I understand the fallacy and what you said. The article seems to report more than 17.9 billion in total. Now it sounds like the goal posts are shifting.
Your original complaint (spending more on Israel than climate change) was at least an order of magnitude or two off from what is actually going on, and the “millions” part was easily disproven. Confronted with that, your new complaint (to the same ends) is now the time span under which these sums are dedicated, no longer the actual amount, despite that being satisfied now. I know what that sounds like.
Did you find a source that proves we could meet our climate goals if we didn’t fund Israel?
I understand the fallacy and what you said. The article seems to report more than 17.9 billion in total. Now it sounds like the goal posts are shifting.
Thanks for the discussion.
You asked me to amend what I said.
I did, and because I did, you accuse me of moving goal posts. What??
I hate this website.
Removed by mod
Comment removed, thereby proving my point.
Your original complaint (spending more on Israel than climate change) was at least an order of magnitude or two off from what is actually going on, and the “millions” part was easily disproven. Confronted with that, your new complaint (to the same ends) is now the time span under which these sums are dedicated, no longer the actual amount, despite that being satisfied now. I know what that sounds like.
Did you find a source that proves we could meet our climate goals if we didn’t fund Israel?
That’s still an order of magnitude more support for Israel than climate, which still supports my point about the administration’s priorities.
I doubt we could meet our goals if we simply transferred Israel’s funding to climate, but I never claimed that.
No it isn’t (math) and yes you did (quoted).