Not really, only the ones who say that you should withhold support from all Democrats in a binary election system. And anyone who says anything that can possibly be interpreted as such. And quite a few where they have to invent the nonsupport out of whole cloth.
It’s not so much that they’re Zionists, it’s more that many of them are pro-Dem to the point where any dissent against any Dems, especially the leaders, gets the same ferocious reactions as when you criticize the Mango Mussolini amongst his fascist cult.
Or to put it another way: apart from understandable election pragmatism, there’s a lot of people there who cares more about pretending that their “team” is perfect than about holding the people supposed to represent them accountable for participating in countless crimes against humanity.
Not really, only the ones who say that you should withhold support from all Democrats in a binary election system
I have never, not a single fucking time, suggested withholding support. That has never fucking mattered.
Or to put it another way: apart from understandable election pragmatism, there’s a lot of people there who cares more about pretending that their “team” is perfect than about holding the people supposed to represent them accountable for participating in countless crimes against humanity.
And I don’t give the benefit of the doubt to people who are willing to jettison their humanity just for their “team”. Particularly when they’re super fucking excited to get Dick Cheney’s endorsement.
I completely agree. Just pointing out the technical difference between pro-zionism and harassing/othering anti-zionists for reasons only indirectly related 😉
In the next few weeks, we’ll see if centrists start abandoning their hostility toward the anti-genocide wing of the party. I don’t think they will. I think you’ve drawn a distinction without a difference.
It’s a distinction without much of a practical difference, yes, but I still think that not considering atrocities a deal breaker and being in favor of the atrocities should be distinguished between.
Can’t argue as effectively against a wrong conclusion if you don’t know the reasons for reaching it, is my point.
And yeah, you’re right about them already blaming everyone to the left of Reagan for the pro-Cheney campaign failing to defeat a personally repulsive fascist idiot 🤦
It’s a distinction without much of a practical difference, yes, but I still think that not considering atrocities a deal breaker and being in favor of the atrocities should be distinguished between.
Agreed until they start being hostile to all criticism of the party, even when the criticism is about genocide support.
They’re openly hostile to anyone who says that Democrats should not support Netanyahu’s genocide.
Not really, only the ones who say that you should withhold support from all Democrats in a binary election system. And anyone who says anything that can possibly be interpreted as such. And quite a few where they have to invent the nonsupport out of whole cloth.
It’s not so much that they’re Zionists, it’s more that many of them are pro-Dem to the point where any dissent against any Dems, especially the leaders, gets the same ferocious reactions as when you criticize the Mango Mussolini amongst his fascist cult.
Or to put it another way: apart from understandable election pragmatism, there’s a lot of people there who cares more about pretending that their “team” is perfect than about holding the people supposed to represent them accountable for participating in countless crimes against humanity.
I have never, not a single fucking time, suggested withholding support. That has never fucking mattered.
And I don’t give the benefit of the doubt to people who are willing to jettison their humanity just for their “team”. Particularly when they’re super fucking excited to get Dick Cheney’s endorsement.
I completely agree. Just pointing out the technical difference between pro-zionism and harassing/othering anti-zionists for reasons only indirectly related 😉
In the next few weeks, we’ll see if centrists start abandoning their hostility toward the anti-genocide wing of the party. I don’t think they will. I think you’ve drawn a distinction without a difference.
It’s a distinction without much of a practical difference, yes, but I still think that not considering atrocities a deal breaker and being in favor of the atrocities should be distinguished between.
Can’t argue as effectively against a wrong conclusion if you don’t know the reasons for reaching it, is my point.
And yeah, you’re right about them already blaming everyone to the left of Reagan for the pro-Cheney campaign failing to defeat a personally repulsive fascist idiot 🤦
Agreed until they start being hostile to all criticism of the party, even when the criticism is about genocide support.