All of that is implied, dude

That’s a lot of words which don’t go to answer the question as to why the candidate has to answer for the supposed racism of one of his donors. I’m sure if we looked long enough we could find some donor of Bowman who has posted something calling for some nasty activities. But nobody does, because everyone understands that a politician isn’t responsible for the views of individuals who happen to vote for him unless he has solicited their endorsement specifically and celebrated that endorsement publicly.

Without giving a reason? They’re invaders. If they go home they won’t be subject to killing.

Besides, is killing Russians a good thing?

Yes.

Dude she’s a random civilian

Why do you care

This woman doesn’t seem like a Nazi lol

I literally just explained why this was a problem,

And I disagree. You haven’t actually shown me any evidence that he’s a racist. The best you’ve done is show me a statement by some random donor (???) who made a statement when ambushed by combative activists that was awkward. Whoop de fucking doo

They’re killing Russians, so their historical political leanings don’t really matter.

It’s just hilarious with Hunter

At this point I want Biden to appoint him as the ambassador to somewhere so he can do blow and hookers with some minor European politician

Why is he responsible for the statements of some random donor? I don’t know why he would need to address those comments, it seems like some activists ambushed some random person on the street and she said something which wasn’t focus grouped and sounded bad. If she runs for office I guess she should address them.

but he chose “argues too much” and “scream at”, then said he should talk “like normal people”.

This is a common argument against progressives from moderates, of whatever race or gender or religion. You can not like that argument, but the fact that it’s used commonly against the populist left kinda detracts from the “oh, this is a dog whistle”

When Latimer said Bowman is an “ineffective Congressman” because he argues too much, Bowman interrupted to say that he is “passionate.”

But Latimer responded, “You need to talk to them as normal people — you can’t preach and scream at them on the steps of the Capitol.”

Jamaal Bowman is known as one of the more firebrand politicians out there. Running against that is fair game, and pretending fair criticism of him is racism seems dishonest as fuck to me.

I think this is mostly evidence of Clinton preferring George Latimer. Endorsing someone is just saying that you like them for the job. I’m sure Bowman has endorsements, too.

…or is the point that Rep Bowman should be immune from primary challenges because he’s black?

Bowman is the guy who got censured by the House for that dumb fire alarm incident. Now he’s calling Latimer racist, and for what reason? Latimer seems like a very boring politician, not a klansman.

Yes, the response to Israel doing something is indeed always more severe than when any other country does it.

As to war crimes, I’ve never seen any evidence of intentional targeting of civilians as a matter of policy. I’ve seen evidence of individual soldiers doing that, and that’s happened in every war. It’s why war is bad, and you shouldn’t start wars.

There is not a single country on this planet which would tolerate an organization like Hamas remaining in power after an event like Oct 7.

🐴

CoLlEcTiVe PuNiShMeNt

Don’t start wars. Wars are bad. Fuck Hamas and fuck anyone who supported them. I wish their kids had parents who gave a shit about them.

lmao

Dude, leftists hate other leftists, I don’t think me agreeing to pretend that there’s a genocide going on in Gaza is going to change anything, as if that would be honest at all

They’ll just find something else to hate me for, depending on the exact variety of leftist concerned. They’ll always think that I “deserve the wall,” as I have been repeatedly told my smug intellectual children.

I’ll take them off of Denmark’s hands

Also, in your analogy, these people are somehow magically just moving in as if space and housing is freely available

This is exactly how Jews immigrated to mandatory Palestine. They bought houses or land and moved in.

Also, why should the original neighbors have to negotiate with a group of people who moved in against their will

They have the choice to negotiate or not, but if they choose war and lose, then their lot is to reckon with the consequences of their actions. Vae victus, as the Gauls said to the Romans.

Besides all of that, if we just take the history out of it completely, and just look at the last 8 months: does Israel seem to you like a sane nation

Not entirely. It seems like a nation which has been radicalized by decades of failures at peace initiatives and the same decades of unrelenting violence directed at their civilians. But at least they didn’t start the war in Gaza.

I don’t lol

Countries aren’t houses and your analogy is fatally flawed. I’ll write you a better one.

Let’s say I live in a neighborhood. New people move into this neighborhood, people who say their ancestors used to live here. Fine, whatever, the HOA let them in and I’m fine with it.

Enough of these people move into this neighborhood and have a different enough culture that they decide they want to form their own HOA.

What is my appropriate response to this situation? Should I negotiate which houses belong to the new HOA and which to the old? Or should I decide that the best thing to do is to violently kick all those people out of the neighborhood and shoot anyone who wants a new HOA?

Because the second thing is 1948. Arabs declared war, lost and lost badly, and have been trying to unwind the consequences of their belligerence ever since - usually with more belligerence.