And here we unsurprisingly have the fascists lying that this literal right wing coup by the sc is nothing because Obama once did this completely unrelated thing.
Are you really not aware of how presidents have been doing whatever they want for decades? The supreme court didnt make any new rule, its just ruling on what has been happening forever, and you are just reading headlines and believing the propaganda.
Not to be purposely irritating by being pedantic, but I think my hyper-literal thinking style is having trouble believing this. I don’t think Obama literally killed a 16 y/o. He may have given an order, approved of it, or placed someone in charge that decided to do it, but I doubt that he personally killed the 16 y/o. Is my understanding of the word “literally” incorrect in this case?
Yes you are correct, he just signed off on it, and allegedly they were trying to kill someone else. I am just pretty skeptical that this wasnt some kind of message from the CIA that they will kill whoever.
But that kid was killed by an attack marked ‘‘to whom it may concern’’, not a focused deliberate attack with his name on it. He was a casualty, not a victim of assassination.
Sure allegedly it was to kill someone else that wasnt him, but it sure seems like they just “by chance” killed the son a couple weeks after the father “on accident”.
But think of it outside of the propaganda; the president was allowed to blow up the wrong person (that happened to be an american minor in a family that had the father killed a couple weeks before) in a country that we are not at war with.
Obama literally did kill an american 16 year old in yemen, so this is nothing new.
And here we unsurprisingly have the fascists lying that this literal right wing coup by the sc is nothing because Obama once did this completely unrelated thing.
Are you really not aware of how presidents have been doing whatever they want for decades? The supreme court didnt make any new rule, its just ruling on what has been happening forever, and you are just reading headlines and believing the propaganda.
Not to be purposely irritating by being pedantic, but I think my hyper-literal thinking style is having trouble believing this. I don’t think Obama literally killed a 16 y/o. He may have given an order, approved of it, or placed someone in charge that decided to do it, but I doubt that he personally killed the 16 y/o. Is my understanding of the word “literally” incorrect in this case?
Yes you are correct, he just signed off on it, and allegedly they were trying to kill someone else. I am just pretty skeptical that this wasnt some kind of message from the CIA that they will kill whoever.
But that kid was killed by an attack marked ‘‘to whom it may concern’’, not a focused deliberate attack with his name on it. He was a casualty, not a victim of assassination.
Sure allegedly it was to kill someone else that wasnt him, but it sure seems like they just “by chance” killed the son a couple weeks after the father “on accident”.
But think of it outside of the propaganda; the president was allowed to blow up the wrong person (that happened to be an american minor in a family that had the father killed a couple weeks before) in a country that we are not at war with.