Schumer, No. 3 US Senate Democrat, to oppose Iran nuclear deal

[up-country_sinclair]

crazy "deal"

Israel firsters and the hardliners in Iran have found common cause: attempt to scuttle this deal that the rest of the world welcomes.

[Publicus]

I don't know if Shumer is a Patriot or not. I am simply curious as to whether or not he would have still been considered a patriot on this forum had he committed for the deal.

I don't think I would have questioned his patriotism. I would have questioned his common sense. IMO, most of the democrats who support the "deal" support it only for partisan reasons.

IMO the rightwingers who oppose the Agreement oppose it because they are political and ideological rightwingnuts.

So, then what are the dems that oppose it?

As I wrote a page or so ago, the reference is of course to the rightwingers and the rightwingnuts who oppose the deal, i.e., the usual suspects. I dunno anyone who might consider Sen Schumer or the others named in the post rightwingers.

Do try to keep up with the posts plse thx.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Publicus

[chuckd]

It appears nobody is willing to do your work for you only to get parsed to death, so I am providing you a link to the Agreement.

Please read it and point out to us why you believe this agreement is so good.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2165399/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal.pdf

This DOES NOT include any side deals made by any of the participating nations. Those are confidential and are not be released in the public domain.

We await your input.

That's a very weak parry, avoiding answering the question.

I have no idea what you are on about with "my work" or being "parsed to death"..although there might be an unintentional compliment to me in there.

You challenged somebody, anybody, to make a post listing the argument against the surrender to Iran.

I merely said why don't you make a post itemizing the strengths of the agreement.

Don't flatter yourself. No compliments were issued nor intended.

You're still not answering the question.

The implied compliment is that you foresee that people will get "parsed to death" if they try.

First this imaginary compliment was "unintentional" and then it became "implied."

The word you are searching for is "non-existent".

[sdanielmcev]

I don't know if Shumer is a Patriot or not. I am simply curious as to whether or not he would have still been considered a patriot on this forum had he committed for the deal.

I don't think I would have questioned his patriotism. I would have questioned his common sense. IMO, most of the democrats who support the "deal" support it only for partisan reasons.

IMO the rightwingers who oppose the Agreement oppose it because they are political and ideological rightwingnuts.

So, then what are the dems that oppose it?

As I wrote a page or so ago, the reference is of course to the rightwingers and the rightwingnuts who oppose the deal, i.e., the usual suspects. I dunno anyone who might consider Sen Schumer or the others named in the post rightwingers.

Do try to keep up with the posts plse thx.

Simple question, yet you chose to obfuscate. Just more hypocrisy from you. Sad.

[Seastallion]

It doesn't work. Actually, it backfires.

Nope. Considering the way Obama is acting about his crazy "deal" and people in his own party who object to it, very pertinent.

You edited out "Fox Newsesque".

So apt now.

[Seastallion]

That's a very weak parry, avoiding answering the question.

I have no idea what you are on about with "my work" or being "parsed to death"..although there might be an unintentional compliment to me in there.

You challenged somebody, anybody, to make a post listing the argument against the surrender to Iran.

I merely said why don't you make a post itemizing the strengths of the agreement.

Don't flatter yourself. No compliments were issued nor intended.

You're still not answering the question.

The implied compliment is that you foresee that people will get "parsed to death" if they try.

First this imaginary compliment was "unintentional" and then it became "implied."

The word you are searching for is "non-existent".

You must be getting tired, your attempts at jabs are becoming very limp-wristed. Nonsensical, as usual, but quite floppy now.

[Pakboong]

This one is not difficult. Total safety is a bottomless pit. It can't be achieved. So, with that as a basic fact, what can we accept that can be considered reasonable safety to the parties involved. Given is, the only country not satisfied is Israel. It is pretty much a given that Israel cannot be satisfied which means she forfeits her right to participate and/or be heard. We do however have to listen to her each and every day.

Maybe the deal is not that great and maybe it is. We are a democracy and the democratic principle at play here is the world accepts this deal and one small middle eastern country doesn't. Seriously, this is the no-brainer of a life time.

Perhaps, the US should not have vetoed so many Israeli issues at the UN. Came back to roost I suppose.

"The pro-Israel groups are worried about that. The other day the Jewish Council for Public Affairs warned that divisions over the Iran Deal are reminiscent of the “baseless hatred” that brought about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. It was warning that Jews shouldn’t fight with Jews ".

Now, how stupid is that? "Jews shouldn't fight with Jews?" It would be my guess that the first anti-semitic commandment would be that Jews can only be loyal to other Jews.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Pakboong

[Ulysses G.]

Given is, the only country not satisfied is Israel.

Horse droppings. The majority of Americans want to scuttle this deal. There are people all over the world who object to this idiocy.

[Anthony5]

Given is, the only country not satisfied is Israel.

Horse droppings. The majority of Americans want to scuttle this deal. There are people all over the world who object to this idiocy.

The majority of Americans on Thaivisa want to scuttle this deal.

See I have corrected that incorrect statement for you.

[Ulysses G.]

You are parading your ignorance once again.

CNN/ORC poll: Majority wants Congress to reject Iran deal
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-approval-iran-economy/

[Anthony5]

You are parading your ignorance once again.

CNN/ORC poll: Majority wants Congress to reject Iran deal

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-approval-iran-economy/

And then people on Thaivisa are laughing their arse off about the credibility of a Thai poll when it says that 1000 people were polled among a population of 65 Million.

But if in the US 1000 people are polled among a population of 315 Million, everything is very credible. NOT.

The CNN/ORC International Poll was conducted by telephone July 22-25 among a random national sample of 1,017 adults,

[Anthony5]

You are parading your ignorance once again.

CNN/ORC poll: Majority wants Congress to reject Iran deal

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-approval-iran-economy/

Take a look here

Take two polls conducted over roughly the same time period last month.

One, overseen by the Pew Research Center, first asks people how much they’ve heard about the deal, then poses the question: “From what you know, do you approve or disapprove of this agreement?” Of the 79 percent who’d heard of the deal, 48 percent disapproved, while 38 percent approved.

The second, a Washington Post/ABC News survey, first explains the agreement (“As you may know, the U.S. and other countries have announced a deal to lift economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons. International inspectors would monitor Iran’s facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again.”) before asking whether respondents support or oppose it. The level of support was 56 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/public-polls-iran-nuclear-deal-support-oppose-120953.html#ixzz3iTI3Gsor

Edited August 11, 2015 by Anthony5

[Seastallion]

You are parading your ignorance once again.

CNN/ORC poll: Majority wants Congress to reject Iran deal

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-approval-iran-economy/

And then people on Thaivisa are laughing their arse off about the credibility of a Thai poll when it says that 1000 people were polled among a population of 65 Million.

But if in the US 1000 people are polled among a population of 315 Million, everything is very credible. NOT.

The CNN/ORC International Poll was conducted by telephone July 22-25 among a random national sample of 1,017 adults,

Did that random sample happen to include an unusually high number of people named, Betty-Sue, Leroy, or Chuck, and surnames such as Levine, Finkelstein, and Goldberg?

[Seastallion]

You are parading your ignorance once again.

CNN/ORC poll: Majority wants Congress to reject Iran deal

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-approval-iran-economy/

Take a look here

Take two polls conducted over roughly the same time period last month.

One, overseen by the Pew Research Center, first asks people how much they’ve heard about the deal, then poses the question: “From what you know, do you approve or disapprove of this agreement?” Of the 79 percent who’d heard of the deal, 48 percent disapproved, while 38 percent approved.

The second, a Washington Post/ABC News survey, first explains the agreement (“As you may know, the U.S. and other countries have announced a deal to lift economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons. International inspectors would monitor Iran’s facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again.”) before asking whether respondents support or oppose it. The level of support was 56 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/public-polls-iran-nuclear-deal-support-oppose-120953.html#ixzz3iTI3Gsor

Don't forget, a poll supplied by the honourable member UG, which he has defended, places over 40% of Israelis as not opposing the deal.

[Ulysses G.]

Back to the the usual dishonest Seastallian spin:

69% are against the deal and 10% are in favor - not anywhere close to "40%".

The poll, of a statistical sample of Israelis, found that 69% are against the deal, 10% are in favor and 21% do not know.

http://www.jpost.com...ear-Iran-409102

[chuckd]

You are parading your ignorance once again.

CNN/ORC poll: Majority wants Congress to reject Iran deal

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-approval-iran-economy/

Take a look here

Take two polls conducted over roughly the same time period last month.

One, overseen by the Pew Research Center, first asks people how much they’ve heard about the deal, then poses the question: “From what you know, do you approve or disapprove of this agreement?” Of the 79 percent who’d heard of the deal, 48 percent disapproved, while 38 percent approved.

The second, a Washington Post/ABC News survey, first explains the agreement (“As you may know, the U.S. and other countries have announced a deal to lift economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons. International inspectors would monitor Iran’s facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again.”) before asking whether respondents support or oppose it. The level of support was 56 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/public-polls-iran-nuclear-deal-support-oppose-120953.html#ixzz3iTI3Gsor

When two entirely different questions are asked, it is very likely there will be two entirely different sets of results.

[stevenl]

Back to the the usual dishonest Seastallian spin:

69% are against the deal and 10% are in favor - not anywhere close to "40%".

The poll, of a statistical sample of Israelis, found that 69% are against the deal, 10% are in favor and 21% do not know.

http://www.jpost.com...ear-Iran-409102

See correct link here, http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Poll-74-percent-of-Israelis-say-deal-wont-stop-nuclear-Iran-409102

You forgot to mention 1 very important aspect about the poll: "Channel 10 did not provide the sample size or margin of error." And "One-third of respondents said Israel should attack Iran in the wake of the deal, 40% said they were against an Israeli strike and 28% do not know."

Accusing others of being dishonest when you have given clearly incorrect information in this very thread and keep on spinning that is a bit peculiar BTW.

[Anthony5]

You are parading your ignorance once again.

CNN/ORC poll: Majority wants Congress to reject Iran deal

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-approval-iran-economy/

Take a look here

Take two polls conducted over roughly the same time period last month.

One, overseen by the Pew Research Center, first asks people how much they’ve heard about the deal, then poses the question: “From what you know, do you approve or disapprove of this agreement?” Of the 79 percent who’d heard of the deal, 48 percent disapproved, while 38 percent approved.

The second, a Washington Post/ABC News survey, first explains the agreement (“As you may know, the U.S. and other countries have announced a deal to lift economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons. International inspectors would monitor Iran’s facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again.”) before asking whether respondents support or oppose it. The level of support was 56 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/public-polls-iran-nuclear-deal-support-oppose-120953.html#ixzz3iTI3Gsor

When two entirely different questions are asked, it is very likely there will be two entirely different sets of results.

You must have noticed that the second poll was to informed people, because they explained the deal first.

Thanks for confirming that the second poll has the more reliable result.

[Anthony5]

Back to the the usual dishonest Seastallian spin:

69% are against the deal and 10% are in favor - not anywhere close to "40%".

The poll, of a statistical sample of Israelis, found that 69% are against the deal, 10% are in favor and 21% do not know.

http://www.jpost.com...ear-Iran-409102

See correct link here, http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Poll-74-percent-of-Israelis-say-deal-wont-stop-nuclear-Iran-409102

You forgot to mention 1 very important aspect about the poll: "Channel 10 did not provide the sample size or margin of error." And "One-third of respondents said Israel should attack Iran in the wake of the deal, 40% said they were against an Israeli strike and 28% do not know."

Accusing others of being dishonest when you have given clearly incorrect information in this very thread and keep on spinning that is a bit peculiar BTW.

Now you're challenging one of UG's trademarks.

[Ulysses G.]

You must have noticed that the second poll was to informed people, because they explained the deal first.

Actually, the second poll tells readers how to answer. It is not credible.

And dont be fooled by polls that present, as fact, the administrations position in the very question.

And dont be fooled by polls that present, as fact, the administrations position in the very question . The Post/ABC poll assures the respondent that, for example, international inspectors would monitor Irans facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again. Do you support or oppose this agreement?[/i]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/just-who-is-helping-irans-hard-liners/2015/08/06/45700fde-3c75-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html?wprss=rss_charles-krauthammer

[stevenl]

Accusing others of being dishonest when you have given clearly incorrect information in this very thread and keep on spinning that is a bit peculiar BTW.

Since I have not given incorrect information, that means you are lying. No surprise there. Taqiyya are lies that advance the cause of Islam.

You have given incorrect poll results here: stating '76% of the Israeli public ...' and later stating '76% of the hebrew speaking Jewish Israelis ...' in other words, that is the same: sorry, it is not,.and are now accusing me of advancing the cause of islam and lying. Get a grip.

Edited August 11, 2015 by stevenl

[chuckd]

You are parading your ignorance once again.

CNN/ORC poll: Majority wants Congress to reject Iran deal

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-approval-iran-economy/

Take a look here

Take two polls conducted over roughly the same time period last month.

One, overseen by the Pew Research Center, first asks people how much they’ve heard about the deal, then poses the question: “From what you know, do you approve or disapprove of this agreement?” Of the 79 percent who’d heard of the deal, 48 percent disapproved, while 38 percent approved.

The second, a Washington Post/ABC News survey, first explains the agreement (“As you may know, the U.S. and other countries have announced a deal to lift economic sancagainst Iran in exchange for Iran agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons. International inspectors would monitor Iran’s facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again.”) before asking whether respondents support or opptions ose it. The level of support was 56 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/public-polls-iran-nuclear-deal-support-oppose-120953.html#ixzz3iTI3Gsor

When two entirely different questions are asked, it is very likely there will be two entirely different sets of results.

You must have noticed that the second poll was to informed people, because they explained the deal first.

Thanks for confirming that the second poll has the more reliable result.

I didn't overlook anything. The so called "informed people" were informed thusly, according to your own link...

"The second, a Washington Post/ABC News survey, first explains the agreement (“As you may know, the U.S. and other countries have announced a deal to lift economic sancagainst Iran in exchange for Iran agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons. International inspectors would monitor Iran’s facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again.”) before asking whether respondents support or opptions ose it. (sic)

It would seem to most thinking persons, the question as stated does not take into account the restrictions placed on the international inspectors monitoring Iran's facilities by the side deals between the IAEA and Iran.

The question goes on to omit how difficult, or even impossible, it would be to put the sanctions back in place, when one considers most of the P5+1 will have no interest whatsoever in placing the sanctions back into effect. The EU, Russia and China will have no incentive to place sanctions back on since they will be on their knees attempting to get business deals out of the $100-150 Billion in ready cash being made available to Iran.

Perhaps it might do you some good to join the "informed people" category for a change. Try reading your own link beyond the headlines.

From your own Politico link, in particular notice the last quoted sentence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

A Pew analysis chalked up the differences to the wording of the question.Because no two polls are exactly the same, it’s difficult to say which is most reflective of public opinion. But the latest WSJ/NBC poll is helpful to a certain degree on this front.

According to the Journal, the question asked in the latest poll is “very similar” to one conducted in June. Between then and now, the level of support for the agreement has stayed the same, but the level of opposition has risen — a warning sign for the Obama administration as it tries to rally support in Congress for the agreement.

Gerstein, however, noted that even looking at those two polls isn’t entirely an apples-to-apples comparison because the first poll was conducted before the 100-plus page agreement was unveiled in mid-July.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/public-polls-iran-nuclear-deal-support-oppose-120953.html#ixzz3iTqY7uyr

[Anthony5]

Take a look here

Take two polls conducted over roughly the same time period last month.

One, overseen by the Pew Research Center, first asks people how much they’ve heard about the deal, then poses the question: “From what you know, do you approve or disapprove of this agreement?” Of the 79 percent who’d heard of the deal, 48 percent disapproved, while 38 percent approved.

The second, a Washington Post/ABC News survey, first explains the agreement (“As you may know, the U.S. and other countries have announced a deal to lift economic sancagainst Iran in exchange for Iran agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons. International inspectors would monitor Iran’s facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again.”) before asking whether respondents support or opptions ose it. The level of support was 56 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/public-polls-iran-nuclear-deal-support-oppose-120953.html#ixzz3iTI3Gsor

When two entirely different questions are asked, it is very likely there will be two entirely different sets of results.

You must have noticed that the second poll was to informed people, because they explained the deal first.

Thanks for confirming that the second poll has the more reliable result.

I didn't overlook anything. The so called "informed people" were informed thusly, according to your own link...

"The second, a Washington Post/ABC News survey, first explains the agreement (“As you may know, the U.S. and other countries have announced a deal to lift economic sancagainst Iran in exchange for Iran agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons. International inspectors would monitor Iran’s facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again.”) before asking whether respondents support or opptions ose it. (sic)

It would seem to most thinking persons, the question as stated does not take into account the restrictions placed on the international inspectors monitoring Iran's facilities by the side deals between the IAEA and Iran.

The question goes on to omit how difficult, or even impossible, it would be to put the sanctions back in place, when one considers most of the P5+1 will have no interest whatsoever in placing the sanctions back into effect. The EU, Russia and China will have no incentive to place sanctions back on since they will be on their knees attempting to get business deals out of the $100-150 Billion in ready cash being made available to Iran.

Perhaps it might do you some good to join the "informed people" category for a change. Try reading your own link beyond the headlines.

From your own Politico link, in particular notice the last quoted sentence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

A Pew analysis chalked up the differences to the wording of the question.Because no two polls are exactly the same, it’s difficult to say which is most reflective of public opinion. But the latest WSJ/NBC poll is helpful to a certain degree on this front.

According to the Journal, the question asked in the latest poll is “very similar” to one conducted in June. Between then and now, the level of support for the agreement has stayed the same, but the level of opposition has risen — a warning sign for the Obama administration as it tries to rally support in Congress for the agreement.

Gerstein, however, noted that even looking at those two polls isn’t entirely an apples-to-apples comparison because the first poll was conducted before the 100-plus page agreement was unveiled in mid-July.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/public-polls-iran-nuclear-deal-support-oppose-120953.html#ixzz3iTqY7uyr

Thanks for pointing out the last quoted sentence, which clearly indicates that if the first poll also was conducted AFTER the agreement was unveiled, the result most probably would have been similar to the second poll.

So another clear sign that the first poll was conducted among UNINFORMED people, since they couldn't have been informed about the agreement details yet.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Anthony5

[Ulysses G.]

Accusing others of being dishonest when you have given clearly incorrect information in this very thread and keep on spinning that is a bit peculiar BTW.

Since I have not given incorrect information, that means you are lying. No surprise there. Taqiyya are lies that advance the cause of Islam.

You have given incorrect poll results here: stating '76% of the Israeli public ...' and later stating '76% of the hebrew speaking Jewish Israelis ...' in other words, that is the same: sorry, it is not,.and are now accusing me of advancing the cause of islam and lying. Get a grip.

I quoted from an article about the poll and gave the link to it. The article headline mentioned 76% of the Israeli public and later specified 76% of Hebrew speaking Jewish Israelis. I did not change anything.

You nitpicked SPECULATED about the results. I also quoted another poll that came to very similar conclusions, while you have made your conclusions up. You are being dishonest and trying to spin your way out of it. The Mullahs would be proud.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Seastallion]

Back to the the usual dishonest Seastallian spin:

69% are against the deal and 10% are in favor - not anywhere close to "40%".

The poll, of a statistical sample of Israelis, found that 69% are against the deal, 10% are in favor and 21% do not know.

http://www.jpost.com...ear-Iran-409102

Back to the usual UG ignorance of the points.....AND your deliberate twisting of stats.

Your poll showing "69% are against it", is a poll of "Hebrew-speaking Jewish Israelis". Since the Israeli population is 80% Jewish, that means that the "69%" is of 80% of the population (or less because of the Hebrew), ie 55% of the population are against the deal. Thanks for making me look at it again......45% of Israelis are NOT against the deal.

[Ulysses G.]

69% are against the deal and 10% are in favor and 21% do not know.

Keep on spinning.

[stevenl]

Accusing others of being dishonest when you have given clearly incorrect information in this very thread and keep on spinning that is a bit peculiar BTW.

Since I have not given incorrect information, that means you are lying. No surprise there. Taqiyya are lies that advance the cause of Islam.

You have given incorrect poll results here: stating '76% of the Israeli public ...' and later stating '76% of the hebrew speaking Jewish Israelis ...' in other words, that is the same: sorry, it is not,.and are now accusing me of advancing the cause of islam and lying. Get a grip.

I quoted from an article about the poll and gave the link to it. The article headline mentioned 76% of the Israeli public and later specified 76% of Hebrew speaking Jewish Israelis. I did not change anything.

You nitpicked SPECULATED about the results. I also quoted another poll that came to very similar conclusions, while you have made your conclusions up. You are being dishonest and trying to spin your way out of it. The Mullahs would be proud.

I did not speculate about any result. Feel free to quote me otherwise or retract your words.

So you quoted an article, no link was given BTW, and your defense when that article has been proved incorrect is : I only quoted it. Sorry, bad defense. You quote, so better check it is correct before quoting.

But enough of this, I know I'll have to be careful with any information you give here, it will be twisted to suit you as much as you can. I have not bene dishonest in any way, and your references to islam with regards to me are ludicrous. Get a grip.

Edited August 11, 2015 by stevenl

[Ulysses G.]

This is my post with the EXACT quote and - since you seem ignorant of it - HEADLINES only provide partial information which is provided in the text - in this case, the second sentence under it.

There are always plenty of different opinions in Israel. but WAY more are against it.

Poll: 76 Percent of Israelis Think Israel Needs to Continue Fighting Iran Nuclear Deal


More than three-quarters of the Israeli public believes that Israel needs to press on with efforts to torpedo the Iran nuclear deal, a new Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research revealed.

According to the poll, 76 percent of Hebrew-speaking Jewish Israelis believe Israel should continue fighting the deal, while only 15 percent think that Israel should not fight it.

69% are against the deal and 10% are in favor and 21% do not know.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[stevenl]

This is my post with the EXACT quote and - since you seem ignorant of it - HEADLINES only provide partial information which is provided in the text - in this case, the first sentence under it.

There are always plenty of different opinions in Israel. but WAY more are against it.

Poll: 76 Percent of Israelis Think Israel Needs to Continue Fighting Iran Nuclear Deal

More than three-quarters of the Israeli public believes that Israel needs to press on with efforts to torpedo the Iran nuclear deal, a new Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research revealed.

According to the poll, 76 percent of Hebrew-speaking Jewish Israelis believe Israel should continue fighting the deal, while only 15 percent think that Israel should not fight it.

69% are against the deal and 10% are in favor and 21% do not know.

Yes, incorrect information given (quoted) by you: "76 Percent of Israelis Think Israel Needs to Continue Fighting Iran Nuclear Deal"

Now you can try to wiggle out of it, and on my part you can because I have made my point and won't further respond to you on this. Unless of course you want to retract your accusation of me speculating about the results or prove them, either way would clear up that point. On the point about lying I have given up already, you accuse but can't prove.

[Ulysses G.]

The correct information is presented in MY quote from the article. You are nitpicking about the HEADLINE.

According to the poll, 76 percent of Hebrew-speaking Jewish Israelis believe Israel should continue fighting the deal, while only 15 percent think that Israel should not fight it.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Ulysses G.