America - The Official Thread

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Antisemitic or no? There weren't any house resolutions condemning McCarthy for this. The implications of the tweet are less ambiguous than Omar's. Seemed like more people were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I wonder why they wouldn't for Omar?

 

[TexRex]

Anti-Semitic?

 

[DDastardly00]

Surely you jest. Why do you expect anyone to answer your questions when you refuse to answer theirs?

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/america-the-official-thread.54029/page-702#post-12744869



https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/america-the-official-thread.54029/page-703#post-12745883

Antisemitic or no? There weren't any house resolutions condemning McCarthy for this. The implications of the tweet are less ambiguous than Omar's. Seemed like more people were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I wonder why they wouldn't for Omar?

View attachment 822783

Anti-Semitic?

Because Tex, honestly, this is the lamest conversation I've ever had on GTplanet, I expected better from you and Eunos_Cosmos. To start with, how does my personal opinion about what is anti Semitic or pertain to Rep Omar's comments and tweets? Why is it relevant to Rep Omar's anti Semetic statements? Let me give you a big hint, it's not relevant. You are trying to make this about me and quite frankly that is a ridiculous defense. Should I start calling you two the ad-hominem brothers?

Anyway, back to Omar and back on topic. What did you think about Pelosi's statement, you know, Rep Omar's Boss? What are your thoughts on her colleague's statements?https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/america-the-official-thread.54029/page-703#post-12745962

Until you can answer that, I think we're done here.

 

[Danoff]

Anyway, back to Omar and back on topic. What did you think about Pelosi's statement, you know, Rep Omar's Boss? What are your thoughts on her colleague's statements?https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/america-the-official-thread.54029/page-703#post-12745962

I went looking for what Omar said that got her into so much trouble and... I'm not finding anything interesting. Can you explain it?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You are trying to make this about me and quite frankly that is a ridiculous defense. Should I start calling you two the ad-hominem brothers?

You accused Omar of being antisemitic. I, and I suspect TR, don't believe her comments absolutely confirm that she is antisemitic, more that she is a critic of Israeli policy and lobbying. We are trying to understand the bar or goalpost for what you consider antisemitism. It's not that unreasonable.

 

[TexRex]

Because Tex, honestly, the lamest conversation I've ever had on GTplanet, I expected better from you and Eunos_Cosmos.

Oof.

To start with, how does my personal opinion about what is anti Semitic or pertain to Rep Omar's comments and tweets? Why is it relevant to Rep Omar's anti Semetic statements? Let me give you a big hint, it's not relevant. You are trying to make this about me and quite frankly that is a ridiculous defense.

You said her comments constituted anti-Semitism. I'm trying to determine how you've come to that and not something else.

Should I start calling you two the ad-hominem brothers?

You do you, but again, you are saying that her comments were anti-Semitic, and when asked to substantiate that assertion, you've merely deflected by referring to what others said.

Why does referencing lyrics to suggest it's all about money when commenting on US-Isreali relations constitute anti-Semitism? I'm asking you why, not who said it does.

Why does having an issue with AIPAC constitute anti-Semitism? I'm asking you why, not who said it does.

As far as what Democrats have said to/of Omar, I'd suggest they don't have a firm grasp of the situation but think they should come out against just to be safe...you know...optics.

 

[DDastardly00]

Fair enough Tex, here goes.

I'm not deflecting, at least I am not trying to. I am siding with Nancy Pelosi and the majority of the Democrat party in regards to Rep Omar's irresponsible comments in social media in part because she (Pelosi) is right, and also because accusing people, politicians, Jewish folks (and so on) of having some sort of allegiance to a foreign government (because of money) has been a tactic used for ages to diminish and persecute Jewish people both at home and abroad. This is nothing new. Now, there are two possible scenarios, either she made a freshman mistake or, she knew exactly what she was doing. Since you are asking me for my opinion, I believe it was the latter, again that is my opinion, I do not know Rep Omar personally, but I sure hope it was the former.

And to your point about the 19 members of the House who are Jewish (18 are Democrats) and the 9 members of the Senate who are Jewish (8 are Democrats) not knowing what this is about, I think it would be extremely Naïve to make that assumption. Many Jewish-Americans have had to deal with bigotry their whole lives. It's not about optics.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Fair enough Tex, here goes.

I'm not deflecting, at least I am not trying to. I am siding with Nancy Pelosi and the majority of the Democrat party in regards to Rep Omar's irresponsible comments in social media in part because she (Pelosi) is right, and also because accusing people, politicians, Jewish folks (and so on) of having some sort of allegiance to a foreign government (because of money) has been a tactic used for ages to diminish and persecute Jewish people both at home and abroad. This is nothing new. Now, there are two possible scenarios, either she made a freshman mistake or, she knew exactly what she was doing. Since you are asking me for my opinion, I believe it was the latter, again that is my opinion, I do not know Rep Omar personally, but I sure hope it was the former.

You hope it was the former, yet you say this?

If you are going to defend her then know you are also, by association, defending Neo-Nazis, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the KKK who all spew the same hateful crap as Rep Omar, they just do it without all of the political doublespeak.

That doesn't compute. If you really, in good faith, hoped she wasn't antisemitic, you might give her the benefit of the doubt (which is exactly what Nancy Pelosi did). You've done the complete opposite of that.

 

[DDastardly00]

You hope it was the former, yet you say this?



That doesn't compute.

Sure it does, I gave my opinion, I think it was intentional, but that is not something I would relish being right about.

What doesn't compute is people passing this off as 'no big deal'. Statements like these are akin to "the Jews own Hollywood" which is not true and how about "the Jews own all the banks" also not true. Hitler used this stuff to gain power, and take over a country (nearly the world). Please take the time to understand what anti-Semitism is and how it lead to the death of over six million Jews, maybe then it will matter to you. Maybe then you will understand why we can't let dangerous statements like this go unchecked.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Sure it does, I gave my opinion, I think it was intentional, but that is not something I would relish being right about.

What doesn't compute is people passing this off as 'no big deal'. Statements like these are akin to "the Jews own Hollywood" which is not true and how about "the Jews own all the banks" also not true. Hitler used this stuff to gain power, and take over a country (nearly the world). Please take the time to understand what anti-Semitism is and how it lead to the death of over six million Jews, maybe then it will matter to you. Maybe then you will understand why we can't let dangerous statements like this go unchecked.

You freely admitted the following:

there are two possible scenarios, either she made a freshman mistake or, she knew exactly what she was doing.

Effectively, there are two possibilities, according to you (which I agree with):
1. She's not antisemitic and bumbled words while trying to make a point about lobbyists
2. She is antisemitic and she chose to deliberately reveal it via a public but ambiguous tweet, and that after revealing she hates Jews, via the very public tweet, she.... apologized for it? I don't think this is a reasonable chain of logic for anyone to undertake, but I suppose it's possible

So is choice #1 a reasonable or even valid position for someone to hold? That is my question for you.

 

[TexRex]

Fair enough Tex, here goes.

I'm not deflecting, at least I am not trying to. I am siding with Nancy Pelosi and the majority of the Democrat party in regards to Rep Omar's irresponsible comments in social media in part because she (Pelosi) is right, and also because accusing people, politicians, Jewish folks (and so on) of having some sort of allegiance to a foreign government (because of money) has been a tactic used for ages to diminish and persecute Jewish people both at home and abroad. This is nothing new. Now, there are two possible scenarios, either she made a freshman mistake or, she knew exactly what she was doing. Since you are asking me for my opinion, I believe it was the latter, again that is my opinion, I do not know Rep Omar personally, but I sure hope it was the former.

And to your point about the 19 members of the House who are Jewish (18 are Democrats) and the 9 members of the Senate who are Jewish (8 are Democrats) not knowing what this is about, I think it would be extremely Naïve to make that assumption. Many Jewish-Americans have had to deal with bigotry their whole lives. It's not about optics.

You haven't addressed why it's "absolutely this" and it "can't possibly be that".

Statements like these are akin to "the Jews own Hollywood" which is not true and how about "the Jews own all the banks" also not true.

Except this isn't about Hollywood and this isn't about all the banks. This is about the foothold in the Middle East that Israel represents and a just staggeringly massive lobbying interest.

Oh and this isn't Nazi Germany or the Holocaust either. Didn't think I'd have to make such a distinction...but here we are.

[Edit] What's more, there are those of the Jewish faith, those who have been subjected to verbal abuse and physical harm, who criticize AIPAC. [/Edit]

Please take the time to understand what anti-Semitism is and how it lead to the death of over six million Jews, maybe then it will matter to you. Maybe then you will understand why we can't let dangerous statements like this go unchecked.

Oooh, yay, appeal to emotion with accusations of ignorance and apathy on the side.

So, uh...I wonder...how do you feel about the concept of reparations?

 

[Dotini]

This is about the foothold in the Middle East that Israel represents

Do you take exception to the (US role in) creation of the modern Jewish state of Israel?

 

[kembro]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ver-22m-on-lobbying-and-contributions-in-2018

Always had seen a close tie between the US and Israel but i had no idea the US gave Israel 3 billion a year. The lobbying in politics has got absolutely crazy. 46mil accepted from pro Israel foreign agents in registered payments seems like a good incentive. The Securities and Investment lobby have also bought favour with 389million in 2018 alone. Lobbying has destroyed democracy.

 

[TexRex]

Always had seen a close tie between the US and Israel but i had no idea the US gave Israel 3 billion a year to them.

It's a bargain for, as [Secretary of State under Reagan] General Alexander Haig put it, "the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk".

 

[mustafur]

Alot of people seem confused that facts are not anti-semetic.

Omar even highlighted AIPAC which correctly demonstrates her point.

Just because Pelosi a career politician who has made 100s of millions from lobbyist donations says something about a Party member doesn't make it correct.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

It's a bargain for, as [Secretary of State under Reagan] General Alexander Haig put it, "the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk".

That right there is a good answer. Well worth the money.

 

[Dotini]

That right there is a good answer. Well worth the money.

Agreed. Might makes right. The ends justify the means. Corruption can be for the good. The winner writes history. Let us go forth and win, spread our values and seed far and wide.

 

[novcze]

My opinion, which I'm stating for the third time now, is that the video title bucks the notion of objectivity and I don't have any reason to suspect the contents of the video don't do the same.

Is this what you native English speaking people call talking at cross purposes? From the beginning I'm interested in people's opinion about "data" (I know this is not exact science, but it's from legit research) and not about objectivity of the video. Presented opinions about the data doesn't prevent me, you or anybody to think for themselves about the data.

I don't think he's right or wrong and have said absolutely nothing of that, nor do I intend to without information to support or rebuff what he's said; rather I responded to your question regarding supposed objectivity.

Which is not what I asked, see below.

so because people tend to make clickbait video titles mean that research data which are presented are not objective?

If your answer was:

Yes.

It looks to me like you are suggesting the data from legit research are invalidated because guy in the video may not be objective. This caught my attention, so excuse my fervor.

 

[Rallywagon]

Is this what you native English speaking people call talking at cross purposes? From the beginning I'm interested in people's opinion about "data" (I know this is not exact science, but it's from legit research) and not about objectivity of the video. Presented opinions about the data doesn't prevent me, you or anybody to think for themselves about the data.




Which is not what I asked, see below.



If your answer was:



It looks to me like you are suggesting the data from legit research are invalidated because guy in the video may not be objective. This caught my attention, so excuse my fervor.

I think it calls into question the validity of the way the research findings are being presented. I haven't looked into the data, nor watched the video, so I'm not going to stake a claim here. It's just that statistics are really easy to skew to the presenters favor. With a clickbait title like that video (and a fair number of his videos) has, there is clearly a bias, which then calls into question the validity of the way said research is being presented. The research alone may or may not stand, but it becomes doubtful that it's being presented faithful by said youtuber.

Edit:
Did you, perchance, look into the research? Is Pool presenting it accurately and full, or is he cherry picking and misconstruing to make his point?

 

[Danoff]

Fair enough Tex, here goes.

I'm not deflecting, at least I am not trying to. I am siding with Nancy Pelosi and the majority of the Democrat party in regards to Rep Omar's irresponsible comments in social media in part because she (Pelosi) is right, and also because accusing people, politicians, Jewish folks (and so on) of having some sort of allegiance to a foreign government (because of money) has been a tactic used for ages to diminish and persecute Jewish people both at home and abroad. This is nothing new.

Is there some kind of clear tie you can make that makes it definitive that this is anti-Semitic? Because I don't see it. She's accusing someone of being paid off. The response should be to ask her for her evidence that the person is being paid off, not to assume that this is somehow religious or ethnic bias. If her response to that is "well you know.. jews and all" then sure, you've got a clear understanding of her statement. If she had no evidence whatsoever, then you've also got a leg to stand on. But those tweets in and of themselves are not anti-Semitic. You need more evidence.

To put it succinctly, Jewish individuals and the country of Israel are not immune to accusations of bribery or corruption. And what you're arguing is that they are.

 

[huskeR32]

there are some data that suggest democrats aka "the left" is going more extreme than republicans and maybe Twitter is the reason?

so because people tend to make clickbait video titles mean that research data which are presented are not objective?

You wouldn't happen to have links to this "data," would you?

--

That looks like Tim Pool who usually stays pretty neutral.

Tim Pool has made videos supporting the likes of Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shaprio, and Brett Kavanaugh, not to mention a lot of pro-Trump content.

He has made videos with titles such as:
-Leftist Celebrity Activism is a Lie, Exposing the Hypocrisy
-Mainstream Leftists Encourage Violence
-Liberals Think Conservatives are Evil
-Republicans Face Extinction Without Speech Protection
-Facebook's Purge of the Right Has Begun
-Fake News Blacklist Targets Right Wing News
-The Extreme Media Bias Against Conservatives
-The Left is Going Insane

And probably most telling about what his views tend to be, he released a video with a title that incredulously wondered about the chances of "Convincing Me to Vote Democrat?"

On the contrary, I couldn't find one video of his that was critical of Trump, of the Republican party, or of any prominent right-wing media figures.

Yeah, he claims to dislike both "mainstream" parties, but the content he puts out doesn't really reflect that.

 

[novcze]

Edit:
Did you, perchance, look into the research? Is Pool presenting it accurately and full, or is he cherry picking and misconstruing to make his point?

Not much, one source is Pew Research Centre and work of Adam Bonica so it's not like Pool draw it himself, he is of course pushing his point and not explaining the charts properly, however one thing is clear, that Republicans and Democrats are now further apart ideologically than at any point in more than two decades. Anything else goes beyond my interest in the US politics.

edit:

You wouldn't happen to have links to this "data," would you?

https://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/1-partisan-divides-over-political-values-widen/

 

[Rallywagon]

Not much, one source is Pew Research Centre and work of Adam Bonica so it's not like Pool draw it himself, he is of course pushing his point and not explaining the charts properly, however one thing is clear, that Republicans and Democrats are now further apart ideologically than at any point in more than two decades. Anything else goes beyond my interest in the US politics.

edit:


https://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/1-partisan-divides-over-political-values-widen/

Well sure. The divide is quite obvious I'd say. But that was never really the plot to this conversation. That would be the validity of the Pools presentation of his "facts."

 

[huskeR32]

https://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/1-partisan-divides-over-political-values-widen/

Yeah, I read that. I didn't see the part where it established that "the left" is "more extreme," as you claimed.

The closest thing I could find was:

In a few issue areas, notably views of homosexuality and of immigrants, public opinion in both parties has clearly shifted in a more liberal direction over the past several decades. Nevertheless, the partisan gaps on both of these values have gotten wider over the past two decades, as the long-term shifts are more pronounced among Democrats than Republicans.

That is not the same thing as "extremism." The whole point of that study is to show that both parties have moved from moderate, centrist positions to more partisan ones, and that more have moved from the center to the left, than from the center to the right. But they've largely moved to the "mainstream" (for lack of a better word) left or right, not to the extremes. You've projected a whole layer of stuff onto that study that it certainly wasn't intending to say. Unless I've missed something specific, in which case, please provide the page and paragraph where I can find it.

 

[TexRex]

however one thing is clear, that Republicans and Democrats are now further apart ideologically than at any point in more than two decades

*gasp*

 

[Dotini]

There are few things more enjoyable than watching the high brought low. I reveled in Nixon's agony as he twisted slowly in the wind. Bill Clinton's suffering moved me less, but was still fun. I am very enthusiastic for Trump to be impeached and tried. Only Nancy Pelosi stands stodgily in the way, but not for long. I expect wonderful things to happen.

And I think Trump is egging them on as hard as he can. He has just thrown Schumer and Pelosi out of the White House, vowing there will the no more legislation (of any kind?) passed until they drop investigations.

 

[DDastardly00]

You freely admitted the following:



Effectively, there are two possibilities, according to you (which I agree with):
1. She's not antisemitic and bumbled words while trying to make a point about lobbyists
2. She is antisemitic and she chose to deliberately reveal it via a public but ambiguous tweet, and that after revealing she hates Jews, via the very public tweet, she.... apologized for it? I don't think this is a reasonable chain of logic for anyone to undertake, but I suppose it's possible

So is choice #1 a reasonable or even valid position for someone to hold? That is my question for you.

Given her other creepy tweets, no I don't think so.

So you are hired on at a job, shortly after you say something bigoted on twitter that offends millions, your Boss and your colleagues call you out for it. You are forced to apologize. That is perfectly reasonable chain of logic.

Except this isn't about Hollywood and this isn't about all the banks. This is about the foothold in the Middle East that Israel represents and a just staggeringly massive lobbying interest.

Oh and this isn't Nazi Germany or the Holocaust either. Didn't think I'd have to make such a distinction...but here we are.

Wow that's twisted. Go back and read what I said and try again. You basically just took what I said entirely out of context threw it in the spin cycle and that's what came out on the other side.

Alot of people seem confused that facts are not anti-semetic.

Omar even highlighted AIPAC which correctly demonstrates her point.

True, except when the fact is not a fact and is actually a lie. AIPAC does not donate directly politicians and it's not a Political Action Committee either. The PAC in AIPAC stands for Public Affair Committee. What Rep Omar said was a lie.

Just because Pelosi a career politician who has made 100s of millions from lobbyist donations says something about a Party member doesn't make it correct.

I have to admit, I'm scratching my head over this one because it wasn't just Pelosi but nearly the entire House of Representatives condemned her comments as anti-Semitic.


The House approved a resolution Thursday to condemn "anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism and other forms of bigotry" in a move that Democrats hope will quell the latest uproar over Rep. Ilhan Omar's criticism of Israel.

The vote on the measure was 407-23. The 23 opposed were all Republican lawmakers.

For the second time in as many months, the freshman Minnesota Democrat has provoked contentious debate on Capitol Hill over rhetoric that many lawmakers — including senior Democrats — view as anti-Semitic.

It is the second time that the House voted to condemn anti-Semitism as a rebuke of Omar, although she is not named in either resolution. The first time was in response to tweets that played on tropes about Jewish money and influence on American politics.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/07/7010...ondemn-anti-semitism-after-rep-omars-comments

 

[huskeR32]

Given her other creepy tweets, no I don't think so.

"Creepy?" What did she tweet that was creepy?

So you are hired on at a job, shortly after you say something bigoted on twitter that offends millions, your Boss and your colleagues call you out for it. You are forced to apologize. That is perfectly reasonable chain of logic.

Let's take a moment to remember that the offended millions here are a group that largely overlaps with the group that moans about "political correctness" and "snowflakes" and people generally being too quick to feel offended these days. Kinda makes this whole thing hard to take seriously as a good faith argument.

Wow that's twisted. Go back and read what I said and try again. You basically just took what I said entirely out of context threw it in the spin cycle and that's what came out on the other side.

He's untwisting your nonsense comparisons to Hitler.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Given her other creepy tweets, no I don't think so.

So you are hired on at a job, shortly after you say something bigoted on twitter that offends millions, your Boss and your colleagues call you out for it. You are forced to apologize. That is perfectly reasonable chain of logic.

So when you said this:

there are two possible scenarios, either she made a freshman mistake or, she knew exactly what she was doing.

You actually meant:

there are two possible scenarios, either she made a freshman mistake or, [is only one possible scenario,] she knew exactly what she was doing.

So without any meaningful evidence and absolutely zero benefit of the doubt, you are absolutely and completely sure she is a Jew hater, and further that anyone that disagrees with you "also, by association, [is] defending Neo-Nazis, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the KKK". Do you not see how ridiculous this position is? I'm defending Omar, in this instance. You going to label me a Nazi, KKK, or Ayatollah sympathizer?

I have to admit, I'm scratching my head over this one because it wasn't just Pelosi but nearly the entire House of Representatives condemned her comments as anti-Semitic.

The House approved a resolution Thursday to condemn "anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism and other forms of bigotry" in a move that Democrats hope will quell the latest uproar over Rep. Ilhan Omar's criticism of Israel.

The vote on the measure was 407-23. The 23 opposed were all Republican lawmakers.

For the second time in as many months, the freshman Minnesota Democrat has provoked contentious debate on Capitol Hill over rhetoric that many lawmakers — including senior Democrats — view as anti-Semitic.

It is the second time that the House voted to condemn anti-Semitism as a rebuke of Omar, although she is not named in either resolution. The first time was in response to tweets that played on tropes about Jewish money and influence on American politics.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/07/7010...ondemn-anti-semitism-after-rep-omars-comments

You don't think it's telling that they voted to condemn Antisemitism and not condemn Rep Omar?

 

[PocketZeven]

Antisemitic or no? There weren't any house resolutions condemning McCarthy for this. The implications of the tweet are less ambiguous than Omar's. Seemed like more people were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I wonder why they wouldn't for Omar?

So the alternative is to let the Koch brothers buy the election?