218
There's No "Progressive Foreign Policy" Without a Reckoning for Dems Who Supported Genocide
(theintercept.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
218 points (91.6% liked)
politics
29219 readers
2145 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You are a narcissist because your arguments are utterly self serving. None of them contribute to the candidate actually getting a different outcome in the election. They serve as an analgesic to cope with the fact that you advocate for strategies that explicitly list the election.
There is no straw man because we're not talking about magical scenarios that didn't happen or anything else other than one specific election that happened in 2024.
Ok. Then it's completely fucking irrelevant and doesn't belong in this conversation because we're not talking about anything other than what it was going to take to get a Democrat elected as president in 2024.
Americans have always always voted at about the rate we saw in 2024. There is no evidence for any widespread voter fraud. Nothing about the voting in 24 was abnormal. I've seen no evidence that anything Russia did was even worth mentioning in 24. I guess if you get all your news from right wing Blue MAGA rags, maybe the narrative is different.
I do however, know one specific country, Israel, which spent HUNDRED OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, in influencing the US election. Who lobbied Congress and the White House directly, to keep them maintaining a pro genocide position, one deeply unpopular with Democrats, and marginally unpopular with Republicans.
This is why I call you a narcissist, because the narcissist will only ever believe themselves, not what the people who do the things actually tell them.
The voters litterally told you what their issue was 11 months before the election. They repeatedly told you the genocide in Gaza was their highest priority. They shut down Columbia campus about it. They organized write in campaign to say they couldn't support a Democratic candidate for office who supported a genocide. They told you what it was going to take to win the election, and you, the narcissist, decided that what your thoughts and comfort were more important.
And as far as inferring your intent, you telling me what you think in these comments. You are telling me what you think is important. I'm not making assumptions, I'm listening to the thing you tell me you think are important and explaining to you that in the context of an election, the things you think are important might not be the most important things required to win an election.
Oh, I thought my opposition to trump was based on concern for the world and the marginalized and underprivileged groups in the US. But if you know me better than I do, then I guess the reason I oppose trump is because I'm a self-serving narcissist? Weird. I would have thought that if that were true, I would have supported trump like all the other self-serving narcissists in America. Hmmm...
If people who decided to boycott the vote over Gaza decided instead to get over themselves and their ideological purism, then trump would have lost and the people in Gaza would be faring substantially better than they are now. You continue to gloss over that fact because you need "an analgesic to cope with the fact that you advocate for strategies" that explicitly gave the election to trump.
I included it for the sake of completeness to address the potential counterarguments that "Not every registered voter who abstained was doing so as a boycott over Gaza." It's basic intellectual honesty, but if that's irrelevant to you then we know what sort of position you're arguing from. So thanks for telling on yourself.
False. 2024 had abysmally poor turn-out relative to registered voters.
Also false. Elon Musk openly ~~admitted to~~ bragged about interfering with election integrity. The 2024 elections were also never audited, unlike 2020, so if there were anomalies (which some have been identified, particularly in blue districts of swing states), they haven't been investigated or officially reported.
Interfering in western nations' elections is standard russian foreign policy. They don't even try to hide it.
That's not where I get my news, but good try.
Oh yeah, no one is denying that here. Go ahead and ask yourself who Israel was spending all that money to get elected? Doesn't exactly help your argument.
Again, you still seem to be telling on yourself.
Do you think I'm the fucking DNC or something? I have my preferences for candidates and policies, but those took a back seat in 2024 to the main effort of preventing a second trump term, which you continue to gloss over as a factor in that election. I'm capable of putting my personal preferences aside for a higher priority like that because, unlike you, I'm not a narcissist.
Nope. I told you that what I thought was important in 2024 was making sure trump didn't get elected. You assumed everything else about my position.
Beyond my opposition to trump, I haven't mentioned my personal opinions because those aren't what matter. If you really want to know, I'm a leftist, but not the kind that unthinkingly follows whatever the puristic campism of your average tankie circlejerk tells you to believe.
I believe in socialist fiscal policy, as well as a legal system based on restorative justice a la Rawls and Sen, and a political system based on direct democracy, regional autonomy, and a constitutional rules-based order to preserve sovereignty while encouraging multilateral cooperation and ensuring respect for human rights. But all that is as good as the paper it's written on. I also recognize the complexities of realpolitik and can subordinate my personal ideology to the pragmatism of a feasible political strategy in favor of incremental progress through gradual change; and at times, harm reduction and damage control. Because nothing is going to become perfect overnight, and everything depends on the changing tides of public sentiment and shifting political tailwinds.
More relevant to this conversation, I think Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank are atrocious, and world leaders need to take a hardline stance against it, but I recognize that that won't be possible under trump.
So there. Now you no longer need to assume more than you actually know.