I’m no fan of Kamala, but vague gesturing towards stopping nuclear armament (it even says in that picture “diplomatic solution still preferable”) is different from a full mask-off declaration that they’re going to commit warcrimes.
There’s a difference between known liar Trump, who contradicts himself from one sentence to the next, and Kamala, who is a bog-standard politician. This is just a hypothetical of course, but I think it’d be incredibly likely that Kamala would have continued economically suppressing Iran via sanctions, maybe some half-hearted attempts at another nuclear deal, but would have had advisors presenting what military aggression would mean for the region (including the economic damage of them blocking the strait) to prevent her from pushing this far. She’d likely be another Biden: not directly assisting Israel in aggression, but too cowardly to call them out in any meaningful way.
Anyone with a functioning brain could see Trump was talking out of his ass on this topic, especially when project 2025 explicitly talks about waging a regime change war on Iran and assisting Israel in bombing Iran.
She’d likely be another Biden: not directly assisting Israel in aggression, but too cowardly to call them out in any meaningful way.
Again, there’s a difference between complicity via silence, and complicity via an active bombing campaign. Neither is good by any stretch of the imagination, but the latter is clearly worse than the former.
I don’t understand your point. Both of them have a massive track record of lying. But the one thing Trump did actually have was a record of not starting any wars in his previous presidency.
Both of them are in the pocket of AIPAC but Kamala was signalling that if Iran didn’t agree to a “diplomatic solution” then she would start a war. Which is literally what Trump did was well. He told Iran to give up the nukes. Iran said no. Then he bombed Iran.
The Biden administration actively structured it’s weapon shipments in such a way that they wouldn’t trigger Congressional oversight, they actively ran with the “Hamas 40 beheaded babies” blood libel, they actively condemned anti genocide protestors, they actively sent special forces to build that pier they used for a hospital massacre, they are are as actively complicit as it is possible to be.
I think it’d be incredibly likely that Kamala would have continued economically suppressing Iran via sanctions, maybe some half-hearted attempts at another nuclear deal, but would have had advisors presenting what military aggression would mean for the region
So she would continue to unjustifiably oppress the Iranian people, but in a way such that the US wouldn’t have to face the consequences!
They’re not the moderator that removed it, we can still see your low effort bait in the mod log, and the comments were removed for violating rule 2. You can be more respectful and engage in points (explain why someone is, in your opinion, wrong, rather than insult them with no real argument)
And look who she was specifically speaking to and when. She was specifically campaigning to Jewish voters. She’d probably say anything to get their vote.
While the dnc is an atrocity, their members aren’t wrong for calling this a genocide.
It’s relative. It’s not exactly a reasonable, balanced position, but it’s more reasonable than the alternative which is clear and unambiguous war crimes, and possibly meets the criteria for genocide.
On Iran, Project 2025 advocates a markedly more confrontational stance, denigrating diplomacy and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in favor of barely veiled advocacy for regime change.
I’m no fan of Kamala, but vague gesturing towards stopping nuclear armament (it even says in that picture “diplomatic solution still preferable”) is different from a full mask-off declaration that they’re going to commit warcrimes.
Well have I got great news for you: Trump said he wouldn’t start any wars before the election and not bomb Iran at all!
There’s a difference between known liar Trump, who contradicts himself from one sentence to the next, and Kamala, who is a bog-standard politician. This is just a hypothetical of course, but I think it’d be incredibly likely that Kamala would have continued economically suppressing Iran via sanctions, maybe some half-hearted attempts at another nuclear deal, but would have had advisors presenting what military aggression would mean for the region (including the economic damage of them blocking the strait) to prevent her from pushing this far. She’d likely be another Biden: not directly assisting Israel in aggression, but too cowardly to call them out in any meaningful way.
Anyone with a functioning brain could see Trump was talking out of his ass on this topic, especially when project 2025 explicitly talks about waging a regime change war on Iran and assisting Israel in bombing Iran.
Again, there’s a difference between complicity via silence, and complicity via an active bombing campaign. Neither is good by any stretch of the imagination, but the latter is clearly worse than the former.
I don’t understand your point. Both of them have a massive track record of lying. But the one thing Trump did actually have was a record of not starting any wars in his previous presidency.
Both of them are in the pocket of AIPAC but Kamala was signalling that if Iran didn’t agree to a “diplomatic solution” then she would start a war. Which is literally what Trump did was well. He told Iran to give up the nukes. Iran said no. Then he bombed Iran.
Selling weapons to them and defending their actions publicly isn’t silence.
No, you’re wrong. One is complicity via an active bombing campaign but better PR, and the other is an active bombing campaign with bad PR.
Both are war criminals that deserve the guillotine
The difference is worthless, your opinions are worthless
The Biden administration actively structured it’s weapon shipments in such a way that they wouldn’t trigger Congressional oversight, they actively ran with the “Hamas 40 beheaded babies” blood libel, they actively condemned anti genocide protestors, they actively sent special forces to build that pier they used for a hospital massacre, they are are as actively complicit as it is possible to be.
The difference is worthless, one is just a more competent manipulator
Yep, in other words BOMBING Iran
Ah, you prefer the smiling fox to the snarling wolf.
A distinction without a difference. Both fuckers wanted to attack Iran, because their donors need them to attack Iran
So she would continue to unjustifiably oppress the Iranian people, but in a way such that the US wouldn’t have to face the consequences!
Your priorities couldn’t be more obvious.
Iran never seeked a nuclear weapon and why would a nuclear iran be a threat only to jews. It is pretty clear she conflate jews with israel
Considering newly bombed synagogue in Tehran, during passover no less, i would say entirely another state is a threat to Jews.
Yes the dems are so good about not saying out loud what we all know they’re going to do anyway, so much more respectable
Removed by mod
Not my fault you’re too chickenshit to say what you actually mean
Removed by mod
Lol try harder halfwit
Removed by mod
They’re not the moderator that removed it, we can still see your low effort bait in the mod log, and the comments were removed for violating rule 2. You can be more respectful and engage in points (explain why someone is, in your opinion, wrong, rather than insult them with no real argument)
No, but they’re in Congress lol. Death to the US
And look who she was specifically speaking to and when. She was specifically campaigning to Jewish voters. She’d probably say anything to get their vote.
While the dnc is an atrocity, their members aren’t wrong for calling this a genocide.
she lost because she said the same thing to the rest of us
It literally says diplomacy is preferable but all options are on the table.
Am I nuts or is that a reasonable, balanced position?
All options are on table is not reasonsble especially when irsn never seeked a nuclear weapon
This is not a reasonable, balanced position.
It’s relative. It’s not exactly a reasonable, balanced position, but it’s more reasonable than the alternative which is clear and unambiguous war crimes, and possibly meets the criteria for genocide.
We knew what Trump’s policy was on the campaign trail: