Discussion for article #247604
Good for him!
15 Likes
Thatâs exactly (verbatim!) what I was going to write⌠but you were faster.
2 Likes
He being attacked as an Anti-Semite yet?
7 Likes
âpro-Palestinian writer Max Blumenthal,â
Not truthful, not fair and not cool at all.
Save it for the editorial pages.
12 Likes
This is TPM. Anything that doesnât involve complete and total kowtowing to Israel in all things makes you an Anti-Semite at the very least.
5 Likes
This is because his âbaseâ is college kids and the one thing that it is not cool to be in college these days is pro or even neutral on Israel. Roger Cohen had an op ed about this in the NYT the other dayâstudents at Oxford are calling Jewish students âZiosâ and the support for Palestinians is sky high. I saw a video the other day of pro Palestinian students yelling, âLong live the Intifada!â over and over again for some fifteen or twenty minutes non stop when a group had invited the Israeli ambassador to speak at UC Davis.
Interspersed among the shouts were claims that Israel was anti-black (from where that came, itâs hard to say.) The BDS movement is being pushed in many academic organizations (weird, since Israeli academics almost all dislike their current government and many have worked for good relations with Palestinians.)
I donât know what will lead to, but it doesnât sound promising.
3 Likes
What he canât talk to the other side?!!! But i thought that was one of the things people loved about him!
1 Like
I honestly think that Josh tries very hard to walk a fine line between the admittedly difficult situation in Israel and the the idea of Judaism itself being attacked in the guise of anti-Zionism. It canât be easy but nor do I think it is easy for someone like Max Blumenthal.
To cast Blumenthal as merely pro-Palestinian and not as a conscientious objector to the human rights issues he documents in Israel is grossly inaccurate and unfair and that kind of characterization has no place in a journalistic piece.
24 Likes
What does it say about AIPAC when a fascist like Trump goes to their conference, while a liberal like Sanders would rather not be seen with them.
Thank you Bernie for showing that you will not kiss the ring of Israelâs far right Likud party.
15 Likes
Honestly, Iâm not even talking about Josh Marshall here. The commenters here very quickly turn any criticism of Israel into accusations of anti-Semitism.
3 Likes
Not sure how you came up with that particular impression. Heâs supposed to be an extremist, right? Like dangerous? Actually what I love about him is that he wouldnât just do or say anything to get elected. Not a kisser of ass just for the sake of money or power. I never got the feeling that he was the great compromiser.
2 Likes
Well it wasnât that long ago where Bernie supporters were saying how great it was that he would go talk to the other side, and now its the opposite. What, he canât go to AIPAC and talk about the need for balance between Israel and Palestinian?
3 Likes
Wonât pander for votes?
"Although Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has positioned himself as a more liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton, he stands on the conservative side of one key issue: gun control. In 2005, Sanders voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a terrible law that shields gun sellers and manufacturers from legal liability in most lawsuits. Before the PLCAA, many states allowed victims of gun violence to sue gun sellers who negligently entrusted potentially dangerous individuals with firearms and ammunition. The law effectively nullified the majority of these state protections. Clinton voted against it. Sanders has continued to defend it.
Mark Joseph Stern
MARK JOSEPH STERN
Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.
Given this stark distinction, you might expect Sanders to prepare a strong defense when questioned about his record on guns. Instead, when the topic arose during Tuesdayâs Las Vegas debate, Sanders fumbled, raising his typical retort that he represents a gun-friendly state but supports gun control elsewhere."
1 Like
I didnât mean to get off topic but let me address the thrust of the article- Bernieâs refusal to go to AIPAC.
AIPAC is neocon central and becoming more and more irrelevant every day.
President Obama has set the precedent for dealing with them, which I applaud, and Bernieâs refusal to address them is just the sort of brush-off they deserve.
AIPAC is an anachronistic institution which has no place in American politics and nobody should be giving them legitimacy by acknowledging their existence.
Theyâve had their day and their power to influence and they certainly made the most of it.
Bernie has shown that he doesnât need their money or that of any other power brokers and that should be the ultimate legacy of his campaign.
Keep your money, thank you, we can do it ourselves and without the need to be beholden.
19 Likes
Wrong about all that. If you crash your car into someone and kill them, the auto dealer is not liable. If you hit somebody on the head with a shovel, the shovel maker is not liable. If you smash your wife with an iron, the iron maker is not liable. Got it yet? If a gun dealer sells a gun illegally and that gun is used in a crime, then the gun dealer is liable for indictment depending ⌠got it yet? Bernie did exactly the right thing in his vote. You sell your gun under the table to someone who commits a crime with it (depending on the weapon used - since assault rifles are a different legal class than a shotgun), then you are liable for breaking the law, simple as that. This discussion is long gone, discussed in great depth and length for a long time, in many places. Read some of those discussions.
4 Likes
Heâs running for President of the USA, heâs not looking for votes in an Israeli lobbying group. Seems like a good choice for him to campaign somewhere else.
4 Likes
He spoke at Liberty U. But he wonât speak to AIPAC.
As far as Iâm concerned, he shouldnât speak with them for all the reasons weâve enumerated. BUT, - he was the one who got this ball rolling about speaking to those who donât share your opinion. If one group can get a principled stand, then why not another?
2 Likes
You donât get invited to AIPAC to discuss things like that.
You donât get invited there for anything other than offering âassistanceâ (read: fealty).
6 Likes
Youâre right. Firearms do exactly what they are designed to do. Your argument for banning them completely is very persuasive.
Well argued.
1 Like