It’s not so much whether or not he knows it, so much as how much he cares. He knows what he says will get his base riled up, and that’s what he likes. It strokes his ego and gives him more power.

Your very first comment. Where you responded to someone saying people shouldn’t be on either side because they’re both bad, you said we should be on one side because the other is bad. That’s saying one is bad, one is good, unless you’re saying we should be on the side of a bad guy.

You’re right that Israel is in the wrong. They made an attack on a sovereign nation, mostly to distract from that genocide you speak of.

That has nothing to do with Iran being in the wrong, though, which these days they regularly are. And thus we shouldn’t take their claims that they’re on the up and up and totally good guys at face value.

But that wasn’t your original point, your original point was that one side was bad and the other wasn’t. That was the entire crux of this argument. Are you abandoning that now to just say “Israel bad, all else is irrelevant”?

And yet you seem to be taking one side at face value while dismissing the other out of hand…

Seems less about reasonable skepticism and more about implicit and unreasonable bias.

It means take anything they say they’re doing with a block of salt.

I think they were commenting on how a marathon that’s two and a half times longer than a typical marathon took almost 6 times as long to complete. Not that the definition of ultramarathon is somehow in doubt.

Not bauxite?