California’s governor is being touted as a successor to the Biden throne. Though he’s often imagined as a beacon of progress, his feckless record shows otherwise.
Literally the only time I hear this is from people on Lemmy who are trying to criticize some potential ally by being embittered.
Nobody is talking about voting for Gavin Newsom. We’re talking about it being good that he’s irritating Trump by taking concrete steps to preserve our democracy. You would be the guy in the revolution who’s constantly trying to root out “counterrevolutionaries” in the ranks and snitching people to the secret police because they’re not revolutionary enough, right during the run-up to the big battle to see if the movement can even survive.
The article is pretty explicitly talking about that, and the parent comment of this thread is responding to that by saying they’d “much rather take a neoliberal over a fascist.” If you’re not talking about voting for Gavin Newsom, you’re in the wrong thread.
Back in 2023, when this article was written when we were trying to figure out who to vote for, it made perfect sense to talk about that. Now that people are talking about how to not get thrown into concentration camps for being a Democrat, people are talking about something different.
The fact that one of the most infamous of the “anti Biden all the time” trolls elected to suddenly become nail-bitingly concerned about Newsom’s progressive credentials, and repost this thing from a whole nother pre-CECOT era as if it was relevant, doesn’t change what people are talking about presently, present tense.
I’m aware that you would like them to be talking about various holes and nitpicks in Newsom’s agenda and reasons why he is deeply problematic, and change the subject away from reasons why he is in the news, present tense. Who knows, you may succeed, it worked gangbusters in the last election and I see no reason to think it would stop working now.
I disagree with your argument, but more relevantly this whole comment chain is predicated on the assumption that “Newsom is not your friend” is a position worth debating. If you don’t agree with this assumption, the place to make that point would be a parent comment, maybe a reply to a parent comment. As it stands your response has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.
I’m aware that it has nothing to do with what you’re talking about. I’m making a whole different point, directly addressing what you’re talking about but from a different point of view (distinct from “what ‘we’ are talking about” in your parlance). That’s generally how it works.
Literally the only time I hear this is from people on Lemmy who are trying to criticize some potential ally by being embittered.
Nobody is talking about voting for Gavin Newsom. We’re talking about it being good that he’s irritating Trump by taking concrete steps to preserve our democracy. You would be the guy in the revolution who’s constantly trying to root out “counterrevolutionaries” in the ranks and snitching people to the secret police because they’re not revolutionary enough, right during the run-up to the big battle to see if the movement can even survive.
The article is pretty explicitly talking about that, and the parent comment of this thread is responding to that by saying they’d “much rather take a neoliberal over a fascist.” If you’re not talking about voting for Gavin Newsom, you’re in the wrong thread.
Back in 2023, when this article was written when we were trying to figure out who to vote for, it made perfect sense to talk about that. Now that people are talking about how to not get thrown into concentration camps for being a Democrat, people are talking about something different.
The fact that one of the most infamous of the “anti Biden all the time” trolls elected to suddenly become nail-bitingly concerned about Newsom’s progressive credentials, and repost this thing from a whole nother pre-CECOT era as if it was relevant, doesn’t change what people are talking about presently, present tense.
I’m aware that you would like them to be talking about various holes and nitpicks in Newsom’s agenda and reasons why he is deeply problematic, and change the subject away from reasons why he is in the news, present tense. Who knows, you may succeed, it worked gangbusters in the last election and I see no reason to think it would stop working now.
I disagree with your argument, but more relevantly this whole comment chain is predicated on the assumption that “Newsom is not your friend” is a position worth debating. If you don’t agree with this assumption, the place to make that point would be a parent comment, maybe a reply to a parent comment. As it stands your response has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.
I’m aware that it has nothing to do with what you’re talking about. I’m making a whole different point, directly addressing what you’re talking about but from a different point of view (distinct from “what ‘we’ are talking about” in your parlance). That’s generally how it works.