General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAlready Dems are fighting among themselves over Kerry's speech & Israel while Republicans stayunited
This is why Dems lose, they never coalesce among themselves, never united & DU does the same. We constantly fight among ourselves while the republicans march on & have now gained control of not just most of the State Houses of Government but all the branches of government in DC. Soon, Trump will add the Supreme Court to their wins & they say he will be appointing over 100 Federal Judges during his first term which will reshape the courts for years.
All of this it seems because Dems evidently want to fight among themselves. You all have seen it even here. This morning I was accused of smearing Schumer just because I told the truth about his friendship with Trump.
Will John Kerry’s Israel Speech Tear the Democrats Apart? ---http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/29/will-john-kerry-s-israel-speech-tear-the-democrats-apart.html
-----"On the Senate side, Chuck Schumer—the New Yorker and Senate Minority Leader—also lambasted Kerry.
“While he may not have intended it, I fear Secretary Kerry, in his speech and action at the UN, has emboldened extremists on both sides,” he said in his own post-speech statement."
---------------------
One longtime Democratic Senate staffer said he thought Schumer’s and Hoyer’s angry responses had more to do with anger about the White House’s poor communication with Congressional Democrats than with deeper policy differences. If Kerry and his team had done more to partner with Hill offices and try to get them on board with a broader strategy, he argued, then the worst of this unpleasantness might have been avoided.
Regardless, Democrats are going to have an interesting few years.
My point is if we really do want to win or expect to win & make gains, we have to have a united voice. Look at the Dems who ran away from Obama during the first mid-terms & most would have won it was found out if they had stuck by him. They were cowards. We have a popular President, his policies, we know he did good from where he started to where he ended & yet Dems continue to fight among themselves.
You would think we could unite just once, just long enough to win.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)with diverse opinions.
And Schumer and a few others represent areas with a lot of Jewish constituents.
Sort of like how so many Sanders supporters just gloss over his record/position on guns.
Schumer just doesn't have the guts to blame his pandering to the Jewish people he's speaking to.
What emboldens extremists on both sides is Bibi implementing the One State solution forcing Palestinians into second class citizenship against their will.
Alekzander
(479 posts)from race, sexual orientation, environmentalists, religion. That is known. What part that is not understood is that the number of Dems who cannot find a way for as you say "coalition" to be united to at least win so then all the parts of the coalition can make gains as well for their own individual priorities.
I am of the left but I certainly do not find it hard to work with Dem Moderates or Dem Conservatives to defeat Republicans, especially where they are today.
Caliman73
(11,752 posts)Should all Democrats unite behind the condemnation of Kerry's speech? Should all Democrats unite behind Kerry in speaking "hard realities" to a friendly nation?
Where is it that you want to be united?
Can we disagree on this situation and still unite behind blocking unfit judicial nominations?
How do you envision this coalition coming together and which agenda should be followed. "Defeating Republicans" is an awfully broad agenda.
Republicans have it a great deal easier because while they individually want power, they have supported, as a principle, that government should not work to help the average citizen except for providing a strong military. They can block any legislation, even if the policy originated within conservative circles because if government is doing it, then it is not good. They want private industry, and more importantly, the large industry leaders who primarily fund them, to have free reign over the economy, while they fiddle with social policy.
Democrats are the party of using government to benefit the most people possible. That is difficult and messy. Like herding cats. We are at a disadvantage because while we want LGBTQ people to have full rights and inclusion, some may not prioritize it as much as distributing the economic benefits of society equitably, or protecting Black Americans from police brutality.
If a Republican (and I know that this is a fantasy) had the very unRepublican idea to invest in infrastructure development to put millions of people back to work by imposing a small tax on high speed trading, would you oppose that just to oppose it because a Republican brought it up?
Just trying to understand where this unity should be and what it should look like.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)An excellent summary, especially the bold portion.
Me.
(35,454 posts)That Schumer always puts Israel first over his own country and president. He is, after all, BiBi's, self-acknowledged, best friend in the Senate.
...is why we have a separate Israel forum to discuss Mideast issues.
is current/headline news.
bigtree
(86,008 posts)...is an attempt to define the Dem leader and our Democratic party through the narrow lens of Schumer's (and others) views on Israel.
That's one of the reasons it made sense to limit discussion of these often divisive issues concerning Israel to another forum. I'm not sure it's still policy, but this demonstrates well why it should be.
Me.
(35,454 posts)However, Schumer will be playing a much larger role in defining what the party stands for and may be someone we all have to keep our eye on. Forewarned is forearmed.
Cha
(297,818 posts)anywhere near our minority leader.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)administration that stands up to Israel. Schumer will never support that regardless of what Israel does. On this issue, Schumer should not be regarded as a dyed in the wool democrat.
bigtree
(86,008 posts)Alekzander
(479 posts)bigtree
(86,008 posts)...the second responding to the very same subject posted by you, the very same shitstirring-type of post looking to place a wedge between Democrats here and our party leadership - this before they've really even begun.
What you posted was misinformation about our Democratic leader and party. That's going to get a response from me every time... until I eventually put you on ignore. Enjoy that all you want.
Alekzander
(479 posts)Respond all you want & go to the media about your claim of misinformation. Your problem is you don't like the subject which is true as most posts here show.
Here is another one if you want to rush to the breaking news page. Better hurry
Israeli ambassador: Obama more 'outrageous' than Trump
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1651151
Other than that, happy trolling.
bigtree
(86,008 posts)...Democrats bad.
Got it.
Alekzander
(479 posts)what they said. Still looking for an intelligent comment out of you other than your trolling attacks.
bigtree
(86,008 posts)...you've tried twice now to get a rise out of folks here about our Democratic leader (and party), with a bit of success.
Around here, that's considered 'trolling,' not efforts to call you out on it.
Alekzander
(479 posts)Others here find the thread worthy of contributing to but we have yet seen nothing but your trolling & personal attack of me. That is in violation of the rules. Even if a poster disagrees, they explain their disagreement in a courteous manner.
You on the other hand, do not feel anyone has the right to their opinion if you do not like it & so you personally attack them & try to disrupt the thread.
This one time, if you see nothing here worthy of your comment, then why are you here so many times attacking me and on the other thread as well?
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Really? Sorry, we are not mindless lemmings.
Alekzander
(479 posts)be more united. Your choice.
It seems to be working so well.
Iggo
(47,578 posts)
Alekzander
(479 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)no one is saying that, either.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,446 posts)I feel like we have bigger and more direct things to worry about than what Schumer thinks of Kerry's speech (re: Israel), especially when Trump is going to slash and burn President Obama's I/P policies in less than a month and we best be gearing up for other battles.
Alekzander
(479 posts)be better off not going after your own POTUS & SecofState & instead work on going after Trump & his extreme ideas.
The US could be vastly different a year from now. Here's how --- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/29/donald-trump-first-year-in-office-different-america
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,446 posts)I got mad at Schumer when it looked like he might try to torpedo the Iran deal back in 2014(?) but, in the end, Schumer said his peace, but he didn't actually cross the aisle. There are just going to be some issues that some Dems won't toe the general party line on (we have to deal with Joe Manchin and other Blue Dogs as much as we dislike them at times) and I think that it's more important to focus on the major things that affect our lives more dramatically. Schumer's stance on Israel, while not totally inconsequential, is not going to change the reality of life for most Americans like, say, repealing ACA or voucherizing Medicare. Now, if we're talking about him supporting war against Iran or tearing up the Iran deal, that's a whole other ball of wax that I would feel much differently about.
Alekzander
(479 posts)of so many factions & all of those factions have their own priorities. All, I am saying is by fighting among ourselves has not been a winning solution & we can see where we are today.
All I am saying is maybe we need to regroup & unite for the time being to try to salvage what we have not lost & we need to start winning elections in state races as well as national. We can do this because this country is not a majority of the far right. Look at many of the social issues that were on ballots in state races & we won those. We just need to make the battle against Trump & his deplorables our main focus & priority for the time-being.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,446 posts)I think that once the new Congress starts next week and especially when Trump is inaugurated in less a month, you will see start seeing some real unity/opposition to Trump. Right now, we're in a transition period with little to do than "navel gaze" and pick up the pieces from November. When s**t gets real next month, I think that it will be "game on" (at least I hope....)
Alekzander
(479 posts)where my thoughts were divisive just commenting on an issue I feel is important if we are going to turn things around.
Me.
(35,454 posts)But he did stand with a foreign leader against our own president and not just any leader but a pretty awful Netanyahu who doesn't care 2 cents for America beyond what foreign aid (up to 38 b now) he can get from us. Frankly, I thought what Schumer did was rather traitorous and worry that he can't be trusted because at the end of the day Schumer is all about Schumer. Perhaps that's why he and the orange man are friends because as a NYer Schumer has certainly, over the years, been aware of DT's dirty deeds. I'll judge him by his deeds and leadership over the next year, but will keep an open eye while doing so.
Alekzander
(479 posts)PhenomenalAJS
(4 posts)I see where this thread is going and it doesn't appear to be a good place. I'm a Hillary supporter who was very proud of the Democratic platform. It was very progressive, while remaining pro-Israel, no doubt over the objections of James Zogby, Cornel West, and Keith Ellison who were 3 of Bernie's appointees to the platform committee. It, unlike its Republican counterpart, clearly mentioned and supported the two-state solution.
I'm not happy that UNSCR 2334 passed without veto, but I understand it is nonbinding in terms of sanctions and I understand Power's and Kerry's reasoning. The Obama Administration had warned Bibi countless times this could happen if allowed the Jewish Home party to steer the ship the was the Tea Party does for Republicans here. I also see Schumer's point that it emboldens extremists on both sides - Palestinians who will try to take IDF soldiers to the ICC and right-wing Israeli politicians who will push settlement to break Judea and Samaria into pieces.
Overall, I think Netanyahu is overreacting like his simpatico, Trump. Not everything is a conspiracy. Bottom line is I think we Democrats need to stay united around our platform and not worry about our disagreements on this issue.
Mosby
(16,386 posts)
karynnj
(59,507 posts)He did this by emboldening the settlers throughout Obama's Presidency. He was actually to the RIGHT of Israel's policy at that time - as they agreed to freeze settlements in 2009/2010 when George Mitchell was working for a two state solution. (Being able to point to a powerful US Senator in the President's party taking this position was something the Palestinian extremists could use to argue that the US was not an honest broker and that any US brokered peace talks were bogus).
Backup:
"U.S. President Barack Obama's decision to criticize Israel over construction for Jews in Judea and Samaria was “counterproductive,” he said. America's position on Jewish communities was “to the left of the PA” at one point, he added. Schumer noted that he made his objections known at the time, both in private meetings and publicly. <snip> What Obama and America should do for peace is to make it known that America's ties with Israel cannot be broken, he said. “By giving the Palestinian and the Arab world hope that they can break the tie between the U.S. and Israel, you don't further the cause of peace, you set back the cause of peace... If they think the tie is immutable, they will say, well maybe we should throw in the towel and have some kind of peace with Israel. It's that simple.” " http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/140363
Note that this source comes from "religious Zionism" ie the settler's movement and comes out of Beit El, the settlement funded by Jared Kushner's family and by David Friedman, Trump's nominee for ambassador to Israel. There are many more mainstream sources for Schumer's many similar statements. I chose this one for a reason. THIS IS WHAT THE SETTLER'S WERE READING. At this point, they are even MORE emboldened - not by Kerry or Obama - but by Trump, Kushner, and Friedman.
In fact, Kerry's speech and the resolution support the position of the rest of the world, with possible minor exceptions. To some extent, Trump will test the Schumer "plan". With the US joined at the hip with the settler's movement (the far right even in Netanyahu's cabinet) we will see if the Palestinians "throw in the towel". I stand with Kerry in assessing that that leads to a Zionist one state solution. What exactly would the Palestinians be offered?
Kerry's speech does not represent a new US policy. What Schumer is criticizing is what Carter, Bush, Clinton, and W all supported. The NYT says this is a speech he has wanted to give since 2014. That he didn't suggests that President Obama (and Kerry) KNEW it would be politically used against Obama in 2015 .. and would put HRC in an awkward position, where disavowing Obama's policy would hurt in the primaries, but if she didn't she could have been hurt in the general election.
Now, with Schumer as the minority leader and President Obama as a lame duck, it does not surprise me that few Democrats are speaking out to support Obama and Kerry. For one, politically it has always been true that it is far more popular to be seen as "on" Israel's side than against it. It is weird, that they can trumpet their independence - like voting against sanctions on Russia after Crimea in the General Assembly, but they treat OUR veto as their God given gift to control. However, Schumer's position is consistent with his 2010 statement.
Another reason that the politics on this are against Obama is that the media has created a very positive image of Netanyahu as a dignified statesman of a beloved ally - an image is at complete variance with his image in the Israeli media. Few in America know that he used the same tactics Trump used this year - inciting people by claims that hordes of Israeli Arabs would be flooding the polls for his opponents. He also speaking to settlers, disavowed support for the 2 state solution 2 days before the election - only to state he was for it a few days after the election. So, it is no surprise that in the US, the voices of Trump, Schumer, and Netanyahu are given more prominence than the voices throughout the world backing Obama. Forgotten is that all 14 other states voted FOR the resolution we voted against.
It is scary that here - is that ONLY on a left leaning Democratic board - is there is more outrage that Obama abstained on a vote that was essentially in support of the US policy, not just under him, but under many Presidents, than there was when Netanyahu CYNICALLY took a Hamas proposal for a ceasefire to the Knesset claiming it was a US proposal. This when he was PUBLICALLY agreeing that a ceasefire was needed, while privately his cabinet felt they had not sufficiently "mowed the grass" and did not want a ceasefire at that point. When a story - like this one - is negative for Netanyahu and Israel it is buried.
Not to mention, I saw nothing on the main forums when Israel did not vote for the sanctions on Russia when they annexed Crimea. Only in articles about this UN vote, did I read that Israel actually abstained from the UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY vote on investigating war crimes committed in Syria because they were lobbying, in vain, for Russia to veto this resolution. That makes Dannon's whining speech that included that while criticizing Israel, the UN was ignoring Syria pretty hypocritical and dishonest.
Alekzander
(479 posts)media has been complicit in creating their positive image of Netanyahu as a "dignified statesman". No dignified statesman who proposes to be an ally would come to their ally's own country & attempt to embarrass the President by delivering a speech at Congress regardless if the opposition party invited him. What he did there was more damage to Israel by that act because it was seen for what it really was.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)In the long run, Trump will have some Republicans that will not support him on everything. In fact NOW is when it would be most surprising for Republicans to disagree. It is ALWAYS more common for a party to abandon a lame duck President than to abandon a new incoming President of their party. I suspect that given Trump's autocratic personality and the fact that he has since young adulthood been his own boss, who rarely had to work with others as peers may make dealing with Congress interesting.
This is not say good for us. There is a solid core of right wing Republicans in both the House and Senate. On all the issues where they agree, we will have a very tough time preserving things we have done. However, on things where they disagree with Trump, he and the people he chose in his government may not have the skills to find a compromise. Then we will see disagreement.
One comment made on MSNBC from someone to the left of Obama/Kerry is that the resolution and the speech might be to get them on record as disagreeing with where Trump/Netanyahu are going. This was stated as cynical as it was done when they had "no power to do anything". However, I would counter that the US - had it done both of these things in 2014 (possibly writing a resolution that they would agree with 100% and both introducing it and voting for it) would not have changed the underlying dynamics. What seemed very clear in 2014 was that Netanyahu and the Palestinians really did not have any interest in taking the risk of radically changing the situation by agreeing to a two state solution. The 2014 Gaza war made that even clearer.
Where I think she may have been correct is that I think both Kerry and Obama want to be able to make a last minute statement that they did all they could to push Israel to a different path than the one their right wing government is intent on taking. Having read Kerry's various comments over the last four years, he clearly heard the pain of the Palestinians and the Israelis and he has to know he did everything he could do. Obviously, that woman might point out that Obama still pushed the biggest aid package ever for Israel. However, funding for anything starts in the House and is voted on by both Houses. The fact is that AIPAC and its allies actually wanted more. There is NO way that Obama could have greatly cut aid to Israel. It would have required a veto, which would have been overridden ... in the late fall, before the 2016 election. Believe me, had Obama done anything like that, Clinton would have someone other than Comey and Russia she would (correctly) blame.
tritsofme
(17,417 posts)They chose to make a decision that would obviously deeply divide the party.
And no, we're not just going to shut up. Thanks.
Alekzander
(479 posts)Secondly, show me in this thread or my post where it was ever said for you (whoever you are) to shut up & most dems do agree with Obama & Kerry.
And here, you can read an article that agrees with you:
----------------------
Senate Democrats Condemn Obama for Anti-Israel UN Vote
http://tinyurl.com/z2szwlg
