Over the past month, California Governor Gavin Newsom has been making headlines for all the right reasons: he's led an effort to respond to Texas Republicans' push to further gerrymander their state, used his profile to pressure Border Patrol and ICE, and found a very effective-and hilarious-way to get under Trump's skin through his Press Office's parodies of the president's writing style. All of these actions have catapulted him to national stardom, where he's taken on the role of leading the fight against the Trump administration.
However, to the trans community, his rise only brings fear. Because before these developments, he was trying to win over potential voters in a very different way: by abandoning the LGBTQ+ community.
In the United States, California has long had a reputation. And not just for its stereotyped sunny weather, surfer culture, and affluent, snobby culture, but for its liberal politics as well. California Democrats are synonymous-especially in more Republican-leaning areas-with the liberal style of politics conservatives detest. It's so difficult to overcome that despite California's large population and plethora of Democratic figures with a national profile, of the three presidents from California, none of them have been Democrats.
Evidently, Newsom is facing an uphill battle. So he's set off to appear more palatable to conservatives, starting with LGBTQ+ issues. Beginning in 2024, he started attempting to suppress pro-LGBTQ+ bills while they were still in the legislature in order to keep him from having to either veto them-losing progressives-or sign them-angering conservatives. Then, he went public with his new opinions during a conversation with Charlie Kirk on his podcast earlier this year, calling trans athletes' participation in girls' and women's sports 'deeply unfair.' And more recently, he signalled he changed his stance on gender-affirming care for minors as well.
Here's the thing with US presidential elections: either the Democratic or Republican candidate will take office. It's not right, it's not good, but it's true. If you want the candidate you want to win the election, you need to get that candidate nominated by one of those two parties. Primaries matter.
Once the primaries are over, you need to vote for the candidate you prefer out of those two. Voting outside of those two, or not at all, gives your electoral support to the candidate you don't want to win.
Yes, you may well be forced to choose between bad and worse. But that's the choice you have. To be clear, I really don't want Newsom to rise for all sorts of reasons. However, I can't deny that his tactics against Trump right now are brilliant, and taking on the Texas redistricting nonsense head on is a good thing.
Your human rights, along with a whole lot of other people's, are in serious jeopardy right now. Is Newsom doing things right now that are supportive of those rights? Yes.
People don't vote this way and you can't make them.
Incorrect as harris found out. Its best you stop living in this fairy land of yours.
If dems want to win they need to start meeting their base where its at.
Are you aware that you are posting this to Blahaj Zone?
What if I don’t want either to win?
What a stupid country.
I hate it here.
You'll get no argument from me on that.
And the worst part is that by constantly having to choose between bad and worse it will only get stupider.
Get armed. Make friends.
Can my friends be woodland creatures and not humans?
Humans are loud and smelly and demanding. I hate being around them. They just cause all kinds of trouble, like how I have to choose between bad and worse.
But if the country is going to fall anyway, maybe I don’t have to vote at all….
As long as they can load magazines, operate a trigger, and successfully clear malfunctions.
I’d trust a squirrel to do that over a human any day.