99
Hot take: he isn’t good but would have been better than Biden during that debate
I don't think that that's a hot take. If we're listing people who would've done better than Biden in that debate, just about every living person and perhaps a few dead ones could've gotten over that absurdly low bar.
We need everybody to fucking vote in the primary so we can put somebody better on the ballot for the general election. I don't want to be forced to choose between newsom and vance or desantis or noeme or whoever they run. I'm glad he's willing to get dirty in his fighting back, but he still just sucks so much.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Same old same old
Another reason to not vote for Newsom. He may be younger than Pelosi and the other Geronocrats, but he is still corrupt as hell.
And Newsom is different from Trump, how exactly? Dude hosted Charlie Kirk and Steve Banon on his podcast, that he wasn't required to do, and didn't question them, just nodded along like Joe Rogan.
Newsom is shaping up to be a DNC approved Trump at this rate. Loves Nazis, hates taxes, claims to love the real America, hated COVID protections being applied, doesn't care about brown people... Fucker needs to lose in the primary quickly. Assuming we get a fair one.
Of course he does.
Included in the bill:
The proposal includes a provision that would tax former California residents for up to 10 years after they move.
Seems totally fair! I’m sure so many of you would have no issues with this at all! Right?
Also, as Newsom has stated his reasoning is that it causes fiscal instability that would drive out businesses and hurt state finances. Furthermore, he has said he is willing to work on broader solutions to the issues. But yeah, as usual- don’t let this get in the way of whatever fabricated bullshit take is currently being used and accepted without question.
It’s pretty evident from the comments here that no one learned what happens as a result of ignorantly believing that good is the enemy of perfect, and will be perfectly happy to repeat the mistakes of the past.
And lastly, I know this is a nuanced take on the matter, and nuance is generally considered an enemy of the state here, so I’m fully expecting to be accused of being whatever the current ad hominem of the week is. (Is it still “bootlicker? It’s hard to keep track. I know “bLueMaGa” was popular a while back)
But be that as it may, to me, it won’t make what I said wrong. Just- disagreed with.
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
99 points (97.1% liked)
politics
29593 readers
218 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS