• akilou@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    “Should Have” in what sense? Like as a moral matter or to get elected? They’re very different things.

    • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      Like as a moral matter or to get elected? They’re very different things.

      Are they?

      If a politician has certain morals but they set them aside to get elected, do they still hold those morals?

      If a politician makes up morals they don’t have to get elected, did they ever truly hold those morals?

      The answer to both is a resounding NO.

      If you abandon/adopt morals to get elected, you have no morals, you have self interests.

      Whatever distinction you’re trying to make, or why, is a you issue, there is no way to twist this in to it being ok.

      • alchemist2023@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        I’m sorry, but when there is so much at stake we have to lie. politicians have always lied. left and right. it’s in their nature. they can’t help it. if it’s politically expedient to lie, even by omission, so the enemy doesn’t use it against you and chips away at that majority, then I’m totally comfortable with that. of course, I’d much prefer that it was illegal for politicians to lie, like they are trialing in Wales, then we’d have a very different calibre of politics. I’m all for that. bring on enforced honesty in politics. but until that’s established and the enemy, and let me make this very clear, the US Nazis are very much the enemy, we have to temper our political persona a bit. once we win then we show how inclusive and caring we are. but if saying something what could be used in an attack against our valiant cause, it’s ok to hide it. for now. look at Walz, he’s an ally to the cause and we’re not hiding him. he’s in full view, heart on his sleeve, and from what I can tell, he’s a really good man. those are the qualities we need to show off. we’re not hiding those morals, we’re just not shouting loudly about some of the more progressive values we hold, so they can’t be twisted and used against us. we need to win this election. fairly and absolutely convincingly. and I’m talking as a Kiwi, a citizen of Earth, watching on in horror what could be coming and the pivot in geopolitical power that would inevitably occur. your election has way more reach than just your shores. the good guys need to win and kick the US Nazis so hard in the nuts they remember loosing forever. anyway. thanks for listening

        • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 days ago

          The democrats didn’t leave fighting for trans rights out because they fear being attacked (literally every word they say will get twisted and attacked), but because they don’t intend to fight for them, and saying they do, would be the lie.

          The fact that you fuckers are so willing to take it the other way and support the idea of erasing one of the main groups being targeted right now in order to win over some bigots (despite, in your own warped minds, them really truly supporting trans rights, promise!) is honestly disgusting.

          “Win over bigots to beat the bigot!”

          How the fuck do you think that ends for trans people?

    • Too bad there’s no article you could read to check. It might even say something like:

      But in a stunning abdication of moral responsibility, Democrats made little mention of trans rights during this year’s Democratic National Convention (DNC). Trans people were mentioned in just two speeches, and neither speaker received prime-time speaking slots. For the first time since 2012, the DNC did not feature any trans speakers.