That stuff is old news. It was reported that he skinny dipped in his pool back when he was VP.
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Oh no, nudism. My Christian sensibilities will never be the same.
I think the issue with Gavin/Pete, in particular Gavin, is the issue California is having with economically, crime perception in their big cities and how that has reflected on the democrats presidency. Also...the VP is from California and she could have an objection to it.
I do agree that Trump and DeSantis will fight it out for the R's ....i think it'll be close though in choice between Noem(might be too early in her political career) or Tim Scott from SC.
I think most Dems realize Harris can’t win the Presidency. If Gavin chooses to run, there would be little she could do about it.
probably true...she would have a tough time getting the nod
The issue with these things is that they are macro-level issues that we're experiencing rather than direct results of Newsom's policies. The result is from nation-wide policies that favor the rich and have been steadily increasing wealth inequality for the last 30 years. I do think that governors and mayors can help alleviate some of the problems, for instance, homelessness, but we have to look at cities that have successfully improved the homeless situation like this article that compares Houston to San Diego. In addition to the macro factors that require more than a mayor or governor, I think part of the problem is conservatives constantly whining about spending money to help the issue, part of the problem is long-standing government contract systems that help contractors profit more than creating long-term solutions, and part of the problem is lack of will to provide better short-term solutions like at least supplying more bathroom access to places like skid-row.
I'm not sure Newsom can be blamed for crime either. Crime is more local in general (I don't think many governors can really influence crime the way cities can) but I remember this recent article that looked at crime and it focused more on the GOP-controlled areas and highlights some of the overall problems that contribute to violent (and they aren't the ones conservatives bleat about):
https://www.latimes.com/california/...ornia-where-it-rose-the-most-may-surprise-you
The word perception is correct because it's what the dishonest right-wing media has been falsely spreading for political gain, not based on facts. The reality is that conservative policies contribute more to increased crime than any progressive policies. From the article I linked above:
"The biggest risks for homicides came in conservative counties with iron-fist sheriffs and district attorneys, places where progressives in power are nearly as common as monkeys riding unicorns."
And the overall problem is partially the direct result of the die-hard conservative "2nd Amendment advocates"
"The vast majority of our homicides and aggravated assaults involve guns — in 1,734 out of 2,361 homicides recorded in California in 2021, the weapon was a gun, a 33% increase in firearm-related homicides since 2012. That means about 75% of the time when a Californian is murdered, the cause of death is a bullet. So-called ghost guns, legal guns, automatics, shotguns. You name it, someone committed a crime with it...
...a lot of people who shouldn’t have firearms — because they are felons, domestic abusers, have mental health issues, or are getting ready to open fire on a large crowd, for example — have them anyway. We make it easy."
Newsom makes a good choice because he's informed and lucid enough to articulate these facts in a powerful way (which Biden cannot anymore). Compare Newsom to the disaster that is DeSantis, wasting millions of taxpayer money on a meaningless and compassionless political stunt and its clear to see who has been the better leader, and that's not even taking into account how poorly DeSantis handled the pandemic compared to how well Newsom handled it.
These issues may or may not be attributed to Newsom’s policies. But the proof is in the pudding. Everyone in the state can see the increased homeless encampments and crime, both petty and violent, going on in their cities and counties. And many people (and companies) are moving out for myriad reasons. Whether or not Newsom is at fault, he should be doing more to combat these problems. Issues like crime i agree are more local, but only at the enforcement level. Prop 47 and other policies that determine certain crimes to be classified/punished a certain way, are state-wide policies. People that should stay locked up in jail or in some psych facility care are not, and continue to victimize people once released back in the street. Even in my own department, the majority of our radio calls, arrests, and uses-of-force are on transients and/or mentally ill. They are back in their same spots in the next day or two, and just hang around until they decide to assault some citizen again. Some may like this “public safety reimagined”. I don’t. So I disagree with the opinion piece article that deflects the blame from criminal justice reform. These “reimagined” and “reform” policies, and those who practice them like DA Gascon, are very much a big part of the problem, though not the sole contributor.
Homelessness I don’t know what the solution is, but it’s not easy to compare California with other states or cities because of the sheer numbers of the transient population, and add the fact that so many of them are from other states.
Everyone that I've seen that personally moved out of the state, I say good riddance. They were people that attended the high-school I attended and they were almost all racist cnuts and fully all Trump voters. From what I've heard and seen personally, that's the type of person moving out of California to places like Idaho (a state that has a lot of racists, some of whom cross the border to Spokane, WA, and cause a lot of problems). The businesses I've seen move out were small businesses run by the above-mentioned people. So, yeah, I'm not sad about all the people I've personally interacted with that are moving out of the state - saw one Facebook post saying, "thank god I'm leaving California, too many [slur for Mexicans]".
As far as homelessness and crime, first look at the article I linked. The increase in violent crimes like homicides are coming from GOP-controlled counties with these tough guy sheriffs and city officials. Meanwhile Contra Costa County with a progressive DA is seeing a reduction in crime and generally is a safer place than it was 10-15 years ago. I lived in Contra Costa County for years so I know what it used to be like and hear what its like now. I'd also use Becton as a better example of criminal justice reform than Gascon for sure.
Going to your department you say majority of calls have to do with the transient and mentally ill. So what's your solution?
This problem was decades in the making beginning with the rotten policies of governor Reagan like closing all the state-run facilities and beginning the trend of throwing mentally ill people on the streets to fend for themselves (policy continued by Democrat Jerry Brown who was just as bad as Reagan on his first go-round and on his second, wasted billions on his stupid fossil-fuel burning train boondoggle). Almost all the damage we see today comes from 3 conservative governors who were very bad for CA (Reagan, Deukmajian, Pete Wilson) and one Democrat (Jerry Brown). I'd rate Newsom and Arnold actually as the two best Govs Cali has had in 50 years.
If we toss in addicts, it becomes quite clear that a large part of the problem is we don't have a public health system capable of accommodating the numbers of people that are mentally ill, transients, and addicts. And its consistently the GOP that is trying to never allow us to have those resources. So yeah I see far more problems with the GOP and corporate Democrats that have been in the legislature and run city govs. over the years (like that energy-crisis causing chump Antonio Villagarosa) than progressives. That's not to say the Democrats couldn't do a helluva lot more to help the problem but the solution clearly doesn't lie in anything I've seen conservatives or the GOP propose.
Last edited:
You're right, they're mostly Republican types that are moving out. I don't really label things republican and dems like you seem to, so it doesn't matter to me. It's not just small businesses moving out. Tesla, Toyota, CBRE, HP and others have left the state and will continue to. That's a loss of tax base for the state, so if you think it's all fine because they're mostly republicans and trumpers then I guess we'll see how it all pans out in a few years.
One of my solutions re transient/mentally ill, you just answered: fund and bring back mental illness facilities. Those who are better served there should be sent there in lieu of jails/prisons until they're deemed safe to release. Re the article, those smaller and rural counties have always had drug problems and random violent crimes. And because they have smaller populations, the crime rates per capita will always be high. So IMO it doesn't matter if a county is majority red or blue, or if they have progressive leaders or not. It's never that simple when it comes to crime prevention, enforcement, and prosecution. In pure numbers/incidences these smaller counties still pale in comparison to LA/SF/SD in crime. It's also important not to downplay other crime that isn't deemed "violent" like homicides. It's still a nuisance and it's shitty being a victim of any crime. Catalytic converter thefts, car break-ins, retail thefts/smash and grabs, residential/commercial burglaries, assaults are all still commonplace and some are increasing a lot in cities big and small. It's great that Contra Costa is safer than it was before, but I don't think you can attribute that to simply having a progressive DA. Even if it is the case, it doesn't mean you can apply that to LA or Oakland and get the same results.
Funny though that I moved out of CA to TN because I got a job there.
Within the first month, an old white man yelled at me at a traffic signal, asking me to go back to California because he saw that my car still had a CA plate. When I looked at him because I was not sure what he was yelling at first, he told me to come out and fight.
Another incident happened when I went to a clinic with a friend of mine in AL. A clerk there asked how we got there (we are both Asians). I told her that we swam across the ocean, and she seemed to believe it.
Both happened in so-called progressive areas of the states.
This is the obvious solution. Why hasn't it happened yet? I don't understand why anyone would oppose that, democrat or republican. It is inhumane to throw mentally ill people to the streets. It does not improve the lives of the mentally ill, it only creates misery and crime.
Don’t know. I’ve heard the argument that forcing people into mental institutions is cruel and inhumane punishment. I think the reasoning for closing them back in the 80’s was that, and saving money. It was thought that they would be better served in the care of their loved ones in communities.
I definitely think we can find a lot of common ground and agree on a lot of solutions. I agree about the mental health facilities and resources. I would add that another element that would help is ending the "war" on drugs, decriminalize a lot of drug use and finally take the advice that professionals have been saying for decades and provide the addict support/recovery services that we, as a society, desperately need. Drug addiction needs to also be under the health care system not the criminal justice system. Obviously, if people are violent, then sure the criminal justice system is where they belong but non-violent drug users should never be jailed the way we've been doing since the 1980s to horrible results.
Of course a big metro area will have raw numbers of crime higher than more rural counties and smaller towns but the per-capita numbers are relevant because they show that the old "tough on crime" type policies don't really work either.
On a macro level, it's no surprise either. Since the 1980s, American culture has not just glorified getting rich and having money but they've elevated it into practically the sole religious virtue. Just look at Trump and how everything he's done reflects no virtue except getting rich in any way possible (by hook or by crook) and the rise of social media hasn't helped from Paris Hilton being famous just for being rich to the Kardashians to all these influencers, etc. So when we have an American culture that places such a premium emphasis solely on making money, getting rich and you overlay that cultural paradigm on top of a society that has had increasing wealth inequality for 40-50 years, then crime and drugs are the logical and predictable result.
It's a point that's been made in many media since The Wire and plenty of academic research, but when the culture values wealth and people are stuck in poverty, of course, they are going to turn to selling drugs and crime because that's one of only three avenues that millions of poor, disenfranchised youth see as a way of getting out of poverty (music and sports being the other two and less than 1% that try ever succeed in those avenues). The reason the tough-on-crime rural sheriffs and DAs never succeed (as you mention a lot of these counties have had crime and drugs for 5 decades) is that the cultural recipe simply creates more people willing to take the risk of selling drugs or other petty crime because, why not? Getting rich is the American Virtue in both rural conservative areas and urban hoods (and even upper middle class communities if you look at the "Bling Ring"). Tough-on-crime rhetoric and policies haven't helped: mandatory minimums were an epic failure.
So I think we agree on improving mental health facilities and we might be able to find common ground on some decriminalization efforts and improving public health services for addiction, I think to really see decreased crime in the long term, American society as a whole desperately needs to mature out of this making money as the prominent virtue and rich people being revered solely for being rich phase that we appear stuck in.
I can relate to stories like this since I've experienced the same, from the micro-aggression level to having people scream things like "go back to your country". I haven't always handled it as well as you though. Making that joke about swimming across the ocean is quite clever and it's hilarious (in a sad way) that they actually seemed to believe you. I hope you settle in and can make a home where you moved!
If MBS wants to side with Putin and try to harm the US, Biden and the US should end military aid to Saudi Arabia and demand the return of any sensitive systems (like the Patriot batteries defending them from Iranian drones). The same goes for the UAE. It's a naked ploy by both to try to get their corrupt patsy returned to power by harming Democrats' chances in the mid-terms in addition to harming the West as a whole.
What about a Newsom/Abrams ticket?
We could call it the Gavin and Stacey show.
Only problem would be keeping James Corden away.
fuking oil man....gas just jumped 30 cents yesterday
that's the most i can remember a one day jump in prices
i'm going to assume you were kidding based on the line right after that in bold....Abrams would 100% tank any ticket she would be on for the Dems
that's the most i can remember a one day jump in prices
i'm going to assume you were kidding based on the line right after that in bold....Abrams would 100% tank any ticket she would be on for the Dems
Yeah. It only worked for the “Gavin and Stacey” line.
I think Newsom and Pete would be a pretty solid ticket that could win. It would be criticized for lack of "diversity" but in terms of winning the Presidency, it would have a very good chance (assuming Newsom doesn't get swiftboated by his ex wife during the campaign).
Pretty sure that swiftboating is why Jr. keeps her around.
Personally I would support Newsom/Pete. But is it reasonable to expect such a ticket? Republicans will probably attack Newsom as a California Communist, so isn't it prudent for him to have a more conservative/mainstream partner for vice president? And obviously, I mean someone who is not gay. Not because I am against gays, but because I don't think that Americans will vote for him.
Republicans will manufacture things to attack Dems with in any scenario, which is why its best for the Dems to pick someone who can get a lot of independent votes and ideally someone who is younger than the recent spate of Hillary/Trump/Biden/Sanders type candidates many younger Americans are growing tired of.
Well, Newsom is young enough, does he really need someone even younger? And who are the "independent voters"? Since they are voters, they are probably the swing voters who sometimes vote for Republicans and sometimes for Democrats. I am not sure how many of those people who sometimes vote for Republicans would vote for Pete.
I'm pretty sure the Venn diagram for "People Who would vote for a Dem Presidential Candidate" and "People Who Would Not Vote for a Gay VP Canidate" looks like a pair of tits.
You should follow the political threads here since they answer all of these questions.
Okay, thank you!
Huge. Repubs will lose their shit. I can't wait
Bloody hell that’s huge.
Common sense, amazing.
Common sense, amazing.
Oh snap
Wow, that's actually amazing. Between that and the (hopeful) infrastructure bill, his presidency is low-key doing some big things.
If only there was a medium through which to reach the average voter.
If only there was a medium through which to reach the average voter.
The trouble here is that there is very, very few to no ‘average voters’ anymore.
Great news! Private prisons will struggle without their nonviolent offenders kept in for years
Excellent point.
He’s had a few recently tbf.