all 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 38 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Nice try Newsom, you'd still make a shit president.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    That's nice but I'm pretty sure he'd dropkick a baby if internal polling showed it would give him positive press.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I'll never vote for him, but have to give my grudging "good" for this.

  • source
  • Fuck this guy I’m not voting for him. Ever.

  • source
  • 14 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 30 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    I wildly support this act, but I still see it for what it is - a naked attempt to regain good will from potential voters on the left who shrivelled and recoiled weeks ago when he said he wouldn’t support a billionaire tax, as well as vetoing many very popular bills like abortion and gender care extraditions ban, lowering retirement pension age for firefighters, ice officer hiring ban, etc

    Dude, you had your chance to appeal to future generations that you need to win the presidency. Now it just smells like the same old slimy politics.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    I'll take good things from bad politicians. Hell, if Trump started pushing medicare for all, I'd be on board even though I loathe the guy. Good decisions for the wrong reasons are still good decisions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Yep, I never argued it was bad to have good things from imperfect politicians. I did, however, say it’s not enough for me to want him as my preferred candidate for President.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 day ago*

    Trying to distract people from his shameful handling of the billionaire's tax.

    He's still just a spineless servant of the rich.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Given the fact that CA is getting even less back from the feds, I just don’t see why the state would shell out more money for death penalty cases.

    We know that death penalty cases cost more than life in prison, and we have no evidence that the death penalty is a crime deterrent.

    If you’re simply being a Vulcan about this, the death penalty is pretty illogical. At best it scratches an itch for vengeance. But I can’t pay for goods and services with vengeance.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Not to mention that it's incompatible with morality

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Agreed. It’s basically chimpanzee-level morality.

    That said, I’m often shocked at how many people falsely assume that the death penalty deters crime and saves money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    This is a nothing burger.

    He let a trump supporting member of the nerd reich take over and silence CNN. WTF could he possibly do to make up for that?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago

    California still has the death sentence? I thought it was one of the more civilised states.

  • source