Because DowDuPont isn’t a foreign power.
Perhaps it’s more telling that we don’t hear this phrase applied toward money from South Korea, Japan, UAE, which all send more our way than Israel, or Ireland, which sends just a bit less.
The only requirement to be a Justice Democrat is that they don’t take corporate PAC money. There’s no requirement to be a “hard Progressive”, whatever that means.
For instance, TYT gave a lot of exposure to Richard Ojeda, who is pro-gun and pro-life. Bernie Sanders is (or was) more pro-gun than many of the other Justice Democrats.
AFAIK, there’s no set platform that comes with being a Justice Democrat.
btw, I found the groupings in that 538 article to be created in an artificial way. The only difference in policies between AOC and Bernie Sanders is that AOC is more vocal about abolishing ICE. Bernie Sanders is more measured in how he frames it. Yet, that’s the sole reason for a whole different category. It seemed to be constructed to try to point out more differences than necessary. There may be more categories or less, but the ones they chose seemed artificial to me, based on that one difference in the top category.
Analogies are hard to make accurate here. There’s not a Boycott, Divest, Sanctions campaign against any other nation on earth. And that means that there’s no state that requires people to pledge not to join a BDS campaign against any other nation.
But BDS against Israel is a real thing. And it’s also a real thing that in order to get certain government jobs in the US, you must sign a pledge that you won’t participate, even privately, in a BDS campaign against Israel.
It’s a unique situation. Certainly it’s legitimate to argue that BDS is unethical; but it’s also legitimate to argue that government-mandated pledges against BDS are also unethical.
The question is whether it’s fair to regard anti-BDS pledges as requiring a pledge of loyalty to another nation, or whether that’s antisemitic. I tend to see it as non-antisemitic, since it’s not suggesting that Jews have divided loyalty, but suggesting that the US federal or state government (using laws put in place primarily by evangelical Christians) is requiring its citizens of all or no religious backgrounds to have a divided loyalty.
That’s far enough removed from the trope that I think it’s not part of the stereotype at all.
I’m guilty of not following the conversation thread back very far and didn’t realize I was responding to a comment about BDS.
ISTM the legislation in question is unconstitutional.
Other than what’s on the Justice Democrats’ platform page?
https://www.justicedemocrats.com/issues/
Neither are American Jews. AIPAC is not a foreign power. It is a group of Americans who share thoughts about what American policy should be. I don’t agree with many of their beliefs but they are not a foreign power or disloyal or of divided loyalty or “cunning”.
You weren’t.
ISTM, if we are talking about defense contracts it’s alright to bring up Boeing’s lobby money and when discussing America’s policies on Israel it should be ok to bring up AIPAC money.
Advocating on behalf of, then. Again, though, there are probably other organizations that do this. And people reacting to one and not the others would be a red flag.
Then I have no idea what LHoD was going on about.
DSeid might be off:
The controversy over Ilhan Omar and AIPAC money, explained
Whether or not that is true it wasn’t the question. Is that the only requirement YOU have?
Would you support someone who is for the wall, for deporting Dreamers, against choice, for the NRA, a Climate Change Denier, and who thinks BLM and trans rights are both crock, so long as they don’t take corporate PAC?
No idea if what it seems like a GOP critter has in mind to someone else is a correct or incorrect guess. But it most certainly is not what concerns many other Democrats like me about her statement followed by the clarification that she still does not think trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes was a mistake, that she’s just sorry that others took offense.
No this is not about BDS.
It is about the total lack of self awareness of those who traffic in phrases like “cunning” and “dual loyalty” and insinuations of Jewish control.
Omar’s comment could have been simple ignorance and she initially reacted as if she got that and learned. Doubling down after though? And going out of her way to dis Obama as the same as Trump but with a pretty face?
Again who needs Russian trolls when we have this to do the fracturing for them?
I don’t think that list is definitive, although I can’t know for sure. Unless Ro Khanna has changed his position since July 2018, and I doubt he has, he’s not for the abolition of ICE, which is on that platform. I doubt the Justice Democrats will be throwing him out over that.
Then again, they threw out 1 of their 4 co-founders (and another resigned) in 2017, so hard to tell what they’ll do.
What do my views have to do with this topic? I thought the question was about primarying Dems with other Dems who have views closer to their constituents. As someone mentioned, running Dems that don’t match their constituents to the point where it would be highly unlikely they would get elected would be a waste of resources.
A big piece of the problem is that people are talking about Omar sometimes but not about Omar sometimes, about BDS sometimes and not about BDS sometimes. And when people talk about Omar, they’re sometimes paraphrasing her in a way that makes her sound way worse than what she actually said, and sometimes they’re taking individual words out of context.
The last sentence I quoted above is a great example. Who are those who traffic in phrases like “cunning” and “dual loyalty”? Are you talking about Omar here? If so, what are the quotes where she uses those phrases? If you just mean phrases “like” those but not “exactly” those, what exactly did she say that you’re paraphrasing thusly?
Because I’ve Googled “Ilhan Omar cunning,” and I’m not finding an example of her using that word. I’ve Googled “Ilhan Omar dual loyalty,” and I’m not finding examples of her using that phrase.
I find it pretty disingenuous, in a discussion of Ilhan Omar’s attitude toward Jews, to put words like that in quotes while referring to nonspecific people who “traffic in phrases.” Let’s use her actual words in paragraph-length context, or let’s talk about those other people in another thread.
For fuck’s sake. What specific quote of Omar’s are we talking about? Almost certainly this one, right?
What do you think she’s talking about if not BDS?
As the article I’m citing above goes on to explain,
If you don’t think that’s the context in which she spoke, what do you think she was talking about, and what’s your evidence?
Again, if we’re criticizing Omar, let’s ground ourselves in what she actually said, not in what think-pieces about her uncharitably paraphrase her as saying.
There are no other groups that encourage that companies and consumers avoid doing business with certain countries due to the actions of that country?
What about official state imposed sanctions? I imagine that the US imposing sanctions on Iran does much more to their economy than a group advocating that people stop buying Israeli goods and services does to their’s.
I think one reason people suspect AIPAC must be fairly powerful is that until recently, there was a longstanding bipartisan pro-Israel consensus in American politics, unlike what you see on almost any other issue. This despite the fact that they really are kind of apartheid-lite, and (as Nate Silver noted in the latest 538 podcast) Florida is the only state where the Jewish population can really have the potential to swing elections.
Another interesting piece of data Silver provided: Democrats are split almost perfectly in quarters on the topic of Israel and Palestine. One-fourth are more sympathetic to Israel; one-fourth more sympathetic to Palestine; one-fourth to both equally, and one-fourth aren’t sure. That’s a prescription for intraparty conflict. (By contrast, 80 percent of Republicans are more pro-Israel.)
Cosigned.
It’s definitely a weird feeling, to watch this whole imbroglio play out, with nearly everyone focused on the comments regarding Israel and AIPAC. On that issue, as I’ve said all along, I am in her corner. Meanwhile, though, I continue to be incensed over her Obama comments–but few others seem to care about those. :smack:
Do I stop defending her on the former because I want her gone? That is tempting, but I just can’t resist saying what I really think.
Posters in this thread.
Speaking of disingenuous.
The attention was not at all attached to that part of the statement but to the implication that the reason is the Benjamins baby and the trope it trafficked in.