Again, no one said anything about voting for republicans. How about you try on this hypothetical:
You’re president of the USA and the country that receives the highest amount of your foreign aid is committing genocide. If you continue sending billions in dollars and weapons then you lose votes, but if you stop supporting genocide, then you gain votes. How do you president?
But I’m not the president, I’m a voter. I’m not talking to the president, I’m taking to a voter. Hypotheticals about being the president offer no insight into beneficial behavior for myself or the one I’m taking to. Hypotheticals about voting strategy do.
No-genocide hasn’t been on the ballot for many, many years. Turns out, the voters who feel strongly enough about this particular genocide for it to affect their vote are a fairly small fraction with characteristically low turnout anyway. Sadly, not really worth actively pursuing as a candidate.
Your choices are between measured diplomatic tolerance of genocide, and enthusiastic acceleration of genocide (with a couple other genocides thrown in too). It’s a close race. No genocide doesn’t have a chance, and voting no genocide increases the odds of enthusiastic acceleration of genocide.
No-genocide is on the ballot right now and it’s being made loud and clear, but biden is choosing to ignore it and people like you are trying to shame the people who care about genocide into not caring about it with hogwash like this:
I care about genocide, which is why I’m trying to minimize it by preventing Trump from getting into office. Y’know, they guy who thinks Israel should’ve gotten it over with already? People like you are trying to shame voters into letting the guy who wants more genocide into office. Congratulations, you’re voting for more-genocide.
Again, no one said anything about voting for republicans. How about you try on this hypothetical:
You’re president of the USA and the country that receives the highest amount of your foreign aid is committing genocide. If you continue sending billions in dollars and weapons then you lose votes, but if you stop supporting genocide, then you gain votes. How do you president?
But I’m not the president, I’m a voter. I’m not talking to the president, I’m taking to a voter. Hypotheticals about being the president offer no insight into beneficial behavior for myself or the one I’m taking to. Hypotheticals about voting strategy do.
Cool, who do I vote for to stop genocide?
No-genocide hasn’t been on the ballot for many, many years. Turns out, the voters who feel strongly enough about this particular genocide for it to affect their vote are a fairly small fraction with characteristically low turnout anyway. Sadly, not really worth actively pursuing as a candidate.
Your choices are between measured diplomatic tolerance of genocide, and enthusiastic acceleration of genocide (with a couple other genocides thrown in too). It’s a close race. No genocide doesn’t have a chance, and voting no genocide increases the odds of enthusiastic acceleration of genocide.
No-genocide is on the ballot right now and it’s being made loud and clear, but biden is choosing to ignore it and people like you are trying to shame the people who care about genocide into not caring about it with hogwash like this:
That is a ridiculous string of words.
I care about genocide, which is why I’m trying to minimize it by preventing Trump from getting into office. Y’know, they guy who thinks Israel should’ve gotten it over with already? People like you are trying to shame voters into letting the guy who wants more genocide into office. Congratulations, you’re voting for more-genocide.