474
‘I hate Democrats, but I love Abdul’: voters who left over Gaza return for progressive push
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
474 points (96.8% liked)
World News
57807 readers
1779 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
exactly fuck people for voting again.
I voted kamala, but I am not ignorant enough to blame non voters for this mess we're in. I punch up, preferably not sideways and never down.
Those that realize their mistake are one thing, but those who would continue to throw transgender Americans, undocumented immigrants, and aid to Ukraine under the bus purely due to a Democrat not being progressive enough on Gaza when the alternative is actively harmful to Gaza are part of the problem.
I just can't imagine looking a Palestinian American in the eyes and telling them it's their fault we have trump. That they should have voted for someone that was actively endangering /killing their families. It's wild to me that we're still blaming the victims rather than the person who supported a genocide. Still supports a genocide. Idk dude, I voted for her but I can totally empathize with certain people who were just not able to do it. I don't blame them. If you're gonna have a line 'genocide literally against my family' is a pretty fucking reasonable one. No, this is on Democrats, full stop.
I suspect it's only those who have weak or no principles who don't understand how other people might have principles in some domain which are so strong and so morally defining that they simply can't bring themselves to vote for anybody breaking those principles.
It's one thing to logically disagree with the lack of pragmatism of somebody not being able to vote for somebody supporting child mass murder abroad even to stop somebody who, whilst also supporting child mass murder abroad also supported a few more bad things.
It's a whole different thing to blame somebody for not voting for anybody supporting child mass murder.
Unlike what some seem to think, voting for somebody who supports child mass murder abroad because they're not as bad on things which affect you more closely (i.e. national policy) as the other candidate who also supports child mass murder abroad, isn't a Moral High Ground from were to talk down to people who on moral grounds refuse to vote for anybody who would support child mass murder.
(Also and this being Politics, it seems to me that the competent candidate who trully means to represent their voters would move towards what voters want - especially on subjects that many voters would see as symptomatic of the candidate's general character, such as child mass murder support - rather than expect voters to move towards the candidate's views)
But what if by not voting or voting for someone who literally cannot win you are helping someone who makes it clear they will violate the principles you hold dear even more flagrantly? Because that's what happened.
One or the other WILL win. So do you help as much as you can or do you sit in a corner and cry?
I honestly don't feel bad about blaming the people that chose to sit in a corner and cry. Especially because their decision to do so affected a whole lot more than genocide on the other side of the planet.
For me it isn't a moral high ground. It's making the decision that is BEST for my country AND the people in Gaza and wondering why the people who chose to cry in a corner couldn't do the same.
Geopolitics isn't some simple thing. Should a candidate run on abandoning an ally when a subset of their voters don't like that country anymore? Especially if they aren't sure that those voters represent enough of the total to cost them the election? And when a lot of their voters still do want to be allies with that country?
Turns out a lot of people can't see the forest for the trees.
Except that's selective bullshit.
We don't really know if the other candidate who also very openly proclaimed her "unwavering support" for Israel would cause Israel to act differently in any way form or shape - you're just assuming a "rosy outcome" had things been different based on at best wishful thinking, possibly even just tribalist loyalty (you think your tribe's leader is better and thus assume she would do things better, even in the face of her very openly supporting Israel just as much as the other candidate which indicates that on this subject such thing cannot be assumed).
Further, parties will put forwards on subsequent elections different candidates if the ones they put forward in previous elections got trashed by voters. This means that refusing to vote actually influences which choices will be available in the next cycle of this Ultimatum Game. I have actually seen this happen in Europe (and in fact in America too: the Republicans changed from conservatives to populist Fascists exactly by following the electorate which turns out to have quite a high percentage or Racists)
Turns out a lot of people when it comes to politics can't (or maybe refuse) to logically analyze things beyond the superficial 1st order effects.
Palestinian Americans should have known Trump/Republicans were the worst case scenario for their friends and family in Gaza. It wasn't exactly a secret.
So you expect a political party, or government as a whole, to fully break ties with an allied nation because a subset of their voters don't like that country anymore?
Geopolitics isn't exactly simple.
No I voted for her. But if you're telling people to vote for genocide you're probably the problem, not them. If both candidates are saying they're gonna kill your family you're probably not going to take a day off work to vote for one of them. Maybe don't put voters in that position if you want to win elections.
what does that solve other than satisfying your own desire to be morally superior? what has materially improved in the world?
Couldn't we reverse this question though and ask what not voting and feeling morally superior but getting Trump elected has solved?
Not voting doesn't change the party. Showing up at primaries and ousting establishment candidates does. We have multiple examples of it working now and getting actual progressive politicians in place against the wishes of Democratic leadership that worked hard to see that they didn't get elected.
I'm sorry but you really don't understand principles at all if you don't understand "I will never vote for somebody who supports mass murdering of childen".
For people with genuine principles some things are red-lines and the Mathematics Of Pragmatism you so neatly display in your tale of how voters should be thinking don't at all apply once a candidate is beyond such a Moral/Principle red line.
Some people will abstain from making a choice if all the options they have are sufficiently Evil, and I'm afraid such people have the Moral Highground versus any "pragmatist" who will think the Mathematics or Lesser Evil apply all the way down into the deepest Evil.
PS: I totally understand your point of view, I just don't think you understand the point of view of a sub-section of people and pragmatics like you seem to be don't really have a moral high ground to stand on and preach down to those whose strong principles which did not let them vote for a lesser evil are around people not being mass murdered.
PPS: By the way, the "logic" of chosing the lesser evil is mathematically a sub-optimal choice that tends to increase evil over time in a repeating choice like a presidential vote since the results of a cycle influence which candidates get put forward in the next cycle - it would be an optimal choice only if there was one and only one vote, deciding things forever, but that's not the case in democratic elections.
For what it's worth, I stopped reading after this, so the rest was a waste of time on your part, and a possible opportunity for interesting conversation was missed. After I left reddit years ago, I just learned to stop engaging when people have shown this kind of unnecessarily adversarial attitude instead of just accepting another person might understand your position while disagreeing with it. It just doesn't accomplish anything.
Just a suggestion, but if you want people to engage with you and not just a mindless Monty Python-esque argument, this isn't the way to do it. You'd be served by some good faith assumptions of the people you talk to.
This is so shortsighted.
You can't wave a magic wand and change the established order. One of two parties WILL control our federal government. You're either making a decision to limit the amount of pain and suffering in the world by acting or you're sitting in a corner crying about how unfair the world is. If you gave a shit at all about Palestinians but you didn't vote or voted for a candidate that LITERALLY could not win and therefore could not do anything, then you chose to go cry in a corner instead of making a decision that would actually have an impact.
Congrats. Your personal red line caused more Palestinian pain and suffering than if you accepted the world doesn't operate based on your red-lines and made the decision to help as much as you could.
And those people are selfish for not doing what they could within the boundaries they exist in.
You're not even making a good logical case when you're pitching pragmatism over principles.
For starters your claims of "caused more Palestinian pain and suffering" are based on what exact, concrete evidence that had the other child mass murder supporter who openly stated their "unwavering support" for Israel, the Israelis would have behaved differently? You don't know, you can't possibly know (because that's the path not taken), hence you're bullshitting.
Second point - even in the undemocratic electoral system in the US, elections aren't a fucking Trolley Problem and can't treated as one:
So your entire "logic" is flawed - a voter know for sure upfront if their vote will make a difference, they don't know for sure what will happen if their chosen candidate wins AND them refusing to vote can actually have an impact, not in the current election but in subsequent elections, because it can influence parties to put forward more appealing candidates with more appealing policies.
I mean, it's bad enough that you think pragmatism should beat any and all principles, but even your pragmatic argument is deceitful because it's incomplete and anchored on unproven statements that you treat as certainties (what in mathematics is called an axiom).
If you're going to pitch for pragmatism over principles at least make a logical case which is solid rather than parroting deceitful logically-sounding but not in fact logically sound political propaganda with it's cherry picked elements and foundations made of unproven things stated as absolute truths.
There was no primary in 2024 though. I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.
There's always a primary. Harris wasn't selected by primary, but she was clearly - as his vice president - a firm continuation of Biden's policies. People who voted Biden in the primary weren't voting to change the party, which is what we're talking about here; if you want to change the party you need to use the primaries to put actual left candidates on the ticket. That didn't happen. Whether Harris or Biden was selected by the primary, neither were change candidates.
The primary where nobody except Biden actually ran. For all intents and purposes, there was no presidential primary in 2024.
This is exactly part of my criticism, though. Everybody is waiting for someone else to run. That's why we've been stuck voting for the same candidates the party leadership approves of every year; what we're witnessing now with people like Nixon and el-Sayed is that it's always been possible to challenge them, but you've got to actually run to do it. AOC has mixed reception now, but when she was elected she was on a very progressive platform against a deeply established party candidate and won.
Those are not particularly groomed candidates. AOC was a fucking bartender for crying out loud.
My whole point is the left has, until recently, really sucked at using the primary process to change the party. We see now it's worth doing. There shouldn't be unchallenged party leadership picks anywhere, essentially.
There absolutely was a primary... the left didn't utilize it.
That's a fair criticism (though you're overlooking how anger at Trump and disappointment in the Dem establishment contribute to help leftwing politics), but it's also not the original point. You started out talking about not voting, which is what I was addressing. Not participating is a different conversation entirely, which someone better informed about the nitty gritty of American progressive organization than me should be having.
The conversation moved there though because you said there was no primary; there was, it's just the left didn't use it at all and then didn't show up to the general because they didn't like the uncontested candidate they chose (or his continuation).
My original point (aside from pointing out it was often the abstainers making moral superiority arguments) was that people who abstain from voting in the general with the idea that withholding their vote will change the party are going about it wrong. The primary is purpose built for this. Even if there was no other candidate in the primary, as in '24, not voting still isn't going to motivate the party to change. They already did that with Clinton and the next candidate was Biden; while Biden was left of her in some ways, he was clearly another deeply established pick. I'd argue withholding the vote for Clinton did nothing to change the party. I think voting in people like Mamdani, Nixon, and el-Sayed has already done so.
I do understand the argument that allowing the mainstream to shoot themselves in the foot boosts left politics, but I think it's so diffuse of an effect it isn't worth taking things on the chin like losing abortion rights that come with that strategy when we have a process right there we can use that's a lot more effective.
The point is ensuring that those same voters don't repeat their mistake and indirectly aid in the election of Vance or Rubio, something that would cement the legacy of Project 2025.
i dont think vance or rubio is either electable without trump backing them.