• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I’m not the one constantly loading every phrase with all the virtuous condemnation diarrhea because I can actually engage with arguments without attacking the character of the author.

    Attack the idea-not the people.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      43 months ago

      Attack the idea-not the people.

      That would have been a LOT easier to take seriously if it hadn’t been appended to a comment consisting entirely of baseless personal attacks 😂

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        13 months ago

        Also, at no point did I fucking defend Biden. I just called out your stupid analogy about Cuba. Seems like you just had all the insults ready to deploy and were never interested in the argument.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          43 months ago

          Saying that the awful things he does by choice is actually necessary things that he doesn’t like doing and would stop if he could IS defending him.

          As is repeatedly trying to deflect to a completely different topic.

          Let me bend it in neon for you one last time:

          My analogy was NOT about Cuba. It was about the fact that presidents have the power to change longstanding foreign policy, contrary to what the person I was replying to was implying.

          Secondarily (that means later and less importantly), it was a comparison of one president who sometimes had the guts to go against tradition and the will of rich and powerful pressure groups and one who doesn’t.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            13 months ago

            Saying that the awful things he does by choice is actually necessary things that he doesn’t like doing and would stop if he could

            Thank goodness it wasn’t my argument.

            the fact that presidents have the power to change longstanding foreign policy

            correct. And my response was…? Let me restate it because maybe it wasn’t clear:

            What a president can do and what a president ought to do in changing policy are two different things and bringing up the fact that change was able to occur in a place with low stakes (cuba: very low stakes) is not equivalent to the policy change that needs to occur in Israel (very high stakes). It’s not apples to apples, is it?