r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/AgreeableSea7060 • 6d ago
US Politics At what point does voting based on another country’s interests become a problem in American democracy?
I’ve been thinking about something that feels uncomfortable to even ask.
Americans vote based on all kinds of identities. Religion, race, class, family history, where we grew up, etc.
So obviously someone whose family came from Israel, Cuba, Armenia, India, Palestine, Ukraine, Ireland, or anywhere else may care a lot more about American policy toward that place than I do.
That by itself seems completely normal.
But where is the line?
Suppose an American voter supports a candidate primarily because that candidate will send money, weapons, or political support to a country they feel connected to, even if they believe that policy costs Americans money, increases our risk of war, or otherwise hurts American interests.
Is that just democracy working normally?
Or does citizenship create some expectation that when American interests and the interests of another country genuinely conflict, the American interest should come first?
46
u/Afraid-Detective1222 6d ago
ANY single issue voter is going to be problematic because they will vote against the rest of their best interests over that single issue. I know people who vote R because they are firmly convinced the Ds are coming for our guns, these same people have been hurt badly by various R policies. It's not any different than the people who voted anything but D due to the war in Gaza. In the end, single issue voting is a problem.
31
u/ResplendentShade 6d ago
My mom condemns basically everything Trump does and stands for but votes for him because "the democrats are pro-abortion". Single issue voters are maddening.
17
u/Afraid-Detective1222 6d ago
Yep, and honestly, I don't care what your single issue is, if you are only voting due to 1 issue, you will likely have a bad time. It's the rare single issue voter who isn't also voting against other things they care about or other things that would be good for the country.
1
u/GreasedUPDoggo 1d ago
Eh, at least that issue makes sense. I'm pro abortion, but if someone genuinely believe abortion is murder then it would clearly trump every other issue. Everything else would not matter if I felt a party was allowing thousands of people to legally commit murder.
Of course, I don't consider it murder. But it makes 100% sense and I don't blame the anti-abortion people for considering it far more important than anything else. Heck, I'm actually very grateful to share a country with people who are that much against murder lol
10
u/ChasingSplashes 6d ago
Everyone becomes a single issue voter if the right issue comes into play.
8
u/Afraid-Detective1222 6d ago
To a degree, but, honestly too many people are truly single issue voters and will truly not look at the big picture.
1
u/GreasedUPDoggo 1d ago
Eh, maybe. But half the people who think they know what they are talking about, have no clue.
3
u/che-che-chester 6d ago
I consider myself a single issue voter on social security. I've paid into that program for 35 damn years.
But the question is what do you do when the other party is already bad on SS and then your party becomes bad too? To show my displeasure, do I withhold my vote from Dems and let Trump go after trans people and immigrants, cut social programs, start new forever wars, etc.? That seems pretty dumb because I care about that stuff too.
3
u/Raichu4u 6d ago
because I care about that stuff too.
So... you aren't a single issue voter then.
1
u/che-che-chester 5d ago
So, they you're saying single issue Gaza voters are like "and fuck trans people and immigrants"? They literally care about nothing but Gaza.
-11
u/Kronzypantz 6d ago
I mean, should it be that unreasonable that to expect that the anti-racist, liberal, pro-peace candidate... could oppose a genocide?
I would place the problem in the system at the lap of those who would rather both sides war crimes and human rights abusers rather than voters not hopping on board with an incredibly contradictory candidate.
9
u/HumorAccomplished611 6d ago
I think its fine to oppose genocide. Both kamala and biden opposed anything hurting civilians. Both wanted humanitarian aid and condemnded israel for attacking aid workers.
But these protests groups wanted more. They wanted them to refuse even defensive weapons for israel. Which also isnt gonna fly. The groups moving goal posts as biden or kamala met their previous one also didnt bode well.
-5
u/Kronzypantz 6d ago
Did Kamala and Biden actually oppose anything hurting civilians?
Like, would someone opposing the harm of civilians overrule Congress to give a regime harming civilians 10,000 bombs?
It feels more like these groups just want the bare minimum.
10
u/Raichu4u 6d ago
Did Kamala and Biden actually oppose anything hurting civilians?
Yes, actually. Biden specifically withheld a shipment of 1,800 2,000 pound bombs and 1,700 500 pound bombs in May 2024 over serious concerns about their use against Palestinian civilians in Rafah. He explicitly acknowledged that American bombs had already killed civilians in Gaza.
In July that year, Biden allowed the smaller 500 pound bombs through but continued blocking the 2,000 pound bombs because of their much greater destructive potential in populated areas. Investigations already documented Israel had been using using 2,000 pound bombs in Palestinian neighborhoods, including areas civilians had been told to evacuate to.
Biden kept those bombs blocked for the rest of his presidency. Trump reversed that decision within his first week in office, and Israel received them shortly after. Israel has continued using this type of bomb in Gaza, and the current admin is reportedly preparing another massive shipment of these 2,000 pound bombs as of last month.
1
6d ago edited 6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 6d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
-2
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 6d ago
Did Kamala and Biden actually oppose anything hurting civilians?
Yes, actually. (lie) In July that year, Biden allowed the smaller 500 pound bombs through (statement).
3
u/Raichu4u 6d ago
I am just relaying what the admin said back then. The destructive capabilities of a 500 versus 2,000 pound bomb is magnitudes bigger, we're talking single building versus an entire block here.
Their rationale was that they felt Israel was grossly misusing the bombs against Palestinians, that part isn't really up for debate. You can argue that they should have gone farther, but to say that they absolutely did not care at all for Palestinian citizens being harmed is factually untrue.
7
u/HumorAccomplished611 6d ago
Did Kamala and Biden actually oppose anything hurting civilians?
Yes. They stopped giving them 2000 lb bombs, the ones most associated with civilian casualties.
Like, would someone opposing the harm of civilians overrule Congress to give a regime harming civilians 10,000 bombs?
No sure what youre referencing here. Do you mean when blinken gave them fuses and shells that werent used in gaza?
It feels more like these groups just want the bare minimum.
Hows it going over there now? Is it better off without bidens 2 billion in aid?
-8
u/Kronzypantz 6d ago edited 6d ago
Bout the same really. Not much reason to believe it would be any different.
Edit: are you really unaware that the 2000 lb bomb moratorium only came later, after 10K such bombs were delivered to Israel? Biden only blocked such bombs two years in. https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-shipment-of-heavy-bombs-held-up-by-biden-administration-arrives-in-israel/
6
u/HumorAccomplished611 6d ago edited 6d ago
Ah you talk from such a place of privilege. Interesting how biden got a ceasefire and within one month of trump taking office (that gazans begged you to stop from happening) there was the first ever complete blockade of all aid into gaza.
I'm sure its just a coincidence. Hope gazans could eat your moral purity.
Edit: he added an edit so I will respond here. First his timeline says 2 years. Is he not aware the events took place in 2023 oct and this happened by may 2024. So less than 7 months. 2nd He has no control over bombs delivered already so that makes no sense. That was his way of saying if you use this then youre not getting anymore. No reason to use bunker busters on places that dont need it. Forcing them to ration bombs.
-5
u/Kronzypantz 6d ago
What a ceasefire, in which the IDF still occupies half of Gaza and has kept killing hundreds.
You are the one talking from privilege, ignoring reality on the ground in favor of some odd West Wing fantasy.
2
u/HumorAccomplished611 6d ago edited 6d ago
You are the one talking from privilege, ignoring reality on the ground in favor of some odd West Wing fantasy.
Yawn your privilege is talking.
1 month into your both siding was the first ever COMPLETE BLOCKADE of AID.
You have 0 excuses for both siding 2 years later yet you still do. Take responsibility for the war you started with iran. You were warned.
-1
u/Kronzypantz 6d ago
My excuse is that both sides have been pretty identical.
What is your excuse for whitewashing one side? Its not like Biden will ever be president again, or Harris. Simping for them accomplishes nothing.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 6d ago
even defensive weapons
Explain to me how GBU-31s are defensive weaponry and how they were used to defend Israel against the children of Gaza.
3
u/HumorAccomplished611 5d ago
I said even defensive weapons. Many on the left dont want to supply israel even iron dome missles.
This is a fire and forget missle youre referencing. If someone launches a rocket at israel then you can input the gps coordinates of the missle and launch it and it will hit that spot.
-4
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 5d ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
-1
u/Afraid-Detective1222 6d ago
Which ones are voting to not be killed here in the US? The DSA has made it clear they are OK with dead Jews but not advocating for it. The Republicans have made it clear that they don't really care about anyone but white christians. No party here in the US is advocating for killing a group. Making hyperbolic statements does nothing to move the discussion forward.
4
u/ILikeCommunism97 6d ago
The DSA has made it clear they are OK with dead Jews but not advocating for it.
...where did they make that clear?
0
u/Afraid-Detective1222 6d ago
When DSA candidates make excuses for attacks on Jews in the US, they are making it clear they are fine with those attacks. Yes, El-Sayed made an excuse, yes Kiros hand waved away the attack in Boulder. Both of them made it clear that they don't care if Jews are attacked or die.
3
u/ILikeCommunism97 6d ago
Yes, El-Sayed made an excuse, yes Kiros hand waved away the attack in Boulder. Both of them made it clear that they don't care if Jews are attacked or die.
What did they actually say?
El-Sayed isn't even a DSA member btw.
0
u/Afraid-Detective1222 6d ago
DSA or DSA adjacent, tomato tomahhto.
1
u/ILikeCommunism97 5d ago
So you aren't going to provide the quotes you are so upset about?
DSA or DSA adjacent, tomato tomahhto.
Or put another way, you were just straight up wrong and can't admit it.
-3
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 6d ago
The DSA has made it clear they are OK with dead Jews but not advocating for it.
Really normal comment to make!
5
u/Afraid-Detective1222 6d ago
Sadly accurate, though. Most non leftist Jews I know have a similar feeling about the DSA and DSA aligned candidates. In that they are fine with every antisemitic dog whistle out there and that they make excuses for any violence against Jews in the US.
-4
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 6d ago
have a similar feeling
I'm aware it's completely insane feelings on your part!
10
u/socialistrob 6d ago
I would venture that many people who are voting to support another country also think it's genuinely in America's best interest to do so. A pro Israeli voter might genuinely believe America is safer from terrorism with a strong ally like Israel in the Middle East. A pro Palestinian voter might genuinely believe that the money sent to Israel would do more good in the US and is destabilizing the Middle East. A pro Ukrainian voter might believe that if Russia wins in Ukraine they will be harder to stop and more dangerous later on.
Looking back 1939 and 1940 there were a lot of people who argued that it wasn't in America's best interest to support Britain against the Nazis as this cost money and increased the odds of war. Many people at the time who supported arming Britain thought that it was in America's interest to do so and if Britain lost to the Nazis it would make the world a more dangerous place.
I think there are very few American voters who say "I am voting for a policy that I believe will hurt America and will help another country." I'm not saying that they don't exist just that they are very rare (and I would say problematic). It's also worth remembering that there are probably some people (again not a lot) in other coutries who vote based o America's interest. A person who believes it is in America's interest to support a particular country is just an ordinary person expressing their views.
3
u/Afraid-Detective1222 6d ago
To your last paragraph, MAGA voters have made it clear they would be more than willing to hurt the country as a whole as long as the right people are hurt worse. There is the famous interview during Trump's first term with some woman saying that he's not huritng the right people.
3
u/Calavant 6d ago
They have some weird screwball ideas about most of their policies purging weakness or ripping off bandaids fast rather than slow. Its blatantly wrong, and goddamn insane and stupid on top of being wrong, but they think hurting the "right" people is going to help them and the country. That we, or at least they, will come out on top if they play hardball enough.... if only at the end of the day.
2
u/Afraid-Detective1222 6d ago
Yeah, my mither-in-law is a full on MAGA, we've had some interesting conversations over the years.
9
u/NoDig3444 6d ago
Yes, that is democracy working normally. Voters get to decide what our best interest is.
Really, I wish Americans would pay more attention to foreign policy. We're quite notorious for not giving a shit about what happens beyond our own borders.
8
u/Objective_Aside1858 6d ago
But where is the line?
The line is where the voter chooses it to be
Someone voting a certain way because of certain foreign policy considerations is no different than voting because of schools or immigration or the economy or or or
It is a candidate's responsibility to persuade voters to support them. Some of those voters are going to be unpersuadable for various reasons. You and I may think they're stupid reasons, but they have just as much a right to cast their ballot that anyone else does
0
u/AgreeableSea7060 6d ago
Is it possible that a lot of voters never really test whether a foreign relationship is mutually beneficial in the first place?
We inherit a lot of assumptions about allies, foreign aid, and America’s role in the world. If people have been told for decades that supporting a certain country is “good for America,” how often do they actually look at what we give, what we receive, what risks we take on, and whether that balance has changed?
And doesn’t that connect to the bigger argument over what America’s role in the world should even be?
Should we be actively spreading democracy, protecting allies, and maintaining a large international presence? Or should our involvement be narrower and tied more directly to measurable American interests?
Maybe a lot of this isn’t about people intentionally putting another country first. Maybe it’s about whether they ever stop to reevaluate the relationship at all.3
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 6d ago edited 6d ago
If people have been told for decades that supporting a certain country is “good for America,” how often do they actually look at what we give, what we receive, what risks we take on, and whether that balance has changed?
Based on my own personal experience, very very very few have actually stepped back and tried to look at it from another angle with a fresh perspective and an open mind. Most people uncritically accept the status quo and precedent and don’t really think much beyond it, it’s a pretty bipartisan problem actually.
And doesn’t that connect to the bigger argument over what America’s role in the world should even be? Should we be actively spreading democracy, protecting allies, and maintaining a large international presence? Or should our involvement be narrower and tied more directly to measurable American interests?
Now you’re asking the right questions. The current arrangement is incoherent and untenable for the long term. Either we go full empire or we don’t, but for the love of god just pick a fucking lane.
In an ideal world spreading democracy, protecting allies etc sounds great and it worked pretty well for a few decades, but the world has changed a lot since the Cold War ended. NATO made sense when America was an export powerhouse and we wanted to protect global trade for our own benefit. We’re now a service economy with a gutted industrial base and export very little. Yet we spend the money and other resources to subsidize the defense and trade of Europe who can easily afford to do it on their own. Why? How is this benefitting you or me? I can plainly see how this arrangement benefits the everyday European, but over here I see a declining middle class, offshoring and rising wealth inequality. So whatever gains are coming from the arrangement sure as fuck aren’t coming to you or me. I can see how politicians benefit from it, I can see how the Pentagon, the MIC and multinational corporations benefit, but from here it seems like a lopsided scam for the taxpayers actually funding it. Ostensibly the arrangement is mutual defense, but that papers over the reality that America is basically invasion-proof and no country on Earth could dream of pulling it off. Our sovereignty is at zero risk and no one even really argues otherwise. So any instance where Article 5 is actually needed (and no, the symbolic gesture of NATO activating it for us after 9/11 doesn’t count) inherently means a shit load of Americans are going to have to fight for a continent that purposely shirked its defense for decades while its citizens reaped the benefits, while were also expected to do the heavy lifting. We’re not the world’s fucking babysitter and we shouldn’t be.
Everyone bitches and moans when we do any foreign intervention unless they directly benefit and I’m frankly tired of broad swathes of our allies’ populace hating us while simultaneously they suckle the teat of the American taxpayer. We can maybe keep some bases in East Asia I suppose, but beyond that, stop giving our money to any other country. Stop spending billions every year on housing troops on bases in their territory. It does fuck all for us, the whole “power projection” line doesn’t actually do a single fucking thing to benefit the everyday person and I challenge you in the future to make the same argument I am here just for shits and giggles and you’ll notice no one can ever actually articulate a coherent reason for how the reward outweighs the expense for the everyday American. At best you’ll hear people point to how it enables us to remain the world’s reserve currency, but that’s not a pro to me whatsoever. It has done nothing but fuck the middle class and destroy our industrial base while enabling the government to take on unsustainable debt. It actively incentives foreign capital to dump their money into US assets like investments and housing so while the investors get richer, the actual citizens are priced out of their own market. It makes interest cheaper, but it also keeps global demand for the dollar artificially strong, and as a result American-made exports become relatively expensive on the global market, while foreign imports become extremely cheap, which has lead to the decimation of millions of jobs and entire regions of the country. Chasing every last economic efficiency may lead to more money on paper, but if it corrodes the health of the community and the wealth is concentrated at the top, then who really gives a fuck?
1
u/AgreeableSea7060 6d ago
I think this is where my bigger concern comes in.
It may not even be possible anymore to draw a clean line between “American interests” and international interests. We are too economically, militarily, and politically connected to the rest of the world for that.
But at the same time, I’m not sure our political thinking has really evolved to match that reality.
The world is more interconnected, the consequences are bigger, and we have access to far more information than people did generations ago. But politically we still seem to approach a lot of these questions the same way: pick a side, form an identity around it, and then defend that position even when circumstances change.
So maybe the issue isn’t that Americans care too much about other countries. Maybe it’s that we still think about international relationships in very old ways.
We still talk about allies almost like permanent friendships and rivals almost like permanent enemies, when in reality interests shift constantly.
And if the US is going to play such a large international role, shouldn’t we be reevaluating those relationships constantly too?
Not just asking “are they our ally?” but “what is this relationship doing for both sides right now?”
That also gets into the deeper question of what lane we actually want America to occupy internationally.
Are we supposed to be the defender of democracy? The global police? A military backstop for allies? An economic partner? Or should we be much more selective and only intervene where there is a clear American interest?
Because until we agree on that, people are probably going to have completely different definitions of what “putting America first” even means.1
u/Objective_Aside1858 6d ago
Is it possible that a lot of voters never really test whether a foreign relationship is mutually beneficial in the first place?
Yes. But so what?
If you're asking "do voters consider all things", of course not.
If you want to judge what (dumbass) criteria voters use to make choices, feel free.
But there isn't anything special about this specific dumbass criteria that should be treated differently.
3
u/HoightyToighty 6d ago
Single-issue voters have trouble with complex, unstructured situations. Doesn't matter what their issue is.
However, there doesn't exist a practical solution to the problem of morons with access to the ballot.
0
u/absolutefunkbucket 6d ago
Have you seen any research to back that up? Or is that just, like, your opinion, man?
2
6d ago
[deleted]
1
u/AgreeableSea7060 6d ago
I actually agree with you on that. Even my own voting probably has less to do with finding a candidate who perfectly represents everything I believe and more to do with whatever issue is making me the most uneasy at that moment.
There are plenty of things I care about, but they don’t all carry the same weight every election. If one issue feels like the biggest immediate risk, it can end up overriding disagreements I have with that candidate or party on completely different issues.
So maybe a lot of us aren’t really voting for a political philosophy as much as we’re voting against whatever outcome we’re most worried about at the time.
2
u/MoonlightStarfish 6d ago
Erm, you realize that the largest group of Zionists are Christian Zionists, right? Not Jews. In the US they exceed the global population of Jews in numbers. So it’s not about where someone came from.
0
u/AgreeableSea7060 6d ago
For the purposes of the post, I tried to keep my own judgment out of it as much as possible and avoid making it about any particular group or country.
3
u/Afraid-Detective1222 6d ago
Unfortunately, anyone who pays attention to the rhetoric of various political groups here in the US would be able to tell that this is about Israel. I'm not saying you are wrong to ask the question or to try and make it less charged, but sadly, it was still pretty clear.
1
u/AgreeableSea7060 6d ago
Israel was definitely part of what sparked the thought. I heard something on a podcast that made me start thinking about it, so I’m not going to pretend that wasn’t in the back of my mind.
But the question itself was genuinely broader than Israel.
Part of why I’m curious about it is actually personal. As a Native person, I have a hard time judging what it feels like to have this deep pride and connection to another country or homeland that still exists somewhere else. My own experience is almost the opposite.
There are times I feel culturally lost. There’s a sadness in knowing where part of you comes from while also feeling like there isn’t really a “home” you can return to in the same way other people might think about an ancestral country.
So when someone feels strongly connected to Israel, Ireland, Armenia, Palestine, India, or anywhere else, I’m genuinely interested in how that connection affects the way they think politically here.
That doesn’t mean I think those attachments are automatically wrong. If anything, part of the reason I asked the question is because I don’t fully know what that kind of connection feels like.
Israel may have been the spark, but the larger question is something I was actually trying to understand rather than make a disguised argument about one country.3
u/Afraid-Detective1222 6d ago
So, I'm both Jewish and a Zionist. Zionist in the sense that I believe in Israel existing and that it's very much decolonizing a region my people came from generations ago. That said, while it's in my mind when I choose who to vote for, it's very much not the overriding reason for a choice. It might be the deciding factor if 2 candidates were equal in all other respects, but absolutely won't be the reason I choose 1 or the other if 1 candidate is going to be better for the US than the other one. With the state of politics here in the US these days, 2 candidates being equal in all other respects will really only be at the primary stage, in that the MAGA types have pretty much made it clear that they don't have the best interests of anyone at heart. But I could see a traditional Democrat and a DSA type in a primary, where both are saying damn near the same thing in regards to the policies they want. That's where Israel or something else might be the deciding factor, but again, only all other things being equal. If that makes sense.
In the end, I will say that my problem with most of the DSA types is that they try to hand wave away actual antisemitism and that is a problem for me. I don't care about their stances on Israel, I do care that they make excuses for violence against Jews here in the US. Any politician who makes excuses for violence against one group by another shouldn't be in office. I say the same about MAGA making excuses for violence against the LGBTQ community or other minority groups.
1
u/beltway_lefty 6d ago
In general, I think the line should be where the interests of the US as a whole conflict with any outside interest - regardless of what it is. I also think that has been an unspoken expectation much more so in the past than now. Having said all that, though, determining what, exactly, "the best interests of the US" actually ARE in many situations, gets let's just say, complicated. It is RARELY a blank-and-white issue. For example, is defending democracy and our allies abroad in our best interest, or is avoiding US casualties and war costs in our best interest? Not an easy answer, and not going to be the same answer in every situation - it depends upon the threat, impact of the losses, and time frames and likelihood of any eventual benefits.
I also think US citizens have a dangerous and growing expectation of elected officials/candidates having to match their positions 100% on everything and if they don't it makes them terrible people. That is NOT how this works, or is even supposed to work. I understand there may, from time to time, be moral lines that people cannot in good conscience cross, and I accept that AS LONG AS they ALSO understand the consequences of their resulting action or inaction. I would argue, it's morally worse in the long run more often than not. But that is a question for the philosophers, and those individuals. I just wish people would give more thought and contemplation before jumping into the "single issue voter" category. It scares the shit out of me, and is largely responsible for our current situation, IMHO.
1
u/UnfoldedHeart 6d ago
Are people saying that they're voting against American interests and for some other country's interests, or is this a judgment you're passing on their determination of what their best interests are?
1
u/AgreeableSea7060 5d ago
Neither, really. I was asking whether that conflict can exist and, if it does, how people think about it. The point of the post was the question, not a judgment about anyone’s motives.
-1
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 6d ago
Israel is a gain for us. Their tech + medical breakthroughs + Intel + military tech are invaluable.
1
u/AgreeableSea7060 6d ago
That’s fair, and I’m not really trying to convince anyone here that Israel is good or bad for the US.
What I’ve been trying to do myself is actually look at the relationship from both directions instead of just accepting “they’re an important ally” as the end of the discussion.
There are obvious examples of benefits to the US: intelligence and security cooperation, joint military development, trade, technology, etc. There are also very large and long-standing American commitments to Israel, including billions in annual military assistance.
My question is more whether most of us ever really compare those things.
Is the relationship still mutually beneficial? Has that balance changed over time? Are some of the benefits harder to quantify than the costs? How much of our support comes from current strategic value versus historical habit?
I don’t think those questions automatically lead everyone to the same answer. They just seem worth asking.
For anyone interested, the Congressional Research Service/State Department material on US security assistance and the USTR trade data are useful places to start.1
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 6d ago
The relationship is beyond beneficial. Lol. I'm biased. My wife...who is a Muslim Arab American...is a physician as is her sister, and her sister climbed over mountains to get on a research team in Israel that is/has conducted tye worlds first spinal cord transplant + I served in the US military and am in awe with Israeli tech they share with us. Their medical innovations are worth 10x the loan guarantees we provide them. They've started a "cure" for peanut allergies and develop a therapy that stops cancer from spreading
1
u/AgreeableSea7060 6d ago
That’s where the personal trade-off comes in. We each decide which compromises are worth making for the benefits we think matter more.
1
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 6d ago
What compromise are we making ? It's a win win situation for us. Literally no downside
1
u/AgreeableSea7060 6d ago
If you really want to stretch the analogy, sometimes an alliance can be like being tied to the kid everyone else thinks is an asshole.
Maybe you still get something important out of that friendship. Maybe they protect you, help you out, or you’ve been close for years.
But their behavior can still affect how everyone else sees you because you’re standing next to them.
At that point the question isn’t necessarily “do I abandon my ally?” It’s whether the benefits of the relationship still outweigh the consequences of being associated with things I don’t agree with.2
-2
u/Sea-Chain7394 6d ago
Well usually Americans don't get to vote on these sort of specifics and both parties have been fairly consistent on foreign policy with Trump being at variance on some specific issues. Also there aren't likely to be so many of these individuals from another nation that they drown out the vote and voice (if it were ever consulted) of the 150mil or so other US voters
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.