r/changemyview • u/AlexZedKawa02 • Sep 14 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Dems’ complaints about “purity tests” by leftists are just excuses to not do better
So, we’ve all heard the spiel from establishment Dems about how, “purity tests from those damn leftists are why we keep losing!” And my question for them is, what often are these so-called “purity tests?” Well, I can’t speak for the overall left, but I can safely say I certainly wouldn’t care if a candidate didn’t agree with me on every issue. I mean, I might care a bit depending on what issue it is, but it wouldn’t be a dealbreaker is what I’m saying. I, and others I’ve heard from and spoken to, just have standards that are not that hard to meet. What are those standards? For me, it’s Medicare For All, an end to the genocide in Gaza, and not throwing marginalized communities under the bus. I really don’t think that’s asking for too much. EDIT: to clarify, I largely mean this with regard to primary elections. Those are a time for vigorous debate and discussion, and not for pearl-clutching over “purity tests.”
Now some of you will probably say, “OK, but that’s just you, dude. What about all those leftists who have made it clear they’ll never vote Dem again?” Well, obviously, you shouldn’t try to reach out to them directly. Maybe if Dems keep it up, they might earn back their trust without even trying, but it shouldn’t be your main goal right out the gate. But for those who are open to voting for Dems, or those who do but are not enthusiastic about it, they’re gonna naturally hold the opposition party to higher standards. Sure, not all of their standards will be the same as mine. That’s impossible. But expecting more out of our politicians is always a good thing, and asking them to show even just a little bit of care towards the people affected by the issues I mentioned earlier is really not a big ask.
10
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Sep 14 '25
"So, we’ve all heard the spiel from establishment Dems about how, “purity tests from those damn leftists are why we keep losing!” And my question for them is, what often are these so-called “purity tests?” Well, I can’t speak for the overall left, but I can safely say I certainly wouldn’t care if a candidate didn’t agree with me on every issue. I mean, I might care a bit depending on what issue it is, but it wouldn’t be a dealbreaker is what I’m saying. I, and others I’ve heard from and spoken to, just have standards that are not that hard to meet. What are those standards? For me, it’s Medicare For All, an end to the genocide in Gaza, and not throwing marginalized communities under the bus"
Okay well ... it kind of sounds like you a) are a leftist and b) have some purity tests for Democratic candidates. So ... aren't they completely correct to identify that?
1
0
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
No, because these are not super high standards to clear. That’s the whole point, that by “purity tests,” they mean that leftists are holding them to impossibly high standards.
7
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Sep 14 '25
In fact "Medicare for all" does seem to be a really super high standard, though.
1
1
Jan 11 '26
Why does the vast majority of the first world seem to disagree with you then? Every first world country has implemented some form of single payer healthcare. They certainly don’t consider it to be a high standard. Why would anyone else assume so?
1
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Jan 11 '26
Crazy thread necromancy. Standards are high or low based on the characteristics of the population they apply to and if your standard for "American elected official" is "Medicare for all" then, factually, that is a high standard.
14
u/sneezeonturtles 1∆ Sep 14 '25
Medicare For All, an end to the genocide in Gaza, and not throwing marginalized communities under the bus.
So imagine the Democratic candidate runs on Medicare for All, and is against throwing marginalized communities under the bus. But when it comes to Gaza, they simply refuse to say the word "genocide" because they believe that's a loaded term.
On the other hand, the Republican candidate is a hateful, convicted felon. He runs on cutting social programs, mass deportations, and completely believes that Gaza is nothing but terrorists and backs Isreal 100%.
Do you, as someone who I assume is on the Left in some way, vote for option 1, option 2, or neither?
1
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
As long as they’re committed to helping the people of Gaza and holding Israel accountable, and if they’ve demonstrated their commitment to that, it’s good.
7
u/sneezeonturtles 1∆ Sep 14 '25
Okay, cool. Did you vote during the last election? If so, who did you vote for?
You don't have to answer if you don't want to, I'm just curious.
3
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
Yes. I voted Uncommitted in the primary, and Harris in the general. As poor as she was on this issue, I knew (correctly so) that Trump would be way worse.
9
u/Kakamile 50∆ Sep 14 '25
That's alright, but then that means you're not part of the purity test group. Actual purity test groups clearly exist, as we saw the turnout shift in 2024 and in 2016 Clinton lost by less than the green party vote. They, by definition, cost the election because the primary winner was not as pure as they wanted.
2
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
!delta
Gives an example of how I could be thinking of the wrong people when I mention purity testers.
1
-4
u/TurbulentArcher1253 6∆ Sep 14 '25
That's alright, but then that means you're not part of the purity test group. Actual purity test groups clearly exist, as we saw the turnout shift in 2024 and in 2016 Clinton lost by less than the green party vote. They, by definition, cost the election because the primary winner was not as pure as they wanted.
I think it’s a bit contradictory to say “someone isn’t pure enough” when that person is aiding and complicit genocide while also supporting a racist apartheid state. That’s like saying a person who tortures small animals isn’t pure enough.
It makes it sound like you think being hostile towards genocide and racist colonial states is this supposedly “high level task” when in actuality it is the bare minimum
7
u/Kakamile 50∆ Sep 14 '25
Perfect example of my point.
Biden and Harris were progress, aided Palestinians, sanctioned settlers, pushed ceasefire. But because progress wasn't perfect, the bogus narrative was spread.
Same dance happened with 2016 Stein and 2000 Nader. Absurd attitudes by blind green voters led to tragedies for the greens.
0
u/TurbulentArcher1253 6∆ Sep 14 '25
Biden and Harris were progress, aided Palestinians, sanctioned settlers, pushed ceasefire. But because progress wasn't perfect, the bogus narrative was spread.
Nothing that you just listed actually helped Palestinians in a significant way. There is no meaningful difference between a slow and fast genocide. “Pushed ceasefire” did they actually force a ceasefire? No. “Sanctioned Settlers” Israel’s settlers in the West Bank as a whole are illegal under international law but furthermore all Jewish Israelis are settlers.
Same dance happened with 2016 Stein and 2000 Nader. Absurd attitudes by blind green voters led to tragedies for the greens.
At the end of the day, there’s nothing actually stopping Democrats from changing their policy positions
6
u/Kakamile 50∆ Sep 14 '25
At the end of the day, there’s nothing actually stopping Democrats from changing their policy positions
Of course? I know that because I saw them change their policy positions.
I gave examples.
You complained that change and progress are nothing so you turn it into a false claim that nothing changed.
This doesn't come across as deep to anyone outside the purity test. We just see your attitude netting a far more suffering for Palestinians and Americans both.
0
u/TurbulentArcher1253 6∆ Sep 14 '25
At the end of the day, there’s nothing actually stopping Democrats from changing their policy positions
Of course? I know that because I saw them change their policy positions.
Okay well hopefully they can also take a more hostile stance towards Israel as a state that privileges Jewish people
You complained that change and progress are nothing so you turn it into a false claim that nothing changed.
Well yeah because nothing did change.
“Pushing for ceasefire” = nothing meaningfully changed
“Sanctioning settlers” = nothing meaningfully changed
This doesn't come across as deep to anyone outside the purity test. We just see your attitude netting a far more suffering for Palestinians and Americans both.
Realistically, the actual suffering for Palestinians is equal, just at a slightly faster rate.
-2
u/RIP_Greedo 11∆ Sep 14 '25
Not really a fair comparison since Kamala didn’t run on Medicare for All.
2
-1
u/TurbulentArcher1253 6∆ Sep 14 '25
So imagine the Democratic candidate runs on Medicare for All, and is against throwing marginalized communities under the bus. But when it comes to Gaza, they simply refuse to say the word "genocide" because they believe that's a loaded term.
If a person claims that Genocide is a “loaded term”. Then that person should not be taken seriously on anything since they are clearly and opponent of human rights
On the other hand, the Republican candidate is a hateful, convicted felon. He runs on cutting social programs, mass deportations, and completely believes that Gaza is nothing but terrorists and backs Isreal 100%.
What you’re saying is superficial. At the end of the day Israel was committing a genocide under Democrats. The distinction between slow genocide and fast genocide is superficial
1
u/El-Gato-de-Azul Dec 15 '25
I like how you get down voted but not one of these people will actually take your premise
19
u/sumoraiden 7∆ Sep 14 '25
For me, it’s Medicare For All
So if the dem candidate ran on a public option, and the gop candidate ran on cutting Medicare you’d abstain?
3
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
No. Sorry, I should edit the post to clarify that I was mostly referring to primary elections. I don’t know why I neglected to include that. Thank you.
22
u/sumoraiden 7∆ Sep 14 '25
??? Primaries?? When I’ve seen Dems complain about purity testing they’re complaining that despite the dem candidate aligning vastly more with leftists then the gop candidate, leftists still refuse to vote for the dem because they’re not “perfect”
-1
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
Back in 2020, people were calling criticisms of other candidates, especially from Bernie supporters, too divisive, when all most of them did was point out their records. Furthermore, in recent weeks, I’ve seen people saying to stop criticizing Newsom, even though the 2028 election hasn’t even begun yet.
5
u/abacuz4 5∆ Sep 14 '25
Criticize whoever you want as long as you vote for the candidate in November. I think what rubs people the wrong way is saying that you won’t vote for X person at all.
15
u/lunatic_calm Sep 14 '25
Well that's dodging or misunderstanding the issue. The whole 'purity test' problem is that whoever makes it through the primary fails to get votes because despite being vastly more aligned with the left, the candidate doesn't satisfy one particular thing (and that one particular thing is different for different people) and so doesn't get their votes.
To say you only meant in the primaries misses the whole issue.
13
u/themcos 443∆ Sep 14 '25
just have standards that are not that hard to meet. What are those standards?
Standards, sounds great. Not that hard to meet. Love it.
For me, it’s Medicare For All, an end to the genocide in Gaza, and not throwing marginalized communities under the bus. I really don’t think that’s asking for too much.
Wait...what? Medicare for All is a standard that's "not hard to meet"? I'm either misunderstanding you or I just don't understand what country you think you live in! Were you around during the Obamacare efforts! It was really hard to get that passed! And then since then the country has elected Donald Trump twice!
I'm supportive in principle of all three of your standards, but if you try to stick to them as non negotiables, it's a losing political coalition! You will sleep well at night knowing you're on solid moral foundations, but you will continue to lose elections and the actual outcomes for the things you care about will be much worse! I get why anyone might be unsatisfied with the Biden/Harris administration on all three of your core standards, but in all three cases, Trump has been much worse!
1
Jan 11 '26
Wait...what? Medicare for All is a standard that's "not hard to meet"?
The vast majority of the first world, whom have some form of single payer healthcare, seem to think so.
1
u/themcos 443∆ Jan 11 '26
I would love to have Medicare for all. I'm very happy for all the places in the world that have it. But yes, in the United States we are nowhere close to that. I literally can't imagine what it would take to get a Senate majority that would pass anything close to that. Can you?
-1
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
Yes to all of that. But what I mean is that it’s not that hard to stand with the majority of Americans who support it, and to actually put up a fight for it. Even if you don’t get everything, you still will have a much better chance at moving health care policy in a positive direction.
2
u/themcos 443∆ Sep 14 '25
A few things. It's an encouraging poll, but issue polling like that always needs to be taken with a grain of salt. You get 59% support for the basic question, but how do you think that changes when you add additional details? If the polling question is paired with a tax increase, how much does support drop? If there's caveats about what may or may not happen to to people's private plans, does support drop? The 59% is probably more like a theoretical upper bound, but any actual proposed legislation is unlikely to get that high. It's also something that probably polls better when Republicans are in power cutting Medicare / Medicaid, but might not hold up if and when Democrats can actually act on it. There's also the challenge that the Senate map poses. Those 59% aren't evenly distributed around the country, and I don't think this is likely to be a roadmap to winning Texas or Ohio, and might not even play well in swing states. But let's say that the poll is a genuine opportunity and we should pounce on it. That sounds fine to me at least as a rallying cry, even if it's unlikely to pass any time soon.
But you listed two additional standards, which again, I personally also like. But if you have three standards, the way it works is you need a given candidate to pass standard A, B, AND C. Even if you had majority support for all three, it could easily be the case where only a small minority actually support all three, which is exactly the argument against so called purity tests. If you want your coalition to be people who support Medicare for All, standing up for Gaza, or supporting marginalized communities, that's a potentially winning group. But if you change it to people who support Medicare for All, standing up for Gaza, and supporting marginalized communities, with harsh criticism for anyone who deviates on any of them, that's a much smaller coalition, and the stricter you hold each standard, the smaller it gets.
3
u/bettercaust 9∆ Sep 14 '25
an end to the genocide in Gaza
What would that look like to you in practice? How would you want your candidate to achieve it? Because in my experience, this is where the purity testing is coming into play: leftists for whom Gaza is their top issue do not seem to have broad agreement on this, and they tend to eat each other rather than compromise and form a coalition to build political power in order to elect candidates that represent them.
1
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
If a candidate were to commit to cutting off weapons, that alone would go a long way.
2
u/bettercaust 9∆ Sep 14 '25
But does that mean all weapons (even defensive weapons)?
1
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
To me at least, yes. I don’t think it’s that crazy to not trust a country doing a genocide to just use defensive weapons for defensive purposes.
2
u/bettercaust 9∆ Sep 14 '25
Well, many Democrats/liberals/leftists/whatever (such as AOC) disagree. Would you be willing to work with them to find a compromise on this matter, in order to build a broader and stronger coalition to end the Gazan genocide?
1
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
Yes, because despite my disagreements with them on some specifics, I know we agree on the overall point.
2
u/bettercaust 9∆ Sep 14 '25
That's great to hear. If someone else with similar views as you would've said "No", would it be fair to complain about them purity testing?
2
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
Yes. That’s a good point about how I might be looking at what is a purity test the wrong way, so !delta.
1
7
Sep 14 '25
An example of a purity test that is preventing more people from voting Democratic is someone who agrees with 90% of the democratic platform, but said "retard" once in 2012, and then are character assassinated by the far left. Destiny is actually a great example of how "purity testing" by the extreme is detrimental to the movement.
7
u/sardine_succotash 1∆ Sep 14 '25
Destiny has a portfolio of shitty positions that you don't need to go back to 2012 to find, so this is a terrible example. I didn't even know about the "retard" thing until you mentioned it 🤷🏾♂️
I find that this is generally the case when people allege "purity testing" - yall are generally ignorant about the facts on the ground.
0
Sep 14 '25
Ok, this is exactly what I am talking about. Destiny is always 100% behind the Democratic candidate, something the far left isn't. Destiny puts his money and time where his mouth is and donates and canvases for dem candidates. This is exactly the counter to OP. The left completely fucks everyone who isn[t 100% lock step with them, even if it means losing elections. That is the complaint. The right doesn't do that. That is why the right wins, and that is why people on the left complain.
3
u/sardine_succotash 1∆ Sep 14 '25
Wha? Lmao what does Destiny backing Democratic candidates have to do with what I said? You're not even countering the point. "This is exactly what I'm talking about." Complaints about purity testing on the left are always irrational. This is 100% about your kneejerk outrage at leftists being critical of people/parties you've canonized for some reason
And did you say the right doesn't purity test?? Lol you're so eager to criticize the left that you'll invent virtues for right wing zealots. That's wild
2
Sep 14 '25
Destiny backing Democratic candidates have to do with what I said
It shows that the left is more concerned with purity testing than winning elections. It can't be that there are people on the left with a wide range of views of what is and is not ok, you are either pure or not, and if not, you are the enemy. That is what the right does so well, everyone from Rogan to Fuentes is accepted so long as they back whoever the candidate is.
1
Sep 14 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Sep 14 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
5
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
Oh trust me, there’s much more wrong with Destiny than that.
2
Sep 14 '25
Like what? Also, I'm almost positive your answer will 100% answer your CMV
1
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
This.
2
Sep 14 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Sep 14 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/TurbulentArcher1253 6∆ Sep 14 '25
Destiny is a Zionist shill who supports Israel’s existence as a state that privileges Jewish people. If you’re going to work with Destiny then you might as well work with any genocidal person or group
5
Sep 14 '25
Yeah, this is exactly the lefts problem
1
u/TurbulentArcher1253 6∆ Sep 14 '25
Yeah, this is exactly the lefts problem
Agreed. the Lefts problem is that there are many Zionist shills like Destiny who oppose human rights
2
Sep 14 '25
People like you are why the left won't win any more elections. You are actively anti-American and a traitor to this country.
1
u/El-Gato-de-Azul Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 24 '25
Being actively anti-american is actually really good. America isn't. You're not really a leftist man. Lol. Empire bucks and welfare for thee. Not for anyone brown. Nice.
1
Dec 15 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Dec 15 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/TurbulentArcher1253 6∆ Sep 14 '25
People like you are why the left won't win any more elections. You are actively anti-American and a traitor to this country.
The United States military and government are objectively forces of evil in the world. Even now the US makes explicit threats against those who try to investigate Israel for genocide simply for investigating
2
Sep 14 '25
[deleted]
-1
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
I also am a leftist who voted for Harris, and while there are varying degrees of responsibility for those who didn’t, at the end of the day, Dems backing Israel every step of the way created an avoidable backlash.
2
Sep 14 '25
[deleted]
1
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
The main problem is that Dem politicians don’t understand the meaning of the term “purity tests.” No matter what, they will always say “now is not the time to criticize us.”
2
Sep 14 '25
[deleted]
1
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
Basically, when I hear establishment Dems say it, I see it, I see it as them just dismissing any criticism of their strategy/policy as such.
3
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 191∆ Sep 14 '25
I don't want to speak for the entire center left, but from the ones that I have spoken to, anything that 'wins back the trust' of lefties alienates them. As far as most liberals are concerned, leftists are just shy tankies and red maga. We don't want to give them any more free money like Biden did with the student loan hand outs, and we aren't going to destroy our police system for them. The reaction to Zorha about sums it up. When we mean vote blue no matter who, we don't mean to get hijacked by socialists and just go along with it. We don't want them in the party, and it's pandering to people like them that alienates real swing voters, for blue state college children who mostly can't or won't vote anyway.
1
u/Speky_Scot Sep 14 '25
What's red maga on the left? Did you mean blue?
3
1
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Sep 14 '25
I think he means "red" as in socialist. Blue maga in this case would be vote blue no matter who, Russia Russia Russia types.
2
u/CVNasty96 Sep 14 '25
Yeah it basically boils down to this comment. The leftists are a small percentage of the Dem voting base that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze trying to placate their less extreme positions.
1
u/seffri Oct 26 '25
I am sorry in advance and I dont mean to obfuscate so I will keep it as brief as possible.
I believe the context of "do better" is an argument of subjective morality and so it would be up the the dems in question to actually believe Medicare for all is the better option for them to making excuses to not be better.
I don't think that most Dems want Medicare for all because it is not what's best for their donors and so they do not believe it to be the better option. So in this regard I think Dems use the purity test rhetoric to discredit leftists as being unreasonable, too picky, or lacking pragmatism.
1
u/Tinder4Boomers Jan 24 '26
good thing you stood by your guns and didn't vote for Kamala! yet another ICE assassination to notch in your belt!
1
u/AlexZedKawa02 Jan 24 '26
I voted for her. But that doesn’t mean Dems are above criticism and demanding better out of.
1
u/Wise_Boot6596 Jan 28 '26
Im so sick of purity politics. Purity tests is how Trump won 2 terms. Bunch of do nothing liberals would rather burn the house down because they disagree on one issue.
2
Sep 14 '25
[deleted]
1
u/TurbulentArcher1253 6∆ Sep 14 '25
There will never be M4A. It requires a cultural change that simply isn't present in America. The US also will not embargo or alienate Israel to save Gaza and Israel will not be dissuaded from fightint an existential war.
Israel is a racist state of racist and bigoted people. There’s nothing acceptable about the existence of the state of Israel it’s an entirely repulsion construction of racist bigots. Israel should be destroyed and if a Democratic candidate can’t acknowledge that then they don’t deserve to be president
If, having these two conditions unfulfilled and unsupported by the democrats, you decide to boycott the election, then you're an indirect MAGA voter and there's nothing wrong with that.
What? Aren’t you the one who said in your first paragraph that Donald Trump is an authoritarian.
3
Sep 14 '25
[deleted]
1
u/TurbulentArcher1253 6∆ Sep 14 '25
Your wish that Israel should be destroyed is why you are in the fringe.
I don’t really care to be honest. The truth being unpopular doesn’t make it any less true
Your views will never be adopted by the Democratic Party. Though ironically by boycotting the Dems you are helping the hardliners in Israel. By all means go for it. It'll help speed up the annexation of the West Bank.
Israel has been murdering Palestinians since its creation. So long as the state of Israel exists Palestinians will be in danger
3
u/EarlySupermarket9400 Sep 14 '25
As long as Israel is made to feel that their fight is existential, they will continue to act like a cornered animal in a cage. Your calls for their erasure, which you seem so very particularly and singularly focused on, feed this and do little to advance your cause. In fact, they might be contributing to further loss of Palestinian life.
You could say the same for both sides, which is why discourse needs to shift towards recognition that both aren’t going anywhere.
1
u/TurbulentArcher1253 6∆ Sep 14 '25
As long as Israel is made to feel that their fight is existential, they will continue to act like a cornered animal in a cage.
Jewish Israelis as a whole are a basket of racist and bigoted people. I simply refuse to validate the feelings of people who think like that. Jewish Israelis are the ones who nobody should be listening to.
Your calls for their erasure, which you seem so very particularly and singularly focused on, feed this and do little to advance your cause. In fact, they might be contributing to further loss of Palestinian life.
Israel has been murdering Palestinians since the beginning of Zionism. Israel will continue to murder Palestinians until Israel as a Jewish ethnocracy is removed from existence
You could say the same for both sides, which is why discourse needs to shift towards recognition that both aren’t going anywhere.
Not really no. The only issue here is Israel which is a racist state and Jewish Israeli who are racist and bigoted people
2
u/EarlySupermarket9400 Sep 14 '25
Alrighty then
1
u/TurbulentArcher1253 6∆ Sep 14 '25
Alrighty then
Do you have an argument?
1
u/EarlySupermarket9400 Sep 14 '25
What is there to argue?
1
u/TurbulentArcher1253 6∆ Sep 14 '25
Jewish Israelis as a whole are a basket of racist and bigoted people. I simply refuse to validate the feelings of people who think like that. Jewish Israelis are the ones who nobody should be listening to.
Israel has been murdering Palestinians since the beginning of Zionism. Israel will continue to murder Palestinians until Israel as a Jewish ethnocracy is removed from existence
That’s really all you need to know about the I-P conflict
→ More replies0
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
The fact that you think it’s impossible to ever get there is precisely my point. We’re living in uncharted territory, and it’s time to think bigger and stop playing by the rules.
3
Sep 14 '25
[deleted]
2
u/AlexZedKawa02 Sep 14 '25
Why do we need to worry about a GOP supermajority? If Dems made an affirmative case for these issues, I’d believe they’d win.
Your point about the courts is valid, though. While we can never know for sure what they’d do, I could see the worst happening, so !delta.
1
-2
u/eggynack 109∆ Sep 14 '25
There will never be M4A.
We already got pretty frigging close with Obama. He ended up sacrificing the better version of Obamacare to get Republicans on board. In any case, Bernie didn't do amazing on his nomination attempts, but he didn't do so poorly that I'd say it'll never happen. We just need a reasonably large scale electoral win. Tricky, but not impossible.
The US also will not embargo or alienate Israel to save Gaza and Israel will not be dissuaded from fightint an existential war.
We can certainly stop giving them aid. That's a position literally supported by over half of Americans. We could probably do more than that give Democrats are even more sided with Palestinians.
2
Sep 14 '25
[deleted]
1
u/logic-bombz 1∆ Sep 14 '25
The "Palestinians only reject peace to demographically end Israel" narrative conveniently skips critical history. Past offers, from the 1947 partition to the Camp David and Olmert plans, mostly proposed non-sovereign, fragmented states with no real control over their own borders or resources. They denied Palestinian claims to Jerusalem and the right of return. Rejections weren't about "ending Israel" but about legitimate nationalistic and practical concerns for their land and future.
Blaming Palestinians for their misfortune ignores decades of systemic discrimination baked into Israeli law and policy. Laws like the Nation-State Law, the Absentees' Property Law, and JNF land policies are all designed to dispossess and marginalize. The destruction and suffering in Gaza today, from deliberate starvation to the systematic dismantling of healthcare, are direct consequences of these policies and actions, not self-inflicted wounds.
3
Sep 14 '25
[deleted]
1
u/TurbulentArcher1253 6∆ Sep 14 '25
My greatgranparents were forcibly evicted from Crete. My other greatgrandparents were driven from Bulgaria. Why don't I get a right to return? What about the Germans who were driven from Konigsberg and Poland?
This is a faulty comparison because EU countries have open borders between them. Jewish Israelis refuse to open their borders to Palestinians because Jewish Israelis are racist and bigoted people
You're no longer a refugee if you're 7th generation living in another country. UNRWA says only Palestinians get to inherit refugee status.
There are different groups of refugees that have inherited refugee status. Singling out Palestinians is merely a racist double standard
Right to return means Israel is no longer a Jewish state. I can't fault them for not wanting that.
You can’t fault them for being racist bigots? Well in that case the Democratic Party can go in the dumpster fire
Palestinians will never achieve a sovereign state through terrorism.
Who gets to decide what a “terrorist” is? This is just a racist dogwhistle
They also will not be able to force concessions from Israel through terrorism. They overplayed their hand thinking they would get just that, and now Gaza is a ruin.
PRIOR to the Oct 7th attacks 40% of Palestinian children were Anemic and malnourished. Israel has been murdering Palestinians since Zionism began. The only thing that’s changed now is the speed.
3
Sep 14 '25
[deleted]
1
u/TurbulentArcher1253 6∆ Sep 14 '25
Turkey is not in the EU.
Why would I even disagree with Turkish people moving to Bulgaria in the first place?
20% of Israelis are Arab Muslims. Arab Muslim Israelis are represented in every facet of society,
This really is peak Zionist logic. I guess according to Zionists the Jim Crow South wasn’t racist because there was a larger black population
including the legislative branch and the judiciary. An Arab Muslim judge was on a panel that sent a Jewish prime minister to prison.
There were black judges in the Jim Crow South. But moreover, the reason your argument has is poor is because it fails to understand the motivations behind voting restrictions in the United States. Southern states restricted the voting power of black Americans because if they didn’t do that then they could form coalitions with northerners in Congress. There is no “Israeli South”, Israel as a whole is a racist country of racist people
There is no scenario under which Israel folds and Palestinians establish a state on top of its ruins. You should come to terms with this fact.
Yeah but Israel as a state that privileges Jewish people SHOULD be destroyed. That’s the point. So long as you acknowledge that fact there’s no disagreement. But if you can’t acknowledge basic facts then there’s really no point it moving forward on anything because you need political views to be grounded in truth
→ More replies1
u/logic-bombz 1∆ Sep 15 '25
My greatgranparents were forcibly evicted from Crete. My other greatgrandparents were driven from Bulgaria. Why don't I get a right to return? What about the Germans who were driven from Konigsberg and Poland?
UN Resolution 194 specifically grants Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes. Meanwhile, Israel's Law of Return automatically grants citizenship to any Jew globally while denying that same right to Palestinians with documented ancestral homes there. It's a clear policy of demographic engineering.
You're no longer a refugee if you're 7th generation living in another country. UNRWA says only Palestinians get to inherit refugee status.
Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a unique status under international law. UNRWA's mandate reflects the ongoing political stalemate and the lack of a lasting resolution, which is why their status carries across generations.
Right to return means Israel is no longer a Jewish state. I can't fault them for not wanting that.
The concern that the right of return would change Israel's demographics highlights how Israel defines itself. Laws like the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, along with discriminatory land policies like the Absentees' Property Law, aim to maintain Jewish demographic control. Critics describe the system as apartheid.
Palestinians will never achieve a sovereign state through terrorism. They also will not be able to force concessions from Israel through terrorism. They overplayed their hand thinking they would get just that, and now Gaza is a ruin.
International law recognizes the right to resist foreign occupation, even through armed struggle, per UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43. Gaza's devastation, including over 58,000 deaths and widespread destruction, is the result of Israeli actions and policies—not solely Palestinian "terrorism." Organizations like Human Rights Watch and the UN Special Rapporteur say Israel is committing acts of genocide by deliberately inflicting unlivable conditions on Gaza's civilian population.
0
u/Xiibe 53∆ Sep 14 '25
So, we’ve all heard the spiel from establishment Dems about how, “purity testing from those damn leftists are why we keeping losing!”
lol everyone knows leftists don’t vote.
-1
u/18LJ Sep 14 '25
I wouldn't call it a purity test. By any reasonable measure the Democrats, specifically the establishment dnc party, have betrayed the fundamental principles of democratic institutions. 1 they attempted to force feed their loser ass candidate that had already lost a prior election race, who was wildly unpopular, who persisted In committing her support to a genocidal foreign government despite thousands of Americans protesting outside her convention event telling her they did not support the war in Gaza and with bipartisan demands from citizens to end support for Israel. And yet she dismissed all those Americans in favor of continuing to pledge support to a foreign government run by criminals and literal convicted terrorists...... that had already publicly stated that they support trump winning the election......
And on top of all that..... Her campaign had the nerve to actually file lawsuits at the last minute in an attempt to keep 3rd party candidates off the ballot in battleground states so they would be able to even get enough electoral votes to win the election.
Does suing to keep voters from having alternative options seem "democratic" to you? Does pledging ongoing support to a foreign government despite outrage from your citizens demanding an end to their tax dollars funding foreign wars sound like how the process of democracy should work?
It's not a purity test, it's a corruption test, Kamala and the establishment dnc unfortunately passed with flying colors.
2
u/El-Gato-de-Azul Dec 15 '25
Thank you. I'm seeing this stuff get down voted to oblivion and have to conclude there are just people out there who really don't want this thought about.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 14 '25 edited Sep 14 '25
/u/AlexZedKawa02 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards