Having read their comment, probably “because every Democrat didn’t 100% say “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine”, then now all Democrats are evil and should never be supported.”
That’s them observing progressives disagree with a party stance then refuse to vote for the party over that single issue. The extrapolation is that progressives are more likely to become single issue voters, therefore more difficult to cater to, therefore maybe not worth the effort from the party’s perspective.
Help me understand your comment. Are you suggesting if we voiced disagreement with more than one issue with Democratic politicians then the claim that we “will never be happy anyway” would be unfounded?
No, I saw you ask why RamenJunkie would believe that progressives are single issue voters (as in “will not vote for a candidate because of one issue”) when, in their previous comment, they had already pointed to the support of Israel as an example of progressives not voting for a candidate over one issue. I found it annoying that you either ignored or missed that and asked a question for information sitting in front of you, so I copy and pasted a key piece of that information to hopefully get you considering how the arguments contained in one comment you responded to might relate to your question for a later one. It seems I may have failed at that.
Personally, I don’t know that truly single issue voters exist. I think there’s a lot of frustration with the complacency of the Democrat party and supporting genocide is just the straw that broke the camel’s back for a lot of people.
But my view was not the motivation for my comment, just my frustration with circular questioning.
Because you will never be happy anyway. May as well shift right and try to push towards the perfect Nqzi candidates like MAGA.
How do you know?
Having read their comment, probably “because every Democrat didn’t 100% say “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine”, then now all Democrats are evil and should never be supported.”
That’s them observing progressives disagree with a party stance then refuse to vote for the party over that single issue. The extrapolation is that progressives are more likely to become single issue voters, therefore more difficult to cater to, therefore maybe not worth the effort from the party’s perspective.
Help me understand your comment. Are you suggesting if we voiced disagreement with more than one issue with Democratic politicians then the claim that we “will never be happy anyway” would be unfounded?
No, I saw you ask why RamenJunkie would believe that progressives are single issue voters (as in “will not vote for a candidate because of one issue”) when, in their previous comment, they had already pointed to the support of Israel as an example of progressives not voting for a candidate over one issue. I found it annoying that you either ignored or missed that and asked a question for information sitting in front of you, so I copy and pasted a key piece of that information to hopefully get you considering how the arguments contained in one comment you responded to might relate to your question for a later one. It seems I may have failed at that.
Personally, I don’t know that truly single issue voters exist. I think there’s a lot of frustration with the complacency of the Democrat party and supporting genocide is just the straw that broke the camel’s back for a lot of people.
But my view was not the motivation for my comment, just my frustration with circular questioning.
Then your reading comprehension is trash. I asked him how he knows we “will never be happy anyway”.
My whole comment is 11 words and you couldn’t bother to read it correctly.