Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) shares his message to voters in the Uncommitted Movement who are considering not voting in the presidential race over the Biden administration's handling of Israel.
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.
The idea was one excuse buried in several paragraphs about multiple subjects. The Leahy law prohibits selling weapons to governments that we know are committing war crimes. Pretending that Netanyahu isn’t committing war crimes and vaguely announcing that you support an investigation because that’s the only way you can proceed is slow-walking compliance with a law that centrists don’t want to follow and have no intention of ever following.
Frankly, I doubt you will accept any explanation that involves anything that might curtail weapons sales to Netanyahu before his genocide is complete and it’s too little, too late.
Okay, the law says we need to know it’s a genocide. That means Harris needs proof that it’s a genocide. And the proof needs to be compelling enough to stop the MAGA SCOTUS from meddling. Therefore, investigation. Seems to drag like Harris is doing the right thing. You explained the law in a way that matches what drag heard.
That means Harris needs proof that it’s a genocide.
The standard for the Leahy law is that the nation in question has to be credibly implicated in a serious abuse of human rights. The idea that any proof needs to be acceptable to genocide-happy MAGA is just an excuse to continue selling weapons. Any investigation would determine if we should resume arms sales, not a slow walk to delay ceasing arms sales.
Seems to drag like Harris is doing the right thing.
Seems to me like anything that keeps the genocide going is considered by you to be the right thing.
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.
The idea was one excuse buried in several paragraphs about multiple subjects. The Leahy law prohibits selling weapons to governments that we know are committing war crimes. Pretending that Netanyahu isn’t committing war crimes and vaguely announcing that you support an investigation because that’s the only way you can proceed is slow-walking compliance with a law that centrists don’t want to follow and have no intention of ever following.
Frankly, I doubt you will accept any explanation that involves anything that might curtail weapons sales to Netanyahu before his genocide is complete and it’s too little, too late.
Okay, the law says we need to know it’s a genocide. That means Harris needs proof that it’s a genocide. And the proof needs to be compelling enough to stop the MAGA SCOTUS from meddling. Therefore, investigation. Seems to drag like Harris is doing the right thing. You explained the law in a way that matches what drag heard.
The standard for the Leahy law is that the nation in question has to be credibly implicated in a serious abuse of human rights. The idea that any proof needs to be acceptable to genocide-happy MAGA is just an excuse to continue selling weapons. Any investigation would determine if we should resume arms sales, not a slow walk to delay ceasing arms sales.
Seems to me like anything that keeps the genocide going is considered by you to be the right thing.
You’re making an ethical argument, and drag already 100% agrees with you ethically. If you want to disagree with drag, try making a legal argument.
I doubt that.
I did. You ignored it more than once. It’s why I doubt your agreement with my ethical argument.