What type of frustration is it that would lead someone to claim that an incredibly vocal pro-Palestine person is, in fact, a pro-genocide person and we need to not support her? Why would that make sense?
Why would that lead understandably to accusing one of the rare ones who isn’t awful, who among her other positive qualities is vigorously pro-Palestinian, of supporting Israel’s genocide?
The fact that she’s a rare Democratic politician in the public eye who isn’t stained with blood and cash-residue should make it less understandable to criticize her, not more. Right? I’m still just having trouble making sense of what you’re saying.
Sure, makes sense. Why would any of that lead understandably to accusing her of being anti-Palestinian though?
Maybe I am misunderstanding what was said, but the fact that no one is saying “Oh of course we’re not saying that, that would be insane” is concerning to me
32 upvotes for “She joined the Dems in supporting Israel though,” and then search the comments below for “Her genocide support has ousted her for the fraud she is.” if you want another example. There are others in other threads but that’s a good representative sample.
It’s always been a narrative (her physical offices got vandalised accusing her of supporting genocide at one point), but just recently a little handful of Lemmy accounts all started talking about it again all at about the same time.
True enough. Perfect is the enemy of good, but I understand the frustration.
What type of frustration is it that would lead someone to claim that an incredibly vocal pro-Palestine person is, in fact, a pro-genocide person and we need to not support her? Why would that make sense?
I was referring to the frustration brought on by the knowledge that many of the Democrats are awful.
Why would that lead understandably to accusing one of the rare ones who isn’t awful, who among her other positive qualities is vigorously pro-Palestinian, of supporting Israel’s genocide?
The fact that she’s a rare Democratic politician in the public eye who isn’t stained with blood and cash-residue should make it less understandable to criticize her, not more. Right? I’m still just having trouble making sense of what you’re saying.
A leftist who obeys the DNC is effectively a Neoliberal.
People will be hesitant to support her if she’s going to concede to a corrupt Neoliberal like Bernie did in 2016
Sure, makes sense. Why would any of that lead understandably to accusing her of being anti-Palestinian though?
Maybe I am misunderstanding what was said, but the fact that no one is saying “Oh of course we’re not saying that, that would be insane” is concerning to me
I haven’t really seen that sentiment on lemmy myself
https://lemmy.world/post/36172587/19489288
32 upvotes for “She joined the Dems in supporting Israel though,” and then search the comments below for “Her genocide support has ousted her for the fraud she is.” if you want another example. There are others in other threads but that’s a good representative sample.
It’s always been a narrative (her physical offices got vandalised accusing her of supporting genocide at one point), but just recently a little handful of Lemmy accounts all started talking about it again all at about the same time.
She pissed a lot of people off when she voted for sending weapons to Isreal, I don’t think she supports the genocide tho.
Yeah there are bunch of bots fucking with lemmy already.