Anonymous #2 8w

and she’s a dogshit candidate otherwise who has no plans to enact policy and is only in the race because AIPAC is scared of El-Sayed.

6

Anonymous #2 8w

If you’re talking about the poll I think you’re talking about then it was taken before the debate so it’s kinda irrelevant now lmao

6

Anonymous OP 8w

It was taken last week

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

correct, before the debate that just happened last night

9

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

and? it’s being offered to show she was fucking ass at the debate, not that El-Sayed is beating her fucking 94 to 6 in polls

9

Anonymous #1 8w

Yeah I understand what it’s being offered as I’m saying it’s not a good poll bc we have no idea if the people voting are even people. I wouldn’t hang my hat on a random internet poll.

2

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

i mean if Stevens was actually a competent candidate, sure, but she isn’t by any metric. no plans or concepts to enact reform if actually elected.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

I mean if you want to change the topic from the poll to is she good or bad we can, but you have to admit the poll isn’t compelling evidence of anything other than what was selected on a website.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

I mean it was run by a local fox affiliate in detroit, so some portion of respondents are likely local. If she was a competent candidate I’d say this poll meant nothing and she could very well be up, but considering how shit she is and how poorly the debate went, it’s definitely an indication she’s not doing well in re El-Sayed

1

Anonymous #1 8w

But anyone can vote that doesn’t mean anything lol. What’s something she said that was a bad answer in the debate?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

I actually couldn’t watch it because I’m in the UK, and don’t have a TV license, and therefore can’t watch any live tv broadcasts

1

Anonymous #1 8w

saw some clips refusing to answer questions in the spin room, which was a pretty bad look imo

1

Anonymous #1 8w

Then how do you know if the debate went poorly if you didn’t even watch it?

1

Anonymous #1 8w

What question did she refuse to answer I can try to find it?

1

Anonymous #1 8w

It would just depend on what she didn’t answer.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

You have rlly strong opinions on a debate you can’t even reference the clips of.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

94-6 is telling lmao keep coping

1

Anonymous #1 8w

Bro you’re talking about a debate you’ve never seen and your evidence that it was bad is a website vote where anyone can vote. Idk how you guys are so confident about shit you know nothing about.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

i mean it would be nice if we had any kind of actual polling post debate but pollsters are focused on other, clearly more important races. In all honesty i’m pretty biased on this because I feel she’s a bad candidate that’s emblematic of the democratic establishment’s inability to recognize that support for Israel is a major wedge issue, and they need to get on the right side of history sooner rather than later if they want to win races.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

Omg look he got owned 🤯🤯🤯. This debate must have been a blood bath for him.

-2

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

um ackshually accuracy increases with sample size, and as your poll has 1 respondent, therefore you have zero accuracy; cope and seethe

7

Anonymous #1 8w

I mean I agree it’s not solid polling at all. It’s a wedge issue made by people on the far left who want some wedge to separate themselves from moderates.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

it’s a wedge issue made by Israel continuing to commit genocide, and dems continuing to support and enable it, actually!

1

Anonymous #1 8w

I mean yeah that’s the response they want you to have. I honestly have no clue how to bridge the gap on this issue. I would even say Steven’s is more pro Israel than I would want her to be. But also El-Sayed hasn’t rlly given any real solutions that I’ve seen.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

It’s not the response ‘they want me to have’. Israel is committing genocide, full stop. I refuse to vote for politicians who will enable or be complicit in genocide.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

Haley “Israel comes to me in my dreams” Stevens is too pro-israel? what a revelation!

6

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

I mean I don’t think El-Sayed would have voted to allow $3.3B in aid to Israel, and that’s a start

6

Anonymous #1 8w

Yeah idk what to say when you think the other side is evil and pro genocide. Anything is justified. So ofc you’re not gonna look into any issue or watch a debate but you’ll still give a super strong opinion on it.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

Do you contest that Israel is committing genocide? not trying to start a whole argument about it I just want to understand your position

1

Anonymous #1 8w

Yeah idk how not funding Israel will somehow save Gaza that’s not a real solution.

-1

Anonymous #1 8w

I mean that’s the joke I’m making fun of you for hanging your hat on a bad poll.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

one again, perfect is the enemy of good.

6

Anonymous #1 8w

Yeah I probably wouldn’t call it genocide but I think Israeli actions have gone too far and I would call the current Israeli government a bad actor to some extent.

-2

Anonymous #1 8w

ope, yeah can’t actually do anything because you have come up with a 100% perfect plan with rainbows and hearts, we just gotta keep sending billions to a genocidal ethnostate

3

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

Sorry this sounds like I’m trying to start shit, but what is it that makes it not genocide in your eyes? Like what element is missing?

1

Anonymous #1 8w

No it’s just not a solution in any meaningful sense if Israel relies on zero U.S. aid (which they’ve done before). they have zero reason to appeal to the U.S. and we lose all leverage.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

But if they don’t need our military aid we have no effective leverage lmao

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

and like how do you expect leverage to actually function with a regime you’ve conceded is a bad actor?

2

Anonymous #1 8w

Bc idk how you would make the distinction in this situation between brutal urban warfare with an enemy that uses civilian infrastructure vs genocide. I also just see the people who hammer on the genocide talking point don’t offer any real solutions other than invading Israel or something.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

You don’t get points for doing nothing idk what to say. When asked about how he would make things more affordable he talked about aipac. He’s very obviously just a populist who isn’t doing anything At least she’s passed some beneficial legislation.

0

Anonymous #1 8w

You would probably leverage aid instead for concessions instead of just ending all aid.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

I mean you don’t have to make a distinction, the UN has already determined they’re committing genocide, twice, iirc. It becomes genocide to me when Ben-Gvir talks about ‘human animals’. Also, the feasibility of solutions offered by people who feel it’s genocide, has no bearing on whether or not it is genocide.

5

Anonymous #1 8w

They want our military aid but obviously they can operate without it.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

so we essentially have leverage until we actually ask them to like not commit genocide

1

Anonymous #1 8w

but that’s just my take, sorry for proselytizing.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

You can disagree with UN report. It doesn’t have bearing on if it’s a genocide but has bearing on the person’s intention of calling it that. Ben-Gvir is insane but again idk how you would make the distinction that’s my hold up.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

Also to be clear the genocide label doesn’t change any of my prescriptions. Like even if it was a genocide my take would still be we should leverage aid for a ceasefire.

-3

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

I mean do you disagree with both UN reports and the ICC warrant? like how many watchdog institutions have to flag this

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

i mean I don’t have anything against that policy prescription. Personally I think directly stopping the flow of money to the people committing genocide and then offering to resume (and potentially even increase) it in exchange for a ceasefire and actual policy changes within the Israeli govt. that prevent more atrocities like this one.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

ICC warrant isn’t saying it’s a genocide, it’s just saying there’s reasonable grounds that one is ongoing. All that means is you can show an objective person that a crime may have happened. I don’t think the UN reports are lying about the facts or anything I feel like I just disagree with the analysis. Genocide charges have only been invoked 6 times in international court there’s not a lot of case law. I feel like I/P is pretty unique situation.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

I mean I’ll concede it’s a unique situation, but I think genocidal intent has been more than demonstrated, and once genocidal intent is shown the methodology by which it’s achieved can be any number of things, in my view.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

I mean I feel like the intent is hardest thing. Obviously you can’t expect someone to say “ok now we’re genociding people” but at the same time idk what to make of vague statements of calling Hamas and maybe Palestinians animals right after a horrific terrorist attack.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

This is my problem with the genocide label in general. It doesn’t have a lot of case law and Israel is fighting a pretty horrific group. What I’m looking for in a politician is someone who has a coherent plan for the region. Bc Israel and Palestine is forever going to be a political and humanitarian drain on this country for the foreseeable future until ig one side wipes out the other. Unfortunately that’s probably gonna have to come from whoever the next president is.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

Have you read the UN report? it found that Israel had engaged in genocidal conduct not only through direct killing, but also by “deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy the group” and by “imposing measures to prevent births”. the genocidal statements have continued long after october 7th. There was a second report specifically investigating targeting of children. I just don’t see how you can ‘disagree’ with the analysis.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

just another $10M from AIPAC and it’ll work i swear

1

Anonymous #1 8w

So let’s look at one section “imposing measures to prevent births”. In this section they referenced shifa which was most likely used by Hamas. There is footage of shifa being used to store hostages, it was confirmed by U.S. intelligence that the hospital was being used, Hamas has a history of using the hospitals if look at reporting from people like amnesty international. There’s a lot of instances of this in the report in my opinion.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

That doesn’t negate the net impact bombing hospitals has lmao. Genocide is a fundamentally unjustifiable action. The palestinian people are not belligerents in this conflict.

5

Anonymous #1 8w

Yes but it makes it not a war crime if you’re using hospitals for combat use the hospital is now fair game to an extent under international law.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

so actually there’s no justification for genocide. it is a definitional unjustifiable act.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

I never said it was, the argument is IF it’s a genocide not if genocide good or bad.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

The legality of an act w/r/t humanitarian law, i.e. whether or not it is a war crime, has no bearing on whether it is a genocidal act. These are two distinct legal doctrines.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

Sure but it speaks to the intent if you’re attacking legitimate military targets that would speak to the intention of genocide.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

The acts and the intent are two distinct elements. Genocidal intent has been more than demonstrated on other bases lmao.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

You can infer intent through actions idk what you mean.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

Yes. But one aspect where intent doesn’t exist doesn’t disarm the rest of the pattern of intent. Genocide requires two distinct legal elements, Genocidal Acts, and Genocidal intent. The destruction of hospitals is absolutely still an act of genocide if genocidal intent can be proven elsewhere. How can you not grasp this?

1

Anonymous #1 8w

Bc the action doesn’t matter rlly. Any war will probably meet the standard of genocidal acts. You keep repeating there’s two sections I agree we disagree on the intent.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

Yes that’s why both legal elements are necessary. If you just have genocidal intent, and don’t commit genocidal acts, no genocide. If you just commit genocidal acts, with no genocidal intent, no genocide. It is only when you commit genocidal acts with genocidal intent (which Israel continues to do), that you commit genocide.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

I agree lol. Idk why we’re just repeating this.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

We don’t agree. I see the legal definition, accept it, see that Israel has been found to have genocidal intent, and found to be committing genocidal acts, and logically conclude that they are committing genocide.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

Yeah we do disagree on a different thing lol. Maybe we could talk about it at some point.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

I mean I just don’t see how you believe your position is morally or logically consistent. You say you don’t believe it’s genocide, and can’t make an argument demonstrating that.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

I did make an argument but you just hand waved it by repeating a thing we both agree on.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

I didn’t hand wave it, I explained how your argument was irrelevant to the question lmao.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

It wasnt irrelevant you asked me what my problem with the report was that was my problem. I don’t think you can totally divorce the intent from the action.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

Well the law does, and funny enough, the systematic destruction of hospitals is far from the only genocidal act, and not the only evidence of genocidal intent!

1

Anonymous #1 8w

The law does, just bc it’s two spectate sections that doesn’t mean they don’t inform each other. You can infer intent through actions. If you want to talk about either specially I’m down but that doesn’t make sense to say you can’t infer intent through actions.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 8w

I’m NOT FUCKING SAYING YOU CANT INFER INTENT THROUGH ACTIONS jesus christ stop strawmanning me. I am saying that they are two distinct legal elements. Individual actions don’t have to imply genocidal intent to be genocidal acts. That is explicitly how the legal definition of genocide is structured.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

My understanding is that’s true if it’s part of broader pattern. My point is with the shifa is that intent doesn’t seem to be there. If you want to point to other examples and say it’s part of some pattern do it. But at that point we’re far away from what my criticism of the report was.

1