Ilhan Omar controversy

[senorsheep]

I am only still here because my wife would never leave.

If that wasn't a consideration, where would you go?

[TranaGreg]

If that wasn't a consideration, where would you go?

Hi there!!!!

[In the Corn]

I'm sure it wasn't your intent here, but I'm reading and re-reading this statement and it's bizarre to me on its face, so maybe you can clarify. Do you have to stop qualifying yourself as Christian to remove doubts others may have about your allegiance to the US?

I should have included Christian in the groups I named. My point being that when we put a qualifier on something it lessens that thing. In a time when we are so completely fractured as a society the qualifiers that people place in front of American only continues to divide.

There has been some good conversation since my post, and I am in agreement with what other's have said. We host a lot different roles and allegiances. When we qualify the allegiance it shows that I'm holding back.

I'll use my faith as an example, hoping it helps to clarify even more.

I'm a Christian. I don't consider myself a Christian-American or American Christian. They lessen each other. My faith has little to do with me being an American. I view many things from the lens of a Christian, and I view things from the lens of an American. There are many things in America that go on that my "Christian lens" doesn't agree with, but I see the value of individual freedom more important, as I don't expect everyone in America to live out my values as a Christian.

We definitely can/should/do have allegiance/love for other countries/cultures/religions, but we can't pour those lens over the American lens when it comes to the laws, liberties, etc. that America is based upon.

I hope that makes sense.

[B-Fly]

So what does that mean for Walter Heisenberg when Germany asks him to build an atomic bomb? Or one might ask the same of the scientists recruited to the Manhattan Project, although that starts to hit a little closer to home.

I'll admit than when some U.S. court rules that a foreigner doesn't have constitutional rights because they aren't an American citizen, that always rubs me a bit wrong, even if it's a legally correct decision. My allegiance isn't ultimately to a system that says, "screw the foreigner" because they aren't an American citizen. That person has the same rights I have, or they ought to, and I believe in that more than I pledge allegiance to any American republic.

Yes, I think the trust between country and citizen that girds "allegiance" can be broken. In the United States, I think "allegiance" largely means that one will abide by the US Constitution and with federal, state and local laws that are constitutional, and that one will not cross the line between constitutionally-protected political expression and activism, on the one hand, and seeking to undermine the US security, the US political system, government institutions or the US economy through treasonous or other illegal means or methods. Without breaking our allegiance, we absolutely can protest government laws or actions with which we disagree and seek to have those changed or reversed. When the government ultimately violates the trust that binds our allegiance, however, that's when civil disobedience (or beyond) would come into play.

[B-Fly]

I should have included Christian in the groups I named. My point being that when we put a qualifier on something it lessens that thing. In a time when we are so completely fractured as a society the qualifiers that people place in front of American only continues to divide.

There has been some good conversation since my post, and I am in agreement with what other's have said. We host a lot different roles and allegiances. When we qualify the allegiance it shows that I'm holding back.

I'll use my faith as an example, hoping it helps to clarify even more.

I'm a Christian. I don't consider myself a Christian-American or American Christian. They lessen each other. My faith has little to do with me being an American. I view many things from the lens of a Christian, and I view things from the lens of an American. There are many things in America that go on that my "Christian lens" doesn't agree with, but I see the value of individual freedom more important, as I don't expect everyone in America to live out my values as a Christian.

We definitely can/should/do have allegiance/love for other countries/cultures/religions, but we can't pour those lens over the American lens when it comes to the laws, liberties, etc. that America is based upon.

I hope that makes sense.

Yes. I think it aligns with what I've been saying. That your definition 2 "allegiance" to your faith can be held without it presenting a "dual loyalty" problem with respect to your definition 1b "allegiance" the US. Although I think you're also saying that you hold an identity-based or even love-based definition 2 allegiance to the USA, rather than just a definition 1b legal, citizen-sovereign allegiance. Yes?

[DMT]

If that wasn't a consideration, where would you go?

Most likely New Zealand.

[Mithrandir]

Most likely New Zealand.

New Zealand always looks awesome.

[In the Corn]

Yes. I think it aligns with what I've been saying. That your definition 2 "allegiance" to your faith can be held without it presenting a "dual loyalty" problem with respect to your definition 1b "allegiance" the US. Although I think you're also saying that you hold an identity-based or even love-based definition 2 allegiance to the USA, rather than just a definition 1b legal, citizen-sovereign allegiance. Yes?

Having time to look at what I wrote, I believe affinity would be a better term than love.

[In the Corn]

Here's the article that caused quite the stir with Omar disparaging Democrat Royality, Barack Obama: https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...c-party-225696

Omar says the “hope and change” offered by Barack Obama was a mirage. Recalling the “caging of kids” at the U.S.-Mexico border and the “droning of countries around the world” on Obama’s watch, she argues that the Democratic president operated within the same fundamentally broken framework as his Republican successor.

“We can’t be only upset with Trump. … His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was,” Omar says.

I would recommend reading the article. The broader context on the article is the striking difference between Omar and her fellow freshman Representative Dean Phillips in the district right next to her's. It points to the whole debate between the liberal-left from safe districts versus moderate Democrats in purple districts.

I think it shows that there are more moderates in this here United States than we think. But to quote another freshman Representative, "Meh."

[DMT]

Why is someone deemed "too-liberal" for speaking the truth?

[The Feral Slasher]

Here's the article that caused quite the stir with Omar disparaging Democrat Royality, Barack Obama: https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...c-party-225696



I would recommend reading the article. The broader context on the article is the striking difference between Omar and her fellow freshman Representative Dean Phillips in the district right next to her's. It points to the whole debate between the liberal-left from safe districts versus moderate Democrats in purple districts.

I think it shows that there are more moderates in this here United States than we think. But to quote another freshman Representative, "Meh."

So what are the policies that moderates support ? What are there values ? Their accomplishments ? Of the recent Presidents were any of them moderates ? I might need to start a new thread.

[onejayhawk]

So what are the policies that moderates support ? What are there values ? Their accomplishments ? Of the recent Presidents were any of them moderates ? I might need to start a new thread.

Do you expect the successes of moderates to be reported? That's asking a lot considering the activist climate at most of the major platforms. Radicalism is the way to get reported.

J

[Teenwolf]

So the right wing is feigning offense over Omar's comment about 9/11 "some people did some things". The President jumped in with a disgusting tweet, and the death threats ramp up again. I hope none of Omar, Tlaib, Pressly, AOC are targeted for assassination, but the current atmosphere of Alex Jones' level stochastic terrorism makes me think it's only a matter of time.

[B-Fly]

So the right wing is feigning offense over Omar's comment about 9/11 "some people did some things". The President jumped in with a disgusting tweet, and the death threats ramp up again. I hope none of Omar, Tlaib, Pressly, AOC are targeted for assassination, but the current atmosphere of Alex Jones' level stochastic terrorism makes me think it's only a matter of time.

Trump's tweet was awful and reasonably raises the question of stochastic terrorism. I hope Rep. Omar is being assigned extra protection. That said, Rep. Omar also appears to be building her brand by courting controversy, and the "some people did some things" line was distastefully flippant given the many lives lost to deliberate terrorism against the US on that day. I absolutely support her right to be bold and controversial in her policies, positions and public advocacy, but Trump or no Trump, it appears that she's deliberately drawing heat from the American right like an accomplished WWE heel.

[Teenwolf]

Trump's tweet was awful and reasonably raises the question of stochastic terrorism. I hope Rep. Omar is being assigned extra protection. That said, Rep. Omar also appears to be building her brand by courting controversy, and the "some people did some things" line was distastefully flippant given the many lives lost to deliberate terrorism against the US on that day. I absolutely support her right to be bold and controversial in her policies, positions and public advocacy, but Trump or no Trump, it appears that she's deliberately drawing heat from the American right like an accomplished WWE heel.

Wow, I'll make sure to bookmark this for her eulogy... it's insane to me that you think her comment was intentionally inflammatory.

To think that someone already receiving death threats would intentionally make statements to invite more death threats is completely bizarre.