40
California’s governor has become an anti-Trump comedian. It’s 2017 all over again.
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2025
40 points (95.5% liked)
Politics
10896 readers
44 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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 ~~Nazi~~ Republican 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.
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.