Ilhan Omar compares the boycott of Israel to boycott of Nazis and USSR

[T'Chenka]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

Okay, so all of the framing (news stories, etc.; hell, even the title of this very thread) around this resolution appears to be WAY off.

First, the resolution opens with examples of boycotts used for domestic reasons before then highlighting examples of boycotts carried out to try & impact foreign policy.

More importantly, though, this resolution is pretty explicitly not endorsing a boycott or advocating for one (the full text is short & the link is directly above, so you can read the whole resolution to confirm). The resolved section: affirms that people have the right to boycott; says laws regulating boycotts are counter to the Constitution & established precedent; & calls on people to oppose anti-boycott laws.

Yes, Texas passed a law that punishes people for boycotting Israel so that's (understandably) where most people go with this, but Israel, BDS, & Palestine aren't mentioned or referenced in the text. In fact, the text is explicitly broader because this isn't the only ban. There are states also looking at ways of banning protests on campus. President Trump famously wants people fired for protesting the national anthem. You think the next step isn't laws? They explicitly mention flag burning in their examples (also cake baking).

Again, read the whole resolution; it's super short. Stop taking partisan political pundits screaming about it at their word, because saying Omar is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in this resolution simply doesn't stand up to a reading of the text, as the text *DOES NOT COMPARE* anything. That's not even the purpose of the resolution, for crying out loud.

Yeah, thanks for breaking it down. Obviously the hyperpartisans are going to throw everything they can at her, but it disappoints me that people like Badger are falling for it.

Fell for it. Past tense. I stand corrected. It was still tone deaf to a degree, but nowhere near the bullsh**t slant that Fox News in The Examiner Twisted it out of context to

Look at the quote posted earlier, she said it . It wasnt taken out of context , they provided the quote in the article and using that example is still terrible and anti semitic. Or Omar is extremely idiotic(Which she probably is because she did sign a pledge from TYT along with all the Justice Democrats)

Yeah, I'm not going to outright defend her. She needs to go.

Fortunately, she has next to no influence with the Democratic party as a whole. Wouldn't you agree?

Its not her its the Justice Dems as well and most of Omar's talking points come from TYT which unfortunatley now is gaining influence.

We are the future OSR. Just embrace it. Other than their views being maybe 5% or 10% too much "Social Justuce Warrior" for my liking, they're everything America needs right now and everything the youth of America are embracing. They are the conscience of America. We will see at least one progressive president in my lifetime, insha'allah.

[ProudModerate2]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

Okay, so all of the framing (news stories, etc.; hell, even the title of this very thread) around this resolution appears to be WAY off.

First, the resolution opens with examples of boycotts used for domestic reasons before then highlighting examples of boycotts carried out to try & impact foreign policy.

More importantly, though, this resolution is pretty explicitly not endorsing a boycott or advocating for one (the full text is short & the link is directly above, so you can read the whole resolution to confirm). The resolved section: affirms that people have the right to boycott; says laws regulating boycotts are counter to the Constitution & established precedent; & calls on people to oppose anti-boycott laws.

Yes, Texas passed a law that punishes people for boycotting Israel so that's (understandably) where most people go with this, but Israel, BDS, & Palestine aren't mentioned or referenced in the text. In fact, the text is explicitly broader because this isn't the only ban. There are states also looking at ways of banning protests on campus. President Trump famously wants people fired for protesting the national anthem. You think the next step isn't laws? They explicitly mention flag burning in their examples (also cake baking).

Again, read the whole resolution; it's super short. Stop taking partisan political pundits screaming about it at their word, because saying Omar is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in this resolution simply doesn't stand up to a reading of the text, as the text *DOES NOT COMPARE* anything. That's not even the purpose of the resolution, for crying out loud.

Yeah, thanks for breaking it down. Obviously the hyperpartisans are going to throw everything they can at her, but it disappoints me that people like Badger are falling for it.

Fell for it. Past tense. I stand corrected. It was still tone deaf to a degree, but nowhere near the bullsh**t slant that Fox News in The Examiner Twisted it out of context to

Look at the quote posted earlier, she said it . It wasnt taken out of context , they provided the quote in the article and using that example is still terrible and anti semitic. Or Omar is extremely idiotic(Which she probably is because she did sign a pledge from TYT along with all the Justice Democrats)

Yeah, I'm not going to outright defend her. She needs to go.
Fortunately, she has next to no influence with the Democratic party as a whole. Wouldn't you agree?

Its not her its the Justice Dems as well and most of Omar's talking points come from TYT which unfortunatley now is gaining influence.

How many of the other Justice Dems, other than Talib who likewise needs to go, have been making the same sort of anti-Semitic comments. You keep yammering on about Jeremy corbyn because you literally run out of Democrats to blame Beyond those two ( albeit justifiably)

If you held the Republican party based on literally dozens of anti-Semitic and racist comments throughout the party, over association with alt right Holocaust deniers through the Bannon and Mueller wing of the White House, and the leader of the party itself who the rank-and-file Embrace wholeheartedly as being an unabashed racist, you would have become an independent long ago.

Again, I know it's tough. You are a principal conservative who actually believes in the Laffer Curve. Does it is hard for you to accept that the party you so adamantly support, I hate to say it man, literally hates you and your family's guts. Again, they may at least outwardly say you were one of the good ones when they hear about what a conservative you and yours are, but it doesn't mean they would lose any sleep if you were all deported tomorrow. What's more, they would be categorically opposed even your closest route is from India coming here to join this country like you and your immediate family did.

I know that's hard, and you've made a commendable step unlike the vast majority of other Republicans in refusing to vote for Trump. It's despicable the way that so many people in your party have decided that given the choice of an outright Unapologetic virulent racist, they'll gladly choose him over, God forbid, a Democrat. You won't, and that demonstrates your character. That said, you can't absolve the Republican Party for Trump. Not all Republicans are represented by Trump, with a vast majority are, and almost all of the rest, present company excepted, gladly excuse such racism and anti-immigrant hysteria as long as they get their tax cuts and conservative judges. My point is don't make yourself look silly by trying to create an equal parallel we're literally none exists.

71% of Republicans voted to make it easier for Indian Immigrants to get green cards. So your point is straight up WRONG.

I think you are missing Badger's general point (re the GOP hating you). He is saying that the overall GOP electorate/citizenry would "hate you and your family's guts." The odds of someone on the street telling you or your mother/father to "go back to your country" would highly be more a Republican (trump Deplorable) voter, and not a Dem supporter.
trump (the leader of your party) has increased the odds that you and your family will be directly experiencing xenophobic, bigoted hate as you perform your everyday, normal living in society.

PS: Why is it that people only care about issues, when it is about "their kind" ("Indian Immigrants")? If it doesn't touch "their people," then many feel comfortable looking the other way when other groups of minority class are affected/wronged. And I see this across the entire spectrum, not just the GOP. It just kills me.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

Okay, so all of the framing (news stories, etc.; hell, even the title of this very thread) around this resolution appears to be WAY off.

First, the resolution opens with examples of boycotts used for domestic reasons before then highlighting examples of boycotts carried out to try & impact foreign policy.

More importantly, though, this resolution is pretty explicitly not endorsing a boycott or advocating for one (the full text is short & the link is directly above, so you can read the whole resolution to confirm). The resolved section: affirms that people have the right to boycott; says laws regulating boycotts are counter to the Constitution & established precedent; & calls on people to oppose anti-boycott laws.

Yes, Texas passed a law that punishes people for boycotting Israel so that's (understandably) where most people go with this, but Israel, BDS, & Palestine aren't mentioned or referenced in the text. In fact, the text is explicitly broader because this isn't the only ban. There are states also looking at ways of banning protests on campus. President Trump famously wants people fired for protesting the national anthem. You think the next step isn't laws? They explicitly mention flag burning in their examples (also cake baking).

Again, read the whole resolution; it's super short. Stop taking partisan political pundits screaming about it at their word, because saying Omar is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in this resolution simply doesn't stand up to a reading of the text, as the text *DOES NOT COMPARE* anything. That's not even the purpose of the resolution, for crying out loud.

Yeah, thanks for breaking it down. Obviously the hyperpartisans are going to throw everything they can at her, but it disappoints me that people like Badger are falling for it.

Fell for it. Past tense. I stand corrected. It was still tone deaf to a degree, but nowhere near the bullsh**t slant that Fox News in The Examiner Twisted it out of context to

Look at the quote posted earlier, she said it . It wasnt taken out of context , they provided the quote in the article and using that example is still terrible and anti semitic. Or Omar is extremely idiotic(Which she probably is because she did sign a pledge from TYT along with all the Justice Democrats)

Yeah, I'm not going to outright defend her. She needs to go.
Fortunately, she has next to no influence with the Democratic party as a whole. Wouldn't you agree?

Its not her its the Justice Dems as well and most of Omar's talking points come from TYT which unfortunatley now is gaining influence.

How many of the other Justice Dems, other than Talib who likewise needs to go, have been making the same sort of anti-Semitic comments. You keep yammering on about Jeremy corbyn because you literally run out of Democrats to blame Beyond those two ( albeit justifiably)

If you held the Republican party based on literally dozens of anti-Semitic and racist comments throughout the party, over association with alt right Holocaust deniers through the Bannon and Mueller wing of the White House, and the leader of the party itself who the rank-and-file Embrace wholeheartedly as being an unabashed racist, you would have become an independent long ago.

Again, I know it's tough. You are a principal conservative who actually believes in the Laffer Curve. Does it is hard for you to accept that the party you so adamantly support, I hate to say it man, literally hates you and your family's guts. Again, they may at least outwardly say you were one of the good ones when they hear about what a conservative you and yours are, but it doesn't mean they would lose any sleep if you were all deported tomorrow. What's more, they would be categorically opposed even your closest route is from India coming here to join this country like you and your immediate family did.

I know that's hard, and you've made a commendable step unlike the vast majority of other Republicans in refusing to vote for Trump. It's despicable the way that so many people in your party have decided that given the choice of an outright Unapologetic virulent racist, they'll gladly choose him over, God forbid, a Democrat. You won't, and that demonstrates your character. That said, you can't absolve the Republican Party for Trump. Not all Republicans are represented by Trump, with a vast majority are, and almost all of the rest, present company excepted, gladly excuse such racism and anti-immigrant hysteria as long as they get their tax cuts and conservative judges. My point is don't make yourself look silly by trying to create an equal parallel we're literally none exists.

71% of Republicans voted to make it easier for Indian Immigrants to get green cards. So your point is straight up WRONG.

I think you are missing Badger's general point (re the GOP hating you). He is saying that the overall GOP electorate/citizenry would "hate you and your family's guts." The odds of someone on the street telling you or your mother/father to "go back to your country" would highly be more a Republican (trump Deplorable) voter, and not a Dem supporter.
trump (the leader of your party) has increased the odds that you and your family will be directly experiencing xenophobic, bigoted hate as you perform your everyday, normal living in society.

PS: Why is it that people only care about issues, when it is about "their kind" ("Indian Immigrants")? If it doesn't touch "their people," then many feel comfortable looking the other way when other groups of minority class are affected/wronged. And I see this across the entire spectrum, not just the GOP. It just kills me.

Mitt Romney had a much more favorable immigration plan for high skilled immigrants than Obama yet he was called anti immigrant because he was Anti Illegal Immigrant. That proves that much of the left cares more about illegal immigrants  than legal immigrants.

I am in favor of a merit based immigration plan as the economy benefits more from high skilled immigration than low skilled

[ProudModerate2]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

Okay, so all of the framing (news stories, etc.; hell, even the title of this very thread) around this resolution appears to be WAY off.

First, the resolution opens with examples of boycotts used for domestic reasons before then highlighting examples of boycotts carried out to try & impact foreign policy.

More importantly, though, this resolution is pretty explicitly not endorsing a boycott or advocating for one (the full text is short & the link is directly above, so you can read the whole resolution to confirm). The resolved section: affirms that people have the right to boycott; says laws regulating boycotts are counter to the Constitution & established precedent; & calls on people to oppose anti-boycott laws.

Yes, Texas passed a law that punishes people for boycotting Israel so that's (understandably) where most people go with this, but Israel, BDS, & Palestine aren't mentioned or referenced in the text. In fact, the text is explicitly broader because this isn't the only ban. There are states also looking at ways of banning protests on campus. President Trump famously wants people fired for protesting the national anthem. You think the next step isn't laws? They explicitly mention flag burning in their examples (also cake baking).

Again, read the whole resolution; it's super short. Stop taking partisan political pundits screaming about it at their word, because saying Omar is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in this resolution simply doesn't stand up to a reading of the text, as the text *DOES NOT COMPARE* anything. That's not even the purpose of the resolution, for crying out loud.

Yeah, thanks for breaking it down. Obviously the hyperpartisans are going to throw everything they can at her, but it disappoints me that people like Badger are falling for it.

Fell for it. Past tense. I stand corrected. It was still tone deaf to a degree, but nowhere near the bullsh**t slant that Fox News in The Examiner Twisted it out of context to

Look at the quote posted earlier, she said it . It wasnt taken out of context , they provided the quote in the article and using that example is still terrible and anti semitic. Or Omar is extremely idiotic(Which she probably is because she did sign a pledge from TYT along with all the Justice Democrats)

Yeah, I'm not going to outright defend her. She needs to go.
Fortunately, she has next to no influence with the Democratic party as a whole. Wouldn't you agree?

Its not her its the Justice Dems as well and most of Omar's talking points come from TYT which unfortunatley now is gaining influence.

How many of the other Justice Dems, other than Talib who likewise needs to go, have been making the same sort of anti-Semitic comments. You keep yammering on about Jeremy corbyn because you literally run out of Democrats to blame Beyond those two ( albeit justifiably)

If you held the Republican party based on literally dozens of anti-Semitic and racist comments throughout the party, over association with alt right Holocaust deniers through the Bannon and Mueller wing of the White House, and the leader of the party itself who the rank-and-file Embrace wholeheartedly as being an unabashed racist, you would have become an independent long ago.

Again, I know it's tough. You are a principal conservative who actually believes in the Laffer Curve. Does it is hard for you to accept that the party you so adamantly support, I hate to say it man, literally hates you and your family's guts. Again, they may at least outwardly say you were one of the good ones when they hear about what a conservative you and yours are, but it doesn't mean they would lose any sleep if you were all deported tomorrow. What's more, they would be categorically opposed even your closest route is from India coming here to join this country like you and your immediate family did.

I know that's hard, and you've made a commendable step unlike the vast majority of other Republicans in refusing to vote for Trump. It's despicable the way that so many people in your party have decided that given the choice of an outright Unapologetic virulent racist, they'll gladly choose him over, God forbid, a Democrat. You won't, and that demonstrates your character. That said, you can't absolve the Republican Party for Trump. Not all Republicans are represented by Trump, with a vast majority are, and almost all of the rest, present company excepted, gladly excuse such racism and anti-immigrant hysteria as long as they get their tax cuts and conservative judges. My point is don't make yourself look silly by trying to create an equal parallel we're literally none exists.

71% of Republicans voted to make it easier for Indian Immigrants to get green cards. So your point is straight up WRONG.

I think you are missing Badger's general point (re the GOP hating you). He is saying that the overall GOP electorate/citizenry would "hate you and your family's guts." The odds of someone on the street telling you or your mother/father to "go back to your country" would highly be more a Republican (trump Deplorable) voter, and not a Dem supporter.
trump (the leader of your party) has increased the odds that you and your family will be directly experiencing xenophobic, bigoted hate as you perform your everyday, normal living in society.

PS: Why is it that people only care about issues, when it is about "their kind" ("Indian Immigrants")? If it doesn't touch "their people," then many feel comfortable looking the other way when other groups of minority class are affected/wronged. And I see this across the entire spectrum, not just the GOP. It just kills me.

Mitt Romney had a much more favorable immigration plan for high skilled immigrants than Obama yet he was called anti immigrant because he was Anti Illegal Immigrant. That proves that much of the left cares more about illegal immigrants  than legal immigrants.

Do you honestly believe that trump's Deplorable base of GOP voters would make a distinction between telling "illegal immigrants" to "go back to your country," from "legal immigrants" (or that they would even care to first make the distinction before spewing their abhorrence) ?
Their xenophobic bigotry has no boundaries; if you don't "look American," you will be a target of their hate.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

Okay, so all of the framing (news stories, etc.; hell, even the title of this very thread) around this resolution appears to be WAY off.

First, the resolution opens with examples of boycotts used for domestic reasons before then highlighting examples of boycotts carried out to try & impact foreign policy.

More importantly, though, this resolution is pretty explicitly not endorsing a boycott or advocating for one (the full text is short & the link is directly above, so you can read the whole resolution to confirm). The resolved section: affirms that people have the right to boycott; says laws regulating boycotts are counter to the Constitution & established precedent; & calls on people to oppose anti-boycott laws.

Yes, Texas passed a law that punishes people for boycotting Israel so that's (understandably) where most people go with this, but Israel, BDS, & Palestine aren't mentioned or referenced in the text. In fact, the text is explicitly broader because this isn't the only ban. There are states also looking at ways of banning protests on campus. President Trump famously wants people fired for protesting the national anthem. You think the next step isn't laws? They explicitly mention flag burning in their examples (also cake baking).

Again, read the whole resolution; it's super short. Stop taking partisan political pundits screaming about it at their word, because saying Omar is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in this resolution simply doesn't stand up to a reading of the text, as the text *DOES NOT COMPARE* anything. That's not even the purpose of the resolution, for crying out loud.

Yeah, thanks for breaking it down. Obviously the hyperpartisans are going to throw everything they can at her, but it disappoints me that people like Badger are falling for it.

Fell for it. Past tense. I stand corrected. It was still tone deaf to a degree, but nowhere near the bullsh**t slant that Fox News in The Examiner Twisted it out of context to

Look at the quote posted earlier, she said it . It wasnt taken out of context , they provided the quote in the article and using that example is still terrible and anti semitic. Or Omar is extremely idiotic(Which she probably is because she did sign a pledge from TYT along with all the Justice Democrats)

Yeah, I'm not going to outright defend her. She needs to go.
Fortunately, she has next to no influence with the Democratic party as a whole. Wouldn't you agree?

Its not her its the Justice Dems as well and most of Omar's talking points come from TYT which unfortunatley now is gaining influence.

How many of the other Justice Dems, other than Talib who likewise needs to go, have been making the same sort of anti-Semitic comments. You keep yammering on about Jeremy corbyn because you literally run out of Democrats to blame Beyond those two ( albeit justifiably)

If you held the Republican party based on literally dozens of anti-Semitic and racist comments throughout the party, over association with alt right Holocaust deniers through the Bannon and Mueller wing of the White House, and the leader of the party itself who the rank-and-file Embrace wholeheartedly as being an unabashed racist, you would have become an independent long ago.

Again, I know it's tough. You are a principal conservative who actually believes in the Laffer Curve. Does it is hard for you to accept that the party you so adamantly support, I hate to say it man, literally hates you and your family's guts. Again, they may at least outwardly say you were one of the good ones when they hear about what a conservative you and yours are, but it doesn't mean they would lose any sleep if you were all deported tomorrow. What's more, they would be categorically opposed even your closest route is from India coming here to join this country like you and your immediate family did.

I know that's hard, and you've made a commendable step unlike the vast majority of other Republicans in refusing to vote for Trump. It's despicable the way that so many people in your party have decided that given the choice of an outright Unapologetic virulent racist, they'll gladly choose him over, God forbid, a Democrat. You won't, and that demonstrates your character. That said, you can't absolve the Republican Party for Trump. Not all Republicans are represented by Trump, with a vast majority are, and almost all of the rest, present company excepted, gladly excuse such racism and anti-immigrant hysteria as long as they get their tax cuts and conservative judges. My point is don't make yourself look silly by trying to create an equal parallel we're literally none exists.

71% of Republicans voted to make it easier for Indian Immigrants to get green cards. So your point is straight up WRONG.

I think you are missing Badger's general point (re the GOP hating you). He is saying that the overall GOP electorate/citizenry would "hate you and your family's guts." The odds of someone on the street telling you or your mother/father to "go back to your country" would highly be more a Republican (trump Deplorable) voter, and not a Dem supporter.
trump (the leader of your party) has increased the odds that you and your family will be directly experiencing xenophobic, bigoted hate as you perform your everyday, normal living in society.

PS: Why is it that people only care about issues, when it is about "their kind" ("Indian Immigrants")? If it doesn't touch "their people," then many feel comfortable looking the other way when other groups of minority class are affected/wronged. And I see this across the entire spectrum, not just the GOP. It just kills me.

Mitt Romney had a much more favorable immigration plan for high skilled immigrants than Obama yet he was called anti immigrant because he was Anti Illegal Immigrant. That proves that much of the left cares more about illegal immigrants  than legal immigrants.

Do you honestly believe that trump's Deplorable base of GOP voters would make a distinction between telling "illegal immigrants" to "go back to your country," from "legal immigrants" (or that they would even care to first make the distinction before spewing their abhorrence) ?
Their xenophobic bigotry has no boundaries; if you don't "look American," you will be a target of their hate.

71% of the GOP still voted to make it easier for Indian high skilled  Immigrants to get green cards . 71% isn’t some small number it’s an overwhelming number .

Also I don’t  Vote or support a party based on what the GOP base thinks , as I vote and support a party based on what the elected officials think and 71% of GOP agrees with me on legal immigration. On Illegal immigration I might be tougher than many in that 71%

 

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/jstreetdotorg/status/1151939661167812609?s=21

[ProudModerate2]

Okay, spent an hour digging around for where it was said. Here it is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22boycott%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

Okay, so all of the framing (news stories, etc.; hell, even the title of this very thread) around this resolution appears to be WAY off.

First, the resolution opens with examples of boycotts used for domestic reasons before then highlighting examples of boycotts carried out to try & impact foreign policy.

More importantly, though, this resolution is pretty explicitly not endorsing a boycott or advocating for one (the full text is short & the link is directly above, so you can read the whole resolution to confirm). The resolved section: affirms that people have the right to boycott; says laws regulating boycotts are counter to the Constitution & established precedent; & calls on people to oppose anti-boycott laws.

Yes, Texas passed a law that punishes people for boycotting Israel so that's (understandably) where most people go with this, but Israel, BDS, & Palestine aren't mentioned or referenced in the text. In fact, the text is explicitly broader because this isn't the only ban. There are states also looking at ways of banning protests on campus. President Trump famously wants people fired for protesting the national anthem. You think the next step isn't laws? They explicitly mention flag burning in their examples (also cake baking).

Again, read the whole resolution; it's super short. Stop taking partisan political pundits screaming about it at their word, because saying Omar is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in this resolution simply doesn't stand up to a reading of the text, as the text *DOES NOT COMPARE* anything. That's not even the purpose of the resolution, for crying out loud.

Yeah, thanks for breaking it down. Obviously the hyperpartisans are going to throw everything they can at her, but it disappoints me that people like Badger are falling for it.

Fell for it. Past tense. I stand corrected. It was still tone deaf to a degree, but nowhere near the bullsh**t slant that Fox News in The Examiner Twisted it out of context to

Look at the quote posted earlier, she said it . It wasnt taken out of context , they provided the quote in the article and using that example is still terrible and anti semitic. Or Omar is extremely idiotic(Which she probably is because she did sign a pledge from TYT along with all the Justice Democrats)

Yeah, I'm not going to outright defend her. She needs to go.
Fortunately, she has next to no influence with the Democratic party as a whole. Wouldn't you agree?

Its not her its the Justice Dems as well and most of Omar's talking points come from TYT which unfortunatley now is gaining influence.

How many of the other Justice Dems, other than Talib who likewise needs to go, have been making the same sort of anti-Semitic comments. You keep yammering on about Jeremy corbyn because you literally run out of Democrats to blame Beyond those two ( albeit justifiably)

If you held the Republican party based on literally dozens of anti-Semitic and racist comments throughout the party, over association with alt right Holocaust deniers through the Bannon and Mueller wing of the White House, and the leader of the party itself who the rank-and-file Embrace wholeheartedly as being an unabashed racist, you would have become an independent long ago.

Again, I know it's tough. You are a principal conservative who actually believes in the Laffer Curve. Does it is hard for you to accept that the party you so adamantly support, I hate to say it man, literally hates you and your family's guts. Again, they may at least outwardly say you were one of the good ones when they hear about what a conservative you and yours are, but it doesn't mean they would lose any sleep if you were all deported tomorrow. What's more, they would be categorically opposed even your closest route is from India coming here to join this country like you and your immediate family did.

I know that's hard, and you've made a commendable step unlike the vast majority of other Republicans in refusing to vote for Trump. It's despicable the way that so many people in your party have decided that given the choice of an outright Unapologetic virulent racist, they'll gladly choose him over, God forbid, a Democrat. You won't, and that demonstrates your character. That said, you can't absolve the Republican Party for Trump. Not all Republicans are represented by Trump, with a vast majority are, and almost all of the rest, present company excepted, gladly excuse such racism and anti-immigrant hysteria as long as they get their tax cuts and conservative judges. My point is don't make yourself look silly by trying to create an equal parallel we're literally none exists.

71% of Republicans voted to make it easier for Indian Immigrants to get green cards. So your point is straight up WRONG.

I think you are missing Badger's general point (re the GOP hating you). He is saying that the overall GOP electorate/citizenry would "hate you and your family's guts." The odds of someone on the street telling you or your mother/father to "go back to your country" would highly be more a Republican (trump Deplorable) voter, and not a Dem supporter.
trump (the leader of your party) has increased the odds that you and your family will be directly experiencing xenophobic, bigoted hate as you perform your everyday, normal living in society.

PS: Why is it that people only care about issues, when it is about "their kind" ("Indian Immigrants")? If it doesn't touch "their people," then many feel comfortable looking the other way when other groups of minority class are affected/wronged. And I see this across the entire spectrum, not just the GOP. It just kills me.

Mitt Romney had a much more favorable immigration plan for high skilled immigrants than Obama yet he was called anti immigrant because he was Anti Illegal Immigrant. That proves that much of the left cares more about illegal immigrants  than legal immigrants.

Do you honestly believe that trump's Deplorable base of GOP voters would make a distinction between telling "illegal immigrants" to "go back to your country," from "legal immigrants" (or that they would even care to first make the distinction before spewing their abhorrence) ?
Their xenophobic bigotry has no boundaries; if you don't "look American," you will be a target of their hate.

71% of the GOP still voted to make it easier for Indian high skilled  Immigrants to get green cards . 71% isn’t some small number it’s an overwhelming number .

Also I don’t  Vote or support a party based on what the GOP base thinks , as I vote and support a party based on what the elected officials think and 71% of GOP agrees with me on legal immigration. On Illegal immigration I might be tougher than many in that 71%

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/jstreetdotorg/status/1151939661167812609?s=21

J Street takes the good & principled position within the Israel lobby, episode 5089.

[Stranger in a strange land]

https://twitter.com/jstreetdotorg/status/1151939661167812609?s=21

J Street takes the good & principled position within the Israel lobby, episode 5089.

This is the correct position to take. It's really not that hard.

[7,052,770]

Can we get a mod to correct the title of this thread now that we know it's quasi-#FakeNews?

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/jstreetdotorg/status/1151939661167812609?s=21

J Street takes the good & principled position within the Israel lobby, episode 5089.

This is the correct position to take. It's really not that hard.

Tell that to AIPAC.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This thread convinces me that Zionism is more necessary than ever before.

[longtimelurker]

She cashed in her chips for this nonsense?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

The text of the resolution is largely irrelevant. The comparison was the point. Remember, in this "Punch Nazis" era, comparing something to Nazis isn't random hyperbole. It's a direct threat. If Israel is the new Nazis, then Israel supporters are Nazi supporters. Thus, attacking a random Jew in the streets is now antifascism.

Keep your eye on the ball, people. This is how the Strasserist Front makes its way across the pond.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The text of the resolution is largely irrelevant. The comparison was the point. Remember, in this "Punch Nazis" era, comparing something to Nazis isn't random hyperbole. It's a direct threat. If Israel is the new Nazis, then Israel supporters are Nazi supporters. Thus, attacking a random Jew in the streets is now antifascism.

"The comparison" of Israel to Nazi Germany by Rep. Omar does not exist.


If she she did, and your alleged comparison does exist then provide a link to it in full.


But you're not going to, because  you are lying, or repeating the lies of right-wing propaganda.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Can we get a mod to correct the title of this thread now that we know it's quasi-#FakeNews?

Its not fake news at all

[T'Chenka]

Can we get a mod to correct the title of this thread now that we know it's quasi-#FakeNews?

Its not fake news at all

(OSR then proceeds to not elaborate or provide a URL or ANYTHING else)

[OSR stands with Israel]

Can we get a mod to correct the title of this thread now that we know it's quasi-#FakeNews?

Its not fake news at all

(OSR then proceeds to not elaborate or provide a URL or ANYTHING else)

The quote is in the link I gave . It wasnt some interperation , it was her quote

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Can we get a mod to correct the title of this thread now that we know it's quasi-#FakeNews?

Its not fake news at all

(OSR then proceeds to not elaborate or provide a URL or ANYTHING else)

The quote is in the link I gave . It wasnt some interperation , it was her quote

If you're speaking about your links to the tabloids Fox News and the Washington Examiner,  there is no direct comparison from Rep. Omar that compares Israel or its current government to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union in either piece.

Both the Examiner and the ever-ironically-named FoxNews  clearly want you to take that interpretation away from their respective stories, stories that are so similar it seems obvious they are propaganda from the same source. But they quote no such statement, nor does one appear to exist.

Representative Omar...

First, speaks positively of the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement in her introduction to the resolution, including comparing them to the Boston Tea Party.

Secondly, the resolution she introduced has a run down of boycotts in and by the United States, including: the Boston Tea Party, civil rights boycotts such as the Montgomery bus boycott, the UFW-led boycott of table grapes, and the boycotts of Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, the 1980 summer Olympics, and South Africa. The resolution does not mention Israel.

Fox News, the Examiner, and every other site I've found pushing the story then take the identical section of HR 496  butcher it to only include the mention of Nazi Germany and ignore all context, present it as a quote rather than resolution text, and move on with their attack pieces.

The comparison you and other posters are saying she made publicly  - equating Israel directly with Nazi Germany and/or Soviet Russia - does not exist. (If you want to get bent of out shape that she's has indirectly compared Netanyahu's government with that of Lord North via comparing BDS to the Sons of Liberty, go right ahead, but you and I both know that will not have anything like the impact of the current false propaganda you are - for whatever reason -  trying to help spread.)

You've become committed to a false narrative, and you're digging yourself a hole. As Badger pointed out, there's plenty of room to legitimately criticize Omar for her stance on Israel without this.

Edited to add a note clarifying that HR 496 does not mention Israel.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Oh ffs. At least the boycott of apartheid South Africa makes some level of sense as a historical precedent since Israel was among South Africa’s closest allies in that era.

This is needlessly inflammatory, reckless, and pretty disgusting, frankly. And she’s not helping her case that she isn’t an anti-Semite. Ugh.

[Cassandra]

Oh ffs. At least the boycott of apartheid South Africa makes some level of sense as a historical precedent since Israel was among South Africa’s closest allies in that era.

This is needlessly inflammatory, reckless, and pretty disgusting, frankly. And she’s not helping her case that she isn’t an anti-Semite. Ugh.

Read the post above you.

[All Along The Watchtower]

And lastly wasn’t the Ba’ath party full name the Arab National Socialist Party , so the comparison did make more sense.

Haha what

Just checked full name was the : Arab Socialist Baʿth Party,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath_Party

Ba'ath meaning "renaissance" or "resurrection"), which is an ideology mixing Arab nationalist, pan-Arabism, Arab socialist, and anti-imperialist

I’ll just interject that while many third world “liberationist” ideologies did have socialistic leanings, saying that just because they have “socialist” in the name is a misnomer, like “democratic” or “patriot”. At the end of Jordan Gibran’s life, the Ba’athist Part(ies) shifted rightward into nationalistic authoritarians. I mean, when the party turns sectarian against other Arabs and other liberationist groups as we’ve seen in Iraq and Syria, they ceased being classically Ba’athist.

Also, a ton of ideologies being founded at this time took the name of socialism just to be edgy against the supposed rule of “Western Capitalism”.

The better way to illustrate similarities between Saddam and Hitler is their aggressive militarism, their nationalistic fervor, their expansionary designs on other countries (in Saddam’s case: Iran and Kuwait), their respective cults of personality, the sadistic, systemic cruelty and violence of their regimes, their willingness to commit acts of mass murder on civilian populations (in Saddam’s case: Iranians, Iraqi Kurds, and rebellious Iraqi Shia), their recklessness and delusions of grandeur, and the fact that Saddam openly admired Hitler (along with Mussolini, Stalin - you know, the Usual Suspects).

[SInNYC]

And lastly wasn’t the Ba’ath party full name the Arab National Socialist Party , so the comparison did make more sense.

Haha what

Just checked full name was the : Arab Socialist Baʿth Party,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath_Party

Ba'ath meaning "renaissance" or "resurrection"), which is an ideology mixing Arab nationalist, pan-Arabism, Arab socialist, and anti-imperialist

I’ll just interject that while many third world “liberationist” ideologies did have socialistic leanings, saying that just because they have “socialist” in the name is a misnomer, like “democratic” or “patriot”. At the end of Jordan Gibran’s life, the Ba’athist Part(ies) shifted rightward into nationalistic authoritarians. I mean, when the party turns sectarian against other Arabs and other liberationist groups as we’ve seen in Iraq and Syria, they ceased being classically Ba’athist.

Also, a ton of ideologies being founded at this time took the name of socialism just to be edgy against the supposed rule of “Western Capitalism”.

The better way to illustrate similarities between Saddam and Hitler is their aggressive militarism, their nationalistic fervor, their expansionary designs on other countries (in Saddam’s case: Iran and Kuwait), their respective cults of personality, the sadistic, systemic cruelty and violence of their regimes, their willingness to commit acts of mass murder on civilian populations (in Saddam’s case: Iranians, Iraqi Kurds, and rebellious Iraqi Shia), their recklessness and delusions of grandeur, and the fact that Saddam openly admired Hitler (along with Mussolini, Stalin - you know, the Usual Suspects).

Aggressive militarism, yes. Nationalistic fervor, yes. Expansionary design, maybe (more below). Cult of personality, yes. Cruelty/violence, yes but more below.

Mass murder on assorted groups: One of these groups was a neighboring country exporting theocracy. One of these groups wanted to carve out its own country (I seem to remember a certain civil war in a country most of us live in). One of these groups wanted to turn the country into a theocracy. I can count on one hand the number of countries in the world today that would take a civilized approach in similar circumstances today (a few more would be a bit less brutal about it). What would the US do if there were some subgroup that wanted to practice some 'weird' practices against US law, impose the punishments against sins proscribed by their religion on all Americans, and was willing to use terrorism for its goals?

Openly admired hitler? sources? He did resemble a mini-Stalin - both of them were willing to use an iron hand and questionable means including collective punishment for what they felt was modernizing their country.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Speaking as someone who's extremely opposed to the Israeli policies, the remark is indefensible.

[DavidB.]

She isn't all wrong on this. We give way too much to Israel, and it feels more and more like the government is just sucking up to them when it comes to middle eastern policy. Not to mention massive human rights violations and obvious signs of autocracy. Her standing up to the establishment on this issue is probably the only thing I admire about her, but comparing it to Nazi Germany and the USSR is a mistake.

Jesus Christ, I agree with Grassr00ts.

Not a surprise, is it? Horseshoe theory...