Hold it!
Let me make sure I’ve got that right. In this analogy, a candidate supporting genocide is a perfectly fine option, and people who have a problem with him are comparable to picky eaters?
Trump would probably be just fine with nuking Palestine so consider that when you think about what’s the shit and what’s the bread.
Irrelevant. Answer the question please: is supporting the genocide of Palestinians comparable to “bread” in this analogy? Do you consider the genocide of Palestinians to be a perfectly acceptable outcome? Do you think people who aren’t satisfied with a candidate who supports genocide are comparable to picky eaters?
I support the phoenix wright roleplay, but I think you’d find more success in just saying something like “this is kind of a glib analogy when the outcome is still genocide, don’t you think?”, or something along those lines, rather than asking like, a series of questions asking whether or not they find genocide to be an acceptable outcome. One of those will come off as bad faith, and put the defendant on the back foot, the other will get them to open up and possibly admit fault, or potentially come off much poorer to a jury, were they still to choose to object.
