Which may be a symptom of a more systemic problem about how we define what makes you “progressive” or “conservative” and what is being progressive/conservative “enough”. But that’s the world we live in.
Are there any "good" options for pro-Palestine voters (as opposed to "choose between bad vs. worse")
But going back to the op, that’s arguing for voting for bad over worse. I guess you are saying, no, there’s isn’t a good choice for pro Palestinian voters.
(unless they care about other issues, of course. I agree with @Johanna that Biden has been really good on many other issues.)
“You have a choice, flu or terminal cancer. If you refuse to choose, all these people who hate you will choose for you.”
“Ugh, I hate the flu. Last time I had it I was sick for two weeks. Could barely get out of bed. You can’t expect me to choose that. I won’t!”
“Ok, you now have terminal cancer.”
And that’s ignoring that Biden has done some good things, while there’s nothing good about the flu. Or Trump.
Are you kidding? After the last time I got the flu my jeans never fit better.
Again, that’s a choice between a bad option and a worse one. I wouldn’t describe either flu or terminal cancer as a good choice.
Sure. But you have to choose one.
(I should point out that I don’t think Biden is a bad choice. I don’t like everything he’s done, but I think he’s ok.)
Given the luxury of hindsight that we have, when has there ever been a good choice?
Name a candidate that’s considered good that didn’t have ‘baggage’?
Kennedy? Vietnam.
Johnson? Vietnam and his racist tendencies (despite being the President that finally freed the slaves).
Clinton? Do I need to?
But the issue is, what’s going on in Gaza has been so bad for Palestinians that it’s not a matter of flu vs. cancer. It’s more like choosing between two different forms of cancer.
What!? No…just no.
For one of many things, there are other things going on besides Gaza. Biden or Trump are not the president of Israel.
People seem to forget that being President is a job. It’s like managing any organization. The president has to submit a budget, appoint a cabinet, command the military, set foreign policy, and negotiate with congress, half of whom hate his guts.
Can anyone imagine any of the third party candidates doing any of that?
I felt good about the election between Obama and Romney. Sure, everyone has baggage. And i had a preference. But i felt either would be a pretty decent, competent president.
And that has been surprisingly rare.
In 2000 I thought we had a chance at Bradley vs. McCain and I liked and respected both. Instead we got Gore/Lieberman vs Bush/Cheney and I had no respect for 3 of them and a fear and loathing of Cheney. I felt almost as badly about Tipper Gore, but that was less important than VP obviously.
I felt the same way about HW Bush v Dukakis. Honestly I’m glad HW won, though I voted dem. But those days are gone now.
Don’t think for even a moment that Obama, given things like drone strikes, would be the darling of the folks that can’t seem to see what their willing to see elected so they can remain pure.
To quote a very bad man,
I absolutely don’t think that you should vote for the person that “deserves” your vote. Any time you see your vote as a prize, or as compensation, or as a Valentine (thanks Rebecca Solnit), you’ve already lost your way.
You don’t vote to support someone. You don’t vote to show you agree with them, or think they’re a good person, or think they should be in charge. A vote is the ultimate in pragmatic actions: you think that by voting, things will be less worse than if you don’t vote.
Why on earth should you care that Democrats are talking crap about you? This isn’t a slap fight! They can say all the horrific shit they want about me, that won’t change how I vote. It’s not about my ego, or my dignity. It’s about whether a vote for them will make things less worse. If the worst thing a political party did was hurt my feelings, they’d get my vote every single time. Your and my hurt feelings about the shit they talk about us is absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of the harm they’re doing to the world.
But one party is doing less harm.
And you vote for Peace and Freedom Party? Cool! I voted that Sam was the werewolf, and that was fun. But it had nothing to do with politics. It was a thing I did for entertainment, and didn’t affect the world outside of my own sense of satisfaction.
Voting for the Peace and Freedom Party is the same thing. Unless you’re voting in a local election where the P&F candidate has a chance of winning (and not kidding, please do that), it’s no more meaningful than voting for Sam as the Werewolf in a game with friends.
Please, please, don’t put your feelings at the middle of your political decisions. Politics isn’t a matter of injured dignity, it’s a matter of life and death.
Well. Fucking. Said.
Quoted for truth and importance.
You have to remember that “both sides bad” is and was an effective GOP tactic.
No, and I don’t know that there’s ever been a good choice for Palestine. But in general, for people who have other priorities (which is most Americans) I feel like we sometimes have good choices. So it’s not crazy to ask if there’s a good choice for pro-Palestinian voters. But I do think the answer is currently “no”.
More or less “I did it, but it’s not my fault” argument.
Because there are legal limits as to what can be done. Could Biden have vetoed the aid acts? And left Ukraine in the lurch, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of Ukrainians? Not to mention the $1Billion going to Gaza aid. The pro-palestinians seem to ignore Biden has ordered a pier to be built so the Inhabitants of gaza can actually get aid.
Basically they are doing the thing ignorant people have always done, and something that has never led to anything good “the SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!” without being able to articulate anything that can be done.
Good points.