If this is what it takes, this is what it takes. I'm so tired of Democrats playing by the rules, when Republicans have shown time and time again that there are no rules. Or at least they don't...
If this is what it takes, this is what it takes. I'm so tired of Democrats playing by the rules, when Republicans have shown time and time again that there are no rules. Or at least they don't give a shit about them. Like that Constitution of ours.
Other left-leaning states better do the same. I don't care if Republicans or "Independents" want to clutch their pearls. Democrats, liberals, the left, have got to start fighting back.
I'm with you. I no longer care about the rules, law, or "doing the right thing". Fascists must be defeated. I'm glad someone with sway in the Democratic Party finally realized that Republicans...
I'm with you. I no longer care about the rules, law, or "doing the right thing". Fascists must be defeated. I'm glad someone with sway in the Democratic Party finally realized that Republicans declared war on the rest of long ago.
The last 15 years or so reminds me of the evolution of trust game, and Democrats have been more like the "always cooperate" character while Republicans are the "always cheat" character. It's nice...
The last 15 years or so reminds me of the evolution of trust game, and Democrats have been more like the "always cooperate" character while Republicans are the "always cheat" character. It's nice to finally see a little copycat action.
I don’t think “always cooperate” is entirely accurate. For example, both Obama and Biden sometimes used executive orders aggressively, with creative legal arguments that were shot down by the...
I don’t think “always cooperate” is entirely accurate. For example, both Obama and Biden sometimes used executive orders aggressively, with creative legal arguments that were shot down by the courts.
I'm not a Newsom fan; I think that he's only a Democrat to the degree that it's the political party that gave him a route to power in California. He's been happy to support any given cause exactly...
I'm not a Newsom fan; I think that he's only a Democrat to the degree that it's the political party that gave him a route to power in California. He's been happy to support any given cause exactly as much as it provides him political capital, which makes him an unreliable ally. But even unreliable allies can be worked with when you're on the same side of a given issue.
Bingo, I'll take what I can get, but he's not off the hook for me for his shitty takes. He's not the savior of the Democratic party. I think trans folks for example are allowed to be pissed at him...
Bingo, I'll take what I can get, but he's not off the hook for me for his shitty takes. He's not the savior of the Democratic party. I think trans folks for example are allowed to be pissed at him without being called tiresome and useless.
But hey I'm probably tiresome and useless by that standard.
His decisions on housing, crime, and drug policy have all been questionable or middling. He usually ends up supporting the status quo. All his interviews with prominent fascists nixed any possible...
His decisions on housing, crime, and drug policy have all been questionable or middling. He usually ends up supporting the status quo.
All his interviews with prominent fascists nixed any possible appeal for me. He's a mediocre governor, and I don't want a mediocre US president.
Agreed. And I got Pritzker in comparison so Newsom doesn't measure up. (I don't follow Newsom super closely for my distaste, but I've not liked his actions in those areas either) This is the time...
Agreed. And I got Pritzker in comparison so Newsom doesn't measure up. (I don't follow Newsom super closely for my distaste, but I've not liked his actions in those areas either)
This is the time to be holding them accountable not making at least they're not Trump compromises. If Newsom doesn't get any pressure from the left he'll keep scooting right.
I'll take what I can get from him, like I said. But I'm not going to let off my criticisms of him. I haven't criticized this move because if we're all going to play by this set of rules, we might...
I'll take what I can get from him, like I said. But I'm not going to let off my criticisms of him. I haven't criticized this move because if we're all going to play by this set of rules, we might as well all play. But I don't like many of his stances for being too centrist and too willing to compromise values not just practicalities. It makes me doubt if he has any.
But while I'll have to compromise my candidates in 2028 I don't need to now. I'd rather he not be the candidate so I'm going to push for someone further to the left and criticize him for his stances I dislike. That's sort of the whole point of the process, and waiting until 2028 to bitch about it would make me useless and tiresome.
(And yes I do things IRL)
But to be specific, I didn't say this action made him "at least he's not Trump" though I think generally it's "oh a Democrat standing up at all, he will save us" situation and I think we have to stop thinking like that.
The people I see criticizing Newsom on other platforms are certainly leftists, they're generally actually activists as well IME and they're often trans in this case, so I don't know what kind of...
The people I see criticizing Newsom on other platforms are certainly leftists, they're generally actually activists as well IME and they're often trans in this case, so I don't know what kind of person you're referring to really, as my algorithm(s) I suppose don't show me those folks.
I am referencing it less specifically "at" you and more because a) the people I see criticizing the man have really legitimate reasons to; b) I agree with those reasons personally; c) I personally find people that only complain about the nominees for president every four years or so to be far more frustrating; and d) I am sure there are plenty of people who find me "tiresome" and probably useless based on their reaction to me on Tildes. It became useful rhetorically.
Idk I find all sorts of folks annoying, but also sometimes those annoying people are right - about Black Lives Matter, about Palestine, about disability rights - and I need to listen; because someone will find me annoying when I'm pointing at the rhetoric targeting the 19th amendment, at the devaluing of disabled lives, or that I keep talking about trans folks. It's less than I took offense and more that I recognize my own past annoyance, and being considered an annoyance for my advocacy, and knowing there's legitimate strong criticism of Newsom out there. I didn't think your point was directed at me.
Fwiw I am quite bad at recognizing usernames cross different threads, idk if it's the ADHD, and I didn't take anything from here as a statement about me or our interactions elsewhere as related to this. I don't even know if I realized that you were the same person from that initial comment before now.
I mean IL has been gerrymandered long before Pritzker. It's bad in a broad sense (and I have one of the 3 stupidly drawn red districts for my own home) but unless we fix it nationally idk that...
I mean IL has been gerrymandered long before Pritzker. It's bad in a broad sense (and I have one of the 3 stupidly drawn red districts for my own home) but unless we fix it nationally idk that it's worth fixing.
With the least amount of anger I can muster: this is a problematic take. First and foremost, there has been and will continue to be violence, and this type of comment is not where it will begin or...
Exemplary
With the least amount of anger I can muster: this is a problematic take.
First and foremost, there has been and will continue to be violence, and this type of comment is not where it will begin or end. Trump is legitimately just following the Nazi playbook; deploying the National Guard against citizens, taking control of the capital by force, deporting hundreds of thousands of people, not to mention how much violence he has incited within his own base, and that done towards LGBTQ+ (especially the T) and BIPOC. This line of thinking only leads to violence insofar as it is a response to violence.
Second, there isn't "othering" happening in that comment. Disagreement is not othering. Othering has a very specific meaning, and while a dictionary might say something like "othering is the act of viewing or treating a group as intrinsically different", that is not a sufficient summary of what it means to force a group to be "the other". It is an extreme dilution of the term. It historically relates to things like imperialism and colonialism where "the other" or "the savage" is lesser than those imposing their colonialism, gender and sex where the other is imagined as a fundamental different and "weird" group such as non cisnormative people. It is not something like "we disagree about how democrats should run a party".
To be even more blunt than I was above, this attitude is why "the left" frequently loses; clutching pearls and tut tutting when someone actually does something to stand up to Trump isn't a great look.
I think it could end in violence too. I think the issue is that because of the two party system, there's no representation for those 'pearl clutchers' or 'Independents' as you so blithely referred...
I think it could end in violence too. I think the issue is that because of the two party system, there's no representation for those 'pearl clutchers' or 'Independents' as you so blithely referred to them.
I think with nearly all major violent events, you have people who must take on a mindset that goes too far, as far as is needed, to meet the opposition head on and take on that fight, but it's too far in the sense that it's not fit for the desired end state. It's a means to an end, and for that I think you need people who have the mindset of what that end actually is. You need means, and you need an end, and I think what it takes for both of them are fairly exclusive. I don't believe that someone who will go to the lengths needed to fight fire with fire is capable of recognizing when the battle is won and capable of coming back to normalcy, generally speaking. Not saying people can't or won't stop when a circumstance arises, but it isn't necessarily what is in their mind or their hearts and that can lead to expressions past when the fighting is done.
I'm just tired of people demonizing other people in a system that pits them against each other for representation. This system is set up so that you being represented denies others the opportunity to be represented. And because of this, people fight over how to get representation of any kind, and then its mud slinging about 'Independents' and 'pearl clutchers'. Fuck them for wanting representation. God damn if people spent half the energy they spent demonizing others for trying to get represented on pushing for a better representative system in the past hundred years or more, maybe, just maybe in all that time, we could have actually gotten somewhere and we wouldn't be in such a bad spot now. But time and time again, people fall for the same damn trick.
We've already got a ton of violence from the republicans. This is just Newsom finally recognizing and responding to that - it's really the bare minimum of necessary self defense.
We've already got a ton of violence from the republicans. This is just Newsom finally recognizing and responding to that - it's really the bare minimum of necessary self defense.
And what of the existing current extreme violence against citizens happening today, under Republican rule? I am exhausted of people repeating this line, or thinking that peace is always the answer...
And what of the existing current extreme violence against citizens happening today, under Republican rule? I am exhausted of people repeating this line, or thinking that peace is always the answer while the opposition is being flagrantly violent.
Notably, while Texan Republicans can force this through regardless of the opinions of their voters, the reference to a "special election" in the article is referring to the fact that if this moves...
Notably, while Texan Republicans can force this through regardless of the opinions of their voters, the reference to a "special election" in the article is referring to the fact that if this moves forward it'll be because Californians voted for it. I voted to take the power to redistrict out of the hands of politicians, and I'll be glad to vote to temporarily let a ludicrous map be generated if it's needed to stave off even some of the damage Trump and Co. are inflicting on the country.
I glad that it ultimately comes down to the voters, and hopefully it's a temporary and limited deal, as I'm deeply uncomfortable with a governor having that sort of power around long term. Not a...
I glad that it ultimately comes down to the voters, and hopefully it's a temporary and limited deal, as I'm deeply uncomfortable with a governor having that sort of power around long term. Not a Californian though, so it's not on my doorstep.
Obviously he made a similar statement about the redistricting process in Texas, right? Right!?
“Gavin Newsom’s latest stunt has nothing to do with Californians and everything to do with consolidating radical Democrat power, silencing California voters, and propping up his pathetic 2028 presidential pipe dream,” National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said in a statement. “Newsom’s made it clear: he’ll shred California’s Constitution and trample over democracy — running a cynical, self-serving playbook where Californians are an afterthought and power is the only priority.”
Obviously he made a similar statement about the redistricting process in Texas, right? Right!?
California Gov. Gavin Newsom stood with other prominent Democratic leaders Thursday to announce that the state will move forward with a partisan plan to redraw congressional maps in an effort to help his party win five more U.S. House seats in 2026.
The move is a direct response to a Republican-led effort in Texas, pushed by President Donald Trump as his party seeks to maintain its slim House majority after the midterm elections. Texas lawmakers are considering a new map that would help them send five more Republicans to Washington, but Democrats have so far halted a vote by leaving the state to prevent their GOP colleagues from meeting Trump’s demands.
They’re still taking the high road then. I wonder what it would look like if they really got dirty.
The California map would take effect only if a Republican state moves forward, and it would remain through the 2030 elections. After that, Democrats say they would return mapmaking power to the independent commission approved by voters more than a decade ago.
They’re still taking the high road then. I wonder what it would look like if they really got dirty.
If this is what it takes, this is what it takes. I'm so tired of Democrats playing by the rules, when Republicans have shown time and time again that there are no rules. Or at least they don't give a shit about them. Like that Constitution of ours.
Other left-leaning states better do the same. I don't care if Republicans or "Independents" want to clutch their pearls. Democrats, liberals, the left, have got to start fighting back.
I'm with you. I no longer care about the rules, law, or "doing the right thing". Fascists must be defeated. I'm glad someone with sway in the Democratic Party finally realized that Republicans declared war on the rest of long ago.
The last 15 years or so reminds me of the evolution of trust game, and Democrats have been more like the "always cooperate" character while Republicans are the "always cheat" character. It's nice to finally see a little copycat action.
I don’t think “always cooperate” is entirely accurate. For example, both Obama and Biden sometimes used executive orders aggressively, with creative legal arguments that were shot down by the courts.
(Not to the same extent as Trump, of course.)
I'm not a Newsom fan; I think that he's only a Democrat to the degree that it's the political party that gave him a route to power in California. He's been happy to support any given cause exactly as much as it provides him political capital, which makes him an unreliable ally. But even unreliable allies can be worked with when you're on the same side of a given issue.
Bingo, I'll take what I can get, but he's not off the hook for me for his shitty takes. He's not the savior of the Democratic party. I think trans folks for example are allowed to be pissed at him without being called tiresome and useless.
But hey I'm probably tiresome and useless by that standard.
His decisions on housing, crime, and drug policy have all been questionable or middling. He usually ends up supporting the status quo.
All his interviews with prominent fascists nixed any possible appeal for me. He's a mediocre governor, and I don't want a mediocre US president.
Agreed. And I got Pritzker in comparison so Newsom doesn't measure up. (I don't follow Newsom super closely for my distaste, but I've not liked his actions in those areas either)
This is the time to be holding them accountable not making at least they're not Trump compromises. If Newsom doesn't get any pressure from the left he'll keep scooting right.
I'll take what I can get from him, like I said. But I'm not going to let off my criticisms of him. I haven't criticized this move because if we're all going to play by this set of rules, we might as well all play. But I don't like many of his stances for being too centrist and too willing to compromise values not just practicalities. It makes me doubt if he has any.
But while I'll have to compromise my candidates in 2028 I don't need to now. I'd rather he not be the candidate so I'm going to push for someone further to the left and criticize him for his stances I dislike. That's sort of the whole point of the process, and waiting until 2028 to bitch about it would make me useless and tiresome.
(And yes I do things IRL)
But to be specific, I didn't say this action made him "at least he's not Trump" though I think generally it's "oh a Democrat standing up at all, he will save us" situation and I think we have to stop thinking like that.
The people I see criticizing Newsom on other platforms are certainly leftists, they're generally actually activists as well IME and they're often trans in this case, so I don't know what kind of person you're referring to really, as my algorithm(s) I suppose don't show me those folks.
I am referencing it less specifically "at" you and more because a) the people I see criticizing the man have really legitimate reasons to; b) I agree with those reasons personally; c) I personally find people that only complain about the nominees for president every four years or so to be far more frustrating; and d) I am sure there are plenty of people who find me "tiresome" and probably useless based on their reaction to me on Tildes. It became useful rhetorically.
Idk I find all sorts of folks annoying, but also sometimes those annoying people are right - about Black Lives Matter, about Palestine, about disability rights - and I need to listen; because someone will find me annoying when I'm pointing at the rhetoric targeting the 19th amendment, at the devaluing of disabled lives, or that I keep talking about trans folks. It's less than I took offense and more that I recognize my own past annoyance, and being considered an annoyance for my advocacy, and knowing there's legitimate strong criticism of Newsom out there. I didn't think your point was directed at me.
Fwiw I am quite bad at recognizing usernames cross different threads, idk if it's the ADHD, and I didn't take anything from here as a statement about me or our interactions elsewhere as related to this. I don't even know if I realized that you were the same person from that initial comment before now.
Pritzker has done the same, and conservatives are crying about it.
I mean IL has been gerrymandered long before Pritzker. It's bad in a broad sense (and I have one of the 3 stupidly drawn red districts for my own home) but unless we fix it nationally idk that it's worth fixing.
Just a polite heads up - Pritzker*
Thanks, my autocorrect apparently hates JB!
I feel that the end result of this line of thinking, especially othering anyone who disagrees with you, just ends in violence
With the least amount of anger I can muster: this is a problematic take.
First and foremost, there has been and will continue to be violence, and this type of comment is not where it will begin or end. Trump is legitimately just following the Nazi playbook; deploying the National Guard against citizens, taking control of the capital by force, deporting hundreds of thousands of people, not to mention how much violence he has incited within his own base, and that done towards LGBTQ+ (especially the T) and BIPOC. This line of thinking only leads to violence insofar as it is a response to violence.
Second, there isn't "othering" happening in that comment. Disagreement is not othering. Othering has a very specific meaning, and while a dictionary might say something like "othering is the act of viewing or treating a group as intrinsically different", that is not a sufficient summary of what it means to force a group to be "the other". It is an extreme dilution of the term. It historically relates to things like imperialism and colonialism where "the other" or "the savage" is lesser than those imposing their colonialism, gender and sex where the other is imagined as a fundamental different and "weird" group such as non cisnormative people. It is not something like "we disagree about how democrats should run a party".
To be even more blunt than I was above, this attitude is why "the left" frequently loses; clutching pearls and tut tutting when someone actually does something to stand up to Trump isn't a great look.
I hate to be a doomer, but I feel like it could end in violence, regardless of what Dems do or don't. Especially for those of us who are minorities.
I think it could end in violence too. I think the issue is that because of the two party system, there's no representation for those 'pearl clutchers' or 'Independents' as you so blithely referred to them.
I think with nearly all major violent events, you have people who must take on a mindset that goes too far, as far as is needed, to meet the opposition head on and take on that fight, but it's too far in the sense that it's not fit for the desired end state. It's a means to an end, and for that I think you need people who have the mindset of what that end actually is. You need means, and you need an end, and I think what it takes for both of them are fairly exclusive. I don't believe that someone who will go to the lengths needed to fight fire with fire is capable of recognizing when the battle is won and capable of coming back to normalcy, generally speaking. Not saying people can't or won't stop when a circumstance arises, but it isn't necessarily what is in their mind or their hearts and that can lead to expressions past when the fighting is done.
I'm just tired of people demonizing other people in a system that pits them against each other for representation. This system is set up so that you being represented denies others the opportunity to be represented. And because of this, people fight over how to get representation of any kind, and then its mud slinging about 'Independents' and 'pearl clutchers'. Fuck them for wanting representation. God damn if people spent half the energy they spent demonizing others for trying to get represented on pushing for a better representative system in the past hundred years or more, maybe, just maybe in all that time, we could have actually gotten somewhere and we wouldn't be in such a bad spot now. But time and time again, people fall for the same damn trick.
We've already got a ton of violence from the republicans. This is just Newsom finally recognizing and responding to that - it's really the bare minimum of necessary self defense.
Do you see a viable alternative?
And what of the existing current extreme violence against citizens happening today, under Republican rule? I am exhausted of people repeating this line, or thinking that peace is always the answer while the opposition is being flagrantly violent.
Notably, while Texan Republicans can force this through regardless of the opinions of their voters, the reference to a "special election" in the article is referring to the fact that if this moves forward it'll be because Californians voted for it. I voted to take the power to redistrict out of the hands of politicians, and I'll be glad to vote to temporarily let a ludicrous map be generated if it's needed to stave off even some of the damage Trump and Co. are inflicting on the country.
I glad that it ultimately comes down to the voters, and hopefully it's a temporary and limited deal, as I'm deeply uncomfortable with a governor having that sort of power around long term. Not a Californian though, so it's not on my doorstep.
It's explicitly a map that will only last until the normal redistricting based on the 2030 census.
Obviously he made a similar statement about the redistricting process in Texas, right? Right!?
Also, wait, how is it silencing California voters if they have to vote for this… unlike us in Texas who are having it thrust upon us…
They’re still taking the high road then. I wonder what it would look like if they really got dirty.