Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
What exactly is it that makes his face look so small. Seriously.
Just embarrassing, but people knew who was really for a long time. I'm tired of this genre of Democrats.
We really need a new political party.
We need a new system of government.
You lost this anarchist at “central authority”
To each their own.
You say that, but it's not "to each his own" under one party rule. It's "even fewer means to express dissent and curb corruption."
It keeps the bad opinions out while keeping flexibility when it comes to socialist policies and allows proper discussions relating how to manage a socialist economy, workers rights, and social laws, etc.
How does it work in practice?
I personally recommend a system where there are multi candidate elections but all candidates have to be part of the same party. This will essentially turn the socialist party into a big tent party albeit the party will have the single goal of progressing towards socialism. Factions in the party will essentially act as a miniature parliament as factions could also create coalitions between each other.
There are two times this happened.
The Early USSR before Stalin took power with there being the right wing of the party who advocated for a market socialist economy and the continuation of voluntary collectivization, the center wing of the party (Stalin’s faction) who advocated for a centrally planned economy and forced collectivization, and finally the left wing of the party who were Trotskyists. There was nothing necessarily wrong with system except that Stalin was given a position which had too much power. The position of General Secretary was too powerful to exist in any democratic government and allowed him to destroy the separation of powers between the different factions (similar to what Trump is doing).
Late USSR under Gorbachev who allowed multi candidate elections albeit almost all candidates had to be party of the CPSU but failed because of the deterioration of the authority of the CPSU caused by the August Coup which strengthened the authority of the government of the RSFSR which was controlled by Yeltsin and friends who destroyed the USSR in support for Russian nationalism (they didn’t want Russia to subsidize its poorer republics and wanted Russia out of the CPSU/Soviet government’s authority).
So not a great track record. Ideals to Trumpism much faster than two party US democracy.
The problem isn’t the two party or one party system. Both provide stability. The problem is the lack of the separation of powers.
The position of General Secretary allowed Stalin to appoint his allies into key positions without any vote from the other factions of the government.
I will admit what occurred under Gorbachev is very similar to what is occurring under the US with Yeltsin essentially being Russia’s Trump who appealed to Russian nationalism and who claimed that he will make Russia great again by getting rid of what he viewed as welfare queens that was the other Soviet republics and getting rid of Soviet authority. But I would also like to point out that the CPSU would have been capable of fighting off this Russian “trumpist” if it wasn’t for the August Coup which deteriorated the CPSU’s authority giving the Soviet government no means to fight back against right-wing nationalism.
Another problem was that Gorbachev did allow some independents to run for government meaning democracy was not kept within the party where factions would have been able to unite against a right wing nationalist.
Newsom has always been a shallow chameleon populist who's main goal was to accumulate more power and influence.
Now that he's achieved his aim of two terms as governor of California, he's set his sights on the next level up: the Presidency. But he knows to stand even a chance of becoming the Dem nominee that he needs to move to the right quite a lot so he can be even considered by the more conservative rural Midwest. Turning against trans rights is low hanging fruit when it comes to that.
The stupid thing is that regardless, most independents and even moderate conservatives will never accept him. His legacy as the firebrand liberal from San Francisco is forever on him.
But still he's trying, because he's self-centered and callous. And in the process of failing in this new goal he's revealed to anyone not already aware that he's a fraud. And he's hurting lots of incident people in the process.
I agree with you that that's likely his strategy, but I think the 2024 election results show it wasn't Midwestern centrist democrats who didn't turn out for Kamala, so I wonder how effective this play even would be. But yeah, Newsom has always been an out-of-touch elite, so I'm not surprised by this latest development
Welp...
Looks like Newsome is attempting to mitigate possible damage inflicted on his state by the current occupant(s) of the oval office.
That, or as lame duck governor, he's just decided to be as feckless/spinless/balless as all other establishment Dems.
Ya know, could be both. 🤷♂️ 🤦♀️
Perhaps he is attempting to appeal to his ex wife whom ditched him for Donald Trump Jr.
Don’t know why he’d want her back. She’s more plastic than human now.
Having read the transcript, no, he does not. There's absolutely no reason beyond "both sides" bullshit to connect the two. Unlike Kirk, he didn't go on hateful tirades about groomers, drag shows, or pedophiles.
Having been disappointed by Newsom several times, what he did say in the podcast continues his disappointing trend and gives unacceptable levels of support to crazy conservative garbage thinking.
You can think Newsom said something terrible without taking the opportunity to make Kirk seem like he isn't a hateful extremist.
A better source for you then
https://www.them.us/story/gavin-newsom-charlie-kirk-trans-women-sports-policy-position-fairness
They'll downvote because they don't wanna know that rich Democrats agree with rich Republicans.
A better source than the words transcribed from his own mouth??
What sort of money are you making to push this damn agenda?
Do you NOT know a shitlib when you see one? Newsom is not a "radical leftist"and he's corrupt AF. Owned by the Getty family.
If people harmed by these actions done by Republicans, are feeling targeted by the words of a Democrat defending them, he sucks shit.
Sorry you don't like that the notoriously out of touch NeoLib isn't a saint.
This is FANTASTIC for his Career! The BEST way for Democrats to GAIN votes is to ALIENATE THEIR ENTIRE BASE while Courting absolutely NO ONE who will EVER vote for them!
And people wondered why the Democrats lost the election?
Fuck dude, I hope that all the calls that his office is getting shows him he fucked up. The right will never like him, they view him as a globalist who believes in science and shit.
Maybe, maybe, he will have a trans advocate on his podcast who will give the information about how BS this shit was. But even if he does, the damage has been done.
This is another moment that shows why we need to remake the democratic party during the primaries next year. We need to go out and vote for progressive candidates so people like Newsom see that progressive is the right way to go, not this shit he's doing.
Why do none of these weaklings ever point out the obvious: it does not matter if transgender people are in sports. Sports are a form of entertainment, nothing great will be accomplished for humanity purely by playing sports. The goal is literally active fun you can participate in with peers and demonstrate physical ability and/or teamwork. Excluding any peers who aren't causing literal harm (as in, cis parents assaulting referees) for appearance's sake completely loses the point of the whole thing. Hell , I think gender splits before puberty are stupid as hell, and unless you fund and support women's sports equally (looking at you, NCA) there's no point in splitting adults up either. Do it by class, experience, whatever. Stop separating children by genitals unless you want a fucking misogynist theocracy.
what is that yee yee ass hairstyle