Neither do data centers
Neither do data centers
Theyre targeting the largest voter base. Majority of new vehicles sold are big ass SUVs. Americans dont give a damn about the climate, or others safety and well being in general.
…all of that just reinforces my disdain for arming a genocidal country? Did you think I was gonna go “oh well if China and Russia are doing it must be good”
But even whatever point you’re trying to make bringing them up wouldnt hold up anyway because compared to the US they do not provide a fraction of the financial and military support the US does.
Actually, trying to look up the relevant figures, your claim is an outright lie, none of those countries are even on the list of arms supplies to Israel https://www.reuters.com/world/who-are-israels-main-weapons-suppliers-who-has-halted-exports-2024-05-09/
I think youre mistaking images of the court ruling as images of the forms referenced in the ruling.
Nothing links to a form of any kind
A country using that ammunition to commit genocide??
Theyre committing genocide, any support is endorsement
Look at this trying to apply speech impediments to attack OP.
I cant believe OP is supporting a different party because he doesnt like yours. What a troll
We could stop sending them weapons. Then we could stop sending them financial aid. Then we could sanction them. Its pretty entirely in US control, Israels existence always has been
The forms are not there
Sorry, im mixed up in several posts specifically about barring third parties from running. This one is just criticism.
Its hilarious the upvotes im getting missing the point. There is no presidential election next year.
Well if you had the proof you would have taken your easy victory already, since you seem firmly against backing up your claims im just gonna cut out, reinforced in my belief that this court decision was coordinated democratic sabotage.
Yeah, claims need proof. In all caps you’re claiming the packet they received is CLEARLY invalid. I dont think you’ve seen it either to be able to make that claim. That link is just another article on the ruling, not the packet they received.
Such candidates are available, youre arguing they shouldnt be allowed to run because theyll spoil the party that benefits tremendously from first past the post.
Yeah i bet she wont even try to get elected next year
Ive only seen articles on the ruling. Link me to the packet please
You vote exclusively for candidates that actively support and benefit from first past the post, and are fighting against a candidate that actively supports getting rid of it. You cant claim to want to get rid of it
That doesnt affect what they said. Ticketing a cops friend wasnt fighting corruption, only fighting retaliation for it is