Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

I'm glad she gets to go see her but that doesn't excuse what Trump did.

And she was allowed, after first being refused entry, because of the global backlash that was building.

It's not like Netanyahu reversed course out of some sort of crisis of conscience.  He reversed course because the political price of carrying out Trumps marching orders were getting a little too steep.

Trump is a dumpter fire, and it's getting hotter every day.  You have no further to look than his twitter feed.  Talk about "Trump Derangement Syndrome".....

[tim_m]

Looks like she's not going now at the urging of family members. They don't want her to come unless she's able to speak freely.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Looks like she's not going now at the urging of family members. They don't want her to come unless she's able to speak freely.

It was pretty obvious this all didn't have much to do with visiting her grandmother. Was more of a political agenda.

[pilferk]

It was pretty obvious this all didn't have much to do with visiting her grandmother. Was more of a political agenda.

Absolutely.

On Trumps part.

From what I'm reading, not going is as much about her family now fearing for her safety as much as her not having a free voice.

That is ENTIRELY of Trump's doing.'

Another piece of shit move from a piece of shit human being.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I dont think Trump should have weighed in on this, should have been Israel's call and theirs only.

With that said, to say only Trump had a political agenda with this situation simply isn't accurate.

[tim_m]

Well of course she did, she's a dolly elected representative of the United States and has serious concerns about the Israeli government, especially in regards to Palestinian people. Bibi also did this for his own personal agenda as well. He's got a tough election coming in a matter of weeks.

[PermissionToLand]

Looks like she's not going now at the urging of family members. They don't want her to come unless she's able to speak freely.

It was pretty obvious this all didn't have much to do with visiting her grandmother. Was more of a political agenda.

It was not political at all until Trump stuck his fat fingers into it.

[PermissionToLand]

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Looks like she's not going now at the urging of family members. They don't want her to come unless she's able to speak freely.

It was pretty obvious this all didn't have much to do with visiting her grandmother. Was more of a political agenda.

It was not political at all until Trump stuck his fat fingers into it.

Really?? Why did they want to go then?

We already know they both supported a boycott against Israel. 
 

[pilferk]

I dont think Trump should have weighed in on this, should have been Israel's call and theirs only.

With that said, to say only Trump had a political agenda with this situation simply isn't accurate.

OK, then prove that Tlaib and Omar had a political agenda.

See, TRUMP actually acted on his political agenda, so we know, without a doubt, it exists. There is no argument, no debate, because we have history and actions that PLAINLY demonstrate it.

For Tlaib and Omar we have scheduled trips to Israel that nobody new about, that they were barely talking about, and that were not really being covered by the news media.

If that was indicative of a political agenda, it's a pretty crap enaction of one.

And then, when Tlaib was told she could go, she refused because her family was afraid of what might happen to her.

The truth is: You don't know if Tlaib and Omar had a political agenda for those trips.  Because they never took them, never really talked about them (or what they might say).  Your basis is bias (and the conservative news media saying they had one).

Trump absolutely had a political agenda. And acted on it in a pretty disgusting way.

Tlaib and Omar might have had a political agenda, but there is no evidence or action that supports they did.  Only an assumption.

[pilferk]

Really?? Why did they want to go then?

We already know they both supported a boycott against Israel. 
 

To visit? Like the rest of Congress did a few weeks ago with APAIC?

Here's what they said they were going to be doing:

In broad strokes, the itinerary — titled “Delegation to Palestine” — took Tlaib and Omar through major Palestinian population centers in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and to a string of meetings with Palestinian and left-wing Israeli nonprofits and activists, as well as international human rights groups.

“Let’s be clear: the goal of our trip was to witness firsthand what is happening on the ground in Palestine and hear from stakeholders —our job as Members of Congress,” she tweeted.

Omar wrote that the delegation was going to meet with Israeli lawmakers — including Jewish ones. She did not say which members of Knesset, Israel’s parliament, they planned to meet. The lawmakers were also scheduled to meet a Palestinian official, Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

An Israeli nonprofit, the left-wing Btselem human rights group, was to be present at one of their meetings, along with three other non-Israeli organizations. And the congresswomen were to receive a tour of Hebron from Breaking the Silence, a left-wing Israeli group that opposes the West Bank occupation.

Sounds like they're doing their job, as members of congress, just like the OTHER members of congress, who did SIMILAR things a few weeks prior.

With little to no fanfare until Trump weighed in.

Why do you assume there is another reason?

Because of bias?

Because you're being told to?

The truth is: We don't know exactly why, beyond what they've said. 

[tim_m]

Really?? Why did they want to go then?

We already know they both supported a boycott against Israel. 
 

To visit? Like the rest of Congress did a few weeks ago with APAIC?

Here's what they said they were going to be doing:

In broad strokes, the itinerary — titled “Delegation to Palestine” — took Tlaib and Omar through major Palestinian population centers in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and to a string of meetings with Palestinian and left-wing Israeli nonprofits and activists, as well as international human rights groups.

“Let’s be clear: the goal of our trip was to witness firsthand what is happening on the ground in Palestine and hear from stakeholders —our job as Members of Congress,” she tweeted.

Omar wrote that the delegation was going to meet with Israeli lawmakers — including Jewish ones. She did not say which members of Knesset, Israel’s parliament, they planned to meet. The lawmakers were also scheduled to meet a Palestinian official, Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

An Israeli nonprofit, the left-wing Btselem human rights group, was to be present at one of their meetings, along with three other non-Israeli organizations. And the congresswomen were to receive a tour of Hebron from Breaking the Silence, a left-wing Israeli group that opposes the West Bank occupation.

Sounds like they're doing their job, as members of congress, just like the OTHER members of congress, who did SIMILAR things a few weeks prior.

With little to no fanfare until Trump weighed in.

Why do you assume there is another reason?

Because of bias?

Because you're being told to?

The truth is: We don't know exactly why, beyond what they've said. 

And then you have this bullshit coming from the right. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ilhan-omar-and-rashida-tlaib-partnered-with-vicious-anti-semites-to-plan-their-trip-to-israel/. This same group sponsored a previous trip by democratic lawmakers and nobody flinched. Gee i can't imagine why!

[tim_m]

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2019/08/16/scoop-miftah-wasnt-a-problem-when-other-congressmen-went-to-palestine-with-them-470084

[pilferk]

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2019/08/16/scoop-miftah-wasnt-a-problem-when-other-congressmen-went-to-palestine-with-them-470084

Yeah, this is exactly one of the conservative talking points I've been reading, and exactly the response.

They've sponsored OTHER lawmakers trips, before, and THOSE trips certainly didn't result in any sort of inflamatory rhetoric, speeches, or actions by the lawmakers who MADE those trips, so.........it's a strawman.  It's trying to ascribe that sponsorship as having some sort of meaning that it obviously doesn't.  And hasn't in the past.

[tim_m]

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2019/08/16/scoop-miftah-wasnt-a-problem-when-other-congressmen-went-to-palestine-with-them-470084

Yeah, this is exactly one of the conservative talking points I've been reading, and exactly the response.

They've sponsored OTHER lawmakers trips, before, and THOSE trips certainly didn't result in any sort of inflamatory rhetoric, speeches, or actions by the lawmakers who MADE those trips, so.........it's a strawman.  It's trying to ascribe that sponsorship as having some sort of meaning that it obviously doesn't.  And hasn't in the past.

It's because these two happen to be Muslim. They can tell you that isn't it until they turn purple, but i wasn't born yesterday!

[pilferk]

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2019/08/16/scoop-miftah-wasnt-a-problem-when-other-congressmen-went-to-palestine-with-them-470084

Yeah, this is exactly one of the conservative talking points I've been reading, and exactly the response.

They've sponsored OTHER lawmakers trips, before, and THOSE trips certainly didn't result in any sort of inflamatory rhetoric, speeches, or actions by the lawmakers who MADE those trips, so.........it's a strawman.  It's trying to ascribe that sponsorship as having some sort of meaning that it obviously doesn't.  And hasn't in the past.

It's because these two happen to be Muslim. They can tell you that isn't it until they turn purple, but i wasn't born yesterday!

Looking at the itinerary of previous trips....they were almost exact duplicates.

The difference?  In the past, those trips were taken by white men, mostly.  I believe there was one previous trip that included a female member of congress.

This time, they were Muslim women.

To be fair: They are outspoken critics of Israel's policy on the West Bank.  And they do question the treatment of Muslims under Israeli rule.  And they should.  It's a valid concern, and we've seen Israel overstep before and need to be talked down.

But other congresspeople have been critical of Israel and not prevented from entering the country on these types of trips.  But, as noted, those people were not Muslim women.

I don't think it was entirely about race and gender on the part of Israel. But I think it was part of it.  And I think it was a decent part of Trumps request.....just as his comments pertaining to them recently, and in the past, were undeniably, undefendably, racist.

And if you defend him, or his political agenda in this case, you are defending racism.  Simple as that.

I was glad to see the Senator disavow and say Trump should have kept his mouth shut.  Trump was wrong, is wrong, and will continue to be wrong on this front.

[tim_m]

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2019/08/16/scoop-miftah-wasnt-a-problem-when-other-congressmen-went-to-palestine-with-them-470084

Yeah, this is exactly one of the conservative talking points I've been reading, and exactly the response.

They've sponsored OTHER lawmakers trips, before, and THOSE trips certainly didn't result in any sort of inflamatory rhetoric, speeches, or actions by the lawmakers who MADE those trips, so.........it's a strawman.  It's trying to ascribe that sponsorship as having some sort of meaning that it obviously doesn't.  And hasn't in the past.

It's because these two happen to be Muslim. They can tell you that isn't it until they turn purple, but i wasn't born yesterday!

Looking at the itinerary of previous trips....they were almost exact duplicates.

The difference?  In the past, those trips were taken by white men, mostly.  I believe there was one previous trip that included a female member of congress.

This time, they were Muslim women.

To be fair: They are outspoken critics of Israel's policy on the West Bank.  And they do question the treatment of Muslims under Israeli rule.  And they should.  It's a valid concern, and we've seen Israel overstep before and need to be talked down.

But other congresspeople have been critical of Israel and not prevented from entering the country on these types of trips.  But, as noted, those people were not Muslim women.

I don't think it was entirely about race and gender on the part of Israel. But I think it was part of it.  And I think it was a decent part of Trumps request.....just as his comments pertaining to them recently, and in the past, were undeniably, undefendably, racist.

And if you defend him, or his political agenda in this case, you are defending racism.  Simple as that.

I was glad to see the Senator disavow and say Trump should have kept his mouth shut.  Trump was wrong, is wrong, and will continue to be wrong on this front.

Correct my if I'm wrong, but didn't Israel have no issue allowing them at first? Was it not until Trump opened his trap and urged Israel to change their mind that they did after? Yep their concerns are completely valid when it comes to Israeli occupation of the West bank and how they treat the the Palestinian people. I'm not gonna pretend the people of Palestine haven't done their share of horrible things. Neither is innocent but wasn't it Bibi himself who not long ago said Israel was only for Jews?

[tim_m]

And on today's version of Trumps ridiculous statements we have this. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/457988-hillary-clinton-fires-back-at-trump-over-google-allegation

[pilferk]

And on today's version of Trumps ridiculous statements we have this. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/457988-hillary-clinton-fires-back-at-trump-over-google-allegation

Yeah, I saw that.  A long debunked crackpot conspiracy theory.

He's so obsessed with this stuff.  He lost the popular vote.  There were most certainly open seats at his last rally.  His obsession with pushing alternate facts on these types of issues should make every one of his supporters cringe.  It won't.  But it should. Because it speaks directly to his narcissism, and the fact the only thing he really cares about is himself.

He's a conman who has hoodwinked people into believing he's valuable.  Just like in his business.  Everything has to be "the best" because, if people realize it's actually NOT, people also suddenly realize the Emperor has no clothes.

[tim_m]

And on today's version of Trumps ridiculous statements we have this. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/457988-hillary-clinton-fires-back-at-trump-over-google-allegation

Yeah, I saw that.  A long debunked crackpot conspiracy theory.

He's so obsessed with this stuff.  He lost the popular vote.  There were most certainly open seats at his last rally.  His obsession with pushing alternate facts on these types of issues should make every one of his supporters cringe.  It won't.  But it should. Because it speaks directly to his narcissism, and the fact the only thing he really cares about is himself.

He's a conman who has hoodwinked people into believing he's valuable.  Just like in his business.  Everything has to be "the best" because, if people realize it's actually NOT, people also suddenly realize the Emperor has no clothes.

Now that's a mental image i didn't need