If we're being real, it's just Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRGC, and anyone unfortunate enough to be too close to those assholes on the bottom track.

Remember to never question why such an orphan crushing trolley exists!

Just pull the lever and vote blue!

In other words, op is proud and open about their willingness to sacrifice Palestinian lives in order to preserve their own comfort and safety under the status quo.

Anyone who can look at this meme and not only see one option as acceptable, but be proud of this depiction of how "right" they are (in their own minds) to pick the "lesser" (but still) evil, is the embodiment of "scratch a liberal, a fascist bleeds".

All to avoid having to do any more than the bare fucking minimum that is voting in this theatre, and getting their pat on the back for being brave antifascists (lmmfao, only in their own minds, of course).

One day, you will be the only one on both rails, while people watch and say they have no choice but to let you die, pretending there isn't an third empty rail.

I really hate you people for spewing your propaganda like that.

1. The "worse" part implies the democrats didn't give Israel everything it ever wanted which is in itself outright propaganda.

2. I don't know why Ukraine is portrayed like Palestine. Where are they getting ethnically cleansed that I missed? Where is this coming from? Show some respect to the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century for the love of god

3. At how many atrocious policies do you say enough? At how many rollbacks from republicans that the democrats do nothing about do you say enough? At how many genocides do you say enough? If the democrats committed a second one? Trump would commit more you say. A third one? Trump would commit more. A fourth? A fifth? At what point do you draw the line?

https://medium.com/@ashwinjitsingh/the-trolly-problem-utilitarianism-vs-deontology-bd624a8e321e

"If one were to take a utilitarian standpoint, the means are justified by the end, which from a utilitarianist perspective, is the maximization of benefit. Hence, for a utilitarianist, whatever option guarantees the outcome of the maximum benefit is what is moral. Therefore, in the trolly case, a follower of classical utilitarianism would say that it is morally permissible to sacrifice 1 to save 5.

The deontological perspective in contrast, advocates for the means justifying the end. This, for a deontologist, the morality of the action should be based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than being based on the consequence. In this light, a follower of deontologism would argue that it is morally impermissible to sacrifice one to save five because making the choice of having to kill someone is inherently wrong."