tomprogers

Scholastic recommends that you surround yourself with 000 to let go of something that's bothering you

In that case, I will thank you for the civility you have shown me so far, and I will draw the line here.

Good day.

Well, I agree with you completely that this rush to seal the deal is incredibly unhealthy. I'd even say dangerous.

I've spent my life watching it happen, and have only recently turned my attention to the other side of the equation: how candidates get knocked *out* of the path of the fait accompli.

To gloss it: I am studying coalition-breaking, I am not currently choosing which politicians to support. (I will make those decisions much later.)

Your advice is good advice, for a voter who is choosing candidates. I am not currently a voter, I am a scholar of political speech.

You've lost sight of my project.

I am not here to make up my mind about Newsom, I am here to observe how people talk about him and what arguments they deploy against him. That means I am in fact going to attend to just the arguments which are actually advanced.

...although the reality is that I don’t need anyone’s permission to consider myself an ally or to support trans folks, and so I have not attempted to press that issue. I would be pleased if I have convinced you that I am an ally, but I won’t fight over it.

Maybe we both take "yes" for an answer? :)

...of trans rights is a bridge too far. But I am agnostic about whether that is actually the case -- I am no pollster.

All I've done is to defend the very limited statements I made about being open to a trans win by any means.

I suppose I have been attempting to defend my claim to be an ally...

I never suggested anything. You came here to tell me I'm not an ally, and to assert that Dems do not need votes from anyone outside the Dem base to win office.

I said I'm open to sneaking a trans ally into office, if it turns out there are some merely-tolerant voters for whom a full embrace...

I believe what I said is that I am open to the strategy of sneaking a trans ally into office. I concede that subsequently I have gone farther afield than I like, so allow me to revise my statement:

I want trans allies to win, and I don't care how they accomplish it. Loud, quiet, Morse code, whatev.

No, I'm not. I believe Fox damns Dems no matter what. Even if Dems say nothing, Fox will make up stuff that they think will drive "middle America" away, and the pretend that Dems said it.

And yes, when it comes to actual policy, the GOP opens with cruelty. You and I are in agreement on this.

Perhaps I am conflating the DNC event and all the Zoom advocacy stuff with the campaign trail. My mistake.

I agree: the debate you and I are having is entirely about how Dems ought to run for office. So, with respect, I am going to bow out of this discussion. There is no position here that I will fight for.

I hope Dems win and I hope they enact legislation to protect trans folk. See you on election day.

And I will add: I suspect the reason Dems have stopped advocating loudly for trans rights after 2024 is *precisely* because Dems suspect that Harris/Walz's bold and proud support for trans rights made it easier for Fox News to drive some voters away from Dems.

Harris and Walz both did.

Mamdani did that in a blue state, though.

If we want to enshrine trans rights in federal policy we will need to win some Congressional and Presidential races outside of Dem strongholds.

I don't want to argue about how Dems ought to run for office -- it's not my field and I don't care how they win.

I didn't say lowering trans rights, I said *discussing* trans rights less on the campaign trail.

BTW I am not advocating that, I'm just saying I would not necessarily vote against a Dem who I believed was being quiet about their support for trans rights for the sake of eking out a win.

That argument depends on the assumption that there are no voters in "the middle" who might be up for grabs if Dem candidates were slightly less loud about trans advocacy.

I want trans rights badly enough that I am not above smuggling a trans ally into office. I am *open* to that strategy.

But that doesn't mean I won't test the arguments made by trans folk. Nobody has a monopoly on reasoning.

And since I am *so* worried about psyops, I'm also alert the possibility of agitators posing online as trans people to float bad arguments. So the arguments actually matter to me.

The fact is that I've been reserving judgment about Newsom precisely because I wanted to let trans folk make up their mind about him before I even considered him.

I got into this conversation precisely because I was listening to trans folk and trans allies discuss Newsom, and what I saw was a mischaracterization of his argument.

I read the screenshots shared by emily, and then read emily's post, and in my judgement there was a disconnect, and I said so.

I take your point, but I think you go too far. I don't think my comments suppress conversation at all.

I haven't convinced you I am not for Newsom. As I said, my interest in Newsom is (so far) strictly limited to how discussion about him originates. I've never praised him or supported him. Check!

I think you characterized my position perfectly, except for the part about my motive (getting clicks).

You are right about my concerns, you are right about how I'm testing-for-fit the discussion I see against my fear-theory about psyops.

And I hope I've now explained my motives well enough.

I should also add: I am very alert to the dangers of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, which is an exceptionally salient danger in America's 2-party system.

I believe that is how we got Trump. So I am eager to see us not repeat the same mistake. I will err on the side of caution here.

I freely admit I may be off-base, but in my defense I have only raised the possibility twice. It's not my stock-in-trade.

If you think it's not holding up, I won't press the issue -- it is entirely possible I am jumping at shadows. My goal is just to raise awareness so folks will be on guard.

There may be clicks in fearmongering, but I'm not getting them, because I do not generally fear-monger.

I concede that you're right about me being highly alert to the possibility of psyops used to sow discord among Dems.

This is the bottom of the thread: bsky.app/profile/tomp...

It's not long, and the answers to your questions are all there. Once you have caught up, I'm happy to continue the discussion if you think necessary.

I don't support Newsom. I've never said I support him. I actually don't know if I support him. Indeed, I've heard some troubling things about his views on trans folk.

All I've said is that I keep an eye out for the reasons offered in liberal circles for not supporting him.

I think I beat you to the press here.

I believe the response I've already written addresses everything you added in your second post.

The long discussion we're having is completely unrelated to Newsom. I believe what we're discussing is whether it was inappropriate for me to quote-post a user whose statements I was commenting on.

You'll note that none of our back-and-forth mentions Newsom or trans rights.

(EDIT: corrected a pronoun)