OccamsTeapot

committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

What Trump did is awful, of course, but was it really committed with this intent in mind?

Like I get what you're saying, separating families at the border is harmful, cruel and driven by racism. But I'm not sure it counts as genocide. This from the CNN article:

The Physicians for Human Rights likened it to “torture,” and the American Academy of Pediatrics told CNN the Trump administration’s practice of separating families at the border was “child abuse.”

Seems totally fair to me. It is torture. It is abuse. It is callous and disgusting. But I feel like it would be a stretch to call it genocide, particularly with what Israel is doing in mind.

Look at the same list for Israel:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Since it's hard to keep up at this point they may have even done the last.

What I'm saying is that for all us that want to stop or at least minimize such horrendous acts, I think there should be a clear priority here. And honestly saying separating families at the border is genocide is really cheapening what genocide means.

But yeah pragmatically speaking there is only one harm it seems possible to stop with the election. UNLESS Harris changes her position, which is a thing she can do. Then we could stop both and to me that is what we should fight for in any way we can.

Then stop. No one is forcing you to debate.

Nobody is forcing you to make it such hard work to have this debate either. So many people just pivot right to the election and then the whole conversation gets derailed. It's like you need to add voting intention disclaimers if you want to say something as basic as "if you give Israel 2,000 lb dumb bombs you will be helping them kill innocent children. That's a bad thing."

Any independent reader or any Republican that is swaying to Harris can change their mind on anything, including your post.

I think our posts aren't really very impactful. But I see your point. The problem is they would have to be misreading my posts, and I think I've been pretty consistent. Vote blue, but push them to be better on this. I have hopes about Walz's take but I almost don't want to check if they're misplaced.

Then maybe we should just talk about the current sitting president who will be in that position in the next 5 months rather than a VP whose only power is tie breakers in the senate.

Yeah I mean why not both? It's not like the issue will be solved in 5 months so her position also matters. And the idea that this is her only power is a bit misleading, surely? Does she not talk to Biden? Does he not listen to her? Lol

A genocide happened in America by Trump.

What do you mean?

Not just funding but hedging against the 7 million Jewish-Americans still sympathetic to Israel and who are also a key voting bloc for Democrats.

Actually it doesn't seem to be a good tactical move even if we forget that we're supposed to also have morals:

https://lemmy.world/post/18668755

I like Harris. She's just shit on this.

This debate is so exhausting. Do you understand that people can criticise a specific policy without advocating voting for the other side or not voting at all because of it? Like, do you get that this is NOT an election issue but a policy issue? It is just something that I care about.

There never has been a perfect candidate in the history of human kind.

This isn't me bitching about universal healthcare or something. This is actually someone arming a genocide. Not "perfect" - yeah no fucking shit we don't expect that but is the bar really THAT low?

People don't like genocide? Pretty straightforward. Some things cannot be excused by "the other side is worse."

@JustZ@lemmy.world IDF now "looking into" it. Do you believe the video now?

I agree it's super helpful to show people! Just thought it was worth pointing out that the numbers for each swing state are relatively low. But you're right about the overall trend and the results for the whole sample taken together.

Worth noting relatively small samples from each state:

IMEU Policy Project and YouGov’s survey was conducted July 25-Aug. 9. 387 voters were surveyed in Arizona, with a margin of error of 5.7%. 374 voters were surveyed in Georgia, with a margin of error of 5.4%. 369 voters were surveyed in Pennsylvania, with a margin of error of 5.3%

But overall this still seems to confirm what we would hope: people who are not staunch MAGA lunatics will vote for you more if you don't arm a genocidal state. So all of the "pragmatic" arguments for maintaining the status quo so dems don't lose votes don't seem to hold weight. The best time to stop arms sales was a long time ago, the second best time is now

Sorry but you are now Hamas

This type of comment is always hilarious to me. We're talking about it right now. Nobody has been called bigoted. It's fine.

Also seems like they are labelled

I wonder how often they update the ratings?

Plus, overall, the difference between:

Donald Trump was a terrible president

And:

OPINION: Donald Trump was a terrible president

Does not seem like it warrants downgrading a website's fact rating. But if it was:

OPINION: Donald Trump was a terrible president and was able to fly unassisted

Then they need to be downgraded. The opinion label is basically irrelevant

A linguistic metric of analytic thinking shows that Trump’s levels of complexity have always been unmistakably low, said Pennebaker. Whereas most presidential candidates are in the 60 to 70 range, Trump’s speeches range from 10 to 24. “I can’t tell you how staggering this is,” said Pennebaker. “He does not think in a complex way at all.”

This is just science for "he's dumb as fuck"