MovieChat Forums > BreakbeatSavant > Replies
BreakbeatSavant's Replies
Your whole post is quite weird.
What I got out of it is you suffer from obesity and blame liberals for calling you fatty.
Sounds like you have the hots for him.
I'd love to see your evidence that she "got off because of her powerful connections". That sounds like conspiratorial gibberish that Alex Jones would say without proof.
I've never heard anyone say that about Trump either so that's hardly a disqualifier. :)
That's why there will always be investigations of the administration in power by the opposing party. Like you said, it's nothing new.
I'm not aware that Democrats are going after lawyers, friends, and dog walkers. Where did you see this?
It didn't seem to matter when Republicans went 'overboard' when investigating Benghazi seeing as how they came up with zero indictments.
Many people see this administration as corrupt want to see it investigated. That was a huge reason cited for the overwhelming midterm turnout that resulted in the lopsided Dem victory in the House. The Republicans weren't seen as conducting rigorous oversight of this administration.
That's because it's a Republican administration in the White House. When Democrats control the executive branch they get to be investigated by Republicans. This is not unusual.
You sound really dumb.
True about the dual allegiance mention as well. I recognize there's wide disagreement in the Jewish community over Omar's comments. I tend to be more forgiving so long as the offender expresses contrition which Omar has. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt the last 3 months have been a learning experience for her because I assume it's quite likely in the Somali Muslim immigrant community she'd been exposed to antisemitic ideas that she just wasn't aware was offensive. Gentiles are inherently less aware of what could be interpreted as an antisemitic trope than Jews. Perhaps you're not, and I commend you for it. But I recognize that not everyone will be and it's not necessarily out of any fault of their own. Jews are steeped in their own history in ways that others are not. To the Jewish ear, any talk of money or dual allegiance is reflexively put though the antisemite detection filter whereas that’s not the case for everyone. Holding others to a strict standard where every utterance must be perfectly phrased in order for there to be legitimate discourse is, in my opinion, an unrealistic standard. To be able to allow for a robust and healthy dialogue about Israel, we can’t stop the conversation every time a gentile makes a statement which might possibly, in certain contexts resemble, if you squint hard enough, the silhouette of an antisemitic trope. When we do that, we stop addressing the issue being debated to censor those who aren’t ‘sensitive enough’, and that prevents any progress or enlightenment on the original issue.
This is how I read Omar's comment responding to a Glenn Greenwald (Jewish) tweet who was criticizing the role of money in politics and AIPAC's outsized influence on our political process. "It's all about the Benjamins baby" is a Puff Daddy lyric and I think she was trying to be cute agreeing with Greenwald's point while not aware she was using an offensive antisemitic trope. She was tweeting to a Jew, what would be the point? To offend?
Oh you mean from the 2012 tweet that referred to Jews as "hypnotizing the world"? It had honestly slipped my mind and you're right she had made that comment but I note she had also apologized in January for that after reading Barry Weiss's New York Times column pointing out why it was wrong. That's still more accountability than the president or Steve King has ever shown. Are you really suggesting it's not right for me to cut her more slack because she apologized over someone that doesn't?
Obviously if it keeps happening her apologies will start ringing hollow, I just haven't seen enough to warrant not giving her the benefit of the doubt. She is young and does appear genuine in her sincerity.
It's unfortunate that you can't keep things civil and would stoop to name calling.
But the president is worse by all empirical measures because 1) he's a repeat offender and 2) the influence and impact his words and actions have inspiring right wing loons to hate Jews and engage in violence.
I look at Omar apologizing and Pelosi appropriately condemning her in the strongest possible terms. Then I look at Republicans refusing to condemn the president's antisemitism when his words have a far greater real world impact. I'm answering your speculation on why more Jews don't support Republicans when they turn a blind eye to the biggest trafficker of antisemitism; the president.
As for your belief Republican leadership would have stripped her of committee assignments on her first offense if she belonged to their party, I don't see how you can say that either when they turned a blind eye to racist Steve King's noxious comments for years. Republicans finally stripped him of committee assignments after he openly questioned how white supremacy became offensive and refused to apologize. Omar apologized immediately and the larger context of her poor choice of words was addressing the issue of influence of money in politics; a legit concern. Her apology for ignorantly using an offensive antisemitic trope was very kind and gracious and I don't believe her to be an antisemite. The two cases aren't even remotely comparable.
Regardless it all pales in comparison to Republicans refusal to censure the president's antisemitism in terms of real world impact. That's my answer to your speculation.
It's pretty rich for Republicans to be demanding a resolution condemning antisemitism from a freshman House member who had already apologized and was strongly condemned by Pelosi, all while refusing to condemn a president who regularly traffics in antisemitism as the link I provided you details.
Yet you refuse to address this hypocrisy in your own party because it doesn't suit your narrative. It's even richer that you would ask why more Jews don't support Republicans in light of their refusal to denounce the president's antisemitism. The president is the one with the most power and influence, not Omar.
Before making demands on Democrats on how they should formulate their resolutions, Republicans should get their own House in order. That starts by practicing what they preach instead of acting like consummate hypocrites in their treatment of the president and voting against resolutions condemning antisemitism that all Jewish groups supported. It proves they don't really care about the issue of antisemitism and were more about trying to score political points accusing Democrats of what they're guilty of themselves.
How did this become about what the Republicans want instead of what the Jewish people wanted? This wasn't a Mel Gibson non-denial denial, that you would even paint it as such is what I'd call a bad faith argument because it's fundamentally dishonest. The resolution was overwhelmingly devoted to condemning antisemitism with many lines explicitly condemning antisemitic acts against Jewish people while also devoting a few lines to discrimination of other types. Jewish and Pro-Israel groups unanimously supported the resolution's passage.
Yet 23 Republicans play politics out of what should have been an uncontroversial measure with a bad faith, patronizing argument that tries to dictate what we should and shouldn't find acceptable. And here you are defending their egregious rationale while wondering why more Jewish people don't support them?
We’re in the midst of a surge of antisemitic hate crimes in this country. They are overwhelmingly tied to people with right wing politics. Last year’s massacre in Pittsburgh is just the most horrific example. As has always been the case with ethno-nationalism and xenophobia – the calling card of the American right today – it almost always comes for Jews, even if they don’t begin with that focus. The president routinely traffics in antisemitism, just as he does in Islamophobia.
[url]https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trumps-epic-history-of-coddling-promoting-and-refusing-to-denounce-anti-semitism[/url]
It really should come as no surprise why Republicans don't receive more Jewish support. It should be obvious.
Did you read the resolution? If you did you'd see that of course it condemns antisemitism. If you really want to know why more Jewish don't support Republicans you're demonstrating why right now by regurgitating a bad faith argument by those that voted against it. I'm Jewish so this is personal for me.
Adding additional language to condemn discrimination of all stripes is not making it "meaningless" except in some alternative right wing world that seeks to divide instead of unite. So why are 23 Republicans opposed to condemning discrimination?
By the police that rammed him off the road and dragged him from his car?!?
No one is suggesting the police should not have guns.
What an odd thing to say in light of how just a few weeks ago the only House members to vote against a resolution condemning antisemitism were 23 Republicans.
[url]https://thehill.com/homenews/house/433143-the-23-house-republicans-who-voted-against-the-anti-hate-resolution[/url]
True, but it does beg the question given the larger context. Did Trump at any time meet with Lavrov alone in private?
Perhaps this was the true intent of an otherwise pointless summit that ended in predictable failure.
I'm just letting you know you're engaging in what in logic is referred to as a [i]causal fallacy[/i]. This is a logical breakdown where you're reaching a conclusion of causality without evidence. In this case you're concluding the Democratic party supports the fraudulent actions or misreporting of these people or media, yet you have not provided evidence that they do.
It doesn't matter how many instances of fraud you use to establish a "pattern of behavior". Until you can establish the Democratic party supports fraud as a means to further their political agenda your argument will continue to be flawed. The way to do this would be to provide examples of Democratic party members supporting people they know to be actively engaging in fraud to further their agenda.
I'm just trying to educate you so you can better understand why your conclusion is wrong.
You made quite a leap in logic there in your last sentence. You went from citing the reprehensible actions of a few nutjobs and one example of irresponsible media coverage to projecting those acts as supported by an entire political party and implicitly supported by liberals that support that party. You either didn't think through your question or you're deliberately reaching.
But to answer your question directly, I'm sure liberals don't feel anything about it because the premise of your question is wrong.