Yes, yes there is. Omfg. Honestly look at this and tell me there isn't.
If there are 3 candidates.
Candidate A wants to spend 100 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate B wants to spend 1 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate C wants no spending.
It's obvious candidate A is much worse, 100x worse actually. Now if candidate A and B are very close in who will win, while candidate C has 0 chance how can you best help people. Voting for candidate C does nothing. They won't get elected. But voting for candidate B prevents as much death as you are able. By voting for C you are one less vote against A. So if A wins, you've not prevented that in any way and have enabled 100x more death than B. If you want to stop death you need to look at the situation and see how you can have impact. Being overly idealistic can end up hurting you, like voting for C and changing nothing when you had a chance to save lives.
There have been no limits on us support to israel so far. They have gotten all they asked for. How could trump possibly give them more? Even if he did, they won't need it, it won't change anything.
Can you show some example of where we have limited israel in anyway? Why wouldnt that continue under Kamala? She won't say she'd do different, in fact she said Israel has a right to defend itself on a national talk show.
I'm not and have never in this post debated about who will fund what. They made a moral stance that "There is no better or worse in actively arming and participating in a genocide." My point was to show how flawed that stance is. Which people still seem to disagree with. It seems like to most people giving $10 to Israel or $10 Billion is the same thing and causes the same amount of harm. Nothing but rigid morals that end up hurting more people in the long run.
Your hypothetical is false, though, the Dems and Reps have been working together to support genocide. The GOP isn't going to go harder on it than the DNC already have been, because they can't.
He said on Oct. 11 that a future Trump administration would “fully support Israel defeating, dismantling, and permanently destroying the terrorist group Hamas,” while telling the Republican Jewish Coalition later that month that Hamas fighters “will burn forever in the eternal pit of hell." That month, his campaign also said that, if elected again, he would bar Gaza residents from entering the U.S. as part of an expanded travel ban.
Former President Donald Trump said that Israel needs to “finish what they started” and “get it over with fast,” as he continued arguing Israel was “losing the PR war”
“You’ve got to get it over with, and you have to get back to normalcy. And I’m not sure that I’m loving the way they’re doing it, because you’ve got to have victory. You have to have a victory, and it’s taking a long time,” Trump said in an interview with The Hugh Hewitt Show that aired Thursday.
Trump defended comments he made recently in an interview with Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom, in which he said Israel needed to “finish up” its war with Hamas
Yah, and Biden isn't running for president. A lot of people, like Trump, seem to forget that. You asked, he showed then you just answered with what-aboutism.
It's not a hypothetical, it's an example. The statement was made "There is no better or worse in actively arming and participating in a genocide." I showed that's not true.
The answer to a question doesn't matter because it doesn't fit your agenda. I get it.
A statement was made, in general, not about these candidates. A moral stance. I showed the fallacy of that stance. We're not talking about what's happening right now, I'm talking about how that moral stance isn't valid.
You seem to want to make that discussion around moral stances something it isn't and are upset that it proves a point. Can you at least admit that moral stance is invalid?
Nope, not at all. You're ignoring the points being made to attack me directly and make wild claims. Never have I said genocide is ok or should be defended. Never did I say what either side is doing is ok, I actually called it bad if you would read what I wrote. I'm just realistic enough to see that rigid ideals hurt more people than help.
Can you at least admit that the moral stance of "There is no better or worse in actively arming and participating in a genocide" is invalid? Or do you think sending $10 is the same as sending $10 billion?
No, see you're missing the point to be contrarian and cause more friction because you don't like what I'm saying.
A general moral stance was claimed. Ok, got that? Nothing about DNC or GOP, a moral stance. About what is morally right. I disagreed with that moral stance about morals. Not about the DNC or GOP. So, I expressed why that's not a valid moral stance or worldview. That moral stance could be applied to any country. You keep trying to inject things about the DNC and GOP to push your agenda. Why is beyond me.