US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1570

On June 24 2019 09:32 KwarK wrote:
If this is all true she should allow the Democratic party to replace her. She's probably a good representative to her constituents but I doubt she's so much better than the next best representative that it's worth overlooking it all.

All the far worse cases on the other side should also resign too.

On June 24 2019 09:44 Nebuchad wrote:


That's fair, yeah.

On June 24 2019 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:


I guess I'm alone in not caring at all that she may have lied her way into citizenship. I'd take a congress full of people that allegedly lied to become citizens and do a decent job over the clownshow we have now.

On June 24 2019 14:34 KwarK wrote:

Or you could read my post.

She’s better than most but presumably we can find someone with similar ideological convictions who haven’t defrauded the government. She can’t be that much better than the next best candidate.

It goes candidate like her without baggage > her > bad congressmen. You’re trying to disagree by explaining that her > bad congressmen as if that wasn’t the point that you’re disagreeing with.

You’re not alone in thinking what you think, but I think that you might wish you were.

On June 24 2019 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:


I guess I'm alone in not caring at all that she may have lied her way into citizenship. I'd take a congress full of people that allegedly lied to become citizens and do a decent job over the clownshow we have now.

On June 24 2019 19:38 Nebuchad wrote:


I don't care morally. But the rules are there today.

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

On June 24 2019 20:34 GreenHorizons wrote:


Not a big fan of "the rules" either since they seem to largely be used to punish (some people more than others) and maintain oppressive systems rather than lead to a productive distribution of behavioral improvements.

Or as MLK put it.

On June 24 2019 21:23 Nebuchad wrote:
You can make the moral argument but you generally won't convince a lot of people with it imo, so I would disagree with MLK's strategy there. I'd rather make a rational case, but that case requires advocating for border abolition and the US is definitely not ready for this today.

Until then we're stuck talking about this whenever Omar is brought up, and that's not helpful. If it's a lie then definitely we should fight against the lie, but if it's true, I don't think it's worth it. There are more leftists in the US than the establishment thinks.

On June 24 2019 21:52 Nebuchad wrote:
If she's replaced by someone who isn't as left as she is then that should be criticized. It's a different conversation tho.

And no it definitely doesn't assume that republican attacks are tethered to reality, I even mention the possibility in my post. Like, we had to discuss antisemitism a lot because of their attacks on Omar until today, but they were full of shit, so we stuck with her as we should have. If this is full of shit as well, we should definitely continue to stick with her.

On June 24 2019 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:


I think congress stands as a rather apt example that she would likely be replaced with someone worse.

I guess I'm confused as to whether you would describe what you and Kwark have said as "sticking with her" or not?

Also, I'm arguing that even if it's true, it's definitely worth it and threats of what Republicans will say don't dissuade me.

On June 24 2019 20:34 GreenHorizons wrote:


Not a big fan of "the rules" either since they seem to largely be used to punish (some people more than others) and maintain oppressive systems rather than lead to a productive distribution of behavioral improvements.

Or as MLK put it.

On June 24 2019 22:49 KwarK wrote:
If we’re not going to bother holding our people to a higher standard than the Republicans then what’s the point.

On June 24 2019 23:43 GreenHorizons wrote:

I think the more moral/ethical/coherent standard or "higher standard" is the one I'm advocating.

On June 25 2019 00:15 KwarK wrote:

She is accused of defrauding the government and stealing from her campaign donors. It’s serious enough that she should resign if she did it.

On June 25 2019 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:


Is the position that defrauding the government and stealing from campaign donors isn't pretty standard in the Democratic party or do you just not see the problem with targeting Omar for it/think she's especially more guilty?

On June 25 2019 00:38 KwarK wrote:

It’s that it’s not pretty standard and that anyone doing it should be replaced with someone not doing it.

A few years ago there was an expenses scandal in the British parliament and a lot of MPs tried to convince everyone that it was normal and that all the MPs did it. Unfortunately for them there were a few MPs who didn’t realize they were meant to be filing fraudulent expenses and showed the rest of them up.

I’m not unfairly targeting Omar, they can all meet that standard or be replaced with people who can. It’s not a very high standard. I am certain we can find someone who can meet it.