights, privileges, and privacy as any other group of people?
Polling is showing that people increasingly succumb to conservative rhetoric and agree that we're subhuman, second-class citizens. It does not show that we actually deserve that treatment.
Not everybody has every right, privilege and privacy that they feel they deserve. This is one issue where most people disagree that you should have this right. But many people agree on everything else.
When you say "Our existence?" I can't help but feel this is either disingenuous, or maybe it's just childish.
Somebody can agree with EVERYTHING else you say, but this one issue, they do not agree that you should have this right. And your reaction is "they're calling us second class citizens. They don't want us to exist. They're bigots".
Or you say "succumb to conservative rhetoric" as though it isn't a genuine opinion people have.
Okay, I'll say again: what do I have to be right about? That is the specific thing I asked you. What is the question that you feel the trans community is failing to answer?
Regarding your comment about not everyone having every right they feel they deserve, that is exactly what the 14th Amendment is for. All people are entitled to equal protection under the law. I want the rights that I am entitled to, not some modern Jim Crow-alike where my identity is just cause to violate the Equal Protections clause.
As for your last point, yes, I do think it's conservative rhetoric and not a genuine opinion. Trans people have had rights codified in law for 70 years now. Conservative news media has amped up the rhetoric in the last couple years because Republicans can't win on current policy decisions, so it needs to be culture war garbage. You can even see it in polling: 2022 vs 2025
Athletics. I thought it was clear as that is the only issue he's expressed a strong opinion on. Outside of expressing support of the community.
I think this is one of those issues the Trans community has not proven they are right about, and seeing how they react towards people that hold this opinion, while also showing they care about the community in other ways, feels self destructive. I think this has as much to do with the shift in polling as conservative rhetoric.
....
The bill that Newsom vetoed was regarding extraditing health workers for providing care. What the fuck are you even talking about?
Most people allegedly disagree that trans people should have medical care, and that means we just shouldn't? That's a hell of a fucking take.
Our existance is what's up for debate on the right. Trump started this term declaring that legally we don't exist. It's not hyperbole. Every concession towards the right is another step towards their goal. Capitulation here is madness, I'm sorry.
But your problem is you are not acknowledging the people you're talking to or about. Somebody says I disagree on sports and you bring up medical care.
I remember back in the day democrats came out against gay marriage. Many people recognized this was a necessary thing for them to say in order to win elections. And the net result for gay people was a supreme court that granted them the right to get married.
The Trans community hears somebody disagree with their right to play whatever sport they want and there reaction is to burn the whole country to the ground. It is short sighted.
If a politician says they don't support your right to Healthcare, that is specific to that politician. Newsom has signed plenty of bills that support the Trans community. Even in his conversation with Charlie Kirk he gave a lot of support to the Trans community which I generally ignored.
He vetoed a bill aimed at protecting trans medical care. That's what this entire discussion has been about. Fuck off with your sports.
His reason, as I mentioned in another comment, was that this bill was intended to limit the governor's rights. Since he is the outgoing governor, he didn’t think it would be right to sign a bill that limits the rights of the new governor. This is something Republicans have done to Democrats in the past and is also not OK.
Be careful about getting triggered by a headline when there is nuance in the article.
Limit the governor's power to do what exactly? Let's see here...
You support here the governor being allowed to extradite anyone who provides medical care to trans people, as well as pregnant people. You argue to prevent this is not okay. And you don't understand why trans people are upset? Are you even trying?
Not every bill that has good things in it is good. It makes for a great rage bating headline, though.
His actual comment if you care:
So you think a legislature trying to reign in executive power and put additional guardrails in place to curtail "executive authority" is a bad thing? Especially when this is the guy trying to replace Trump?
Ignoring the healthcare aspect of this bill and just taking that argument at face value, there is no circumstance where I would elect a president who has no interest in ceding authority back to a legislature after this administration's shitshow. We clearly need less executive authority, and if Newsom is treating that as a non-starter, he's not fit for office.
I think it's different than vetoing a bill because he hates the Trans community. That's what this headline implies, and people are going right along with it.
This sounds like setting wildly unrealistic expectations about who is acceptable to vote for.
So that's a no, you aren't trying.
Have a nice day.
We can agree to disagree. That's fine. But you aren't right just cause you think so strongly about it.
He's already thrown trans people under the bus. If it's him or Vance I'm voting for him, but if you're willing to sacrifice trans kids you're not an ally. He's not an ally.
It's often used interchangeably everywhere.