“We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not.”
That’s gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I’ve heard in a while.
Ah yes, “all lives matter” - a very popular talking point for the left.
While in principle I agree that it’s unfortunate that the US tends to turn a blind eye to most of the world’s suffering outside of breakthrough trends every once in a while (who still has a green Twitter icon for Pakistan and let’s finally get Kony, amirite?), that doesn’t necessarily mean that a spotlight on some small corner of global human suffering at the moment is a bad thing.
Innocent civilians are suffering in a part of the world the US policy has extensive influence within. While that’s a longstanding pattern that’s typically ignored, an arbitrary gatekeeping of “all or nothing” ignores that most change occurs in smaller intermediate steps.
How do you think the push for civil rights would have gone if any advances were to be rejected unless they also included things like legalizing gay marriage at the same time as decriminalization of sodomy?
Maybe today it’s the US giving a crap about the downtrodden in the “giving a shit” trend of the month, but if there’s successful traction, perhaps caring about foreign policy impacting the powerless continues to shift global policy.
In a large part, I suspect that’s part of why these kinds of trends get such silence from administrations. No one wants to give foreign policy mouse a cookie, or he’s going to ask for a glass of milk.
(Though I admit it’s beyond stupid for foreign policy mouse to enable bringing in an exterminator just because they aren’t currently being given a cookie.)
deleted by creator