The Democratic nominee then went on to use terminology usually used in reference to Iran to refer to Israel. “The expansion of Israel and its proxies is an absolute fundamental necessity for the US to have the steady leadership there,” said Walz, while mistakenly referring Israel to Iran.

So the actual argument here is that despite all context, despite the question being about support for Isreal, despite what he said being perfectly cogent and despite his being immediately pulled back from public view by and angry DNC…despite all of this, he must have actually been talking about Iran, because he said ‘proxies’ and that’s a propaganda term we use for Iran, soo…he must have just meant to talk about Iran in this answer about supporting Israel for some reason. That’s the actual and only argument of this piece: word association

You must just not have read it, right? There’s no way you would link me the war propaganda equivalent of this …

…if you knew in advance how utterly craven and hollow it was. Or maybe you didn’t expect anyone else to read it?

You expect me to believe that Tim Walz was trying to say something that didnt make any fucking sense, and accidentally flubbed his way into saying something that does make sense and lines up with the US government’s actual deeds? Furthermore, you expect me to believe this was just a meaningless flub despite the party being so mad about it that they never let him do a speech or debate after that? Be real here, what does Occam’s Razor say?

You are praising the fine stitching of the emperor’s clothes. I am looking at an imperial penis.