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.
I said nothing about the acceptability of criticizing Newsom
ahh, maybe I misunderstood. when you say:
While I get where you’re coming from, turning into a single-issue voter won’t do anything
and
Pick your battles.
maybe you’re saying that criticizing Newsom is OK…but that we’re all obligated to vote for him anyway, regardless of any criticism we have?
here’s the thing. “I dislike this guy so much that if he’s the nominee, I won’t vote for him” is criticism. it’s criticism you don’t like, that you disagree with. but it’s a form of criticism that you’re trying to argue should be off the table.
it’s pretty much the strongest criticism you can make of a potential nominee, especially at this point in the election cycle. so I guess criticism of Newsom is allowed, according to you…but only if it’s ineffectual? maybe criticism should only be done Schumer-style, in the form of a strongly-worded letter?
here’s a thought experiment that I mentioned briefly in another comment - imagine a Democratic politician, let’s call him Navin Gewsom, who announces he doesn’t care about marriage equality, and would be fine with Obegerfell v Hodges being overturned by SCOTUS.
there’s a married gay or lesbian couple who says that as a result, they’d never vote for Navin Gewsom. would you give them the same “don’t be a single-issue voter, pick your battles” scolding? if not, what’s the difference between them and a trans person refusing to vote for Newsom?
That’s all well and good, but we’re talking about someone seemingly positioning themselves for an election that won’t happen for three years, and we have no idea who the candidates will be.
I’m well aware of Newsom’s Kirk appearance, but it doesn’t seem central to this piece. You want an LGBTQ±advocate presidential candidate who can win red states that have disproportionate electoral votes? Not going to happen.
This is just how politics work, and that’s not changing ahead of 2028. If you want to vote for the fascist instead because Newsom isn’t liberal enough to win a national election, that is of course your choice.
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.
ahh, maybe I misunderstood. when you say:
and
maybe you’re saying that criticizing Newsom is OK…but that we’re all obligated to vote for him anyway, regardless of any criticism we have?
here’s the thing. “I dislike this guy so much that if he’s the nominee, I won’t vote for him” is criticism. it’s criticism you don’t like, that you disagree with. but it’s a form of criticism that you’re trying to argue should be off the table.
it’s pretty much the strongest criticism you can make of a potential nominee, especially at this point in the election cycle. so I guess criticism of Newsom is allowed, according to you…but only if it’s ineffectual? maybe criticism should only be done Schumer-style, in the form of a strongly-worded letter?
also, to not lose sight of the broader context of this thread - the “single-issue voter” you were chastising is a trans person. Newsom invited right-wing shitbag Charlie Kirk on to the first episode of his podcast, and said he agrees with Kirk completely about trans issues. I generally agree with you about “single-issue” voters being misguided, but in this case, do you really think that a trans person has an obligation to vote for a politician who does not think trans people have the right to be trans?
here’s a thought experiment that I mentioned briefly in another comment - imagine a Democratic politician, let’s call him Navin Gewsom, who announces he doesn’t care about marriage equality, and would be fine with Obegerfell v Hodges being overturned by SCOTUS.
there’s a married gay or lesbian couple who says that as a result, they’d never vote for Navin Gewsom. would you give them the same “don’t be a single-issue voter, pick your battles” scolding? if not, what’s the difference between them and a trans person refusing to vote for Newsom?
That’s all well and good, but we’re talking about someone seemingly positioning themselves for an election that won’t happen for three years, and we have no idea who the candidates will be.
I’m well aware of Newsom’s Kirk appearance, but it doesn’t seem central to this piece. You want an LGBTQ±advocate presidential candidate who can win red states that have disproportionate electoral votes? Not going to happen.
This is just how politics work, and that’s not changing ahead of 2028. If you want to vote for the fascist instead because Newsom isn’t liberal enough to win a national election, that is of course your choice.