164

Gavin Newsom doesn’t want to remove Trump from California ballot (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 9 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

55 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] RunningInRVA@lemmy.world 240 points 9 months ago

“There is no doubt that Donald Trump is a threat to our liberties and even to our democracy,” Mr Newsom said on 22 December. “But in California, we defeat candidates at the polls. Everything else is a political distraction.”

I’m so sick of this shit. We had a choice of Trump or Biden in 2020 and we decided. Then Trump attempted to overthrow the government. We don’t need to decide again at the polls.

[-] Gargleblaster@kbin.social 71 points 9 months ago

Translation: I would rather take this opportunity to self-promote.

[-] Caradoc879@lemmy.world 52 points 9 months ago

Newsom's about face on policies this last year as he ramps up his run for presidency is fucking disgusting. Between him and fetterman we're learning that even 'the good ones' will throw their constituents to the wolves when power and money are involved.

[-] Jax@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago

If you've been paying attention to his decisions and the state of California, like at all, you'd know Newsom was never one of the good ones. He just puts on the face like he is.

[-] ZombieTheZombieCat@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

California is doing a hell of a lot better than any other state. That's why it's always people who don't live here who want to say shit like this.

No state is perfect. This is the US after all. But major California cities are the best you're going to get in terms of anything even resembling progressivism. If people who don't live here or have never been here want to make the choice to believe conservative propaganda about homelessness when it's a nationwide problem, or about crime when it's decreased nationwide, then that's their own problem.

[-] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

I would not attribute that to Newsom, personally.

[-] osarusan@kbin.social 103 points 9 months ago

Why the fuck do people let Trump get away with shit that no ordinary person would get away with.

Imagine if we used this same bullshit logic for ordinary people.

"Murderers shouldn't be stopped by police. We should defeat them in polls."

"Car thieves shouldn't be arrested. We should let the American people choose."

Fucking dumb.

And incidentally, we already did that, in 1868 when the 14th amendment was passed. So leaving it up to the polls is ignoring both the law and the will of the people.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Because holding famous, rich important people accountable for their actions would jeopardize the system. It needs that lack of accountability to function.

[-] SoleInvictus@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Because holding famous, rich important people accountable for their actions would jeopardize the system. It needs that lack of accountability to function in a way that only benefits the wealthy.

I changed that a little. I think capitalism is pretty shitty, but it could do better for many people if the United States government stopped letting rich people bend and often outright break the law.

[-] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

Democrats don't actually care if they win elections. Thanks to the duopoly control of elections, they will never go away

[-] Avg@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Gavin Newsom is preparing for a presidential run in 4 years, he is trying to not seem so scary to independents.

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 73 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

A twice impeached seditionist-rapist shouldn’t be defeated at the polls. They should be defeated by slipping and falling on a shiv in a prison shower.

[-] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

After taking a swan dive down several flights of metal grate stairs and creatively perforating their small intestine with a rusty pineapple, but yeah, the shop & fall would be the clincher for sure

[-] NewPerspective@lemmy.world 49 points 9 months ago

I mean... Yeah, if you want to ignore the Constitution.

[-] oakey66@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago

He’s doing this for the same foolish reason that Hillary did. He’s got one thing going for him that Hillary didn’t. He’s not hated as much or more than Trump.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 28 points 9 months ago

Hillary won the popular vote by 2 million votes for reference.

[-] pingveno@kbin.social 9 points 9 months ago

There's certainly no need to tussle over it in California. Trump wouldn't win in California anyway and it would just feed into the persecution narrative among his fan base.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

There's still red districts that might see a drop in Republicans voting if trump wasn't an option.

[-] ganksy@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago

True. Down ballot it would make a difference. Local govts could see substantial improvements.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Whether Trump's actions constitute abetting insurrection is still an open question that will undoubtedly reach SCOTUS.

Regardless, and pragmatically, removing Trump from the ballots of states he would never win in the first place only emboldens the aggrieved right. It might feel nice to people that don't support Trump, but roughly half of all voters DO support Trump. Even in bright blue California, 30% supported Trump for president. That's roughly 1 out of every 3 people. In CALIFORNIA.

Removing candidates from the ballot is a dangerous game for everyone. Things will only change for the better if we do it the hard, annoying way: changing the minds of people that support him. Removing him from the ballot is not the way to do that.

[-] mmagod@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

changing the minds of people that support him

nope. fuck them.

[-] SoleInvictus@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

I absolutely will not fuck any of them. I hope they all acquire a disease of the genitals that can only be cured with lye and sandpaper.

[-] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

While I do agree with you, nearly completely, one nit that I would pick is the implication that "the aggrieved right", and the emboldening of same are a point of concern to be avoided.

At this point, I feel that the right, and the actions and positions they've taken, have removed them markedly from the realm of a worthy and respectable political bloc, even if one I rarely agree with, and moved them squarely into the realm of radical and destabilizing faction that pushes for goals which can and will permanently destroy the foundations of the democracy I stand for as an essential underpinning of personal liberty.

At that point, they deserve to be aggrieved, and I see pissing them off as a necessary by-product of preserving democracy.

They've chosen to place themselves at odds with democratic rule, not the other way around.

That being said, however, I feel it would be a bigger win for everyone if Trump loses the election while appearing on ballots than if he's absent from ballots in battleground states.

[-] whofearsthenight@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

Treating Trump with any sort of legitimacy is how we got here. We have laws designed exactly for him. He shouldn't go on the ballot. The right is only emboldened because they're constantly getting away with fucking everything, skirting the lines of the law if not outright breaking them. We should entertain him being on the ballot like we'd entertain someone who's 20 or wasn't born in the country – it's absurd.

[-] Lemmygizer@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

You are factually correct about "30% of the vote in CA". But I think you are misinterpreting the data. PEW says that in 2020 96% of people voted strictly along party lines. PEW shows 30% of registered voters in CA are GOP or GOP leaning. Which means whoever the GOP candidate is would have received 29% of the voter REGARDLESS of who the candidate was. And before you point out the 1% "gain", Biden "gained" 6% over registered DEM voters using the same metrics in CA.

(I sourced PEW because they were the first Google results that had the stats at the detail level I needed)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

Things will only change for the better if we do it the hard, annoying way: changing the minds of people that support him.

Honestly, how? How do you possibly do this? They live in a bubble at this point, completely impervious to the facts. We have so much public information that would is absolutely damning that this guy is a criminal: the most clear being admitting on tape to mishandling classified information. Yet they don't care. How do you get through to these people? If you have a good way, I would love to attempt it. But every attempt at debate I've had with these people is met with "you watch too much CNN" it's a complete shut down to any type of logic.

[-] rosymind@leminal.space 0 points 9 months ago

I wish more people could see this, and understand it. It's a bit shocking to me how little empathy people have. Empathy isn't just about knowing when to give someone a hug- it's also about understanding what makes some people angry (among other things). Removing Trump from the ballot in California would do FAR more harm than anything else.

I agree with (you) and Newsome on this one

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

While I absolutely see your point, and am even on the fence about it myself, I also see Trump as a huge threat to the country and the world. He's made his intentions pretty well known at this time what he plans to do in his second term, and it's basically dismantle everything. Couple that with the fact that he was probably only a few key people away from creating a constitutional crisis on Jan 6th, and using that as a reason to retain power. If he purges most of the government and puts in people loyal to him rather than the COTUS, it could go very bad for this country.

Additionally, it appears that nothing can convince his cultists that he is a bad person. It's all out in the open: we have him bragging on tape to mishandling classified information (while not all that long ago they were chanting that a political opponent should be locked up for just that), we have him on tape - and other evidence - of pressuring an election official to overturn an election he lost, we have him - in violation of the law - withholding money appropriate by congress and then secretly calling the recipient of that aid and basically pressuring him into opening an investigation into a political rival.

I just don't get how you could possibly convince these people that he is a bad person when we have so much blatant shit, right in front of us, indicating how bad he is and that only makes him more popular. They live in a bubble where penetrating it is impossible, or they are simply fascists who want this guy to be their god-emperor so it actually part of the plan.

The COTUS is designed to protect us from these types of people. . .and if we aren't going to use when it's so clearly appropriate, and just leave it up to chance of the misinformed public, what's the point of it at all?

[-] EtherWhack@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

One thing which keeps sticking with me that was mentioned on another thread that I agree with, is precedence. If blue/liberal states start trying to remove him from their ballots, what's going to stop the red/conservative states from trying to do the same for Biden?

It may just keep escalating to a larger bickering match between the states akin to children fighting over what channel to watch.

[-] rosymind@leminal.space 3 points 9 months ago

I doubt that would happen, but I also never thought I'd see the day that human rights in the U.S. went backward, either

[-] tacosplease@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Gavin Newsom needs to sit down and shut the fuck up. He's got a future in politics. Now is not his time but he keeps trying to put himself into the news cycle for recognition. Chill bro.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

California Governor Gavin Newson isn’t backing his own lieutenant’s call to remove Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot after the Colorado Supreme Court determined that he was ineligible for the presidency.

California Lt Gov Eleni Kounalakis responded to the move by suggesting that her state should do the same ahead of its 5 March primary.

Ms Kounalakis had expressed her intent to remove Mr Trump from the ballot in a letter to California’s Secretary of State on 20 December.

“Prompted” by the Colorado ruling, Ms Kounalakis wrote, “I urge you to explore every legal option to remove former President Donald Trump from California’s 2024 presidential primary ballot.”

On the same day, Democratic state Sen Dave Min announced he planned to introduce a bill in 2024 that would allow California “residents to sue to remove ineligible candidates from the ballot.”

In response to the Colorado ruling, Mr Trump took to Truth Social to air out his grievances: “A SAD DAY IN AMERICA!!

The original article contains 381 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 57%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] blazera@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

Dis shits gonna streissand effect in Trump's favor.

[-] TheDankHold@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago

If it does then that means political accountability is impossible.

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

I think he's avoiding more Streisand this way, but it's prolly arguable.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Pussy.

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 9 months ago

I can halfway agree with this. It's not like Trump was going to win in California, so it might make sense to focus efforts on other states.

Still, I'd like to see CA at least try.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023

164 points (93.2% liked)

politics

18992 readers

2925 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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.
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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
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.
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