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
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.