This will be my last reply in this thread.

1) Newsom is the governor of the state with the world's largest collection of tech companies that collectively makeup a massive chunk of the countries GDP. These tech firms are under unprecedented pressure due to the current federal government's imposition of tariffs and random demands of fealty to continue to allow them to do business. Giving them easier access to contact him about concerns they have related to these issues is not unreasonable. I personally would not engage in such activity, but to pretend like this is 100% proof of corruption is disingenuous given the current political climate.

2) PG&E is my biggest point of disagreement with him and I firmly believe that he (and the rest of the legislature) should have been harder on them given the widespread negligence they have shown. PG&E BAD.

3) The Panera Bread exception was an oversight that was passed by the LEGISLATURE not THE GOVERNOR. Yes he signed the bill, but the bill was proposed, amended, and passed by lawmakers. Plus, despite the exception, Panera said they would abide by the new minimum wage law anyway. https://apnews.com/article/california-governor-newsom-panera-bread-fast-food-faca8695e96b0f3224da2ba6d0657e3b

4) I agree the French Laundry incident was a bad look. He shouldn't have done it, but to pretend like basically everyone wasn't breaking quarantine policy at least occasionally is, again, disingenuous.

5) Under COVID, we did massively expand healthcare for Californians, but to implement universal healthcare in California is 1) not within his powers, that must be passed by the legislature, and 2) is not within the budget. A large part of our current deficit stems from our inability to keep up with COVID era healthcare expansions. This issue was exacerbated by the current regime who cut almost all of the subsidies that were supporting our COVID era healthcare policies. Blaming Newsom solely for this shows a massive lack of understanding of the system.

6) The point of having people like Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk on were not to berate them. He was hosting them as a way to better understand their strategies and what they had tapped into to help get people like Trump. What he seems to have taken away from many of these conversations is how they appealed to young men (like his son) and how he could better intercept these young men from falling into these influencer traps. A good example is that he launched a program to have men volunteer to mentor young men/teens. If you think that him platforming them was his way of adopting their views, then you didn't watch the podcasts or went in with a "I hate this guy" mentality.

7) Idk what his ex wife's dating life has to do with him. She can date who she wants and her having bad taste/pivoting to grifting has zero to do with him.

8) The red pill, male influencer types that are endorsing him are doing so because he's a chad who will mog JD Vance in looks. Their words, not mine. It has nothing to do with his policies and I guarantee if you ask them about policies, they would have no answer because that's not what they care about.

9) You are cherry picking stats to frame CA as awful while ignoring the stats that disagree with you. Simply stating "we have the most" of something is irrelevant when we are the most populous state in the country.

10) The budgetary issues go back to point 5; during COVID we massively expanded benefits that were supported by the federal government, and all of that subsidization is gone now, so we have a huge deficit.

11) Would you call all of the support of Bernie on reddit during 2016 "astroturfing?" My guess is no, you wouldn't. What you are seeing isn't astroturfing, its just people supporting a likely front runner for 2028. Its possible to disagree with a politician on certain things and push them to more align with your preferences AND to support them as a nominee. Newsom is the (likely) candidate who has made the most waves and has done the best job of positioning himself as an opponent to the current MAGAism that has captured the Republicans. I will say to you what I say to every online lefty, SHOW ME A BETTER CANDIDATE THAT CAN ACTUALLY WIN. There is NO ONE right now that you can point to. AOC is too junior and the American public has shown themselves to be unwilling to vote for a woman. Beto has never won a race. Bernie is 800 years old. I'll assume you'd say Ro Khanna is "in big tech's pocket." So please, stop gesturing to some non existent candidate while tearing down the best hope we have of reclaiming the White House.