this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
1181 points (95.0% liked)

Political Memes

5487 readers
2420 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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] -3 points 4 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?