United States Politics Thread 47

[Travis B.]

Putting it another way, what does Newsom intend to do for us apart from refraining from the active harm that Trump and his henchmen are currently pursuing?

Well, that’s in and of itself a pretty significant thing, isn’t it? Considering how abysmally bad Trump is…

We could have a blob that does absolutely nothing in office for president next term, and it would be a vast improvement over what we have now.

[Raphael]

Putting it another way, what does Newsom intend to do for us apart from refraining from the active harm that Trump and his henchmen are currently pursuing?

Well, that’s in and of itself a pretty significant thing, isn’t it? Considering how abysmally bad Trump is…

Yes, exactly! I know that situations in different countries are different, but I myself don't vote to improve things, I vote to, as much as possible, keep things from getting worse. When I'm faced with the choice between someone who'd kill me and someone who'd mostly leave me in peace, I don't see why I should see it as a dealbreaker that the latter won't actively help me. I first and foremost don't want to get killed.

All that said, Newsom is pretty much a scumbag, and I do hope that he can somehow be kept from the nomination. Which might be possible, if the anyone-but-Newsom forces can unite early behind one specific other candidate. Which, in turn, probably depends on who runs and who doesn't.

[malloc]

Yes, exactly! I know that situations in different countries are different, but I myself don't vote to improve things, I vote to, as much as possible, keep things from getting worse. When I'm faced with the choice between someone who'd kill me and someone who'd mostly leave me in peace, I don't see why I should see it as a dealbreaker that the latter won't actively help me. I first and foremost don't want to get killed.

Sure and I definitely agree with the basic principle of harm reduction here. Nonetheless I also sympathize with people who are sick of settling for maintaining an ever deteriorating status quo and would prefer an honest death over a life of constant anxiety and groveling. It really does sting to recognize that things will never really improve and our only option is preventing them from getting worse.

[Raphael]

Nonetheless I also sympathize with people who are sick of settling for maintaining an ever deteriorating status quo

Agreed.

and would prefer an honest death over a life of constant anxiety and groveling.

Hard disagree. No one has the right to choose "an honest death" for other people than themselves.

It really does sting to recognize that things will never really improve and our only option is preventing them from getting worse.

Oh, I think there are signs that things might improve not too long from now. Where is socialism today compared to where it was when this century started?

[Travis B.]

It really does sting to recognize that things will never really improve and our only option is preventing them from getting worse.

Oh, I think there are signs that things might improve not too long from now. Where is socialism today compared to where it was when this century started?

Twenty-five years ago, would you have predicted that that the mayor of New York is now a socialist?

[zompist]

Oh boy, primary season in 2028 is going to be a blast around here. (HEAVY IRONY)

Here's an example of what the GOP is doing: Kansas just invalidated the driver's licenses of almost 2000 trans people. It's part of a process of dehumanization and criminalization; the red states are trying every fash move they can, while they can.

Here's what Gavin Newsom is doing: shooting off his asshole mouth. Obviously completely equivalent!

There are alternatives! Pritzer, for instance, seems to be a much better ally, and actually seems to choose his positions based on values. Newsom was courting the right until he saw an opportunity to gain popularity by being vocally anti-Trump.

[malloc]

Here's an example of what the GOP is doing: Kansas just invalidated the driver's licenses of almost 2000 trans people. It's part of a process of dehumanization and criminalization; the red states are trying every fash move they can, while they can.

Here's what Gavin Newsom is doing: shooting off his asshole mouth. Obviously completely equivalent!

Sure, but will Newsom reverse policies like that as president or will trans people just have to live permanently without all the rights the GOP took away? Let me stress that I agree with the basic principle of harm reduction, but I also get why many people just don't feel motivated to defend an objectively terrible status quo just because the alternative is even worse.

[zompist]

Here's an example of what the GOP is doing: Kansas just invalidated the driver's licenses of almost 2000 trans people. It's part of a process of dehumanization and criminalization; the red states are trying every fash move they can, while they can.

Here's what Gavin Newsom is doing: shooting off his asshole mouth. Obviously completely equivalent!

Sure, but will Newsom reverse policies like that as president or will trans people just have to live permanently without all the rights the GOP took away? Let me stress that I agree with the basic principle of harm reduction, but I also get why many people just don't feel motivated to defend an objectively terrible status quo just because the alternative is even worse.

Fortunately some people are actually motivated to help other people. The ACLU is already planning to file a challenge to the law.

[Emily]

Oh boy, primary season in 2028 is going to be a blast around here. (HEAVY IRONY)

Here's an example of what the GOP is doing: Kansas just invalidated the driver's licenses of almost 2000 trans people. It's part of a process of dehumanization and criminalization; the red states are trying every fash move they can, while they can.

Here's what Gavin Newsom is doing: shooting off his asshole mouth. Obviously completely equivalent!

i'm not voting for the GOP either. and when a sitting governor (of my state btw! i have to deal with the consequences of this POS's policies for the next year regardless) and the frontrunner for the 2028 presidential nomination says, in effect, that the democrats need to stop worrying about trans people at the exact moment that the very attacks you're describing are happening, that's more than just "shooting off his asshole mouth"; it's pretty explicitly stating the direction he intends to take the party. it also comes on the heels numerous material attacks he has made on trans rights in california, and contjnues rhetoric he's been spouting for a good while. when i'm facing attacks on my community and my fundamental humanity, i don't want the alleged opposition to agree with those same attacks but carry them out less vigorously, i want an opposition that will oppose them

So you would rather the fascists win than have someone who isn't 100% on board with you on every point of LGBTQ+ issues in office. Yeah. If the non-fascist choice isn't perfect you'd rather just have fascism. Thanks for warning us ahead of time (even though this shouldn't be surprising considering the position you IIRC took last election).

and i shouldn't be surprised that you would minimize a trans person's anger at attacks on their basic rights coming from both sides of the aisle as a simple tantrum over newsom not being in 100% alignment with everything piddling opinion i have, but i remember the position you took last election when you dismissed arab voters' anger at the genocide of their people being supported by both major-party candidates as similarly insignificant. if something isn't enough to make you change your vote than everyone is childish for thinking it matters at all. and for the record, i did vote in the last election. i've voted in every single election i've ever been eligible to vote in for that matter. but i cast my vote for a candidate who i believed in—who among many other differences from harris actually supported trans rights and opposed palestinian genocide—and i'll do it again in 2028

my point is not to try to convince anyone not to vote democrat. but as much as you want to berate everyone by saying it's immoral to have any dealbreakers, to have a conviction you hold so strongly that you won't ever vote for someone who goes against it, the reality is there are millions of people who do have those convictions. and considering that in every single election you people berate and blame nonvoters and third-party voters for your losses and it clearly isn't convincing them to start voting for democrats, wouldn't simple practicality suggest you try a different approach? if the bloc that isn't buying what the democrats are selling is so crucial to winning elections that they can be blamed for the election's outcome, shouldn't you be trying to earn their votes instead?

there's almost three years until the election. instead of spending that time preparing to dogpile people who don't want to vote for shitty mediocre candidates, try doing the work to try to build up a good candidate. there's no reason newsom has to be the guy. find someone who actually stands for something and promote them instead of just settling for whoever the corporate lobbyists find most amenable. it's not a fantasy—even obama won by campaigning on active progressive policies (however much i think he betrayed his campaign rhetoric once elected). even if you think someone as "far left" (lol) as bernie sanders (who nevertheless was the most popular candidate i've seen in my lifetime) won't win enough people, surely you can at least find another obama? as far as i can tell, the dems aren't even trying—which in itself is a significant factor in people turning away from them

[Emily]

i didn't mean to write that much, i'm sorry. newsom just really fucking sucks and i wish people who weren't so blinded by their allegiance to the democratic party could see what everyone else who's paying attention sees

[Travis B.]

At this point, any non-vote or any vote for anyone other than a Democrat when there is a fascist on the ballot is a vote for the fascist, simple as that. And as you indeed seem to not understand this, I'll have to consider you a supporter of fascism. You may call yourself a leftist or a liberal, but your supposed principles fly in the face of how politics actually works and only help the enemies of the people.

[zompist]

Oh boy, primary season in 2028 is going to be a blast around here. (HEAVY IRONY)

Here's an example of what the GOP is doing: Kansas just invalidated the driver's licenses of almost 2000 trans people. It's part of a process of dehumanization and criminalization; the red states are trying every fash move they can, while they can.

Here's what Gavin Newsom is doing: shooting off his asshole mouth. Obviously completely equivalent!

i'm not voting for the GOP either. and when a sitting governor (of my state btw! i have to deal with the consequences of this POS's policies for the next year regardless) and the frontrunner for the 2028 presidential nomination says

The primary is in two years. We don't know who will be in it. The current frontrunner is one Kamala Harris. That changes every few weeks and no one knows who it'll be in two years.

I agree with you that Newsom isn't to be trusted, for the reasons I gave, and as of the latest polls, 80% of people polled also agree. (Which, like those polls, means little right now. The people who have an opinion right now are politics wonks-- most voters aren't even thinking about the 2028 election.)

[Travis B.]

I'm not saying that Newsom should be the candidate, of course ─ that's what primaries are for ─ I'm saying that if Newsom does end up being the candidate, he for all his many flaws would still be the only rational choice.

[CopyrightedName]

Here's an example of what the GOP is doing: Kansas just invalidated the driver's licenses of almost 2000 trans people. It's part of a process of dehumanization and criminalization; the red states are trying every fash move they can, while they can.

Here's what Gavin Newsom is doing: shooting off his asshole mouth. Obviously completely equivalent!

Sadly, in politics actions often do not speak louder than words...

In any case, the excellent Toby Buckle has already said this, but threats of abstention actually costs a voter their real form of leverage (i.e. primary pressure), so it's really not a good idea regardless of how one feels about the candidates.

[Raphael]

Sadly, in politics actions often do not speak louder than words...

Going off on a tangent, I'd say sometimes, words speak louder than words. As in, if someone says on one occasion that they have the greatest respect for the Asian community, but on another occasion, they say some crassly anti-Asian stuff.

[MacAnDàil]

i didn't mean to write that much, i'm sorry. newsom just really fucking sucks and i wish people who weren't so blinded by their allegiance to the democratic party could see what everyone else who's paying attention sees

Is there any reaosn to apologise for going into detail?

[Raphael]

So they're actually doing it. Sigh.

[malloc]

So they're actually doing it. Sigh.

Once again my pessimism is vindicated. Let this be the end of "Trump always chickens out". Too many times have I heard over the past year that Trump was too lazy or cowardly to follow through with his most dangerous threats.

[Travis B.]

I'm really fucking angry at California and Colorado, and especially at Gavin Newsom, even though if the choice was between Newsom and any fascist I'd still choose Newsom (unlike some other people who shall not be named)...

Basically, I'm the author of an operating system, and one that can with a slight bit of effort download, compile, and execute code from the Internet, and last year Gavin Newsom approved a law (authored by Democrats incidentally) stating that any operating system must ask for the user's age at "account creation" and provide age brackets of < 13, 13-15, 16-17, and > 18 to any thing that can install application software off an "app store". This is enforced with the possibility for very stiff per-child fines on the part of software authors. And a very similar law is now under consideration in Colorado.

Furthermore, I am the parent of a child, and I would not want software exposing my child's approximate age to random things on the Internet -- this makes children less, not more safe. If my kid ever was presented with something asking her age I would specifically tell her to lie and say she is an adult, because I would not want her ending up on some list somewhere of children, which could be exploited any number of ways by bad actors.

[Raphael]

I'm really fucking angry at California and Colorado, and especially at Gavin Newsom, even though if the choice was between Newsom and any fascist I'd still choose Newsom (unlike some other people who shall not be named)...

Basically, I'm the author of an operating system, and one that can with a slight bit of effort download, compile, and execute code from the Internet, and last year Gavin Newsom approved a law (authored by Democrats incidentally) stating that any operating system must ask for the user's age at "account creation" and provide age brackets of < 13, 13-15, 16-17, and > 18 to any thing that can install application software off an "app store". This is enforced with the possibility for very stiff per-child fines on the part of software authors. And a very similar law is now under consideration in Colorado.

Furthermore, I am the parent of a child, and I would not want software exposing my child's approximate age to random things on the Internet -- this makes children less, not more safe. If my kid ever was presented with something asking her age I would specifically tell her to lie and say she is an adult, because I would not want her ending up on some list somewhere of children, which could be exploited any number of ways by bad actors.

Yes, sucks. The more the people who write laws regulating technology assume that only big corporations do anything serious with technology, the more they'll ensure, through the obligations they write into their laws, that only big corporations can do anything serious with technology.