Well if people are very vocal that they won't vote for him, we are additionally doing a very useful service if informing the folks inclined to pick Newsome that he will lose and they should pick someone else
He/him, Teamster, a silly goofy guy who enjoys eating a good cheese or two and seeing the successes of the anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, and anti-capitalist struggles. Join a union, uphold BDS, get organized, and defeat the liberal who lives inside you.
125 followers 90 following 1,125 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Well if people are very vocal that they won't vote for him, we are additionally doing a very useful service if informing the folks inclined to pick Newsome that he will lose and they should pick someone else
I mean right now the alternative is use all of the available time to pick someone the electorate can actually stomach. Someone *not* evil at all, ideally
No. Extremely no right now, as he isn't even a candidate, so nobody at so needs to even contemplate voting for him. And no, it's good for everyone to know that Newsome has fatal weaknesses should he become a candidate, so that he does not become a candidate and lose due to those errors
Those policies do exist in some jurisdictions. The fact that a law exists does not make it right. Those laws require librarians to violate their own professional ethics, and they violate the first amendment rights of children.
But the question of whether or not a parent gets to decide which books a librarian checks out to a child does indeed have an answer. That answer is no, which is how it should be
The school librarian is under zero occupational, moral, or ethical obligation to deny access to reading material to a child just because some guy says so.
They're there to provide the service that they are employed to provide to the people they provide it for. You can't expect the city public works employees to come fix your driveway while they're busy fixing potholes, and you can't expect the school librarian to enforce your orders
The school unquestionably has the authority and discretion to ignore whatever nonsense a parent says and check a book out to a child. A parent has no power or authority over a school library or school librarian. Why would being a parent mean you got to be the librarian's boss? That's moronic
It's literally not their right to dictate who is allowed to access which materials. That's a matter of the school's discretion, not any individual's whims. A parent can tell their kid not to do something, and the kid is free to disobey. The school isn't there to enforce the parent's instructions.
I'm not advocating for controlling how anyone lives. I'm advocating against the idea that a parent's whims ought to be able to dictate how school employees do their jobs. They don't get to tell teachers or school librarians how to do their jobs.
I'm not arguing that teachers are there to raise kids, you're arguing against a point nobody is making. I'm saying parents don't and shouldn't have the right to give orders to school employees. Teachers work for the community, not an individual parent. Being a parent isn't about gaining power.
So, you are saying that teachers and school librarians ought to take orders from parents to conceal whichever books the parent has some paranoid delusion about? That's nonsense. Teachers have a duty to the students in their charge, not parents. This does not lead down some slippery slope
Wow I can't believe Barron is half orphan now
It's not clear where you're getting the idea that I am arguing for the enforcement of any set of beliefs. I don't think you understand what I have written, nor do I understand your fixation on the idea that a society where we recognize our duties to each other means kids belong to the state
You can control what media is playing or present in your own home, but the minute they leave your home, they are out of the piece of the world you control. Rather than trying to exert control over others (including the child), your only option is to talk through and contextualize these things.
This in particular is nonsense. If someone chose to have a child, they chose to accept a duty of care over someone for many years. A child is a person, not an investment, not a thing you pay for in exchange for control. And you actually cannot possibly control what a child is exposed to.
Last, it truly doesn't matter if everyone feels the same way or not. Not everyone has to agree on everything. But we do all have to behave in certain ways, and we can't expect society to cater to someone's prejudices or delusions merely because they are a parent. Being a parent means duties.
Are there rights you think parents should have that don't stem from the conception that children are property or an extension of the parent? Those might be worth discussing, if they don't already exist. But those aren't the ones that the "parental rights" crowd are squawking about.
Yeah, this concept is just bullshit. "Parental rights" as a concept is nonsense. It either covers things you already have a right to (what you have in your home) or shit nobody has a right to (denying a child and education or forcing them to remain in the closet). Children aren't property.
New "How to Report ICE" zines up today for free printable download! California (by county/area) Chicago Colorado DC Metro Area (DMV) Massachusetts North Carolina Triangle Area NYC Philly Pittsburgh Portland, OR St. Louis Metro Area Washington State Please share! drive.google.com/drive/folder...
This is the problem with the concept of parents rights (beyond the actual legal rights parents should and do have) that the right is trying to push. It treats parenthood as more of a means to achieve power over someone than the joyful and serious responsibility it is.
We as a society also have a duty to care for children. We do not have a duty to humor the delusion and prejudice of every parent, nor the right to engage in censorship just to mollify some delusional parents group. Queer and trans kids have a right to exist in society and not be treated as a threat.
No, that really doesn't follow. Parents have obligations. They have duties, a duty to care for their child, and so they have authority to make decisions on the child's behalf that are relevant to the duty of care. They don't have the right to determine what kind of person their child becomes.
That doesn't make sense to conceive of as a right. Children do have a right to be safe from harm. That means parents don't have a right to control access to their child, as a parent might wish to restrict mandated reporters from accessing the child, and might be okay with abusers accessing the child
Nah not even that. The answer is, the right of the child to learn and grow and develop and indulge their curiosity in an environment managed by professionals who are interested in that child's safety, is more important the the parent's sense of entitlement to control what their child perceives.
Yes, him, but also anyone who ever thought he made sense, and anyone who took those people seriously. Unironically we need to do what Mao did to landlords, to the silicon valley tech fascists. They simply are not compatible with a good world.
Chat GOT usually plays chess by hallucinating entirely new games each turn, sometimes impossible ones, and then still loses
It can't even afford to provide the service that people pay for. The losers who pay for and use the highest level subscription use it at a rate that costs these companies more than the fees they charge. The industry is funded by pure hype from rich idiots
Hi authors! Please remember to file a claim!
I'm hand loading tiny American flags into all my cartridges, so I can't exercise my second amendment right without burning flags (which is also my first amendment right and a very cool thing to do no matter how illegal it becomes)
If you preemptively cede your own ability to express dissent to your enemy, you're helping the enemy. The correct response is and has always been to be ungovernable. Burn every American flag you see. Flying the American flag doesn't help, you're just rewarming respectability politics.
Gonna start selling fire starters made of American flags
Please stop being childish. Be an adult and support a candidate who isn't such a worthless coward that they're already resorting to AI slop and making the case for sacrificing trans folks to cover up the fatal weaknesses of their candidacy.
Right now you're being told that this choice will alienate the portion of the base that thinks trans people are human beings. Will you support this candidate becoming the nominee, or will you do something useful?
The podcast is him showing off his right wing bona fides. Which is a fucking stupid and failed strategy that comes at an extreme cost. I'm never voting for that pig. Period. Find someone who isn't a transphobe ffs
You're delusional, I'm sorry that you've become so black pilled as to believe the guy who agrees with Charlie Kirk's opinions on trans folks is an ally.
Just because appeasement has always been a tempting option for marginalized groups does not mean it has ever been a valid strategy. And the Morrìgan told me that if you aren't willing to fight and defeat and consume your enemies in the battle for self-sovereignty you'll never get it so...
You don't validate bigotry just because it's popular. You oppose it and build dissent against the bigoted majority opinion. He's not a secret ally, he's an open foe
He doesn't have to be particularly authoritarian or autocratic to give the hogs what they want. And it's evil to be willing to accept that, because what they want is the genocide of trans folks.
You're just wrong. All he has to do to give the trans eliminationist movement what it wants is to do nothing as states continue to pass trans eliminationist laws, veto any expansion of trans rights that comes through Congress (as he did as CA governor) and keep saying transphobia is good.
Wow you're really don't know what you're talking about. Or you just think it's good to sacrifice trans folks if it means you get a president who sacrifices trans people in a way that aesthetically palatable to you. Either way, nobody should take you seriously
Validating their bigotry is not strategically useful, it's not part of a viable political strategy. Why would the bigots pick skim fascism when full fat fascism is in the table? Your strategy is to sacrifice trans people. That isn't acceptable, nor is it going to work.
So, you should probably try to stop Newsome from getting the nomination, since we won't vote for him if he's the nominee
Newsome's handling of PG&E doesn't I soiree a lot of hope in his ability to do what is necessary to minimize the climate chaos. That's something we can probably say about any democrat who might win though. Walz would be better. Pritzker would be better. Both are more electable too.
This should give you a clue that playing constant defense is for fools who like to lose. The right doesn't require anything to be true for right wingers to believe it, as they already live in a fictional world. No matter how far right you move, they're going to pretend the Dems are far left.
Medical institutions don't support his current transphobic beliefs. And no, he wouldn't *need* to follow what those institutions suggest, nor would he *need* to populate those institutions with people who aren't transphobic freaks. Nothing would stop him from ratcheting in transphobia
Also I'm blocking you for being willing to sacrifice trans folks for the sake of your daddy who just posts AI slop instead of fighting fascism. Fucking sad freaks you are
Really not beating the BlueAnon allegations, huh?
It's a good song. Newsome is also shit for unions so...
And in this scenario Newsome won't actually be a lesser of two evils if you're trans or unhoused. So if you don't agree with the Anglosphere's current fascist hysteria about trans folks, then the thing to do is to not let it get to the point where Newsome is in the ticket, because he'll lose.
He's not steering people away from the fascist trajectory. He's trying to get them to accept him as a conductor of the train to the camps.
If he were doing that and weren't an evil freak with wyrms dripping from his nose, he wouldn't need to go out of his way to signal his allegiance with the far right on the question of trans folks. He could do it on irrelevant shit like patriotism or whatever. Instead he's validating their bigotry.
You don't fight fascism by prematurely pledging fealty to diet fascism.
Do you have the wyrms too?
Sounds like we should prevent that scenario from coming to pass, since if Newsome gets the nomination he's going to lose. It's probably a better use of your time to try to stop Newsome from being the nominee than to engage in the impotent tactic of vote shaming three years in advance, huh?
Guess you can't read. If you're willing to sacrifice someone else's rights in order to not find a better candidate, then you're going to be willing to sacrifice more and more people's rights until you have none yourself.
In 2024 the Democrats adopted Trump's immigration policy, offered nothing to trans folks or anyone who wasn't a genocide enjoyer, and made friends with the Cheneys after abandoning any useful economic messaging because Tony West got his fee-fees hurt. The last election did not prove what you think
If you know this, then pick someone capable of uniting a winning coalition, not a snake like Newsome
I don't really believe that Newsome won't do those things. He's to the right of Kid Starver on terf island. He'll do it if he thinks it would benefit him, and he evidently *does* think lending his voice to the brain wyrm chorus benefits him.
Blue Q type shit
Yep, better find a candidate who isn't intolerable I guess, good thing he isn't even running so you haven't actually lost anything by ditching him
If he wants to redistrict, great, let him stay in his lane. If he tries to get out of his lane, run him over, he can't be trusted
Well there's time to learn and demonstrate wisdom, by trying to stop Newsome from dooming us all
No, the attitude of all the peasant-brained rubes lining up to support Newsome is what got us the second Trump administration. The idea that pivoting to the right, joining the right in attacking their current scapegoat, is a way to win is what got us the second Trump administration.
The wiser approach is to maximally oppose him and any other candidate who will not protect the people that the right is trying to eliminate. That way seems better than hoping for two miracles
There's no indication that he would flip, he's quite clearly siding from the anti-woke brain wyrm. And he's a Democrat, so his Verizon of fighting for teams rights is going to be doing nothing and claiming to be a great defender, like how the Dems were about Roe
He's certainly competent at blocking trans rights in his own state
Lyndon Johnson was capable at his job, so not really a relevant comparison
Newsome is a freak with brain worms. If he's the nominee, the party will have chosen to remain out of power by becoming more overtly bigoted.
We're not throwing him under the bus, good lord. We owe this freak nothing. We're just trying to stop him from getting the keys to the bus, so someone who doesn't suck shit at driving can take a shot at it.
If you believe that he has a chance to win you're fucking deranged
The gleeful hostility to trans folks and homeless folks is part of the fascist brainwyrm. If you want a dem president who will cement fascist phantasms as consensus, then go ahead and vote for this freak.
He's not winnable ffs.
The circular firing squad is not people with a functioning moral compass correctly identifying that Newsome is an ally to the freaks who support the elimination of trans people, and refusing to support him. The circular firing squad is Newsome's transphobia
So it seems like what people who are active in the party should do is rabidly oppose him in the primary, knowing he'll be a weak candidate, right? Since we're all telling you we won't help him win if he's the nominee, you should probably work to find someone who isn't dogshit
Probably a good idea for you to find someone who the base supports, instead of another loser that torches their own coalition listining the the conventional wisdom and donors and consultants who constantly lose elections by tacking right
"Everything he's doing" what you think he's gonna burn out of having his team post boomer AI slop?
There are a lot of very stupid centrist Dems who just want their own transphobic daddy to post AI slop
He isn't that though.
Doing the things MAGA wants to do is not being better than them
So you're solution to defeating the freaks is by doing the things the freaks want, but having a day you like more than their daddy? Idk, doesn't seem like it'll work
Absolutely insane and failed attempt at a pivot, RIP your ACL
Not sure if they're a bot or just a recent maga drone who has been dyed blue
Your fascistic post that contribute reality in order to make the failures of the pro-genocide, quiet fascist party somehow the fault of the left and the Muslims that you're terrified of? Yeah, that's the one I'm talking about, your islamophobic conspiracy theory
Right, your deranged conspiracy theory
If the problem was corruption, then that's a different conversation than the number of de jure political parties. Corruption is a problem for whichever entity holds power, whether in a single party, two party, or multi-party arrangement. It's a metter of the particulars of the party not their number
The existence of a single party doesn't mean the lack of opposition, it means that the struggle between opposing lines is carried out within the party. The number of political parties wasn't the issue, and things wouldn't have been better if it were easier for counter-revolutionaries to organize.
Glad you mentioned mirrors, please look in airror and make some faces and tell me if your face is symmetrical
Exactly the delusion I'm talking about
Principal skinner was in the gulag making babies and one of the babies looked at me
Watch as the deranged and disaffected conservative Democrat flails from delusion to delusion
Okay so you don't know what islamophobia is and you also don't know what projecting is? Or what fascism is? Just shut the fuck up and take the L little bro, you're a right wing clown.
Nah, you're an islamophobic conspiracy theorist and a deranged right winger. Nobody has to listen to you or take your seriously
No, you're really not. You're pushing a lie that islamophobia doesn't exist, either because you're just a moron who hadn't heard the word until recently, or because you're just an islamophobic piece of shit. And you're peddling your islamophobic conspiracy theories to justify a genocide. Go to hell.
Nah keep your racist conspiracy theories to yourself and stop peddling your right wing islamophobic derangement
Okay, I get it. You're just a dumb freak, I see what's going on.
Are you having a stroke? You keep repeating yourself, and now you've posted some kind of political spam as evidence of the islamophobic phantasm that you are using to justify your enjoyment of genocide.
How are you going to sit here and act like your opinions on communism should matter or are in any way valid when you learned everything you know about communism from the movie Anastasia?
No because this piece isn't about your right wing islamipbobic phantasms
No, idiot, the shift to capitalism was the thing that caused those things mentioned. The fall of the USSR brought about a world-hidtorical decline in human standards of living.