• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:329] Poster linking Rep. Ilhan Omar to 9/11 sparks outrage, injuries in W.Va. state Capitol

Jack Hays said:
Even if they had not been susceptible to accusations of anti-Semitism, Omar’s comments violated important norms.
Click to expand...

Would one of those "important norms" possibly be "Thou shalt speak no ill of Israel, regardless of what the Israeli government does."?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Would one of those "important norms" possibly be "Thou shalt speak no ill of Israel, regardless of what the Israeli government does."?
Click to expand...

. . . The first misconception, spread by some media and political figures, is that Omar faced a vehement negative reaction because she offered “criticism of U.S. policy toward Israel” (the Wall Street Journal) or “legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel” (Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.).
Incorrect. In recent weeks, Omar offered no new criticism of U.S. policy or what she has called “the apartheid Israeli regime.” What she did was to attack Israel’s supporters in the United States, and specifically in Congress. She did so by suggesting their motives were corrupt: either to enforce “allegiance to a foreign country,” or to accumulate political cash from pro-Israel lobbyists — “the Benjamins.” (She apologized for the latter.)
Many understandably considered these phrases loaded with anti-Semitic imagery. Less noted was the fact that, even if they had not been susceptible to that interpretation, Omar’s comments violated important norms. Ad hominem is demagogic.
It’s especially objectionable where, as here, Omar lacked the fortitude actually to name anyone in Congress who has been cowed or bought off. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
Many understandably considered these phrases loaded with anti-Semitic imagery.
Click to expand...


And many considered that, although the remarks COULD be construed in that manner, nonetheless they contained elements of truth.

Jack Hays said:
Less noted was the fact that, even if they had not been susceptible to that interpretation, Omar’s comments violated important norms. Ad hominem is demagogic.
Click to expand...

Which, of course, the supporters of Mr. Trump simply don't recognize in HIS statements.

In the current American political milieu, regardless of protestations to the contrary, "Demagoguery IS the new normal.".

Jack Hays said:
It’s especially objectionable where, as here, Omar lacked the fortitude actually to name anyone in Congress who has been cowed or bought off. . . .
Click to expand...

Which might have something to do with the fact that she is aware of [a] the American propensity to sue at the drop of a hat, the fact that the truth of a statement is NOT considered to be sufficient to protect against a finding pf liability for "defamation of character", and [c] the fact that the falseness of allegations against her will not prevent them being trumpeted loudly and repeatedly even if dismissed in court.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
And many considered that, although the remarks COULD be construed in that manner, nonetheless they contained elements of truth.



Which, of course, the supporters of Mr. Trump simply don't recognize in HIS statements.

In the current American political milieu, regardless of protestations to the contrary, "Demagoguery IS the new normal.".[/FONT][/COLOR]



Which might have something to do with the fact that she is aware of [a] the American propensity to sue at the drop of a hat, the fact that the truth of a statement is NOT considered to be sufficient to protect against a finding pf liability for "defamation of character", and [c] the fact that the falseness of allegations against her will not prevent them being trumpeted loudly and repeatedly even if dismissed in court.
Click to expand...


Trump is irrelevant.
 
Jack Hays said:
Trump is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No matter how devoutly one might wish that that was true, the fact is that Mr. Trump IS the President of the United States of America and the President of the United States of America has NOT been "irrelevant" on the world stage since 1920. (Before that, well ...)

Equally, no matter how devoutly one might wish that the President of the United States of America (regardless of the fact that Mr. Trump IS the President of the United States of America) were the ONLY person of any consequence in the world, the fact is that THAT has NEVER been true, and isn't ever likely to be true.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
No matter how devoutly one might wish that that was true, the fact is that Mr. Trump IS the President of the United States of America and the President of the United States of America has NOT been "irrelevant" on the world stage since 1920. (Before that, well ...)

Equally, no matter how devoutly one might wish that the President of the United States of America (regardless of the fact that Mr. Trump IS the President of the United States of America) were the ONLY person of any consequence in the world, the fact is that THAT has NEVER been true, and isn't ever likely to be true.
Click to expand...

Whatever Trump's antics, his poor behavior cannot be an excuse for the poor behavior of others.
 
Jack Hays said:
Whatever Trump's antics, his poor behavior cannot be an excuse for the poor behavior of others.
Click to expand...

And, of course, the poor behaviour of others cannot be an excuse for the poor behaviour of Mr. Trump - right?

Of it that one of those cases of "That's DIFFERENT!!!"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom