> Half the country effectively voted in favor of torture.
> Such people rarely change their beliefs.
You honestly believe that 50% of the country rarely change their beliefs? That we are actually divided into the "rational good people" and the "religiously fevered bad people"?
Most people that voted for "the other side" did so because they thought it would be better for their jobs, better for their taxes, voted the same as the rest of their family, were misinformed, or a million other reasons that has nothing to do with them being unshakable ideologues incapable of being convinced otherwise in the next election and not deserving of your contact. The fact that you view half the population of this country that way is quite frightening.
I say they are lacking empathy. If you support a consequence for someone who burgles your house, by the same token you should support a consequence for someone who supports torture. Obviously (unless you're lacking empathy) your job or taxes are lower priority than taking a stance against torture.
Projecting much? You aren't showing much empathy to anyone that doesn't share your political views. The CIA under Bush tortured folks, and the CIA under Obama killed American citizens with drones.
That's the old "if you're intolerant against intolerance, you're intolerant yourself" argument. A good person is against all forms of evil, and can't be made "bad" that way.
I don't have a problem with people being killed by drones, American citizens or no, when that's the best viable way to prevent greater violence.
No I don't. It's "good" to support the best viable way to prevent greater violence, even if that way involves violence. These things are clear: torture is rarely the best viable way, and it's been used unnecessarily.
Spoken like someone who's always had the privilege of never being unemployed. I love it when people talk down to people that can't make ends meat and explain to them from an ivory tower how their concerns and family don't matter as much.
I believe the suggestion was more along the lines that plenty of people who voted for the "evil torture party AKA:GOP" were not actually knowingly voting to support torture, but instead voting for the candidate that espoused economic policies beneficial, or at least, the least detrimental to their own personal interests.
It's hypocritical to blame one side for torture, when the other side instead just started doing assassinations via drone. If you truly believe anyone who voted Republican supported torture, you must admit anyone who voted Democrat supports assassinations.
Full Disclosure: I've voted Libertarian in every presidential election since I've been eligible to vote. I see hypocrisy and political spin on ALL sides of the discussion.
Voters have an ethical responsibility to gauge the goodness of the viable choices. It was clear in 2000 and 2004 what the best choice was.
It isn't hypocritical to be for drone assassinations where that's the best viable way to prevent greater violence.
> If you truly believe anyone who voted Republican supported torture, you must admit anyone who voted Democrat supports assassinations.
No, I've said many times here that whoever votes for the lesser evil is blameless for the things that party does that they disagree with. Voting for the lesser evil gives you line-item support, because you made the best possible choice. You can't be made "bad" when you couldn't have done more to support good.
