Sean Strickland slams Kamala Harris for "absolutely ridiculous" stance on Israel-Palestine issue: "We just need to give them both nukes"
Sean Strickland slammed the comments of Kamala Harris, the current vice president of the United States, for her stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Democratic presidential nominee for the upcoming 2024 United States presidential election met with pro-Palestinian activists during a rally in Arizona.
Harris responded to chants of “free Palestine” from protesters at the campaign by claiming that she "respects" their voices and that “now is the time” for a ceasefire deal. Netizens pointed out that Harris’ stance was a sharp contrast from two days ago when she told pro-Palestine protesters at a rally in Detroit that, "if you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I'm speaking.”
Addressing the hecklers at the Arizona rally, Harris said:
“I have been clear: now is the time to get a ceasefire deal and get the hostage deal done. Now is the time. And the president and I are working around the clock every day to get that ceasefire deal done and bring the hostages home. So, I respect your voices, but we are here to now talk about this race in 2024.”
Sean Strickland took to X to lash out at Harris' comments, labeling it "absolutely ridiculous." He said:
"Now is the time for a cease-fire... after Palestine has been bombed to rubble... I'm not pro-Palestine, I'm not pro-Israel.... but that is absolutely ridiculous lmao!!!!!! At this point, we just need to give them both nukes and say "have fun" lol."
Check out Strickland's X post below:
Sean Strickland offers insights on social media and controversy
Stirring controversy has become Sean Strickland's ally ever since he rose to prominence in the UFC. However, the way he sees it, he's merely expressing his authentic views that resonate with some, while others find it too crude for their taste.
Most recently, the American took to X to highlight a critical reality based on the framework that controversial statements often drive higher engagement. He offered an illustration based on two ways of referring to a sentiment.
One a standard criticism of political opposition, and the other a vitriolic attack using coarse language. He claims, that the latter, laden with provocatory language, is more likely to attract attention. Strickland wrote:
"I tweet for the love of the game, not the money. But hate=engagement. 'Those democrats really are ruining this country' vs. 'These dirty fu**ing commie freedom hating fu**s, they try to censor us, turn your kids gay, tax you to pay for illegals'. What tweet do you think trends?"
Check out the X post below: