Some Republicans vote against anti-bigotry resolution.

[fredtoast]

The House presented the following resolution

https://theduran.com/full-text-of-house-resolution-condemning-bigotry-speech/ (full text)


Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) rejects the perpetuation of anti-Semitic stereotypes in the United States and around the world, including the pernicious myth of dual loyalty and foreign allegiance, especially in the context of support for the United States-Israel alliance;
(2) condemns anti-Semitic acts and statements as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States;
(3) reaffirms its support for the mandate of the United States Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism as part of the broader policy priority of fostering international religious freedom and protecting human rights all over the world;
(4) rejects attempts to justify hatred or violent attacks as an acceptable expression of disapproval or frustration over political events in the Middle East or elsewhere;
(5) acknowledges the harm suffered by Muslims and others from the harassment, discrimination, and violence that result from anti-Muslim bigotry;
(6) condemns anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against all minorities as contrary to the values of the United States;
(7) condemns the death threats received by Jewish and Muslim Members of Congress, including in recent weeks;
(8) encourages law enforcement and government officials to avoid conduct that raises the specter of unconstitutional profiling against anyone because of their race, religion, nationality, political, or particular social group, including the assignment of blame or targeting members of an entire religious group for increased suspicion, based on the conduct of a single individual or small group of individuals; and
(9) encourages all public officials to confront the reality of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, and other forms of bigotry, as well as historical struggles against them, to ensure that the United States will live up to the transcendent principles of tolerance, religious freedom, and equal protection as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the first and 14th amendments to the Constitution.


The House Democrats voted 234-0 in support of the resolution
Republicans voted 173-23 in favor (Steve King voted "present" )

The Republicans who voted against it wanted it to just condemn anti-Semitism. They objected to condemning "Islamophobia, racism, and other forms of bigotry".



At first blush this might seem like an attempt to expose the bigotry accepted by the right, but it is really an attack on how our congress is working right now. They don't seem to be able to pass any meaningful law yet they have time to play silly games with meaningless "resolutions" that are nothing but political theatre. A Democrat was accused of making anti-Semitic comments so the democrats wanted the resolution to prove that they condemned anti-Semitism, but they played the Republicans by including a condemnation of Islamophobia that they knew some republicans would refuse to do.

It is all a ridiculous waste of time.

[GMDino]

(03-14-2019, 11:50 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The House presented the following resolution

https://theduran.com/full-text-of-house-resolution-condemning-bigotry-speech/ (full text)


Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) rejects the perpetuation of anti-Semitic stereotypes in the United States and around the world, including the pernicious myth of dual loyalty and foreign allegiance, especially in the context of support for the United States-Israel alliance;
(2) condemns anti-Semitic acts and statements as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States;
(3) reaffirms its support for the mandate of the United States Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism as part of the broader policy priority of fostering international religious freedom and protecting human rights all over the world;
(4) rejects attempts to justify hatred or violent attacks as an acceptable expression of disapproval or frustration over political events in the Middle East or elsewhere;
(5) acknowledges the harm suffered by Muslims and others from the harassment, discrimination, and violence that result from anti-Muslim bigotry;
(6) condemns anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against all minorities as contrary to the values of the United States;
(7) condemns the death threats received by Jewish and Muslim Members of Congress, including in recent weeks;
(8) encourages law enforcement and government officials to avoid conduct that raises the specter of unconstitutional profiling against anyone because of their race, religion, nationality, political, or particular social group, including the assignment of blame or targeting members of an entire religious group for increased suspicion, based on the conduct of a single individual or small group of individuals; and
(9) encourages all public officials to confront the reality of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, and other forms of bigotry, as well as historical struggles against them, to ensure that the United States will live up to the transcendent principles of tolerance, religious freedom, and equal protection as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the first and 14th amendments to the Constitution.


The House Democrats voted 234-0 in support of the resolution
Republicans voted 173-23 in favor (Steve King voted "present" )

The Republicans who voted against it wanted it to just condemn anti-Semitism.  They objected to condemning "Islamophobia, racism, and other forms of bigotry".



At first blush this might seem like an attempt to expose the bigotry accepted by the right, but it is really an attack on how our congress is working right now.  They don't seem to be able to pass any meaningful law yet they have time to play silly games with meaningless "resolutions" that are nothing but political theatre.  A Democrat was accused of making anti-Semitic comments so the democrats wanted the resolution to prove that they condemned anti-Semitism, but they played the Republicans by including a condemnation  of Islamophobia that they knew some republicans would refuse to do.

It is all a ridiculous waste of time.

Of course it is and of course they did.

More importantly I want to see how they vote on the "emergency" we have at the border.

[*michaelsean*]

Unless I read the wrong quote, I didn't think what she said was exactly anti-semitic. I think I would vote present for all resolutions because they are pretty meaningless, but then again I wouldn't want to be the only other person in a group that included Steve King.

[BmorePat87]

Many were vocal in opposition because it didn't specifically name her. Others said because it tried to hide away from the anti-semitic statements by including other forms of hate.

King though...

Quote:Rep Pete King said one of the reasons he voted against the resolution is bc it didn’t mention police being targeted, only mentioned police targeting others.

“There were more cops killed than Pacific Islanders” last year, he said

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-14-2019, 01:15 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Unless I read the wrong quote, I didn't think what she said was exactly anti-semitic.  I think I would vote present for all resolutions because they are pretty meaningless, but then again I wouldn't want to be the only other person in a group that included Steve King.

(03-14-2019, 01:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Many were vocal in opposition because it didn't specifically name her. Others said because it tried to hide away from the anti-semitic statements by including other forms of hate.

King though...

Pretty much this.  The no vote was a protest vote because they didn't like the absence of an official condemnation of Omar's comments, i.e. a diluted resolution.  This has the appearance of the "John Kerry voted against the Apache and B1 bomber weapon systems because he hates our troops" line that W used in the 2004 elections.  Kerry voted against the bill because of the pork attached to it, not because he didn't want the weapons systems funded.  You might be able to make a case with King, but labeling the other Reps as voting in favor of bigotry is partisan hackery at its worst.

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2019, 05:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Pretty much this.  The no vote was a protest vote because they didn't like the absence of an official condemnation of Omar's comments, i.e. a diluted resolution.  This has the appearance of the "John Kerry voted against the Apache and B1 bomber weapon systems because he hates our troops" line that W used in the 2004 elections.  Kerry voted against the bill because of the pork attached to it, not because he didn't want the weapons systems funded.  You might be able to make a case with King, but labeling the other Reps as voting in favor of bigotry is partisan hackery at its worst.

There is a slight difference.  Biden can say he did not vote for a law because it had some stuff in it he did not agree with (pork).

Republicans can't really say they don't agree with admonishing Islamophobia.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-14-2019, 06:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is a slight difference.  Biden can say he did not vote for a law because it had some stuff in it he did not agree with (pork).

Republicans can't really say they don't agree with admonishing Islamophobia.

Is that what some of them said?  My understanding was that their objection was due to the resolution being watered down and not addressing Omar's anti-Semitism.

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2019, 07:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Is that what some of them said?  My understanding was that their objection was due to the resolution being watered down and not addressing Omar's anti-Semitism.

The term "watered down" illustrates the problem perfectly.  They are saying anti-Semitism is real and substantial while Islamophobia is just "water".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-15-2019, 04:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The term "watered down" illustrates the problem perfectly.  They are saying anti-Semitism is real and substantial while Islamophobia is just "water".

Incorrect interpretation.  In this instance "watered down" means not addressing the reason the resolution was put forth to begin with, that being Representative Omar's history of antisemitic statements.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2019, 04:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect interpretation.  In this instance "watered down" means not addressing the reason the resolution was put forth to begin with, that being Representative Omar's history of antisemitic statements.

And that takes me back to my original point.  They care more about pollical posturing than condemning bigotry.

They voted AGAINST condemning bigotry because political party affiliation was more important than bigotry.

[Benton]

(03-14-2019, 05:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Pretty much this.  The no vote was a protest vote because they didn't like the absence of an official condemnation of Omar's comments, i.e. a diluted resolution.  

So, basically, if you want a Republican to do anything, you have to make sure it makes a Democrat look bad?

Years of right politicians defending monkey jokes and saying alt-right groups aren't really bad people... but a Democrat points out the pandering and bribery, then we need to 'stop the hate.'

I hope a Democrat comes out in favor of healthcare prices escalating, flat wages and pandering to companies taking tax breaks without providing jobs.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-15-2019, 05:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And that takes me back to my original point.  They care more about pollical posturing than condemning bigotry.

They voted AGAINST condemning bigotry because political party affiliation was more important than bigotry.

Of course, one could make the exact same argument about the Dems, seeing as the entire resolution was brought about by racist remarks made by one of their own.  Again, you're engaging in absolutes that an adult should be able to see past.  You are, of course, entitled to that opinion.

(03-15-2019, 05:21 PM)Benton Wrote: So, basically, if you want a Republican to do anything, you have to make sure it makes a Democrat look bad?

Years of right politicians defending monkey jokes and saying alt-right groups aren't really bad people... but a Democrat points out the pandering and bribery, then we need to 'stop the hate.'

I hope a Democrat comes out in favor of healthcare prices escalating, flat wages and pandering to companies taking tax breaks without providing jobs.

Eh, no.  I do recall Steve King being relieved of his committee positions due to his unacceptable comments.  Whether you think that was timely or not, it was done.  You and Fred seem to view that as a zero sum situation in which one person has to be right and the other wrong.  In my opinion the whole thing was political theatre designed to distract from Omar's bigoted comments.  You apparently disagree, which is fine. But effusing to vote for it because you view it as political theatre is not analogous to voting against bigotry.

[Benton]

(03-15-2019, 06:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Eh, no.  I do recall Steve King being relieved of his committee positions due to his unacceptable comments.  Whether you think that was timely or not, it was done.  You and Fred seem to view that as a zero sum situation in which one person has to be right and the other wrong.  In my opinion the whole thing was political theatre designed to distract from Omar's bigoted comments.  You apparently disagree, which is fine. But effusing to vote for it because you view it as political theatre is not analogous to voting against bigotry.

I think the GOP has a recent history of trying to downplay racist/sexist/other 'ist' comments by members... and then freaking out when a Democrat speaks out against the US's relationship with Israel.  I will note that some members of the party have called out other members of their party for out of line comments and actions... but (of course there would be one) not a consistently as they've been calling out the Muslim woman.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2019, 06:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course, one could make the exact same argument about the Dems.

No I can't say the same about democrats because none of them voted against it.

One of their members made some remarks that were considered inappropriate so they made a resolution that admonished that improper behavior.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2019, 06:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   In my opinion the whole thing was political theatre designed to distract from Omar's bigoted comments.

How could a resolution admonishing the type of comments she made be designed to distract from those comments?

If they wanted to distract then they would have tweeted about something totally unrelated to draw attention away from the issue of anti-Semitic comments..

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-15-2019, 06:26 PM)Benton Wrote: I think the GOP has a recent history of trying to downplay racist/sexist/other 'ist' comments by members... and then freaking out when a Democrat speaks out against the US's relationship with Israel.  I will note that some members of the party have called out other members of their party for out of line comments and actions... but (of course there would be one) not a consistently as they've been calling out the Muslim woman.

Sure, it's just that both parties engage in this exact behavior.  Unless I'm mistaken the VA governor is still governor despite the blackface ad Klan outfit in his yearbook and the Lt. Governor is still in office despite being accused of rape.  Hypocrisy in this area is hardly a GOP only problem.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-15-2019, 06:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: One of their members made some remarks that were considered inappropriate so they made a resolution that admonished that improper behavior.

No, they made a resolution condemning (almost) all forms of bigotry.  Not the same thing.

(03-15-2019, 06:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How could a resolution admonishing the type of comments she made be designed to distract from those comments?

By throwing in examples of bigotry not related to her particular brand of bigotry and failing to condemn her comments specifically.

Quote:If they wanted to distract then they would have tweeted about something totally unrelated to draw attention away from the issue of anti-Semitic comments..

Tweeted?  I think we're done here Fred, you're not trying to actually debate this subject and we are back in the endless repetition phase.  BUt, as always, feel free to get in the last word if you feel the need.

[*bfine32*]

GOP should have supported the measure 100%, not doing so is bad optics and that's exactly what the Dems wanted. Let's not try to place the Dems on some fabricated morale high ground. They protected on of their own.

[Benton]

(03-15-2019, 07:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, it's just that both parties engage in this exact behavior.  Unless I'm mistaken the VA governor is still governor despite the blackface ad Klan outfit in his yearbook and the Lt. Governor is still in office despite being accused of rape.  Hypocrisy in this area is hardly a GOP only problem.

The last I saw, black voters were something like 4-of-5 Democrat, 1-of-9 Republican. Hispanics and Asians were around 3-to-1 Democrat over Republican. And elected officials are amazingly even worse as far as minority Republicans in office versus minority Democrats.

And, yes, there's going to be a Democrat here and there with some racist overtones. But, come on, you're not honestly going to compare the two parties in that regard? For every one out of line Democrat, you can find a half dozen Republicans with similar skeletons. I agree hypocrisy is rampant, but that's not really the same issue where we've got far right politicians openly embracing white supremacy and, at the least, passing on opportunities to condemn the action. 

[CJD]

This was, essentially, the exact same thing that the House did in regards to Steve King after he asked what was so bad about White Supremacy.

The resolution did not name King, but generally condemned white nationalism.

Only one person voted against it (it wasn't King). A democrat named Bobby Rush from Illinois. He wanted a formal censure of King, so he voted against this as a way of saying it wasn't harsh enough.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-king/u-s-house-including-steve-king-votes-to-condemn-his-racist-statements-idUSKCN1P92RB

Of course, this is all political theater, as no one would openly say "nah, I think white nationalism or antisemitism is totally cool" even if they, for whatever reason, did not believe what they were saying.

So, the people voting against these resolutions were doing so in protest to the severity of the resolution rather than the resolution itself.

I do think Republicans are less concerned with being accused of being racist though, as that is not one of their main talking points (and some would argue being accused of being racist only makes them more popular with their "anti-PC" supporters), so more Republicans were willing to protest vote this one, whereas only 1 democrat was willing to protest vote the King resolution.
Being labeled a racist as a Democrat is a bit more dangerous.