Fair point, but calling the situation grotesque still implies that we're right and they're wrong, even if they're "wrong" because of a misunderstanding.

Though some situations are cut-and-dry, with numbers to back them up, a lot of political issues are more nuanced. There are factors that can be difficult to comprehend the consequences of, and I for one can't claim to know enough about how every aspect of government and politics work to be certain I have the best stance possible. We work with the information we're given, but that information can be corrupted no matter what side you're on.

Certainly politicians who work for their donors are circumventing democracy, which is hard to argue for, but the idea that politicians do so is based on the assumption that they get donations to work for companies rather than companies donate because that politician's philosophies happen to align with their interests.

We're not mind readers. We don't know the whole story. We think we're right, and we should take action to move forward with what we believe is right, but that shouldn't give us permission to dismiss the other opinion outright which all too often happens.

You may have heard of the moral dilemma where pushing one heavy man in front of a train will save the hundreds of passengers. If you break down the thought process to "I will push this fat man in front of a train" then it sounds repulsive. But when you consider the lives saved your position would hopefully be altered a bit.

There are a lot of people commenting without asking why. Speculation is a fine starting point, but we should be better about going deeper before making a verdict.