DOJ says Russia is meddling in the 2024 election,

[basketcase]

...

Same thing with the temporary ceasefire, you argue its a real ceasefire ...

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.

 

[Frankfooter]

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.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833525159837188416

 

[Valcazar]

Um, your argument is stupid. A ceasefire is by definition temporary.

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".)

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.

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.

 

[Valcazar]

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.

The US isn't all powerful is the reason.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Frankfooter]

The US isn't all powerful is the reason.

They have more then enough power in this case.
Ending Israeli aid and weapons and ending the Negroponte Doctrine are well within their power.

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.

So no different than any other poll except its the only one that asked these questions.

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.

So you hope.
You think its worth risking that rather than working towards policy change from Harris?

 

[Valcazar]

They have more then enough power in this case.
Ending Israeli aid and weapons and ending the Negroponte Doctrine are well within their power.

They are.
The issue is will that do what you think it will do.

So no different than any other poll except its the only one that asked these questions.

And therefore obviously not something should be tossed around like the word of god.

So you hope.

No.
That's a factual statement about how American elections work, unless you think this election has suddenly not become close in anyway and is going to be a blow out for one side or the other.
Something that - at the moment - does not conform with the evidence.

You think its worth risking that rather than working towards policy change from Harris?

Working toward policy change is always a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
I've never said otherwise.

 

[Frankfooter]

They are.
The issue is will that do what you think it will do.

The issue is that the US isn't doing what they say they will do.

No.
That's a factual statement about how American elections work, unless you think this election has suddenly not become close in anyway and is going to be a blow out for one side or the other.
Something that - at the moment - does not conform with the evidence.

You know that Harris needs to be 5% higher than rump in order to have a chance with the EC.
You also know that bump is available if she backs rules based order and a ceasefire.

Working toward policy change is always a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
I've never said otherwise.

You've said its the only way meaningful change is made.

Politicians, under pressure from activists.
Just like every other reform that has ever happened.

Which leaves this election as the best chance to pressure Harris to end the US/Israeli genocide in Gaza.
That leaves you as choosing to support reform or rump.

 

[Valcazar]

You know that Harris needs to be 5% higher than rump in order to have a chance with the EC.
You also know that bump is available if she backs rules based order and a ceasefire.

We don't know it is available.
It is possible.

You've said its the only way meaningful change is made.

I have never said that voting third party or refusing to vote is the only way meaningful change is made.

 

[Frankfooter]

We don't know it is available.
It is possible.

I have never said that voting third party or refusing to vote is the only way meaningful change is made.

You have said not voting for the dem leader is 'punishing' them yet also have now stated that the threat of this this is the only way to enact meaningful change.

Harris can win back those votes if she succumbs to pressure from voters.

 

[Valcazar]

You have said not voting for the dem leader is 'punishing' them yet also have now stated that the threat of this this is the only way to enact meaningful change.

When did I say that the threat of this is the only way to enact meaningful change?

 

[Frankfooter]

When did I say that the threat of this is the only way to enact meaningful change?

Politicians, under pressure from activists.
Just like every other reform that has ever happened.

 

[Valcazar]

Right.
So no mention that the only way is to vote third party or withold your vote.

Unless you honestly think "pressure from activists" means that, which would be bizarre.

 

[Frankfooter]

Right.
So no mention that the only way is to vote third party or withold your vote.

Unless you honestly think "pressure from activists" means that, which would be bizarre.

Why is that 'bizarre', its been the stated objective of lots of groups.
Voters have limited options, protests, letters, phone calls and finally votes.

All those have been used so why do you think its 'bizarre' to withhold your vote as protest for change?
Threatening to withhold votes or announcing will not vote for someone because of one issue is pressure by activists.

Politicians, under pressure from activists.
Just like every other reform that has ever happened.

 

[basketcase]

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.

That second is the case for all the proposals in this case.

My issue with that description here is Hamas making clear they are against a permanent peace, even in the letters Sinwar just sent to Nasrallah.

...
So I don't think "holding out for a better ceasefire situation" is an inherently bad thing - that's just normal negotiation.
...

Sure, but as people continue being killed and hostages still being executed, there is a real pressure for anyone claiming to have humanitarian goals. Someone like Franky and Sinwar opposing a ceasefire simply because an end date isn't specified shows civilian safety isn't a major factor for them. This is made even clearer as instead of working towards a compromise, every time a deal sems close, Hamas increased their demands such as their recent call for many more convicted Hamas terrorists be released as part of the deal.

As for Ukraine, there are two things worth mentioning. One is that for the most part, fighting is taking place in areas where civilians have evacuated. The more important is Frank's overt hypocrisy, endlessly demanding Israel accept a ceasefire while also making excuses for Hamas to reject them.

 

[basketcase]

Netanyahu has refused every Palestinian ceasefire offer, including 2 UNSC resolutions demanding a ceasefire.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833525159837188416

Wow. What an inversion of reality.

1. Welcomes the new ceasefire proposal announced on May 31, which Israel accepted, calls upon Hamas to also accept it, and urges both parties to fully implement its terms without delay and without condition;

Hamas responds to Gaza cease-fire plan seeking some changes. US says it's 'evaluating' the reply

Hamas says it has given Qatari and Egyptian mediators its reply to the U.S.-backed proposal for a cease-fire in Gaza, seeking some “amendments” on the deal.

apnews.com

And more importantly, do you not want to explain why you have repeatedly supported Hamas rejecting ceasefires?

 

[Frankfooter]

That second is the case for all the proposals in this case.

My issue with that description here is Hamas making clear they are against a permanent peace, even in the letters Sinwar just sent to Nasrallah.

There is a direct path to a lasting peace now, basketcase.
Obey the ICJ ruling and UN resolution and allow the two state solution you've claimed to back to occur as demanded.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-demand-israel-end-unlawful-presence-palestinian-territories-within-12-months-2024-09-18/

 

[Frankfooter]

Wow. What an inversion of reality.

1. Welcomes the new ceasefire proposal announced on May 31, which Israel accepted, calls upon Hamas to also accept it, and urges both parties to fully implement its terms without delay and without condition;

Hamas responds to Gaza cease-fire plan seeking some changes. US says it's 'evaluating' the reply

Hamas says it has given Qatari and Egyptian mediators its reply to the U.S.-backed proposal for a cease-fire in Gaza, seeking some “amendments” on the deal.

apnews.com

And more importantly, do you not want to explain why you have repeatedly supported Hamas rejecting ceasefires?

That was a ceasefire proposal that Biden declared that Israel had agreed to but that Netanyahu publicly declared he didn't agree with.
Which is why Israel never implemented that ceasefire, like all the others except the one 10 day ceasefire in Nov.
During which Hamas returned hostages only to have Israel return to genocide, as they want to repeat now.

The UN says Israel needs to end the occupation, basketcase. They also passed two UNSC resolutions calling for a ceasefire that Israel ignored.
Now the ICJ and UN say Israel must end the occupation within a year.

If you really backed the two state solution you would be excited for a legit way to make it happen.
You don't back the two state solution any more than Biden and Netanyahu back ceasefire.

 

[Valcazar]

Why is that 'bizarre', its been the stated objective of lots of groups.

It's bizarre because to think after my repeated explanations of how limited and ineffective that is in the context of the voting system in place, I meant third party voting in that context beggars belief.

Threatening to withhold votes or announcing will not vote for someone because of one issue is pressure by activists.

Sure. Lots of things are pressure.
But to think anyone other than a complete idiot saying "pressure" means that and only that is just silly.

Especially to claim it about ME. Claiming I meant that and claiming I had stated "its the only way meaningful change is made" is just egregious.
It's either a wild, quasi-delusional inability to understand or follow a conversation on your part or a deliberate attempt to mislead and gaslight.

 

[Valcazar]

That second is the case for all the proposals in this case.

All?
Is that true?

I had thought there have been some time-limited ones proposed here and there.

My issue with that description here is Hamas making clear they are against a permanent peace, even in the letters Sinwar just sent to Nasrallah.

Hardliners on both sides seem pretty committed to not agreeing to any permanent peace.

Sure, but as people continue being killed and hostages still being executed, there is a real pressure for anyone claiming to have humanitarian goals. Someone like Franky and Sinwar opposing a ceasefire simply because an end date isn't specified shows civilian safety isn't a major factor for them. This is made even clearer as instead of working towards a compromise, every time a deal sems close, Hamas increased their demands such as their recent call for many more convicted Hamas terrorists be released as part of the deal.

Both sides have walked away from the table here more than once because they didn't like what they were seeing.
Yes, anyone who says the only thing they want is for the killing to stop under any circumstances is almost certainly lying since such a person would accept any ceasefire regardless of its other burdens.

 

[Frankfooter]

It's bizarre because to think after my repeated explanations of how limited and ineffective that is in the context of the voting system in place, I meant third party voting in that context beggars belief.



Sure. Lots of things are pressure.
But to think anyone other than a complete idiot saying "pressure" means that and only that is just silly.

Especially to claim it about ME. Claiming I meant that and claiming I had stated "its the only way meaningful change is made" is just egregious.
It's either a wild, quasi-delusional inability to understand or follow a conversation on your part or a deliberate attempt to mislead and gaslight.

You argue that its 'bizarre' for groups of people to say they will vote third party because of dem support of genocide because you argued those votes will be wasted. You have also argued that its 'punishment' to say you will not vote for dems because of Harris and Biden's support of genocide. But you have also said that most meaningful political change has come through political pressure from activists.

All this to declare that activists having already used every other means of pressure are now resorting to voting third party are 'bizarre' for using their votes for change.

In your conversation with butler he asked you who will force change.
butler:
Ok,who do you think will do the reform.

Your reply:

Politicians, under pressure from activists.
Just like every other reform that has ever happened.

Now you're declaring its 'bizarre' that activist would use their votes to pressure politicians for change.
And you don't see any conflict between those concepts?

Why are you working so hard to declare that voters shouldn't try to pressure the dems to stop supporting genocide?