It says that we’re willing to accept a flawed candidate that can admit mistakes, rather than some purist. If you’re not willing to forgive and accept flawed candidates, the downward spiral toward fascism will continue.
The other side doesn’t give two shits about running rapists and murderers, but we can’t run a candidate that admits a dark past and tries to make amends? These purity tests have got to end!
He’s unapologetic about his crimes and still talks about them proudly… At what point does it go from “flawed” to “rotten” to you? It might be impossible to change your perspective if you brush aside every accusation as a minor flaw.
we can’t run a candidate that admits a dark past and tries to make amends
He doesn’t. He never said he regrets his war crimes, he talks about them reminiscingly, he only calls the wars “pointless”, he has no moral objection to the crimes, he just doesn’t think Americans benefitted enough from them.
He doesn’t identify the war machine as bad, on the contrary he wants to thank and honor and support veterans. Y’all need to stop pretending that’s a progressive idea.
You only think in “their side” and “my side” to the point where your side winning is the goal itself, regardless of whether your side effectively does anything to advance what you think of as principals.
Take his stance on Gaza, where he seems eager to cash in on people’s outrage by positioning himself as opposition to genocide, but you won’t see him ever address the real problem. He’s there to change the conversation and allow the status quo to continue. On Ukraine he’s happy to say that Ukrainian fighting the Russian invasion is “resisting with all the means that they can, and I personally think that we should provide them with support.” He’s unwilling to make a statement about Palestinians resisting genocide as needing support, he’s only ever willing to denounce past acts in a vacuum. Like a typical liberal zionist.
He’s being branded as progressive by literally the same people that brought you Fetterman, it’s all aesthetics and zero substance, and you still have your arms wide open.
He doesn’t. He never said he regrets his war crimes, he talks about them reminiscingly, he only calls the wars “pointless”, he has no moral objection to the crimes, he just doesn’t think Americans benefitted enough from them.
Beyond this I think the real smoking gun is that it is an explicit part of his platform that he wants to expand our navy. “Closing the shipbuilding gap” he calls it.
It says that we’re willing to accept a flawed candidate that can admit mistakes, rather than some purist. If you’re not willing to forgive and accept flawed candidates, the downward spiral toward fascism will continue.
The other side doesn’t give two shits about running rapists and murderers, but we can’t run a candidate that admits a dark past and tries to make amends? These purity tests have got to end!
He’s unapologetic about his crimes and still talks about them proudly… At what point does it go from “flawed” to “rotten” to you? It might be impossible to change your perspective if you brush aside every accusation as a minor flaw.
He doesn’t. He never said he regrets his war crimes, he talks about them reminiscingly, he only calls the wars “pointless”, he has no moral objection to the crimes, he just doesn’t think Americans benefitted enough from them.
He doesn’t identify the war machine as bad, on the contrary he wants to thank and honor and support veterans. Y’all need to stop pretending that’s a progressive idea.
You only think in “their side” and “my side” to the point where your side winning is the goal itself, regardless of whether your side effectively does anything to advance what you think of as principals.
Take his stance on Gaza, where he seems eager to cash in on people’s outrage by positioning himself as opposition to genocide, but you won’t see him ever address the real problem. He’s there to change the conversation and allow the status quo to continue. On Ukraine he’s happy to say that Ukrainian fighting the Russian invasion is “resisting with all the means that they can, and I personally think that we should provide them with support.” He’s unwilling to make a statement about Palestinians resisting genocide as needing support, he’s only ever willing to denounce past acts in a vacuum. Like a typical liberal zionist.
He’s being branded as progressive by literally the same people that brought you Fetterman, it’s all aesthetics and zero substance, and you still have your arms wide open.
Beyond this I think the real smoking gun is that it is an explicit part of his platform that he wants to expand our navy. “Closing the shipbuilding gap” he calls it.