|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 08 2016 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 08:45 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 08 2016 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:On December 08 2016 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 07:07 Mohdoo wrote:
If Sanders decides to run in 2020, I hope everyone just quietly bows out. Not-republicans are way, way too divided. What if Hillary was in the primary? Same position? Yes, absolutely. Get her the fuck out of here. Any Democrat that loses Wisconsin is incompetent beyond repair. Russ Feingold too, then. You do realize Republicans control the legislature and the governor's mansion there as well? When was the last time Democrats lost Wisconsin? Democrats won Wisconsin even during elections we ultimately lost. Edit: losing Wisconsin by 1 percent in an election where she ended up ahead 2 percent in the popular vote shows how poorly Clinton understood Wisconsin.
Wisconsin has voted Republican more often than it has voted Democrat.
|
his name recognition is zero but I totally want the Governor of Hawaii to run in 2020. the downside of course is that Ige would probably lose terribly but in a perfect world he's my guy.
2024 or 2030 would prob make more sense though. considering in 2020 he'll only have 6 years of governnor. 2024 though he'd be 2 years out of an 8 year term due to Hawaii term limits.
unfortunately though I doubt he'd ever actually run or have a chance of winning.
seriously though the best candidate is probably a white guy from a blue collar family with military service but I don't think the democrats have a whole lot of those.
|
So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye:
On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.”
Source.
If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him?
|
On December 08 2016 08:54 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On December 08 2016 08:45 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 08 2016 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:On December 08 2016 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 07:07 Mohdoo wrote:
If Sanders decides to run in 2020, I hope everyone just quietly bows out. Not-republicans are way, way too divided. What if Hillary was in the primary? Same position? Yes, absolutely. Get her the fuck out of here. Any Democrat that loses Wisconsin is incompetent beyond repair. Russ Feingold too, then. You do realize Republicans control the legislature and the governor's mansion there as well? When was the last time Democrats lost Wisconsin? Democrats won Wisconsin even during elections we ultimately lost. Edit: losing Wisconsin by 1 percent in an election where she ended up ahead 2 percent in the popular vote shows how poorly Clinton understood Wisconsin. margin in 2000 and 2004 was under 1%. polls said that it was blue enough. in hindsight you can come up with all sort of reasons, but to call losing wisconsin "incompetent beyond repair" is far too sweeping of a statement.
Exactly. Kerry won the state in 2004 by 0,4% and Gore won it by 0,2%. Obama was an outlier more than anything else.
|
Why is this guy supposed to be the savior of the DNC anyway?
|
On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: Show nested quote +On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him?
Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there.
Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so.
|
On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so.
I don't think his past *should* be a huge liability because he's made it clear he parted ways, but unfortunately folks will use it against him. I'm not sold on his qualifications - he's a rep from a very urban very Democratic district. I guess I like the message a black Muslim DNC chair would send, though that's very secondary to his ability to win elections.
I haven't really heard any full-throated defenses of him as chairman from members of the progressive wing that he's supposed to be mollifying anyways.
Re: Israel - I think it's kind of like the gun issue. Dems have a pretty good point about how there's stuff that can be done better, but it's kind of a no-win issue because we suck balls at messaging. Closing the gun show loophole and getting some basic regs make sense the same way that we ought to be able to push Israel into maybe toning down the human rights abuses a bit. Obama also kinda signed a decade-long multi billion dollar arms deal, so saying that he left Israel high and dry isn't exactly true either.
|
On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so.
It's not the first time you're trying to bait with this... Do you really think we're going to have a productive conversation if your starting point is that someone who disagrees with you on any Israel action must do so because he's missing the bigger picture?
Also, Dershowitz disagrees with a pick that isn't sufficiently pro-Israel? My surprise is mild.
|
On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so.
“Leftists” have a problem with Israël because they have a problem with colonialism, racism, State massacres and systematic violation of human rights.
|
On December 08 2016 09:47 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so. “Leftists” have a problem with Israël because they have a problem with colonialism, racism, State massacres and systematic violation of human rights.
I'm glad leftists take a stand when it comes to Palestinian refugees but not Syrian ones.
|
On December 08 2016 09:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 09:47 TheDwf wrote:On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so. “Leftists” have a problem with Israël because they have a problem with colonialism, racism, State massacres and systematic violation of human rights. I'm glad leftists take a stand when it comes to Palestinian refugees but not Syrian ones.
What? Leftists take stands on both those issues.
I dunno where this left hates Israel stuff is coming from. I just see criticism of Israel when they do bad thing. I see no reason why we need to stay silent when Israel does bad thing but nit pick Russia/China.
Israel is a dependnt of ours and we can't stop giving them more and more money and technology.
|
On December 08 2016 09:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 09:47 TheDwf wrote:On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so. “Leftists” have a problem with Israël because they have a problem with colonialism, racism, State massacres and systematic violation of human rights. I'm glad leftists take a stand when it comes to Palestinian refugees but not Syrian ones.
I have no idea where you saw that they don't.
|
On December 08 2016 09:47 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so. “Leftists” have a problem with Israël because they have a problem with colonialism, racism, State massacres and systematic violation of human rights.
Do they also have a problem with nations having to deal with aggressive, terrorism-sponsoring neighbors who quite explicitly state they want to destroy said nation? Or does that fit poorly within the narrative of "colonialism, racism, state massacres, and systematic violation of human rights" that is being pushed here?
On December 08 2016 09:31 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so. I don't think his past *should* be a huge liability because he's made it clear he parted ways, but unfortunately folks will use it against him. I'm not sold on his qualifications - he's a rep from a very urban very Democratic district. I guess I like the message a black Muslim DNC chair would send, though that's very secondary to his ability to win elections. I haven't really heard any full-throated defenses of him as chairman from members of the progressive wing that he's supposed to be mollifying anyways. Re: Israel - I think it's kind of like the gun issue. Dems have a pretty good point about how there's stuff that can be done better, but it's kind of a no-win issue because we suck balls at messaging. Closing the gun show loophole and getting some basic regs make sense the same way that we ought to be able to push Israel into maybe toning down the human rights abuses a bit. Obama also kinda signed a decade-long multi billion dollar arms deal, so saying that he left Israel high and dry isn't exactly true either.
Again, I don't know whether or not he would be a good pick. But it is true that Bernie Sanders' vote of confidence was what put him on the radar. Without that he definitely would not have gotten as much traction as he did.
I'm mostly content to let this play out within the scope of the party leadership and not comment too much about it, honestly.
|
On December 08 2016 10:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 09:47 TheDwf wrote:On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so. “Leftists” have a problem with Israël because they have a problem with colonialism, racism, State massacres and systematic violation of human rights. Do they also have a problem with nations having to deal with aggressive, terrorism-sponsoring neighbors who quite explicitly state they want to destroy said nation? Or does that fit poorly within the narrative of "colonialism, racism, state massacres, and systematic violation of human rights" that is being pushed here?
Yeah, they do.
Terrorism is a bad thing.
...
|
On December 08 2016 10:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 10:04 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:47 TheDwf wrote:On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so. “Leftists” have a problem with Israël because they have a problem with colonialism, racism, State massacres and systematic violation of human rights. Do they also have a problem with nations having to deal with aggressive, terrorism-sponsoring neighbors who quite explicitly state they want to destroy said nation? Or does that fit poorly within the narrative of "colonialism, racism, state massacres, and systematic violation of human rights" that is being pushed here? Yeah, they do. Terrorism is a bad thing. ...
Then, do you acknowledge that what is called "colonialism, racism, state massacres, and systematic violation of human rights" are often just the ugly necessities of having to fight terrorism in a way that is effective, and that failing to put "colonialism, racism, state massacres, and systematic violation of human rights" into context is missing the bigger picture?
|
On December 08 2016 10:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 10:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2016 10:04 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:47 TheDwf wrote:On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so. “Leftists” have a problem with Israël because they have a problem with colonialism, racism, State massacres and systematic violation of human rights. Do they also have a problem with nations having to deal with aggressive, terrorism-sponsoring neighbors who quite explicitly state they want to destroy said nation? Or does that fit poorly within the narrative of "colonialism, racism, state massacres, and systematic violation of human rights" that is being pushed here? Yeah, they do. Terrorism is a bad thing. ... Then, do you acknowledge that what is called "colonialism, racism, state massacres, and systematic violation of human rights" are often just the ugly necessities of having to fight terrorism in a way that is effective, and that failing to put "colonialism, racism, state massacres, and systematic violation of human rights" into context is missing the bigger picture?
No, I certainly don't. You haven't demonstrated the necessity of any of the actions Israel is criticized for (carpet bombing Lebanon in 2006, settlements, the occupation, the 2015 campaign and its civil casualty rate, etc.), you've just said that terrorism is bad. That is correct, terrorism is bad. It is possible for several separate things to be bad at the same time.
|
On December 08 2016 10:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 09:47 TheDwf wrote:On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so. “Leftists” have a problem with Israël because they have a problem with colonialism, racism, State massacres and systematic violation of human rights. Do they also have a problem with nations having to deal with aggressive, terrorism-sponsoring neighbors who quite explicitly state they want to destroy said nation? Or does that fit poorly within the narrative of "colonialism, racism, state massacres, and systematic violation of human rights" that is being pushed here? Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 09:31 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so. I don't think his past *should* be a huge liability because he's made it clear he parted ways, but unfortunately folks will use it against him. I'm not sold on his qualifications - he's a rep from a very urban very Democratic district. I guess I like the message a black Muslim DNC chair would send, though that's very secondary to his ability to win elections. I haven't really heard any full-throated defenses of him as chairman from members of the progressive wing that he's supposed to be mollifying anyways. Re: Israel - I think it's kind of like the gun issue. Dems have a pretty good point about how there's stuff that can be done better, but it's kind of a no-win issue because we suck balls at messaging. Closing the gun show loophole and getting some basic regs make sense the same way that we ought to be able to push Israel into maybe toning down the human rights abuses a bit. Obama also kinda signed a decade-long multi billion dollar arms deal, so saying that he left Israel high and dry isn't exactly true either. Again, I don't know whether or not he would be a good pick. But it is true that Bernie Sanders' vote of confidence was what put him on the radar. Without that he definitely would not have gotten as much traction as he did. I'm mostly content to let this play out within the scope of the party leadership and not comment too much about it, honestly.
More or less agreed. Though I wonder if its the establishment (for lack of a better word) thinking "let Sanders and his coterie do their thing, if we win midterms that's great but if we bomb then cool we tried it their way now let's move on".
On December 08 2016 10:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 10:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2016 10:04 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:47 TheDwf wrote:On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so. “Leftists” have a problem with Israël because they have a problem with colonialism, racism, State massacres and systematic violation of human rights. Do they also have a problem with nations having to deal with aggressive, terrorism-sponsoring neighbors who quite explicitly state they want to destroy said nation? Or does that fit poorly within the narrative of "colonialism, racism, state massacres, and systematic violation of human rights" that is being pushed here? Yeah, they do. Terrorism is a bad thing. ... Then, do you acknowledge that what is called "colonialism, racism, state massacres, and systematic violation of human rights" are often just the ugly necessities of having to fight terrorism in a way that is effective, and that failing to put "colonialism, racism, state massacres, and systematic violation of human rights" into context is missing the bigger picture?
IDK if you can justify turning the West Bank into a ghetto/ concentration camp as a necessary way of fighting terrorism. If we complain about how civilian casualties and treating the locals like shit creates more terrorists, well, that's what Israel is kinda doing here. My understanding of Israeli politics is limited, but there's a pretty big (permanent) minority that is much more pro-engagement that Netanyahu.
|
On December 08 2016 09:31 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so. I don't think his past *should* be a huge liability because he's made it clear he parted ways, but unfortunately folks will use it against him. I'm not sold on his qualifications - he's a rep from a very urban very Democratic district. I guess I like the message a black Muslim DNC chair would send, though that's very secondary to his ability to win elections. I haven't really heard any full-throated defenses of him as chairman from members of the progressive wing that he's supposed to be mollifying anyways. Re: Israel - I think it's kind of like the gun issue. Dems have a pretty good point about how there's stuff that can be done better, but it's kind of a no-win issue because we suck balls at messaging. Closing the gun show loophole and getting some basic regs make sense the same way that we ought to be able to push Israel into maybe toning down the human rights abuses a bit. Obama also kinda signed a decade-long multi billion dollar arms deal, so saying that he left Israel high and dry isn't exactly true either.
The problem with his past is that goes beyond questionable political affiliation -- it's an issue of religion. And more to the point, he expressed support for some of the worst ideas of Islam. That's hard to leave behind.
|
On December 08 2016 07:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 06:41 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 05:37 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2016 04:22 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 02:56 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2016 01:54 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 01:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Time Magazine names Donald Trump person of the year 2016 Subline: President of the Divided States of America (they couldn't resist themselves I suppose). Actually, with that under the title, they should really be featuring Barack Obama and the stewardship of the Democrat party and media allies. Trump was only the face of the rebellion, not the division that created the two bitter rivals. One special sequence bears mention: + Show Spoiler +Divided America has been in the works for quite a while. i honestly don't see what barack obama has done to divide the nation. he can be a good or bad president but i just don't see how he can be labeled as actively divisive. @above see that's a nice post by kwizach. i didn't know dauntless sucked those graphs out of context. The rhetoric was definitely divisive. Suggesting his opposition were reprobates or racists. It was never loudly active, I can give you that. But he's the guy that called Republican Party extremists. Said Republicans will do anything to "rig the system for those at the top." Republican rhetoric was recruiting for ISIL. Republican policy harms millions of Americans. He fought with the political big guns and continually made reference to his opponents as having no legitimate ground for opposition. So his just desserts for spending so much time bullying the opposition (and some say it was justified) is somewhere around half the country feeling marginalized ... your views and concerns aren't legitimate, they're attached to hardliners or extremists. The best microcosm of this attitude was talking about Americans who "cling to guns and religion." This is probably all an argument for the history books when the figure of Obama is judged by what he actually said and did. Nixon was also pushed by the media as one thing (some radical), and years later everyone discovered something else (moderate policymaking) after active warfare against his administration was completed. Today the same types are carrying water for the Obama administration, but eventually they'll move on. Trump even now has a chance to show what deal-making is (and I'll probably hate the deals) to contrast with the way Obama clung to his ideology and sorta flipped the table and demonized the negotiators every time he signed something. But if you can't see it now, stay tuned ... it's the internet age and all his speeches and addresses are catalogued for future biographers to examine his methods and impact for those that missed it the first time around. I'd be remiss to not also mention the parallel culture wars in society that treated groups like traditional christians and white working class families like they were the enemy and their views on the functioning of society were not just wrong but evil. well if there are (at least) two sides which you seem to acknowledge it makes one wonder what a non-divisive president would look like. presumably you are not arguing for a radical centrism. so for the description "divisive" to not be a tautological corollary to an axiomatic two party system there must be something more than simple disagreement. and i dont see that in obama's case. he seems eminently reasonable (eg in a conversation) and level headed with significant levels of empathy. You said what it would take to be non-divisive president: level headed and having sufficient empathy. What you might've read is my contention that he has repeatedly and consistently behaved otherwise. Policy disagreements can be debated on their merits without insisting Republicans have gone off the deep end (and see the kind of president elected in the backlash). He's given sound bites to civil discourse while pushing proto-uncivil discourse. He's not as blunt as Trump about it, for sure. Slight exception for using a memorial for fallen police officers to slander police officers; that time he was just as bad. This comes against his wide base of support that thinks he was forced to behave in this manner rather than electing to make it trench warfare. Bill Clinton was a good counter example, at least within his presidency, for bringing the nation together. Veto the bill twice, then sign it, and herald it as a big win. He was more the traditional politician to Obama's fondness for ideological campaigns. bill clinton was a radical centrist whose wake left us with W bush, one of the worst presidents in modern history. i'm not sure your analysis of how obama's divisiveness has led to the trump "reaction" holds up. edit: also for someone who frequently criticizes "liberals" for their hyperbolic overreactions you sure have a penchant for histrionics. obama "slandering" the police? come on. i don't think hardly anything obama has said has been hyperbolic or indefensible. he's too cool for that.
If BJ Clinton was a radical centrist, Trump a nazi, and Obama's a Stalinist. I just find that position absurd. But we're not really here to do critical historical arguments.
Read the speech. He used the ceremony to grandstand. You see, at that moment several police officers were killed by someone who told officers he "wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers" but Obama really wondered about his motives. And to commemorate such loss, he felt the urge to mention that "It's easier for a teenager to get his hands on a Glock than a computer ... or even a book!" Rofl. He also used this instance to speculate on then-unknown circumstances of two blacks killed by police officers. Totally appropriate. Now you show enough intellectual engagement to rise above the appearance of "too cool for that" to examine what really happened. The speech is available in video and text. And it stands proud in my list of examples for why Obama should've been time person of the year for a divided America.
|
On December 08 2016 10:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 09:31 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 08 2016 09:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 09:11 xDaunt wrote:So I haven't commented much on Keith Ellison being a candidate for DNC chair because I haven't really looked at him or his history (and I loath accusations of racism and anti-semitism), but I saw this yesterday which caught my eye: On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “The Intelligence Report,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz argued Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) “would be great for the Republicans,” if elected DNC Chair and was a “part of” Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism “for years.”
Dershowitz said picking Ellison would be “about the dumbest thing, among many dumb things, the Democrats have done. After losing white, middle class, working-class people in the Midwest, you’re going to pick somebody who for nine years was associated with a hate America, anti-American, anti-Western person? It’s just nuts, and they’re going to lose a lot of democrats if they appoint him.”
He added, “If I were a Republican strategist, and I were given the choice to pick the head of the Democratic National Committee, I’d say, pick Ellison. He would be great for the Republicans, and he’s going to be great for the Republicans. … He is going to lose many, many Democrats. He’s going to lose many pro-Israel Democrats, many pro-American Democrats. Forget about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and the fact that this guy was part of that for years. Do you know what he said, at one point, to somebody, when he was a student at the Minnesota Law School? He said to somebody, who was a woman and Jewish, I can have no respect for you — this is Ellison saying this, not Farrakhan. I can have no respect for you, because you’re jewish and you’re a woman, and as a woman, you shouldn’t be working, you should be home.”
Dershowitz further stated that Ellison would turn the Democrats into the British Labour Party, which “can’t win an election for dogcatcher.”
Dershowitz concluded, “[I]f you gave me a list of a thousand people, I’d put Ellison 1,001. he is the worst possible person, at this point, in the history of the Democratic Party to pick.” Source. If this is true, what the hell are democrats thinking even considering him? Bernie Sanders told people to pick him. I wasn't impressed with the kinds of things I've heard about him but frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party leadership and I have little to say on who I would actually like to see in charge there. Leftists in general have a big blind spot in general when it comes to Israel. They see a nation acting in a way not compatible with "liberal sensibilities" while missing the bigger picture of why they do so. I don't think his past *should* be a huge liability because he's made it clear he parted ways, but unfortunately folks will use it against him. I'm not sold on his qualifications - he's a rep from a very urban very Democratic district. I guess I like the message a black Muslim DNC chair would send, though that's very secondary to his ability to win elections. I haven't really heard any full-throated defenses of him as chairman from members of the progressive wing that he's supposed to be mollifying anyways. Re: Israel - I think it's kind of like the gun issue. Dems have a pretty good point about how there's stuff that can be done better, but it's kind of a no-win issue because we suck balls at messaging. Closing the gun show loophole and getting some basic regs make sense the same way that we ought to be able to push Israel into maybe toning down the human rights abuses a bit. Obama also kinda signed a decade-long multi billion dollar arms deal, so saying that he left Israel high and dry isn't exactly true either. The problem with his past is that goes beyond questionable political affiliation -- it's an issue of religion. And more to the point, he expressed support for some of the worst ideas of Islam. That's hard to leave behind.
I haven't seen anything about stoning infidels, forcing women to cover up or violent jihad. Can you specify?
On December 08 2016 10:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 07:55 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2016 06:41 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 05:37 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2016 04:22 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 02:56 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2016 01:54 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 01:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Time Magazine names Donald Trump person of the year 2016 Subline: President of the Divided States of America (they couldn't resist themselves I suppose). Actually, with that under the title, they should really be featuring Barack Obama and the stewardship of the Democrat party and media allies. Trump was only the face of the rebellion, not the division that created the two bitter rivals. One special sequence bears mention: + Show Spoiler +Divided America has been in the works for quite a while. i honestly don't see what barack obama has done to divide the nation. he can be a good or bad president but i just don't see how he can be labeled as actively divisive. @above see that's a nice post by kwizach. i didn't know dauntless sucked those graphs out of context. The rhetoric was definitely divisive. Suggesting his opposition were reprobates or racists. It was never loudly active, I can give you that. But he's the guy that called Republican Party extremists. Said Republicans will do anything to "rig the system for those at the top." Republican rhetoric was recruiting for ISIL. Republican policy harms millions of Americans. He fought with the political big guns and continually made reference to his opponents as having no legitimate ground for opposition. So his just desserts for spending so much time bullying the opposition (and some say it was justified) is somewhere around half the country feeling marginalized ... your views and concerns aren't legitimate, they're attached to hardliners or extremists. The best microcosm of this attitude was talking about Americans who "cling to guns and religion." This is probably all an argument for the history books when the figure of Obama is judged by what he actually said and did. Nixon was also pushed by the media as one thing (some radical), and years later everyone discovered something else (moderate policymaking) after active warfare against his administration was completed. Today the same types are carrying water for the Obama administration, but eventually they'll move on. Trump even now has a chance to show what deal-making is (and I'll probably hate the deals) to contrast with the way Obama clung to his ideology and sorta flipped the table and demonized the negotiators every time he signed something. But if you can't see it now, stay tuned ... it's the internet age and all his speeches and addresses are catalogued for future biographers to examine his methods and impact for those that missed it the first time around. I'd be remiss to not also mention the parallel culture wars in society that treated groups like traditional christians and white working class families like they were the enemy and their views on the functioning of society were not just wrong but evil. well if there are (at least) two sides which you seem to acknowledge it makes one wonder what a non-divisive president would look like. presumably you are not arguing for a radical centrism. so for the description "divisive" to not be a tautological corollary to an axiomatic two party system there must be something more than simple disagreement. and i dont see that in obama's case. he seems eminently reasonable (eg in a conversation) and level headed with significant levels of empathy. You said what it would take to be non-divisive president: level headed and having sufficient empathy. What you might've read is my contention that he has repeatedly and consistently behaved otherwise. Policy disagreements can be debated on their merits without insisting Republicans have gone off the deep end (and see the kind of president elected in the backlash). He's given sound bites to civil discourse while pushing proto-uncivil discourse. He's not as blunt as Trump about it, for sure. Slight exception for using a memorial for fallen police officers to slander police officers; that time he was just as bad. This comes against his wide base of support that thinks he was forced to behave in this manner rather than electing to make it trench warfare. Bill Clinton was a good counter example, at least within his presidency, for bringing the nation together. Veto the bill twice, then sign it, and herald it as a big win. He was more the traditional politician to Obama's fondness for ideological campaigns. bill clinton was a radical centrist whose wake left us with W bush, one of the worst presidents in modern history. i'm not sure your analysis of how obama's divisiveness has led to the trump "reaction" holds up. edit: also for someone who frequently criticizes "liberals" for their hyperbolic overreactions you sure have a penchant for histrionics. obama "slandering" the police? come on. i don't think hardly anything obama has said has been hyperbolic or indefensible. he's too cool for that. If BJ Clinton was a radical centrist, Trump a nazi, and Obama's a Stalinist. I just find that position absurd. But we're not really here to do critical historical arguments. Read the speech. He used the ceremony to grandstand. You see, at that moment several police officers were killed by someone who told officers he "wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers" but Obama really wondered about his motives. And to commemorate such loss, he felt the urge to mention that "It's easier for a teenager to get his hands on a Glock than a computer ... or even a book!" Rofl. He also used this instance to speculate on then-unknown circumstances of two blacks killed by police officers. Totally appropriate. Now you show enough intellectual engagement to rise above the appearance of "too cool for that" to examine what really happened. The speech is available in video and text. And it stands proud in my list of examples for why Obama should've been time person of the year for a divided America.
Trump calls for a ban on Muslims, makes fun of women and the disabled.
Obama talked about the bad relationship between police and the communities they serve with a bit about gun violence. What a terrible, divisive guy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
