• tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Given that neither her nor the council have anything to do with policy in Gaza and that both are going to be making statements purely to aim to appeal to chunks of the electorate, does it make sense to condition your vote on that?

    If you were choosing a dentist, would you use their stated positions on the Levant to do so?

    • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m not a San Francisco resident, so I don’t get a vote, I just have lots of connections to the region. She didn’t have to denounce the city council’s resolution against the genocide, she chose to, and that felt like a gut punch to me at the time. As for the relevance of it all, it was a non-binding (obviously) resolution taking a moral stand on an issue directly impacting hundreds if not thousands of residents in a pretty small city, so it matters.

      I take your point, but if I asked my dentist if they thought it was okay to indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of children because they were born on the wrong side of a border, and they said yes? I’d absolutely find a different doctor.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Now I’m imagining a binding resolution on Gaza lol

        Representatives of the City of San Francisco being legally required to go try to negotiate a cease fire, per city mandate