Thesedays Posted May 7 Posted May 7 3 minutes ago, GhostBox said: Where has she specifically said she supports genocide? post the video. Despite Israeli politicians being OPEN about their genocidal intentions on October 7th, she said she "unequivocally" supported them. How is that not being "specific" about supporting it? How is refusing to call it genocide when over 30k civilians are dead not "specific"? Like, are you really that lazy-minded? Lmao
Thesedays Posted May 7 Posted May 7 Going by @GhostBox's logic, they don't think Trump is a racist, considering there is no video where he says the exact "I am a racist" wording, am I right? 3 1
GhostBox Posted May 7 Posted May 7 Just now, Thesedays said: Despite Israeli politicians being OPEN about their genocidal intentions on October 7th, she said she "unequivocally" supported them. How is that not being "specific" about supporting it? How is refusing to call it genocide when over 30k civilians are dead not "specific"? Like, are you really that lazy-minded? Lmao She said she supported Israel defending themselves after being attacked on October 7th. That's your proof? 💀
GhostBox Posted May 7 Posted May 7 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Thesedays said: Going by @GhostBox's logic, they don't think Trump is a racist, considering there is no video where he says the exact "I am a racist" wording, am I right? "I support Israel's right to defend themselves after being attacked" "Mexicans are rapists and criminals" yes one of these statements does conclude that and the other doenst 🤷 Edited May 7 by GhostBox 1
Thesedays Posted May 7 Posted May 7 1 minute ago, GhostBox said: "I support Israel's right to defend themselves after being attacked" "Mexicans are rapists and criminals" yes one of these statements concludes one and the other doenst 🤷 "I'm unequivocally supportive of Israel" is the quote we're talking about. Nice try deflecting from it. Other statements @GhostBox will definitely think are ambiguous: "I am unequivocally supportive of Germany," said in 1934 "I am unequivocally supportive of confederate states," said in 1861 "I am unequivocally supportive of South Africa," said in 1988. "I am unequivocally supportive of Saudi Arabia," said today. What a bright mind, am I right? Someone clearly concerned for the right things! 3 1
Redstreak Posted May 7 Posted May 7 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Thesedays said: So you're telling me you're unaware there was already a substantial anti-Israel occupation movement BEFORE Oct 7th who were vocal in social media, non-profit organizations, and social movements around the world? Is the fact you're entirely ignorant over the issue supposed to be a "gotcha"? Do you know what the word "UNEQUIVOCALLY" means? Do you honestly need me to pull receipts that there were millions of people vocalizing sympathy with the victims of the attack without using inflammatory, pro-genocide language? What else do you need "backup statements" for? The sky being blue? The earth being round? Like.... Not even the politicians pledging "unequivocal" support with Israel are trying to argue that there weren't millions of people pointing out how saying that was dangerous, and yet here we are... Of course there was, but you're literally daft if you think any politician was gonna start singing the praises of anti Zionism directly following the October 7th attack Edited May 7 by Redstreak 2
Afterglow Posted May 7 Posted May 7 1 hour ago, Thesedays said: That's not what polls are saying darling https://projects-fivethirtyeight-com.translate.goog/polls/president-general/2024/michigan/?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=pt&_x_tr_hl=pt-BR&_x_tr_pto=sc Sis your polls don't mean squat and don't represent many communities in the state in any kind of accurate way. You'll see yet again Michiganders are coming out in support of Biden. You can physically see the support in the state. I assume you don't live there nor have ever been.
Thesedays Posted May 7 Posted May 7 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Redstreak said: Of course there was, but you're literally daft if you think any politician was gonna start singing the praises of anti Zionism directly following the October 7th attack Here, I will going to try to help you out by explaining it as if I am talking to a 12-year-old. Definition of "unequivocally": in a way that leaves no doubt. Two days after the October 7th attack, there was a massive number of Israeli politicians on Israel's governing party going on record about how they'd use the attack to enforce collective punishment on Gaza's population (a war crime, by the way). Any vaguely intelligent person paying attention knew what was coming and no one in Israel was hiding it. Considering anyone vaguely paying attention to the news knew what was coming and that Israeli politicians were clear about their plans when the governor of a major US state says she supports Israel "in a way that leaves no doubt," what can anyone with two working brain cells conclude based on her comment? That she either supports Israel's clear intentions or that, despite her important political role, she is a dumbass with a below-than-average perception of current affairs. Either one of these interpretations is a good enough reason to be protesting against her. That's number 1. Now, the other self-evident thing, which it is a bit embarrassing that you need further explaining on, is that there is a universe of possibilities between "I unequivocally support a country with a terrible human-rights track record, apartheid, and with a governing making its genocide intentions clear" and "I love anti-zionism, make BDS the national law right now," right? Do you understand that, don't you? Why do you need this to be spelled out? So, with all those things put in context, what exactly are you defending here? Her quote? Letting aside the fact that the "two days after the attack" excuse doesn't actually fly, why are you pretending her refusing to call the death of over 30k people a "genocide" TWO WEEKS AGO isn't her making her position clear? Edited May 7 by Thesedays
Thesedays Posted May 7 Posted May 7 3 minutes ago, Afterglow said: Sis your polls don't mean squat and don't represent many communities in the state in any kind of accurate way. You'll see yet again Michiganders are coming out in support of Biden. You can physically see the support in the state. I assume you don't live there nor have ever been. Darling, you said Michigan is "heavily democratic". Now, let's look at the reality: in 2021, in a state with over 8 million eligible voters, Biden got 154.178 more votes than Trump. That means the difference between them was less than 3%. No one needs to be in Michigan to know you're full of ****. Facts are facts. Michigan isn't "heavily" Democratic, and Biden never had a huge advantage over Trump in the state. 1
Redstreak Posted May 7 Posted May 7 5 minutes ago, Thesedays said: Here, I will going to try to help you out by explaining it as if I am talking to a 12-year-old. Definition of "unequivocally": in a way that leaves no doubt. Two days after the October 7th attack, there was a massive number of Israeli politicians on Israel's governing party going on record about how they'd use the attack to enforce collective punishment on Gaza's population (a war crime, by the way). Any vaguely intelligent person paying attention knew what was coming and no one in Israel was hiding it. Considering anyone vaguely paying attention to the news knew what was coming and that Israeli politicians were clear about their plans when the governor of a major US state says she supports Israel "in a way that leaves no doubt," what can anyone with two working brain cells conclude based on her comment? That she either supports Israel's clear intentions or that, despite her important political role, she is a dumbass with a below-than-average perception of current affairs. Either one of these interpretations is a good enough reason to be protesting against her. That's number 1. Now, the other self-evident thing, which is a bit embarrassing and needs further explanation, is that there is a universe of possibilities between "I unequivocally support a country with a terrible human-rights track record, apartheid, and with a governing making its genocide intentions clear" and "I love anti-zionism, make BDS the national law right now," right? Do you understand that, don't you? Why do you need this to be spelled out? So, with all those things put in context, what exactly are you defending here? Her quote? Letting aside the fact that the "two days after the attack" excuse doesn't actually fly, why are you pretending her refusing to call the death of over 30k people a "genocide" TWO WEEKS AGO isn't her making her position clear? I'm defending how you possibly think OP is in anyway effective political calculus? Is "talking like an ******* while being inaccurate" swaying any opinions or is your back that desperately in need of some pats?
Thesedays Posted May 7 Posted May 7 (edited) 5 hours ago, Redstreak said: I'm defending how you possibly think OP is in anyway effective political calculus? Is "talking like an ******* while being inaccurate" swaying any opinions or is your back that desperately in need of some pats? So, you argue that protesting is ineffective? Well, that's such a stupid argument that, if I knew that's what you were arguing, I wouldn't even waste my time replying to you. Also, who exactly is being inaccurate? You, when you claim her statements weren't clearly defending Israel's actions (ergo, defending genocide) and that she either could defend genocide or be openly anti-zionist, is clearly inaccurate. What you claim is "inaccurate" isn't clear. What you're talking about exactly? Edited May 8 by Thesedays
Afterglow Posted May 7 Posted May 7 2 minutes ago, Thesedays said: Darling, you said Michigan is "heavily democratic". Now, let's look at the reality: in 2021, in a state with over 8 million eligible voters, Biden got 154.178 more votes than Trump. That means the difference between them was less than 3%. No one needs to be in Michigan to know you're full of ****. Facts are facts. Michigan isn't "heavily" Democratic, and Biden never had a huge advantage over Trump in the state. Darling. How many times had Michigan been a red state since the 1990's. If you come up with the correct answer you can silence yourself and wait for this election as well. Come to any Michigan city spouting your Trumpette nonsense and see what happens if you think it's not a democratic state!
Thesedays Posted May 7 Posted May 7 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Afterglow said: Darling. How many times had Michigan been a red state since the 1990's. If you come up with the correct answer you can silence yourself and wait for this election as well. Come to any Michigan city spouting your Trumpette nonsense and see what happens if you think it's not a democratic state! Darling, you can argue till you're blue in the face. Facts won't change. A state that voted 48% for Trump and 51% for Biden is not "heavily" Democratic. A Trumpkin can shout from the rooftop how the election in 2021 was "stolen" and the ballot boxes were corrupted. You can shout from the rooftop how a state that voted Dem in the last two elections with a tiny difference is "heavily" democratic. The facts won't change because of it. Edited May 7 by Thesedays
Afterglow Posted May 7 Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Thesedays said: Darling, you can argue till you're blue in the fact (love this). Facts won't change. A state that voted 48% for Trump and 51% for Biden is not "heavily" Democratic. I said I want the answer user @Thesedays How many times had Michigan factually been a red state in that time frame?
Thesedays Posted May 7 Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Afterglow said: I said I want the answer user @Thesedays How many times had Michigan factually been a red state in that time frame? Why are you trying to move the goalposts, darling? No one is arguing Michigan was ever a red state in the past. What I am saying is that denying the possibility of turning into one is extremely dumb, and the tiny difference between both candidates in the last two election cycles makes it clear it isn't a "heavily" Democratic state as of the previous decade. Please try to keep up if you want to beat the "unintelligent" allegations.
Afterglow Posted May 7 Posted May 7 2 hours ago, Thesedays said: Why are you trying to move the goalposts, darling? No one is arguing Michigan was ever a red state in the past. What I am saying is that denying the possibility of turning into one is extremely dumb, and the tiny difference between both candidates in the last two election cycles makes it clear it isn't a "heavily" Democratic state as of the previous decade. Please try to keep up if you want to beat the "unintelligent" allegations. Goalpost is the end result, meaning election results. Bloatware response. Classic. So you don't have the answer? Didn't think so! Next! 1
karron0624 Posted May 7 Posted May 7 11 minutes ago, Afterglow said: Goalpost is the end result, meaning election results. Bloatware response. Classic. So you don't have the answer? Didn't think so! Next! It's because the answer does not support their conclusion. So they ignore it add just add blurb. 😂 1
Communion Posted May 7 Posted May 7 21 minutes ago, karron0624 said: It's because the answer does not support their conclusion. So they ignore it add just add blurb. 😂 This is an odd post given the user you're quoting veers into Trump-level conspiracies and still denies that both polls and results in 2016 revealed Trump won due to a collapse in black voter turnout. It's one thing to argue why such happened, but to argue such exit polls are a lie doesn't exactly give one credibility when trying to argue that Michigan has no chance of swinging to Trump in 2024.
karron0624 Posted May 7 Posted May 7 7 minutes ago, Communion said: This is an odd post given the user you're quoting veers into Trump-level conspiracies and still denies that both polls and results in 2016 revealed Trump won due to a collapse in black voter turnout. It's one thing to argue why such happened, but to argue such exit polls are a lie doesn't exactly give one credibility when trying to argue that Michigan has no chance of swinging to Trump in 2024. A broken clock can be right twice a day, and I don't need to bring up someone's different opinion on something to verify the current statement (I'm not even in the civics section enough (nor care enough) to remember someone's comment unless I actually interacted with them on a topic.
Communion Posted May 7 Posted May 7 4 minutes ago, karron0624 said: A broken clock can be right twice a day, and I don't need to bring up someone's different opinion on something to verify the current statement (I'm not even in the civics section enough (nor care enough) to remember someone's comment unless I actually interacted with them on a topic. It's not a different subject. The user is arguing that Michigan has no chance of going red in November. I'm simply pointing out this user for some reason has a conspiracy-based claim about 2016 that doesn't align with facts and thus delegitimizes whatever claims they're making about Michigan now. I actually think Michigan is likely the safest rust belt state for Biden but it is definitely odd for that user to claim as though the chances Trump can win it are 0%. Hundreds of thousands of people are reasonably upset over horrific death occurring. That has to manifest somehow.
BionicWooHoo Posted May 7 Posted May 7 9 hours ago, Kassi said: Ugh not the lame ass thoughts and prayers spiel
Thesedays Posted May 8 Posted May 8 2 hours ago, Afterglow said: Goalpost is the end result, meaning election results. Bloatware response. Classic. So you don't have the answer? Didn't think so! Next! An answer for what exactly? As I said, to debate facts is for very stupid people, which is why you're probably trying to do that. The fact Michigan has never voted for a Republican president IN THE PAST is a fact. But we're not discussing the past. Other facts: Democratic candidates won the state by tiny margins in the last two elections, meaning it is not a "heavily" Democratic state, and there are big odds a Republican can clinch a victory next, mainly because the majority of polls point to that. That's a fact. Now, are Michigan polls reliable? https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/michigan/ it pointed to the correct result 8 years ago https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/michigan/ it pointed to the correct result 4 years ago although it OVERESTIMATED Biden's results. So yes, not only Michigan's polls have correctly pointed to the winner, they also are far too generous when it comes to Biden. But the big question is: why am I debating with you as if I am talking to someone with working brain cells?
Thesedays Posted May 8 Posted May 8 2 hours ago, karron0624 said: It's because the answer does not support their conclusion. So they ignore it add just add blurb. 😂 Look what we're dealing here, guys. "The answer" -- when it comes to polls showing Biden will lose to Trump in Michigan and Dems winning by very tiny margins -- "does not support their conclusion." My conclusion being: Biden win is obviously not assured. Now, the facts actually do support my conclusion. That's not up for debate. So yes, it's tedious when you're clearly arguing with people who are clearly not bright but it's actually concerning when the topic at hand is a ******* genocide. Because, at the end of the day, people's stupidity is not harmless when it's literally enabling the US government with getting away with genocide.
Thesedays Posted May 8 Posted May 8 2 hours ago, Communion said: This is an odd post given the user you're quoting veers into Trump-level conspiracies and still denies that both polls and results in 2016 revealed Trump won due to a collapse in black voter turnout. It's one thing to argue why such happened, but to argue such exit polls are a lie doesn't exactly give one credibility when trying to argue that Michigan has no chance of swinging to Trump in 2024. Polls in Michigan have largely been correct, and Biden won by an almost negligible amount of votes, so anyone claiming Biden's victory in MI is "assured" and the state is "heavily democratic" is as lunatic as Trumpists who believe in election fraud conspiracies. Now, there's absolutely no way we can predict the future, so who knows who'll win MI? Now, to pretend as if things are fine and dandy and victory is an obvious outcome when the literal past results show a tiny victory margin and all the reliable polling points to Trump winning the state? That's lunacy. It gains a layer of sociopathy when all of this lunacy is done in the name of excusing genocide.
Recommended Posts