3 ms·

Yes it does matter!!! How can you expect your politicians to “lead” if they have such an inability to not only see the actual facts on the ground, but lack the

Yes it does matter!!! How can you expect your politicians to “lead” if they have such an inability to not only see the actual facts on the ground, but lack the elementary foresight to see what’s going to happen? This shit wasn’t something that’s been kept a secret, it’s been widely widely documented for nearly 20 months. The base the politicians claim to represent have been literally screeching about this for over a year, and yet nothing? If a politician can’t even denounce genocide, how can someone expect them to fight for them?

atoav 1y ago
So lets say you have twi buttons and you can only press one: A) Your movement gains the support of a politician who flip-flopped and now would vote in laws that help ending the conflict and/or easing the humanitarian situation The price is literally just doing nothing and you can talk bad about the politician once they were useful for the movement B) You don't get that vote, but you pretend to keep the movement pure from an ideological standpoint. The price is potentially not passing needed legislation. Don't get me wrong, I like neither option and whether I personally would chose A or B depends a lot on the specifics. But purely from a "we want to achieve tangible political goals"-position the former is superior. If this is a false dichotomy (it might be), tell me.
- throwawaybob420 1y ago
  It’s not about someone changing their mind when there’s new evidence. The evidence was already there, it was being live-streamed and talked about since the beginning. The vast majority of the politicians in America receive funding from AIPAC. They know what happens when they deviate from their supplied talking points, and right now the public outcry has grown to the point where those same politicians who would say they “want Palestinians free of Hamas” while those same Palestinians were being wholesale slaughtered for nearly two years, are now suddenly changing their tune. They are not trustworthy full stop. And they should not be granted the forgiveness while they consistently either openly endorsed the actions of Israel by either words or voting to send more weapons to kill Palestinians

atoav 1y ago

So lets say you have twi buttons and you can only press one: A) Your movement gains the support of a politician who flip-flopped and now would vote in laws that help ending the conflict and/or easing the humanitarian situation The price is literally just doing nothing and you can talk bad about the politician once they were useful for the movement B) You don't get that vote, but you pretend to keep the movement pure from an ideological standpoint. The price is potentially not passing needed legislation. Don't get me wrong, I like neither option and whether I personally would chose A or B depends a lot on the specifics. But purely from a "we want to achieve tangible political goals"-position the former is superior. If this is a false dichotomy (it might be), tell me.

throwawaybob420 1y ago
It’s not about someone changing their mind when there’s new evidence. The evidence was already there, it was being live-streamed and talked about since the beginning. The vast majority of the politicians in America receive funding from AIPAC. They know what happens when they deviate from their supplied talking points, and right now the public outcry has grown to the point where those same politicians who would say they “want Palestinians free of Hamas” while those same Palestinians were being wholesale slaughtered for nearly two years, are now suddenly changing their tune. They are not trustworthy full stop. And they should not be granted the forgiveness while they consistently either openly endorsed the actions of Israel by either words or voting to send more weapons to kill Palestinians