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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
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
It has a lot to do with SCOTUS. She decides to hold her position for as long as she lives and when she dies there won't be any other candidate. This leads to a president or some clever figure to decide to send "their guy" to replace them and as such leads to the rights of many being removed. I mean that's how MTG got in really and here we are with Roe V. Wade being demolished and every red state under the sun taking away women's rights. All thanks to our brave hero RGB.
Newsom would appoint her replacement though?
And still, the house has zero influence on SCOTUS appointments? So even if she somehow got replaced by a Republican (ig we’re assuming Newsom has a stroke and goes insane in this situation?), it would have no impact on SCOTUS appointments or any other judicial appointments, since those are done in the Senate.
Newsom is a pro-fossil fuels , pro-cop, billionaire-owned haircut pretending to be progressive, though. I'd trust anyone appointed by him as far as I can throw John Fetterman.
The point is that unlike with SCOTUS vacancies, there's zero chance that Newsome appoints someone with radically different politics from Pelosi, so the analogy kind of sucks regardless of what you think of him.
That's part of my point: another Pelosi would be AWFUL. Not anywhere near as bad as a GOP fascist, of course, but still absolutely AWFUL.
So you admit that the original comparison was crap
Good. My point remains.
I wasn't the one making a comparison. The only thing I was saying was that there's no reason to trust Newsom to appoint someone who's not as immensely corrupt as himself.
THAT point (which, again, was the only one I was making) still stands, so you can stow your smugness where the sun doesn't shine.
I wasn't being "smug," I was merely trying to disambiguate the point under discussion.
The fact that you took it that way says a lot more about you than it does about me.
He said, smugly.
You weren't trying to disambiguate anything, you were asking a smug rhetorical question and then smugly drawing a false conclusion that you'd already made before I clarified and wouldn't change for everything.
You're being both smugly condescending and stubborn, which says nothing about me 🙄
Ok guy. Think what you want. It's no skin off my nose.
Newsom ended single-family zoning in Cali so he is a god among inferiors.
As for Billionaire-owned, from your article:
Far from it.
Nah, he's just another rich and powerful crook looking out for the other rich and powerful crooks. Nothing new except the grin is extra smug
Can you copy-paste that article? The paywall is making it impossible to read.
That would take up far too much comment section real estate (pun intended), but have an archive.ph version of it without the paywall
I'm bout to overbuild on this real estate (keeping the pun rolling)
This is a fucking awesome first step.
This is what he did that I find exciting. Cali is a shit hole of local ordinances that fuck up the housing market
A flat out ban on SFH would be ideal, preferably nationwide, but this is a start. Campaigns are won one battle at a time.
I'm not from Cali either but I did some searching and found this
https://sd03.senate.ca.gov/news/20220928-governor-signs-sen-dodd%E2%80%99s-prescribed-fire-fund-bill#:~:text=Gavin%20Newsom%20has%20signed%20his,to%20do%20that%2C%E2%80%9D%20Sen.
That is one hell of a take.
Not really. Banning SFH doesn't exclude singly family homes from existing, but just bans excluding other forms of development
The president should also have zero influence on the supreme court. Yet there was this whole thing with Obama and such that led to Trump having the perfect window of opportunity to send MTG to stand.
I think you have that the wrong way around. According to the constitution, the President appoints a Supreme Court Justice with the Senate giving advice and consent. It's the Senate that's supposed to have the lesser role, but Mitch McConnell chose not to follow the spirit of the constitution on that.
At any rate, the House of Reps have never been a part of the process, so it has nothing to do with Pelosi, and never has.