Why do Democrat supporters keep forgetting atrocities committed by their leaders?
3d 17h ago by lemmy.world/u/when in asklemmy@lemmy.mlWhenever I talk to any Democrat supporters, they by-default cheer their Presidents and then I've to remind them of their leader's illegal wars and war crimes. They condemn those acts and they go back to their cheerleading role - Why do they keep forgetting atrocities committed by their leaders? Why do they accept war criminals as their leader?
US has two party system. You either vote for the seemingly conservative corporate puppet war criminal in camp A, or vote for the seemingly liberal corporate puppet war criminal in camp B.
Time to vote. Here are your options

It's not my fault. I voted for Kodos.
This and people tend to respond to cognitive dissonance by rationalizing / repressing awareness. I've voted for less bad candidate, now I'll convince myself that was actually a good thing.
I mean it's the same thing when you confront Republicans about it. Both parties have supporters who just want to support that party, and any logic against that gets them in defense mode
politics as sports will kill everyone
It's different for different people. At the end of the day, all the status quo needs to continue is a lack of effective organized resistance, not full support.
That said, from some anecdotal experience: Some of them just don't care. Politics comes up with my parents a lot. They're Democrats, but if you talk to them long enough, you realize they're just functionally Republicans who are embarrassed by the aesthetics of the GOP. The problems they've had with people like Trump or Bush have essentially nothing to do with their awful policies and more to do with them looking stupid. They pretty much unquestionably support US imperialism and are depressingly Zionist. Sometimes this seems like it's down to a lack of historical knowledge, but honestly if you push them on it enough you eventually break out of the loop of America always being the good guy to just a basic "might makes right" and "it's us vs them" mentality which you'd normally associate with conservatives.
For example, when I've spoken to my Dad about Iran, his position ultimately boiled down to "They're the bad guys. Trump should be attacking them, he's just doing it in a stupid way that isn't working." The fact that the US isn't merely not waging an effective war, but actively committing war crimes like bombing schools? Unimportant. The fact that we only have the current Iranian government because of previous US meddling? "That was so long ago." The fact that the last time they were told a country we were targeting had WMDs, it was a lie? Doesn't even register. When he said someone should do something about them having nukes, I asked if someone should do something about the US since we have the most nukes and he said something like "I'd like to see them try." The fact that we are currently allied with a literal monarchy in the region? /shrug. When the conversation drifted briefly to Vietnam, he said that either we shouldn't have gotten involved or we should have done even more. We just didn't try hard enough to win... There are still children being born in Vietnam with birth defects due to agent orange. But yeah, we totally didn't inflict enough violence on them.
To the extent that either of them does take an interest in history, it is almost solely through the lens of documentaries glazing the "great men" of our history while ignoring or downplaying their atrocities.
I think my analysis of their kind of politics is that they have enough shame to maintain their ignorance in order to have cover for supporting the things they actually want. You push that ignorance hard enough and the "freedom and democracy" mask slips off to reveal what amounts to little more than support for white supremacy and fascism as long as it doesn't affect them or make them look bad.
I'm sure there are others that are simply ignorant and could be convinced with enough evidence. I suppose I was one of them. How could I not be? I grew up with the propaganda version of American history where we were the good guys, except for the times when we weren't, but those are in the past and we're better now. It wasn't until near the end of HS that I started getting a more nuanced view of history and once I understood that my politics weren't actually aligned with my values, I changed. But even then, the effects of the propaganda are so strong that even today, knowing what I know, I just don't get the visceral reaction to these past atrocities that they deserve. I know they're wrong, I just am so removed from them that it's hard to fully empathize beyond a conscious, intellectual level.
There may be more types, but those are my primary experiences. People who are either currently misinformed or people who actively delude themselves so they don't look like or believe themselves to be similar to the vulgar hicks they view the Republicans as.
EDIT: I also always want to caution against equating the voters with the people at large. The vast majority of the country doesn't vote. Only some of that is apathetic people. A lot of people are pushed out by deliberate voter suppression tactics. I'd wager that those voters are way more likely to be anti-imperialists, but they don't get represented by the ballots and media.
The US didn't just magically turn out this way because everyone wanted it. From the very founding of the country, the system of government that was set up was explicitly designed to limit the influence of popular opinion. You've definitely learned about this in school, but it was probably framed to you in terms of "Not letting a majority oppress a minority" without explaining that the "minorities" the founders wanted to protect were white, protestant, land owning men who then turned around and oppressed all the real minorities.

Somewhere along the way we stopped holding them accountable.
It probably started with the Nixon pardon and then continued with Reagan who should have actually been held accountable for his treason with the Iran Contra scandals.
It's just been downhill since and Trump has taken it to a whole new level of corruption and was crimes.
I would love to see Obama held accountable for his drone policies, Biden for is support of genocide, Trump for everything, W. For his war crimes.
It probably started with the Nixon pardon and then continued with Reagan who should have actually been held accountable for his treason with the Iran Contra scandals.
It's a thread specifically asking about Democrat leaders, and you name two of the most notorious crooked Republicans to ever hold office (prior to 2016).
in a dipolar political environment you will have two coalitions of the same basic political beliefs form representing more and less extreme versions of the same core beliefs. it is the republicans listed who are associated with the shift rightward in the dipolar political environment, however, the democrats then just… operate in that environment. for example. it was under w bush we got the patriot act, but it wae under obama that all of the government spying edward snowden revealed occurred. the republicans break open some clay pot equivalent of pandora's box, but then the democrats weild those powers without accountability because no president has been accountable to anyone since the 1970s.
so what do we do about this? to me it seems that the best course is to focus on improving things where you can. generally, that's going to be locally in your neighborhood. anytime you vote, don't vote based on one side or the other side being the side for good or the side for evil. they're ultimately both neo-liberal or neo-conservative wings of the same fascist party. instead ask which candidate is going to make local organizing harder and work to avoid letting them get into office.
Blaming the Republicans for the Democrats is exactly the point the OP is making. Nixon and Reagan didn't make Clinton rape anyone, order an illegal war, or likely have dissidents murdered. They didn't make Obama also engage in an illegal war in Libya. Those were choices they decided to make, they had the option to be better.
exactly. both parties fundamentally support and enable eachother. it's a decision between coke and pepsi. not enough people are aware of ale-8 or are able to get the word out about ale-8 for ale-8 to become viable without fundamental systemic changes to how all of this works. so for the most part, you should be out in the streets normalizing that an annual choice between two cola products is an illusion of choice, and then when you cast your ballot do so with the perspective of what it is on that ballot that gives you more room to have conversations about ginger-ale, orange soda, citrus drink, sassparilla, or even water.
we have a problem in this country where somehow not enough people know the difference between the two parties, and at the same time not enough people know how little that difference truly is. if we want to change this we have to educate people, and if we want to do that we have to focus less on the teams and more on the rules that underlay the sport
Patriot Act
The most obnoxious Democrat supporters have their whole ego caught up in being a "good person" by having the correct ideological positions. Admitting that their "team" is full of war criminals would directly challenge their egos and is thus summarily dismissed. They are idealists, and thus disconnected from material reality. They tend to be quite caught up in the notion of "electability" - the idea that they shouldn't back candidates or platforms they actually want, but those calculated to appeal to the largest number, which is always smack dab in the center of the Overton window, in their estimation. (Of course, ironically, a true socialist platform would have the greatest appeal were not USians so propagandized against it.) I have literally had liberals tell me that though they are not themselves racist, they need a candidate that would be accepted by racists. I think more often than not, they cry "electability" so they have an excuse for supporting a conservative candidate while simultaneously calling themselves "progressive".
This is to say nothing of the fact that liberalism is a conservative ideology, and that it is more than happy to back imperialism if it means the spoils can subsidize their lifestyle. Or in other words, Democrats will cheer for any war if it keeps their Starbucks cheap and their gas tank filled. They are not anti-war at all. They oppose the appearance of warmongering, but not the actions themselves; they want plausible deniability so they can go back to brunch.
Tl;dr - Democrats are bad people who pretend to be good people and back war criminals because they like imperialism, no matter what excuses they make for it.
Gonna disagree with some of the crowd here and say I think those people typically aren't bloodthirsty/supportive of war. They've never believed many examples of inhumanity have been direct consequences of democratic leadership, and some (I have the Gaza genocide in mind here) they've never believed existed at all. They'll see an "expert" voice an opinion that they're already inclined to believe at present. The "expert" authoritatively cites evidence that they're not familiar with, so seems legit enough. They're not going to trust you to have knowledge the "expert" doesn't, but they're not interested in holding the discussion with you because they don't carry the mythical knowledge that would win them the argument. They concede the point ahead of time to avoid conceding after a debate that didn't convince them. It's not forgetting, it's pretending that they agree with your assessment.
A huge factor is how detached we are from atrocities that don't touch us. I really believe that if one of these people had a friend or family that were affected by this, they would think a lot more deeply on culpability. I lived in Dearborn during the last election and I didn't get the sense that muslims there were more likely to abstain from voting (or vote third-party) than non-muslims. I know this is partially a function of who I was talking with (mostly academia), but I'm convinced that a big factor was that all of us knew someone in our personal lives that had been emotionally injured by losing family.
There's a good argument that ignoring atrocities is a moral failure, but I think most of us can relate. There are so many evils in the world today that if I actually spent time to think on even a fraction of them I think I'd be in a mental institution. That recent exposé on the dogs that were trained to rape prisoners, I can acknowledge it's almost certainly real and that saying otherwise would be an injustice to the victims, but in my heart I don't actually believe it happened because I don't feel capable of managing the emotions that would come with accepting it. If you're already overwhelmed by other aspects of the hellscape you live in, at some point reacting to horrifying headlines by throwing up your hands and booting up a video game becomes a survival strategy.
There's a good argument that ignoring atrocities is a moral failure, but I think most of us can relate. There are so many evils in the world today that if I actually spent time to think on even a fraction of them I think I'd be in a mental institution.
There is ignoring atrocities you can do nothing about and then there's ignoring atrocities because your side is the one committing/contributing to it.
If you're on the side of contributing to genocide and still ignoring it, where do you think it will lead to? Someone's going to figure out how to use the apathy and profit off of it. And It's only going to get worse until it knocks at your door.
And that's how US got trump. Every war criminal president before him was more or less celebrated and are still admired by the public. They'll still call themselves good Christians. That level of cognitive dissonance is going to push the level of moral failure to its limits until it's going to start affecting themselves. But, then, you can't put the genie back in the bottle anymore.
I see that there's no apprehension of "Prevention is better than cure". You cannot wave away problems because they're only going to return worse than before.
There's also demeaning people who see the atrocities for what they are and want to create awareness so they can minimize it. But are shamed for it.
I just mean that I can understand where it comes from when someone is already close to their breaking point, and I think most people are about there. They're not consciously deciding to bury their heads, because making a decision requires too much inspection to actually ignore it. Often when I was beaten down it's like my mind selectively blocked out information as a means of protecting me, but I remained in denial about that until I started really getting out of the hole. I'm not sure I'd equate them to Trump supporters in a broader scope, but I do think the lack of inquiry here is not too different from Trump supporters.
I also think that with more animosity towards regular citizens, the more the conversation shifts from the powerful to the powerless. The impact of one citizen changing their mind is wholely insignificant compared to what a politician changing course would do.
I see that there's no apprehension of "Prevention is better than cure". You cannot wave away problems because they're only going to return worse than before.
I'm not smart enough to piece together what you're saying here. Prevention or cure for what? What does prevention look like? Why should we be apprehensive, it sounds like a reasonable statement?
There's also demeaning people who see the atrocities for what they are and want to create awareness so they can minimize it. But are shamed for it.
I do feel this point and I'll admit I've had many infuriating interactions. Now I try to just ignore until I cool down, because once I do it's like this asshole isn't worth that much thought. I have a limited amount of time to be angry, that's better spent on the people who actually could make a meaningful difference by taking a stand.
Hm.
Most people my age support Democrats only in opposition to the current admin.
Almost everyone I know that’s my age fucking hates the democrats though.
But people I talk that are my parents age are more pro Democrat (or MAGA, for that matter).
Just a different experience, maybe I live in a more progressive area.
Sounds fucking frustrating.
"AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT THE ORANGE MAN, WE GOOD!"
Their entire logic.
Liberals let republicans set the bar because they have no other way to look good. Democrats couldn't pass up one more opportunity to run against Trump and decided to slow walk his prosecution.
"Now they'll have to vote for us, or we will punish them with Trump again!"
Because they want to forget
This is most Americans, no matter what camp they root for, for most of their leaders. And you have plenty to choose from although recently I imagine the Republicans have edged ahead in this depressing horse race. Thank you for rage baiting with us today.
I saw ton of people defending the biggest war monger Hillary Clinton here
Money > Ethics. Its pretty simple, everyone has a price. People will ignore or downplay the shitty things if you keep a certain level of contentment.
Because government does things that large populaces can't or won't do for themselves. Sometimes that's things like Social Security, regulating companies so they don't enslave us or dump DDT all over the place, or organizing enough coordinated violence to prevent other, more aggressive governments from coming in and taking over. Sometimes, usually when the people aren't paying enough attention, it's horrible things like building Gitmo or supporting Israel.
Ideally, everyone would be well-informed and engaged enough to immediately hold government accountable when it does horrible things in our names, but for a lot of people life is hard, and they've been actively discouraged from having that education and engagement, usually by one flavor or another of psychopath who wants to get away with their atrocities and not be answerable to a decently informed and engaged electorate.
Democrats do, on balance, care more about their leaders committing atrocities than Republicans do, but the phenomenon of "I just can't think about that right now, I've got other things going on" is a universal experience.
It's right to be outraged by this complacency, and I don't even think anyone is wrong for wanting to disengage from any political party or even politics as a whole in response, but wanting to remain morally pure and wanting to achieve anything of merit within the system we currently have are mutually exclusive goals.
If someone finds politics as a whole, and all of the moral compromises involved, so abhorrent that they don't want to engage at all, I get it, but they'd really better start looking up how to engage in violent resistance, because change either comes through politics and all of its attendant compromises or through violence, there's no third alternative.
It's the degeneracy into idolism. Idols can do no wrong.
i guess not all democrat supporters are historians. we had biases taught at a young age with social studies and stuff. and it's easier to compare presidents to past ones. kinda why conservatives default cheer trump cause he's 'better' than biden obama etc.
like trump basically started a war, and by the time alls said and done. we're way too busy doing damage control, reparations, complex PR and stuff. it's not forgotten but we work on the present.
Because the alternate is literally fascism. Until we do away with first past the post, there are only two real choices. And if you don't choose the lesser of two evils, then you're part of the problem and you're literally responsible for people dying.
The question was about behavior. Imagine if there are 4 children - Voting Blue kills 2 children and voting Red kills 3 children. By voting Blue - we've saved 1 child and start celebrating. The problem here is the behavior of cheering such leadership, by cheering we're burying the core problem of "Child killing" and erasing the acknowledgement of "No child should be killed" ideal from the mind of the masses.
Because voting is specifically a popularity contest, and most people aren't very politically engaged.
Blue is marginally better than red, in terms of trying to secure conditions where actual action can be effective. Summarizing another commenter, you're not voting for good vs evil, you're determining which mainstream option is going to be more difficult to fight against and trying to ensure they don't win.
I don't think you can erase the acknowledgement of "no child should be killed" from the masses. The people who already believe that aren't going to stop, and the ones who don't aren't going to start.
But we celebrate saving one child because, again, it's a popularity contest.
The red voters are pretty stalwart supporters. Their voting habits don't vary much no matter what their party does. They'll celebrate killing 3 children because their party tells them that they were the bad kind of children.
The blue voters are much more variable. They like to think of themselves as decent, principled, thinking people. When you inundate them with the child killing, they're more likely to stay home. And since blue is marginally better for us, that works against our purposes. Ironically, loudly condemning the killing of 2 children makes it more likely that it will be 3 children after the next election.
You're absolutely right that they're ghouls who don't deserve to be celebrated. But we don't celebrate them because they deserve it, we celebrate them to reduce the chances of getting the worse alternative.
Once the worse alternative is eliminated, and there are better alternatives that stand a chance to win by calling out the lesser evil for still being evil, we should absolutely 100% do that. But until then, I don't want to demoralize the voters who can help stave off the greater evil until we have a viable alternative, be it an actual leftist candidate with broad appeal or a sufficiently organized revolutionary force.
Once the worse alternative is eliminated,
Which is going to happen when exactly?
Never. the democrats could never survive losing their crutch, the republican party. That's why trumps prosecution was slow walked. Couldnt possibly pass up the opportunity to hold the people hostage through their fear.
If this is what leadership looks like, the democrats are worthless.
The Democrats are also "literally fascism" and your insistence otherwise is exactly the denialism the question is about
I have tons of issues with the Democratic party, but they're not fascists. I think maybe you don't know what that word means.
Sorry, I forgot it's only fascism when westerners are the victims. Otherwise it's just sparkling ethno supremacist genocide for land.
"If you don't pull the lever for genocide then you are literally responsible for people dying."
From the people who love to invoke 1984, too. Freedom is slavery, war is peace, refusing genocide is endorsing genocide.
This doesn't sound like you actually believe it, it sounds like you're trying to project the guilt and shame you feel at being tricked into becoming a nazi by a bunch of geriatric Epstein associates.
it sounds like you're trying to project the guilt and shame you feel at being tricked into becoming a nazi by a bunch of geriatric Epstein associates.
What is it that you think "Nazi" actually means? Who tricked me into what, exactly?
Pull the lever for genocide
No you misunderstood, I didn't vote for Trump or Stein (or any other spoiler candidates) so I didn't support genocide.
No you voted for biden and copmala who personally oversaw and armed the beginning of the genocide. Why do you not see non white people as human?
who personally oversaw and armed the beginning of the genocide
Oh wow, I didn't know my vote went back in time to 1948!
Also, who the fuck is "Compmala"? Definitely never voted for someone with that name.
My bad I should have said the beginning of this round of escalation the point remains you genocide enabling racist.
BlueMaga will scream about voting for the lesser evil and then admit they have to engage in total denial of the evil their chosen candidate actually committed in other to stomach voting for them. When you've contorted yourself to the point of trying to argue that the Democrats aren't responsible for genocide, but Jill fucking Stein is, you've completely cooked your brain trying to justify defending the indefensible.
Why are 3rd party candidates a spoiler? Can you explain where spoiler effect comes from, and how it works?
What is the lesser of the two evils?
Consideration A: While the neoliberals ignore the empire crumbling around them and act as if they could still subjugate the whole world, the fascists notice the imperial decline and act accordingly.
Consideration B: European puppet rulers bought into the dem narrative that trump is their enemy. Clearly this was only intended to divide & conquer the people, not the rulers, but the puppets seem to be true believers. This forms a rift inside the empire while trump is the face of it.
A makes the neoliberals the choice of empire power reduction; B makes the fascists the choice of empire power reduction.
Until we do away with first past the post
ETA? Because in the vast majority of solid blue states, First-past-the-post voting is still used. How those states vote is controlled at the state level. These are solid blue states we are talking about, no republicans in the way.
Nothing is stopping the democrats in these states from proving their intentions today. Prove it.
Yeah. The criticism of Biden in Gaza was valid, but Gaza wasn't on the ballot in 2024. A Trump election meant US support of more Israeli aggression.
Well. It was on the ballot. It just wasn't likely to win because it wasn't an issue considered important by the two major parties. You could have voted PSL or Green or one of the other parties, as over three million people did in the last election.
Besides, by that logic, Israeli aggression wasn't on the ballot either! Do you think Harris would have stopped Israel from starting war with Iran? The war with Iran was already beginning in 2024 before Trump even got into office. Maybe it would have taken a different form, maybe it wouldn't have happened this year, but Israel was going to attack Iran and the US was going to follow.
I don't think Harris would have bombed Iran.
But hey, it is better to do something that feels good than something which affects change, right?
There was already an economic war on Iran, which was already killing people and destabilizing their government. Harris would have waited a few more years for the economic war to collapse Iran's government and turn it into a situation similar to Syria, and only then would have started bombing. By then, Iran might not have been able to exert control over traffic through Hormuz.
Harris would have been a better manager of the empire. Instead, we got Trump, who is on track to lose to Iran.
Ahh, so you're an accelerationist.
I don't think you know what that means.
Accelerationism would mean voting for Harris because she'd be a better manager of the empire.
No. Wanting Trump to win is accelerationist because he's going to cause the empire to fall faster due to incompetence.
You aren't angry at Democrats for war crimes, you're angry at them because they are better at governing.
Accelerationism would mean accelerating the growth of the empire to bring about its collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, so, voting for the best imperial managers to keep growing the empire. That means voting for Democrats, they're better imperial governors. They're better at doing war crimes and getting away with it.
What I want is for the empire to lose. That's not accelerationism. That's revolutionary defeatism.
No. It means picking the person who will accelerate into whatever calamity which will cause a collapse.
I feel like there is a lot of revisionism of the definition because the definition is inconvenient to the opposing argument.
You're the one doing revisionism, completely overlooking the part of accelerationism where they seek to accelerate development.
Accelerationists believe that capitalism is a progressive self-revolutionizing force that is rapidly creating the conditions for its own obsolescence, and so we just need to develop capitalism more and more until it revolutionizes itself away. It views free trade as a system that breaks down nationalities, automation as a system that breaks down class antagonisms, and technological singularity as the ultimate end point of capitalism where profit and private property cease to exist. We enter an age of post-scarcity and transhumanism and algorithmic government i.e. the end of history. Capitalism collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.
This is a really bad idea because unchecked capitalist development is creating conditions for human extinction. Maybe if there weren't ecological limits the accelerationists would be right in the long-run, but in the real world we're running into the limits to growth and capitalist development has put us on the path towards the collapse of civilization rather than merely the collapse of capitalism.
This is all in contrast to revolutionary defeatism, which predates accelerationism by almost 100 years. It is the recognition that the workers do not benefit from capitalist wars, that instead, workers should seek the defeat of their own capitalist governments. If the empire loses, the world wins. There's no interest in developing the empire further to create the conditions for its collapse, there's only interest in seeing it collapse. That's like saying anyone who wants to end capitalism is an accelerationist. It's nonsense.
Just smugly doubling down on being wrong
I feel like there is a lot of revisionism of the definition because the definition is inconvenient to the opposing argument.
Read this out loud into a reflective surface as many times as it takes.
Emotions aside, is their assessment of events incorrect? Harris is a more sane war hawk, recognizing that doesn't make you an accelerationist.
An accelerationist is picking someone who will collapse the empire due to incompetence and destroying American institutions. Between Trump and Harris, I don't see Harris causing a collapse of American institutions like Trump.
Also, in regards to Iran, Trump has been far more antagonistic than Biden and Democrats in general were. The Biden administration at least needed a false flag attack to support Israel and a lot of the opposition came from Democrats. Trump got rid of Obama's multilateral nuclear treaty and has participated in Israeli attacks where Israel was the aggressor.
I think for many Accelerationism is speaking towards the capital transformations of society,
not the decline of empire. Even so, Trump is the accelerationist choice
Still applies more to Trump than Biden or Harris, given Trump's open corruption feeding into crony capitalism.
Like I've said before, it feels like the term is being changed because the argument behind how I'm using it is hard to refuse, so the choice is to try to redefine the word rather than discuss the argument.
No, people just know what the word means and that you're using it wrong
That's still not what accelerationism is you smug idiot
Damn, that enthusiasm for"lesser evilism" sure dries up real fast when it might be you on the business end of it
Yeah you really affected change
A Harris election also meant more Israeli aggression.
Dems don't care who the leader is. What matters if they're advancing the agenda. Same reason Republicans cheer on a pedophile rapist.
The poor turnout for Hillary and Kamala suggests they actually do have some opinions on who the leader is.
Yeah americans genuinely would rather have a rapist as a president than a woman, amazing. (jokes aside, you are of course correct that this immediately disproves that theory that people don't care who the leader is)
Americans would rather vote for someone who lies about being anti war, than a fucking bloodthirsty neoliberal war monger? Weird.
No group is a monolith.
Because for the most part, Americans are bloodthirsty morons.
We are all tired of what-aboutism.
We gotta focus on the present situation.
This would be more convincing if they weren't also doing it during the Biden administration
"We can't focus on the nazi genocide we all supported, we need to look forward!"
The Nazi genocide is a present issue. It's happening right now.
??
You wouldn't think so from how blue maga talk about it, how they rewrite history and reality to deny their culpability.
I'm so confused. I said I'm tired of what-aboutism.
We have to focus on what's happening now.
I didn't say we deny the things that caused the present situation.
I said I'm tired of hearing every time there is a discussion about Trump's bad decisions and actions that are making things really bad, someone chimes in with what about Biden or Obama. Of which neither are currently the president nor can run for president again.
I don't deny their part in the current state.
I'm saying that I don't have the time or energy to engage with people constantly using Obama and Bidens actions as an excuse for why we can't criticize trump.
Of course things today are a product of many people and institutions failing.
I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about how to fix those problems.
I'm saying I'm tired of What-aboutism as it's not productive and is purely intended as a distraction and division.
I don't know how much clearer I can make this.
Surely you don't think it's important to discuss Obamas failings every time trump does something stupid to somehow excuse Trump's actions or downplay them. ?
We are all tired of what-aboutism.
We gotta focus on the present situation.
- You, the moment Donitz is appointed President of III Reich
I'm not saying we forget I'm saying every time someone criticizes trump , someone jumps in and says "yeah but Biden this. Or Obama that. "
I am not saying they were perfect people or those criticisms aren't valid. But they are not what we need to focus on.
Now if instead someone is running for office and someone says "this is what they have voted for in the past". - then yeah. That's valid right now.
That's not what-aboutism. That's considering a person's history for deciding if they should be in office in the future.
This sort of conversation is important. Like Gavin newsome. He has a long history of support for Israel and billionaires. We need to talk about that.
We don't need to constantly hear about poor decisions previous people in office made who aren't in seats and can't run.
Unless you are interested in political history.
We all have limits with information and attention. I prefer to focus on the present and trying not to repeat mistakes. Work on fixing current problems and future problems being caused by the current administration decisions being made.
Because that's a distraction from the unprecedented strife and corruption home and abroad brought on by the current and relevent leadership every single day. Just admit you want to evoke past abuses and damages to distract from and downplay the war crimes, moral crimes, and plain old crimes committed by the tRump republicans right now that demand account and action. The best you have to offer is "whatabout 10 years ago??" right now? Sit the fuck down. People KNOW about those issues, but they actually cannot go change them, because that's THE PAST. Yes they matter, but not more than the country and maybe also world burning in a heap of shambles as we speak. So, quite frankly, there's no time for your bullshit, get the fuck out of here.
This would be more convincing if you all weren't doing the same thing during the Biden administration
If only I could escape this planet and leave you all to your desire to dominate every single person you see
Who are you even talking to here? Who is you all? I'd like to know at least which label you're tying to slap on me if you're gonna vaguepost with hollow emotional slop.
Sounds like you’ve built yourself quite the straw man.
There are party loyalists out there. Unfortunately, they constitute the majority of population and they vote and decide who governs you. Can't neglect these unconscious/unaware populace.
I despise Democrats (most of them), but the alternative is so much worse, and even the ones I like are pretty flawed. I liked a lot of stuff about Obama, and dislike a lot of stuff about him and the stuff I dislike is fairly major, but he was still one of the better presidents we've had as a country.
America is a deeply flawed country, and is getting worse but it's not because we elected to many Democrats. With the current state of Republicans voting or not voting in a way that will give them more seats at the table is actively making this country worse. Vote with your heart and mind in primaries, vote with your mind in the real election, and most importantly vote. We cannot shift left of people refuse to vote, the right votes, the selfish center votes, the people who want the country to be to the left don't unless they are passionate of about the politician. We can't shift left until the left voting block is respected because they will vote every time.
Democrats and Republicans are not the same even if Democrats suck.