Assembly Bill 2164 authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) would have prohibited California’s governor from recognizing a request for extradition of a person related to their providing a legally protected healthcare activity in the Golden State to transgender individuals, or if they provide reproductive services. It provided certain exemptions, such as an extradition required by federal law.
I suspect that earlier in his governorship he was willing to go along more with the Democratic legislature because he knew it would not risk his re-election. Now that he has his eyes on the presidency he is going straight down the middle, which these days is basically the Right.
which these days is basically the Right
By European standards, the American center is on par with AfD, Örebro, and Borgernes Parti. Gavin Newsom is a right wing fascist.
Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, the lead sponsor of the bill, noted 18 governors have “signed identical provisions into law without fanfare”
DNC voters when they let this guy through and lose again:
He wants to be your president, wooooo! Asshole. Tried to force state workers back to the office, too.
Fuck you newsome
He would be really upset about you saying that if he could read.
The Democratic party has put us in this position and for that, they have my deepest disappointment.
If they still have your vote they don’t have a single molecule of a fuck to give about your disappointment.
But I was told that voting Blue No Matter Who was the way to protect my trans friends, now what do I do? /S
Dearest ShitLibs: as of today, September 23, you have 160 days remaining to find a candidate to nominate who isn’t a genocidal ghoul and won’t throw trans people under the bus. If you can’t manage that, then you don’t get to pretend like the people who’ve been saying this for a decade now are somehow betraying you and the nation by not voting for whatever Wall St friendly monster you’ve allowed your party to nominate.
What were the provisions of the bill?
You could try reading the article…
I did.
The bill would grant legislature to exert discretion when it comes to extraditing someone to another state based on (whatever really) if they seeked gender affirming care in Cali coming from out of state.
Currently that’s at governor’s discretion, and Newsom who is leaving office doesnt want that to be changed because it would infringe on the state’s right to self determination if repubs win seats, or if they collude with antitrans money hungry dem politicians. It would mean repubs would vote to exert control over D states, and it would give them a way to extradite trans care patients.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable.
As usual, trans has nothing really to do with it, it’s just the vehicle, they will use any hated outgroup du jour acting as a vehicle for other (cough cough southern states with anti trans/anti women legislation) states to demand extradition for those who go cross state to get gender affirming care, but not only- that would give them the mandate to extradite for any similar crime committed in another state, like abortion.
That sounds like a good idea to block. They shouldn’t. Fuck them. Cali has very good chances of electing another Dem governor, so better keep it in the hands of the D as it were instead of the bigots.
Unless you’re a “both parties” kind of person of course.
What internet searches have you tried so far?
So you don’t know then. I bet you have a strong opinion on it though!
No I just don’t like feeding sea lions. It’s generally impolite to ask people information that you could trivially find yourself. It’s disrespectful of other people’s time. That’s why when someone asks such lazy questions, I first ask them to demonstrate they’ve put in an iota of effort. Why should others answer you if you’re not willing to put in any work yourself You didn’t ask for people’s opinion on the bill, you asked for a trivially searchable factual information. It’s generally pretty rude to ask others to do your basic factual research for you.
Disrespectful. Rude. Sea lion.
Any other moral condemnation you’d like to get out of your system or do you have any idea what this bill is about? You, personally?
I’ve never done lesser evil voting and I’m certainly not gonna start of this bastard gets the nom. Been voting for the leftmost candidate running and that includes third parties. Not like it matters anyway since I live in a deep red state.
As you said, it doesn’t matter because you don’t live in anything resembling a swing state, but for those of us who do: please vote strategically. Vote for whomever you like in the primary. (And DO vote in the primary, for fuck’s sake!) Vote for Bernie Sanders. (I did!) Vote for the DSA candidate. (I often do.) Vote for the green party, or libertarians, or write in your cool uncle. Whatever! The primary is your time to vote for who you really want. But when it comes to the general election, please vote for the left-most nominee of the party that has a realistic shot at winning. It doesn’t always feel good, but there are exactly three options in a first past the post general election:
-
Voting for the party that can win.
-
Voting for the other party that can win.
-
Not participating. You might think your write-in or third party is distinct from Option #3. I regret to inform you that it isn’t.
If we were to do this for a decade or so, the GOP would evaporate and the Dems would eventually split into a neoliberal pro-business party and a progressive pro-labor party. Do I want Newsom to be the nominee? Fuck no. I hate that prick. But if he’s the one running against Marco Rubio or whoever? Yeah, I can hold my nose and fill in that bubble.
If we fail to do this, we only empower fascists. Look around.
(And BTW, the party more likely to give us Ranked Choice so we don’t need to do this is, you guessed it, the Democrats…)
No. I will not vote for a fucking candidate who will not do the bare fucking minimum to protect me as a trans person. Absolutely the fuck not.
I understand your frustration, but if you stick to this, you will be abstaining entirely from the electoral process.
Once again, there are only three choices:
-
Party that can win.
-
Other party that can win.
-
Shooting yourself in the dick.
You seem to be a #3 voter. Is feeling good about shooting yourself in the dick really better than effecting real change? Nah.
voting for the status quo doesn’t effect real change
That’s why you vote for change in the primary. When it comes to the general election, if the choices are Status Quo, Literal Fascism, and shooting myself in the dick, I’m going to vote for the Status Quo, even if I’m not a huge fan. You’re happy to let Literal Fascists win, it seems. That’s why our country is in this predicament.
You’re happy to let Literal Fascists win, it seems.
this is bad faith
It’s not. The only way to vote against Trump and fascism was to vote for Harris, because all other votes were the same as simply not participating. If you voted for Trump or failed to participate, rejecting fascism wasn’t as important to you as projecting virtue. Unfortunately, millions of people made that choice. Were you one of them?
the status quo is also literal fascism.
How so? You know words have definitions right?
This perfectly describes MAGA. It does not perfectly or even partially describe whatever boring crap the DNC wants:
-
The cult of tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
-
“The rejection of modernism”, which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
-
“The cult of action for action’s sake”, which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
-
“Disagreement is treason” – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
-
“Fear of difference”, which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
-
“Appeal to a frustrated middle class”, fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
-
“Obsession with a plot” and the inflation of and focus on an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. Eco also cites Pat Robertson’s book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
-
Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”, On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
-
“Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy” because “life is permanent warfare” – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both Nazi Germany under Hitler and fascist Italy under Mussolini, worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use – despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty not to build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
-
“Contempt for the weak”, which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
-
“Everybody is educated to become a hero”, which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, “the Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death”.
-
“Machismo”, which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold “both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality”.
-
“Selective populism” – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of “no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people”.
-
“Newspeak” – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
See how words have definitions?
-
“You have to vote for what’s best for me!!!”
-
-
Honestly unless you have ranked choice or similar option, vote and get those you can, for the left most candidates with a chance of winning. Leaping from far right to far left isn’t going to happen but will take steps. Don’t waste your vote, make it and others count and vote out the republicans/crazy right.
Newsome is basically a “moderate” republican at this point, so voting him out in the primary should be everyone’s goal, especially if they want a candidate that isn’t going to alienate significant portions of the voter base.
If you read what I wrote i didn’t say to vote for him, in fact I said for the most left person that can win. Its not worth splitting votes on progressives and letting Republicans and right wing win instead. That’s how we get maga and trump.
Perfection is nice but reality is more important
Look at what happened in CA. The progressives split and now the govt is once again moderate dem or republican
Sure but, newsome isn’t a progressive, the point is that voting for “moderates” in the primary splits the party and looses elections.
If newsome wins the 2028 primary, dems probably won’t take the majorities they need to actually govern.
I doubt democrats will lose in any situation in 2028 because the economy is going to be in the toilet for another 2 years. But 2032 will probably be another republican victory if someone like newsome is in the White House.
Can you please point to where I said to vote for him? Oh I said the opposite again. Thanks for the strawman again
I don’t know anyone in this state, including the people I work with who I only talk to when I have to. We banned RCV last election so I’m just gonna keep doing what I’ve been doing. The Dems lose here by nearly half a million votes even in years where they overall win like 2020 so it’s not like it matters. Kind of freeing to vote my conscience at every single level.
He also vetoed telework protections for us state workers and we are on the verge of a strike because his admin has returned our union’s proposals with… ZERO. Literally, NOTHING. Their response to our demands in union negotations was ‘how about nothing, instead?’
He has clearly become red-pilled, idk what’s wrong with him but the most cynical interpretation would be money, stupidest interpretation would be he thinks this will help him become president.
On that note, when I see news covering Cali state worker telework, they love to go to the streets and find everyone they can to interview who’s attitude seems to be “fuck you, I can’t work from home so you shouldn’t either”
I can’t help but feel like that’s intentional to turn people against remote workers
I mean… Even if they’re just selfish assholes, do they not get that traffic is getting worse again because agencies and businesses are forcing return to office? That more people working remote is actually good for people who can’t for whatever reason too?
Sorry, tangent; but GN’s attitude on this has yet another incredibly frustrating and bad bit of policy from him
I really hope he doesn’t run for president, and if he does, that he gets shut down early in the primary.
It’s so funny I met a friend of a friend the other day and telework came up and she said ‘and I bet other people say, we can’t do it so u guys shouldn’t either!’ I laughed it off. Awhile later I asked her what she does for work and she said ‘state worker’ LOL
Ya its hard to say what the whole population thinks of course but I hope some ppl realize if we get a win on this their chances improve. Most office workers don’t have the luxury of a union but if we get a win and start peeling off talent, the chances private sector embraces goes up!
As for GN I hope someday we figure out the real reason behind his sudden turn because even the most cynical political motives don’t make a lot of sense. He is largely disliked in Cali from what I can tell, if he were to run for prez someday I’m not even sure he could get Cali in the primaries so why burn all state workers? We’re not a huge percentage of state residents but he’s not only shooting himself in the foot with us but our kids are future voters, there’s City and county employees and UC families… It just seems incredibly stupid.
This is why I dont want him as a presidential candidate. 😒 We cant allow people to get hunted down so his chances of winning are better. MAGA wants to force facism upon us and I’m not willing to let establishment dems move their moral compass.
Mark my words, he would NOT hold anyone, including trump, accountable. He and the other paid-fpr establishment dems would say, “Oh, we need to move on as a country.” No we don’t, we need accountability, STARTING with the dems!
“We’re looking forward not back”
That’s their oldest ploy.
Our next President-apparent. Fucking hell, this is who they’re going to run against Vance, aren’t they?
He’s the one money will support but there is precedent for that to not matter. See Clinton v Obama, Jeb v Trump and various smaller races.
“Jeb!”
fixed it for ya
^please clap^
Thankfully he is not favored currently, but its very close. I can promise you I will gladly devote a chunk of my life to volunteering for a candidate running against him in the primaries, to keep him out of the white house. Send him back to the Napa vineyards where scum like this belongs.
He has to win a primary first.
The DNC didn’t bother last time, and they rigged the one before that. What’s to stop them from doing the same this time? Party primaries are not required by law.
For someone like Newsom there will never be a right time or manner to implement protections for trans people. And there will always be some clever excuse for which to cling. But when they are called to protect the interests of the powerful, they will break any precident or boundry to achieve those aims.
Basically he said that he thinks this should be left up to the governor, whoever that is, and no matter how righteous and well intentioned, the issue shouldn’t be decided for all time this way, eroding future governors’ authority.
What a spineless position. Why pass any laws at all? Why not leave everything up to the whims of whoever is in office?
Doesn’t the legislature decide issues all the time and enshrine those decisions for the future in law? Isn’t that what they do? Why the fuck should extradition for providing healthcare be any different? Isn’t he “eroding the authority” of the legislature in saying no, we should leave this as governor’s discretion, just in principle?
I’m not just hating Newsom reflexively here. I seriously don’t understand his argument, despite trying.
His argument is that other republican states will use this as precedent for disobeying federal law, I’m just not sure how he hasn’t realized Republicans don’t care about precedent at all
I’ll attempt to suss it out a little bit, as you seem to have given his argument it’s due, even if it doesn’t click for you. It doesn’t for me either. My cynicism tells me that, if he weren’t eying a White House run, he would have just signed it. However, as pretty much the presumptive establishment Dem favorite, he’s been listening to the ghouls in the DNC who say things like “Trans rights are a losing issue, we have to divest ourselves of ‘fringe’ politics”. As a smokescreen for that bit of realpolitik, he is couching his stance in terms of “eroding executive authority”.
My understanding (IANAL in Cali or otherwise) is that California law currently grants the office of the Governor exclusive discretionary power in whether to honor extradition requests from other states (provided the governor is not otherwise compelled to respond in a certain manner e.g. a federal court issues the request or something). Newsome’s argument is that it is improper for him, a term-limited outgoing governor, to “willingly” divest the office of an exclusive discretionary power like that. It’s similar, in principle, to the arguments some years ago regarding the Senate confirmation of political appointees during a President’s second term. I.e. it wasn’t “fair” that a lame duck might have a chance to stuff the government with “their guys”, possibly sabotaging the incoming President of a different party. Not exactly the same, but the principle stands, I think.
Of course, when McConnell made those arguments, he was lying through his teeth, as is Newsome, I assume. It’s just a convenient cover story that makes the common clay of the New West (y’know…morons!) think, “wow, that’s a level-headed so and so with a mind for good governance and bipartisan cooperation, that sure is something that this country could use!”
Where the argument falls down is that, as you pointed out, the Legislature passed this. He already had the perfect smokescreen to say, “there’s nothing I could do, I’m no loonie lefty, but the people of California spoke through their elected representatives and I had no right to veto it merely because it slightly reduced the power of the executive office.” He chose not to, because he’s deathly afraid of the pro-maga-ganda machine painting him as a coastal elite out of touch with middle America, as if that’s not going to be their exact tactic against him regardless of his record. I’d stop just short of him saying he’s eroding the Legislature’s authority though. He’s using the veto power of his office as it’s intended. In theory, overriding the passage of legislation popular enough to make it through that whole process will harm him politically, which is happening to an extent. This is a biased space, obviously, but clearly his decision is unpopular here. Whether or not it helps or hurts him in primaries or the general remains to be seen.
I would hope that the legislature could override his veto, but I am not familiar enough with California state politics to know if they have the votes.
Newsom is a neoliberal. Neoliberals are conservatives. He is controlled opposition. He will try to trick the public into believing he is progressive in 2028. He is a pathological liar and conman just like any other conservative.
So he vetoed the “You can’t hunt down doctors across state lines because they gave trans people health care” law, because it… “sets a bad precedent”.
How about the precedent of not hunting down doctors for… being doctors…???
How about the precedent of not being insane fascists???
