Gavin Newsom’s quest to ‘Trump-proof’ California enrages incoming president
Gavin Newsom’s quest to ‘Trump-proof’ California enrages incoming president
You're viewing a single thread.
As much as I hate to admit it, Newsom has the right plan here. Democrats in power need to erect as many institutional barriers to Trump implementing his own policy, and doing it at the State level disrupts their route of attack significantly. The danger is that shielding blue state Republicans from the worst effects of Trump's economic policy might erode their potential support base, but they have to either take the risk, or carve out exceptions to their own policy that disproportionatly allow blue state Republicans to feel the sting (maybe, for instance, avoiding protections for small businesses). I doubt Democrats have the stomach for the latter option, so Newsom is making the correct play, and others should follow suit.
I think you’re right. Everyone is bowing down and kissing the ring.
If Democrats want any respect they need to act bravely in unison now and erect every possible barrier possible.
One of the problem with liberals is they believe we live in a somewhat fair and just world where laws work, justice takes time, and if you play by the rules everything will work out fine.
Fascists will nod along with liberals while thinking they’re a bunch of idiots and will use their naivety against them until they gain power, then turn to violence.
Trump has a lot of plans to put into place effect so there will be a lot of balls in the air and actors on the field.
Everyone needs to block them, disrupt them, distract them in any way possible.
I think part of the problem is that liberals don’t actually think we live in an inherently just and fair world. But that they think that capitalism, corporatism, and “stability” at any cost (even if that stability is a downward slope to fascism/oligopoly and ecocide) can still be “just” and “fair.”
Look at—and I hate to use Bernie as the example, but it’s relevant—how Bernie’s kinda progressive policies were treated by the party. They refused to let him win. And then pseudo-“adopted” the outward appearance of those policies to win voters. If his policies aren’t harmful enough to refuse to endorse them…why would you not just let him be president? Why stop him and take facsimiles of his policies? Is it because they knew they would win them votes but they’d never in a million years enact those policies? What was scaring them about him winning with his (again, very moderate) policies?
This is just the most recent and telling example. And then…I mean, the genocide thing. Not supporting a genocide is a pretty goddamn easy ask. But they were probably bleeding voters because they just wouldn’t.
These are not big, crazy things to ask for. But stopping them and enacting helpful policies was unthinkable to them. Why is that. Because more than anything, they would protect the rotting corpse of capitalism and the global hegemony over anything that might help people. And that comes back to their fucking billionaire backers, I assume? They are the ones who stand to lose scraps of their money and power.
I mean, I have to assume that is the answer. But it can’t be denied, I don’t think.
Oh Bernie…. Bernie would have given us a chance with real solutions and hope for the working class and would have been able to push back on Israel without being smeared as an antisemite.
But no, the DNC would never let him.
Drag everything out in court for four years. SOP