"Republicans have not yet cracked the abortion code:"
Unfortunately, JVL, in today's article, claims that ONE Republican has. I sadly have to agree, and add that he has cracked that code by pure instinct - further helped by the frustrating fact that anyone still suppoting that twice-impeached, multiply indicted egomanic, has a major addiction problem. They don't care what his position is on abortion, or any issue. Ironically, neither do I - a Never-Trumper since the '80s.
Instead, seems voters are still just broadly angry at the Dobbs decision and voting in such a way to register that fury.”
You can't take right away from 50% of the population whether they exercise that right or not, and expect them to go along with that. How can anyone tell another person, you have no right to do "x" with your body?
For example, what if it became illegal for men to have sexually explicit tatoos on their arms, even if they are covered. Tatoo artists are threatened with jail if they put them on men's arms. Now most men might not care, but who would go along with a law that says you don't control what's on your skin. There would be outrage.
The Charlie Sykes Bulwark podcast is the one political cast I listen to everyday. I'm a liberal guy and find it hard to imagine what he must have been like pre-Trump but Charlie is smart, thoughtful and reasonable. The Bulwark crew is amazing. This interview represents a new high point for the podcast. Cassidy was incredibly articulate (is she really 27 years old?) and Charlie's questions were right on-point and helped to bring Cassidy's experience into focus for the listener. Would be interested in a part two with her to pursue the question of how she got drawn into Trumpworld (she was clear about his in-person charisma) and what kept her in it right till the end.
But yet the people have decided they like Trump. I hate his guts, truly hate Trump and I despise his followers. I’m not sure what to do. I will leave the country. I will never be loyal to Trump.
Cassidy was amazing. She was articulate and calm. She didn't shy away from confirming that Trump is a danger to America. The banter with Charlie was informative and fact-laden. So refreshing. Bottom line.....others need to know how dangerous trump is and what damage he could exact on our government, our economy, our relations with other nations, our judiciary etc. We have been warned.
A controversial phrase, "from the river to the sea", should not be a reason to censure or cancel anyone. The PLO, its originator, might have meant eliminating Israel as a Jewish state at the time it was coined, but it abandoned that intent after Oslo. There are after all, 2 million Arab Palestinians. Do Jewish Israelis want to be constantly accused that "A land without people for a people without land" is a proof of their formative genocidal intent? People evolve. Take people at their word for a change. Politics ultimately has to be practical.
Israelis who are *still saying* that there is no such thing as Palestinians, still advancing the "land without a people" narrative - like Bezalel Smotrich - should absolutely be held to account. They are part of the problem.
Sure, people evolve, but as long as specific slogans *remain in active use* by others with anything resembling a genocidal connotation, a positive evolution has to include changing the rhetoric.
Always amazes me how surprised some men are ( and no offense, guys, but it's always men) at the electoral strength of abortion and the Dobbs decision. We women had a Constitutional right taken from us by 5 people (including a damn woman who SHOULD KNOW BETTER). We went to bed with Constitutional protections on our bodily autonomy and reproductive health, and woke up with less rights than our husbands, brothers, fathers, and sons. Of COURSE we are TICKED OFF.
I was astounded to discover a Moms for Liberty-esque group is operating in Silicon Valley - targeting the Santa Clara Unified school district. The leafletting efforts resulted in one of them being charged with assault for BITTING another parent. It appears to have cooled their jets: https://www.svvoice.com/leafleting-outside-local-school-leads-to-assault-accusations/
I am Jewish. Until Tlaib started talking about “from the river to the sea,” I didn’t support censuring her. She has first amendment rights. But she crossed a line. Torres was right. I loathe Netanyahu but I can’t support the destruction of Israel.
Quick note from a fellow Jewish American… I’ve got a lot of Muslim friends who are engaged in the public marches against the war in Gaza. They do all use that phrase, but none of them say they want an end to Israel and none of them have said anything anti-Jewish. When I asked about that phrase specifically - I was told they mean the Palestinian people will be free - whether they’re in Gaza, West Bank, or within Israel, because they’re all subject to very bad forms of oppression by the Netanyahu government. I’m not saying there aren’t some people who mean other things with that phrase, but that’s not what anyone at the protest I attended had in mind.
You don’t have to take my word for it either, you can check the organizers websites, public interviews with the Palestinian Authority reps, etc. In general the whole movement is concerned with ending the bombing of Gaza, ending the blockade of Gaza, and a return to the 1967 borders of Israel.
I’m not an expert on the various international agreements and whether the 1967 borders were fair, but I can tell you that the hundreds of thousands of people marching across the world generally don’t want an end to the state of Israel or to the Jewish people.
Explain to your friends that Israel is presently between the river and the sea; if all that is to be "free Palestine," then it does indeed mean removing the Israeli state. That is *explicitly* what the phrase was intended to mean, when it was first sloganized by the Palestinian National Council in the '60s. That is definitely what Hamas means by it today.
People claiming that saying “from the river to the river” sea makes you a genocidal Hamas supporter - American media and neo-cons who supported the Iraq war and all the justifications behind that.
People claiming that chanting and marching at these events is supporting the Palestinian people caught in the crossfire of this war, and NOT Hamas - actual Palestinians, the organizations behind the marches, and first hand witnesses who’ve been to the marches.
Who do you think has a better handle on what most of the people marching actually care about?
My daughter is writing an analysis of an essay a speech given by Jane Addams in 1903 and she wanted use the phrase "restore Americas greatness" or make America great again"..bt she couldn't even though it was applicable because of how Trump has co opted this phrase.
Based on the logic of your response:
Now, if say, 50 years from today..someone is having this same type conversation around groups of people living in a shared space. Someone mentions "when you say make America great again" you are explciting calling for erasing Blacks as citizens with the same rights thereof. That's what the republican party meant when they said it. Thus your use of the phase is proof you are racist. "
I may not being making my argument most eloquently. But I read commenters here cautioning us that everyone that wears a red MAGA isn't a bigoted racist even though bigoted racists often wear the hat (or use the words). If we are being asked to look holistically at someone's complete sentences and not cherry pick, then we perhaps we could extend grace that to those who use this phrase before labeling them pro Hamas.
I am happy to extend the grace of assuming that many of them (the younger ones, in America) are merely ignorant and not hateful. This does not apply to the agitators who brought the slogan to them.
I am feeling so much better today. People are a lot smarter than I feared. I loved that MFL got their asses kicked. They claim to be for parental rights but that is just BS. Like all extremists they only care about having their viewpoints considered. The truth is that the majority of parents who send their kids to public schools want their kids to get a good education and do not want works of literature and history banned.
About Gaza Strip. I googled that and it seems that it is a very fertile land to grow many crops. It was given to the Palestinians in 2005. Yes, they were fences around it because of the threat of Hamas. A fertile land means that it has ground water. How come since 2005 Hamas has not been concentrated on exploiting this fertile land to their own benefit and instead bought weapons to kill Jews? Also, Gaza is not a prison, there is the Mediterranean Ocean on its coast. If the outrageous rich fellow Muslims from Saudi Arabia wanted to help, they could have done it, by ships, helicopters, etc. to help the Palestinians.
I hope you are correct but I do not think evangelicals will walk away b/c of this issue. I think they feel they are closer to power than they ever have been and a 2nd Trump admin with their bureaucrats is the vehicle to warp the Establishment Clause. As general election nominee Trump will try to limit discussion around his "negotiation" approach of getting "both sides" together to discuss the proper length of a ban as shown in a recent TV interview. I would not be surprised if he drops the issue a la Haley messaging within 3 months of the election so he can maintain centrist voters.
Objecting to the actions of the Israeli state is not anti-Semitism.
"Republicans have not yet cracked the abortion code:"
Unfortunately, JVL, in today's article, claims that ONE Republican has. I sadly have to agree, and add that he has cracked that code by pure instinct - further helped by the frustrating fact that anyone still suppoting that twice-impeached, multiply indicted egomanic, has a major addiction problem. They don't care what his position is on abortion, or any issue. Ironically, neither do I - a Never-Trumper since the '80s.
Instead, seems voters are still just broadly angry at the Dobbs decision and voting in such a way to register that fury.”
You can't take right away from 50% of the population whether they exercise that right or not, and expect them to go along with that. How can anyone tell another person, you have no right to do "x" with your body?
For example, what if it became illegal for men to have sexually explicit tatoos on their arms, even if they are covered. Tatoo artists are threatened with jail if they put them on men's arms. Now most men might not care, but who would go along with a law that says you don't control what's on your skin. There would be outrage.
The Charlie Sykes Bulwark podcast is the one political cast I listen to everyday. I'm a liberal guy and find it hard to imagine what he must have been like pre-Trump but Charlie is smart, thoughtful and reasonable. The Bulwark crew is amazing. This interview represents a new high point for the podcast. Cassidy was incredibly articulate (is she really 27 years old?) and Charlie's questions were right on-point and helped to bring Cassidy's experience into focus for the listener. Would be interested in a part two with her to pursue the question of how she got drawn into Trumpworld (she was clear about his in-person charisma) and what kept her in it right till the end.
But yet the people have decided they like Trump. I hate his guts, truly hate Trump and I despise his followers. I’m not sure what to do. I will leave the country. I will never be loyal to Trump.
I'm looking at Malta.
Cassidy was amazing. She was articulate and calm. She didn't shy away from confirming that Trump is a danger to America. The banter with Charlie was informative and fact-laden. So refreshing. Bottom line.....others need to know how dangerous trump is and what damage he could exact on our government, our economy, our relations with other nations, our judiciary etc. We have been warned.
A controversial phrase, "from the river to the sea", should not be a reason to censure or cancel anyone. The PLO, its originator, might have meant eliminating Israel as a Jewish state at the time it was coined, but it abandoned that intent after Oslo. There are after all, 2 million Arab Palestinians. Do Jewish Israelis want to be constantly accused that "A land without people for a people without land" is a proof of their formative genocidal intent? People evolve. Take people at their word for a change. Politics ultimately has to be practical.
Israelis who are *still saying* that there is no such thing as Palestinians, still advancing the "land without a people" narrative - like Bezalel Smotrich - should absolutely be held to account. They are part of the problem.
Sure, people evolve, but as long as specific slogans *remain in active use* by others with anything resembling a genocidal connotation, a positive evolution has to include changing the rhetoric.
Always amazes me how surprised some men are ( and no offense, guys, but it's always men) at the electoral strength of abortion and the Dobbs decision. We women had a Constitutional right taken from us by 5 people (including a damn woman who SHOULD KNOW BETTER). We went to bed with Constitutional protections on our bodily autonomy and reproductive health, and woke up with less rights than our husbands, brothers, fathers, and sons. Of COURSE we are TICKED OFF.
I was astounded to discover a Moms for Liberty-esque group is operating in Silicon Valley - targeting the Santa Clara Unified school district. The leafletting efforts resulted in one of them being charged with assault for BITTING another parent. It appears to have cooled their jets: https://www.svvoice.com/leafleting-outside-local-school-leads-to-assault-accusations/
I’m impressed with this young woman but I can’t help but feel like she is trying to be “Emily” from Designated Survivor....
I am Jewish. Until Tlaib started talking about “from the river to the sea,” I didn’t support censuring her. She has first amendment rights. But she crossed a line. Torres was right. I loathe Netanyahu but I can’t support the destruction of Israel.
Quick note from a fellow Jewish American… I’ve got a lot of Muslim friends who are engaged in the public marches against the war in Gaza. They do all use that phrase, but none of them say they want an end to Israel and none of them have said anything anti-Jewish. When I asked about that phrase specifically - I was told they mean the Palestinian people will be free - whether they’re in Gaza, West Bank, or within Israel, because they’re all subject to very bad forms of oppression by the Netanyahu government. I’m not saying there aren’t some people who mean other things with that phrase, but that’s not what anyone at the protest I attended had in mind.
You don’t have to take my word for it either, you can check the organizers websites, public interviews with the Palestinian Authority reps, etc. In general the whole movement is concerned with ending the bombing of Gaza, ending the blockade of Gaza, and a return to the 1967 borders of Israel.
I’m not an expert on the various international agreements and whether the 1967 borders were fair, but I can tell you that the hundreds of thousands of people marching across the world generally don’t want an end to the state of Israel or to the Jewish people.
Explain to your friends that Israel is presently between the river and the sea; if all that is to be "free Palestine," then it does indeed mean removing the Israeli state. That is *explicitly* what the phrase was intended to mean, when it was first sloganized by the Palestinian National Council in the '60s. That is definitely what Hamas means by it today.
People claiming that saying “from the river to the river” sea makes you a genocidal Hamas supporter - American media and neo-cons who supported the Iraq war and all the justifications behind that.
People claiming that chanting and marching at these events is supporting the Palestinian people caught in the crossfire of this war, and NOT Hamas - actual Palestinians, the organizations behind the marches, and first hand witnesses who’ve been to the marches.
Who do you think has a better handle on what most of the people marching actually care about?
Would you want your friends chanting for a "final solution" to Israeli occupation, because they actually care about a lasting peace?
My daughter is writing an analysis of an essay a speech given by Jane Addams in 1903 and she wanted use the phrase "restore Americas greatness" or make America great again"..bt she couldn't even though it was applicable because of how Trump has co opted this phrase.
Based on the logic of your response:
Now, if say, 50 years from today..someone is having this same type conversation around groups of people living in a shared space. Someone mentions "when you say make America great again" you are explciting calling for erasing Blacks as citizens with the same rights thereof. That's what the republican party meant when they said it. Thus your use of the phase is proof you are racist. "
I may not being making my argument most eloquently. But I read commenters here cautioning us that everyone that wears a red MAGA isn't a bigoted racist even though bigoted racists often wear the hat (or use the words). If we are being asked to look holistically at someone's complete sentences and not cherry pick, then we perhaps we could extend grace that to those who use this phrase before labeling them pro Hamas.
I am happy to extend the grace of assuming that many of them (the younger ones, in America) are merely ignorant and not hateful. This does not apply to the agitators who brought the slogan to them.
Exactly!
I am feeling so much better today. People are a lot smarter than I feared. I loved that MFL got their asses kicked. They claim to be for parental rights but that is just BS. Like all extremists they only care about having their viewpoints considered. The truth is that the majority of parents who send their kids to public schools want their kids to get a good education and do not want works of literature and history banned.
Ritchie Torres is my member of Congress!
Can we get him to run for President some day?
I think this line "Competent, popular, centrist Democrats can still win deep blue states" should have been "deep RED states."
About Gaza Strip. I googled that and it seems that it is a very fertile land to grow many crops. It was given to the Palestinians in 2005. Yes, they were fences around it because of the threat of Hamas. A fertile land means that it has ground water. How come since 2005 Hamas has not been concentrated on exploiting this fertile land to their own benefit and instead bought weapons to kill Jews? Also, Gaza is not a prison, there is the Mediterranean Ocean on its coast. If the outrageous rich fellow Muslims from Saudi Arabia wanted to help, they could have done it, by ships, helicopters, etc. to help the Palestinians.
I hope you are correct but I do not think evangelicals will walk away b/c of this issue. I think they feel they are closer to power than they ever have been and a 2nd Trump admin with their bureaucrats is the vehicle to warp the Establishment Clause. As general election nominee Trump will try to limit discussion around his "negotiation" approach of getting "both sides" together to discuss the proper length of a ban as shown in a recent TV interview. I would not be surprised if he drops the issue a la Haley messaging within 3 months of the election so he can maintain centrist voters.