this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
366 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2651 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The move would extend her 36-year House career and continue to freeze her would-be California successors in a long-standing holding pattern.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Newsom would appoint her replacement though?

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.

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you admit that the original comparison was crap

Good. My point remains.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 🙄

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Ok guy. Think what you want. It's no skin off my nose.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Newsom ended single-family zoning in Cali so he is a god among inferiors.

As for Billionaire-owned, from your article:

They are not Newsom’s largest donors: The families in total have given about $2 million of the $61 million that donors have contributed to his campaigns and independent committees backing those bids

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Newsom ended single-family zoning in Cali

Far from it.

he is a god among inferiors.

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

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Can you copy-paste that article? The paywall is making it impossible to read.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That would take up far too much comment section real estate (pun intended), but have an archive.ph version of it without the paywall

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'm bout to overbuild on this real estate (keeping the pun rolling)

What is Senate Bill 9? Senate Bill 9 is the most controversial of the two new laws. It allows property owners to split a single-family lot into two lots, add a second home to their lot or split their lot into two and place duplexes on each. The last option would create four housing units on a property currently limited to a single-family house. The new law will mark a shift from current policies that allow only two large units — a stand-alone house and an accessory dwelling unit — on single-family lots, as well as an attached junior unit no larger than 500 square feet. Under the new law, cities and counties across California will be required to approve development proposals that meet specified size and design standards.

This is a fucking awesome first step.

What is Senate Bill 10? Senate Bill 10 eases the process for local governments to rezone neighborhoods near mass transit or in urban areas to increase density with apartment complexes of up to 10 units per property. The new legislation also allows cities to bypass lengthy review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act in an attempt to help reduce costs and the time it takes for projects to be approved.

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.

[–] TheHighRoad@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A flat out ban on SFH would be ideal, preferably nationwide

That is one hell of a take.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Not really. Banning SFH doesn't exclude singly family homes from existing, but just bans excluding other forms of development