Your analogy is completely absurd though, it’s more like voting for cake and getting bread - and then being so pissed off about the bread that you let bread guy get voted out in favor of toilet guy.
Let me make sure I’ve got that right. In this analogy, a candidate supporting genocide is a perfectly fine option, and people who have a problem with him are comparable to picky eaters?
Irrelevant. Answer the question please: is supporting the genocide of Palestinians comparable to “bread” in this analogy? Do you consider the genocide of Palestinians to be a perfectly acceptable outcome? Do you think people who aren’t satisfied with a candidate who supports genocide are comparable to picky eaters?
I support the phoenix wright roleplay, but I think you’d find more success in just saying something like “this is kind of a glib analogy when the outcome is still genocide, don’t you think?”, or something along those lines, rather than asking like, a series of questions asking whether or not they find genocide to be an acceptable outcome. One of those will come off as bad faith, and put the defendant on the back foot, the other will get them to open up and possibly admit fault, or potentially come off much poorer to a jury, were they still to choose to object.
This is what I’ve been saying: Don’t vote and expect cake. Vote and expect bread at best. Lower your expectations and treat it like paying your taxes and you’ll feel better about it.
If they don’t want to condone genocide I suggest they just never vote. And also leave the country. Because this is a country built on genocide, and that will ignore genocide if its in their economic or geopolitical interest.
America sucks. Stop thinking it doesn’t and that you have any control and you’ll be less frustrated.
Exactly. When I was 18-25 bernie learned this. We didn’t like Hillary so we got trump.
Removed by mod
Your analogy is completely absurd though, it’s more like voting for cake and getting bread - and then being so pissed off about the bread that you let bread guy get voted out in favor of toilet guy.
Hold it!
Let me make sure I’ve got that right. In this analogy, a candidate supporting genocide is a perfectly fine option, and people who have a problem with him are comparable to picky eaters?
Trump would probably be just fine with nuking Palestine so consider that when you think about what’s the shit and what’s the bread.
Irrelevant. Answer the question please: is supporting the genocide of Palestinians comparable to “bread” in this analogy? Do you consider the genocide of Palestinians to be a perfectly acceptable outcome? Do you think people who aren’t satisfied with a candidate who supports genocide are comparable to picky eaters?
I support the phoenix wright roleplay, but I think you’d find more success in just saying something like “this is kind of a glib analogy when the outcome is still genocide, don’t you think?”, or something along those lines, rather than asking like, a series of questions asking whether or not they find genocide to be an acceptable outcome. One of those will come off as bad faith, and put the defendant on the back foot, the other will get them to open up and possibly admit fault, or potentially come off much poorer to a jury, were they still to choose to object.
I wanted to apply maximum pressure, because they already said everything I needed to prove my point
fuck i need to play this series already
This is what I’ve been saying: Don’t vote and expect cake. Vote and expect bread at best. Lower your expectations and treat it like paying your taxes and you’ll feel better about it.
Removed by mod
If they don’t want to condone genocide I suggest they just never vote. And also leave the country. Because this is a country built on genocide, and that will ignore genocide if its in their economic or geopolitical interest.
America sucks. Stop thinking it doesn’t and that you have any control and you’ll be less frustrated.