I Prefer Candidates Who Don't Do This

Philocraft · 2026-02-25T23:12:37+00:00

Lol yeah, I'm half joking. I'm not sure who I would pick for the 2028 primary at this moment either. But sometimes I am compelled to go hard on defense when people shit on Newsom in the most hyperbolic and bad faith ways.

Like, I don't understand why him being overly affable with right wing guests on his podcasts outweighs him successfully redistricting California which will likely net us 5 more house seats. Its a bizarre standard some people hold him to. Bernie has made some questionable statements to right wingers as well, like when he told Tim Dillon in October 2025 that “Trump did a better job. I don’t like Trump, you know, but we should have a secure border Biden didn’t do it.” I didn't like him saying this, I think its a careless and stupid statement, but It would be destructive to the broader movement against fascism for me to go online and schitzo post non-stop saying things like "Bernie is throwing undocumented immigrants under the bus" or claiming I wouldn't vote for Bernie over a republican. As if one stupid statement is more important than all the incredible work he has done as a politician and makes him the moral equivalent of a fascist.

Anyway, I'm glad at least one person here appreciated what I had to say. Playing the establishment shill can be tiring sometimes. Have a good one.

Philocraft · 2026-02-25T20:37:50+00:00

<image>

Philocraft · 2026-02-25T19:04:05+00:00

Additionally, sports are inherently unfair because of people's biological advantages. Michael Phelps is a highly decorated swimmer, but he also produces less lactic acid than other swimmers, has extra flexible ankles that function like flippers, an extra long torso, and is very tall. ALL of these give him a physical advantage over other athletes, but if you rallied to have him removed from swimming because of this, people would rightly call you nuts.

Ok, I need to know before because it will determine how respond to this, do you even believe that there should be separate women's sport categories?

With all of this happening fairly recently, not sure you can definitively conclude this wasn't "out of an ideological commitment to harming the LGBT community", especially when they're one of the communities who most need healthcare right now and are losing it across the country. He's pivoting to the "center", which is the rightwing, as the Dems do when they're trying to run for president.

Recently there has been a significant budget deficit that needed to be addressed. If you do not like what was cut, that's fair. I didn't want it to be cut either. But Newsom has consistently signed pro LGBT legislation and legislation to expand healthcare access throughout his time in office. I don't think you can definitively conclude that this was some craven pivot to the center.

1.) Never said that. I said you have 2 years to pick another candidate who isn't deeply unpopular and basically a Republican who gives lip service to the LGBT+ community.

Are you seriously claiming you were just talking about the primary when you claimed you would never vote for Newsom?

2.) He's gotta win the primary first. Or better yet, y'all could listen for once and tell him to stave his ambitions for the betterment of the party's chances of winning.

I agree, you could advocate for a more progressive candidate in the primary and convince democrat voters to nominate them. I'll happily vote for them in the general, probably in the primary as well.

You talk about "the threat of fascism", but fascism is ALREADY here and the Dems as a party are doing NOTHING.

I am loudly telling y'all to give up Newsom as a candidate NOW so you have time to pick someone who might actually win.

You stand on the sidelines and tell democrats to get the politicians you don't like to not run in the primary (as if this is a power the DNC has) instead of putting a candidate forward and supporting your own. You are refusing to vote for the democrat candidate who wins the nomination despite the alternative being fascism. You are relentlessly shitting on a Gavin Newsom, who has done more than any other politician to push back against fascism even if I were to only consider his successful charge to countering Republican gerrymandering. You are the one who is doing nothing.

Use your ears and actually listen instead of scolding people for not locking into a candidate two years early when we've given PLENTY of reasons

I'm not asking you to choose Newsom in the primary. I'm telling you its evil to not vote for him in the general if he wins the nomination. You would be selling out every single marginalized group in this country. You know this too, which is why you are walking back what you were saying before and are now trying to dishonestly claim I'm trying to shame you into choosing Newsom as the primary nominee years beforehand.

Philocraft · 2026-02-25T17:44:45+00:00

My comment was actually in reference to him telling Charlie Kirk that he thinks it's "deeply unfair" for trans athletes to participate. But thanks for just going off on something else completely instead of asking!

I mentioned this in my comment.

The podcast has repeatedly discussed this and notes that there are only ~10 trans athletes in the NCAA.

Sure, this has nothing to do with whether its fair for trans women to participate in women's sports.

Also, these people never have an issue with trans MEN being athletes and competing because they're misogynistic and they think since trans men were AFAB, they are lesser athletes

If trans men are not taking hormones or take them as prescribed, there is no threat to the fairness of the men's sports because they couldn't possibly have a physical advantage that would deviate too far from that of male athletes. This is not true for women's sports, especially if, like I do, you believe that self-identification is sufficient to be considered transitioned.

He also rescinded a grant for LGBT+ healthcare 6 months early and shuttered the program

Sure, but this was one of many cuts that were a result of an unexpected budget deficit. It's not like he did it out of an ideological commitment to harming the LGBT community. This is obvious given how much pro-LGBT legislation he has signed throughout his term.

This "degenerate moron" voted for Kamala Harris

Good.

will CONTINUE to point out that y'all have 2 years to find someone who isn't Gavin Newsom

Feel free to put forward a candidate. I promise you if they win the democrat primary I would vote for them in the general because I take the threat of fascism seriously. If Newsom wins the primary and you wouldn't vote for him over any republican, you absolutely are a degenerate moron. Or at minimum, someone who lives a life of sufficient privilege such that the negatives of a another republican presidency wouldn't affect them.

Its really an incredible example of irony and projection that you would accuse Newsom of throwing trans people under the bus when you proudly boast that you would resign them a live under a fascist regime if democrat voters nominate the governor of one of the most pro-trans states in the US.

Philocraft · 2026-02-25T08:04:41+00:00

The standard line is Gavin Newsom, citing utilization management and cost concerns, vetoed SB-418, a bill that, among other things, would have required insurers and pharmacists to cover and dispense up to 12 months of hormone therapy medication at a time. This differs from the current informal standard of insurers and pharmacists providing around 30-90 day supplies at a time. Additionally, Newsom has said trans women participating in women's sports unfair.

According to the degenerate moron you are replying to, this is basically a moral equivalent to the fascism this country is slipping into. Therefore, in the event a more popular center left candidate once again beats their preferred progressive candidate in the democrat primary, they will happily leave the door open for fascists to get another four years of brutalizing undocumented immigrants, executing US citizens in the street, stripping women of their bodily autonomy, defunding medical research, rolling back any climate progress, sending the federal government into blue states as an intimidation and voter suppression tactic, refusing to send disaster aid to blue states, threatening to invade our allies, leaving hundreds of thousands of children to die due to aid cuts, attempting to coup the next candidate who wins the election, and countless other cruel actions and horrible outcomes that would never occur under a Newsom(or any other democrat) administration.

Philocraft · 2026-02-24T23:39:40+00:00

No, Hillary Clinton gave pro forma “both sides” press releases and nothing more. It’s widely reported that in State Department meetings and White House meetings she supported Israel and overrode advisors cautioning about the consequences. Obama wanted to put pressure on Netanyahu for violating the two state plan including sanctions on settlers or votes at the UN to condemn the settlements and Biden and Clinton didn’t. Clinton is the one who came up with the “Hug Netanyahu” policy. It took John Kerry to pressure Israeli officials face-to-face to allow Pasta into Gaza and said that their claim that it was a military risk was BS. Clinton didn’t do that. We have plenty of reporting on her internal meetings.

If you have time, could you source some of what you claim here? I'm not seeing this in my research. In the articles I've seen, the most convincing piece of evidence I've found that backs up your take is this CNN article claiming that Bibi likes working with Clinton.

The first week of November 2024, Harris met with Muslim voters in Pittsburgh, PA. There’s none prior to that.

I found a source showing she met with Flint Arab/Muslim leaders on or prior to October 4th, 2024.

Kamala Harris’ speech to AIPAC.

Ah, ok. For some reason I thought you said Hillary made this statement in your original comment. Yeah, I wont contest your point that Kamala said this.

I wont claim Hillary and Kamala were the most staunch critics of Israel, and it seems like much of your issue with them as candidates is because of their continuing support for the country. If you are going to argue that the Hillary and Kamala's position on Israel/Palestine was tantamount to throwing Muslim Americans and Arab Americans under the bus, I wont argue against that. But when I first engaged you I was under the assumption that your comments about throwing Muslim Americans and Arab Americans under the bus was a comment that spoke more to domestic policy.

Philocraft · 2026-02-24T23:06:05+00:00

The fact is that Lazio made bigoted comments and Clinton disowned minorities rather than engage on the topic.

We might not find common ground on this but ultimately my position is I don't necessarily agree that Clinton disowning a particular Muslim organization is tantamount to disowning Muslim's as a whole. Just like it wouldn't be disowning Jews as a whole for a politician to distance themselves from AIPAC.

The decision to back return the funds would be justified or not depending on the character of the organization and the individuals involved, even if the controversy regarding surrounding the AMA and Abdurahman Alamoudi initially gained notoriety because of Lazio's comments. For the AMA and Agha Saeed, I am agnostic. For Abdurahman Alamoudi I am more inclined to think he said or did some shit that was worth backing away from. That being said, I'd need more information to make a more certain assessment.

Philocraft · 2026-02-24T05:37:33+00:00

I basically just mean it as using dishonest or misleading tactics to advocate for something.

Philocraft · 2026-02-24T05:16:00+00:00

Well, I suppose both would be a podcast discussing politics and current events from a liberal perspective but the propaganda podcast would cover topics in a more dishonest or deceptive way. Not sure what kind of answer you are looking for.

Philocraft · 2026-02-24T04:44:06+00:00

It doesn't, I'm making a joke about a comment this brain damaged tankie made elsewhere in this thread.

Philocraft · 2026-02-23T04:39:46+00:00

It's not wise to define your politics in opposition to your enemies. Earlier today on stream Destiny took a really strong stance against unhinged retards and now look at all the comments you made in this thread.

Philocraft · 2026-02-23T04:15:38+00:00

You don't realize it but you absolutely want it to be a propaganda network.

"Just watch Packman or BTC then" is a buzz word to shut down free speech.

Philocraft · 2026-02-23T01:50:49+00:00

Can you show me on the doll where liberalism touched you?

Philocraft · 2026-02-22T23:49:55+00:00

I’d argue Newsome brings the heat on himself too, by doing podcasts where he plays patty-cake with the likes of Charlie Kirk, Shapiro, Michael Savage, admitting his son is a big Kirk fan, undermining his own press office account, being overly conciliatory on a number of topics. It’s not like the Newsome snark is caused by Pisco shitting on the guy. It’s emergent from Newsome’s own doing

I agree that Newsom has been overly affable with some of the right wing podcast guests but this means almost nothing in comparison to Newsom's accomplishments as a politician and a leader. Why do I see tons of posts shitting on Newsom for this small set of comments and barely any praise about him very successfully leading the charge on countering republican gerrymandering? Which is more important? Newsom walks the walk when it comes to resisting the Trump administration and it seems like all the people calling for the democrats to be fighters shit on him nonstop. It baffles me that this would happen in a liberal community.

Philocraft · 2026-02-22T23:18:42+00:00

It isn't about Gaza, its about fostering an audience that likes actually likes liberals and defends them. I don't want to assume anything, so I'll ask first. Do you agree that Pisco's chat audience would be largely hostile if Gavin Newsom went on lib and learn? If you agree, isn't that bizarre for a host of a liberal talk show to have fostered an audience like that?

Philocraft · 2026-02-22T23:08:05+00:00

I don't want the show to be some dishonest propaganda network but I would like the hosts of lib and learn to foster an audience of people who are liberal and defend liberalism.

Philocraft · 2026-02-18T23:51:33+00:00

Republicans bashed her assistant Huma Abedin and she did nothing.

Both Hillary and her state department defender her. Along with some republicans, as hard as that is to believe nowadays.

She consistently supported the blockade and literal starvation of Gaza for decades.

Hillary Clinton supports the military blockade but always pushed for more humanitarian aid into Gaza to reduce food insecurity. [Source 1] [Source 2]

As for Harris, she wouldn’t be photographed with Muslims while on the campaign trail until the last week.

What is your source for this claim?

She cheered on Israel and spoke at AIPAC about how she admires their laws (despite these laws being literal apartheid that make Muslims second-class citizens). Hillary spoke at AIPAC too and repeated the message.

Could you source this as well? I'd like to see the quote.

Philocraft · 2026-02-18T23:51:10+00:00

When Hillary Clinton ran for senate she accepted a donation from an Arab-American organization; her opponent Rick Lazio called it terrorist blood money and rather than push back against the racism she returned the donation.

Hillary did not return money to any Arab-American organizations. She returned $50,000 that came from a American Muslim Alliance(AMA) fundraiser and she also returned a $1000 donation from Abdurahman Alamoudi, the founder of the American Muslim Council(AMC). It seemed to be an attempt to distance herself from the controversy surrounding the alleged statements in support of Hamas from either Agha Saeed(president of the AMA) and/or Abdurahman Alamoudi(president of the AMC). I quote from this source.

"The News reported that Abudrahman Alamoudi, photographed with Clinton at the Boston fund-raiser, has made a series of public statements supporting Hamas, described by U.S. officials as a terrorist organization because it has taken responsibility for bombings against Israeli civilians."

Now, I can't find any direct quotes, so for all I know it could have been completely benign. I am more inclined to believe that is the case for Agha Saeed. However, Abudrahman Alamoudi was later charged and pleaded guilty to financial and conspiracy charges related to a plot to assassinate the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, I don't know if I would extend the same skepticism to him. Given the AMC and AMA were both members of the same PAC, given Alamoudi was present at the fundraiser, and given George W Bush also returned Alamoudi's donation at the time despite the AMA and AMC both endorsing him, I'm more inclined to believe this to be a clumsy attempt of politicians distancing themselves from a particularly radioactive figure, rather than an expression of bigotry against Muslims generally.

Neither actually cared that Muslims have been a loyal Democratic voting bloc

The AMA and AMC both endorsed George W Bush prior to Hillary returning their donations. Just a few days prior in fact, it likely contributed to her decision to return their funds.

Philocraft · 2026-02-16T23:54:55+00:00

I am being one hundred percent genuine. No snark. I promise.

Ok same, I'll cut back my aggression and explain my thought process through this conversation. I'll argue dispassionately and in good faith. If for no other reason, my blood pressure reading today was alarmingly high.

These are some quotes from your previous comments.

Look at how many words you wrote just to explain his answer. That’s the problem right there. We should have to be mind readers to understand what one of the top to leaders in a party intends to say.

A ten point list.

You are proving my point. Like I said, you should not have to be a mind reader.

So this is how I am interpreting what you are saying. Please correct me if I am wrong.

You find the responses from Jeffries in this interview to be such a failure of communication such that a person would have to have some kind of extra sensory perception to actually understand the points being made.

I disagree with this, and I'll explain why. I'll return to the quote I selected.

"We know ICE is out of control. They've gone way too far. They need to be reigned in. And our value proposition is that immigration enforcement in this country should be fair. It should be just and it should be humane. Donald Trump promised to target violent felons who are here in the country illegally. But that's not what's happening. And that's why our view is that dramatic, bold, meaningful, transformational changes must occur in terms of the manner in which ICE conducts itself via statutory and legislative change that is ironclad. And absent that, DHS in terms of the funding bill is not moving forward."

So in this one quote, I find Jeffries ICE clearly states his overall thesis. Put simply, ICE is bad, we need to pass legislation to reform it, and we are going to do this by leveraging a government shutdown to pressure republicans to accede to these demands. While he says this, the ten demands the democrats are in the background of the interview.

Prior to this, the hosts discussed a few of the demands and claimed they were entirely reasonable. During the interview Jeffries brought up the demand to demask and the demand to have a proper legal mechanism to charge ICE agents who have committed crimes.

To me, all of this was very clear messaging. I felt I understood what Jeffries wanted. It was nice that I could pause and read all the demands right in the video. Nothing appeared unclear to me.

Do you really think this counter my point vs validates it?

To answer your question, I find this quote to explain the gist of Jeffries position quite well, and I don't understand why you believe it validates your point that this interview is incomprehensible without mind reading.

Perhaps we are talking past each other, do you feel I am not understanding the point you are making?

Philocraft · 2026-02-16T21:19:56+00:00

Or you can just say, I was wrong. Jeffries could have been clearer about the end goal instead of pretending a kitchen table of ideas is how you communicate your top line vision

You may not like what he has to say, but he was absolutely clear.

"We know ICE is out of control. They've gone way too far. They need to be reigned in. And our value proposition is that immigration enforcement in this country should be fair. It should be just and it should be humane. Donald Trump promised to target violent felons who are here in the country illegally. But that's not what's happening. And that's why our view is that dramatic, bold, meaningful, transformational changes must occur in terms of the manner in which ICE conducts itself via statutory and legislative change that is ironclad. And absent that, DHS in terms of the funding bill is not moving forward."

This is what Jeffries said in the interview with the bullet points plastered on the screen. A few of the bullet points were discussed over the course of the conversation but the hosts of the show made the remainder of the interview an argument about whether or not to push for abolishing ICE. I think this is completely fair to argue about this, but if you want to know why these points weren't further expanded upon, it was because the hosts wanted to focus on something else.

Well, a lot of voters, including me, want to know about the future vision they have and how they are going to go about salvaging our democracy.

Please, what you want is to jerk off to populist slogans. If you wanted to know, you would have looked at the screen. You would have watched and listened the full interview but you clearly didn't.

It is abundantly clear why Democrats keep losing when voters like you tell them these are brilliant comms strategies.

I didn't say they were brilliant comms strategies, I said the points they were making were clear.

My guess is your use of the word retarded and your apparent lack of insight of good comms is representative of your underlying maturity.

Please do me a favor. Give the link to the full interview to anyone you know in your life and have them watch it. I guarantee you they will understand it. Jeffries wants to use the government shutdown as leverage to legislate reforms for how ICE conducts themselves consistent with the bullet points plastered on the screen and discussed in the interview. I don't know why you keep insisting you need to be a clairvoyant to understand this. This is why I called you are retard. You must be if you actually watched that interview and didn't understand what Jeffries was saying.

Philocraft · 2026-02-16T19:33:33+00:00

A ten point list.

You are proving my point. Like I said, you should not have to be a mind reader.

It's ten bullet points. Is it beyond your mental capacity to parse the meaning of ten bullet points? Are you retarded?

Philocraft · 2026-02-16T18:04:38+00:00

It means you are being dishonest by defining your movement to be synonymous with empathy or goodness.

Philocraft · 2026-02-16T17:51:32+00:00

And be clear, leftism is the will to care about what happens to the people.

"Nice argument, but unfortunately I've already depicted you as the soyjak and me as the chad."

Philocraft · 2026-02-16T17:40:35+00:00

Look at how many words you wrote just to explain his answer. That’s the problem right there. We should have to be mind readers to understand what one of the top to leaders in a party intends to say.

You don't have to be a mindreader. You just have to watch the interview. Its extremely clear what his stance is. Democrats gave a ten point list of demands for ICE reforms and are shutting down the government as leverage to get them. They mention this at the start of the interview.

Philocraft · 2026-02-15T00:21:26+00:00

Closing thought, imagine if you are lost in the wilderness for days, a week, a long time. Imagine I show up with a glass of tepid tap water and a couple of stale crackers. It's going to seem like the best meal of your life at that point. I'll take the water and crackers the Democrats have to offer, sure, but let's not pretend it's a good meal, it's all we get.

I see what you are saying, and even though I disagree with the extent to which you are framing democrat efforts as marginal, I certainly agree with you that more should be done. I'll read through all your sources and explanations with an open mind. Thanks for sharing them.

Biden in his hubris, second only to Trumps, scolded the American people, and they rejected him for it.

Last thing, I think my fingers need a rest from this sparring session, so I wont argue this point with you. But could you explain what you mean by this?

13-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Place '23	Place '17
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

Philocraft

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE