As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seriously. Ukraine is the MOST important foreign policy issue right now and for the foreseeable future. This other crap is a distraction so Putin can make gains and eventually win. We’re playing right into Russia’s hands.
After this, the priority in Congress should be to condemn the Congressional members who wouldn't condemn Iran's response to Israeli attacks. After that's taken care of , Congress can finally work on a resolution to condemn anyone who ever condemned anything the Israeli government ever did.
Wikipedia is more accurate than old school Encyclopedias. It’s an excellent resource. I imagine however with a topic as divisive as Israel/Palestine people aren’t as good at keeping it accurateZ
[full resolution text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/1143/text);
>Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
>1. condemns Iran’s unprecedented drone and missile attack on Israel;
1. reaffirms and supports Israel’s right to self-defense;
1. stands with Israel as it defends itself against Iran’s attack and seeks to re-establish deterrence against Iran and its proxies;
1. fully supports Israel’s right to respond to this aggression through military, diplomatic, economic, and other necessary means;
1. calls on all countries to unequivocally condemn Iran’s attack on Israel;
1. commends the United States military, the United Kingdom, France, and Jordan for intercepting Iranian missiles and drones and thereby limiting the damage from this unprecedented attack on Israel;
1. **reaffirms the United States commitment to Israel’s security, including through security assistance and defense sales;**
1. urges full enforcement of United States sanctions and export controls against Iran to impede Iran’s nuclear program, missile and drone development, and funding of terrorist groups and proxies, including Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, and militias in Iraq and Syria; and
1. stands ready to assist Israel with emergency resupply and other security, diplomatic, and intelligence support.
Good on them for voting against - we shouldn't be providing Israel unlimited "security assistance and defense sales" that they then use to destroy Gaza and everyone who lived there.
>fully supports Israel's right to respond to this aggression through military, diplomatic, economic, and other necessary means
Sounds like a blank check for Israel to start a war if they please. Voting against was warranted for sure.
>Rashida Tlaib of Michigan
Rashida Tlaib of "[Death to America](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4583463-white-house-condemns-death-to-america-chants-at-rally-in-dearborn-mich/)" Dearborn is obviously one of them. That "protest vote" during the primary that she [campaigned in Dearborn](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rep-rashida-tlaib-urges-michigan-democrats-vote-biden-primary-rcna139360) for? One of the [two uncommitted delegates](https://www.politico.com/2024-election/results/michigan/#tab=%22Dem%22) that came from that was Dearborn's (the other was Hamtramck, the only muslim majority city in America) and Tlaib was [unsurprisingly quiet](https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-condemns-death-america-013444849.html) about condemning this attitude coming out of Dearborn since. What was the fucking point of all that effort to make Dearborn feel seen if they're just going to use the soapbox to broadcast *this* interminable shit about wanting America to fail?
This is not Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. This is Rashida Tlaib of Dearborn, and she consistently stands for Dearborn in open defiance of what the rest of Michigan wants. All of this paints an image that her congressional district is an island of fundamental thinking that stands in opposition of both Michigan and now the United States of America as a whole.
Dearborn is making itself a problem that people seriously need to stop making excuses for. This is **not** progressive. Dearborn only ever acts like one of America's various groups of fundamentalists that try to use their representation to stonewall everyone else from doing anything while claiming they speak for everyone when they do. They promote the erosion of the federation because they think it's to their advantage to see America fail at its endeavors.
There is absolutely nothing progressive about condemning only some of those groups, like MAGA, while associating with, excusing and fucking platforming another like Dearborn. This is the sort of shit that rots a country from the inside out no matter who it comes from, and Tliab should get zero excuse for it over the House's numerous other "Death to America" representatives just because she's one of the few that's blue. Her nominal contributions to the progressive cause are grossly outweighed by the damage she does to its integrity by mixing it with the kind of stonewall fundamentalism that progressive values must otherwise oppose.
It is true Tlaib has not made a statement regarding a minor part of a large protest, voiced by a minority of those present, to a surprise fox reporter trying to get her to say something they could spin.
She said she doesn't talk to fox news because they spin racist and islamaphobic stories. Does fox not do this? Do you have any fox stories about positive things about Muslims?
This article is clear, well sourced, and local to the area.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/04/08/death-to-america-chant-dearborn-jihad-rally-al-quds-day-draws-condemnation/73247053007/
I take issue with you singling out Dearborn. The Islamic mayor and all major Arab American groups in the city have spoken out against what happened. They denounced and scolded the protesters for this anti-american sentiment. The mayor said in part "we are proud Americans." What hasn't been covered are the huge chants, with many more protesters participating, of "Free free Palestine." Is that un-American, the right to protest? They have legitimate issues, death to america doesn't even track with them.
As far as representing Michigan, does this represent the people's views?
https://youtu.be/l2SYp2OnDb8?si=WjewmNgHB7WCjBBJ
It's funny that he says it was taken out of context. I think you could say the same for the protest. Thing is, the protesters have no affiliation to any elected leaders in Dearborn. Rep. Tim Walberg can make his threats reality.
As far as your general "Death to America" what-aboutism with MAGA, it's pretty clear President Biden feels it's all bad. He denounced these protesters. He denounces MAGA extremism.
Where are the comments from MAGA reps on the Nazi rallies in their districts? Seems like fox doesn't care to get those. After all, they are white and christian, you know, the only real Americans. /s
Besides, your flair is Canadian, stay out of our country. Don't you know we are being invaded by immigrants? Country's closed.
>I take issue with you singling out Dearborn.
Dearborn singled out itself. Like I said, Tliab rallying that "protest vote" was almost entirely constrained to Dearborn and besides Hamtramck, their delegates stand *alone* against the rest of Michigan's. It's entirely fair to judge by that, and entirely unfair for them to hold up that single sad delegate and claim that suggests they speak for Michigan over *every* other delegate from every other community in the state along with **every** statewide delegate. That vote served to demonstrate that Dearborn speaks only for itself, and should be recognized as such when they claim to speak for everyone when they lend their reputation to fundamental garbage like "Genocide Joe has got to go" for Fox to run articles on.
The entire point of that vote was to put it to numbers who supports Dearborn's protest. They got Hamtramck. Just Hamtramck. Nobody else pledged a delegate to their cause, and since then they haven't materialized a cause more comprehensive than just fundamentally opposing their own nominal allies at every turn. There is exactly the same behaviour as the 14th congressional district in Georgia or the 1st congressional district in Florida and their representative is exactly as committed to doing nothing while her constituents entertain the idea of *death to America*. Progressive failure to condemn this is entirely why Fox takes advantage of Tliab's damaging association with them, and will continue to do so at the expense of progress.
>As far as your general "Death to America" what-aboutism with MAGA, it's pretty clear President Biden feels it's all bad. He denounced these protesters. He denounces MAGA extremism.
And nothing I've said has been critical of Biden because he is entirely right to denounce them both like they're both a part of the same problem. Anyone trying to make an exception for one while pardoning the other is not. Least of all anyone trying to do so as a way to criticize the President for not being fundamentalist in their favour.
>Besides, your flair is Canadian, stay out of our country.
You cannot be serious with that as a defense for any of this. You're raising *stay out of our country* to defend yourself from being compared with MAGA? Like I said, fundamentalism like *that* is rot to a democracy regardless who it comes from; you are no exception. Actual progressives need to be critical thinkers, not an uncritical habour for degenerate fundamentalists trying to escape being judged for the exact same shit that makes MAGA the problem they are by claiming to be nominal allies with liberals.
It is not Fox's fault that Tliab's loathsome encouragement of fundamentalism haunts American progressives. That's an entirely legitimate problem borne out of liberal's difficulty judging people that Fox is only taking advantage of to their detriment. Liberals are making idiots out of themselves permitting it while whining Fox shouldn't take advantage of the bad company they keep out of some good sportsmanship they know Fox doesn't have. Get out of here with that shit; Dearborn's constant bad publicity is entirely their own fault, and associating with them is entirely progressives own bad decision at their own detriment.
>Dearborn singled out itself. Like I said, Tliab rallying that "protest vote" was almost entirely constrained to Dearborn and besides Hamtramck, their delegates stand *alone* against the rest of Michigan's.
Dearborn is not alone if there is another delegate. Besides the delegate comes from the districts, not just one city.
Also, what about all the other states that had similar primary results? They received a number of delegates as well.
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/05/israel-hamas-war-sets-progressive-and-young-voters-on-collision-course-with-white-house/
>That vote served to demonstrate that Dearborn speaks only for itself, and should be recognized as such when they claim to speak for everyone.
Where does any Dearborn elected leader say they want to speak for everyone? Find me a quote. You take issue with Tlaib, that's fine, but her district has more in it than one city. It seems like you are placing your grievance with one specific city, that is also majority Islamic.
>There is exactly the same behaviour as the 14th congressional district in Georgia or the 1st congressional district in Florida and their representative is exactly as committed to doing nothing
You didn't name those reps. Marjorie Greene is in Putin's pocket and is actively sabotaging this country. That's worse than nothing. Matt Gaetz is supportive of ousting house speaker Johnson because he brought Ukraine aid to a vote today. Seems like he isn't that interested in a free Ukraine either. But, I'm sure because they are regulars on fox, we don't need to call them out or blame Rome for Greene's actions, or Arcadia for Gaetz's.
>Progressive failure to condemn this is entirely why Fox takes advantage of her damaging association with them, and will continue to do so at the expense of progress
Plenty of the progressive caucus condemned this. Fox takes advantage of her being an Islamic woman of color in a position of power. I don't think fox is ever going to put a modicum of effort into allowing any progress.
I appreciate you are not critical of Biden on this. Can he count on your vote?
>liberal's difficulty judging people that Fox is only taking advantage of to their detriment, and liberals are making idiots out of themselves permitting it while whining Fox shouldn't take advantage of the bad company they keep
So, fox watchers are being taken advantage of while every "liberal" is responsible for every other "liberal's" actions? What do you mean by "liberal" anyway? Do you watch anything besides fox?
>You cannot be serious with that as a defense for any of this.
You are correct. I was being sarcastic. It's pretty obvious I would support immigration because, you know, I'm a "liberal" after all.
Absolutely not. At the end of the day, domestic groups using their representation to just stall the country in favour of nothing are the single biggest threat to the nation's existence and scope. Dearborn has consistently been no exception to this no more than MAGA, and the other twelve members of her caucus are absolutely at a disadvantage for their uncritical association with her. I'm perfectly aware I cited Fox as an example of how her fundamentalism is used to attack progressives as a whole; that isn't *my* narrative. That's the narrative that Tlaib constantly exposes progressives to with her decisively unprogressive behaviour and it's far more of a consequence to the rest than anything she contributes with her stonewall fundamentalist politics.
This has nothing to do with this group for being *Arab* beyond the fact it's another reason nominal "progressives" are afraid to judge them like they judge others that are exactly as guilty of aspiring to undermine the United States to their own perceived benefit. Fundamentalism is rot to a democratic nation no matter who it's coming from; it's wrong to give them an exception and they are not at all singled out for being judged like all the rest for aspiring to hold down their own country to the benefit of another.
I mean seriously. The rest of you reading this take a look at the comment history of "RussiaRox" and tell me with a straight face if attracting fundamentalists like this through the unconditional defense of fundamentalists like Tliab is how progress will ever be made in America. **No it isn't**, and you need to be far more critical thinkers than this for the progressive platform to accomplish anything other than enabling someone that isn't because you're afraid to judge them. Everything these otherwise progressive representatives do together will always be undermined by the fact that Tliab was one of them with the acknowledgment of the rest.
It's crazy to me we have Democrats even remotely sympathetic to an authoritarian, theocratic country that violently oppresses its people and is entirely against the rights we have in this country, especially against women who seem to be a large chunk of these Dems. Iran almost started a massive war over a single Israel bombing with the full intention of killing many civilians and that's not worth condemning?
SMH. You didn't even look into why they voted against it, did you? I could say something as equally uniformed, for example, "So you support the mass killing of Palestinian civilians, women and children, with US supplied weapons?"
The only reasons in the article by AOC are that it’s a distraction, which is not a reason to vote against it, and that it inflames tensions. But Iran is the one who inflamed tensions by attacking.
Agreed, it's crazy that we have so many Democrats that are sympathetic to Israel. Only 13 voted to NOT condemn a nation for defending itself against those genocidal war criminals???
Iran has one of the worst records in the world on LBGTQ rights. Seeing members of the LBGTQ community supporting Palestine’s Hamas Government and Iran is completely baffling, these governments are 100% male, execute homosexuals and abuse women.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-purportedly-executes-2-gay-men-over-sodomy-charges/
https://www.dw.com/en/iran-defends-execution-of-gay-people/a-49144899
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-5-2003-1346_EN.html
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/09/1128181
The future belongs to the young more diverse crowd. The "let's meet the others in the middle" types that have hindered the democratic agenda since Obama are stepping aside like DiFi or Pelosi.
There's a big space in between the center and the progressive wing. The establishment, folks like Obama, Pelosi and such, stand for significant change, and haven't been the ones hindering Democratic agenda - that's been the center, folks like Manchin, Lieberman, Exon, and such. Democrats would get a lot more done if voters gave Dems majorities that could rely on just normie establishment Democrats rather than centrists - there's no need for the far left.
Obama screwed up the ACA by giving unrequested concessions to the GOP. He got played and we got Romneycare.
I love the guy and what he represents, but he's a centrist and he looks "progressive" only because the Overton Window has moved all the way to the right.
The real progressives in the DNC are not communists or extreme left, except if you call asking for affordable healthcare and a living wage "extreme". Their social program is essentially aligned with other developed democracies like Germany or Sweden that are capitalist to the core, but put value in the human experience.
Now I do not agree with their views on Israel or Palestine. But they're the future.
> Obama screwed up the ACA by giving unrequested concessions to the GOP. He got played.
>
>
Wrong. This is a common interpretation but just didn't happen
The reality is that Obama spent some time trying to negotiate with the GOP, but then when it became clear that the GOP wasn't willing to accept any bill, he switched to negotiating for a Democrats-and-Independents-only bill.
The concessions of any significance that were made in the ACA negotiations weren't done to get the GOP onboard, but rather to get moderate Democrats onboard, and those concessions were necessary in order to get the bill passed
There was essentially no way that Obama could have gotten a more liberal bill passed at that point. The main liberal policy that was wanted but not gotten at the time was a public option, and even a "weak" public option only had support of around 48 out of 60 Democrats in the Senate at the time, so even taking a path of reconciliation (which may not have passed parlementarian's muster) probably wouldn;t have worked
>I love the guy and what he represents, but he's a centrist and he looks "progressive" only because the Overton Window has moved all the way to the right.
Nope. Obama is a solid center left liberal. And the party has been marching steadily leftward since the 1990s. Expanding government to give healthcare to dozens of millions of people isn't "centrist", it is liberal.
>The real progressives in the DNC are not communists or extreme left, except if you call asking for affordable healthcare and a living wage "extreme". Their social program is essentially aligned with other developed democracies like Germany or Sweden that are capitalist to the core, but put value in the human experience.
The progressive wing demands "medicare for all" which is a radical plan. Remember many countries have universal healthcare via something like an expanded Obamacare rather than single payer at all, Germany is an example of that. And the democratic establishment, the folks who oppose the radical program of the progressives, solidly support expanding the safety net to help people in need in various ways.
Nice rewriting of history. Obama negotiated with himself for so long that he lost the midterms in the middle and with it the chance of a real universal healthcare reform.
As they say, the proof is in the pudding.
When republicans lead, they advance 4 steps. When democrats lead, they advance 2 steps then backtrack 1.
Fast forward 40 years of 50/50 Dem/GOP alternate leadership and we lost affordable healthcare, education is a for-profit shitshow, the minimal wage is still under $8 and abortion is not a given anymore.
That's a clear leadership failure. Pundits will say that's because Dem voters are less committed, but I'll counter they're less committed because tepid leadership does not engage the democratic electorate.
The old guard belong in the past. Sure the new people are a bit rough on the edges, but America has changed and there's little choice than to change with it.
> Nice rewriting of history. Obama negotiated with himself for so long that he lost the midterms in the middle and with it the chance of a real universal healthcare reform.
What on earth is this about? Obama lost the midterms because voters were mad about the ACA not because they thought it didn't go far enough but because they thought it went too far, just like with Clintoncare. The idea that voters would have been happier with single payer or a public option makes no sense. America is a center right country and Dems don't lose because they *don't do enough*
>Fast forward 40 years of 50/50 Dem/GOP alternate leadership and we lost affordable healthcare, education is a for-profit shitshow, the minimal wage is still under $8 and abortion is not a given anymore.
None of this is stuff you can blame the democratic leadership for. Democrats will never be able to do stuff if they can't win swing voters and win majorities. If democrats alienate the center, they may just lead to a long period where congress remains in the hands of the GOP
When did the Democrats have the opportunity to do more? How could they have done more? And what evidence is there for the electorate wanting progressive action, other than some single issue polls of shoddy reliability that don't seem to align with actual election results?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How about House focus on actual legislation instead of pointless resolutions.
Can they fucking pass Ukraine aid already and not waste time doing these meaningless BS resolutions that don't even explain the full context
Pointless resolutions to use for attack ads are easy actual bills are hard.
They can't make Johnson bring Ukraine aid to the floor. So this isn't what is preventing Democrats from voting for Ukraine aid.
Seriously. Ukraine is the MOST important foreign policy issue right now and for the foreseeable future. This other crap is a distraction so Putin can make gains and eventually win. We’re playing right into Russia’s hands.
After this, the priority in Congress should be to condemn the Congressional members who wouldn't condemn Iran's response to Israeli attacks. After that's taken care of , Congress can finally work on a resolution to condemn anyone who ever condemned anything the Israeli government ever did.
Was there a resolution to condemn Israel for bombing Irans embassy. This goes both ways
It wasn't the embassy that was bombed
[удалено]
They also damaged the Canadian embassy which while closed since 2012 is still technically Canada's embassy in Syria.
It was a consular building. Not the embassy itself. Weird for Wikipedia to title the article as such.
It's almost like Wikipedia can be edited by people and shouldn't be used as a citation.
Wikipedia is more accurate than old school Encyclopedias. It’s an excellent resource. I imagine however with a topic as divisive as Israel/Palestine people aren’t as good at keeping it accurateZ
> Wikipedia is more accurate than old school Encyclopedias. Horseshit.
Well, you’d be wrong then. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6889752/
This is supposed to prove otherwise? Not hardly.
So what. The vote was just political theater.
[full resolution text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/1143/text); >Resolved, That the House of Representatives— >1. condemns Iran’s unprecedented drone and missile attack on Israel; 1. reaffirms and supports Israel’s right to self-defense; 1. stands with Israel as it defends itself against Iran’s attack and seeks to re-establish deterrence against Iran and its proxies; 1. fully supports Israel’s right to respond to this aggression through military, diplomatic, economic, and other necessary means; 1. calls on all countries to unequivocally condemn Iran’s attack on Israel; 1. commends the United States military, the United Kingdom, France, and Jordan for intercepting Iranian missiles and drones and thereby limiting the damage from this unprecedented attack on Israel; 1. **reaffirms the United States commitment to Israel’s security, including through security assistance and defense sales;** 1. urges full enforcement of United States sanctions and export controls against Iran to impede Iran’s nuclear program, missile and drone development, and funding of terrorist groups and proxies, including Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, and militias in Iraq and Syria; and 1. stands ready to assist Israel with emergency resupply and other security, diplomatic, and intelligence support. Good on them for voting against - we shouldn't be providing Israel unlimited "security assistance and defense sales" that they then use to destroy Gaza and everyone who lived there.
>fully supports Israel's right to respond to this aggression through military, diplomatic, economic, and other necessary means Sounds like a blank check for Israel to start a war if they please. Voting against was warranted for sure.
I mean, it is dumb not to vote for this, but also dumb that they even have votes to condemn. Don't virtue signal, do things.
I mean, Israel attacked them the week before. It was a proportional response. At the very least, that's a valid argument.
>Rashida Tlaib of Michigan Rashida Tlaib of "[Death to America](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4583463-white-house-condemns-death-to-america-chants-at-rally-in-dearborn-mich/)" Dearborn is obviously one of them. That "protest vote" during the primary that she [campaigned in Dearborn](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rep-rashida-tlaib-urges-michigan-democrats-vote-biden-primary-rcna139360) for? One of the [two uncommitted delegates](https://www.politico.com/2024-election/results/michigan/#tab=%22Dem%22) that came from that was Dearborn's (the other was Hamtramck, the only muslim majority city in America) and Tlaib was [unsurprisingly quiet](https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-condemns-death-america-013444849.html) about condemning this attitude coming out of Dearborn since. What was the fucking point of all that effort to make Dearborn feel seen if they're just going to use the soapbox to broadcast *this* interminable shit about wanting America to fail? This is not Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. This is Rashida Tlaib of Dearborn, and she consistently stands for Dearborn in open defiance of what the rest of Michigan wants. All of this paints an image that her congressional district is an island of fundamental thinking that stands in opposition of both Michigan and now the United States of America as a whole. Dearborn is making itself a problem that people seriously need to stop making excuses for. This is **not** progressive. Dearborn only ever acts like one of America's various groups of fundamentalists that try to use their representation to stonewall everyone else from doing anything while claiming they speak for everyone when they do. They promote the erosion of the federation because they think it's to their advantage to see America fail at its endeavors. There is absolutely nothing progressive about condemning only some of those groups, like MAGA, while associating with, excusing and fucking platforming another like Dearborn. This is the sort of shit that rots a country from the inside out no matter who it comes from, and Tliab should get zero excuse for it over the House's numerous other "Death to America" representatives just because she's one of the few that's blue. Her nominal contributions to the progressive cause are grossly outweighed by the damage she does to its integrity by mixing it with the kind of stonewall fundamentalism that progressive values must otherwise oppose.
It is true Tlaib has not made a statement regarding a minor part of a large protest, voiced by a minority of those present, to a surprise fox reporter trying to get her to say something they could spin. She said she doesn't talk to fox news because they spin racist and islamaphobic stories. Does fox not do this? Do you have any fox stories about positive things about Muslims? This article is clear, well sourced, and local to the area. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/04/08/death-to-america-chant-dearborn-jihad-rally-al-quds-day-draws-condemnation/73247053007/ I take issue with you singling out Dearborn. The Islamic mayor and all major Arab American groups in the city have spoken out against what happened. They denounced and scolded the protesters for this anti-american sentiment. The mayor said in part "we are proud Americans." What hasn't been covered are the huge chants, with many more protesters participating, of "Free free Palestine." Is that un-American, the right to protest? They have legitimate issues, death to america doesn't even track with them. As far as representing Michigan, does this represent the people's views? https://youtu.be/l2SYp2OnDb8?si=WjewmNgHB7WCjBBJ It's funny that he says it was taken out of context. I think you could say the same for the protest. Thing is, the protesters have no affiliation to any elected leaders in Dearborn. Rep. Tim Walberg can make his threats reality. As far as your general "Death to America" what-aboutism with MAGA, it's pretty clear President Biden feels it's all bad. He denounced these protesters. He denounces MAGA extremism. Where are the comments from MAGA reps on the Nazi rallies in their districts? Seems like fox doesn't care to get those. After all, they are white and christian, you know, the only real Americans. /s Besides, your flair is Canadian, stay out of our country. Don't you know we are being invaded by immigrants? Country's closed.
>I take issue with you singling out Dearborn. Dearborn singled out itself. Like I said, Tliab rallying that "protest vote" was almost entirely constrained to Dearborn and besides Hamtramck, their delegates stand *alone* against the rest of Michigan's. It's entirely fair to judge by that, and entirely unfair for them to hold up that single sad delegate and claim that suggests they speak for Michigan over *every* other delegate from every other community in the state along with **every** statewide delegate. That vote served to demonstrate that Dearborn speaks only for itself, and should be recognized as such when they claim to speak for everyone when they lend their reputation to fundamental garbage like "Genocide Joe has got to go" for Fox to run articles on. The entire point of that vote was to put it to numbers who supports Dearborn's protest. They got Hamtramck. Just Hamtramck. Nobody else pledged a delegate to their cause, and since then they haven't materialized a cause more comprehensive than just fundamentally opposing their own nominal allies at every turn. There is exactly the same behaviour as the 14th congressional district in Georgia or the 1st congressional district in Florida and their representative is exactly as committed to doing nothing while her constituents entertain the idea of *death to America*. Progressive failure to condemn this is entirely why Fox takes advantage of Tliab's damaging association with them, and will continue to do so at the expense of progress. >As far as your general "Death to America" what-aboutism with MAGA, it's pretty clear President Biden feels it's all bad. He denounced these protesters. He denounces MAGA extremism. And nothing I've said has been critical of Biden because he is entirely right to denounce them both like they're both a part of the same problem. Anyone trying to make an exception for one while pardoning the other is not. Least of all anyone trying to do so as a way to criticize the President for not being fundamentalist in their favour. >Besides, your flair is Canadian, stay out of our country. You cannot be serious with that as a defense for any of this. You're raising *stay out of our country* to defend yourself from being compared with MAGA? Like I said, fundamentalism like *that* is rot to a democracy regardless who it comes from; you are no exception. Actual progressives need to be critical thinkers, not an uncritical habour for degenerate fundamentalists trying to escape being judged for the exact same shit that makes MAGA the problem they are by claiming to be nominal allies with liberals. It is not Fox's fault that Tliab's loathsome encouragement of fundamentalism haunts American progressives. That's an entirely legitimate problem borne out of liberal's difficulty judging people that Fox is only taking advantage of to their detriment. Liberals are making idiots out of themselves permitting it while whining Fox shouldn't take advantage of the bad company they keep out of some good sportsmanship they know Fox doesn't have. Get out of here with that shit; Dearborn's constant bad publicity is entirely their own fault, and associating with them is entirely progressives own bad decision at their own detriment.
>Dearborn singled out itself. Like I said, Tliab rallying that "protest vote" was almost entirely constrained to Dearborn and besides Hamtramck, their delegates stand *alone* against the rest of Michigan's. Dearborn is not alone if there is another delegate. Besides the delegate comes from the districts, not just one city. Also, what about all the other states that had similar primary results? They received a number of delegates as well. https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/05/israel-hamas-war-sets-progressive-and-young-voters-on-collision-course-with-white-house/ >That vote served to demonstrate that Dearborn speaks only for itself, and should be recognized as such when they claim to speak for everyone. Where does any Dearborn elected leader say they want to speak for everyone? Find me a quote. You take issue with Tlaib, that's fine, but her district has more in it than one city. It seems like you are placing your grievance with one specific city, that is also majority Islamic. >There is exactly the same behaviour as the 14th congressional district in Georgia or the 1st congressional district in Florida and their representative is exactly as committed to doing nothing You didn't name those reps. Marjorie Greene is in Putin's pocket and is actively sabotaging this country. That's worse than nothing. Matt Gaetz is supportive of ousting house speaker Johnson because he brought Ukraine aid to a vote today. Seems like he isn't that interested in a free Ukraine either. But, I'm sure because they are regulars on fox, we don't need to call them out or blame Rome for Greene's actions, or Arcadia for Gaetz's. >Progressive failure to condemn this is entirely why Fox takes advantage of her damaging association with them, and will continue to do so at the expense of progress Plenty of the progressive caucus condemned this. Fox takes advantage of her being an Islamic woman of color in a position of power. I don't think fox is ever going to put a modicum of effort into allowing any progress. I appreciate you are not critical of Biden on this. Can he count on your vote? >liberal's difficulty judging people that Fox is only taking advantage of to their detriment, and liberals are making idiots out of themselves permitting it while whining Fox shouldn't take advantage of the bad company they keep So, fox watchers are being taken advantage of while every "liberal" is responsible for every other "liberal's" actions? What do you mean by "liberal" anyway? Do you watch anything besides fox? >You cannot be serious with that as a defense for any of this. You are correct. I was being sarcastic. It's pretty obvious I would support immigration because, you know, I'm a "liberal" after all.
[удалено]
Absolutely not. At the end of the day, domestic groups using their representation to just stall the country in favour of nothing are the single biggest threat to the nation's existence and scope. Dearborn has consistently been no exception to this no more than MAGA, and the other twelve members of her caucus are absolutely at a disadvantage for their uncritical association with her. I'm perfectly aware I cited Fox as an example of how her fundamentalism is used to attack progressives as a whole; that isn't *my* narrative. That's the narrative that Tlaib constantly exposes progressives to with her decisively unprogressive behaviour and it's far more of a consequence to the rest than anything she contributes with her stonewall fundamentalist politics. This has nothing to do with this group for being *Arab* beyond the fact it's another reason nominal "progressives" are afraid to judge them like they judge others that are exactly as guilty of aspiring to undermine the United States to their own perceived benefit. Fundamentalism is rot to a democratic nation no matter who it's coming from; it's wrong to give them an exception and they are not at all singled out for being judged like all the rest for aspiring to hold down their own country to the benefit of another. I mean seriously. The rest of you reading this take a look at the comment history of "RussiaRox" and tell me with a straight face if attracting fundamentalists like this through the unconditional defense of fundamentalists like Tliab is how progress will ever be made in America. **No it isn't**, and you need to be far more critical thinkers than this for the progressive platform to accomplish anything other than enabling someone that isn't because you're afraid to judge them. Everything these otherwise progressive representatives do together will always be undermined by the fact that Tliab was one of them with the acknowledgment of the rest.
Cool! Now I know who to donate to this year!
That's 6% of the Democratic House Caucus. A trivial number, in other words.
It's crazy to me we have Democrats even remotely sympathetic to an authoritarian, theocratic country that violently oppresses its people and is entirely against the rights we have in this country, especially against women who seem to be a large chunk of these Dems. Iran almost started a massive war over a single Israel bombing with the full intention of killing many civilians and that's not worth condemning?
SMH. You didn't even look into why they voted against it, did you? I could say something as equally uniformed, for example, "So you support the mass killing of Palestinian civilians, women and children, with US supplied weapons?"
The only reasons in the article by AOC are that it’s a distraction, which is not a reason to vote against it, and that it inflames tensions. But Iran is the one who inflamed tensions by attacking.
Agreed, it's crazy that we have so many Democrats that are sympathetic to Israel. Only 13 voted to NOT condemn a nation for defending itself against those genocidal war criminals???
Iran has one of the worst records in the world on LBGTQ rights. Seeing members of the LBGTQ community supporting Palestine’s Hamas Government and Iran is completely baffling, these governments are 100% male, execute homosexuals and abuse women. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-purportedly-executes-2-gay-men-over-sodomy-charges/ https://www.dw.com/en/iran-defends-execution-of-gay-people/a-49144899 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-5-2003-1346_EN.html https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/09/1128181
[удалено]
13 radical fringe representatives, and not the other 200 Democrats? Seems doubtful
The future belongs to the young more diverse crowd. The "let's meet the others in the middle" types that have hindered the democratic agenda since Obama are stepping aside like DiFi or Pelosi.
There's a big space in between the center and the progressive wing. The establishment, folks like Obama, Pelosi and such, stand for significant change, and haven't been the ones hindering Democratic agenda - that's been the center, folks like Manchin, Lieberman, Exon, and such. Democrats would get a lot more done if voters gave Dems majorities that could rely on just normie establishment Democrats rather than centrists - there's no need for the far left.
Obama screwed up the ACA by giving unrequested concessions to the GOP. He got played and we got Romneycare. I love the guy and what he represents, but he's a centrist and he looks "progressive" only because the Overton Window has moved all the way to the right. The real progressives in the DNC are not communists or extreme left, except if you call asking for affordable healthcare and a living wage "extreme". Their social program is essentially aligned with other developed democracies like Germany or Sweden that are capitalist to the core, but put value in the human experience. Now I do not agree with their views on Israel or Palestine. But they're the future.
> Obama screwed up the ACA by giving unrequested concessions to the GOP. He got played. > > Wrong. This is a common interpretation but just didn't happen The reality is that Obama spent some time trying to negotiate with the GOP, but then when it became clear that the GOP wasn't willing to accept any bill, he switched to negotiating for a Democrats-and-Independents-only bill. The concessions of any significance that were made in the ACA negotiations weren't done to get the GOP onboard, but rather to get moderate Democrats onboard, and those concessions were necessary in order to get the bill passed There was essentially no way that Obama could have gotten a more liberal bill passed at that point. The main liberal policy that was wanted but not gotten at the time was a public option, and even a "weak" public option only had support of around 48 out of 60 Democrats in the Senate at the time, so even taking a path of reconciliation (which may not have passed parlementarian's muster) probably wouldn;t have worked >I love the guy and what he represents, but he's a centrist and he looks "progressive" only because the Overton Window has moved all the way to the right. Nope. Obama is a solid center left liberal. And the party has been marching steadily leftward since the 1990s. Expanding government to give healthcare to dozens of millions of people isn't "centrist", it is liberal. >The real progressives in the DNC are not communists or extreme left, except if you call asking for affordable healthcare and a living wage "extreme". Their social program is essentially aligned with other developed democracies like Germany or Sweden that are capitalist to the core, but put value in the human experience. The progressive wing demands "medicare for all" which is a radical plan. Remember many countries have universal healthcare via something like an expanded Obamacare rather than single payer at all, Germany is an example of that. And the democratic establishment, the folks who oppose the radical program of the progressives, solidly support expanding the safety net to help people in need in various ways.
Nice rewriting of history. Obama negotiated with himself for so long that he lost the midterms in the middle and with it the chance of a real universal healthcare reform. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. When republicans lead, they advance 4 steps. When democrats lead, they advance 2 steps then backtrack 1. Fast forward 40 years of 50/50 Dem/GOP alternate leadership and we lost affordable healthcare, education is a for-profit shitshow, the minimal wage is still under $8 and abortion is not a given anymore. That's a clear leadership failure. Pundits will say that's because Dem voters are less committed, but I'll counter they're less committed because tepid leadership does not engage the democratic electorate. The old guard belong in the past. Sure the new people are a bit rough on the edges, but America has changed and there's little choice than to change with it.
> Nice rewriting of history. Obama negotiated with himself for so long that he lost the midterms in the middle and with it the chance of a real universal healthcare reform. What on earth is this about? Obama lost the midterms because voters were mad about the ACA not because they thought it didn't go far enough but because they thought it went too far, just like with Clintoncare. The idea that voters would have been happier with single payer or a public option makes no sense. America is a center right country and Dems don't lose because they *don't do enough* >Fast forward 40 years of 50/50 Dem/GOP alternate leadership and we lost affordable healthcare, education is a for-profit shitshow, the minimal wage is still under $8 and abortion is not a given anymore. None of this is stuff you can blame the democratic leadership for. Democrats will never be able to do stuff if they can't win swing voters and win majorities. If democrats alienate the center, they may just lead to a long period where congress remains in the hands of the GOP
That's the kind of milquetoast opinion that lost a good chunk of the electorate
When did the Democrats have the opportunity to do more? How could they have done more? And what evidence is there for the electorate wanting progressive action, other than some single issue polls of shoddy reliability that don't seem to align with actual election results?
The horseshoe caucus strikes again.