Reducing care for marginalized communities to a single hypothetical vote misunderstands how political engagement works. The premise here is that political morality is measured exclusively at the voting booth, while also claiming it proves he exploits marginalized people for profit. We all know that Hasan has spent years directing money, attention, and platform power toward those communities.
If the standard for "caring about marginalized people" is unconditional support for whichever major party candidate is on the ballot, then you're redefining care in a way that conveniently excludes any form of political action outside party loyalty.