Fair. You are right that the “lesser of two evils” situation is fucking bullshit. To be fair I also think you are also right that a lot of Democrats are on Israels side… but I also think that the Democrats is more splintered internally. Like I would have a hard time seeing any Replibicans joining a free Palestine protest, but I’m sure it’s a lot more popular among Democrat voters.
I also wish that the US, and more countries around the world, would sanction Israel, and they should have done so long ago.
I do not agree that sitting out is the right choice though, and when the choice is between Trump and literally anyone else I think that the lesser evil is clear. You even say yourself that things were better for you before Trump, and I absolutely think that Trump is the worst choice for Palestine. I mean didn’t he literally attack Kamala during the campaign for even a weak protest against Netanyahu? Not to mention him straight up joining Israel in the war against Iran.
I agree the democrats are splintered internally. i think they need to experience a crisis and hopefully some decent people can come out on top. I honestly couldn’t believe Trump 1 wasn’t a sufficient crisis…the ghouls at the top are resilient I guess…
Again, I’m not trying to be a jerk, and poo-poo your decision (or…hypothetical decision I guess, given that you don’t vote in teh US) to vote for democrats, but I think asking this may help you see what I’m talking about if you don’t: you wish the government would do something about palestine but will vote for them even if they don’t do something…so what good are your wishes?
I think it’s a bit silly to imagine Kamala wouldn’t have invaded Iran, she was vocally hawkish about Iran; she was always going on about how Iran was America’s greatest adversary and must be stopped at all costs and it would be her top priority. Oh she’s singing a different tune now, of course, but look for what she was saying in 2024.
Okay, I slept on it, and I think this may help explain why I think it’s ludicrous to blame individual voters for not choosing the “lesser of two evils” when each of the “evils” is itself a moral agent. I’m sure you’ll find this analogy doesn’t fit your mental model, but it fits mine very well so if you’re trying to understand where folks like me are coming from (and I think you are), see if you can try it on for size.
Sophie has two children, Eva (8) and Jan (11), with the same life-expectancy. Eva is a sweet child, very kind. Jan’s a brat…a bit of a jerk, with a cruel streak. Anyway, two Nazis with guns are arguing “I am Ralph and I wish to kill your younger daughter. This is Dirk and he wishes to kill your older boy. You may choose!” Sophie chooses for Ralph to kill Eva, or Sophie refuses to choose and Ralph loses patience before Dirk and, kills Eva. Later, the hand-wringing liberals berate Sophie for not choosing to have the older daughter killed “Jan is a worse person and has five fewer years left to live, Sophie! It’s OBVIOUSLY the worse choice. Why would you choose R? How COULD you? I hope you live with that for the rest of your days! If you had chosen D instead, things would have been better.”
Does that illustrate my point? It’s obviously the nazis that are to blame. If either of them was decent they’d die trying to kill as many on their own side as possible, or at the very least fuck off and leave everyone alone. Blaming Sophie is absurd whether she chose or didn’t choose. The hand-wringing liberals are probably right, Jan is probably a shithead (hearing his mom acquiesce to the murder of his sister probably won’t have helped), and voting D probably would have been a bit better. But like…shut the fuck up, hand-wringing liberals? Maybe no children needed to be murdered, actually, and maybe Sophie’s choice is not something to focus on here?
Fair. You are right that the “lesser of two evils” situation is fucking bullshit. To be fair I also think you are also right that a lot of Democrats are on Israels side… but I also think that the Democrats is more splintered internally. Like I would have a hard time seeing any Replibicans joining a free Palestine protest, but I’m sure it’s a lot more popular among Democrat voters.
I also wish that the US, and more countries around the world, would sanction Israel, and they should have done so long ago.
I do not agree that sitting out is the right choice though, and when the choice is between Trump and literally anyone else I think that the lesser evil is clear. You even say yourself that things were better for you before Trump, and I absolutely think that Trump is the worst choice for Palestine. I mean didn’t he literally attack Kamala during the campaign for even a weak protest against Netanyahu? Not to mention him straight up joining Israel in the war against Iran.
I agree the democrats are splintered internally. i think they need to experience a crisis and hopefully some decent people can come out on top. I honestly couldn’t believe Trump 1 wasn’t a sufficient crisis…the ghouls at the top are resilient I guess…
Again, I’m not trying to be a jerk, and poo-poo your decision (or…hypothetical decision I guess, given that you don’t vote in teh US) to vote for democrats, but I think asking this may help you see what I’m talking about if you don’t: you wish the government would do something about palestine but will vote for them even if they don’t do something…so what good are your wishes?
I think it’s a bit silly to imagine Kamala wouldn’t have invaded Iran, she was vocally hawkish about Iran; she was always going on about how Iran was America’s greatest adversary and must be stopped at all costs and it would be her top priority. Oh she’s singing a different tune now, of course, but look for what she was saying in 2024.
Okay, I slept on it, and I think this may help explain why I think it’s ludicrous to blame individual voters for not choosing the “lesser of two evils” when each of the “evils” is itself a moral agent. I’m sure you’ll find this analogy doesn’t fit your mental model, but it fits mine very well so if you’re trying to understand where folks like me are coming from (and I think you are), see if you can try it on for size.
Sophie has two children, Eva (8) and Jan (11), with the same life-expectancy. Eva is a sweet child, very kind. Jan’s a brat…a bit of a jerk, with a cruel streak. Anyway, two Nazis with guns are arguing “I am Ralph and I wish to kill your younger daughter. This is Dirk and he wishes to kill your older boy. You may choose!” Sophie chooses for Ralph to kill Eva, or Sophie refuses to choose and Ralph loses patience before Dirk and, kills Eva. Later, the hand-wringing liberals berate Sophie for not choosing to have the older daughter killed “Jan is a worse person and has five fewer years left to live, Sophie! It’s OBVIOUSLY the worse choice. Why would you choose R? How COULD you? I hope you live with that for the rest of your days! If you had chosen D instead, things would have been better.”
Does that illustrate my point? It’s obviously the nazis that are to blame. If either of them was decent they’d die trying to kill as many on their own side as possible, or at the very least fuck off and leave everyone alone. Blaming Sophie is absurd whether she chose or didn’t choose. The hand-wringing liberals are probably right, Jan is probably a shithead (hearing his mom acquiesce to the murder of his sister probably won’t have helped), and voting D probably would have been a bit better. But like…shut the fuck up, hand-wringing liberals? Maybe no children needed to be murdered, actually, and maybe Sophie’s choice is not something to focus on here?