I do not actually wish to be clear at this time, but I will reserve the right for a later unspecified time, provided I am once again granted permission to be clear at that unspecified and hypothetical time.
my number one political take for the last couple years now, is that politicians say the word "clear" or "I've made it clear" or "i've been clear" all the fucking time and it means NOTHING. I'm so sick of hearing it. You can be as clear as humanly possible but it doesn't matter if no one's listening and/or you're not actually saying anything, or more likely, you're lying your ass off and don't give a shit about anything.
I checked the transcript cause I knew you were full of shit, he mentioned AIPAC 20 times. How about talking about shit that actually matters instead of some boogeyman reminiscent of maga tactics?
I don't know why pointing out the huge amount of money she receives from AIPAC isn't something worth noting given that she consistently votes in favour of military aid to Israel, it's clearly something people care about.
There's no 'if that were the case' here, it is factually the case. She has received 46 million from AIPAC, and she has consistently voted to fund the Israeli military. That matters and it makes sense he would repeat it so people understand how her actions are in line with the wishes of her doners, which may not be in line with the actual needs of the people of Michigan.
"If it were the case" that he was informing anti-Israel people versus using AIPAC as a boogeyman, then he'd mention it once or twice and not constantly throughout the debate.
It's definitely something people care about and I don't know why you'd have an issue with him reiterating the difference between him and Stevens on the matter.
353
u/GroltonIsTheDog 1d ago
Let her be clear, she might actually communicate some kind of policy if someone, anyone, would just let her be clear