• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    9
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Strawman much? Or are you arguing with voices I can’t hear?

    Edit: Y’know what? I’m curious. How do you envision her coming out against Israel going? Let’s hear your version of how things would go, because I can’t hear these arguments as anything other than “I support Trump.”

    So please, enlighten me as to how this would go down without Trump being elected and making the situation worse.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      12 days ago

      Do you think you’re on The West Wing or something? You’ll have your curiosity sated when you learn to step out of the Blue MAGA bubble and engage with reality.

        • @aubeynarf
          link
          17 hours ago

          It is. The Biden administration does not have a policy to, nor are they, committing genocide. No one is arguing that they should.

          That clearly fits the definition:

          an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          No, of course not, it’s just saying their argument is something that it isn’t. I swear there is a term for that.

          To be fair, I get it. Because I can’t hear your arguments as anything other than “I support genocide”.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 days ago

            Stating what I take the arguments as, is absolutely not a strawman. At no point did I say “you are stating that you want Trump to win, why would you say that?”

            If you need me to define strawman arguments, I can. But it might be better if you just googled it instead.

            Of course you could always shove your head deeper in that hole if you like. Perhaps going “lalalalala” while doing so.