Where did you defend Trump? You defended him by suggesting that this “ethnic cleansing” plan of his is not a big deal like genocide is and suggested that it might even be a good thing because it will get Democrats to go against Zionism. Which is really fucking sick.
Again this is not to defend Trump. Ethnic cleansing is a tremendous and outrageous crime.
You know it is possible for two (supposedly) opposed politicians to be bad?
If you don’t accept that two opposed politicians can be bad at the same time, you would in turn defend the genocide as good, as Biden and Harris must be the good guys then. I know you don’t, so it would be nice if you give the same respect to me.
I do think so. What I don’t think is that the one you think is worse is actually worse because your argument for their being worse is built upon the idea that ethnic cleansing isn’t fucking horrific and might be a good thing.
When you talk about the good aspects of ethnic cleansing, you’ve already lost the argument.
I never said there to be good aspects of ethnic cleansing and that should be clear with me calling it a tremendous and horrific crime. But i think it cannot be used to defend genocide, as is the consequence of people claiming that things would be better if the same people remained in power that enabled the genocide.
This is not an upside to ethnic cleansing. It is an upside to the loss of the Democrats in November.
Speaking of which, now would be a great time for the Democrats to attack Trumps Gaza ideas and propose an ethical alternative in accordance with international and humanitarian law. They would have to drop Zionism for that though. As the ADL has defended Musks Hitler salute now would also be a great moment as opposing Zionism is overlapping more and more with opposing Fascism in the US.
That is not what you said. You are changing what you said. This is what you said:
Ethnic cleansing is objectively less severe than genocide. The Democrats showed no signs of seriously wanting to end the genocide. Also the destruction that now serves as the basis for the ethnic cleansing was done entirely under Democrat rule, with Democrat support.
This is not the gotcha that people think it is. It is more evidence that the US is a genocidal empire and both parties hold up this empire and commit its crimes together.
Now at least there is a slim chance that the Democrats start acknowledging Zionism as a political liability. Or they will just join in on the crackdown on all the minorities they pretended to care about slightly, but immediately blamed after the election.
That is you saying that now, because of ethnic cleansing, there is an upside, which is that Democrats might start acknowledging that Zionism is a bad thing.
I am not that blind or that stupid believe it or not. I am able to read.
I am sorry that i did not make it more explicit. The last paragraph refers to the election result, as can be seen also in the last sentence, referring specifically to the election.
People are now saying it was wrong to have made the Democrats lose the election because of Trumps horrible Gaza policies. My argument is that the Democrats aren’t better as of yet, but can change now. If they do, they should receive all the support.
Where did you defend Trump? You defended him by suggesting that this “ethnic cleansing” plan of his is not a big deal like genocide is and suggested that it might even be a good thing because it will get Democrats to go against Zionism. Which is really fucking sick.
You know it is possible for two (supposedly) opposed politicians to be bad?
If you don’t accept that two opposed politicians can be bad at the same time, you would in turn defend the genocide as good, as Biden and Harris must be the good guys then. I know you don’t, so it would be nice if you give the same respect to me.
I do think so. What I don’t think is that the one you think is worse is actually worse because your argument for their being worse is built upon the idea that ethnic cleansing isn’t fucking horrific and might be a good thing.
When you talk about the good aspects of ethnic cleansing, you’ve already lost the argument.
I never said there to be good aspects of ethnic cleansing and that should be clear with me calling it a tremendous and horrific crime. But i think it cannot be used to defend genocide, as is the consequence of people claiming that things would be better if the same people remained in power that enabled the genocide.
This you?
Because it has your username attached to it and that is very much saying there’s an upside to it.
This is not an upside to ethnic cleansing. It is an upside to the loss of the Democrats in November.
Speaking of which, now would be a great time for the Democrats to attack Trumps Gaza ideas and propose an ethical alternative in accordance with international and humanitarian law. They would have to drop Zionism for that though. As the ADL has defended Musks Hitler salute now would also be a great moment as opposing Zionism is overlapping more and more with opposing Fascism in the US.
That is not what you said. You are changing what you said. This is what you said:
That is you saying that now, because of ethnic cleansing, there is an upside, which is that Democrats might start acknowledging that Zionism is a bad thing.
I am not that blind or that stupid believe it or not. I am able to read.
I am sorry that i did not make it more explicit. The last paragraph refers to the election result, as can be seen also in the last sentence, referring specifically to the election.
People are now saying it was wrong to have made the Democrats lose the election because of Trumps horrible Gaza policies. My argument is that the Democrats aren’t better as of yet, but can change now. If they do, they should receive all the support.
Bullshit. You’ll find some new cause where the Democrats don’t meet your ideal and keep trying to justify the fact that you’re enabling fascism.