Russia’s propaganda doesn’t take sides; it’s about convincing everyone that nothing matters, everyone is equally bad, lying to you all the time, and cannot be trusted.
No one with any meaningful wealth ever paid estate taxes no matter waht the base bracket or rate was. Only people who don’t know how to hire decent lawyers pay estate taxes. And that’s been true for a century.
There have always been ways to completely legally bypass estate taxes on the great bulk of real wealth.
Now could those legal ways be choked off with different laws? In theory yes. In practice, just like @Tamerlane said about progressives, that’s so far from the current Overton window that it’s silly to talk about.
I’m not sure that voters across America who are less engaged can likely remember ever hearing Newsom speak.
Yeah, what people are complaining about is one single podcast, where Newsom trolled Kirk. But too many people took Newsom’s comments out of context, which is why he issued a clarification saying more or less just says it is an issue that many people are concerned over, and you can not just ignore their concern. He has signed laws protecting trans atheletes.
At this point I’m beginning to think their propaganda is aimed at convincing people that anybody who disagrees with them has been “swayed by propaganda,” rather than having used their brain-meat to come up with an opinion on their own.
When leaders employ a firehose of falsehoods, citizens retreat into cynicism and the belief that the truth is fundamentally unknowable. If the truth is unknowable, reasoned debate is pointless because there are no agreed-upon facts. … When reasoned democratic discourse is not possible because there are no agreed upon facts, all that is left is the political exercise of raw power.
So based on this, the belief that anyone who opposes a particular candidate is doing so because they were fooled by propaganda is itself falling victim to the propaganda by allowing oneself to reject the legitimacy of those beliefs as genuine democratic discourse.
Sure, and if I see someone who thinks that anyone who opposed a particular candidate is doing so because they were fooled by propaganda, I’ll make sure to tell them that.
apparently i need to add some of my own words or discourse doesn’t let you post
right - the opposition to Newsom comes from both people fooled by propaganda and people who legitimately disagree with him because they are accelerationists who dislike the capitalist, liberal status quo.
The “fooled by propaganda” part would be the part you didn’t bold - the people they managed to misinform.
In other words, there are multiple reasons to oppose Newsom, so it would be untrue to say that I said that anyone who opposed him is fooled by propaganda 
Also, in that quote, I’m talking about people who hate Newsom, not anyone who opposes him in any way.
The reasons being that you were fooled by propaganda or that you are the propagandist who doesn’t express honest grievances.
No, the reasons being that you were fooled by propaganda or that you legitimately disagree on whether America should remain a liberal and capitalist nation and so oppose someone like Newsom who supports that. An Illiberal who opposes a liberal politician is indeed expressing an honest grievance, in a manner of speaking.
And again, these were the reasons someone would hate Newsom, not the reasons someone would prefer a different candidate.
I think if someone expresses that they truly don’t want capitalism or America or whatever to collapse, want the Democrats to get back in power and also is strongly critical (or hates?) Newsom, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are either lying about those beliefs or have been fooled by propagandists who have the American way of life but have made up lies about Newsom.
I think Newsom gets hate primarily because he comes across as extremely unrelatable and lacking in moral compass. Some of this is a product of the “vibes” he gives off the first time you see him speak irrespective of whether someone is trying to push a narrative about him. Some of it is due to scandals like the French Laundry.
It’s fine to disagree and think actually the hate does come from lies and propaganda, but it’s tough to both think that and decry how propagandists have degraded American democracy just by allowing suspicion and cynicism supersede willingness to seriously engage with political discourse.
I provided several links upthread, including a few about other issues. It’s not just this podcast.
Besides which, “he only hates trans people when he’s trolling people who hate trans people” isn’t really a very strong argument in his favor.
I fully admit that it is possible if there is a Newsom hater out there who is pro-liberalism and pro-capitalism, who does not believe any of the misinformation we’ve seen debunked in this thread about Newsom, but who dislikes him anyways. So far, I haven’t run into one, but I’m willing to keep an open mind as to their existence.
Yes, I agree that there’s a lot of people who get bad vibes from Newsom, and that much of that comes from Republican manufactured scandals like the French Laundry thing.
Which would be relevant if he expressed any hatred towards trans people whatsoever, which he most certainly did not, on the podcast with Kirk or at any other time.
Moderating:
I’m going to ask both @Babale and @DeadTreasSecretaries to dial their clash of opinions back a whole lot. There’s been quite a few pointed “I think people who say this are [low level insult]”, and equally general “I’m sure some people who say this are fine, but otherwise they’re [insult]”.
And that other posters are themselves dishonest.
Let’s come back to discussing specifics, and not make broad generalizations that can be taken as criticisms of those posting in the thread.
Again, this is moving the goalposts. It’s not about hatred. It’s about accepting trans people socially as the gender they say they are, without (1) insisting that they are “really” the sex they were assigned at (or, sometimes, shortly after) birth and (2) insisting that they are potentially a threat to “real” women, including women’s spaces.
The whole discussion of trans women in women’s sports is a clunky vehicle for implying men are trying to take over a women’s domain, which is indeed a problem if they are in fact men in women’s guise. If, on the other hand, they are women, it is the most appropriate place for them. I don’t think this is the thread to get into the biological complexities of sex and its relation to gender, but suffice it to say that any view which holds out that trans women are either not women, or not sufficiently women, isn’t really LGBT±friendly.
I acknowledge that the LGBT+ community itself has some strong anti-trans segments.
Gavin Newsom explains the surprising reason he just vetoed a pro-trans bill - LGBTQ Nation is a comparatively recent article on Newsom’s various positions on trans issues, and his legislative record thereon.