The Next DNC Chair: TOM PEREZ WINS, makes Ellison deputy chair

[publicunofficial]

David, you're freaking insane.

[ApatheticAustrian]

i think the only governments hurting palestinians more than israel are the ones in lebanon, syria, jordan, egypt and palestine.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

David, you're freaking insane.

[Zioneer]

Here's the real question: Will Ellison actually meaningfully change anything about the Democratic policy on Israel/Palestine? I doubt it. If its becoming more anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, it was likely to do that even with Chuck Schumer as DNC Chair. If its not becoming more pro-Palestinian already, then its unlikely to do so with Ellison.

Besides, with Schumer watching, I doubt Ellison will be able to do anything too "anti-Israel".

[OSR stands with Israel]

Aaaaaaaaaand back to being R. Fck Ellison.

putting aside the actual argument for a second - weren't you perfectly fine with supporting the "lesser evil" before…?

He supported Hillary

[Kingpoleon]

If Ellison is anti-Semitic how does he win St. Louis Park every two years?

... This sounds a lot like saying Trump can't be anti-Semitic because his son-in-law is Jewish.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Here's the real question: Will Ellison actually meaningfully change anything about the Democratic policy on Israel/Palestine? I doubt it. If its becoming more anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, it was likely to do that even with Chuck Schumer as DNC Chair. If its not becoming more pro-Palestinian already, then its unlikely to do so with Ellison.

Besides, with Schumer watching, I doubt Ellison will be able to do anything too "anti-Israel".

Is it likely to change anything in the short term? Not really. The President controls foreign policy for the most part, Trump is pro-Israel, and the opposition will have much bigger concerns than trying to counter that.

Will it have a long-term toxic effect on the Dems' Israel policy? Absolutely, but that likely won't come into play until they control the government again.

[America Needs R'hllor]

With this, I remain a believer in the concept of the Jewish, Israeli state, but it should've been socialist, actual egalitarian socialism (mapam), and Israel wouldn't be as such segregated and discriminatory to the Palestinian People.

(Ignoring the normal, ugly, Israel vs Palestinians arguments in this thread)

I understand your point of view as a Socialist, but Mapam was at times a low point for Israeli democracy (though the current government is trying really hard to compete). Their almost absolute power harmed the freedom of speech and created a nest of corruption and discrimination towards Jewish immigrants from Muslim countries. In the end, their slight authoritainism sewed the seeds of some characteristics of current Israeli society that I dislike, like the sanctifying of the army and anything related to it, the corrupt primaries in the major parties, that are controlled by special interest groups, and some generally corrupt and disfunctional systems (like the Broadcasting Authority and the main labour unions).

[America Needs R'hllor]

Here's the real question: Will Ellison actually meaningfully change anything about the Democratic policy on Israel/Palestine? I doubt it. If its becoming more anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, it was likely to do that even with Chuck Schumer as DNC Chair. If its not becoming more pro-Palestinian already, then its unlikely to do so with Ellison.

Besides, with Schumer watching, I doubt Ellison will be able to do anything too "anti-Israel".

Will it have a long-term toxic effect on the Dems' Israel policy? Absolutely, but that likely won't come into play until they control the government again.

FWIW, I see Keith Ellison as a likely Secretary of State choice if a Sanders(-esque candidate) wins the Democratic nomination and the presidency in the next few cycles; in addition to being a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ellison worked heavily with Bush and Rice to promote the State Department abroad, has taken a wide array of official visits to other countries with fellow Congressmen, and IIRC was occasionally mentioned as a possible SoS or U.N. Ambassador for Obama. That being said, his controversial positions on Israeli policy might make him a tough pill to swallow for a divided Senate, so in the above scenario, I think Feingold would be a more likely State pick, especially since he's completely out of a job now.

Feingold would be so great.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So having a critical view of the State of Israel=supporter of segregation?
You are utterly deranged. People like you are why Israel is rapidly losing the sympathy of the world.

Guess what? The State exists largely because of the fact that Israel simply cannot depend on the "sympathy of the world". Israel relying on the "sympathy of the world" gave us the pogroms. People like you gave us Auschwitz. Now we have the State and no one cares about scum like you and their "sympathies" anymore. "The world" only "sympathizes" with Israel if we are being killed. But we are not your slaves anymore, sorry to disappoint.

Ernest is probably going to apply his own anti-Jewish policy in terms of moderation with regard to this post, but whatever.

Other than correcting in my reply your misspelling of my username, I'm not changing what you wrote. I think that establishment of the State of Israel was a mistake, but I don't call for it's elimination for the simple reason that two wrongs don't make a right. That said, I think in the long term the State of Israel is doomed. The only stable resolution is the two-state solution (and is in my mind the best possible outcome) and Israeli policy since 1995 makes that much harder to reach, if it was ever possible. Not that the Palestinians are doing anything either to enhance the prospect of a two-state solution.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

David, you're freaking insane.

[windjammer]

David, you're freaking insane.

Tsssssss, if you have nothing else to say it's better not to speak.

------

Can A-N-Y-O-N-E explain me why some people are freaking out about him?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Just gonna drop these here:
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.755032

http://jstreet.org/press-releases/continuing-attacks-congressman-ellison-seek-silence-legitimate-positions-israel/#.WENTg7IrLZY


Now if we can stop hyperventilating about Ellison's "Antisemitism":

Does anyone have a count of how many votes he's actually publicly locked down?

[they don't love you like i love you]

If Ellison is anti-Semitic how does he win St. Louis Park every two years?

... This sounds a lot like saying Trump can't be anti-Semitic because his son-in-law is Jewish.

I don't believe Trump is an anti-Semite. He's a bigot but I don't believe Jews are one of the groups he's bigoted against.

[Horus]

Just gonna drop these here:
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.755032

http://jstreet.org/press-releases/continuing-attacks-congressman-ellison-seek-silence-legitimate-positions-israel/#.WENTg7IrLZY


Now if we can stop hyperventilating about Ellison's "Antisemitism":

Does anyone have a count of how many votes he's actually publicly locked down?

In the eyes of insane people like David, j-street and haaretz are anti-Semitic.

[Intell]

With this, I remain a believer in the concept of the Jewish, Israeli state, but it should've been socialist, actual egalitarian socialism (mapam), and Israel wouldn't be as such segregated and discriminatory to the Palestinian People.

(Ignoring the normal, ugly, Israel vs Palestinians arguments in this thread)

I understand your point of view as a Socialist, but Mapam was at times a low point for Israeli democracy (though the current government is trying really hard to compete). Their almost absolute power harmed the freedom of speech and created a nest of corruption and discrimination towards Jewish immigrants from Muslim countries. In the end, their slight authoritainism sewed the seeds of some characteristics of current Israeli society that I dislike, like the sanctifying of the army and anything related to it, the corrupt primaries in the major parties, that are controlled by special interest groups, and some generally corrupt and disfunctional systems (like the Broadcasting Authority and the main labour unions).

They were the only one's that had Palestinian members, had a policy for co-existence, and didn't support the expulsion of Palestinian from their lands, causing the problems they had, a lot of which Mapai did or didn't support. I believe if Mapam had been elected, Israel and Palestine would've been a been a better place, though more soviet-orientated it would have been. I really don't understand how a party that only once got second place had absolute control

[I’m not Stu]

With this, I remain a believer in the concept of the Jewish, Israeli state, but it should've been socialist, actual egalitarian socialism (mapam), and Israel wouldn't be as such segregated and discriminatory to the Palestinian People.

(Ignoring the normal, ugly, Israel vs Palestinians arguments in this thread)

I understand your point of view as a Socialist, but Mapam was at times a low point for Israeli democracy (though the current government is trying really hard to compete). Their almost absolute power harmed the freedom of speech and created a nest of corruption and discrimination towards Jewish immigrants from Muslim countries. In the end, their slight authoritainism sewed the seeds of some characteristics of current Israeli society that I dislike, like the sanctifying of the army and anything related to it, the corrupt primaries in the major parties, that are controlled by special interest groups, and some generally corrupt and disfunctional systems (like the Broadcasting Authority and the main labour unions).

They were the only one's that had Palestinian members, had a policy for co-existence, and didn't support the expulsion of Palestinian from their lands, causing the problems they had, a lot of which Mapai did or didn't support. I believe if Mapam had been elected, Israel and Palestine would've been a been a better place, though more soviet-orientated it would have been. I really don't understand how a party that only once got second place had absolute control

Ellison is a poor choice. He would alienate pro-Israel voters and white working class voters (especially suburban and rural voters).

[Intell]

With this, I remain a believer in the concept of the Jewish, Israeli state, but it should've been socialist, actual egalitarian socialism (mapam), and Israel wouldn't be as such segregated and discriminatory to the Palestinian People.

(Ignoring the normal, ugly, Israel vs Palestinians arguments in this thread)

I understand your point of view as a Socialist, but Mapam was at times a low point for Israeli democracy (though the current government is trying really hard to compete). Their almost absolute power harmed the freedom of speech and created a nest of corruption and discrimination towards Jewish immigrants from Muslim countries. In the end, their slight authoritainism sewed the seeds of some characteristics of current Israeli society that I dislike, like the sanctifying of the army and anything related to it, the corrupt primaries in the major parties, that are controlled by special interest groups, and some generally corrupt and disfunctional systems (like the Broadcasting Authority and the main labour unions).

They were the only one's that had Palestinian members, had a policy for co-existence, and didn't support the expulsion of Palestinian from their lands, causing the problems they had, a lot of which Mapai did or didn't support. I believe if Mapam had been elected, Israel and Palestine would've been a been a better place, though more soviet-orientated it would have been. I really don't understand how a party that only once got second place had absolute control

Ellison is a poor choice. He would alienate pro-Israel voters and white working class voters (especially suburban and rural voters).

I never said he wasn't, I merely stated that calling him an anti-Semite was fycking ridiculous.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

With this, I remain a believer in the concept of the Jewish, Israeli state, but it should've been socialist, actual egalitarian socialism (mapam), and Israel wouldn't be as such segregated and discriminatory to the Palestinian People.

(Ignoring the normal, ugly, Israel vs Palestinians arguments in this thread)

I understand your point of view as a Socialist, but Mapam was at times a low point for Israeli democracy (though the current government is trying really hard to compete). Their almost absolute power harmed the freedom of speech and created a nest of corruption and discrimination towards Jewish immigrants from Muslim countries. In the end, their slight authoritainism sewed the seeds of some characteristics of current Israeli society that I dislike, like the sanctifying of the army and anything related to it, the corrupt primaries in the major parties, that are controlled by special interest groups, and some generally corrupt and disfunctional systems (like the Broadcasting Authority and the main labour unions).

They were the only one's that had Palestinian members, had a policy for co-existence, and didn't support the expulsion of Palestinian from their lands, causing the problems they had, a lot of which Mapai did or didn't support. I believe if Mapam had been elected, Israel and Palestine would've been a been a better place, though more soviet-orientated it would have been. I really don't understand how a party that only once got second place had absolute control

Ellison is a poor choice. He would alienate pro-Israel voters and white working class voters (especially suburban and rural voters).

What portion of voters do you think can name the chair of the DNC and the RNC? Of that portion, what portion do you think will change their party allegiance over an appointment to it?

The primary qualifications for a D/RNC chair are A) raising money B) (re)structuring the party and distributing resources and C) raising money. The optics of who that person is are, at best, one news story when they're elected and one when they leave. No one else outside of the Beltway/Political Nerddom will care. 

[ApatheticAustrian]

a populist would alienate working-class voters?

this seems like a strange concept for me.

once again: those people voted for effing BARACK hussein OBAMA.

[I’m not Stu]

a populist would alienate working-class voters?

this seems like a strange concept for me.

once again: those people voted for effing BARACK hussein OBAMA.

Obama is more moderate than Ellison. I don't think Ellison is necessarily anti-semitic, but the ADL opposes him being picked. I don't rember the ADL opposing Obama's candidacy for President. I think someone more moderate would be a better choice. There isn't really a party that favorably views moderates like me.

[ApatheticAustrian]

a populist would alienate working-class voters?

this seems like a strange concept for me.

once again: those people voted for effing BARACK hussein OBAMA.

Obama is more moderate than Ellison. I don't think Ellison is necessarily anti-semitic, but the ADL opposes him being picked. I don't rember the ADL opposing Obama's candidacy for President. I think someone more moderate would be a better choice. There isn't really a party that favorably views moderates like me.

oh, i am pretty much concernced about the kind of anti-zionism on the left which often ignores faults in other states and/or in the actions of israel's enemies.

but...to paraphrase:

would a moderate have voted for wasserman-schultz? especially since this job includes tainting your soul.

[I’m not Stu]

a populist would alienate working-class voters?

this seems like a strange concept for me.

once again: those people voted for effing BARACK hussein OBAMA.

Obama is more moderate than Ellison. I don't think Ellison is necessarily anti-semitic, but the ADL opposes him being picked. I don't rember the ADL opposing Obama's candidacy for President. I think someone more moderate would be a better choice. There isn't really a party that favorably views moderates like me.

oh, i am pretty much concernced about the kind of anti-zionism on the left which often ignores faults in other states and/or in the actions of israel's enemies.

but...to paraphrase:

would a moderate have voted for wasserman-schultz? especially since this job includes tainting your soul.

No, a moderate like me would not vote for Waserman-Schultz. I think someone far more centrist would be a good choice to appeal to rural and suburban voters.

[ApatheticAustrian]

a populist would alienate working-class voters?

this seems like a strange concept for me.

once again: those people voted for effing BARACK hussein OBAMA.

Obama is more moderate than Ellison. I don't think Ellison is necessarily anti-semitic, but the ADL opposes him being picked. I don't rember the ADL opposing Obama's candidacy for President. I think someone more moderate would be a better choice. There isn't really a party that favorably views moderates like me.

oh, i am pretty much concernced about the kind of anti-zionism on the left which often ignores faults in other states and/or in the actions of israel's enemies.

but...to paraphrase:

would a moderate have voted for wasserman-schultz? especially since this job includes tainting your soul.

No, a moderate like me would not vote for Waserman-Schultz. I think someone far more centrist would be a good choice to appeal to rural and suburban voters.

i think words like "moderate" are confusing if they apply to someone like trump but i practically agree.....even while i would call it "re-calibrating" instead of moderating. ^^

otherwise....yeah, THAT WAS MY POINT....DWS wasn't moderate and it wouldn't have made any difference for clinton if someone else would have run the DNC, imho.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So Dems throw out a woman whose only reason for keeping her was identity politics, to hire an anti-Israel 9/11 Truther. Great work guys. Really.