I just can’t imagine looking a Palestinian American in the eyes and telling them it’s their fault we have trump. That they should have voted for someone that was actively endangering /killing their families. It’s wild to me that we’re still blaming the victims rather than the person who supported a genocide. Still supports a genocide. Idk dude, I voted for her but I can totally empathize with certain people who were just not able to do it. I don’t blame them. If you’re gonna have a line ‘genocide literally against my family’ is a pretty fucking reasonable one. No, this is on Democrats, full stop.
I just can’t imagine looking a Palestinian American in the eyes
Palestinian Americans should have known Trump/Republicans were the worst case scenario for their friends and family in Gaza. It wasn’t exactly a secret.
No, this is on Democrats, full stop.
So you expect a political party, or government as a whole, to fully break ties with an allied nation because a subset of their voters don’t like that country anymore?
I suspect it’s only those who have weak or no principles who don’t understand how other people might have principles in some domain which are so strong and so morally defining that they simply can’t bring themselves to vote for anybody breaking those principles.
It’s one thing to logically disagree with the lack of pragmatism of somebody not being able to vote for somebody supporting child mass murder abroad even to stop somebody who, whilst also supporting child mass murder abroad also supported a few more bad things.
It’s a whole different thing to blame somebody for not voting for anybody supporting child mass murder.
Unlike what some seem to think, voting for somebody who supports child mass murder abroad because they’re not as bad on things which affect you more closely (i.e. national policy) as the other candidate who also supports child mass murder abroad, isn’t a Moral High Ground from were to talk down to people who on moral grounds refuse to vote for anybody who would support child mass murder.
(Also and this being Politics, it seems to me that the competent candidate who trully means to represent their voters would move towards what voters want - especially on subjects that many voters would see as symptomatic of the candidate’s general character, such as child mass murder support - rather than expect voters to move towards the candidate’s views)
that they simply can’t bring themselves to vote for anybody breaking those principles.
But what if by not voting or voting for someone who literally cannot win you are helping someone who makes it clear they will violate the principles you hold dear even more flagrantly? Because that’s what happened.
One or the other WILL win. So do you help as much as you can or do you sit in a corner and cry?
I honestly don’t feel bad about blaming the people that chose to sit in a corner and cry. Especially because their decision to do so affected a whole lot more than genocide on the other side of the planet.
isn’t a Moral High Ground
For me it isn’t a moral high ground. It’s making the decision that is BEST for my country AND the people in Gaza and wondering why the people who chose to cry in a corner couldn’t do the same.
it seems to me that the competent candidate who trully means to represent their voters would move towards what voters want
Geopolitics isn’t some simple thing. Should a candidate run on abandoning an ally when a subset of their voters don’t like that country anymore? Especially if they aren’t sure that those voters represent enough of the total to cost them the election? And when a lot of their voters still do want to be allies with that country?
Turns out a lot of people can’t see the forest for the trees.
I just can’t imagine looking a Palestinian American in the eyes and telling them it’s their fault we have trump. That they should have voted for someone that was actively endangering /killing their families. It’s wild to me that we’re still blaming the victims rather than the person who supported a genocide. Still supports a genocide. Idk dude, I voted for her but I can totally empathize with certain people who were just not able to do it. I don’t blame them. If you’re gonna have a line ‘genocide literally against my family’ is a pretty fucking reasonable one. No, this is on Democrats, full stop.
Palestinian Americans should have known Trump/Republicans were the worst case scenario for their friends and family in Gaza. It wasn’t exactly a secret.
So you expect a political party, or government as a whole, to fully break ties with an allied nation because a subset of their voters don’t like that country anymore?
Geopolitics isn’t exactly simple.
I suspect it’s only those who have weak or no principles who don’t understand how other people might have principles in some domain which are so strong and so morally defining that they simply can’t bring themselves to vote for anybody breaking those principles.
It’s one thing to logically disagree with the lack of pragmatism of somebody not being able to vote for somebody supporting child mass murder abroad even to stop somebody who, whilst also supporting child mass murder abroad also supported a few more bad things.
It’s a whole different thing to blame somebody for not voting for anybody supporting child mass murder.
Unlike what some seem to think, voting for somebody who supports child mass murder abroad because they’re not as bad on things which affect you more closely (i.e. national policy) as the other candidate who also supports child mass murder abroad, isn’t a Moral High Ground from were to talk down to people who on moral grounds refuse to vote for anybody who would support child mass murder.
(Also and this being Politics, it seems to me that the competent candidate who trully means to represent their voters would move towards what voters want - especially on subjects that many voters would see as symptomatic of the candidate’s general character, such as child mass murder support - rather than expect voters to move towards the candidate’s views)
But what if by not voting or voting for someone who literally cannot win you are helping someone who makes it clear they will violate the principles you hold dear even more flagrantly? Because that’s what happened.
One or the other WILL win. So do you help as much as you can or do you sit in a corner and cry?
I honestly don’t feel bad about blaming the people that chose to sit in a corner and cry. Especially because their decision to do so affected a whole lot more than genocide on the other side of the planet.
For me it isn’t a moral high ground. It’s making the decision that is BEST for my country AND the people in Gaza and wondering why the people who chose to cry in a corner couldn’t do the same.
Geopolitics isn’t some simple thing. Should a candidate run on abandoning an ally when a subset of their voters don’t like that country anymore? Especially if they aren’t sure that those voters represent enough of the total to cost them the election? And when a lot of their voters still do want to be allies with that country?
Turns out a lot of people can’t see the forest for the trees.