No I don't.Yes, obviously.
If you are proposing a political policy, especially as a tradeoff for support, you need to provide some specifics about what you would find acceptable.
You want to me to come up with a specific list to try to argue my position is fixed.
Its not, that's the point.
You want me to put a price on my support, so you can declare a price for support of genocide.Because you've specified no support for Harris while there is support for genocide.
That means you have made "how much support is ok" explicitly part of your negotiation.
You are offering a specific trade for voting, so you presumably you have a specific price you are making part of the negotiation.
That's your turf, your support for genocide comes with a price of just not being trump.
And again, you are trying to put a price on support for genocide and to try to argue how much genocide I can support.So this sounds like a total arms embargo is what you need?
Is that no transfers shipped by the US government?
Is that no sales by independent business entities in the United States approved by the US government?
Is that sanctions on anyone selling arms to Israel?
Is that the US running a blockade preventing shipments from reaching Israel and turning back anything that has weapons?
That's it?
Nothing else?
And again, does this policy have to be declared and implemented before the election or not?
You've agreed to support genocide for the price of not being rump.
I haven't.
Skoob like rebuttal, just declaring you are right when you can't answer.Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see.
Weak.
So now not backing genocide is a 'threat' to you.But you refuse to say what "stops the US from aiding genocide" means.
If you are making a threat - which is how you have phrased this - then you need to make demands if you want someone to meet your demands.
But this depends on you believing that the loss will teach the Democrats a lesson and eventually change their position.
Your entire proposed tactic is based on that assumption.
(Your renunciation of all moral responsibility for the result is noted, though, since I was trying to get that confirmed earlier. Thanks for that.)
Interesting.
Skoob like rebuttal.Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see.
Weak.
Biden is gone, that's a major success.LOL!
You still think this is what made him step down?
But yes, you've said you were "waiting for Harris to make her position clear" despite the fact that this contradicted your previous arguments about not voting for Biden.
If the change from Biden was enough to change your mind about being a pragmatic voter, I'd have been happy to accept it.
You argued everyone should back Biden because rump.
Skoob like rebuttal.That's not how that works, but nice try.
Weak.
I've nailed you by your own definition.
You don't care about rules based government, you just want your party in power.