Most were the type you see on lemmy that would rather not vote if there isn’t a perfect candidate on the ballot, even if there was one candidate that they agreed with the majority of items.

Okay, I thought we were discussing something wholly different. I worked in Dearborn and we all had friends who lost relatives as our country refused to stop sending arms. One of my best students completely fell off after losing a lot of her extended family and it was painful to watch.

But you don’t need to have personal experience with someone affected to be outraged. It’s a line some people are unwilling to cross. I am one of them. Downplaying that as they “would rather not vote if there isn’t a perfect candidate on the ballot” is either wholly disingenuous or a complete absence of empathy. A candidate I have “agreed with the majority of items” but disagreed on the morality of supplying weapons used to commit a genocide is one I will not vote for.

If the president is aware that he is sending weapons killing innocents and still signs off to send more, and one of those bombs kills someone I love, would you blame me for not voting for him? If not, why would you blame someone who empathizes with me for making the same decision?

The democrats did not have to support this, and would have won the election if not for this complete moral bankruptcy. Blaming nonvoters is shifting blame from the powerful to the powerless.