Ilhan Omar tweet called anti-Semitic 'dog whistle'

[OldRed2450]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[nycbos]

1. Yup absolutely

[bitterross]

105. Nope, not absolutely.

How the hell does one read Anti-Semitism into anti-billionaire-ism?

Seriously? She's knocking billionaires for hanging together. Has nothing to do with them being Jewish.

[nycbos]

123. Because she uses anti-semtic dog whistles.

About how support of Israel is "about the Benjamin's" The duel loyalty trope is a centuries old antisemitic propaganda.


If she didn't say that I might be prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.


And don't say but she endorsed Sanders.

That like saying "I not racist I have a black friend"

[George II]

145. It's not her first time.

[nycbos]

146. Exactly

[bitterross]

183. So, EVERYTHING she says now is an anti-Semitic dog whistle?

That thinking sounds a lot more like a Republican than a progressive.

[George II]

184. That's not what I said or even implied, but whatever.

[bitterross]

185. Well, that sure is the way it came across.

It came across just like any hard-line, tough on crime Republican: "She/He/They did it once, so they must be guilty now. The Leopard can't change its spots."

[ck4829]

256. Pretty much

There's a very popular thread on DU right now calling Stephen Miller a white nationalist with very strong evidence of him being one, absolutely nobody is accused of being anti-Semitic there... even though Ilhan Omar said the same thing and was ripped for it.

[ck4829]

255. Also don't forget the time she called Stephen Miller a white nationalist

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212679935

[Hekate]

182. It's not her first time. I'm disappointed in her.

[Dem4Life1102]

126. BS

It’s because they are both billionaires.

[George II]

137. And we know who controls all the money in the world, right?

[StarfishSaver]

140. So when anyone goes after billionaires, they're engaging in anti-Semitism?

[George II]

147. Sometimes there's a pattern:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/11/its-all-about-benjamins-baby-ilhan-omar-again-accused-anti-semitism-over-tweets/

Rep. Omar apologizes after House Democratic leadership condemns her comments as ‘anti-Semitic tropes’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democratic leadership on Monday condemned Rep. Ilhan Omar for suggesting that Israel’s allies in American politics were motivated by money rather than principle, an extraordinary rebuke of a House freshman in the vanguard of the party’s left flank.

The Minnesota congresswoman’s Sunday evening tweet — “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” a reference to $100 bills — drew immediate denunciations from Republicans and fellow Democrats, especially Jewish members of Congress. Within hours, Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the leadership issued a joint statement calling Omar’s “use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters” deeply offensive and insisted on an apology.

In response, Omar said her intention was never to offend “my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. .?.?. This is why I unequivocally apologize.”

[Imperialism Inc.]

161. It isn't remotely controversial that many members

are responding to AIPAC money.

Lobbyists pay Congresspeople to convince them to vote the way they want them to. AIPAC is a lobbying organization. Therefore, AIPAC pays Congresspeople to convince them to vote they way they want them to.

Nothing controversial about it. She should have never apologized.

[Dem4Life1102]

152. Your words

Not mine or hers

[George II]

155. Well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/11/its-all-about-benjamins-baby-ilhan-omar-again-accused-anti-semitism-over-tweets/

Rep. Omar apologizes after House Democratic leadership condemns her comments as ‘anti-Semitic tropes’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democratic leadership on Monday condemned Rep. Ilhan Omar for suggesting that Israel’s allies in American politics were motivated by money rather than principle, an extraordinary rebuke of a House freshman in the vanguard of the party’s left flank.

The Minnesota congresswoman’s Sunday evening tweet — “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” a reference to $100 bills — drew immediate denunciations from Republicans and fellow Democrats, especially Jewish members of Congress. Within hours, Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the leadership issued a joint statement calling Omar’s “use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters” deeply offensive and insisted on an apology.

In response, Omar said her intention was never to offend “my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. .?.?. This is why I unequivocally apologize.”

[Dem4Life1102]

178. Not the same tweet

Irrelevant

[leftieNanner]

164. You should add the sarcasm thingie

Cuz you got reported.

[ronnie624]

2. Because billionaire sociopaths don't have common interests,

regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity or geographical location?

[lapucelle]

12. Are you saying that Mike Bloomberg is a sociopath?

[ronnie624]

33. Anyone who values 'wealth' over the health of human society, is a sociopath.

[Loki Liesmith]

91. You didn't answer the question.

[lapucelle]

93. For context...

Mike Bloomberg is a Libertarian-Leaning Progressive.

https://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm

********************************************************************************************



Ilhan Omar is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.

https://www.ontheissues.org/House/Ilhan_Omar.htm

[ronnie624]

129. Says who?

I don't arrange and gauge political ideology according to those grids.

[lapucelle]

135. ...

It would not be surprising if what a layman perceives based on agenda-driven story lines and narratives from self-selected (and often bias-confirming) sources doesn't line up with what data analysts determine based on a careful, thorough, and objective examination of a politician's actual record.

******************************************************************************************

Bloomberg:
https://bit.ly/32vY9qV

Omar:
https://bit.ly/2qEwAOX

About:
OnTheIssues.org
https://www.ontheissues.org/about.htm

[ronnie624]

175. I don't consider that organization's opinion

to be definitive of political ideology; it's just that simple. You have your biases and I have mine. It's all about policy issues for me. I do not consider any candidate that does not regard 100% publicly funded healthcare and education as human rights (as well as essential resources for our civilization), to be progressive. And there is no such thing as a progressive billionaire.

[lapucelle]

191. On the Issue's analyses are criteria-referenced, data-based, and standardized

across the field of candidates without reference to personality, perceived popularity, or punditry.

While people are certainly free to believe in personalized definitions, blanket generalizations,and similar amorphous idiosyncratic criteria, an educated electorate is the organization's goal.

[Celerity]

224. those graphs are as useful as tits on a bull

props to my Texas friend for that expression

[NewJeffCT]

98. so, donating 10 of millions in support of gun control

makes him a sociopath?

[lapucelle]

101. And Bloomberg is to the left of Rep. Omar, as is Joe Biden.

Joe Biden is a Hard-Core Liberal.

https://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm

[George II]

133. How do you know that Bloomberg "values 'wealth' over the health of human society"?

The fact is he's given hundreds of millions of dollars to support climate control, in your terminology, the "health of human society".

Doesn't look like a sociopath to me.

[RhodeIslandOne]

223. That's a pretty bold claim

Considering he believes in bizarre health related penalties like the soda tax.

[Dem4Life1102]

154. Anyone who would institute

the racist stop and frisk policy is.

[lapucelle]

159. That policy doesn't fit the definition of "sociopathic", and Bloomberg didn't institute it. N/T

[Dem4Life1102]

179. Yes he did

He also authorized the detention of protests during the GOP convention in 2004 so as not to embarrass Bush.

[lapucelle]

193. The policy began in the 1960's and became formalized in the 1980's.

The media became aware of the policy (and the abuses) in the early 2000's.

My son is NYPD. For years, his precinct commander used "Stop, Question, Frisk" to remove gauntlets of "panhandlers" from the entrances to the building doorways and playground areas of public housing projects. (Police were allowed to ask and then check ID to see if they were residents; if they weren't, they could be asked to leave the project grounds.)

That use of the policy made life safer and better for an already marginalized population who were often unable to come and go from their own homes without being continually hassled to "contribute" money that they could ill-afford to give away.

[Dem4Life1102]

194. When it began is irrelevant

He didn't stop it and authorized it to continue under his administration.

[lapucelle]

200. If when the policy started it irrelevant, why argue the point?

I'm sure that you are also aware that it was during Bloomberg's third term as mayor that the stop and frisk policy was, in large measure, reformed.

I'll take it as a given that any allegation that Mike Bloomberg (by implication) somehow fits the definition of "sociopath" has quietly fallen by the wayside.

[Dem4Life1102]

202. He still continued it

And he detained protesters without charge during the 2004 GOP convention. Gutted public school funding in favor of charter schools Then subverted the will of the people to buy himself an illegal third term. Sounds a lot like a sociopath to me.

[lapucelle]

203. And he ended it.

While people are certainly free to believe in personalized definitions, blanket generalizations,and similar amorphous idiosyncratic standards, demonizing members and allies of the Democratic coalition serves the Republican's purpose and helped put both GW Bush and Trump in the White House.

[Dem4Life1102]

204. And Bloomberg helped keep Bush

in the White House.

And it was DeBlasio that finally ended Stop & Frisk. Not Bloomberg.

[lapucelle]

205. ...

The current mayor, de Blasio, likes to take credit for the decline in stops, but police data indicates the sharpest drop in police stops came between the middle of 2012 and the end of 2013, decreasing 94 percent during the waning years of the Bloomberg administration.

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2018/11/22/bloombergs-stop-and-frisk-legacy-would-complicate-presidential-bid-707075

[Dem4Life1102]

206. Of course you're ignoring the 11 years

when Bloomberg was Mayor just as you're ignoring his illegal detention of protesters during the 2004 GOP convention.

[lapucelle]

207. I'm responding to the erroneous assertions that Mike Bloomberg started "stop and frisk",

that Mike Bloomberg did not end "stop and frisk", and that Mike Bloomberg is a "sociopath".

Facts matter. Fact-free purist posturing helped put both GW Bush and Trump in the White House.

[Dem4Life1102]

208. He didn't put Bush in the White House

but helped keep him there by illegally detaining protestors during the GOP convention in 04. You keep ignoring that fact.

[lapucelle]

209. False narratives about "evil" Democratic candidates helped put both men in office.

Both Gore and Clinton were falsely tarred with the odious "lesser of two evils" narrative during their respective general election runs. Now it appears that some are ready to label a potential Democratic primary candidate a "sociopath".

Do you have data to support your claim that the detention of protesters during the Republican convention helped to elect Bush to a second term?

[Dem4Life1102]

212. Oh so it is OK to detain protesters if it didn't help re-elect Bush?

Now you're spinning wildly.

[lapucelle]

213. Wait...what? Why would you say such a thing? Why on earth would you think that's OK?

[Dem4Life1102]

214. Then why did you ask for data?

Bloomberg detained protesters during the GOP in 04 to help Bush. Whether it directly contributed to Bush’s re-election is irrelevant.

Bloomberg also diverted money from public schools to fund charter schools. He wasted millions of tax payer dollars in a vain attempt to get the Olympics to feed his ego. He once held a required public hearing to increase property taxes on middle class homeowners at 6am in the morning. He subverted the will of the people to buy himself a third term. Defending Bloomberg is defending all of these actors include the racist stop and frisk policy.

[lapucelle]

215. Because you made a claim unsupported by any evidence.

I am not defending Bloomberg. I am defending fact-based analysis.

[Dem4Life1102]

217. So why did Bloomberg detain protesters during the GOP convention

if not to help Bush? Please explain.

[lapucelle]

218. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Please provide.

And while your at it, please provide a link for the claim that Bloomberg held a hearing at "6:00 am in the morning". These taking points are coming from somewhere. Do you have a link?

[Dem4Life1102]

219. Nice diversion

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/nyregion/protesters-arrests-during-2004-gop-convention-are-ruled-illegal.html
https://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/politics/new-york-republican-convention-settlement/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/15/2004-republican-convention-protests-new-york-witness

Try spinning this to defend Bloomberg.

And how about everything else? What about his smearing of his Democratic opponents? Or cutting of construction regulations which led to several catastrophic crane failures that killed people.

I lived in NYC all during Bloomberg’s term and know all the crap he pulled. Any democrat who defends him should be ashamed of themselves.

[lapucelle]

220. None of those links support your claims that the detention of protestors helped Bush's re-election

[Dem4Life1102]

225. Stop denying reality Lindsey

[lapucelle]

221. Where is support for your claim that Bloomberg held a 6:00 am hearing?

That never happened.

Where is your support for your claim that Bloomberg de-regulated construction safety rules?

The opposite is actually true.

Do you have a link for the source of your talking points and/or claims?

[Dem4Life1102]

226. Please

Stop being a Bloomberg sycophant. You’re embarrassing yourself.

[lapucelle]

222. I'm a Democrat who has lived in NY my whole life. Facts matter.

Please stop confusing the defense of fact-based discourse with the defense of a political figure.

Do you have any links to support your talking points?

[Dem4Life1102]

227. Not talking points

but the truth. Sorry you refuse to accept the truth about a racist billionaire Lindsay.

[lapucelle]

232. If what you claim is fact based, please provide the facts that back up your talking points.

Or provide the source for the talking points so we can assess its validity, reliability, and potential biases.

[Dem4Life1102]

235. Not talking points

But fact that you refuse to accept due to your worship of a racist billionaire Lindsay

[lapucelle]

236. Where are the facts that support your talking points? What is the source of these talking points?

[Dem4Life1102]

237. Not talking points

but reality that you refuse to accept Lindsay

[LanternWaste]

238. If it is indeed a reality, you'll of course provide objective data/evidence to support it?

If it is indeed a reality, you'll of course provide objective data/evidence to support it as such, yes?

Or is this simply another series of narrative bumper stickers pretending to be "reality"?

It's one or the other.

Pretense (then oppression of millionaires) or objective evidence (critical thought).

[Dem4Life1102]

239. I did

But you refuse to accept reality about a billionaire racist Lindsay

[lapucelle]

240. Did you just say that I worship a racist?

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12677034

[Dem4Life1102]

248. No you did

[lapucelle]

241. Did you just say that I don't accept your opinion as a fact because I worship a racist?

[Celerity]

242. looks that way, and they appear to be trying to insinuate they know you

by calling you Lindsay over and over in multiple replies

I have no clue what that means or is all about



good luck

[lapucelle]

244. I thought it might be a reference to Mayor Lindsay, but he's been dead fo 20 years.

[Celerity]

245. I had to look that up, he was mayor mostly before my parents were born, lol

[lapucelle]

246. On the old Batman TV series in the 60's, he was parodied as "Mayor Linseed".

?resize=630%2C471&

[Celerity]

247. wow! that is so cool!

[Dem4Life1102]

249. No you don't accept facts

[lapucelle]

250. The fact is that you said I worship a racist. Why are you denying the fact that you said that?

[Dem4Life1102]

253. You do

and every one of your “defend Bloomberg at all costs” proves it

[lapucelle]

251. I don't accept opinion-based talking points as facts. It is a fact you claimed I worship a racist.

[Dem4Life1102]

254. Again not talking points

but you refuse to accept reality Lindsey

[roody]

230. He ruined New York City schools.

[lapucelle]

231. Link? N/T

[StarfishSaver]

3. The woman who endorsed a Jewish man for president is accused of an "anti-Semitic dog whistle"

because she pointed out that a billionaire is endorsing a fellow billionaire and the two billionaires happen to be Jewish?

[still_one]

7. and trump's son in law is Jewish so of course he isn't any/Semitic,

Don’t throw that card out, because there are plenty of examples across the demographic spectrum to counter that

[StarfishSaver]

11. You do know the difference between the two situations, right?

[still_one]

26. I know the difference in the TWO situations. I also know her previous comments, which in my view

reflect both meanings.

That she explicitly decided not to SPELL THE DISTINCTION OUT, speaks volumes

She not a naïve person

[StarfishSaver]

30. So, because both men are Jewish and both are billionaires, she must specifically note that

what they have in common is that they're billionaires so that people who know they're both Jewish (something I didn't know until now) don't assume she's talking about their religion?

Seriously?

Should she mention Bernie Sanders' non-Jewish bona fides every time she mentions him, just in case someone thinks her endorsement of him has anything to do with his being a Jew?

[still_one]

31. Make all the excuses you want, but do you happen to be Jewish?

[ronnie624]

50. Lol. n/t

[Cary]

56. Why do you find that to be funny?

[ronnie624]

59. Logical fallacies are humorous to me.n/t

[Cary]

63. I don't see a logical fallacy

I see you laughing when asked if you are Jewish.

[ronnie624]

68. Of course that's what you "see". n/t

[Cary]

73. What does that mean?

Unfortunately Omar has said enough to make the case that she is an anti-Semite. That doesn't make it so but one can make a reasonably objective argument. That argument is strong enough to raise an eyebrow when you callously slough it off.

[ronnie624]

80. It means I think you "see" antisemitism, where none is in evidence. n/t

[Cary]

95. Not too condescending, eh?

[still_one]

81. It isn't a 'logical fallacy'. The question is based on one's personal experience. And a person's

personal experience as specific demographic, is not going to be the same as one who is not of that demographic

People can empathize or try to put someone in their shoes, but it isn’t the same thing

[Cary]

97. Laughing when asked if he or she was Jewish says it all

[Dorian Gray]

252. Yes... She should point that out...

or avoid the snarky one liners.

She should do so because she has shared anti-semitic points of view in the past, after which she promised to do better.

So even if she in no way meant it to skirt that line.... it's enough to be confused.

She should take a moment before she says something and really consider how it can be interpreted. She should do this mostly because she's a smart and decent person who ISN'T truly anti-semitic and who knows that she can be misinterpreted.

[George II]

134. Actually trump's daughter converted to Judaism.

[still_one]

139. I know George. Which in my view doesn't mean she "likes Jews either" Regardless, I went back and

read Rep. Omar's tweet, and she was specifically referring to his "billionaire" status, implying that was "disqualifying". I don't agree with that premise at all. That said, after reading her tweet, from my perspective I DON'T consider the tweet as anti-Semitic.

I wrongly thought she had left it ambiguous, and she didn't

Anyway, thanks for pointing out

[StarfishSaver]

142. I appreciate and admire your willingness to say you think you were mistaken and change your mind

We should all be more willing to do that.

[still_one]

149. Thanks Starfish, but I was wrong, and from my perspective it is NOT anti-semitic. She is referring

specifically to billionaires.

This isn't the first time you have corrected me, and it won't be the last, and I thank-you for that

[George II]

144. Exactly. And you're correct, it's subtle but definitely not ambiguous.

[OldRed2450]

10. This is a poor excuse

This is the same logic Trump uses to hide his racism behind Candace Owens and Ben Carson.

[StarfishSaver]

15. No, it's not

There's a difference between claiming someone's not racist because some black people are stupid enough to support them and pointing out that a woman who endorsed a Jewish man for president is probably not suggesting that a billionaire endorsed a billionaire for president because he's Jewish.

[still_one]

29. I am Jewish, so please don't lecture to me that because someone endorsed someone who is Jewish

they cannot be anti-Semitic

That was the SAME excuse they used when the John Birch Society endorsed Barry Goldwater for President

[StarfishSaver]

40. As a black woman, I don't need to be lectured to by anyone about prejudice

or when and how I express my opinion about its operation. And I particularly don't need to have anyone try to justify to me the policing of a black woman's comments about two white billionaires who happen to also be Jewish by telling me I shouldn't comment on it because I'm not Jewish. I could just as easily tell you you have no space to speak about a Omar's comments or intent because you're not black. But that would be stupid.

If you choose to read anti-Semitism into her comments, that's your prerogative.

But the fact that the political context of her comments involves three Jewish men from New York, two of whom are billionaires, and she's commenting about one of the billionaires endorsing the other billionaire who may run against the non-billionaire candidate she endorsed, tells me that her comment had nothing to do with the two billionaires being Jewish - any more than it was about them both being men or both being from New York.
Instead, the most logical interpretation is that it's about the common denominator between them that the third man does not share - their wealth.

[still_one]

46. I am NOT lecturing you. You are lecturing ME. Now you are changing course, and say how you

interpret it is your prerogative.

Yes, that's right, and I base that on her past comments

[Cary]

61. You make is sound like a contest as to whose people have been more suppressed.

We are all the same species. Race isn't a biological concept.

[vsrazdem]

69. +++

[melman]

75. And this is the same guy that cried over Warren's wealth tax proposal

Seriously broke into tears on CNBC just the other day.

[Beringia]

41. So she's anti-semitic because she doesn't like billionaires

who are Jewish.

And she is also anti-semitic for supporting a candidate that is Jewish.

Makes a lot of sense. (sarcasm)

[still_one]

94. No. It was pointed out to me that her tweet specified it was because he is a

billionaire, not because of any double meanin or his religion

So it was my bad reading on the first pass

I should have been more careful

[Cary]

58. + 1,000

[backscatter712]

110. Oh FFS, quit promoting right-wing bullshit.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Omar doesn't have very good political instincts, I'm afraid.

If her intent was merely to point out that a billionaire has predictably endorsed another billionaire, she should have made that point more clearly. She has already been accused several times of anti-Semitism, so she should have been aware that her tweet about Cooperman and Bloomberg could also be interpreted that way. It would have been just as easy to tweet something like "Of course a billionaire like Cooperman would endorse another billionaire!" which would have been consistent with her own endorsement of (Jewish) Bernie Sanders and would have prevented another accusation of anti-Semitism.

But her problem, assuming her intent was only to zing a couple of billionaires, is that she doesn't seem to get the politics of these matters. She has had an awful lot of own-goals that are detracting from her effectiveness as a member of Congress. Since she's my representative - and I voted for her, enthusiastically - I want her to be effective and stop painting bull's-eyes on her own back. Her voting "present" on the Armenian genocide resolution pissed off just about everybody. She didn't have to do that, and her reason for it was ridiculous: She said other genocides weren't getting enough attention so she didn't want to vote for a resolution condemning that one. She already has a primary challenger, a community organizer named John Mason who, if elected, would be the first openly gay black member of Congress. I'll be giving him a good hard look.

[still_one]

35. Actually I have to edit this post because I didn't see her tweet where she does specify it is

Last edited Sun Nov 10, 2019, 06:21 PM - Edit history (1)

because of his billionaire status, and I don't take that as anti-Semitic. While I don't want Bloomberg running, I don't agree that wealth is a disqualifying attribute either, but at least she was specific, and didn't leave any ambiguity from my perspective, and it was not about his religion.

All the other points you made are very good ones though

[Igel]

67. Unless you live in her district,

you are not really her audience.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

71. I do live in her district. That was my point.

I want a representative who represents her constituents - all of them - and these gaffes or whatever you want to call them are damaging her effectiveness.

[OldRed2450]

88. Yes. Completely agree.

not only did she say other genocides need attention as a reason but also mentioned 'academic consensus' on the issue. There is no academic consensus unless you're denying it.

[Polybius]

45. He might be Jewish, but he's not pro-Israel

Right-wing Christian groups may not like how Trump is a cursing adulterer, but they vote for him anyway because he advances their agenda.

[JonLP24]

118. Being pro or anti this or that government is not anti semitic

I have lots of problems with governments all over the world including our own but the right wing conflate criticism of the government of Israel to be anti-semitic. Certainly for anti Semites they are anti Israel for anti semitic reasons but I don't see enough evidence Omar is.

Jewish Voice for Peace isn't pro Israel and they said they can get away with criticism that Omar can't because she is Muslim. I'm sure as a white male I received a lot less flack for my criticism of the government than Omar has because of it.

[corbettkroehler]

121. Refute This Logic, If You Dare

I see that DUers have tried to rebut this simple statement of fact. They fall flat in their attempts.

Rep. Omar's endorsement of Sanders, along with 2 other members of The Squad, has centrists seething. Feeble attempts to assign racism to a tweet which seeks to decry classism (and nothing else) sway me exactly 0%.

[Turin_C3PO]

4. I don't know that she meant it to be anti-semitic.

It could just be about billionaires supporting billionaires. I could be wrong, though.

[StarfishSaver]

5. Considering the candidate she's endorsing in the same race is Jewish

I seriously doubt Cooperman and Bloomberg both being Jewish has anything to do with this.

[Turin_C3PO]

9. That's a very good point.

Yeah, I’m definitely thinking people are reading false meaning into this.

[OldRed2450]

13. Except this is not a one off

So it's hard to give her the benefit of doubt.

[Turin_C3PO]

14. I'm sure the right wing

will try and make this a big deal, given Trump’s previous rhetoric about Omar. I’m not going to contribute to it.

[OldRed2450]

17. I'm sure Jewish people

don't care about what the right says as a reason not to defend them.

[Turin_C3PO]

19. I don't believe it's anti-Semitic.

You’re not going to convince me otherwise.

[StarfishSaver]

20. So, she's never supposed to say anything a out anyone who happens to be Jewish?

Because if she does, people have the right to interpret it as anti-Semitic instead of just assuming she meant what she actually said?

That standard would require a whole lot of white Democrats - including some of our presidential candidates - to permanently STFU.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

6. This ain't it.

[mshasta]

8. Because both are rich men

Nothing to do with being Jewish

[Garrett78]

23. That's how any sane person reads it.

[Vinca]

16. I have no idea who Leon Cooperman is so I'd assume since she said billionaires she

meant billionaires.

[OldRed2450]

18. She didn't say billionaires

She left it to interpretation. If she meant billionaires, she should have said so.

[ExciteBike66]

24. I guess we are all too stupid it get it, so she has to just come out and use the specific word

"billionaire"?

[StarfishSaver]

25. Why?

Because some people would assume th fact that both were Jewish meant she was being anti-Semitic? It sounds like some other people are more hung up than she is on the religion the two men share. Maybe the problem lies elsewhere.

[OldRed2450]

28. Jewish activist are very upset.

Link to tweet

[still_one]

48. I guess Linda Sarsour would know

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2019/09/16/womens-march-cutting-ties-with-three-original-board-members-accused-anti-semitism/

[OldRed2450]

53. Yep. that is who gives her cover.

[still_one]

38. That is exactly the point. Why didn't she make that distinction? She should know by now she has a

lot of visibility

[StarfishSaver]

55. She didn't need to. The tweet she quotes says it. It's right there in her tweet

[Vinca]

106. Her tweet included a remark by someone else about billionaires. Fat cats stick together.

[dlk]

21. Omar's Tweet was about the money & the corruption that ordinarily accompanies it

Nothing anti-Semitic there. Someone needs to calm down.

[backscatter712]

113. This. FFS, people, quit falling for right-wing/Russian propaganda that's designed to divide us.

[StarfishSaver]

114. Thank you

[dlk]

128. Exactly

[jberryhill]

22. Why do I give a shit what Josh Jordan's opinion is?

Who is this person and why the f should I care?

[ismnotwasm]

32. Jesus Fucking Christ

Religion/ethnicity/cultural identity is obviously NOT what what she was referring to, and I say this as, howcan I put this, not her biggest fan.


That being said, she had put her foot in her mouth enough times that every time she opens it, what she says gets used against her.

[still_one]

39. If she had just spelled out the "billionaire's club", it would have been a non-issue. If she

doesn't realize because of her past statements, she has created a lot of visibility for herself that you would think she would be very specific

[ismnotwasm]

57. That I agree with.

She’s set herself up, and she need to be more sensitive to how anti-semitism works. It’s insidious shit

It WAS a stupid thing to say. I’m giving her a lot of leeway, for me. Maybe I shouldn’t.

[StarfishSaver]

62. The tweet she quoted refers to him as a billionaire.

[ismnotwasm]

66. I know.

That’s why I don’t think she meant anything else by it. She is scrutinized under a microscope though, when there is any opinion, interaction with Jewish persons. I would think she’d be a bit better at social media by now.

[StarfishSaver]

70. Maybe be their religion wasn't even on her mind

I had no idea Cooperman was Jewish until today.

[ismnotwasm]

85. Probably not.

My frustration with her is from earlier comments, and I doubt she was purposefully anti-Semitic then either—insensitive? oh, yes.

For her to truly succeed as a politician, she needs to recognize where she is weaker or vulnerable, and take care. Jewish people in general have a lot of bigoted bullshit tossed their way. It’s sometimes hard to parse out, because of the sheer insidiousness of it and how it’s spread throughout our culture.

There are ways she can fix this perception of herself. I hope she does some of them

[still_one]

83. That presents it in another light, and I missed that Twitter link in the OP until you

pointed it out, and I looked again

and just for the record I don’t want Bloomberg runnin, and have no idea what he expects to accomplish, unless he is trying to improve the odds for a brokered convention, which would only benefit trump

[StarfishSaver]

102. I don't want him running either

I wish both he and Steyer would use their money to flood the zone, not engage in "only I can fix it" vanity campaigns ...

[still_one]

125. We are definitely on the same page there Starfish. I also appreciate you pointing out the twitter

link that I missed


Thanks

[50 Shades Of Blue]

34. Who does Jordan mean by "everyone"? Because I'd never heard of Cooperman, would have no idea

what religion he is even if I had heard of him, and never gave Bloomberg's religion any thought either.

[LaurenOlimina]

36. Josh Jordan's tweet seems daft and grasping.

It looks like one billionaire critic of Warren backing another billionaire to me.

Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have already called out the class solidarity as well.

“He doesn't have to worry about coming into Iowa, he doesn’t have to worry about going to New Hampshire or Nevada or South Carolina,” he said. “He's just going to spend, I suspect, hundreds of millions of dollars in media in California because he's a billionaire," he added. "So that's the corruption of the political system based on the kind of massive wealth inequality that exists right now."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/469772-sanders-ocasio-cortez-see-class-solidarity-in-report-bezos-asked-bloomberg

[melman]

37. What a bunch of horse shit

She's saying billionaires support billionaires because they have a common interest: Not paying taxes


Also Josh Jordan is a right wing asshole. Why are you posting his shit here?

[still_one]

42. Really?

Link to tweet

[melman]

52. Yes

Really.

"Josh Jordan, @NumbersMuncher

Josh Jordan has written for the National Review and Real Clear Politics, but his best outlet has to be Twitter. The conservative is no fan of liberals or Trump. But, fortunately for liberals, he directs much of his ire at the president."

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/14/conservatives-twitter/



You do realize it's possible to be anti-Trump and still a right wing asshole, don't you?



Let's see. Bill Kristol, George Conway, George Will...etc etc. There are quite a few.

[George II]

136. Clear sign of a "right wing asshole"......

[OldRed2450]

44. No he is not!

1. She tweeted: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

2.She insinuated support for Israel among US lawmakers is “all about the Benjamins.”

3.She told an audience in D.C. that “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is O.K. to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

4. She oddly supports Erdogan by voting against sanctions on Turkey, talking about a debate on academic consensus as to why she voted 'present' on a bill to acknowledge Armenian Genocide.

[grossproffit]

196. Thank you. She's repulsive.

[OldRed2450]

198. You're welcome.

I know we are on the right side of this issue no matter what others say.

[OldRed2450]

47. You smearing Josh Jordan with a LIE

is gas lighting and for what? This is not a one off on her part so why defend it?

[still_one]

51. yup

[jberryhill]

60. Seems you are much more invested in a nobody

Than a Democratic elected official.

[melman]

64. Where's the lie?

He's a right winger. This is a fact.

Asshole is my opinion.

[OldRed2450]

74. Can you prove he is a right winger?

Link to tweet

[melman]

78. Twitter sure seems to think he is

Judging by who they suggest you might "also like" when you're on his page.

[OldRed2450]

79. That's not prof of anything.

It shows that when you go to Ihlan's profile because so many so them are interested in what she tweets.

[melman]

87. lol no it doesn't

It shows this.





And with that we are done here. Have a wonderful day.

[BuffaloJackalope]

157. I like Omar's YMALs more than Jordan's

[George II]

131. It's the ol' "rich guy" dog whistle, plain and simple.

[melman]

156. There is no such thing

But your implied slur against this Democratic Rep. is noted.

[George II]

163. No such thing? Hardly....

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/usury-and-moneylending-in-judaism/

Whatever its causes, Jewish business and financial success has more often than not been a major driver of anti-Semitism.

Shakespeare’s Shylock character, a money lender who extracts a pound of flesh from a debtor who defaulted, is among history’s best-known caricatures of the Jewish businessman. That caricature lent a sinister undertone of greed and exploitation to Jewish financial dealings that would be invoked to justify anti-Jewish measures for centuries to come.

Supposed Jewish control of the global financial system — a feature of what some call economic anti-Semitism — was a major theme in Hitler’s war against European Jews, Father Coughlin’s anti-Semitic rants in the United States, and the czarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Related slurs include claims that Jews are wealthy, greedy and stingy, obsessed with material goods and profit, and that they exploit their economic advantages to help their own people, to the detriment of the public good.

[Bok_Tukalo]

43. Jeez, that's a stupid reach.

Pathetic.

[Yavin4]

49. "Leon Copperman says he will support fellow billionaire Mike Bloomberg".

"FELLOW BILLIONAIRE!!!!"

That's what she's responding to. Billionaires are not a protected class. This shit is getting beyond ridiculous.

[Hortensis]

84. Yes, but as you recognize, there IS a lot of this shit.

I'm the wife of a Jew here; I held the door open that she was too ignorant to know how mistaken and offensive she was the first time, but I have good ears for this shit that's just been continuing.

A MN congresswoman has no NEED to make yet another snide public comment about a NY Jew. With her record, of course unnecessary hits at distant Jews are going to grab attention. We really should wonder if that isn't exactly it. She's not stupid.

Notably, she's of course running for reelection, and support among Democrats in her district who voted happily for a pretty Somali American Muslim just a year ago is understandably weakening. A lot of small donors nationally are sending her money and she's well funded, but they can't vote. The only way to replace lost Democratic votes would be with others in her district.

My best guess is this hit was a two-fer, that she's trying to both secure those on the farther left with the billionaire part and also some more conservative, and specifically antisemitic, voters with the Jew part. Especially when you consider that antisemitism has risen and is motivating many on the far left. Not among all by any means, but...a two-fer.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

99. She's my representative. I don't know whether, in her heart, she's an anti-Semite.

She is obviously very pro-Palestinian, and she has sometimes expressed that position in ways that have led at least some people to believe that she is also anti-Semitic, and as a result she has been harshly criticized. Since she is surely aware of that criticism, why doesn't she think a little more carefully before she issues statements or tweets that lend themselves to that same interpretation, even if it's not what she really meant? Maybe she's naive, or maybe she's living in an ideological bubble. Whatever it is, she doesn't seem to know how to avoid painting bull's-eyes on her own back, and her support here is waning - her "present" vote on the Armenian genocide resolution upset just about everybody.

This is a very diverse district - majority white and Christian but there are a lot of other groups, religions and ethnicities as well, including many Jews, Latinos, Hmong, Tibetans and Vietnamese (and Armenians). I get that she feels strongly about representing her underserved and struggling Somali community, which is admirable, but the rest of her constituency needs her representation, too. She already has a primary challenger, a community organizer named John Mason. As things stand around here now, he could win, and if he does (this being a very blue district with almost no Republicans), he'd be the first openly gay black member of Congress.

[Hortensis]

122. Thanks for the first-person view from a thoughtful observer

like you. Reading articles in local newspapers that cautiously suggest that isn't the same.

Accepting and working with diverse ideologies is the essence of democracy, but representatives in congress need to develop an educated intellectual foundation for their own. Her equating American Zionism with American Jews is extremely misdirected. Of course the Palestinians' largest, and hugely powerful American enemy is the pro-Zionist Republican Party dominated by Zionist Christians and other gentiles. Conservatives use the Zionist subset of our 2% Jewish population for distractions and fall guys for their actions. Blame the Jews. Gee, that's new.

I give her credit for understanding every time now, for sure since the first one went national, that statements from her will be taken by many as antisemitic. Her choice to keep repeating, and we'll see how this strategy, or indulgence of what shouldn't be indulged, whatever it is, works out for her.

A smile for the possibility of your district at least having the choice of trading in their first female Somali American Muslim for the first openly gay black member. Voters' choice, no one else's though. I'd really like to live in a district like yours. Again. I've missed West Hollywood ever since we moved away, long ago now.

[kcr]

115. The "fellow" in that comment she's quoting actually doesn't help

It already blatantly states the obvious connection between the two, billionaire. So, the "I wonder why?" hints at the question of another one.

[johnp3907]

54. This is idiotic.

[jcmaine72]

65. Oh bullshit.

[Turbineguy]

72. Three words.

They could mean anything. If we like.

[Maru Kitteh]

82. MEANWHILE: Trump blows anti-Semitic BLOWHORN

[Initech]

120. That book jacket is clearly missing the SS symbol.

[Crunchy Frog]

86. Sounds like he's reaching a little on that one. n/t

[still_one]

90. I missed it the first time, but if you look at her teeet she is attacking him because he is a

billionaire, not his religion

While I don’t agree with the argument that because someone is wealthy they aren’t qualified to run for President because of that wealth, that is far different then inferring it is because of his religion, which she didn’t, and that is good

I also am not happy That he is considering running, and hope he doesn’t

[obnoxiousdrunk]

89. Stretch ....

Try a little harder next time.

[UniteFightBack]

92. That charge is ABSURD. ENOUGH with the twisting and manipulating. nt

[mn9driver]

96. BS.

She was responding to a tweet that very specifically talked about the billionaire club. Billionaires supporting fellow billionaires.

Trying to make this about her alleged “antisemitism” is very much a religious attack. But on her, not on Bloomberg.

[BuffaloJackalope]

100. Because there's nothing wrong w/coloring literally everything a Muslim says & does as anti-Semitic.

[StarfishSaver]

103. There it is ...

Thank you for calling it.

[johnp3907]

109. This is exactly what's going on here.

Thank you.

[Initech]

130. The right wing echo chamber is like putting the same phrase through Google translator a lot.

It will be the same message but it will get twisted and distorted in such a way that it's almost unrecognizable. It starts at Limbaugh, then gets passed to Fox News, which gets passed to OANN, which gets passed to Infowars, which gets passed to Daily Caller / Wire / Whatever, and then by the end of that cycle the message has literally lost all meaning. See: Pizzagate.

[OldRed2450]

141. She opens herself up to criticism

It could be that I am wrong here but her past words and actions are weighed here.


1. She tweeted: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

2.She insinuated support for Israel among US lawmakers is “all about the Benjamins.”

3.She told an audience in D.C. that “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is O.K. to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

4. She oddly supports Erdogan by voting against sanctions on Turkey, talking about a debate on academic consensus as to why she voted 'present' on a bill to acknowledge Armenian Genocide.

If I'm wrong, I am wrong but don't insinuate that I am a bigot.

[BuffaloJackalope]

160. You know how you can tell you're talking to a bigot, don't you?

Criticizing Israel (a secular country, mind you) & it's undo influence on all aspects of US foreign policy should never be construed as anti-Semitism. Doing so is a RW trap. Don't fall for it.

[OldRed2450]

165. I criticize Israel all the time

I never make dual loyalty charges the way Ilhan has. Referring to Israel and the Jews as manipulative conspirators is a hateful anti-Semitic trope.

[BuffaloJackalope]

167. I have no way of knowing that.

All I can see is that you've repeated Jordan's deliberate & false RW-based mischaracterization of Omar's tweet. Which is disturbingly repetitive of the RW.

[BuffaloJackalope]

168. Go back & read your own quote.

Israel =/= Jews

[OldRed2450]

169. You should read this article.

I found it reasonable. I think given her past comments she should have left no ambiguity in her tweet.

https://www.jta.org/2019/02/13/politics/jews-in-minnesota-dont-like-ilhan-omars-tweets-but-theyll-still-work-with-her

[BuffaloJackalope]

171. So, what you posted wasn't accurate, is what you're saying?

I see a lot of insinuations from RWrs attempting to slander a Democrat, but looking at Omar's actual words - I don't see it.

[backscatter712]

186. Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

104. Bullshit, she's calling out the billionaire class. n/t

[StarfishSaver]

107. Ratf#cking

And we're falling for it ... Again.

And I include me in that we, because I joined in the fight, too.

As long as we fight with each other about whether a comment by a black Muslim Democratic woman, who happens to be a favorite target of Trump - is anti-Semitic, all the better for the other side.

That's the point.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

124. Yep, we don't march lockstep like pukes

And pukes know how to take advantage of it.

[Mike Nelson]

108. My thought was...

... a billionaire supporting a billionaire. I'm guessing that's what she meant. I think she's supporting Bernie for President, too...

[StarfishSaver]

116. Bernie last night railed against Bloomberg using his money to buy his buy his way into the race

She's being consistent with the candidate she's supporting.

But, by all means, let's fall into the GOP trap of eating our own - especially the black Muslim woman.

[evertonfc]

111. ugh.... She is a

walking advertisement for the GOP in Florida, GA, NC and mid West. Unlike the other freshman group, she has been terribly disappointing

[backscatter712]

112. Nothing but right-wing whataboutism. And complete bullshit.

The chuds will deliberately misinterpret anything Rep. Oman says as "anti-Semitic".

What a load of shit.

[JonLP24]

117. I don't know why people keep reaching when it comes to Omar

Don't feed into right wing narratives which are often more obvious Islamaphobic.

Michael Bloomberg is known for stop and frisk but Omar is the bad person here.

[Initech]

119. Yeah exactly don't feed the trolls. Just block / report and move on.

Giving them any sort of credence or recognition is exactly what they want and only adds more fuel to the fire.

[BeyondGeography]

127. Slow news day IOW

[ck4829]

132. Mr. Fantastic level stretch right here

[aikoaiko]

138. Sorry, no. And I think the claim against Omar is racist.

[OldRed2450]

143. Really?

It could be that I am wrong here but her past words and actions are weighed here.


1. She tweeted: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

2.She insinuated support for Israel among US lawmakers is “all about the Benjamins.”

3.She told an audience in D.C. that “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is O.K. to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

4. She oddly supports Erdogan by voting against sanctions on Turkey, talking about a debate on academic consensus as to why she voted 'present' on a bill to acknowledge Armenian Genocide.

If I'm wrong, I am wrong but don't insinuate that I am a bigot.

[aikoaiko]

148. Don't take it personally. All you did was post someone else's tweet.

I didn't know you agreed, but so be it.

Cooperman is a billionaire supporting a billionaire.

That's how I took the comment.

[OldRed2450]

150. I hope that is the case

But I'm skeptical given her past comments and votes. Not because I am racist.

[Kurt V.]

176. only one of the four reasons you gave could be considered anti- semetic.

two are about Israeli and u.s. leadership. no. 4 i need to educate myself on but im sure it's not bc she supports erdogan

[LAS14]

151. What did the tweet say?

I've skimmed this thread, searched on Google and Twitter. I see lots of things talking ABOUT what she said. But I don't know what she said. Can someone help?

[Hav]

158. "I wonder why"

That was her whole message in response to a tweet reporting that a billionaire supports a fellow billionaire.
Some interpreted it as her insinuating that a jew is supporting another jew, others are countering it's about billionaires supporting each other.

Personally, with the uncertainty and lack of clear evidence, I'm certainly not accusing someone of being anti-semitic for such a tweet and I find that rather irresponsible.

[LAS14]

162. OK, thanks much. I had been thinking about "benjamins" and stuff. Yeah,

I agree with you.

[Skittles]

172. stupid tweet

she knows she will be judged by such ambiguous statements, fairly or unfairly.....why does she she help feed the speculation

[ck4829]

174. If Omar takes a deep breath, there will be someone judging it

Sounds to me like the problem is with those making the judgment.

[Skittles]

243. and maybe she can also be more savvy with her tweets

they're not mutually exclusive

[empedocles]

153. Raises Omar's publicity profile up towards AOC, both thank rw media

[ck4829]

170. It's just interesting...

We've got a party that makes up conspiracy theories about George Soros up and down the street, a President and evangelical supporters who talk about "globalists who run media, finance, and politics behind the scenes with the deep state", and a right wing that runs with conspiracy theories that the "globalists" and "cosmopolitans" are bringing in immigrants to replace white people...

And almost nobody says anything about it.

Rep Ilhan Omar says three words. And we get this.

[Kurt V.]

173. josh jordan (who ever that is) and evey single person agreeing with him are going to

get this woman killed.

[Celerity]

229. Jordan is a RWer who doesn't like Rump which apparently nowadays is enough to justify

posting RWers on subjects that have nothing to do with Rump.

[VOX]

177. Oh, bullshit. Tomorrow it'll be "red socialism!" Followed by "un-Christian!"

There is NO bottom for MAGATs. None.

[Lunabell]

180. My take?

No anti semitic dog whistle. It was an anti billionaire poke in the eye.

[catrose]

181. Because they're both billionaires

Both on Elizabeth Warren's billionaire tax calculator.

[DeminPennswoods]

192. Exactly!

nt

[Iggo]

187. Nice try!

[NCLefty]

188. The tweet she replies to mentions the money. Why are we inserting something else?

[Lexblues]

189. Omar should stay off Twitter

All of her controversies are cause of tweets. She needs to have a staffer run her Twitter so it can be filtered by someone or she should stay off of it.

[ck4829]

190. Her staying off Twitter won't address the framing of the issue

We'll go back to "George Soros" and "globalists" from right wingers and nobody's going to bat an eye over it.

[OldRed2450]

199. Two wrongs don't make a right

and it's a piss poor excuse.

[ck4829]

210. Three words about billionaires isn't the same as conspiracy theories getting people killed

It's just sad that because she's black, a female, Somali, immigrant, a Democrat, a Muslim; that the bar for a statement that goes too far is lower for her... and apparently that bar has now reached ridiculous levels.

Well, I believe in equality. And I'm not going to stop believing in equal treatment and that equality. Call me when she screams about " cosmopolitans" and "cultural Marxists" conspiring against her then I will overtly declare that I no longer see this as the stretching that it is.

[OldRed2450]

211. You don't think her rhetoric

could get Jews killed? I do. We're not going to agree on this issue. It's not just this statement by her.. It's many that include her voting history.

[Blue_Tires]

195. That's a stretch and you know it...

[tritsofme]

197. She has not earned any benefit of the doubt on this issue.

Nor does she seem to have learned anything from her previous use of anti-Semitic dog whistles. I still hope she draws a strong primary challenger.

[saidsimplesimon]

201. Ms. Omar, please

don't "go there".

[ecstatic]

216. Isn't it racist to interpret everything she says as anti-semitic?

I didn't even know (nor do I care) about Bloomberg's religion/heritage. If anything, she would be thinking of him as a white rich guy.

[ck4829]

234. +1

[Celerity]

228. why the hell are you posting RWer Josh Jordan on DU?

shameful and so transparent

[BeckyDem]

233. +1