It's a performative talking point for them. They are completely clueless what the situation really is. California is spending over a billion dollars on housing the homeless because people deserve better than living in squalor on the streets, our neighborhoods. They deserve help and a roof.

I noticed they criticize Newsom but don't offer another governor as an example. Newsom is pouring billions into the issue. Who else is? It's also an odd hill to die on. Newsom's position reflects a large majority. People don't want to be harassed while shopping or boarding a train.

It's all a hit job on Newsom because of his cautionary stance on trans kids. Imagine not voting for Obama because he wasn't for gay marriage. They're taking all of his positives and trying to turn them into negatives.

The weirdest thing to me is painting Newsom as an opportunist. Taking on an aspiring dictator is a high risk thing. If it's such an "opportunity" why are so few taking it (Whitmer, Shapiro, etc.)? He also risked his career for gay marriage in the early 2000s. He appears to be courageous to me.

I agree! And we need all hands on deck, no matter who they are and what they bring. They see him as a 2028 threat, but if we don't take the midterms next year there will be no 2028 election. They bruised Hillary hard and early, they see it as a winning strategy and are gunning for Newsom.

And they seem to fear him because he is showing he can play MAGA's game. They aren't saying anything about Shapiro, Whitmer or the others.

I don’t hate him; he’s ruled himself out for my vote in a primary. I will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is regardless, but I think we have possible candidates who are just as strong who haven’t thrown vulnerable groups under the bus.

Pritzker is the obvious choice as a Trump fighter who has stood strong for trans rights. Newsom will have to clarify his stance if he wants to actually win the nomination but I doubt he and others of his ilk (the democracy is on the line folks) are thinking 2028 given the emergency now.

I don’t think it’s an insult to say they’ve all probably got 2028 on their minds. If they compete to be the toughest on Trump, great!

They aren't doing that. Most of them are lying low or saying nothing notable. Which belies the claims Newsom is "being an opportunist." The obvious politically safe thing is to hide until 2027 or avoid Trump head on. Evidence: look at 90% of them 😂

I think a lot of the Newsom hate will get exposed when he is running against other candidates. Right now it is easy to hone in on him but Newsom's critics fail to acknowledge why: because he is the most visible opponent of Trump in a party afraid to take him on.

He's only said it about trans in sports. I don't like his position either but I am a realist and expect nearly every candidate to have the same stance. If he was an outlier it's a bigger strike against him.

And that’s the real issue for you? You’re inconvenienced by having to confront what our society has done, and you’d prefer that they be invisible? Majorities can be wrong, and this majority definitely is. People aren’t a problem to be solved; they’re human beings, whatever their housing status.

I'm "inconvenienced" by having someone yell in my ear en route to a show or to a train. I also know this hurts economic activity and therefore revenues in cities. It's easy to say "do nothing" in a suburb. Also, some of them are offered help and don't take it.

I’m amazed that you’re provincial enough to believe that only California has a serious problem with unhoused people. Jesus.

Surprise! People are homeless throughout this country, and you don’t have to live in a downtown area to know and care about people who are experiencing it. It’s also possible to help people in ways that ensure they don’t lose their prized possessions or their dignity.

There is no dignity living on the street.

You're using a 2019 talking point, the policy changed in 2020. abc7.com/post/la-city...

The U.S. is more than CA. This is still happening. I can infer that you believe that you’d never be reduced to sleeping in your car or having to scramble to keep what possessions you can. If you’re typical of Newsom’s supporters, my instincts about him are right. Anybody but Newsom ‘28.

Newsom has put $24 billion towards homelessness since 2019. Who else is doing more? What's the better alternative? Do nothing and let people get harassed as they go about routine activity in a city? This is an economic problem for cities.

That's an exaggeration. I see many homeless in every city. I don't see them in suburbia. Of course they exist everywhere. It's a matter of scale. I've been part of efforts to help. Some of them don't want to go to a shelter or get other help. I've also seen the economic impact in cities.

I don’t know where you live, but I’m in GA,; unhoused people are actually quite visible in my otherwise prosperous suburb as well as in downtown Atlanta. You think that this could never happen to you, that you’d never be one of “those people” you find so annoying?

I wouldn't be harassing random people, yes. It's everywhere but not acute outside of cities. So let's say Newsom is "anti" homeless. Who's running on homeless encampments anywhere as the "great" alternative?

And no, I’m not exaggerating at all. Ask anyone who works with homelessness in a suburban area. Our society is impossibly cruel. One suburban area in Tennessee is making it illegal to sleep in your car. What are people supposed to do?

Being in a car is different from camping outside of businesses or transit stations etc.

The fact that you don’t see them in suburbia doesn’t mean that they aren’t there and they aren’t suffering - people who just can’t find housing they can afford as well as people with mental health and/or addiction problems. While it’s invisible to you, the problem is just as serious.

"Invisible" isn't the same as not knowing about it. I worked to help. Some took the help and went to shelters, others didn't.