- This topic has 59 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
With Obama’s move in the UN and chance of Ellison heading the Democrat National Committee, would love to hear frum Dem voters express their feelings about their party
The Democrat Party has for many decades openly tolerated, encouraged and supported anti-semitism in its ranks. Whether it was Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Jerimiah Wright and many others.
To quote an old Rock and Roll song:
“It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to, you would cry too, if it happened to you.”
I don’t have to approve of every action made by any particular member of my party. But there is no way I’d align with the current Republican bigots/hypocrites/Jew Hating, white male supremacists.
Joseph…and Tricky Dick Nixon, the Republican POTUS hated Jews.
What’s your point???
Parties can’t stop individuals from registering as members
CTL, you mean the Richard Nixon who saved Israel’s behind in its most desperate hour, when it faced a surprise attack/war, and Pres. Nixon rushed it desperately needed arms?
Yeah, I’ll take that kind of “anti-semitism” over any Democrat, any day.
Parties can’t stop individuals from registering as members
Yet, you blame the Republican party for its bigots and Jew haters, despite the fact that the leadership is clearly not that way.
Double standard.
I might vote Democrat sometimes because some Democrats are better than some Republicans.
Opposing settlements has been US policy under every administration for the past 50 years. This was no different in spite of it being spun that way.
(Im not sayig I agree with the resolution, just that it isnt a change)
As for the position of the party, many Democrats in Congress urged Obama to veto it. I dont have to agree with every position taken by every Democrat (even if he is President) Im sure you didn’t agree with every position Bush took, presumably including his constant attack on Israeli settlements (unless of course you hold democrats and Republicans to a double standard).
It remains to be seen how Trump will be, he certainly talks the talk, but he has shown himself to be just that – talk, over his long career as a showman. I am cautiously optimistic that he will be different.
Further more, Trump is being hailed as a big hero since he said he would have vetoed this resolution. Obama DID veto a similar resolution in February 2011. Yet he was still widly vilified as the most anti Israel or even Anti-semetic President. Netanyahu thanked him by publicly embarrassing him and even campaigning for his opponent in the following election.
Joseph
You can hate Jews while still supporting the govt. in EY, while you can be Frum and not support the govt. in EY. The political move by Tricky Dick didn’t change him from being a Jew Hater.
Flatbusher…………….
confusing comment you make….
I’m not repeating what Dems are telling me. I am a lifelong Dem, registered as such since 1972 when I voted in my first presidential election for McGovern, not Nixon.
I have seen many changes over the decades, platforms and leaders come and go. I am an elected official, I am a delegate to state and national conventions.
That doesn’t mean I agree with every statement and action by every member of the party.
The big difference is that I am in agreement with most of this year’s platform and opposed to much that was in the R’s platform.
When Trump made comments that were perceived as bigoted and racist, Republicans from all over the US and different branches of the government came out denouncing both the man and his statements
Not a single Democrat whispered a word in defense of Israel or against Obama’s latest outrage last week.
If you know of any CTL, I would be very happy to hear that I’m wrong.
This was no different in spite of it being spun that way.
Not vetoing the resolution is a major change. I don’t know how you downplay that.
Golfer
“Not a single Democrat whispered a word in defense of Israel or against Obama’s latest outrage last week.”
that you didnt know that is part of my point. You ( I dont mean you personally , I mean collectively I encountered many who expressed similar sentiments including a few who said no previous presidnet opposed settelements ) reached your conclusion without reading up on the issue. Its not like the Schumer quote was hard to find.
DY
Was it different than when Bush voted for (forget not vetoing) Resolution 1397 that was the first to support two states?
How so?
It’s cute how dems accusse the Republicans of coddiling anti semitism.
Yet the Dem’s leading canidadate to lead their party is a man who is documented as being friendly and sympathetic with anti semtes at the very least.
While the Republican President elect who they absurdly accussed of being slow to condemn the KKK worked to prevent a resolution being passed at the behest of the Democratic President that decalres the Kosel to be “Occupied”.
And yet it’s the Republicans that Jews should be afraid of?
If Romney had won would this have passed?
CTL, it wasn’t merely a matter of supporting the Israeli government. He saved lives. I’ll take a so-called “Jew hater” who saves tens of thousands of Jewish lives over a so-called non-anti-semite who stabs Jews in the back rather than just dirt talks against every ethnicity behind closed doors.
Joseph
What if the “so-called non-anti-semite who stabs Jews in the back” saved countless lives by helping fund Iron dome, which his predecessor refused to do?
Ubiquitin: That wasn’t a condemnation of Israel.
DY
I dont follow
Even if you say that wasnt, 1322 certainly was:
“Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem
on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent violence there and at other Holy Places,
as well as in other areas throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
resulting in over 80 Palestinian deaths and many other casualties;
2. Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against
Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life;
3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal
obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to
the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949;”
What are you not following?
flatbusher: They’re far from standard Republicans, but it’s not a secret that the white supremacist alt-right community supported Trump en masse.
I am a progressive liberal. I voted for the current President. His actions on Friday are completely indefensible. While many in my camp have called your guy names, on Friday, Obama proved himself to be petty, reckless and a type of guy who does not care how much destruction he causes is his attempt to settle personal disputes.
While Bush was no friend of Israel (I can write a ten page essay with examples), his acts do not compare to the terrible hole Obama just placed Israel into. Ultimately, like Yosef, our salvation will come from Hashem and maybe we needed this to remind us that we have no one upon whom to rely other than Hashem but Obama’s move was cowardly, anti-Semitic and I do not know when I will ever be able to vote for a Democrat again.
To those who said Obama was sonei yisroel, you were right, we were wrong.
“What are you not following?”
I’m not following why this resolution is so unprecedented.
As you said “Not vetoing the resolution is a major change. I don’t know how you downplay that.”
The most common theme I’ve heard a sto why this is so unprecedented, is that the US had felt that Negotiations should be between the parties involved and not imposed via outsiders like the UN. a nice sentimnet, but not always true. to whihc end I provided an example, resolution 1397, that not only didint the Us veto, nor did they abstain, and not only did they vote for, but the US introduced under Bush.
You pointed out that that resolution didnt criticize Israel, But there have been many that have such as 1322 (which the US abstained). I dont understand what was so unprecedented about this resolution.
I think we have grown accustomed under Obama of his protecting us in the UN that we have forgotten how commonplace it was under Bush, read the language above, it is quite condemnatory.
That isnt to say I agree with Obama in this case, I just dont think it is so unprecedented
ubiquitin: this resolution was unprecedented because of its long term ramifications. While 1397 & 1322 were not great for Israel, they addressed a specific snapshot in time this one went to the nature of the state. This resolution basically makes Israel illegal unless it returns to june 4 1967 borders which cannot and will not ever happen.
“This resolution basically makes Israel illegal”
Most countries (including the US) have said that repeatedly. From day 1 after the 6 day war Settlements had been identified as illegal by most of the world. Immediately after the war 242 said referred to the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”
1397 most definitely had long term ramifications, it was the first to call for a Palestinian state.
And there have been resolutions regarding the settlements, example 465:
“Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;”
Again I am not defending Obama (the above was under Carter’s watch the US voted for it) , I am just trying to understand why this is so unprecedented
But you are correct that 465 was very similar. Us actually supported that one.
besalel
1397 also said
“Affirming a vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders,”
This was the very first time the SEcurity council endorsed a Palestinian State
Israel and Netanyahu support a Palestinian state. Bill Clinton was the President who changed US policy to support a Palestinian state.
Obama has many similarities to Bush. FYI.
“current Republican bigots/hypocrites/Jew Hating, white male supremacists”
My comment referred to the majority of Republican Presidential hopefuls during the primary season. It was not aimed at the David Dukes of the world who choose to affiliate with the party. Those miscreants are no better than the southern white supremacist Jew Hating Dixiecrats of 1948-1968
CTL: Racist anti-semites, like Jesse “hymietown” Jackson and Al “diamond merchants” Sharpton, who were Democrat Party candidates for President of the U.s. doesn’t phase you?
Is the continued and long time support of the Democrat Party and scores of Democrat elected officials – both on the national level and on the local level – who coddle to these agitators, inciters and rabble rousing anti-semitic race baiting demagogues something you fail to condemn?
And that’s all before we get to elected Democrat anti-semites like Cynthia McKinney, Keith Ellison, et al.
I am a lifelong Democrat & never voted for Obama as I voted for a third party both the times he ran. This veto of the UN Resolution which passed on Friday shows that Obama is an Anti Semite & a Arab/Muslim himself. I am actually surprised that Congressman Jerry Nadler didn’t come out in support of Obama’s veto just like he supported the deal with Iran.
Ubiq: the prefix languages in un resolutions is a form of art. It is the demands and resolves language that matter not the affirmed language.
besalel
Lol! good one
At any rate 242 certainly had “long term ramifications” and almmost every resolution on the middle east demanded Israel comply
Flatbusher -“But I would trust Ted Cruz demand to defund UN more than any Dem who claims to support Israel.”
Now it’s imperative to defund the UN! I should be happy but I’m not, because the US (mainly DemonCrats) and the world gave legitimacy to all the terror!
I don’t understand how anyone could have voted for Obama.
Ubiq -“This was the very first time the SEcurity council endorsed a Palestinian State”
There was already a way to separate Arabs from Jews.
The League of Nations gave Transjordan to the Arabs & the rest should have gone to the Jews!
Anyone who supports differently is vehemently an Antisemite!!!
ubiq: isnt it sad how many there are to compare? There is no president who has not allowed some damage. Time will tell if the fears about 2334 play out. Still, the language and the way this one played out is particularly harsh. Obama was not looking to appease anyone or move towards some grand theory as to how to bring peace. he was looking to punish.
Joseph………..
Jesse Jerkson and Al Towanna Banana Sharpton were not recent candidates and have no following of consequence in the national Dem party. Even Jerkson Jr is gone from the scene.
BTW>>>Keith Ellison is NOT a Democrat. He is a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party…the Minnesota affiliate of the Democrat Party.
There is a difference.
Cynthia McKinney is a FORMER Democrat. She was defeated in the 2006 Democratic Primary in her Congressional District. In 2008 she unenrolled from the party and ran as the Green Party candidate for President (losing to Barack Obama).
CTL, Current elected Democrat officials still bow down in homage to Sharpton.
Health, I thought you wanted to give Israel to the Turks. What changed?
Joe -“Health, I thought you wanted to give Israel to the Turks. What changed?”
I knew s/o would comment on my posts’, but I really didn’t think it would be you!
I still think it should be given to the Turks.
Do you know that you can different beliefs, especially when it comes to what yidden or Goyim should do?!?
Joseph…………..
You are missing the modifier: certain
and certainly, none of them are here in CT
Sharpton is a washed up has been with no power
I see you accepted my corrections regarding the non-Democrats Ellison and McKinney
I’m proud to live in a blue state
CTL, I hardly accepted them, I simply tired of a roundabout discussion. McKinney was consistently a member in good standing of the Democrats’ Congressional Black Caucus and was honored by her party as long as she won elections. And to describe Ellison as NOT a Democrat is disingenuous, I think, when he’s the leading candidate to LEAD the Democratic Party.
Besalel
“isnt it sad how many there are to compare?
completely! Even Ban ki moon recently acknowledged this “Decades of political maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel.
Not to mention the fact that ISrael isnt even allowed to sit on the security council
“Obama was not looking to appease anyone or move towards some grand theory as to how to bring peace. he was looking to punish.”
I agree completely!
Joseph…was is not is
No one cares that McKinney had a caucus post in the past. She left the party.
As for Ellison, details count. Those in Minnesota are ‘fellow travelers’
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.