Yeah. I’m especially suspicious of the big influx of posts that are all of a sudden super-concerned about his progressive credentials, as if the most important thing right now that we’re trying not to go to Trump-prison for making a Democratic campaign contribution, is what Gavin Newsom’s homeless policy was like. But this one I posted because I do feel like it’s pretty accurate to what I don’t like about Gavin Newsom on a general personal level. But yeah, he’s doing fine, it’s good that he’s trying to mess up Trump, I wish more people would.
I would say I am concerned when he is willing to capitulate on my rights as a trans woman. I don’t have any interest in him being the next face of the party
It’s not a sudden influx, he wasn’t getting talked about much before now, and suddenly he’s in the news and the commentariat is mumbling about a presidential run.
From my perspective, it seems he has no convictions and is willing to say and do what ever he thinks will get him the most positive headlines. He made those transphobic comments during the fucking Charlie Kirk podcast appearance, why the fuck did he do that? Because the opinion pieces were all winging about how Harris lost because she didn’t go on enough podcasts, and/or because she hadn’t been mean enough to trans people.
He’s doing this now, not because he thinks it matters but because all the opinion pieces are saying this is what he should do. He’s letting the tail wag the dog. Maybe the opinion pieces are right at the moment, but what happens when they suggest something idiotic?
He’s an awful candidate who will lose a presidential run at worst, and at best his milk toast careerism will knee cap the congressional battles that happen at the same time, leaving a divided congress incapable of passing real legislation.
Because the opinion pieces were all winging about how Harris lost because she didn’t go on enough podcasts
I mean that part is definitely true. The Democratic campaign machine is a big collection of boomer shit, of which this was one example. I thought that was generally agreed upon on Lemmy?
, and/or because she hadn’t been mean enough to trans people.
Fuckin’ what? Who said that? What are some of these opinion pieces?
at best his milk toast careerism will knee cap the congressional battles that happen at the same time
Sounds like it’s doing literally 100% the exact opposite, because he unlike almost all of the Democratic party is actually trying to fight for proper representation in congress. Right? Or did we read different articles or something?
“The Democrats have to stop pandering to the far left,” Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., told The New York Times on Wednesday. “I don’t want to discriminate against anybody, but I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports.”
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., shared a similar view, telling the Times on Thursday: “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
Okay, so it wasn’t “all” opinion pieces, it was no opinion pieces. Glad we got that squared away. There is an NBC News article, and a couple of clueless reps apparently. Hooray. To me this piece sounds like a pretty good instance of the galaxy-brain type of propaganda that can successfully turn everyone against the Democrats, whether you are pro-trans or anti-trans, which is generally a pretty good accomplishment when you can swing it.
There is an NBC News article, and a couple of clueless reps apparently. Hooray.
They’re literally Congresspersons speaking in interviews about the election, blaming (acceptance of) trans people for Harris’ loss. Stop trying to minimize this.
To me this piece sounds like a pretty good instance of the galaxy-brain type of propaganda that can successfully turn everyone against the Democrats
Stop pretending that anyone here is arguing to abandon Democrats. We’re arguing that the party establishment is at least very willing to accept anti-trans positions, and when you’re talking about potential future presidential candidates who are doing it, it’s both fair and important to call it out.
If you don’t care whether our next President is on record saying trans people shouldn’t be treated as the gender they identify with as long as they’re a Democrat, just say it. But don’t pretend that “oh, no one in the Democratic Party thinks this stuff (including the guy who went on a right-wing podcast and said it)”.
Because the opinion pieces were all winging about how Harris lost because … she hadn’t been mean enough to trans people.
Now that we’ve solidly established that I was 100% in the right to disagree with this, you’ve done a few rhetorical backflips around to where you’re accusing me of a bunch of things I never said. You’ve also actually managed to backflip your way around to where because I posted a negative story about Gavin Newsom, I must not care about negative things about Gavin Newsom and I must think he’s our next president.
I changed my mind: You might be the galaxy brain propaganda. It’s honestly pretty impressive. Well done! If you want to engage with anything I actually said, you’re welcome to.
Yeah. I’m especially suspicious of the big influx of posts that are all of a sudden super-concerned about his progressive credentials
I must not care about negative things about Gavin Newsom
Which is it? Or are only the articles that you post not part of the “influx”?
That aside, if you’re telling me that you are in fact critical of Newsom’s as-yet ineffectual maneuvering and also think it’s just cynical politicking at the expense of trans people and immigrants to position himself for a presidential run, I am thrilled, because that is not the vibe I got from your comments.
If you look back on my profile you can see me commenting on a couple of them (including return2ozma reposting something from 2023 because it was a good opportunity to shit on Newsom and then a bunch of people coming in the comments lecturing me on how important it was to shit on Newsom).
Anybody whining too hard about Newsom’s policies right now is actively supporting Trump’s agenda.
When am I allowed to “whine” about his transphobia? When should I write down in my calendar as the appropriate date to “whine” that he is signaling support for conservative anti-trans talking points, like it’s going to actually win him voters? Not even touching the way he’s treated homeless residents of the state.
It doesn’t matter that Equality California, and the leader of the state senate’s LGBTQ+ caucus, and the world’s largest LGBT health center (based in California) all condemned his statements, of course. Psy-ops, all of them.
Based on the way people talk about anyone who does anything other than sing his praises I’m guessing the answer is ‘never.’ There’s always going to be some new crisis that makes trans rights too frivolous and unimportant to hold politicians to account for. I’m not fucking stupid, I remember how Democratic leadership in the 90s and 00s reacted to increasing demands for gay rights. I’ve seen this song and dance before.
And to top it off, after living here over a dozen years I have to see people talk like California isn’t both incredibly populated and with plenty of people left of center and dissatisfied with Newsom (his approval rating was hanging in the mid 40s before the Trump shenanigans). I guess they’re all astroturfers too. Fuck, if I didn’t live here I’d have breathed in a little less goddamned who knows what in the January fires.
While I get where you’re coming from, turning into a single-issue voter won’t do anything. Republicans took over on abortion, even though this is not an epidemic problem. Pick your battles.
If you aren’t voting for your own removal from society then don’t ask others to do it.
If it’s super important for queer people to all vote for one candidate, go lean on that candidate to stop fucking being transphobic instead of trying to convince every queer person that transphobia is actually okay if we really really have to win, you don’t understand, this time is different! And right after the election that we maybe win, maybe then (if conservatives all meekly fall in line), maybe then we can think about criticizing transphobia.
Oh, but not for the first year, we need unity. And not for the second year, because the midterms are coming up. And not in the third year because the midterms went badly and he can’t even do anything about it, why are you complaining? And not in the fourth year because do you want us to lose the election??!!
I am that single fucking issue. I’m not going to vote for my own demise and you’re over here like “ooo don’t forget to pick your battles” while avoiding the fucking humans standing next to you. You god-damned fair-weather liberals are literally going to get me thrown into a concentration camp just so you can protect your own fucking cis-white privilege. Decolonize your fucking mind.
Oh, to have the view that the perfect politician will eventually show up and win. It doesn’t work that way. And don’t act like you have a monopoly on being targeted by this administration.
Do you really think (assuming a 2028 election) that a Vance admin would be better for you than Newsom?
That’s my beef with single-issue voters. “Welp, no candidates support my position, so I’ll stay home.” This is what the GOP has masterfully avoided by keeping red meat on the table so they can steal the entire country.
Every single plank in the Nazi Republican platform is discriminatory and oppressive. You’re engaging in false equivalence.
Do you really think (assuming a 2028 election) that a Vance admin would be better for you than Newsom?
OK, this explains a lot…
you are living in a reality that you’ve made up in your head, where the Democratic primary for 2028 has already happened, and Newsom won it, and now we all need to unify around him in the general election.
I’m guessing you’re not even doing it consciously, it’s just a kneejerk reaction you’ve developed over the past few years where any criticism of a Democrat coming from their left can be shouted down with “don’t you realize this will help Trump win???”
meanwhile, over here in the consensus reality everyone else is experiencing, there’s 2 years before the 2028 primary even starts.
and I’m not really clear how this whole system works, maybe you can explain it to me?
according to you, criticism of Newsom isn’t allowed, because it might help get JD Vance elected. OK, does that extend to the other possible candidates on that list, besides Newsom?
and is there like, a form I’m supposed to fill out and give you, so I can get a permission slip that allows me to criticize one of them?
to quote Billy Bob from S1 of Fargo, I just want to know the policy.
Whoa. Extrapolate much? I said nothing about the acceptability of criticizing Newsom, yet you’re taking that as my thesis. This isn’t a rabbit hole I care to go down, as your entire comment is question-begging.
Politicians aren’t your friends, you don’t expect them to keep good faith or to always support you, or to agree with you about everything. If you expect to find a perfect politician to support then you will be searching forever, while making extremely self-destructive choices along the way.
Politicians are something you use while they’re convenient and then move on from when they’re not. In this case, we are absolutely talking about resisting the fascist takeover of the nation. That’s what’s on the table. Personally I think that outcome would be inconvenient. Considering what the Trump administration has already done to the trans community, the complaints about Newsom feel like misdirection.
I’m not recommending undying loyalty, I’m recommending cost-benefit analysis, in this moment, in this context.
If you expect to find a perfect politician to support then you will be searching forever, while making extremely self-destructive choices along the way.
pretty much every time there’s criticism of a Democrat like Newsom, this argument comes up - that the people doing the criticizing are holding out unrealistic hopes for a “perfect” politician.
I’m gonna guess / hope that this isn’t what you’re intending, but this argument always comes across as extremely patronizing / condescending. “not everything can be perfect” is the sort of tone you take with a 4 year old who’s having a meltdown about not being allowed to have a 2nd ice cream cone. this framing of the argument places you as the adult in the room, and the people criticizing Newsom as basically children who don’t understand how the world works and are upset that they’re not getting exactly what they want. and I dunno, if you want to have productive political debates, try not talking to people like they’re children.
the question is not “is this politician perfect?” - it’s “does this politician meet the bare minimum requirements?”
imagine a hypothetical Democratic politician who took a stance of “eh, gay marriage, we don’t actually need it” and said they’d be fine with the Supreme Court overturning Obergefell v. Hodges (like they’ve just been asked to do)
would you support that politician? would you vote for them? I certainly wouldn’t.
that’s because “support for marriage equality” is part of the bare minimum we expect from Democrats.
the people criticizing Newsom, including me, consider “support for trans rights” to be part of that bare minimum. the people defending Newsom apparently don’t. that’s the actual disagreement here. don’t hide behind this abstract talk about cost-benefit analysis. don’t talk to Newsom critics like they’re naive children. just be honest and say that “trans people should be allowed to exist” is not part of your bare minimum requirements for Democrats.
I don’t care for Newsom. But elections are at this point like “which of my ex-wives that put me into debt would I prefer around again?”
The issue is far larger than bare minimums – it’s harm reduction. Worth bearing in mind is that the DNC is a conservative party funded by the rich just as much as the GOP, hence the ambush on Sanders a couple cycles back. Their policies are slightly less shitty, but without a repeal of Citizens United, this is the system we have.
lmao. this reminds me of how conservatives have co-opted therapy language - Jan 6th insurrectionists who used to be “facts don’t care about your feelings” assholes are now filing legal briefs about how being in prison has given them Trauma, and they should be released from prison because they have Anxiety and Depression.
this is more patronizing and condescending bullshit. just once I’d like to meet a centrist/moderate Democrat who doesn’t talk to people on their left like they’re children. seriously, it’s not that hard. try it sometime.
the canonical example of harm reduction actually working is needle exchange programs to prevent the spread of HIV, hepatitis, etc.
a crucial thing about those needle exchange programs is that IV drug users wanted them. they fought for them to be established.
with actual harm reduction, you don’t need to browbeat the people who will experience the reduced harm into accepting it.
you’re trying to frame “no one is allowed to criticize Newsom for being transphobic” as somehow being “harm reduction” for trans people? give me a fucking break. trans people in this thread are trying to tell you that Newsom represents increased harm targeted at them.
if that’s not enough, and you want other examples - Katelyn Burns:
Newsom does not represent trans peoples’ interests. it’s not derangement. the options right now are not newsom vs maga/trump, it’s newsom vs the rest of the democratic party. we are allowed to criticize him for being a fucking asshole towards us.
If there’s one thing that getting yelled at all day for saying that I will not vote for Gavin Newsom in a hypothetical 2028 election has made me more sure of… it’s that I will not be voting for Gavin Newsom (or any other politician who pushes anti-trans nonsense) in 2028 or any other year.
I will never vote for Newsom even if he’s the Democratic nominee. He must never be allowed to win another election. He’s a rotten soulless husk of a human being.
and that’s just the first 3 politically active, American trans people who I thought of, and who I know are on Bluesky, where it’s very easy to search their username plus Newsom to find what they’ve said about him.
don’t delude yourself about “harm reduction”. what you’re actually doing here is the white savior complex, but with trans people instead of non-white people.
You are putting so many words in my mouth that I won’t need dinner. I’m happy to have reasoned discourse, but your starting point makes that impossible, as you’ll just accuse me of being defensive. This is not arguing in good faith.
Newsom already got the gerrymandering on the ballot, and I don’t see California voters not passing it in retribution for how Trump has treated the state. So why can’t the people he is looking to throw under the bus to get to the national stage say anything about it without being accused of being paid for it? Is your answer to when we’re allowed to criticize Newsom’s transphobia before or after the ‘26 primary?
What about any of the previous comment made you think I was looking for a friend? Do you think queer rights organizations that have operated in the state for decades (quite likely before you were born) were just too unfamiliar with state and national politics, or how to deal with politicians?
How’d that poem go? ‘First they came for the homeless and queers, and I said ‘take them, take them, just spare me!’ and everything worked out perfectly fine,’ right? I’m pretty sure that’s how it went.
Anybody whining too hard about Newsom’s policies right now is actively supporting Trump’s agenda.
remember kids, this is a fight to preserve democracy and defeat fascism
the way we’re going to do that is by *checks notes* rallying around a strong, masculine leader, and forbidding any criticism of that leader.
and in order to preserve democracy, it’s going to be crucial that everyone votes for exactly who we tell them to vote for, without any complaining or whining.
There is absolutely anti-Newsom astroturfing going on right now.
I don’t trust that mail any more than you do. But you know what I also don’t like? Being compared to it.
I have a feeling that if we’d been complaining about this a few months back there’d have been a decent chance you’d have nodded your head and said “Yeah, Gavin has some serious problems.” But now that he’s being talked up as a presidential candidate, we get this. And it’s just as utterly ridiculous as the last n times I’ve heard it.
He’s getting criticized a lot now because there’s a push to have him go for the presidency. That’s a big deal! It gets attention! And it’s a serious goddamn concern for people who don’t want a fucking transphobe president! That’s not astroturfing, for God’s sake!
If there was ever a time to push for a less shit candidate, it’s NOW, way before the election. If you’re going to shit on us for demanding better now of all times, then it doesn’t sound to me like you want us to have better at all.
now that he’s being talked up as a presidential candidate
I haven’t heard anyone talking him up as a candidate. I mean, people have talked about it periodically and I’m sure they still are, but the reason he’s in the news right now is because he’s trying to fuck up Trump’s planning. The election isn’t for years and years (maybe longer than that, the way things are going) right now.
Literally the second sentence of the article you posted is about how Newsom wants to run for president.
He’s doing all this attention grabbing shit because he wants to run for president. It isn’t possible to have a coherent conversation about politics without accepting that politicians plan presidential campaigns more than a few months in advance.
No, he made it into the news because he’s doing all this attention grabbing shit. And then some geniuses sprung the gotcha of “Aha! He is a high-profile Democrat, therefore nothing he does counts, because he’s just doing it because he wants to be president!” And then they sat back with a satisfied smile.
The article isn’t talking him up as a candidate. I’m not talking him up as a candidate. He’s not in the news because he’s a candidate for the election that’s going to happen in three and a half years. Are you now shifting your stance from “now that he’s being talked up as a candidate” to something different? Or still claiming he’s being talked up as a candidate for the election and that’s why we have to “respond” with this sort of disclaimer? I mean, it’s fine, I actually was as you noted the person who posted this article which is slapping a disclaimer on what he is doing. But IDK where you got the idea that all of a sudden now he’s being talked up as a candidate.
IDK where you got the idea that all of a sudden now he’s being talked up as a candidate.
it’s not all of a sudden. it’s been obvious for years that the presidency is the goal he’s working towards. don’t confuse “I only started paying attention recently” with “this only started recently”.
Many journalists and political analysts have mentioned Newsom as a presidential hopeful. According to a June 2023 poll by NewsNation, 22% of California voters wanted Newsom to enter the 2024 presidential election. In May 2023, Schwarzenegger said it was a “no-brainer” that Newsom would someday run for president. An April 2023 article published in The Hill by journalist Sharon Udasin also discussed the inevitability of a Newsom presidential run. In September 2022, Newsom said that he would not run for president in 2024, citing his “vulnerable” 2021 recall. After his 2022 reelection, he informed White House staff that he would not challenge President Biden in the Democratic primaries; he endorsed Biden’s reelection campaign on April 25, 2023.
…
In anticipation of a potential 2028 presidential campaign, Newsom has adjusted his political approach to appeal to a broader electorate. A key shift in his strategy has been his engagement with conservative voices, including hosting MAGA figures like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon on his podcast, This is Gavin Newsom. While this tactic has received a fair amount of criticism from his own supporters, Newsom has also been praised by figures on the left for his hawkish response to the Trump administration’s actions regarding gerrymandering, with his widely publicized Election Rigging Response Act in August 2025 seen by many commentators as a soft launch of a presidential run.
he’s savvy enough to play the long game. running in 2020 would have been seen as premature, because he only started as governor in Jan 2019. didn’t want to rock the boat in 2024 by challenging Biden or Harris. he’s term-limited as CA governor which means he can’t run for re-election in 2026. he is absolutely 1000% going to run in 2028.
and yeah he hasn’t formally announced yet, but no one has at this point in the cycle. like, JD Vance hasn’t either even though as VP of a theoretically-term-limited president he’s obviously going to be in the running too.
It works though. People who don’t spend a lot of time on the Internet get these things in the mail, and that’s their source of information on the topic. Mail these out to every registered voter and you’ll influence the opinions of a lot of them for relatively little effort - especially older people, who are statistically more likely to actually vote.
He’s annoying but at least he’s doing something. The salty comments and posts miss the point that nobody else is meeting the moment.
Yeah. I’m especially suspicious of the big influx of posts that are all of a sudden super-concerned about his progressive credentials, as if the most important thing right now that we’re trying not to go to Trump-prison for making a Democratic campaign contribution, is what Gavin Newsom’s homeless policy was like. But this one I posted because I do feel like it’s pretty accurate to what I don’t like about Gavin Newsom on a general personal level. But yeah, he’s doing fine, it’s good that he’s trying to mess up Trump, I wish more people would.
I would say I am concerned when he is willing to capitulate on my rights as a trans woman. I don’t have any interest in him being the next face of the party
It’s not a sudden influx, he wasn’t getting talked about much before now, and suddenly he’s in the news and the commentariat is mumbling about a presidential run.
From my perspective, it seems he has no convictions and is willing to say and do what ever he thinks will get him the most positive headlines. He made those transphobic comments during the fucking Charlie Kirk podcast appearance, why the fuck did he do that? Because the opinion pieces were all winging about how Harris lost because she didn’t go on enough podcasts, and/or because she hadn’t been mean enough to trans people.
He’s doing this now, not because he thinks it matters but because all the opinion pieces are saying this is what he should do. He’s letting the tail wag the dog. Maybe the opinion pieces are right at the moment, but what happens when they suggest something idiotic?
He’s an awful candidate who will lose a presidential run at worst, and at best his milk toast careerism will knee cap the congressional battles that happen at the same time, leaving a divided congress incapable of passing real legislation.
I mean that part is definitely true. The Democratic campaign machine is a big collection of boomer shit, of which this was one example. I thought that was generally agreed upon on Lemmy?
Fuckin’ what? Who said that? What are some of these opinion pieces?
Sounds like it’s doing literally 100% the exact opposite, because he unlike almost all of the Democratic party is actually trying to fight for proper representation in congress. Right? Or did we read different articles or something?
It’s not opinion pieces, it’s what some Dem strategists and even Reps said after the loss, as they attempted to push rightwards as usual.
Okay, so it wasn’t “all” opinion pieces, it was no opinion pieces. Glad we got that squared away. There is an NBC News article, and a couple of clueless reps apparently. Hooray. To me this piece sounds like a pretty good instance of the galaxy-brain type of propaganda that can successfully turn everyone against the Democrats, whether you are pro-trans or anti-trans, which is generally a pretty good accomplishment when you can swing it.
They’re literally Congresspersons speaking in interviews about the election, blaming (acceptance of) trans people for Harris’ loss. Stop trying to minimize this.
Stop pretending that anyone here is arguing to abandon Democrats. We’re arguing that the party establishment is at least very willing to accept anti-trans positions, and when you’re talking about potential future presidential candidates who are doing it, it’s both fair and important to call it out.
If you don’t care whether our next President is on record saying trans people shouldn’t be treated as the gender they identify with as long as they’re a Democrat, just say it. But don’t pretend that “oh, no one in the Democratic Party thinks this stuff (including the guy who went on a right-wing podcast and said it)”.
So I disagreed with this:
Now that we’ve solidly established that I was 100% in the right to disagree with this, you’ve done a few rhetorical backflips around to where you’re accusing me of a bunch of things I never said. You’ve also actually managed to backflip your way around to where because I posted a negative story about Gavin Newsom, I must not care about negative things about Gavin Newsom and I must think he’s our next president.
I changed my mind: You might be the galaxy brain propaganda. It’s honestly pretty impressive. Well done! If you want to engage with anything I actually said, you’re welcome to.
Which is it? Or are only the articles that you post not part of the “influx”?
That aside, if you’re telling me that you are in fact critical of Newsom’s as-yet ineffectual maneuvering and also think it’s just cynical politicking at the expense of trans people and immigrants to position himself for a presidential run, I am thrilled, because that is not the vibe I got from your comments.
You’re trying to make sense of a comment with rampant errors topped by “milk toast.”
It’s overall milquetoast writing.
Haha, I was actually going to make fun of the “milk toast” but I thought there were some more substantive issues.
What influx? It’s a topic that’s being talked about, but that’s really it.
If you look back on my profile you can see me commenting on a couple of them (including return2ozma reposting something from 2023 because it was a good opportunity to shit on Newsom and then a bunch of people coming in the comments lecturing me on how important it was to shit on Newsom).
I got both of these things in the mail this week:
There is absolutely anti-Newsom astroturfing going on right now. Right-wing donors are throwing money at this messaging.
Anybody whining too hard about Newsom’s policies right now is actively supporting Trump’s agenda.
Fascist oppression of the homeless is something we should all “whine” about. And I mean fascism fascism, not “I don’t like this” fascism.
When am I allowed to “whine” about his transphobia? When should I write down in my calendar as the appropriate date to “whine” that he is signaling support for conservative anti-trans talking points, like it’s going to actually win him voters? Not even touching the way he’s treated homeless residents of the state.
It doesn’t matter that Equality California, and the leader of the state senate’s LGBTQ+ caucus, and the world’s largest LGBT health center (based in California) all condemned his statements, of course. Psy-ops, all of them.
Based on the way people talk about anyone who does anything other than sing his praises I’m guessing the answer is ‘never.’ There’s always going to be some new crisis that makes trans rights too frivolous and unimportant to hold politicians to account for. I’m not fucking stupid, I remember how Democratic leadership in the 90s and 00s reacted to increasing demands for gay rights. I’ve seen this song and dance before.
And to top it off, after living here over a dozen years I have to see people talk like California isn’t both incredibly populated and with plenty of people left of center and dissatisfied with Newsom (his approval rating was hanging in the mid 40s before the Trump shenanigans). I guess they’re all astroturfers too. Fuck, if I didn’t live here I’d have breathed in a little less goddamned who knows what in the January fires.
While I get where you’re coming from, turning into a single-issue voter won’t do anything. Republicans took over on abortion, even though this is not an epidemic problem. Pick your battles.
No worries, I have. I choose trans rights, simple as.
If you aren’t voting for your own removal from society then don’t ask others to do it.
If it’s super important for queer people to all vote for one candidate, go lean on that candidate to stop fucking being transphobic instead of trying to convince every queer person that transphobia is actually okay if we really really have to win, you don’t understand, this time is different! And right after the election that we maybe win, maybe then (if conservatives all meekly fall in line), maybe then we can think about criticizing transphobia.
Oh, but not for the first year, we need unity. And not for the second year, because the midterms are coming up. And not in the third year because the midterms went badly and he can’t even do anything about it, why are you complaining? And not in the fourth year because do you want us to lose the election??!!
I am that single fucking issue. I’m not going to vote for my own demise and you’re over here like “ooo don’t forget to pick your battles” while avoiding the fucking humans standing next to you. You god-damned fair-weather liberals are literally going to get me thrown into a concentration camp just so you can protect your own fucking cis-white privilege. Decolonize your fucking mind.
If you didn’t vote against Trump in the last election, you literally voted for your own demise. Maybe literally. I hope it turns out okay for you.
Fighting for better than the Democrats is in no way whatsoever incompatible with fighting to survive in the meantime.
Oh, to have the view that the perfect politician will eventually show up and win. It doesn’t work that way. And don’t act like you have a monopoly on being targeted by this administration.
Do you really think (assuming a 2028 election) that a Vance admin would be better for you than Newsom?
That’s my beef with single-issue voters. “Welp, no candidates support my position, so I’ll stay home.” This is what the GOP has masterfully avoided by keeping red meat on the table so they can steal the entire country.
Every single plank in the
NaziRepublican platform is discriminatory and oppressive. You’re engaging in false equivalence.OK, this explains a lot…
you are living in a reality that you’ve made up in your head, where the Democratic primary for 2028 has already happened, and Newsom won it, and now we all need to unify around him in the general election.
I’m guessing you’re not even doing it consciously, it’s just a kneejerk reaction you’ve developed over the past few years where any criticism of a Democrat coming from their left can be shouted down with “don’t you realize this will help Trump win???”
meanwhile, over here in the consensus reality everyone else is experiencing, there’s 2 years before the 2028 primary even starts.
here’s the list of speculated Democratic candidates.
and I’m not really clear how this whole system works, maybe you can explain it to me?
according to you, criticism of Newsom isn’t allowed, because it might help get JD Vance elected. OK, does that extend to the other possible candidates on that list, besides Newsom?
and is there like, a form I’m supposed to fill out and give you, so I can get a permission slip that allows me to criticize one of them?
to quote Billy Bob from S1 of Fargo, I just want to know the policy.
Whoa. Extrapolate much? I said nothing about the acceptability of criticizing Newsom, yet you’re taking that as my thesis. This isn’t a rabbit hole I care to go down, as your entire comment is question-begging.
How do I put this?..
Politicians aren’t your friends, you don’t expect them to keep good faith or to always support you, or to agree with you about everything. If you expect to find a perfect politician to support then you will be searching forever, while making extremely self-destructive choices along the way.
Politicians are something you use while they’re convenient and then move on from when they’re not. In this case, we are absolutely talking about resisting the fascist takeover of the nation. That’s what’s on the table. Personally I think that outcome would be inconvenient. Considering what the Trump administration has already done to the trans community, the complaints about Newsom feel like misdirection.
I’m not recommending undying loyalty, I’m recommending cost-benefit analysis, in this moment, in this context.
pretty much every time there’s criticism of a Democrat like Newsom, this argument comes up - that the people doing the criticizing are holding out unrealistic hopes for a “perfect” politician.
I’m gonna guess / hope that this isn’t what you’re intending, but this argument always comes across as extremely patronizing / condescending. “not everything can be perfect” is the sort of tone you take with a 4 year old who’s having a meltdown about not being allowed to have a 2nd ice cream cone. this framing of the argument places you as the adult in the room, and the people criticizing Newsom as basically children who don’t understand how the world works and are upset that they’re not getting exactly what they want. and I dunno, if you want to have productive political debates, try not talking to people like they’re children.
the question is not “is this politician perfect?” - it’s “does this politician meet the bare minimum requirements?”
imagine a hypothetical Democratic politician who took a stance of “eh, gay marriage, we don’t actually need it” and said they’d be fine with the Supreme Court overturning Obergefell v. Hodges (like they’ve just been asked to do)
would you support that politician? would you vote for them? I certainly wouldn’t.
that’s because “support for marriage equality” is part of the bare minimum we expect from Democrats.
the people criticizing Newsom, including me, consider “support for trans rights” to be part of that bare minimum. the people defending Newsom apparently don’t. that’s the actual disagreement here. don’t hide behind this abstract talk about cost-benefit analysis. don’t talk to Newsom critics like they’re naive children. just be honest and say that “trans people should be allowed to exist” is not part of your bare minimum requirements for Democrats.
I don’t care for Newsom. But elections are at this point like “which of my ex-wives that put me into debt would I prefer around again?”
The issue is far larger than bare minimums – it’s harm reduction. Worth bearing in mind is that the DNC is a conservative party funded by the rich just as much as the GOP, hence the ambush on Sanders a couple cycles back. Their policies are slightly less shitty, but without a repeal of Citizens United, this is the system we have.
lmao. this reminds me of how conservatives have co-opted therapy language - Jan 6th insurrectionists who used to be “facts don’t care about your feelings” assholes are now filing legal briefs about how being in prison has given them Trauma, and they should be released from prison because they have Anxiety and Depression.
this is more patronizing and condescending bullshit. just once I’d like to meet a centrist/moderate Democrat who doesn’t talk to people on their left like they’re children. seriously, it’s not that hard. try it sometime.
the canonical example of harm reduction actually working is needle exchange programs to prevent the spread of HIV, hepatitis, etc.
a crucial thing about those needle exchange programs is that IV drug users wanted them. they fought for them to be established.
with actual harm reduction, you don’t need to browbeat the people who will experience the reduced harm into accepting it.
you’re trying to frame “no one is allowed to criticize Newsom for being transphobic” as somehow being “harm reduction” for trans people? give me a fucking break. trans people in this thread are trying to tell you that Newsom represents increased harm targeted at them.
if that’s not enough, and you want other examples - Katelyn Burns:
Parker Molloy:
Alejandra Caraballo:
and that’s just the first 3 politically active, American trans people who I thought of, and who I know are on Bluesky, where it’s very easy to search their username plus Newsom to find what they’ve said about him.
don’t delude yourself about “harm reduction”. what you’re actually doing here is the white savior complex, but with trans people instead of non-white people.
You are putting so many words in my mouth that I won’t need dinner. I’m happy to have reasoned discourse, but your starting point makes that impossible, as you’ll just accuse me of being defensive. This is not arguing in good faith.
Newsom already got the gerrymandering on the ballot, and I don’t see California voters not passing it in retribution for how Trump has treated the state. So why can’t the people he is looking to throw under the bus to get to the national stage say anything about it without being accused of being paid for it? Is your answer to when we’re allowed to criticize Newsom’s transphobia before or after the ‘26 primary?
What about any of the previous comment made you think I was looking for a friend? Do you think queer rights organizations that have operated in the state for decades (quite likely before you were born) were just too unfamiliar with state and national politics, or how to deal with politicians?
How’d that poem go? ‘First they came for the homeless and queers, and I said ‘take them, take them, just spare me!’ and everything worked out perfectly fine,’ right? I’m pretty sure that’s how it went.
remember kids, this is a fight to preserve democracy and defeat fascism
the way we’re going to do that is by *checks notes* rallying around a strong, masculine leader, and forbidding any criticism of that leader.
and in order to preserve democracy, it’s going to be crucial that everyone votes for exactly who we tell them to vote for, without any complaining or whining.
Hold the fucking phone. Masculine? Dudes got us into this mess.
ETA: Shit, I missed the sarcasm.
I don’t trust that mail any more than you do. But you know what I also don’t like? Being compared to it.
I have a feeling that if we’d been complaining about this a few months back there’d have been a decent chance you’d have nodded your head and said “Yeah, Gavin has some serious problems.” But now that he’s being talked up as a presidential candidate, we get this. And it’s just as utterly ridiculous as the last n times I’ve heard it.
He’s getting criticized a lot now because there’s a push to have him go for the presidency. That’s a big deal! It gets attention! And it’s a serious goddamn concern for people who don’t want a fucking transphobe president! That’s not astroturfing, for God’s sake!
If there was ever a time to push for a less shit candidate, it’s NOW, way before the election. If you’re going to shit on us for demanding better now of all times, then it doesn’t sound to me like you want us to have better at all.
I haven’t heard anyone talking him up as a candidate. I mean, people have talked about it periodically and I’m sure they still are, but the reason he’s in the news right now is because he’s trying to fuck up Trump’s planning. The election isn’t for years and years (maybe longer than that, the way things are going) right now.
Literally the second sentence of the article you posted is about how Newsom wants to run for president.
He’s doing all this attention grabbing shit because he wants to run for president. It isn’t possible to have a coherent conversation about politics without accepting that politicians plan presidential campaigns more than a few months in advance.
No, he made it into the news because he’s doing all this attention grabbing shit. And then some geniuses sprung the gotcha of “Aha! He is a high-profile Democrat, therefore nothing he does counts, because he’s just doing it because he wants to be president!” And then they sat back with a satisfied smile.
The article isn’t talking him up as a candidate. I’m not talking him up as a candidate. He’s not in the news because he’s a candidate for the election that’s going to happen in three and a half years. Are you now shifting your stance from “now that he’s being talked up as a candidate” to something different? Or still claiming he’s being talked up as a candidate for the election and that’s why we have to “respond” with this sort of disclaimer? I mean, it’s fine, I actually was as you noted the person who posted this article which is slapping a disclaimer on what he is doing. But IDK where you got the idea that all of a sudden now he’s being talked up as a candidate.
it’s not all of a sudden. it’s been obvious for years that the presidency is the goal he’s working towards. don’t confuse “I only started paying attention recently” with “this only started recently”.
from his wikipedia:
he’s savvy enough to play the long game. running in 2020 would have been seen as premature, because he only started as governor in Jan 2019. didn’t want to rock the boat in 2024 by challenging Biden or Harris. he’s term-limited as CA governor which means he can’t run for re-election in 2026. he is absolutely 1000% going to run in 2028.
and yeah he hasn’t formally announced yet, but no one has at this point in the cycle. like, JD Vance hasn’t either even though as VP of a theoretically-term-limited president he’s obviously going to be in the running too.
deleted by creator
The mail. How quaint.
It works though. People who don’t spend a lot of time on the Internet get these things in the mail, and that’s their source of information on the topic. Mail these out to every registered voter and you’ll influence the opinions of a lot of them for relatively little effort - especially older people, who are statistically more likely to actually vote.
Sounds like an advantage to being homeless.
It will be just like Harris. “Oh he’s not perfectly perfect so I HAD to vote Trump.” How’s that working for everyone?
Poorly, but thanks for asking!