Steve King: How did white supremacist become offensive?

[Belsnickel]

(01-16-2019, 03:38 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: That would be an interesting list to see. 

Click on the link at the end of the tweet.

[BengalHawk62]

(01-16-2019, 03:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Click on the link at the end of the tweet.

Sorry....I'm at work and am unable to get on to Twitter now.  Will check it out later at home......


thank you!

[Dill]

(01-15-2019, 12:51 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Assimilate to what standard? Who sets that standard? Do all people that live in this country have to follow the same rules, speak the same way, eat the same way, dance the same way, worship the same way, love the same way?

Why of course not, Yoj.  They are free to live as they like--so long as it's the right way.

[Dill]

(01-16-2019, 03:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Click on the link at the end of the tweet.

Lots left out there.  How do you maintain American civilization? Not with foreigners' babies.  

[BmorePat87]

(01-16-2019, 03:46 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Sorry....I'm at work and am unable to get on to Twitter now.  Will check it out later at home......


thank you!

the site is poorly formatted but here it is:

1. He idolizes Joe McCarthy

In the fall of 2005, King referred to widely disgraced red-baiter Sen. Joseph McCarthy as a “hero for America” and continues to defend the statement.

Joseph McCarthy is the political leader who cried wolf in the 1950s and nearly cost us the Cold War. He’s the inspiration for much of the movie “The Manchurian Candidate” for heaven’s sake.

Most Americans see footage of the McCarthy hearings or remember the era and shudder at the thought of what the censured senator represented.

Not King. He sees a role model, a political jukebox hero.

“It’s extraordinarily bad judgment or he’s historically illiterate,” Art Neu, a Carroll attorney and former Republican lieutenant governor, said of King’s 50-year retroactive McCarthy endorsement.


2. King justifies Austin, Texas, attack:


Last month, King reportedly said that he could “empathize” with the right-wing death pilot, Joe Stack, who flew his plane into a building in Austin, Texas, killing an IRS employee, according to the Web site Talking Points memo.

Later, in a talk a little closer to home, with The Omaha World-Herald, King said he could “understand” Stack’s frustrations.

“What Steve King said is extremely close to an apology for murder,” Mark Potok, the intelligence project director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, told me in a phone interview. Potok’s group tracks hate groups in the United States.

ThinkProgress has King’s thoughts on the matter on video. Here’s part of the exchange:

ThinkProgress: “Do you think this attack, this terrorist attack, was motivated at all by a lot of the anti-tax rhetoric that’s popular in America right now?”

King:“I think if we’d abolished the IRS back when I first advocated it, he wouldn’t have a target for his airplane. And I’m still for abolishing the IRS. I’ve been for it for 30 years and I’m for a national sales tax. [...] It’s sad the incident in Texas happened, but by the same token, it’s an agency that is unnecessary, and when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the IRS, it’s going to be a happy day for America.”

3. King likens illegal immigrants to animals

In July of 2006 King went to the House floor to display the model of a wall the Kiron Republican said he personally designed for the U.S. border with Mexico and likened illegal border crossers to the farm animals.

“We need to do a few other things on top of that wall, and one of them being to put a little bit of wire on top here to provide a disincentive for people to climb over the top or put a ladder there.” King said in displaying his design. “We could also electrify this wire with the kind of current that would not kill somebody, but it would be a discouragement for them to be fooling around with it. We do that with livestock all the time.”

4. The Viagra outrage


According to Roll Call — and sources in King’s office who asked not to be quoted when contacted by me in 2005 — the congressman sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter that year in which he asked other U.S. representatives to oppose any Medicare funding for impotence drugs. Roll Call did land an interview with Iowa’s 5th District Republican congressman.

“Is it the government’s business to provide those funds and resources so that old men can have sex when they want?” King is quoted as saying in Roll Call. “We’ve gotten along just fine without the government subsidizing people’s sex lives. This kind of growth in government was never envisioned by our Founding Fathers.”

Of course, the life expectancy in 1776 was only 35.

King, who may be more interested in human sexuality than Alfred Kinsey, apparently has thought a good deal about old people having sex — on Viagra and Cialis and Levitra and Love Potion No. 9, or whatever else is being advertised from coin toss to conclusion of every sporting event in America.

5. Terrorists will be ‘dancing in the streets’

In an interview in Spencer, before the 2008 presidential election, King said, “I’ll just say this, that when you think about the optics of a Barack Obama potentially getting elected president of the United States — and I mean, what does this look like to the rest of the world? What does it look like to the world of Islam? And I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the ... the radical Islamists, the ... the al-Qaida and the radical Islamists and their supporters will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11.”

6. King compares homosexuals to unicorns and leprechauns

In a Dec. 12, 2003, news release about Sioux City Judge Jeffrey Neary’s decision to grant two lesbians a divorce King said the following: “Unless I am mistaken it was in Vermont, not Iowa, that Howard ‘The Coward’ Dean slyly signed midnight legislation making same sex unions legal. Unicorns, leprechauns, gay marriages in Iowa — these are all things you will never find because they just don’t exist. But perhaps Judge Neary would grant divorces to unicorns and leprechauns, too.’”

7. King earns endorsement — for President of the United States — from right-wing hate-peddler Ann Coulter.

A columnist for Human Events Online, a national conservative publication, says celebrity right-winger Ann Coulter in the fall of 2006 recommended that the Republican Party consider King as its presidential nominee in 2008.

“Coulter supports a fence on our southern border and recommended the Republican Party consider Rep. Steve King from Iowa for the presidency in 2008,” Michael J. McCormack wrote after hearing Coulter speak at a Christian Coalition of Georgia event.

8. The ‘Big, powerful, angry, black man’ remark

Because of his concerns about the impact of war protests in America, King went to get a first-hand view of the anti-war demonstrations and speeches in Washington, D.C. just after the war in Iraq started in 2003.

The congressman spent about 90 minutes among war protesters around the Washington Monument and other places in the nation’s capital.

“I had two staff people there with cameras taking pictures of signs and people,” King told me in a phone interview at the time.

One episode stood out to King, and he described it to me during that interview.

“I saw a big, powerful angry black man come up to the flag, the flags that were held along the streets by the ‘Support Our Troops’ people, and he was just screaming, ‘Burn that racist flag! Burn that racist flag!’” King said.

9. King says Iraq is safer than Washington, D.C.

In the summer of 2006, on the floor of the U.S. House, King says it’s more perilous for civilians in Washington, D.C., than Iraq. He made the argument at least twice.

“Well, by now, I have a feel for the rhythm of this place called Washington, D.C., and my wife lives here with me,” King said. “I can tell you, she is in far greater risk being a civilian in Washington, D.C., than the average civilian in Iraq.” (In fact, an estimated 21,000 civilians died violent deaths in Iraq in 2006. That same year there were 169 homicides in the nation’s capital.)

10. The ‘Hussein’ fuss

King took issue with the fact that President Barack Obama used his middle name, Hussein, in Obama’s presidential swearing-in ceremony in January 2009.

Obama correctly observed the use was procedural (former President Bush was introduced that day as George Walker Bush).

11. King makes fun of an old lady

In 2006, King suggested that iconic journalist Helen Thomas, then 85 years old, was ugly in a joke about radical Islam’s belief that martyrs will be rewarded with virgins in the afterlife.

“There probably are not 72 virgins in the hell he (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) is at,” King said at the Iowa GOP State Convention. “And if there are, they probably all look like Helen Thomas.”

In a rare display of civility, King apologized.

12. King endorses backseat baby-making

How should Iowa deal with the worker shortage in towns that have relied on Hispanic workers, legal and illegal, since the 1980s?

Make more Iowa babies, King told the Greater Des Moines Partnership, according to Jane Norman of The Des Moines Register. “What about the ‘grow your own’ plan?” King said.

When former Republican Lt. Gov. Art Neu asked King to elaborate, King singled out Singapore’s plan to increase pregnancies which he said included the injunction, “put newspapers in your car (windows) to get more privacy,” Added King, “I remember those things when I read them. They kind of stand out in my mind.”
13. Congressman claims John Kerry would have lost World War II

In summer of 2004, King issued a statement about the just-dedicated World War II memorial in Washington, saying, “Can you imagine if John Kerry had been president during WWII? We’d all be speaking Japanese and German right now!”

14. King defends “hazing” at Abu Ghraib

“The dismembered and charred corpses of American contractors dangling over the Euphrates River in comparison to the abuse committed by a few soldiers at Abu Ghraib are like the crimes of Jeffrey Dahmer compared to those of Heidi Fleiss,” King said in a statement. “What amounts to hazing is not even in the same ballpark as mass murder.”


15. King as a king
Visiting Iraq, King could not resist opportunity to sit in one of Saddam Hussein’s former palace thrones. King later sent the photo to the media prompting some to wonder if he hopes to become a power-mad dictator. If western Iowans, often feeling like the red-headed stepchild of the Hawkeye State, ever secede, would King be content with the governor’s chair of a new state or would he want a throne — for real?

16. The ‘totalitarian’ threat

Warming up a crowd in Sioux City for GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin in the fall of 2008, King said Republicans are not going far enough to paint Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama as the purveyor of a socialist agenda.

King suggested Obama actually could be classified as even more extreme than a socialist. King also said his party is the only one with a legitimate claim on representing freedom as Americans know it.

“When you take a lurch to the left, you end up in a totalitarian dictatorship,” King said. “There is no freedom to the left. It’s always to our side of the aisle.”

17. ‘White guilt?’

Last year, King opposed a bill recognizing the African American slaves who built the U.S. Capitol.

18. The North American Union conspiracy

At his next town hall meeting, King may very well tell us that he woke up in a hotel room in New Orleans in a bathtub full of ice, missing a kidney, victim of an organized ring of organ thieves.

The odds that King will buy into the greatest urban legend of all time greatly increased in August of 2008 when he told constituents that he was connecting the dots on another popular conspiracy theory: the creation of a North American Union, a border-blurring confederation of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

The North American Union theory takes various forms depending on who’s doing the talking or blogging. Some incarnations involve a “superhighway” linking the nations, others a common currency often called the “amero.”

Rather than dismiss the idea the St. Louis Post Dispatch calls an “urban legend” — as Republicans like U.S. Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri have done — King gives it credibility by saying he can see a case for the plan appearing, dot by dot.

“My own view is that if you look at all of the signals that are there, look at the evidence that exists and all the dots, and you connect the dots, you can draw that picture,” King said at the town hall meeting at Cronk’s Cafe Restaurant & Lounge in Denison.

19. King spends time researching Obama’s birth

“I spent my time before the inauguration to look into that because I thought it was the time to do so,” King told me in a recent interview.

He added, “I came to the conclusion that it’s improbable that Obama was not born in Hawaii as he says. I just don’t understand why he wouldn’t ask under Hawaiian law that the certificate of live birth, the real legitimate birth certificate, be released to the public. I’ve seen the one that they put out. It doesn’t look exactly like some of the others they’ve used to compare it. So I just wish the subject weren’t there. I think he could have avoided the subject if he would have just simply laid his birth certificate out. I don’t know what his motive for not doing that would be unless it would be something that is embarrassing, that he doesn’t want us to know, and, otherwise, I think he would have let us know.”



20. King wants Congress to tell us Christmas matters


In a Louisville, Ky., restaurant last May, on the even of the Kentucky Derby, I had the chance to chat with U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, a Democrat from that city.

Only a few minutes into our conversation, Yarmuth recalled the resolution King introduced that recognized the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.

The Louisville congressman viewed such a measure as ridiculous (who needs Congress to tell us that Christmas is important, right?) and voted “present” — for which he took some heat, he said.

Incidentally, Yarmuth noted wryly, King never bothered to vote for his own resolution. 

[BmorePat87]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/429157-mccarthy-says-omar-tlaibs-comments-on-israel-worse-than-steve-king


McCarthy is demanding that Pelosi take action against two freshmen for their criticism of Israel. McCarthy says their words are more reprehensible than what King said...

[Benton]

(01-10-2019, 11:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 0 problem with immigrants being asked to assimilate.

I don't think it's fair to ask immigrants to hate minorities just because a racist jackass from the Midwest chooses to.

(01-11-2019, 09:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This will be King's last term in Congress. His margin went down 17 points last year and he's going to be primaried in 2020. If he isn't censured/expelled before then, he will be gone with the next Congress.

Mitch McConnell giggled when he read that, then texted sessions "lol".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-08-2019, 11:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/429157-mccarthy-says-omar-tlaibs-comments-on-israel-worse-than-steve-king


McCarthy is demanding that Pelosi take action against two freshmen for their criticism of Israel. McCarthy says their words are more reprehensible than what King said...

Don't really care which is worse, that's just a debate that ignores the real issue, that being that there are several members of Congress, from both parties, that are openly racist.  A nice bi-partisan move would be for both parties to come together and expel them all.

[fredtoast]

(01-11-2019, 05:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Some will miss the point and focus on the words. You know anyone like that?

I think so, but I just need to make sure.


You have no idea why the term "white supremacist" is offensive, correct?  You just think everything will be fine as long as immigrants "assimilate" to the values white people brought from Europe, right?

[Belsnickel]

(02-11-2019, 12:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Don't really care which is worse, that's just a debate that ignores the real issue, that being that there are several members of Congress, from both parties, that are openly racist.  A nice bi-partisan move would be for both parties to come together and expel them all.

I disagree to an extent. If what they did violates the law or is an egregious violation of the rules of the body, then expulsion is appropriate. However, if it's just asshattery then then should only be censured. The bar for removal from office without a democratic process is very high for me. This isn't to say I wouldn't encourage them to resign, and call for it publicly, but the voters should have their say in whether the person is in office or not. This is why recall elections should be possible.

[Dill]

(02-11-2019, 01:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree to an extent. If what they did violates the law or is an egregious violation of the rules of the body, then expulsion is appropriate. However, if it's just asshattery then then should only be censured. The bar for removal from office without a democratic process is very high for me. This isn't to say I wouldn't encourage them to resign, and call for it publicly, but the voters should have their say in whether the person is in office or not. This is why recall elections should be possible.

Totally agree with the bolded.

I add that it sounds like McCarthy is saying " If we are going to go after those who normalize white supremacy, then we should go after those who criticize human rights violations in Israel. "  Since he and other Republicans fault Omar and Talib for their support of the BDS movement, his accusation appears to turn on a broad definition of antisemitism, which includes most any criticism of the Israeli state, especially by non-Jewish Semitic people.

I haven't seen any quotes by Omar and Tlaib which fit the narrower definition, which would limit the label to remarks about Jews based upon racial stereotypes and antisemitic ideology (e.g., parasitical Jewish bankers control the world). 

Perhaps they have made such remarks somewhere. If so, then censure is appropriate. If not, then a distinction needs to be made between criticizing a state on the basis of its human rights violations and--the polar opposite--actions denying universal human equality on racial/ethnic/religious grounds.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-11-2019, 01:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree to an extent. If what they did violates the law or is an egregious violation of the rules of the body, then expulsion is appropriate. However, if it's just asshattery then then should only be censured. The bar for removal from office without a democratic process is very high for me. This isn't to say I wouldn't encourage them to resign, and call for it publicly, but the voters should have their say in whether the person is in office or not. This is why recall elections should be possible.

There has to be a floor for conduct and commentary for an elected official.  There exists procedural means for removing a House Rep from office and I don't know that criminal activity is the only thing that warrants it being put into effect.  I understand your comment about voters being the one to remove them from office, but that's close to two years away.  Plus this assumes their constituents have a problem with their statements.  Just because you represent a constituency that's ok with your specific brand of racism doesn't mean you get to be racist and still be a member of Congress.

(02-11-2019, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: Totally agree with the bolded.

I add that it sounds like McCarthy is saying " If we are going to go after those who normalize white supremacy, then we should go after those who criticize human rights violations in Israel. "  Since he and other Republicans fault Omar and Talib for their support of the BDS movement, his accusation appears to turn on a broad definition of antisemitism, which includes most any criticism of the Israeli state, especially by non-Jewish Semitic people.

Supporting the BDS movement is not the same as saying that the Jews have hypnotized people or that the only reason anyone in Congress supports Israel is because they are bribed to do so.

Quote:I haven't seen any quotes by Omar and Tlaib which fit the narrower definition, which would limit the label to remarks about Jews based upon racial stereotypes and antisemitic ideology (e.g., parasitical Jewish bankers control the world). 

Of course you haven't.  Based on your posting history you probably agree with everything they've said.  Sorry, but alluding to old racist tropes about Jews beguiling others or swaying them with money is just as bad as any other racist stereotype.

Quote:Perhaps they have made such remarks somewhere. If so, then censure is appropriate. If not, then a distinction needs to be made between criticizing a state on the basis of its human rights violations and--the polar opposite--actions denying universal human equality on racial/ethnic/religious grounds.

Oddly enough, and I'm sure you won't believe this, I've argued in this very forum, and the old one, long before you started posting in here about this very point.  Criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic.  Referring to the Jews using racist stereotypes is.  If you don't see that in her posts, which she continues to produce despite being informed that she comes off as very antisemitic, then you're part of the problem.  It's very apparent to me, blindingly obvious, that Omar is an antisemite. 

[fredtoast]

(02-11-2019, 08:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Supporting the BDS movement is not the same as saying that the Jews have hypnotized people or that the only reason anyone in Congress supports Israel is because they are bribed to do so.

Of course you haven't.  Based on your posting history you probably agree with everything they've said.  Sorry, but alluding to old racist tropes about Jews beguiling others or swaying them with money is just as bad as any other racist stereotype.

I am a little confused here.  AIPAC is a very powerful lobby group that oversees fundraising in the billions for Pro-Jewish PACs.  So are they being racists every time they ask people to donate money?  Are they being racist when they provide campaign donations for candidates?  Is anyone who mentions their lobby influence and the money involved being racist?

How exactly can we discuss pro-Jewish lobby efforts and the money involved without being racist?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-11-2019, 08:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am a little confused here.  AIPAC is a very powerful lobby group that oversees fundraising in the billions for Pro-Jewish PACs.  So are they being racists every time they ask people to donate money?  Are they being racist when they provide campaign donations for candidates?  Is anyone who mentions their lobby influence and the money involved being racist?

How exactly can we discuss pro-Jewish lobby efforts and the money involved without being racist?

There is a tremendous difference between acknowledging lobbying, which is done by virtually every national, political and business interest on Earth, and claiming that the only reason US politicians support Israel is because they are bribed to do so.  Lobbying is legal, bribery is not.  You don't seem young enough to be unaware of the stereotype of Jews as people who corrupt through financial incentives.  It's also not as if this is Ms. Omar's first foray into antisemetic waters either.  Just to be clear, are you defending Omar's statements about Israel hypnotizing us or corrupting our politicians to their own ends?

[*bfine32*]

(02-11-2019, 01:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think so, but I just need to make sure.


You have no idea why the term "white supremacist" is offensive, correct?  You just think everything will be fine as long as immigrants "assimilate" to the values white people brought from Europe, right?

You must have missed post #8 when I called the words inflammatory and uncalled for. 


Of course that has nothing to do with thinking immigrants should assimilate; nor did I say it would "make everything fine". 

But you do you

[Dill]

(02-11-2019, 08:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Supporting the BDS movement is not the same as saying that the Jews have hypnotized people or that the only reason anyone in Congress supports Israel is because they are bribed to do so.

Of course.  Who says it is?

(02-11-2019, 08:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course you haven't.  Based on your posting history you probably agree with everything they've said.  Sorry, but alluding to old racist tropes about Jews beguiling others or swaying them with money is just as bad as any other racist stereotype.

Based on my posting history--of what, defending universal human rights?--I "probably" agree with antisemitic comments I haven't seen yet?  You are alluding perhaps to the longstanding support for ISIS you have attributed to me?

(02-11-2019, 08:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Supporting the BDS movement is not the same as saying that the Jews have hypnotized people or that the only reason anyone in Congress supports Israel is because they are bribed to do so.

Oddly enough, and I'm sure you won't believe this, I've argued in this very forum, and the old one, long before you started posting in here about this very point.  Criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic.  Referring to the Jews using racist stereotypes is.  If you don't see that in her posts, which she continues to produce despite being informed that she comes off as very antisemitic, then you're part of the problem.  It's very apparent to me, blindingly obvious, that Omar is an antisemite. 

Looks like the bolded repeats what I said. Except I wouldn't say accusations of bribery are inherently anti-semitic, nor are accusations that AIPAC lobbies to influence U.S. foreign policy.  Citizens have a right to criticize them for that, just as AIPAC has a right to lobby.

I haven't seen the quotes in question yet--other than a tweet about "Benjamins" which I saw after I read the article.

Saw this just now too. https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1095046561254567937

It appears that what stirred up this conflict was a bill by Marco Rubio which included a section encouraging states to punish companies that boycott Israel by counter-boycotting those companies.  Support for BDS is cast as "antisemitism" as it is claimed BDS is intended to destroy Israel.  Defending their right to criticize/boycott Israel is apparently what has drawn critisism to Omar and Tlaib. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/9/18172826/bds-law-israel-boycott-states-explained

[Dill]

(02-11-2019, 08:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How exactly can we discuss pro-Jewish lobby efforts and the money involved without being racist?

Not easy.  No one plays the race card if someone speaks of Big Pharma "bribing" Congress for favorable legislation, or if lobbyists from Ukrainian American groups work to "sell" Congress on a policy supplying arms to Ukraine.  But what if someone says the Israel lobby (not to mention Israeli diplomats) helped George H.W. Bush "sell" the Gulf war to the American people? If you are looking for antisemitism there you can find it.

There is an excellent book on the problem called The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007), by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. Their thesis is that the influence of Israel of U.S. Middle East policy, the substantial material and diplomatic support it gets from the U.S., cannot be explained in terms of strategic necessity or on moral grounds.  The Israel Lobby, they argue, has an impact on U.S. foreign policy which far outweighs that of any other lobby except the MIC. They offer interesting, detailed arguments of how, for example, support for Israel's second Lebanon war complicated and undermined George W. Bush's goals for the War on Terror in the Middle East. I'd LOVE to see what they say about Trump quashing the Iran Deal.

Looks like we are about to step into another interesting domestic debate on this subject, as now there are two Arab Muslim Congress persons who may soon be asked to vote on a bill designed to punish U.S. citizens and corporations who boycott Israel.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-11-2019, 11:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Of course.  Who says it is?

Fred

Quote:Based on my posting history--of what, defending universal human rights?--I "probably" agree with antisemitic comments I haven't seen yet?

Yes, that's it.  

 

Quote: You are alluding perhaps to the longstanding support for ISIS you have attributed to me?

I've never said you supported ISIS, please find quote.

Quote:Looks like the bolded repeats what I said. Except I wouldn't say accusations of bribery are inherently anti-semitic, nor are accusations that AIPAC lobbies to influence U.S. foreign policy.  Citizens have a right to criticize them for that, just as AIPAC has a right to lobby.

I haven't seen the quotes in question yet--other than a tweet about "Benjamins" which I saw after I read the article.

Saw this just now too.  https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1095046561254567937

Interesting, being the intense erudite scholar that you are, that you wouldn't educate yourself on an issue before weighing in on it.  You must have been "hypnotized".

Quote:It appears that what stirred up this conflict was a bill by Marco Rubio which included a section encouraging states to punish companies that boycott Israel by counter-boycotting those companies.  Support for BDS is cast as "antisemitism" as it is claimed BDS is intended to destroy Israel.  Defending their right to criticize/boycott Israel is apparently what has drawn critisism to Omar and Tlaib. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/9/18172826/bds-law-israel-boycott-states-explained

First of all, Vox as source? 

Secondly, it's not their support for BDS(M) that has drawn criticism, it's their use of traditional antisemitic tropes such as "dual loyalty" (interesting coming from someone who wrapped herself in another nation's flag to celebrate being elected to Congress), beguiling the West and using money to bribe the US government.  Next they'll start comparing Jews to rodent or termites (thanks for that one Farrakhan) and you'll still be scratching your head in bewilderment.  

[Belsnickel]

(02-11-2019, 08:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There has to be a floor for conduct and commentary for an elected official.  There exists procedural means for removing a House Rep from office and I don't know that criminal activity is the only thing that warrants it being put into effect.

I'm aware of this, but I think it should be a very strict line. The House leadership can restrict privileges, not put them on the assignments they want, whatever. But there should be a very high bar for the body to undo a democratic process wherein the people elected someone as their representative. I feel the same way about impeachment.

I tend to value the democratic process above many other things as a liberal democracy (I'm using the words in the political science context, y'all, so calm down if you were about to bust a blood vessel) is the foundation of our government. Without it, nothing else works.

(02-11-2019, 08:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I understand your comment about voters being the one to remove them from office, but that's close to two years away.

This is why I favor a system that allows recall elections. Now, in King's case, this isn't news. He was elected with the voters knowing full well he is a racist asshole, so it probably wouldn't matter.

(02-11-2019, 08:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Plus this assumes their constituents have a problem with their statements.  Just because you represent a constituency that's ok with your specific brand of racism doesn't mean you get to be racist and still be a member of Congress.

And if they choose a racist Representative, then they should be seated. Congressional leadership can prevent them from having any sort of real power, but they should still be seated and have their vote to represent their people. We should just recognize that the people that voted for them elected a racist to represent them. I don't think we should be afraid of saying that. If someone is elected that is knowingly racist, then that's on their supporters, but their racist views deserve to be represented (and drowned out) just like anyone else's stupidity.

[fredtoast]

(02-11-2019, 10:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Lobbying is legal, bribery is not.  

I did not see where she used the term "bribery".

Got a link?