Unfortunately if the choice is between someone who will make no progress and someone who will actively cause or encourage harm, I have to choose the option that minimizes harm.
I’m well aware of the lesser-of-two-evils / voting-as-harm-reduction argument. I even accept it in some cases (eg, I’d be willing to vote for Pritzker, even though he’s a billionaire nepo baby who used inherited wealth to buy his way into politics)
I’m not willing to extend it to Newsom. he is not “harm reduction”. he is promoting harm against trans people.
here is the record of the bill Newsom just vetoed. it passed the state assembly with 78% of the vote, and the state senate with 75% of the vote.
he’s supposedly a Democrat…and yet he’s in opposition to something that other Democrats in California overwhelmingly supported. and meanwhile he’s in agreement with the fucking Oklahoma Republican Party?
to quote Black Panther - is this your king? is this your “harm reduction”?
also, separate from my personal dislike of him, if Newsom is the nominee in 2028 he will lose. I don’t like making political predictions but I feel pretty confident in that one. so even if you believe that political principles are for suckers and the only thing that matters is having a warm body in the office with a (D) next to their name…you should still oppose Newsom.
Harm reduction is shoved down the throats of people living under first-past-the-past while they gleefully try to get distract the people away from proportional representation in Portland and contribution limits.
Considering the other side is – in multiple states – outright outlawing proportional representation, voting for the person not actively making that goal more difficult is, definitionally, still harm reduction.
I’ve somewhat misspoke as they targeted, specifically, Ranked-Choice Voting rather than specifically the multi-candidate part but I feel like the proportional part is missed if you leave FPtP in place without an alternative like RCV so I don’t think that’s still wrong, per se; and I’d fully expect someone who’d outlaw RCV to be against anything fully proportional.
Honestly, that last part is most relevant imo. No Republican is going to vote for a Democrat California governor. Doesn’t matter if he’s pulling the levers they want him to.
I made that mistake with Biden in 2020 and now realize we would now be better off if Trump had won. I’m not doing that again. No more shitty Democrats paving the way for even worse Republicans.
Unfortunately if the choice is between someone who will make no progress and someone who will actively cause or encourage harm, I have to choose the option that minimizes harm.
I’m well aware of the lesser-of-two-evils / voting-as-harm-reduction argument. I even accept it in some cases (eg, I’d be willing to vote for Pritzker, even though he’s a billionaire nepo baby who used inherited wealth to buy his way into politics)
I’m not willing to extend it to Newsom. he is not “harm reduction”. he is promoting harm against trans people.
Newsom said in an interview that he thought trans people should maybe be forced to wait until 25 years old before they’re allowed to medically transition
that’s rooted in bullshit science about “your brain keeps developing until you’re 25”
but Newsom agrees with the Oklahoma Republican Party on that subject
here is the record of the bill Newsom just vetoed. it passed the state assembly with 78% of the vote, and the state senate with 75% of the vote.
he’s supposedly a Democrat…and yet he’s in opposition to something that other Democrats in California overwhelmingly supported. and meanwhile he’s in agreement with the fucking Oklahoma Republican Party?
to quote Black Panther - is this your king? is this your “harm reduction”?
also, separate from my personal dislike of him, if Newsom is the nominee in 2028 he will lose. I don’t like making political predictions but I feel pretty confident in that one. so even if you believe that political principles are for suckers and the only thing that matters is having a warm body in the office with a (D) next to their name…you should still oppose Newsom.
When the alternative is literal fascism, then yes, he would be harm reduction.
I do oppose Newsom. In a primary.
Harm reduction is shoved down the throats of people living under first-past-the-past while they gleefully try to get distract the people away from proportional representation in Portland and contribution limits.
Considering the other side is – in multiple states – outright outlawing proportional representation, voting for the person not actively making that goal more difficult is, definitionally, still harm reduction.
Where are they outlawing proportional representation?
I’ve somewhat misspoke as they targeted, specifically, Ranked-Choice Voting rather than specifically the multi-candidate part but I feel like the proportional part is missed if you leave FPtP in place without an alternative like RCV so I don’t think that’s still wrong, per se; and I’d fully expect someone who’d outlaw RCV to be against anything fully proportional.
These are the states RCV’s been outlawed:
Honestly, that last part is most relevant imo. No Republican is going to vote for a Democrat California governor. Doesn’t matter if he’s pulling the levers they want him to.
But this shows he is against progress and supports positions that cause active harm. We have to choose a different option to get change.
The 13 month election campaign hasn’t started yet. Hold your cars.
I made that mistake with Biden in 2020 and now realize we would now be better off if Trump had won. I’m not doing that again. No more shitty Democrats paving the way for even worse Republicans.