This is like you declaring that a temporary ceasefire for hostages to be returned is a good example of a ceasefire.
DOJ says Russia is meddling in the 2024 election,
- Thread starter squeezer
- Start date
No, this is me pointing them to the actual document you are using and what it says.
As for the ceasefire thing - you were the one who insisted a temporary ceasefire wasn't a real ceasefire.
Which is, of course, ludicrous.
It might not be an acceptable one to you or to Hamas, but it is real.
No, this is you attempting to mischaracterize the finding of the poll. If your claim about the poll findings were accurate than Harris would already have this 6% bump, as she has repeatedly said she's for a ceasefire. Do you really think that's what the poll meant?
Same thing with the temporary ceasefire, you argue its a real ceasefire when its clearly a one sided attempt by Israel to take away Hamas' only leverage with no reward and to then reward Israel with the ability to bomb even more recklessly without worrying about killing even more hostages. Do you really think the temporary ceasefire offer was a real step towards peace?
You know both are not honest positions yet you continue with them. Nearly one year later your position hasn't changed.
No.
But that is what they say it means in their document.
Which is one of the reasons I have been suspicious of how they are drawing their conclusions.
The long history of actual ceasefires says yes, obviously a temporary ceasefire can be a step towards peace.
And yes, temporary ceasefires are real ceasefires.
These are all part of the long, complicated, and difficult reality that is international relations and negotiations.
Ceasefires are not peace treaties.
On the contrary, I'm being very honest and forthright.
You just dislike that I don't accept things uncritically.
And given your propensity for just grabbing things for twitter, you really shouldn't be surprised.
So you really do think they just argued that Harris has already received that 6% bump because she's said she supports a ceasefire.
How do you think Hamas returning hostages and Israel returning to the genocide would lead to peace?
Netanyahu has repeatedly declared he won't stop until he 'finishes the job' by killing all of Hamas.
You are being honest to your own views, yes. You are still trying to find ways to rationalize support for genocide, now by trying to being excessively literal with the poll numbers and literal with the definition of a ceasefire while ignoring intent in both cases.
Remember, this started last Oct 7th with the invasion of Isreal and the killing of more than those killed in our 9/11 based on relative population. Some 3000? killed and many injured, plus the captives by the Hamas invasion.
Netanyahu has declared his intent to wipe out Hamas so they can never invade and kill Israeli folks again. Sort of like us going after our 9/11 terrorists, which was far more limited.
Biden and his Secty or State have been working for most of the last year in working with the 3 Arab states to help negotiate a final peace deal that releases the hostages in exchange for thousands of Hamas criminals in prison, a permanent ceasefire and agreement on working towards a 3 state solution while assuring Isreal of their own security. Arab leaders have praised Biden for leading the talks and his proposals.
Or, at least, a cease-fire to get food and aid to the Palestinians who are not fighters against Israel. The problem is the military dresses like civilians, uses hospitals and schools etc, to hide in with under ground extensive tunnels etc.
No, we are not going to stop arms shipments to Israel to defend themselves or support for their Patriot missile defense system that is shooting down most incoming rockets supplied by Iran etc. That is a silly argument. They do have an argument, in my view, that Israel has perhaps gone overboard and is not avoiding civilian deaths, but when fighters are among the civilians, how they can take out only the fighters is a legitimate issue. I believe they could do better however.
The issue is neither Netanyahu nor Hamas wants to end the war. Hamas was founded with a purpose to wipe out Israel, and Netanyahu is determined to avoid another Oct 7 massacre. That is why neither will agree to a peace agreement that does not benefit each side. That is the real problem, not Biden or US policy.
Netanyahu has declared his intent to wipe out Hamas so they can never invade and kill Israeli folks again. Sort of like us going after our 9/11 terrorists, which was far more limited.
Biden and his Secty or State have been working for most of the last year in working with the 3 Arab states to help negotiate a final peace deal that releases the hostages in exchange for thousands of Hamas criminals in prison, a permanent ceasefire and agreement on working towards a 3 state solution while assuring Isreal of their own security. Arab leaders have praised Biden for leading the talks and his proposals.
Or, at least, a cease-fire to get food and aid to the Palestinians who are not fighters against Israel. The problem is the military dresses like civilians, uses hospitals and schools etc, to hide in with under ground extensive tunnels etc.
No, we are not going to stop arms shipments to Israel to defend themselves or support for their Patriot missile defense system that is shooting down most incoming rockets supplied by Iran etc. That is a silly argument. They do have an argument, in my view, that Israel has perhaps gone overboard and is not avoiding civilian deaths, but when fighters are among the civilians, how they can take out only the fighters is a legitimate issue. I believe they could do better however.
The issue is neither Netanyahu nor Hamas wants to end the war. Hamas was founded with a purpose to wipe out Israel, and Netanyahu is determined to avoid another Oct 7 massacre. That is why neither will agree to a peace agreement that does not benefit each side. That is the real problem, not Biden or US policy.
Israel is illegally occupying Palestine, that's the real issue, not Hamas. The ICJ has ruled the occupation is illegal and that Israel must return Palestine and pay restitutions. The Israeli paper Haaretz reported that Israel fired over 30,000 explosive shells at both Israelis and Hamas on Oct 7, doing most of the killing to try to keep Hamas from taking hostages. A Lancet post suggested the real number of those killed by Israel is likely more than 168,000 while the UN and World Food Programme have declared Gaza to be in famine as Israel intentionally starves the 1 million children who have grown up living through 5 wars on Gaza.
The ICJ will charge Israel with genocide. The ICC is slowly prepping warrants for genocide and extermination for Israeli leaders.
70% of dems support ceasefire and stopping sending arms to Israel. A recent poll says if Harris really backs a ceasefire she could see a 5-6% bump in votes. Instead she faces protests from her own party and had to stop town halls.
Putin isn't as smart as Trump thinks he is.
What's the point of giving virginal Tim Pool money? The guy can't even score a date, he makes it sound like she's entering a gang bang with dickweeds. Instead of spreading disinformation, he should be working on his game.
What's the point of giving virginal Tim Pool money? The guy can't even score a date, he makes it sound like she's entering a gang bang with dickweeds. Instead of spreading disinformation, he should be working on his game.
No.
I believe that they asked a specific question.
If Vice-President Harris were to demand an immediate ceasefire and allow unimpeded humanitarian aid into Gaza would it make you more or less likely to vote for her?
This is something Harris has not explicitly demanded as far as I know.
As for what the respondents think that means - that's always the problem with poll questions.
If you firmly believe Netanyahu will never stop then no ceasefire will do, even if it says it is permanent, until he has been removed from power.
You have every right to take that position.
Then stop claiming I am being dishonest and taking dishonest positions.
Or keep claiming it and don't back down the moment I challenge you.
You may, one day, want to learn that "things mean what I want them to mean, even if I can't prove it" isn't the most convincing argument in the world to people.
You declared that Harris only has to say she supports a ceasefire to gain that 6% bump in support.
Now at least you are saying she needs to 'demand' it, which is clearer and more accurate to the poll.
I think the US can stop the genocide in one day if they wanted.
One phone call saying they will end arms support, end financial aid and end the Negroponte Doctrine would result in the end.
Regardless of how much influence you think AIPAC has, this is possible.
You are being honest to your views but intentionally misrepresenting my views and the findings of that poll.
I'm not backing down.
You may also want to learn that passive support and passive aggressive actions are still support.
Same way I am free to wonder why when you join these threads you only target my posts and not any of the zionists.
I said demand earlier, but also the key bit missing here is the humanitarian aid.
But again, notice that the question does not actually ask whether she has to accomplish any of it.
Just make the demand.
Do most people answering think that actually means she would get her demand met?
No idea.
Impossible to say one way or the other.
Yes.
You've claimed this repeatedly.
So you are free to believe.
I am trying not to misrepresent your views.
I am however, representing the views of what the polling data actually shows correctly.
That this may be not what the people trumpeting the poll or you want the polling data to say is entirely possible.
Because the other people on the thread haven't engaged me.
As we've discussed before, I engage on this only in specific ways and about specific elements.
We'll see if we ever find out, but that really depends on whether she is more seriously worried about the polls or AIPAC.
Really, its just demanding Israel honour UNSC resolutions, ICJ provisional measures and international law.
I'm still surprised that somehow that is incredibly controversial.
And usually you respond that its not practical for some reason.
But you also haven't supplied a reason why you think this can't happen.
Unfortunately I don't believe this, as you have a tendency to become very literal when it suits your argument.
The intent of the poll is clear and it appears the findings support it.
But this also runs counter to your own arguments here that Palestine and genocide are not issues that are important enough to affect the election.
uh huh
Um, your argument is stupid. A ceasefire is by definition temporary.
It may be extended and may even lead towards permanent peace talks but your boys in hamas have been clear that they aren't interested in that. Sinwar's recent letter to Nasrallah made it clear that they plan to fight until Israel is eliminated.
And just a reminder, when hamas rejected several ceasefires earlier this year, you said they were right to reject them.
Netanyahu has refused every Palestinian ceasefire offer, including 2 UNSC resolutions demanding a ceasefire.
I think the word gets used to include permanent ones that are part of larger treaties.
And there are certainly ceasefires that are "indefinite" - absolutely no commitment to be permanent, but no fixed timetable to run out.
If I recall, the Korean ceasefire is that.
There has never been a peace treaty and the war is officially still on, but despite both sides arguing about breaches and arguing about ending it (I think North Korea for sure has threatened to withdraw from the agreement a few times and it is possible South Korea has as well) that temporary ceasefire is still in place.
So I don't think "holding out for a better ceasefire situation" is an inherently bad thing - that's just normal negotiation.
I just object to the claim that a temporary ceasefire isn't "real". (As opposed to "not what we want".)
Just as many people claimed Ukraine was right to reject ceasefire proposals from Russia earlier.
None of that is weird. Different sides of a conflict (and outsiders) propose ceasefires of different kinds in various ways all the time and whether or not they are accepted is always due to what the offer looks like and what the people shooting want and so on. Not every ceasefire offer will be (or should be) accepted.
The US isn't all powerful is the reason.
The intent of the people publishing the poll is very clear.
The actual poll and what it says is less so.
This is very normal in polling.
Again - they NEVER ask if any policy position would result in a vote for Harris.
They ask if it would make you more or less likely to vote for Harris.
And, too be fair, looking at their actual poll - not the press release intro page, they hedge their bets, saying
"If Vice President Harris were to take this stance, her support could increase from 44% to 50%."
Notice the presence of "could" there.
On page 18, in the actual document, they are careful to note that this is speculation about what could be possible.
In the executive summary, they change that "could" to "would" - bullshitting that this is an actual result and not an interpretation they are trying to push.
The evidence remains that this is an issue that is far down the list for most voters.
Can it affect the election?
Of course it can - in an election this tight, anything can be a tipping point if it is at the right time and with the right geographical distribution of voters.
They have more then enough power in this case.
Ending Israeli aid and weapons and ending the Negroponte Doctrine are well within their power.
So no different than any other poll except its the only one that asked these questions.
So you hope.
You think its worth risking that rather than working towards policy change from Harris?
