Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba
The term you originally used was "moral failure", and if you're not going to use moral failure to describe an agenda defined by devaluing peoples lives to the benefit of a tiny minority, then when would it be appropriate to use that term?
If a leader saw himself as some kind of king who was of a divine bloodline and he chose to spend the wealth of society on over the top indulgences, you could say the same thing. It's not a moral failing - we just differ in our interpretation of the science!
I don't think it's fair to attribute this attitude to all republicans, but that is the sentiment you get from an honest reading of donalds life and it's one that's shared by at least a few republicans at high levels. Of course there's always plausible deniability for all the things trump has done, but you don't have to prove these things beyond a shadow of a doubt to recognize the likely truth of it.
Realistically a lot of his base is white people who are of the same opinion. And the minorities who hate him are seeing it ust as clearly, and that's why his approval rating is in the dumps for basically all non-whites.
Yeah, I'm not sure I even agree with my use of the term moral failing there.
I'll use an example outside the republican/democrat sphere to explain what I meant.
I am absolutely convinced of the arguments against eating meat. My point is that someone who reaches that same conclusion and decides to become a vegetarian doesn't suddenly become a better person even if their actions now lead to less suffering in the world.
There are better and worse answers to most political questions but being on the wrong side of an issue doesn't make someone an irredeemably bad person who is unwilling or incapable of doing good. We all have our own biases and pockets of ignorance.
All the hatred just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.