Drag isn’t supporting genocide. Drag is picking Harris and her plan to end the genocide over Trump’s genocide, and over apathetic complicity. Drag is picking the option with the greatest chance of preventing the most genocide. On the other hand, liberals will pay taxes into the president’s war chest and do nothing to prevent Trump from taking that war chest and using their money for genocide. That’s complicity.
An investigation isn’t a plan. It’s a delaying tactic. We can’t shovel weapons out the door fast enough for an obvious genocide, but if we want to condition sales, well, as in all things centrists don’t want to do, wouldn’t you know it? Our hands are conveniently tied and we have to go through this whole self-imposed process.
The genocide will be complete before any bogus “investigation” is over, and that’s the idea.
According to this comment, the law requires an investigation, so yes, an investigation is a plan. If you want to say the law is delaying the ceasefire, sure. But Harris didn’t write that law. Harris is following the laws she needs to follow in order to stop the genocide.
No, drag didn’t understand. Your critique was one short sentence. The idea it’s supposed to be refuting was several paragraphs. Drag doesn’t know what point you were trying to make because you rushed it and used multiple ambiguous pronouns. Explain it properly.
Drag isn’t supporting genocide. Drag is picking Harris and her plan to end the genocide over Trump’s genocide, and over apathetic complicity. Drag is picking the option with the greatest chance of preventing the most genocide. On the other hand, liberals will pay taxes into the president’s war chest and do nothing to prevent Trump from taking that war chest and using their money for genocide. That’s complicity.
I voted for Harris. I harbor no illusions that she has any plan to end the genocide. Show me this plan if it isn’t fiction.
https://fedia.io/m/politics@lemmy.world/t/1360068/-/comment/7923370
An investigation isn’t a plan. It’s a delaying tactic. We can’t shovel weapons out the door fast enough for an obvious genocide, but if we want to condition sales, well, as in all things centrists don’t want to do, wouldn’t you know it? Our hands are conveniently tied and we have to go through this whole self-imposed process.
The genocide will be complete before any bogus “investigation” is over, and that’s the idea.
According to this comment, the law requires an investigation, so yes, an investigation is a plan. If you want to say the law is delaying the ceasefire, sure. But Harris didn’t write that law. Harris is following the laws she needs to follow in order to stop the genocide.
And since it says the genocide gets to continue, you uncritically accept the comment’s interpretation of the law.
The Leahy law is a thing, but that’s discretionary because it gets in the way of genocide.
If you’d like to present a critique of the interpretation, drag will listen. What drag will not do is be complicit in any way in genocide.
I already did, and you did not listen.
No, drag didn’t understand. Your critique was one short sentence. The idea it’s supposed to be refuting was several paragraphs. Drag doesn’t know what point you were trying to make because you rushed it and used multiple ambiguous pronouns. Explain it properly.