Other countries are not the scope of the US vote. Especially now more than ever.
Conflating internal problems with external ones is just missing the point. Can’t have it both ways. Either the US dictates world policy and you accept that with that will come chaos to other nations, possibly without their consent. Or the US stays completely out of world policy, and you accept that with that will come chaos to other nations, possibly without their consent.
This is the weird take. The decision to arm and support Israel is not "world policy," it is US foreign policy. Calling on a change of US foreign policy to avoid causing harm and to stay out of other countries affairs is not "dictating world policy" it is the complete opposite of that. I would be perfectly fine with the US staying out of world policy, although you've also set up a false dichotomy here, it is possible to have a foreign policy that's somewhere in between "complete isolation" and "arming and funding genocide."
To say "other countries are not the scope of the US vote" is utterly bizarre. Obviously US voters can, should, and do consider US foreign policy when casting votes. It's also relevant to domestic policy because so much of our tax money is being wasted on the military rather than being used to address actual problems.
Now, your own country is in jeopardy, and with that comes jeopardy to all the people in your nation and many other nations. Not just trans rights. Everyone’s rights. Everyone’s lives.
RIP: critical thinking.
Everyone's rights would be in jeopardy either way. The only question is whether we allow the ruling class to divide us and turn against each other, like crabs in a bucket trying to screw each other over for our own advantage, or whether we attempt to forge a united front. If we betray each other, our defeat is completely inevitable, and all we're doing is buying our in-group a little time. To stay united means a willingness to pass on some fleeting offer of short-term security for some of us, but in exchange we have an actual fighting chance in the long term.
You think I'm not thinking critically only because you aren't aware of the factors that I'm basing my analysis on. The immediate, direct outcome is not the only thing that matters. What we are now seeing, only a few years later, is the beginning of a massive shift towards more progressive, more antizionist politics.
The conventional wisdom was always that if you run centrists who are essentially Republicans but like 10% less bad, then you'll pick up the centrists and the left with fall in line behind the lesser evil, and so there is no reason to ever run progressives from the perspective of winning elections. If everyone followed your logic, then that's where we would still be. But Harris's loss is just one more point of data, together with the wave of progressives like Mamdani, that proves that theory false.
However, if you think I'm being unreasonable, I don't mind. A "reasonable" person (by your standards) would fall in line behind whatever garbage candidate was placed in front of them. To win in an electorate with enough "unreasonable" people means that you have to start caving to their demands.