Idk, he’s sponsoring a genocide. I’m pretty sure that counts as war crimes. To be fair it’s not like any US president in the last half century hasn’t been some kind of war criminal.
I mean now that the other guy is a literal criminal it makes it less likely that the genocide sponsor’s refusal to remove his material support for a historically unpopular genocide will make him lose election to the literal criminal, and that’s true. But like, I just want you to understand what it is that you’re celebrating.
I don’t know a stronger way to say that the bar is in hell, but that phrase is so well worn that it’s lost any punch it ever had.
Edit: typically, the only responses seem to think I’m saying this in support of Trump but like… I’m not. So if you remove that imagined motivation, where’s the lie? There isn’t one, right?
How do you so constantly and completely deflect any and all criticism to the other guy?
I have the answer: because that’s how the two party system works to push you towards defending the genocide guy.
Like, you get that the genocide support has a good chance of making him lose to the somehow-worse-genocide-guy, right? Like why aren’t you mad about that? Why do you constantly have to tell everyone to stop talking about the genocide support? You realise that’s a kind of genocide denial, right?
There are exactly two options here. It’s either the life long politician that’s actually been walking back support of the genocide, or the conman convict that has proudly stated he would be happy to make the shit even worse.
There are exactly two options with voting. I assume you don’t see any others because your entire political imagination has been contracted to voting. I believe I anticipated your answer when I said that the two-party system has done this to your brain.
And “walking back” support of the genocide is one way to say that he hasn’t actually removed any of the material support, and also a way to obscure the fact that the “walking back” has mostly been lip service.
So your focus on winning Biden the election necessitates genocide denial.
Not a denial that the genocide is happening, but a denial of holding the perpetrators accountable.
Idk, he’s sponsoring a genocide. I’m pretty sure that counts as war crimes. To be fair it’s not like any US president in the last half century hasn’t been some kind of war criminal.
I mean now that the other guy is a literal criminal it makes it less likely that the genocide sponsor’s refusal to remove his material support for a historically unpopular genocide will make him lose election to the literal criminal, and that’s true. But like, I just want you to understand what it is that you’re celebrating.
I don’t know a stronger way to say that the bar is in hell, but that phrase is so well worn that it’s lost any punch it ever had.
Edit: typically, the only responses seem to think I’m saying this in support of Trump but like… I’m not. So if you remove that imagined motivation, where’s the lie? There isn’t one, right?
The other guy, the one with 34 felonies, has said he’d help expand the genocide.
How do you miss these things?
How do you so constantly and completely deflect any and all criticism to the other guy?
I have the answer: because that’s how the two party system works to push you towards defending the genocide guy.
Like, you get that the genocide support has a good chance of making him lose to the somehow-worse-genocide-guy, right? Like why aren’t you mad about that? Why do you constantly have to tell everyone to stop talking about the genocide support? You realise that’s a kind of genocide denial, right?
There are exactly two options here. It’s either the life long politician that’s actually been walking back support of the genocide, or the conman convict that has proudly stated he would be happy to make the shit even worse.
Gee, I don’t know…
I’m also not a one issue voter.
There are exactly two options with voting. I assume you don’t see any others because your entire political imagination has been contracted to voting. I believe I anticipated your answer when I said that the two-party system has done this to your brain.
And “walking back” support of the genocide is one way to say that he hasn’t actually removed any of the material support, and also a way to obscure the fact that the “walking back” has mostly been lip service.
Who else is a viable candidate for president this election?
Nobody.
Two questions:
Do you think I am somehow saying people shouldn’t vote for Biden? If so, can you explain where I have said that?
Do you think the fact that Biden is the tactically superior choice means that we should not discuss that he is complicit in genocide?
Yes. Because that is the talking point for everyone that is obsessed with him sending arms to Israel.
See response one.
You’re begging the question.
So your focus on winning Biden the election necessitates genocide denial.
Not a denial that the genocide is happening, but a denial of holding the perpetrators accountable.