What is up with Newsome vetoing all this shit suddenly?
Presumably getting ready to launch his own presidential bid, so he needs to court the center by appearing more moderate.
Or the opposing side trying to make him look bad. California still sets the standards for a lot of rules that we’d be better off with the rest of the country copying.
Yeah honestly it seems like a targeted media blitz more than anything. If you read the actual article, most of his vetos are done for very good reasons - but they’re all being posted with reductive headlines
Teens having Kids cost more than condoms
Frankly, when I was in high school - cost was never the issue in whether a couple used condoms, and even in my relatively conservative area, there were local programs that would give out free condoms if you cared enough to look
Better sex education would go a much longer way imo - because even in California our sex Ed (this was like a decade ago, so maybe it’s changed) was full of “abstinence only” garbage - thankfully the teachers were usually smart enough to go off book and give realistic advice/answers
if you cared enough to look
Big if. To me it seems worthwhile to have them easily accessible so that teens would be carrying them around. Limits the amount of pre-planning needed
Did she go to a private school?
Buying them isn’t an issue. Getting kids to actually use them is what matters.
Some stores won’t sell to people under 18, even when there’s no law requiring them to (I don’t k.ow of a place that does) and that requires money, something in short supply if you’re a teen
Funny story. I remember years ago having a girlfriend when I was 25, and we are staying with my parents, who live in a small town for a few days. We went to buy some condoms one day, and we found that none of the mini marts nearby carried any sort of contraceptives at all.
I remember asking the clerk, who was younger than me, and he acted incredulous that anybody would need a condom. In a city of 25,000 people.
Luckily, Safeway came to the rescue. Lol
What was the cost associated with banning caste discrimination and decriminalizing mushrooms?
The caste one he argued that there are already laws in place that cover it, and that what we need instead is to increase education about these existing laws and how they can be used to prevent caste discrimination. There is no point in creating another law that does the exact same thing as existing anti discrimination laws.
For decriminalizing mushrooms he argued that the bill doesn’t actually include any provisions for how the medical usage can be implemented or how the required infrastructure can be put in place. When CA was medical only for weed it was frankly a shit show for a long while because it was highly unclear what was actually allowed and what wasn’t, he didn’t want a repeat.
Whether you agree with either of those arguments is an entirely different question, but the titles of been seeing make it seem like he’s just shooting them down for fun - hence my suspicion that this is astroturfing.
One of two things is true - either over the last week he’s inexplicably gotten a ton of really controversial bills crossing his desk that are all more newsworthy than anything else over the last few years, and he vetoed every single one. Or half-assed bills like these pass this desk all the time and get vetoed pending better solutions, and they’re only now getting overblown coverage as part of a smear campaign. Frankly the latter seems more likely
This never actually works. The Democratic party is a center eight party that only looks left.because the oteht major party are fucking crazy terrorists
LOOOOOOOLOLOLOL
The CA legislature passed a buttload of bills right before adjourning, so he’s working his way through them now. Plus, CA has a budget deficit, so stuff that costs money has to be more carefully considered - free condoms are a worthwhile thing, but then the question becomes what do you cut instead? It’s not always an easy question.
How much do they actually expect these to cost? How about they cancel fireworks at the next sports event. That’d probably cover it
California state government doesn’t pay for fireworks.
How much would prohibiting caste discrimination or decriminalizing psilocybin increase the deficit?
That’s the wrong question.
“How can this law be exploited.” Or “does it make sense to put another law on the books if this is already addressed with existing laws”
If you take the specified reason, then it’s explicitly cited as reason #2. But the backlash is manufactured by progressives and exploited by conservatives to incubate in-fighting. Don’t fall for it.
“You are forbidden from asking questions we don’t like. Those are wrong questions. Being anything shy of worshipful every time your party fails you is working with conservatives because we say so. Now excuse us while we capitulate to conservatives and order you to shut up and be happy about it again.”
You’re missing the fire for the smoke, and it’s sad how easily progressives fall for it every time
Ensign_Crab, we have a fundraising deadline at midnight tonight, and we’re short $2178! Will you pledge $31 to help bring us over the line?
That sounds like a Wrong Question to me.
Well, he said he vetoed the caste discrimination one because it’s already covered by existing laws, so they don’t need a new one. No clue about the psilocybin. I must have missed that one among the 87 articles about each individual veto that have been posted in the last couple of days.
Well, he said he vetoed the caste discrimination one because it’s already covered by existing laws, so they don’t need a new one
“We don’t need laws prohibiting discrimination against [minority]! They’re just whining about nothing because our existing laws cover them!”
I must have missed that one among the 87 articles about each individual veto that have been posted in the last couple of days.
A lot of unconvincing excuses to keep straight, huh?
I mean, yeah, if it’s already prohibited under an existing law, you generally don’t need another one. That’s how laws work, and people do a fair amount of work to remove outdated and duplicate laws because it makes everyone’s job harder when you have to weed through that.
If you think fronting the cost of condoms for teenagers is expensive, wait till you see how much it costs the state to provide services for a single teen mother
Or how about we don’t provide services for people who make obvious mistakes. I’d rather keep my tax money than it go to them
It costs less in taxes to take a child out of poverty than to put them in prison as an adult.
Additionally, taking children out of poverty improves the tax contributions they and their own children will make more than it costs.
In other words, your taxes aren’t going to just them but is an investment in us all.
And you’re making the same argument people without kids sometimes make about education, why should I pay for public schools, I don’t have kids, I don’t benefit. But you do, everytime a cashier counts change, everytime you don’t get robbed because a kid had an opportunity to come out of poverty, everytime you have an intelligent conversation with a neighbor.
We live in a society. If you don’t want to be part of our society, feel free to move someplace without taxes.
The person wants to punish others. It’s not actually about the cost.
Today I learned that not giving strangers MY money is, quite literally, punishing them
TIL that voting for people who also want to punish others is the best way to punish others.
Nice strawman u dont know what he votes now answer him
Have you considered that many of the public services you rely on every day (roads, safety in food and drugs, public works, fire departments and police, etc) are partly funded with MY money, given to you, a stranger?
I’M happy to contribute to YOUR health, safety, stability, and enjoyment, because I want all of us to have a better future, even if you don’t.
It’s not your money, it’s your tax contribution which is the government’s money and decision how to spend.
I’m a pacifist based on religious beliefs and can’t be drafted. My tax contribution still goes to wars. Because the money goes into a pool and spent where our officials decide it best serves everybody (ideally).
The idea that it’s your money is as bullshit as the idea that we all benefit from letting children starve because a high school kid made a mistake and didn’t wear a condom.
It’s not your money. It’s the tax man’s. If you don’t want to pay taxes, move someplace without them.
And this is why I left lolitarian after about a month. Once you start looking at the numbers of how much crime costs vs how little after school programs cost it is a no brainier. If someone gets convicted of a felony from the pure cold government accounting they are a net loss. There is almost zero chance that the government will make back what was spent on them.
It just is so much easier to be proactive vs reactive. We know the statistics, we know that a dollar spent on such and such program removes multiple times future costs.
deleted by creator
Source on the costs? (I’m not doubting what you say is true, I would just like to know where you get your data).
Search Incarceration vs. Education.
It’s easy to extrapolate just from the headlines but I’m sure if you dig into the articles you’ll find the data you are asking for.
My source is lived experience and human services courses. So I don’t have a study to point too.
But there are studies and data on this is abundant.
One ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and all of that.
But there are studies and data on this is abundant.
And you couldn’t find one?
It’s easy to extrapolate just from the headlines
Clickbait articles are everywhere. NEVER trust the headlines.
I’m still not doubting what you say is true – I just want to know what studies prove it, simply because I do not possess the requisite knowledge to assume “truthiness” of said articles if I were to even find them. My area of expertise is very far from anything related to human services.
Here’s a NAACP report. Prison is expensive because all of that security is expensive. Add onto that medical care, especially older inmates with long bids cost a lot. It’s cheaper to invest in education. High school drop outs, black or white, are more likely to be incarcerated. Reducing high school drop out rates is something doable and it would save money.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/naacp/misplaced_priorities.pdf
Also, investing in education improves GDP. People in higher income brackets also pay more taxes. The GDP increase for the US if we ensured every child access to education is 16% per year for the next 80 years.
Here’s that study. That’s the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OCED.
https://www.oecd.org/education/universal-basic-skills-9789264234833-en.htm
I can find something for you. Just was busy when I replied earlier and finding good studies to share that aren’t behind a paywall takes time.
Let me burn one and do a few other things. Then I’ll see if I can dig something up for you.
Weird way to say “I’m a selfish piece of shit who thinks others should suffer because I think I am superior”
Also, entirely ignorant of the long term savings social programs provide. Poverty is expensive. The cost of a condom is nothing compared to the cost of a baby. The cost of caring for and educating a baby is nothing compared to the cost of an adult raised and living in poverty. The cost of providing for an adult raised and living in poverty is nothing compared to the cost of dealing with systemic problems related to homelessness.
You cannot avoid the costs, you can only kick them down the road a ways, where they will only grow.
$500 spent now saves $500,000 later.
Condoms actually cost far less than $500
Your numbers are way off but the point stands haha
They’re not if you consider the cost of funding a whole state’s worth of condoms vs the cost of dealing with unwanted children in the foster care system, then the legal system when some of those children grow up to be criminals after society has failed them.
It’s actually much higher than that.
It’s actually much higher than that.
Yes that’s what I was getting at.
deleted by creator
Are there numbers way off? I paid tens of thousands of dollars in taxes last year which is only possible because my parents had access to food stamps when I was a kid. Over a lifetime it could definitely work out to half a million.
It could definitely work out to half a million.
Pretty sure it’s a lot more than that. Food stamps aren’t the only expense.
Yeah, I’m sure this will create a wonderful society with no problems at all
Even if we pandered to your every preference, I doubt it would satiate the greed of someone who’d rather see children punished than contribute fractions of a penny to prevent it.
So why make society worse if it won’t even make you better?
They’re not my children, why should I as a taxpayer have to pay for them?
They’re not my children, why should I as a taxpayer have to pay for them?
Because they are your fellow citizens.
-
You have to pay for them either way. Only 1 way is multiple orders of magnitude less expensive.
-
Because children shouldn’t be disadvantaged or suffer because of the poor decisions of their parents.
-
Because they’re fucking people, bro. Have some compassion. Everyone makes mistakes.
-
You are paying for them. You live in a society and anyone languishing in that society makes your life that much worse off.
You already know the answer to that but you asked the question anyway because it serves as self-entitled neoliberal/libertarian propaganda.
And of course if there was an actual city out there modelled after your libertarian paradise, there’s not a chance you’d move there, let alone be happier there.
But boy would I love to see it.
Because no matter how much of your personality you devote to being a miser, your actual, actual wealth is a piss puddle next to an ocean.
You’d be a functional slave with every dollar you earned being immediately extracted from you as you’re charged by the foot for the roads you use, living off post-FDA Starbucks that you don’t know has baby-killing levels of formaldehyde in it (again) because the one media company left was paid to not report it.
But hey, at least you wouldn’t be paying 1c a year for someone else’s birth control.
That “obvious mistake” is made every day by teens, some not even old enough to drive. I’m sure letting them fend for themselves is the best way to instill responsibility and not a recipe for child neglect or abandonment, but not like that’s a recipe for a future criminal or junkie.
/s
Ok, but giving them money is literally rewarding them for these actions. Taking money out of my paycheck via taxes is not the answer
You should realize it’s going to cost more of your tax money to throw those kids in prison once they have grown into terrible people because they were shunned by society. They aren’t raising your taxes because of this.
They are taking a bit of tax money that you already have to pay and allocating it to helping people instead of buying another missile with it. It’s not like your taxes would go down if they stopped helping pregnant teens.
Well if you are so very concerned about the taxpayer dollars you should be a supporter of this. A rubber is a whole lot cheaper than a single teenager mom with baby. It’s thousands of dollars just to birth a baby with a healthy pregnancy.
Removed by mod
We’re literally going to pay less in taxes by helping them as I already explained to you in another post
Yet you cling to this hateful position. Get therapy or something damn.
I’d rather keep my tax money than it go to them
Ahh, the classic ‘we shouldn’t reward bad behavior’ line that completely ignores that treating tax money like Santa Candy (to be withheld from the bad little boys and girls) just costs everybody more tax dollars when it means foregoing spending on preventive measures that help avoid expensive problems.
It’s not rewarding teen pregnancy, it’s preventing it
Also,
I’d rather keep my tax money
You don’t get to keep it either way.
Where are all these kids breaking into my hous and stealing my bread come from?
Go back the middle ages
Oh man there is so much to unpack there its hard to tell it you’re just trolling or absolutely oblivious to what teenagers are like. There are libraries worth of papers and studies showing how that line of thinking is the first step down a steep and slippery slope that turns the USA into Afghanistan as far as society and quality of life.
Removed by mod
That would be 100% of all people who have ever lived, are alive today, and in the future.
Do you seriously believe there are people who haven’t made mistakes?!
The whole purpose of society is that we’re stronger together. If you disagree, that’s your prerogative, and if you want to go off the grid and back to a hunter-gatherer everyone-for-themselves lifestyle, you’re welcome to it.
Most of us don’t want that because it was objectively terrible compared to civilisation. We wouldn’t have modern technology or any of the things we take for granted without societal cooperation. You wouldn’t have a computer or internet to complain about the society you enjoy the benefits of.
That’s a pretty myopic take, honestly.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
As a childless vegan, fuck you pay me
First hand over your recipe for hummas from scratch that tastes better than the premade at the store.
Embarrassing but I literally could not figure out how to get my garbanzo plants to form beans this year. I recommend you pick up the roasted red pepper. What can I say, nobody’s perfect.
How about I keep the money that comes from my paycheck, and you keep your money
How about cutting my taxes so I don’t have to support the obvious mistakes of parents who have children and greedy assholes who continue to eat meat
Cutting taxes is literally what I’m calling for.
You’re missing the point… cut mine
You know what’s so much more expensive? Teenagers having babies. That shit is expensive for everyone. Having a child’s life ruined and forced to raise a child into another ill prepared adult. Costs society lots of money.
I mean yeah but Cali is an abortion rights state so those factors are less present in the decision than they would be elsewhere
Abortions don’t just fall out of the sky. First trimester abortions are in the 300-900 range, and second trimester round about 1k-2k. Just comparing the raw cost of the procedure and omitting opportunity costs from recovery time and additional cost from complications, rubbers are real cheap.
Not to mention emotional cost.
Republican assholes always frame abortions as this whimsical thing women do, between errands.
It’s very emotionally draining, often difficult decision even if you are sure you don’t want / can’t afford a kid.
The anti-choice movement has twisted this whole discussion so badly we’re not even looking at the people most affected by all of this.
Yes but I was speaking relative to states where you can’t get that. This would be a much more egregious decision in a state like Texas where it seems to be the prevailing legal theory that a woman is expected to die rather than have access to even a top expense abortion.
Not to mention how early term abortion pills will likely reduce such financial and opportunity costs.
You mean a women’s rights state? A state where women have rights over their bodies?
Not getting pregnant is the best scenario for those that aren’t ready for children. Despite easy access to abortion services some may feel guilt about ending a pregnancy early and have the child because it’s the “right thing to do” even though it may lead to a terrible quality of life for mother and child.
Yes but my point was that in California, that choice, as hard as it is, is still available to them. A decision such as this would be much more egregious in Texas where even that hard decision is not available to them.
I think the point here is to prevent abortions. Nobody wants to have an abortion.
Yeah, I know that, my point is that it’s in California instead of a state like Texas where someone doesn’t even get that.
We had condoms in our school washrooms in the late 90s in Canada. Pads in the ladies room as well. At a broke ass public school that had out of date text books.
America really is a weird fucked up religiously warped place.
Yes and these vetos have nothing to do with cost and everything to do with Newsom positioning to be president.
He doesn’t want to generate talking points for the right wingnut propaganda machine.
Vetos on progressive therapeutics, caste discrimination, etc.
Then there’s kissing up to the big donor utilities to appoint a CPUC to hobble solar.
It really sucks because he could do good but nope.
The amount of bills he veto in last weeks makes me ask is this mother fucker a Republican or Democrat? He sure is veto bills he should be signing. If I was a Californian I be looking for his replacement and primary his sorry ass.
The amount of bills he veto in last weeks makes me ask is this mother fucker a Republican or Democrat?
Forgot the third option, preparing the run for President.
Removed by mod
There was a chart here posted a few days ago that listed countries by happiness. I think Norway and some other countries that are not considered capitalist were near the top. Even with those countries, something like 20-25% were still not happy. That is a large percent. Imagine if the world put just 10% of the effort going into profiting of of AI into figuring out what makes humans happy and implementing it.
You’ll find pretty much all of the Scandinavian countries up there. Technically Social Capitalist kinda stuff. The problem is the population disparity, income disparity, and number of social services between them and the US. Canada is much the same though pretty far on the Capitalism side of things.
Yeah, it would be massively misrepresenting the situation to call Scandi/Nordic countries as anything else than capitalist. Social democratic would be the word but even that’s not strictly the case.
Norway is mixed market capitalist, like most developed countries. They do have a strong welfare system, though. I’d imagine it’s similar in the other countries in the list you mention too, but I’d have to see what they are.
The majority of wealth — excluding homes — in Norway is held in its sovereign wealth fund. This fund is invested in a diversified set of foreign and domestic industries. If we can’t call a country in which the majority of wealth is held in collectively owned means of production, socialist. What even is socialism?
Wealth is definitely a strong element. It’s easy to forget that socialism is just democratic ownership of the economy, not just “workers owning the means of production” because that forgets all the people who can’t work. In addition, these elements add to Norway’s status as a mixed economy with market socialist elements:
- 30% of the domestic stock market is owned by the Norwegian state
- They operate 70+ state owned enterprises (SOEs), including a national bank and telecom
- Norway has 50% union density, which is pretty high compared to the rest of the world
- They have works councils where workers get 33%(?) of the seats on the board of larger corporations
- 20% of Norways population lives in democratically owned housing (housing coops), originally funded by the government but now growing their membership faster than the population is growing
- Norway uses Georgist-style taxes on land (natural resources - oil, aquafarms, hydropower, wind energy) because no one worked for the creation of those natural resources hence a good cut of the profits should belong to the people
When you compare these to China, you’ll notice that a so-called communist country gets beaten on many of these in relative terms, which is a strong case for Norway being quite socialist (obviously they also have capitalism hence the “mixed economy” part, before someone goes “well actually”)
A socialist system would also feature government officials vetoing spending on the basis of cost. If you think about it, there would be even more such instances, since a socialist government has a larger say on economic questions.
Economic systems are aimed at resolving the question of how to allocate scarce resources. Switching from “capitalist” to “socialist” does not make the allocation problem go away. It only changes who makes the decisions.
And the results of those decisions would probably not be what you seem to be expecting. Real world experience shows that socialist countries tend to allocate more resources to things like heavy industry, and fewer resources to consumer goods like, say, condoms for students.
A socialist system would also feature government officials vetoing spending on the basis of cost. If you think about it, there would be even more such instances, since a socialist government has a larger say on economic questions.
Not necessarily, allow me to give a different perspective. Market socialists usually argue in favour of socialised organisations like cooperatives and unions having more power. Socialism doesn’t necessarily equal an all powerful control economy, you can marketise elements in a humane way. In Sweden, for example, the unions handle unemployment benefits through what’s known as a Ghent system[1]. In Norway, 20% of housing is democratically owned through housing coops that were originally funded by the government (but that stopped a few decades ago) and it’s still growing faster than the population itself is, so given enough time Norway will eventually be all democratically owned housing. In Finland, something like 90%+ of the population is a member in democratically owned grocery shops (consumer coops), where anyone can stand in elections for managerial positions - yes, you can literally be democratically elected a manager in a coop shop.
Also, anecdotally, when I went to high school in Norway I was offered free condoms. This is also the case in Sweden and Finland, now that I look it up.
deleted by creator
Those are all capitalist countries though. The particular coop ownership in question feels 99% of the time like a regular loyalty program, at least to me.
Yes, but “capitalist country” doesn’t paint the full picture. You’re not either capitalist or socialist, you can be both - you can have elements of both. Most of today’s socialist countries are market socialist, e.g. Cuba allows small businesses, and that is a capitalist element within their socialist economy. Similarly the Nordics combine market socialist elements with capitalist ones, for example through worker board representation, unionisation, state owned enterprises, social wealth funds, taxing natural resources, and other forms of coops.
I’d say look into what you can vote on in your coop and make sure to partake in the democratic elements that it has, because it’s more than just a loyalty programme. Finnish consumer coops are probably some of the best in the world - the UK’s grocery coop pales in comparison in what rights you have and is closer to just a loyalty programme, but you can still vote on issues in the UK Coop.
It’s not 100% one or another but Nordic countries are without a doubt capitalist countries. The system is capitalism with socialism influenced (social democratic) policies, rather than (market) socialism with some market policies mixed in. That’s what I mean. They aren’t really an example to use to go against capitalism wholly as a system but rather an example of working within capitalism, eg. social democraticism.
I’d say look into what you can vote on in your coop and make sure to partake in the democratic elements that it has, because it’s more than just a loyalty programme.
Almost nobody cares since it just feels like a loyalty program with there being an occasional election that very few take part in. Otherwise coop stores just feel like regular old stores and hypermarkets. I guess it’s better if nothing else than on principle but day-to-day (or even year-to-year really), it doesn’t really differ from our other store chains.
There are genuine disagreements within academic circles at which point you tip over into a market/democratic socialist economy. Maybe Finland isn’t as socialist as Norway, but there are economists who argue that the tipping point is at 60-75% of wealth owned by a democratic government, and Norway currently sits at 65%.[3]
We keep being told the Nordics are capitalist, but we beat China on many of their “socialist” metrics, and yet they call themselves socialist. There’s more nuance to it and I don’t think we should so readily just label the Nordics as “capitalist”. Especially not when “social democracy” itself was born out of Orthodox Marxism and was seen as a market-based wing of socialism focused on a peaceful transition to socialism[2]. The last socialist PM of Sweden (who was assassinated), Olof Palme, quite literally called himself a “democratic socialist” while championing “social democracy”[1].
Market socialism is also not in opposition to social democracy, it is just a descriptor of a specific kind of socialism, the Nordics have elements of social democracy, democratic socialism, and market socialism all at once.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQqZ8btcbyE
[2] “Social democracy is defined as one of many socialist traditions. As a political movement, it aims to achieve socialism through gradual and democratic means.”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
[3] I can provide a source here if you want it, but policy analyst Matt Bruenig covers it in one of his videos https://www.youtube.com/@Matt_Bruenig/videosChina calling themselves socialist I think is one big part of the issue of making people unsure of what socialism actually is. Nordic countries are very much in the way of “make capitalism better” and self-describe as capitalist, with nobody I think thinking we are socialist.
Peaceful transition to socialism used to be the goal but with time fewer and fewer parties actually want that instead of just softer capitalism. I don’t think it has been the stated goal of Finnish social democrats in quite a while, definitely hasn’t been any sort of actual goal for a long time.
Socialism seems to be in the sort of funny position where Nordics are sometimes used as an example of socialism because it shows that they’re doing well and what we traditionally call “socialist states” aren’t socialist because they’re not something a lot of people see as great inspirations. It does a lot to muddy the waters.
Shrug. Beats capitalism.
In CA we need such a party to run in deep blue seats.where they can easily get more votes than the Republicans
We have a voteable communist party in my country, it’s never going to get elected. People are either dumb as bricks or corrupt, and so is the system. The whole system is hopeless, I don’t think we’ll ever see real change without seeing violence first.
Condoms are a hell of a lot cheaper than children
As much as I’m certain this is not the case I still can’t help but be self amused with the mental image of an exasperated Gavin Newsom coming out of an extensive review of data on just how much Californian highschool students do be going at it, and immediately declaring “nope, can’t afford to rubber all that.”
I like the cut of your jib.
“We want progressives!”
“You have progressives at home.”
The progressive at home:
Newsom is starting to come around to running things a bit more like his predecessor. Brown was liberal, but Brown was famous for saying no to spending in order to preserve rainy day funds. And CA voters have always loved a governor who was socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
Newsom is trying to tighten the belt again. A pandemic, more fires, more floods, and more drought has meant that CA has been, and will need to, spend a lot on some pretty major things.
What is socially liberal about preserving caste discrimination? How does keeping psilocybin illegal or capping the price of insulin deplete the rainy day fund?
How is standing in the way of contraception socially liberal?
He vetoed a bill that provides free condoms with cost as a reason. Hardly standing in the way, just not giving a helping hand.
Helping people is leftist, not liberal.
Helping people is leftist, not liberal.
Well, at least I won’t be under the mistaken impression that he’s progressive anymore.
Caste discrimination is already illegal.
What harm will explicitly codifying it do, then?
“What harm will it do” is a shit argument. Tell me what good it will do.
It will explicitly protect people from caste discrimination instead of the weak and easily misinterpreted protections they currently have.
But a Democrat in office did it, so it must be right in all cases and any flimsy justification must be instantly accepted without question.
Judging from a number of posts here, does that guy have “Veto Week” or what?
I think he receives the bills to sign/veto in batches.
They also time things to overlap outrage and pushback. What was the last thing we were mad about? Right, the veto on the bill aimed at caste discrimination. Well now we’re madder about the condoms, and we don’t have the bandwidth to complain about two things at once.
Probably uses his ass like a stamp whenever he vetoes anything as well
He has an October 14th deadline.
https://calmatters.org/newsletters/whatmatters/2023/10/gavin-newsom-veto-bills/
I mean I do agree with the fact that the bill doesn’t provide funding for the condoms just that the schools need to provide it. That sounds pretty dumb to me.
I mean but is there explicit funding for providing toilet paper?
I do think schools are under funded but that’s a lousy reason imo
I don’t have a strong opinion either way, but it does kind of make sense that loading an unfunded mandate on already under-funded public schools isn’t the best way to come at this problem.
You mean? Or you say? What’s the difference?
It’s an American English thing. Sometimes to make a statement sound less intense, people start by saying “I mean.” It’s probably regional, but I’m not sure where people do and don’t say it.
It’s rather idiocy.
You came in here and misunderstood something and now you are calling everybody else idiots? Nobody else had a problem understanding what the comment meant except you.
As if you didn’t come here and didn’t misundertand something.
Or have you always been here, for eternity?
You seem to have a problem understanding English and that’s okay. It’s a stupid language sometimes. Just don’t take it out on everybody else.
Yes, I seem to have it. But I don’t have one
I mean, you’re not actually commenting on the substance of the statement that was made, you’re cherry picking a single word and calling it out like you’ve somehow refuted the whole argument. That sounds pretty dumb to me.
You mean? Or you say? And what’s the difference? Can you mean something without saying? Or can you say something without meaning?
I don’t recall voting you boss of english.
You’ve forgotten? Man… you have short memory.
“mean” refers to “meaning”, as in the definition, or understanding.
It is similar in use to ie, (id est, or that is). An explanation.
“Say” makes no sense in this context. Say is stating something, but he isn’t stating, he is explaining.
Removed by mod
I mean a lot of people do actually speak like this where I live. It’s a pretty regular way to start a sentence. No need to be rude…know what I mean?
It’s a very common English idiom to start a sentence that way. Are you ignorant?
To be fair…. If there were free condoms at my school, they would just be used for water balloons and pranks
People also misuse sidewalks. Should we remove them?
False equivalence
No you’re right. Proper childcare and sex education is much more serious and in need of proper funding
How many of those kids will end up in foster care? How many will put their parents onto welfare rolel? How many will we need to send to college?
It’s hard to tell kids that condoms are cheaper than kids when the government won’t do the same.
Because babies and STDs are free.
Wait until he hears how expensive welfare is for single teen moms.
I’m pretty sure he knows more about it than you.
Giving them welfare just encourages this behavior, removes the consequences from their actions by shoving the cost onto the taxpayers.
We are paying money from the work we do, to pay for someone else’s mistakes
Didn’t Colorado do this and teen pregnancy rates nosedived?
Edit: I couldn’t find any news of Colorado doing this. Apologize for the misinformation.
It was not condoms, here is the study you were most likely thinking about.
Thank you, kind lemming.
