Hacker News Reader

Comment by tapland | Hacker News Reader

Might want to go back and check on the Dems. It bad > it's the ones I don't vote for is easy to say.

Senate Democrats have made at least 5 attempts to stop this. Every Democrat voted in favor except Fetterman. Every republican opposed the attempt except Ron Paul.

The Republicans are entirely responsible for the war in Iran - they started it and have opposed every attempt to reign the administration in. Don't play this "both sides" game when one side is clearly causing the issue here.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-defeats-democ...

I mean. The side voting while knowing they can't stop it that way, the definition of optics, thought this was worth it to not cater to their anti-war voters, no?

Both side bad yeah, you seem to think the solution is still to cling to the lesser of two evils. Hell, dem presidential candidates were praising Trumps Iran policy up until the bombs started falling. There is no evidence they _actually_ care about a war with Iran outside of, just as you do, saying OH this is THEIR doing.

yea, I don't see any evidence that either the democratic party or democratic voters support the war on iran, secretly or not

sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

No-one supports the war now. But Palestine just had to go? It can't be about _war_ or loss of life, and the people caring can get f-ed we don't need your votes.

But sure one side is extremely against anything like this but unfortunately only get to demonstrate it when in opposition and unable to do anything.

Right, so your argument is that democrats are performative which is just as bad as the republicans actively starting wars?

Is there a more steelmanned version of this that I can ignore once you start making more false equivalencies in its defense?

The difference might be there in regards to Iran, with it's global market impact. But it's not there in regards to human life or suffering. That was made _very_ clear during the electoral campaign. But now it's _very different_ because it's "them" doing it and we can say we were always against this.

We have to say "us good, them bad" because we're voting the same way next time, and we're not planning to vote for something bad, right?

> But it's not there in regards to human life or suffering. That was made _very_ clear during the electoral campaign.

I don’t know what to say but to call this retarded at best or evil at worst.

Trump ran on a platform that included purposefully harming people. He continues with it. Look at his response to Mueller’s death for instance.

Inb4 you mention something about a genocide in Guzah, and ignore how Trump is backing everything Netanyahu wants done in the region compared to the democrats attempts at holding him back.

Would you mind rephrasing this post? It's not clear what you're saying in any of it.

Maybe if you tried writing genuinely without sarcasm (I think there is sarcasm there, hard to tell), it would be more comprehensible?

Look, I would love to reply to this but you don't even articulate a coherent position here.

It seems like you trying to claim that the democrats actively opposing and trying to stop the war are somehow just as culpable as the republicans who are actively supporting the war just because the democrats don't have enough power to actually stop it? I want to be generous in my interpretation here, but I can't make heads or tails of your statement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com