I’m a registered Democrat, but that doesn’t stop me disagreeing with the Democratic party on plenty of issues. The vast majority of people don’t adhere 100% to their party’s politics, especially with the big-tent two-party system in the US. I can’t speak for the person to whom you’re responding, but you can’t extrapolate from their disagreement on one issue to disagreement on others.
Yes, but this particular idea is intentionally letting children starve. Would you really want to associate yourself with a group that wanted to do that if you were against it?
It’s like saying, “I’m on their side, but I don’t agree with their ‘kill the asylum seekers’ policy.” (I assume that will be a policy of theirs eventually.) How morally repugnant does a group have to get before you disassociate yourself with them?
It already is policy for some of them, see Abbott’s death trap along the Rio Grande or DeSantis wanting to station his state guard on major crossings to shoot undocumented migrants.
Getting people to think about identifying based on party membership is important to get people to actually think about whether they should be a member of that party. Sure, they might be all in on racist wall building, insurrection, and blowing Trump.
But maybe a nudge can help them be a little introspective and think more broadly about whether they picked the right team if their team wants children to go hungry. Just trying to get them to think about things, not saying every party member needs to agree with everything about their party.
Instead of defining yourself by party membership in a group that doesn’t represent you, maybe you should think about not being a member of that party?
I’m a registered Democrat, but that doesn’t stop me disagreeing with the Democratic party on plenty of issues. The vast majority of people don’t adhere 100% to their party’s politics, especially with the big-tent two-party system in the US. I can’t speak for the person to whom you’re responding, but you can’t extrapolate from their disagreement on one issue to disagreement on others.
Yes, but this particular idea is intentionally letting children starve. Would you really want to associate yourself with a group that wanted to do that if you were against it?
It’s like saying, “I’m on their side, but I don’t agree with their ‘kill the asylum seekers’ policy.” (I assume that will be a policy of theirs eventually.) How morally repugnant does a group have to get before you disassociate yourself with them?
It already is policy for some of them, see Abbott’s death trap along the Rio Grande or DeSantis wanting to station his state guard on major crossings to shoot undocumented migrants.
I was thinking more hunt them down across America, but you’re not wrong.
Getting people to think about identifying based on party membership is important to get people to actually think about whether they should be a member of that party. Sure, they might be all in on racist wall building, insurrection, and blowing Trump.
But maybe a nudge can help them be a little introspective and think more broadly about whether they picked the right team if their team wants children to go hungry. Just trying to get them to think about things, not saying every party member needs to agree with everything about their party.