this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
24 points (61.1% liked)

Asklemmy

55584 readers
1269 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Whenever I talk to any Democrat supporters, they by-default cheer their Presidents and then I've to remind them of their leader's illegal wars and war crimes. They condemn those acts and they go back to their cheerleading role - Why do they keep forgetting atrocities committed by their leaders? Why do they accept war criminals as their leader?

(page 2) 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] Antagnostic@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Money > Ethics. Its pretty simple, everyone has a price. People will ignore or downplay the shitty things if you keep a certain level of contentment.

[โ€“] Admetus@sopuli.xyz 4 points 3 months ago

It's the degeneracy into idolism. Idols can do no wrong.

[โ€“] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

Because for the most part, Americans are bloodthirsty morons.

[โ€“] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Dems don't care who the leader is. What matters if they're advancing the agenda. Same reason Republicans cheer on a pedophile rapist.

[โ€“] SirActionSack@aussie.zone 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The poor turnout for Hillary and Kamala suggests they actually do have some opinions on who the leader is.

[โ€“] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

No group is a monolith.

[โ€“] Carighan@piefed.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yeah americans genuinely would rather have a rapist as a president than a woman, amazing. (jokes aside, you are of course correct that this immediately disproves that theory that people don't care who the leader is)

[โ€“] Lenins_Dumbbell@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 months ago

Between War Criminals and Rapist War criminals, Americans definitely prefer the Rapist War Criminals.

Don't get me started on how pathetic it was for the non-rapist war criminals to invite one of the most infamous war criminals to their campaign, instead of being, uk, not war criminals

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] GraniteM@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Because government does things that large populaces can't or won't do for themselves. Sometimes that's things like Social Security, regulating companies so they don't enslave us or dump DDT all over the place, or organizing enough coordinated violence to prevent other, more aggressive governments from coming in and taking over. Sometimes, usually when the people aren't paying enough attention, it's horrible things like building Gitmo or supporting Israel.

Ideally, everyone would be well-informed and engaged enough to immediately hold government accountable when it does horrible things in our names, but for a lot of people life is hard, and they've been actively discouraged from having that education and engagement, usually by one flavor or another of psychopath who wants to get away with their atrocities and not be answerable to a decently informed and engaged electorate.

Democrats do, on balance, care more about their leaders committing atrocities than Republicans do, but the phenomenon of "I just can't think about that right now, I've got other things going on" is a universal experience.

It's right to be outraged by this complacency, and I don't even think anyone is wrong for wanting to disengage from any political party or even politics as a whole in response, but wanting to remain morally pure and wanting to achieve anything of merit within the system we currently have are mutually exclusive goals.

If someone finds politics as a whole, and all of the moral compromises involved, so abhorrent that they don't want to engage at all, I get it, but they'd really better start looking up how to engage in violent resistance, because change either comes through politics and all of its attendant compromises or through violence, there's no third alternative.

[โ€“] rossman@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 months ago

i guess not all democrat supporters are historians. we had biases taught at a young age with social studies and stuff. and it's easier to compare presidents to past ones. kinda why conservatives default cheer trump cause he's 'better' than biden obama etc.

like trump basically started a war, and by the time alls said and done. we're way too busy doing damage control, reparations, complex PR and stuff. it's not forgotten but we work on the present.

[โ€“] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 3 months ago (21 children)

Because the alternate is literally fascism. Until we do away with first past the post, there are only two real choices. And if you don't choose the lesser of two evils, then you're part of the problem and you're literally responsible for people dying.

[โ€“] Lenins_Dumbbell@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 months ago

Are you responsible for Israel's holocaust in Palestine?

load more comments (19 replies)
[โ€“] daannii@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago (9 children)

We are all tired of what-aboutism.

We gotta focus on the present situation.

load more comments (9 replies)

Sounds like youโ€™ve built yourself quite the straw man.

load more comments
view more: โ€น prev next โ€บ