• bitsplease
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

      • bitsplease
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

      • bitsplease
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The caste one he argued that there are already laws in place that cover it, and that what we need instead is to increase education about these existing laws and how they can be used to prevent caste discrimination. There is no point in creating another law that does the exact same thing as existing anti discrimination laws.

        For decriminalizing mushrooms he argued that the bill doesn’t actually include any provisions for how the medical usage can be implemented or how the required infrastructure can be put in place. When CA was medical only for weed it was frankly a shit show for a long while because it was highly unclear what was actually allowed and what wasn’t, he didn’t want a repeat.

        Whether you agree with either of those arguments is an entirely different question, but the titles of been seeing make it seem like he’s just shooting them down for fun - hence my suspicion that this is astroturfing.

        One of two things is true - either over the last week he’s inexplicably gotten a ton of really controversial bills crossing his desk that are all more newsworthy than anything else over the last few years, and he vetoed every single one. Or half-assed bills like these pass this desk all the time and get vetoed pending better solutions, and they’re only now getting overblown coverage as part of a smear campaign. Frankly the latter seems more likely