I don’t understand. You are quoting two different posts, then concluding that two different people with different viewpoints represents a “double standard”… That is also an idiotic take.

With that said, OPs comment asking what the DNC could have done isn’t contradictory or hypocritical if you put it alongside my viewpoint. It simply illustrates that you will never make every voter happy on every plank of your platform. We are all different people with different goals. Democracy is about compromise and understanding that the only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. Certain non-voters attitude became “because neither side aligns with my very specific interest, I’m just not voting! That’ll show the Dems that they can’t win unless they support [insert political viewpoint here].”. To go back to my elephant analogy, it’s like those people saying “I’m going to starve because i can’t eat the elephant in one bite!”

So for some people, their line in the sand is a humanitarian Gaza policy, which will likely require a strong military presence to enforce ceasefires and aid deployment. For others it’s a distaste for overseas military actions, and any intent to increase American involvement in the middle east. One side is pissed off and won’t vote if it looks like you are abandoning Palestinians. The other side is pissed off if you suggest increasing military operations in the region, even if it’s to deescalate Israeli aggression. You can’t please both.

So voters from both of these camps chose to sit on their vote because they couldn’t get what they wanted… In exchange they helped someone that is likely destructive to both camps’ larger interests, as well as their specific interests discussed above, get elected. That is their right and choice. Just like it’s my right and choice to call them out for supporting fascism through inaction.

Looking at it that way, I’m not sure how you could say our viewpoints are contradictory.