this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
631 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4110 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 162 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What is up with Newsome vetoing all this shit suddenly?

[–] Shazbot@lemmy.world 86 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Presumably getting ready to launch his own presidential bid, so he needs to court the center by appearing more moderate.

[–] guacupado@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Teens having Kids cost more than condoms

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] frickineh@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] phx@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How much do they actually expect these to cost? How about they cancel fireworks at the next sports event. That'd probably cover it

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (8 children)

How much would prohibiting caste discrimination or decriminalizing psilocybin increase the deficit?

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 160 points 1 year ago (55 children)

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

load more comments (55 replies)
[–] S_204@lemmy.world 129 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] roofuskit@kbin.social 124 points 1 year ago (9 children)

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 102 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (15 children)

Just FYI: most family planning centers, like Planned Parenthood, hospitals and birthing clinics already give out free condoms to anyone who asks. That's where I was getting mine when I was a teenager.

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They give you bags stuffed to the brim!!!! It looks like the picture lol. Nobody there wants unwanted pregnancies.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] halferect@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago

Condoms are a hell of a lot cheaper than children

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 46 points 1 year ago (1 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."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago (8 children)

"We want progressives!"

"You have progressives at home."

The progressive at home:

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Judging from a number of posts here, does that guy have "Veto Week" or what?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (28 children)

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.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] mrgoodc4t@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair…. If there were free condoms at my school, they would just be used for water balloons and pranks

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

People also misuse sidewalks. Should we remove them?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ddhuud@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Because babies and STDs are free.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›