However much one might disagree with his stances as expressed in these tweets, these are all debatable secular matters which do not touch on the deposit of faith.  Nothing he says in these tweets is contra fidem.

I actually got into an argument with a SEDEVACANTIST relative this past weekend about Leo, where I was rebuked for not being "chawitable" and ... "don't you believe that the Holy Ghost could change a man?" etc. etc.

That demonstrates how far-reaching this propaganda and talking points have gone.

Well, the more then try to shut me down with fake appeals to "cha-wity", the more I'm going to shout.

Bergoglio, extending the wolf metaphor, just crashed into the sheep's pen wearing the cheap Walmart mask of a sheep that almost anyone with eyesight (of faith) could see right through.  Leo's putting on a slightly better costume ... went to one of those specialty costume stores.  So it's precisely BECAUSE he's more subtle and stealthy that we need to be LOUDER in denouncing him.  "Look.  That's a wolf.  Wake up.  He's a wolf."

I also had to explain to this SV Trad that judging their actions and their theology has absolutely NOTHING to do with "cha-wity" and "nitheness".  I pray for Prevost, that he convert, and of course the Holy Ghost can change a man.  That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH what he has NOW and what he stands for NOW and whether it's to be praised or condemned.  If next week he decides to abolish the Vatican II religion, then glory to God.  But in the meantime, not only has he said that he's fully committed to V2 and going "forward" (codeward for rejecting any notion of returning to Tradition), but he's also fully endorsed the direction that Bergoglio has set.  EXPLICITLY.  IN HIS WORDS.

So, anyone who's at least slightly conservative might say, "Well, I fully support Vatican II" but then remain silent about Bergoglio's legacy while planning to make some course corrections, realizing that Berg had veered off somewhat too far to the Left.

Make no mistake about it.  Jorge would NOT have promoted this guy to being one of the most powerful men in the Church (selecting bishops) if he had not been 1000% in lockstep with Bergoglio's agenda.

I would agree with this mostly.  However, there is one tweet that states JD Vance is wrong about ranking our love.  I seem to recall a thread about this here (or somewhere else).  Theologians teach that there is a hierarchy of love.  We are not expected to love the immigrant as we are to love our mother (for example).