-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
House Dems will vote on a resolution in response to Ilhan Omar’s Israel comments
- Thread starter D.Dragoon
- Start date
- Status
User banned (1 week): off-site drama + concern trolling
Doesn't surprise me just based on the other forums he posts on.
Back on topic: does anyone have links to what AOC actually said?
I like how judd calls goes both sides then posts the actual quote which completely kills his both sides argument
The last "direct" comment she made on the matter was this tweet :
She has been throwing a little shade here and there on twitter. I wish she'd take a stronger stance but hey at least it's something :/
Interesting. Glad she posted that. I wonder how much of her speech is being stifled simply because of the Democratic Party.
she's agreeing with and validating the notion that Omar's remarks were actually antisemitic and that she thus needed to be either "called in" or "called out" for them. I honestly can't decide if it'd be better for her to just say nothing
Good piece by Mehdi Hasan.
The Intercept: Republicans and Democrats Say Their Criticism of Ilhan Omar Is About Anti-Semitism. They're Gaslighting You.
I hadn't seen or made my post as a response to other people's post but the news/info that she's in trouble for saying it's all about the money in regard to AIPAC. I know she said some other stuff and apologized for that, but it seems like the AIPAC comment got her in a lot of trouble. Seeing AIPAC seems like a foreign influence made is what I'm commenting on. What if Russia had something similar, to donate to politicians making some defend Russia's actions with regard to it's neighbors (Trump: They are both Russia since they both speak the same language), or when Russia want's certain things done (no protesting Russia in America). It just seems messed up.
Edit: Catching up with quotes to my post. Just now seeing the mod message. I hope this post clears everything up, and I'm not exactly sure if the above would be considered as talking about Israel's situation in it's area. If it is have mercy on me mods. I should have just said I hadn't even read posts to then make my post as a response to others, but I type too much as you can see with this edit.
Last edited:
It's so transparent, especially when it's laid out like this.
Lmk when Italy starts killing brown people for living in their own homes.
Also Saudi Arabia does similar shit and is also constantly called out by progressives. I didn't know SA, an Islamist Wahabist theocratic monarchy, was also a Jewish ethnostate.
Thanks for posting this. When are people going to understand this is happening because Omar is a
1. Black
2. Muslim
3. Woman
Parties will self-police themselves. Going "why didn't the Dems censure Trump" is ridiculous because they hold no authority or influence over him.
What?
Are they not elected politicians of the United States of America?
Should we not police ourselves as a country?
Ty was looking for some good articles to share
The fuck?
This whole thing started because Kevin McCarthy tried to censor the first two Muslim women who were elected to congress.
I mean, we should, but one of the parties is explicitly uninterested in doing it whatsoever.
Well, unless you're pro-choice, then you get blacklisted.
And Dems aren't going to be able to get the GOP to go along with a statement directly aimed at him, which would frame criticism as partisan, so they don't do it.
This is nonsense. Democrats have a duty as elected officials to condemn and obstruct wrongdoing on either side of the aisle to the best of their ability. The newer progressives are actively doing this already and there is absolutely no reason why the Democrat controlled House could not draft a resolution against Islamophobia in response to the any of the countless instances of it from the GOP.
Last edited:
Is your argument that the Democrats never criticize a republican unless they can get a bipartisan support for that criticism?
This is really really not true, and I got to believe that you know that this is not true.
They absolutely should put up a paired resolution to address this as well.
No, of course not. I'm speaking institutionally as organizations. A Steve King wouldn't be tolerated in the Dem's caucus (see: Northam response) but the GOP has very few actual standards.
Important question. Another thing to consider is that the move by the Democrats to censure Omar now will create a chilling effect on others who might criticize the right-wing Israeli government and the occupation of Palestine. So even if AOC might say definitively "I'm not being stifled", we have to assume the terms of acceptable debate are absolutely set and enforced by the party.
Please, if only she bristled instead of repeating her "allegiance to a foreign country" line.
This is a 100% an insane strategy. At the very least it shows she doesn't care about the context of how she chooses to criticize Israel.
"Pledging allegiance to another country" has been said by her more than once. Try again.
I get it that you're speaking "institutionally as organization", so do I, so was the article, I mean, it's literally talking about the Democratic party. The issue is that you make claims that are demonstrably false.
Not sure how's the fact that Steve King is unlikely to win a dem primary is relevant to any of that.
No, you were not. You said the following:
Which is explicitly talking about about individual party members criticizing Republicans.
Please don't do this.
There's an actual pledge that people are asked to sign or they'll get fired.
How the fuck are she or anyone supposed to talk about it?
If Democrats are institutionally opposed to islamophobia, they should stop bombing (and supporting the bombing of) majority Muslim countries who pose no threat to the US. Out-group bigotry/racism *begins* with the oppression and exploitation of that group by the majority for material reasons. Race enters the picture when a majority group needs to justify their oppression of another group (as Barbara Fields has shown persuasively).
And dem leadership "as an institution" never attacked the GOP without bipartisan support?
Seriously, what are you even arguing anymore?
I know you follow politics close enough to know that none of that shit is remotely true.
Just a thought but maybe censuring people from the other party who are actually doing what bad faith actors are accusing you of is better then the current spineless autocannibalism that dems are currently engaged in.
States where you are fired for not pledging to protect Israeli products which in essence is pledging loyalty to state of Israel
Texas: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/edi...cott-texas-20181222-story.html?outputType=amp
Arkansas https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna977771
Kansas https://amp.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article226514045.html
Kentucky, Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Michigan, Texas, Nevada, Louisiana and Wisconsin https://unitedwithisrael.org/kentucky-becomes-26th-us-state-to-pass-anti-bds-law/
Basically if any era member in the United States in the above states does not sign a form if asked to affirm allegiance to buy Israeli products in a show of loyalty, they will be fired
Now.. tell me why they are going after Rep. Omar again ?
Texas: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/edi...cott-texas-20181222-story.html?outputType=amp
Arkansas https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna977771
Kansas https://amp.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article226514045.html
Kentucky, Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Michigan, Texas, Nevada, Louisiana and Wisconsin https://unitedwithisrael.org/kentucky-becomes-26th-us-state-to-pass-anti-bds-law/
Basically if any era member in the United States in the above states does not sign a form if asked to affirm allegiance to buy Israeli products in a show of loyalty, they will be fired
Now.. tell me why they are going after Rep. Omar again ?
Last edited:
This is a good question to ask. On paper, this seems fine. The problem is that if the GOP won't play ball, you end up with censures/resolutions/etc on topics condemning behavior that pass on a party line vote. Which the GOP is deliberately baiting out so that they can claim that accusations of "racism/anti-semitism/homophobia" aren't real problems but are instead just partisan attacks. This is obviously bad for a number of reasons, and that implicit threat is what gets you the current scenario- individual reps, even leaders decrying behavior but without official measures being taken by the House. It's not unique to us, you see this play out in the UK as well.
This is also why Steve King got referred to the bipartisan ethics committee btw, Dem leadership didn't want to risk a vote like that going down- they want to have buy-in from the GOP if a congressional censure/statement condemning him gets put out there explicitly to avoid this issue.
Dem leadership and instittutions can actually enforce consequences on their membership. If Justin Fairfax tries to run for Governor in 2 years, he's not going to be getting endorsements, donations, etc. from inside the party. Because they have power to deny it. They don't have that power to deny support for say, a Corey Stewart bid on the GOP side.
My argument in response to that article has not been vague or unclear.
Important point for anyone with dreams of reforming or "taking back" the Democratic party for the left.
So like that''s fair but that does nothing to change (and in fact in my mind makes more clear) how much of a self inflicted wound the current dem response is. To paraphrase myself from earlier, it's both morally bankrupt and politically ineffective and thus something no one should be supporting unless their end goal is a further entrenchment of the american political class' inability to question Israel.
I suppose I should have clarified that there is no moral reason for them not to condemn Islamophobia in the same manner that they are condemning alleged anti-Semitism with this resolution. You're absolutely correct and as an Arab American it is absolutely infuriating to see the Palestinian people as well as the larger Muslim and Arab communities silenced in these discussions.
I think you're actually missing the context here, and not her. Anyone calling this anti-Semitic is willfully ignoring that anti-BDS bills are asking you to pledge allegiance to another country and this is clearly what she's referencing. The effort to shut down that conversation by charging that it is bigotry to state the current reality is absurd.
But you're calling it "autocannibalism", when really it's the party as an institution enforcing ideological discipline. The problem is idea that Omar and The Democratic Party are of one group. People with ideas like Omar's are not welcome in the party. They might get elected as Democrats from time to time, but they're not allowed to influence party policy.
I'm pretty sure she isnt talking about jews pledging allegiance to Israel. I think its pretty explicit that she is talking about our politicians pledging allegiance. It seems pretty clear by the fact that she said she cant pledge allegiance to them. Last I checked, she is not jewish, and as another has said, a direct rebuke of proposed legislation that basically would make it illegal for organizations to criticize or boycott Israel for its behavior.
Unless you are referring to something else. Then I'm confused.
Dems: US support for Israel should not be questioned.
Also Dems: How DARE you suggest that politicians have to show allegiance to Israel, you anti-Semite!
parties have to get elected
unquestioning support for israel produces ideological contradictions
popular opinion is trending towards a less policed discourse
It's autocannibalism because they are avoiding the problem out of fear of immediate consequences which does nothing but kick the can down the road on the issue. This is to say nothing of legitimizing the manufactured concern of bad faith actors, something which often kneecaps the dems.
edit: there are less public ways to enforce discipline, this is what the right would call "virtue signaling"
yep
she never even mentions jews iirc, but the media was more than happy to run with her criticizing jews for having double allegiance when that isn't what she meant
she was calling out non jews and jews for having absurd loyalty to another nation state that continually gets away with war crimes
she was not calling out non jews and jews who don't drink the israel kool aid
Denying institutional support to Justin Fairfax if he tries to run is a bad thing?
The actual resolution they're putting out is fine. Omar herself will almost certainly be signing it, because there's nothing actually wrong with it and I'm pretty sure she's messing up because she's not great at talking about this topic and twitter amplifies those problems a hundredfold. (Royalan's read is basically the same as mine as things currently stand.)
Not only politicians. In 26 states, public employees and/or businesses with government contracts must sign a pledge not to support BDS.
https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBl...e-contractors-to-pledge-not-to-boycott-israel
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/speech-pathologist-texas-israel-oath.html
The same disciplining tools you described (and many more) will be used against leftists far more than cases like Fairfax. The point is they have the tools, they're effective, and they are used.
Say it with me slowly
Legitimizing manufactured concern by bad faith actors is, in the long run, a losing strategy in politics.
Where is the resolution about islamophobia after wv gop ad and the death threat graffiti mentioning her in MN being investigated by the FBI?
That's right ..
Will never happen
Wait... where is the resolution by dems condemning Steve King
lol
- Status