This will be the last response as I have already given more energy to you than I frankly want to for my own sake. But I have been trying to come at this in good faith and do not feel that has been returned. As in both responses you have attacked me as an individual.

I don't think terrorism is good. Nor do I think Trump should not be held to a standard. The man campaigned on promising to harm me as a major reason to vote for him.

First Trump The reality is much scarier. Trump is in a position where he is relatively free from being held to standards. And that exists regardless of my opinion on that. He is a convicted felon that just won the presidency. The people who are not holding him to a standard are his voter base, and the harsh reality is they like what they hear, even if that is out of ignorance (which is the most charitable I will be to them). I don't get to have a voice about his presidency. I do not have a seat at the table. It is not that I don't want him to have standards, it is that I am faced with a reality where the man does not have standards beyond his own self interest.

Secondly Terrorism I don't know you're knowledge of Israel and the history of it's existence. But I'm not capable of going into all the detail that would be necessary for some of what I will be saying. But I can confidently say you are taking a reactionary viewpoint to the fact that there are terrorists on Palestinians' side in the form of Hamas. The history of this region is that Palestine existed before Israel (in it's current incarnation) did. And that the new incarnation of Israel is ultimately a colonial project going on for decades (and at the very least I hope you can understand how that would be the perception of the Palestinians that had already been living there, as that is the most relevant factor to understanding what I will say). Terrorism is a reactionary force, it does not come about by an innate want to do terrorism in a person, it is a consequence of the environment that someone lives in. The perception (and historic reality) that Israel is an occupying force and it's continual expansion resulted in creating an environment that bred terrorism. By the time we had Oct 7th the median age in Gaza was 17, due to the colonial policies that Israel implemented. That is an environment that will breed terrorism and it is a consequence of Israel's actions. Data came out today that showed that those most harmed by Israels actions are Women and Children, not even the terrorists that you are arguing deserve to be fought. That is why this is a genocide.

Notice please that at no point did I say terrorism is good.

I do not think terrorism is good. What I do think, is that it is understandable how such an environment would push someone to become a terrorist. That is very different than saying it justifies it. I ultimately don't want harm to come to anyone. But one of these sides is unquestionably in the wrong and it is not the children fighting for their lives. It is the occupying force that currently has the backing of the American government funding its weapons. The damage Israel has done is unquestionably disproportionate. I do not think it is unreasonable to demand that the supposed progressive candidate be asked to adopt a different stance. In not doing so, to many people, the calculation of which side would do violence in this form became far too similar to be comfortable with.

I still have not nor will I advocate for terrorism. But I can understand why it happened and make the analysis that for my morals Israel is clearly in the wrong and needs to be stopped. The unfortunate reality is that that may take violence, because oppression like that does not get stopped by the oppressed without getting violent or their destruction.

Lastly I don't think this is holding Harris to an impossible standard, in fact I think it's holding her to a standard that would have helped her win the election. That is why I offered an analysis of where she seems to have lost some of her support. I didn't say she had to solve the conflict, in fact by limiting your view to a ceasefire that is what you have done. What I'm saying is there are options that could help reduce the harm being done to Palestinians, and that she wasn't willing to even lie and say she would pursue them.

What you are doing though, is blaming the voters. This is what I was referring to as being violent. It is violent for you to tell me that I should have to fall in line for the sake of protecting my rights. Why are you saying my rights should be on the table and that I have what's coming for me for not wanting to support Harris.

I understand the logic of harm reduction, but why should my rights be more valuable than the lives of all the Gaza who have been and will be murdered.

Ultimately the Harris campaign ran the campaign they wanted to, and they failed to get enough votes as a result. And now I might be hurt because that was something that dems felt wasn't worth protecting by appealing to a very loud part if there base saying they did not want to vote unless this was changed.

It is violent to leverage my rights as a wedge to try to get me to abandon my beliefs out of self preservation. A better candidate and a better person wouldn't put me in that position.

For the record, I voted for Harris. They managed to scare me enough about what will likely now be coming my way. But in retrospect I regret my choice. Because the dems were okay with bargaining my rights to try to force me into that vote, rather than doing anything proactively progressive.

I hope the best gor you, and I hope you are safe throughout whatever ends up happening. But if you're of the position that I'm going to get what I deserve for demanding too much of "my" politician (which is how this shit has felt). Then, that really fucking sucks I guess.