[lispm]

> Feel free to actually try to refute anything I said.

Refute right-wing propaganda?

> It is according to Avraham Burg, and I'm not sure there is anyone more qualified to make such a claim.

Point me to a recording where Schulz said anything like that. On the contrary, Schulz has a decade long track record working for Germany and the European Union.

[Exofunctor]

I'm not right-wing by any stretch of the imagination (pretty hard left, actually), so the fact that instead of actually thinking about my arguments you just slap a label on them and dismiss them out of hand should disturb you.

Perhaps what's confusing to you is that I'm capable of considering the thought process of people I disagree with.

> Point me to a recording where Schulz said anything like that.

You understand that not everything politicians say is recorded? That said, Burg has literally no reason to lie about this.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.574332

> On the contrary, Schulz has a decade long track record working for Germany and the European Union

All you've done is prove my point; even people who work for the EU for a long time appear to have plenty of conflicting non-EU interests.

[lispm]

> You understand that not everything politicians say is recorded? That said, Burg has literally no reason to lie about this.

So all you have is that?

Let's sum it up: there is no recording of that, there are no witnesses, there has been no transcript, Schulz himself has never acknowledged it, there are no other sources where Schulz has said anything like that, ...

All you have is a sentence which is circulating in right-wing groups.

It's actually obvious that Germany in its current form exists and that Martin Schulz aims to be its next chancellor.

> All you've done is prove my point

Sure not.

> even people who work for the EU for a long time appear to have plenty of conflicting non-EU interests.

What does it have to do with Martin Schulz?

[Exofunctor]

So what you're saying is that a direct claim from a high-ranking Israeli politician about a conversation he had, with no apparent benefit to lying about its contents, is not enough?

> right-wing groups

Haaretz, a liberal Israeli newspaper, is a "right wing group"?

> What does it have to do with Martin Schulz?

I feel like I'm chatting with a bot; do you remember the course of our conversation?

Yes, Schulz has been working for the EU for a long time; he also, apparently, has had strong interests outside the EU for as well. Why do you think many Europeans feel betrayed by the EU?

[lispm]

> So what you're saying is that a direct claim from a high-ranking Israeli politician about a conversation he had, with no apparent benefit to lying about its contents, is not enough?

Exactly. Random people can claim anything. There is no credible source and Schulz never said anything like that on record.

You might want to listen to what Schulz actually says.

> Haaretz, a liberal Israeli newspaper, is a "right wing group"?

Repeated only by right-wing groups.

> he also, apparently, has had strong interests outside the EU for as well.

which ones?

[Yetanfou]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz

"... It is known for its left-wing and liberal stances on domestic and foreign issues. ..."

Yes, Wikipedia is not an original source.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-political-leanings-of-the...

"... Among the newspapers Haaretz is definitely left leaning, with some columnists in the radical left. ..."

Claiming that Haaretz is 'Repeated only by right-wing groups' is rather unbelievable, they'd be undermining their own arguments by doing so. That is, unless the 'left and radical left' in Israel is actually 'right' when compared to other countries. I don't think this is the case.

[lispm]

The particular quote is only circulating in right-wing groups.

Stay on topic.

[vacri]

> That said, Burg has literally no reason to lie about this.

o_O

X = "Israel"

Y = "EU"

A senior $X politician 'has literally no reason to lie' about $Y support for $X!?

[Exofunctor]

Burg's comments put Schultz's ability to support pro-Israeli policies at risk; if he's known to be an ardent supporter of Israel for ideological reasons (to the exclusion of concern for Germany), people will be more critical of his motivations when it comes time to e.g. send military aid to Israel.

Calling out your supporters, when being a supporter is politically contested, isn't a good idea. If Burg was lying, he'd be better off saying that Schulz doesn't give a shit about Israel.

[lispm]

Germany has supported Israel for decades. That's not controversial.

[Exofunctor]

Stating that Germany only exists for the sake of Israel is controversial, however. (At least, I hope it is! I hope most Germans have enough self-interest to dislike the idea of being a vassal state.)

[lispm]

> Stating that Germany only exists for the sake of Israel is controversial, however.

It isn't. Nobody, besides some right-wing Germans, cares about it, since it obvious has nothing to do with reality.

Germany exists for many reasons and Martin Schulz is a another good candidate for the next chancellor.