It’s a two way street. Young progressives don’t see any reason to vote for Democrats who won’t fight for any of the policies they care about, so they wont defend or fight for those officials.
If i am thirsty and someone is offering me toilet water after they just shit in the toilet, I don’t need to show gratitude to the next person who comes by offering water from their toilet after they pissed in it.
Your analogy is completely absurd though, it’s more like voting for cake and getting bread - and then being so pissed off about the bread that you let bread guy get voted out in favor of toilet guy.
This is what I’ve been saying: Don’t vote and expect cake. Vote and expect bread at best. Lower your expectations and treat it like paying your taxes and you’ll feel better about it.
If they don’t want to condone genocide I suggest they just never vote. And also leave the country. Because this is a country built on genocide, and that will ignore genocide if its in their economic or geopolitical interest.
America sucks. Stop thinking it doesn’t and that you have any control and you’ll be less frustrated.
Let me make sure I’ve got that right. In this analogy, a candidate supporting genocide is a perfectly fine option, and people who have a problem with him are comparable to picky eaters?
Irrelevant. Answer the question please: is supporting the genocide of Palestinians comparable to “bread” in this analogy? Do you consider the genocide of Palestinians to be a perfectly acceptable outcome? Do you think people who aren’t satisfied with a candidate who supports genocide are comparable to picky eaters?
I support the phoenix wright roleplay, but I think you’d find more success in just saying something like “this is kind of a glib analogy when the outcome is still genocide, don’t you think?”, or something along those lines, rather than asking like, a series of questions asking whether or not they find genocide to be an acceptable outcome. One of those will come off as bad faith, and put the defendant on the back foot, the other will get them to open up and possibly admit fault, or potentially come off much poorer to a jury, were they still to choose to object.
It’s a two way street. Young progressives don’t see any reason to vote for Democrats who won’t fight for any of the policies they care about, so they wont defend or fight for those officials.
If i am thirsty and someone is offering me toilet water after they just shit in the toilet, I don’t need to show gratitude to the next person who comes by offering water from their toilet after they pissed in it.
Your analogy is completely absurd though, it’s more like voting for cake and getting bread - and then being so pissed off about the bread that you let bread guy get voted out in favor of toilet guy.
This is what I’ve been saying: Don’t vote and expect cake. Vote and expect bread at best. Lower your expectations and treat it like paying your taxes and you’ll feel better about it.
I guess sime people viewed “Never again” as more than just a feel good saying, and don’t want to condone genocide.
If they don’t want to condone genocide I suggest they just never vote. And also leave the country. Because this is a country built on genocide, and that will ignore genocide if its in their economic or geopolitical interest.
America sucks. Stop thinking it doesn’t and that you have any control and you’ll be less frustrated.
Hold it!
Let me make sure I’ve got that right. In this analogy, a candidate supporting genocide is a perfectly fine option, and people who have a problem with him are comparable to picky eaters?
Trump would probably be just fine with nuking Palestine so consider that when you think about what’s the shit and what’s the bread.
Irrelevant. Answer the question please: is supporting the genocide of Palestinians comparable to “bread” in this analogy? Do you consider the genocide of Palestinians to be a perfectly acceptable outcome? Do you think people who aren’t satisfied with a candidate who supports genocide are comparable to picky eaters?
I support the phoenix wright roleplay, but I think you’d find more success in just saying something like “this is kind of a glib analogy when the outcome is still genocide, don’t you think?”, or something along those lines, rather than asking like, a series of questions asking whether or not they find genocide to be an acceptable outcome. One of those will come off as bad faith, and put the defendant on the back foot, the other will get them to open up and possibly admit fault, or potentially come off much poorer to a jury, were they still to choose to object.
I wanted to apply maximum pressure, because they already said everything I needed to prove my point