Nobody said they wanted Hitler to win. You're making shit up. I can hold both the idea that Churchill and Britain were vital to defeating Hitler and also Churchill is a raging racist fascist when it comes to Indian. It is possible to have two ideas! Imagine that
So then you agree, it's better to have Churchill to stop Hitler and to then act to correct his following later horrors. So it's good to have Newsom now to fight Trump and later in a few years we can stop whatever his "starve India" idea is.
No. I would rather have a Churchill who didn't slaughter millions for white supremacy. I don't think we should go "Oh well, millions of minorities will die! Guess I'll just vote for them anyways!"
That's literally what I said. Beat Churchill in the primary (or whatever equivalent early choice the British parliament of the 1930s had).
We're trying too. But capitulation to Newsom's toxic traits as "well he's a guy I guess I'll vote for him because he has a blue tie" is putting Churchill on the ballot. The messaging starts now and matters.
So then don't assume he's the candidate for President in 2028. Tell people "hey, Pritzker is better because XYZ" Or "keep an open mind because we need to get through 2026 first". You're admitting Newsom is the guy to beat in 2028 by gearing up to beat him as the presumptive guy to beat.
I'm saying he's the guy to beat because he's the media pick. If you check my profile I've done a lot of support posts and quotes and reposts for Pritzker and other left leaning candidates I like. I am doing that.
And the media picked Jeb Bush in 2016. The media isn't real. Don't react to them. Be proactive.
I literally am being proactive and you're like "but Churchill killing 100 million Indians is good!"
No, I said he wasn't a fascist. Choose your priorities.
My priorities are not accepting that minorities have to die for white supremacy. Sorry you support white supremacy, but that's your own shit to deal with.