- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/22110534
You must log in or # to comment.
If there happens to be a few more MAGA crazies that get shot then they will forget building a statue of this shitbag. Just saying.
Only if there’s a steady, perpetual stream though.
Goals
The context of the civil rights act is a little more nuanced than what this implies.
He stated that he understands the act was drawn up to combat segregation, but bemoaned it because it was now being used a weapon against white people.
Instead of shooting him, someone should have drawn his attention to the 2009 case of Ricci v. DeStefano. The case was about the New Haven, CT firefighters’ promotion exam results showing that white and Hispanic candidates scored highest, but the city discarded the test results fearing a lawsuit from minority firefighters who did worse.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favour of the white and Hispanic firefighters, finding that discarding the test results violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (which prohibits discrimination based on race).
Basically, the civil right act that he said harmed white men, protected them here. Thus, proving Kirk to be wrong.
You dont need to kill the Charlie Kirks of the world, you only ever needed to hit them with words and facts.
Even if you were to look at more recent examples that have been filed, they are not around the act itself, but the actions of individuals who are acting out their social media fantasies as crusaders for what they feel is right. Kirk was just straight up wrong here. There was zero need for this to escalate to murder. None at all.
you only ever needed to hit them with words and facts
Oh, sweet summer child…
You can’t used facts and logic to reason someone out of a position that they didn’t use facts and logic to arrive at in the first place. They only speak one language. That language is violence.
They would simply claim it was a one off statistical anomaly and their point still stands, without providing evidence of course.
Gavin Newsom called for “continuing the work of Charlie Kirk”
That’s a big yikes from me dawg
Gavin Newsom is basically neoliberalism incarnate.
Gavin isn’t Left enough to be a Neo Liberal
What are you talking about, even Bush is neoliberal. The Democratic and Republican parties are on opposite ends of the neoliberal coin and have been for a long time.
Pretty generic of a phrase. It’s sane washing a lot of it, and the media has continually pushed the angle that he has been working to get the younger generation into politics.
If that’s the work he is referring to, then yea, fine, let’s continue it. But if it’s the hateful, divisive way he was doing it, then it should die with him.
Fuck Charlie Kirk, and has his regressive political views.
Gavin Newsom called for “continuing the work of Charlie Kirk”
Oh, whoopee. His own California Reich.
Should be the thing to completely depose him through election.
Gavin Newsom called for “continuing the work of Charlie Kirk”
Give newsom a break. Now he has to find someone else to tell him what to think about trans people.
I’m googling it and can’t find him saying that, link?
Charlie Kirk was political the same way the Ku Klux Klan is political.
This was well written and thought out.
Indeed it was. Kirk was a monster and he should not be treated as anything less.
Lemmy: hold my beer.
Wait what? Because people are asking others to chill with the cheering?
I think the author is missing the point. I know almost nothing about Kirk, I only heard about him an hour or so after the shooting when my coworkers brought it up, and I think I’m part of the majority, at least of people who disagree with him.
Here’s the point:
- Kirk was shot under a tent that said “prove me wrong,” directly asking for open debate
- Everyone and their dog is condemning the violence, so merely condemning violence won’t get noticed
- Gavin Newsom seems to be angling for a presidential run, so he needs to be seen as reasonable to distance himself from Trump
It’s the right political move, and most of those who read his message won’t look too closely into Kirk anyway. He needs to communicate order and tolerance right now to keep his presidential bid alive.
I’m not a fan of Kirk or Newsom, I’m merely looking at this as a strategic move, and it seems to be the right one IMO.
tolerance
Can’t tolerate intolerance.
tolerance
Can’t tolerate intolerance.
They can and they do.
(Democratic politicians, that is.)
I never said that’s the correct moral choice, I said that’s what a president who wants to appeal to disenfranchised Trump voters needs to do. This isn’t the election to push far left policies, it’s the election to revert to where we were at and set up for the leftist policies in the second term. Undoing what Trump broke is more than enough change for the average voter.
We’ve waited decades for these rural dipshits to pull their heads out of their asses. If the most obvious wannabe fascist strongman imaginable personally fucking them over repeatedly is not enough to get them to change their ways then there is no point in hoping for that day to come.
We need to push for progressive policy changes right now and if that’s not politically viable in this country in its current state then the collapse of the government is preferable both for our sake and the sake of the rest of the world. Call that naive if you want to but I fully believe that chaos in America is better than a fascist America run by men like Donald Trump running amok around the world.
I’m not talking about those, I’m talking about people in the middle who bought into his anti-establishment nonsense, and finally see him for who he is. I’m talking about the 5% or so of people who would actually consider switching from one major candidate to the other.
Pushing hard for progressive policy changes won’t energize that group. Pushing for reverting Trump’s changes, especially tariffs and immigration, and championing laws to prevent that type of nonsense in the future is probably more appealing than a dramatic shift to the left. What they want is a reset, not a revolution.
To be clear, that’s not what I am looking for, but it’s what would get my parents, siblings, and some of my neighbors who all likely voted for Trump to consider switching parties. They’re not looking for radical change, they’re looking to undo Trump’s power grab.
If they’re not looking for radical change then why did they vote for Trump who campaigned on kicking out all immigrants and totally reshaping the economy?
He also ran on blaming Biden for inflation, “fixing” the economy (bring jobs here), etc. It seems they trusted him to actually know what he’s doing.
A candidate that can convince the public that they do know what they’re doing and explain why Trump’s plan doesn’t work (i.e. state the obvious) could garner support. Don’t run on LGBT policy (but do address it), run on an economic agenda of undoing tariffs, simplifying immigration, and most importantly, putting limits on the executive branch to prevent whiplash going forward.
He needs to communicate order and tolerance right now to keep his presidential bid alive.
That’s absolutely not what the non-Republican electorate wants right now. What they want is anti-fascist action, not bromance with fascists.
Maybe that’s what you want, but I don’t think that’s what the quiet majority wants, and I think Newsom knows that. People generally want stability and for the President to not take over the news cycle.
What you’re talking about is the current dem platform. You know, the one that has them at 24% approval rating. People who do make noise and make a point of resisting fascism see their approval ratings rise. There’s no evidence for that quiet majority of yours.
Stability and order is anti-fascism. Fascism is all about identifying an enemy and using it as an excuse to grab power. Stability and order is about not making crazy changes and following the rule of law. If you have a leftist trying the same tactics as Trump, but in the opposite direction, I really don’t think that’s going to work out.
The two largest groups I see revolve around support for Trump. The opposite of Trump is stability and order, and that’s what’s going to sell IMO.
Spain under Franco was stable and orderly; it was still fascist. The system needs crazy changes to be fixed (if such a thing is possible), because it was crazy changes that got it to its present broken state. Again, you have providing no evidence for your silent majority, which would theoretically support the current Dem platform.
The Dems have had the wrong platform pretty consistently.
- 2016 - people were tired of the establishment which is why Sanders got popular, but the DNC picked Clinton (textbook establishment)
- 2020 - people got Trump whiplash and wanted someone presidential and energetic to fix relationships w/ other countries, but the top four candidates were over 70
- 2024 - people wanted to fix inflation, and Harris promised the “status quo”
People are tired of Trump, mostly because of the sheer onslaught of changes. If the next candidate wants to flip the table again, I don’t see them doing well. Save that for the second term once things have been put back to normal.
People are tired of Trump, mostly because of the sheer onslaught of changes.
Uh… no? It’s because of all the fascism and wrecking the economy. There’s a lot more that’s objectionable about Trump than change. If the underlying issues of American society are not addressed, there will be no second term because the right will be able to say “see? Liberals don’t care about you as long as they’re in power.”
If the majority doesn’t want to resist fascism then it’s all over anyway. So might as well resist.
Newsom having a bromance with a dead transphobe is more reason for me to sit 2028 out if it ends up being him.
Don’t sit it out, join me in voting for a third party you actually believe in. Chances are, you don’t live in a state that’s going to determine the election anyway, so you might as well vote your conscience.
Not the commenter, but I do live in a swing state and it would be hard to vote for Newsom.
Then I hope there’s stiff competition so you can not hate your options.
Same, Gavin Newsom is just… No, just no.
As funny as his “Look at me, I’m Donald Trump, but on the Left!” routine is, it’s only funny for five minutes and is straight up not enough to propel him to the front of the pack. Most Conservatives straight up don’t even get the joke anyway, it goes way too over their heads to be an effective burn.
I really want Gavin to be this champion, standing up to Trump and paving the way for fixing the broken greed-powered automaton that is America. But all I see is an opportunistic fascist who’s willing to sell out transpeople to the Right in exchange for more Nazis showing up on his podcast.
Idk, I do think there’s a good chance he’ll be the frontrunner. He’s also probably my last pick if I had to come up with a list, even below Harris, who I strongly detest (she was dead last on my preference list when she ran for the nomination). I dislike almost everything about him, which means he’ll probably be the nominee.
I also hope for that.
Bro I’m not voting for Jill Stein even if she actually did have a chance
Also I live in NC, but at this point, I’m actively wondering if JD Vance is a better human being than Gavin Newsom.
That is NOT me complimenting the Couch Fucker. That’s just how terrible of a human being Gavin is.
At this point I’d only vote for Gavin if he had a damn good VP or if it really is going to be Trump 2028. He continously proves that he just wants to to be Blue Trump, minus the blue part. Calling for Charlie Kirk’s work to be “Continued” is the last fucking straw. Between him attacking transpeople and vetoing any legislation to the Left of “Hunt The Homeless For Sport”
Gavin is a complete monster who is Democrat in name only.
I condemned the “But Kamela’s somehow worse for Palestine than Trump!” crowd, but Kamela was at least a Democrat. Newsom clearly just pretended to be (D) to get elected in California.
I actively CHALLENGE anyone reading this to show me any evidence of Newsom doing a good deed while in office.
I can’t stand Newsom, but he’s way, way the fuck better than JD Vance. That shouldn’t even be a debate. Like at all. But if can’t handle voting for the president, just skip that vote and vote on all the down ballot stuff. It’s often more important. Also, if you’re in a state like mine where the general isn’t close, it makes no difference voting for the president. Everyone knows which way my state goes. Either way, make damn sure you vote in the primary. I’m so fucking tired of people who don’t vote in the primary bitching about the shitty choices when the general election comes around.
Eh, I don’t vote in the primary because I don’t get a primary ballot (have to be registered to a major party). I occasionally change my vote to the majority party in my state if there’s a candidate I dislike enough. But that’s because I live in Utah, and the only primary that matters here is the GOP one (esp. in my district where the GOP gets like 80% of the vote). I remember switching when Mike Lee was up for re-election so I could vote against him twice, and maybe I’ll do it again when he’s up for reelection again, but I keep my registration w/ a third party because I think juicing their stats is more valuable than voting in either primary.
I used to change my registration every election based on what party was actually having a primary. I still try to, but sometimes I just never get around to it.
I only do it if I really like or dislike a candidate, most years I don’t bother.
One great part about not being registered to a major party is that I don’t get people asking me to sign stuff.
I always vote in the Primary. Proudly voted for Bernie in Primary, Hillary in General, in 2016.
Thing is Vance is merely incompetent, Newsom is straight up evil
Yeah, sorry. I didn’t mean you you, just a generalized you. Vance is a bootlicker, but the dude isn’t stupid.
