• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    3 months ago

    you can point out their hypocrisy, it doesn’t matter.

    It matters quite a bit when you’re talking about Presidential politics wrt an ongoing genocide.

    Jill’s condemned Putin, which is what everyone wanted her to do. But we’re not sending Putin our highest end military equipment for the purpose of killing Ukrainians now are we?

    Meanwhile, Hasan is bending over backwards to shield Biden and Netanyahu from accusations of a genocide we are facilitating.

    And that’s his point. He’s trying to get Jill to shut up about Gaza, because it’s the rock Kamala is poised to trip over in November. If she loses the Muslim vote in swing states, she’s cooked.

    Hasan needs Jill to recant her position on Israel in order to turn that protest vote against her. And you’re playing into that delusion, because you’re terrified she might actually manage to draw a Muslim protest vote in sufficient quantities to cost Democrats the election.

    That’s the only reason anyone on her gives a shit about the Green Party.

    • GratefullyGodless@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Im confused as to why this comment is on this post, since this post concerns not a single thing you put in your comment. Commenting screeds like this in posts completely unrelated to what you’re going on about just gets you down voted and ignored, so nobody will see your comments, or take them seriously when they are actually relevant to the post you’re commenting upon.

    • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I read that, he starts his question asking if she thinks Netanyahu is a war criminal by saying that he believes he is. You are lying. He did not defend Netanyahu, he did ask why she thought he was one, but that wasn’t in a rhetorical sense, like he was denying it, but he wanted to know why she could say "is a war criminal " with no caveat on one, but not the other. He starts by calling him a war criminal in that interview.