politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
He can't be using the word "Genocide" specifically, because the international court and UN as well as many very old documents allow 3rd party intervention to stop a genocide, meaning by saying that exact word he would be advocating the invasion of an allied nation which is grounds for expulsion from the senate. I'm sure the 49 Republicans and a couple Dems would love to throw his ass out if a vote came up.
Anybody who wants Bernie to use the word Genocide just wants a Republican Senate Majority, doesn't care about Gaza, stop faking asshole.
Citation needed. AFAIK, the Senate is allowed to discuss whether a nation should be considered an ally, and whether or not to invade a sovereign nation.
Or did you mean he would be "recalled" (by his constituents) rather than "expelled" (by his fellow senators)?
There is no real law or regulation for when the house or senate expels one of their own, though 17 people have been expelled historically, but there was recent talks of expelling Tlaib for using the word Genocide in May. Or did you want a citation for Genocide being acceptable cause to invade as it relates to the United Nations and International Law?
Tlaib wasn't censured for using the word "genocide" to describe Israel's actions toward Palestinians. She was censured for repeating the slogan "from the river to the sea", which has been described as "nothing else but the call for the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews".
She was only censured because a sufficient number of Democrats agreed with Republicans to issue a censure. None of those Democrats would support a Republican call for her expulsion.
My point is that Bernie is free to call it a genocide if he wants to. He's free to call for American military intervention against Israel if he wants to.
There is a huge constitutional issue with the expulsion of a legislator for making a statement that is well within the scope of their constitutional duties.
I don't need evidence of genocide being considered justification to intervene. I readily concede that point. My concern here is the constitutional issue that would arise if a legislator is effectively prohibited from representing their constituency, including a constituency that thinks Israel is engaged in Genocide.
You're out of touch with reality if you think Bernie will get nothing more than a stern talking to for asking for a foreign force to invade Israel. I get it, dude, I really do: I think the USA should depose Netanyahu and take control of the situation themselves, honestly, but support for Palestine is not universal and is in short supply in the US Congress.
He certainly will face severe consequences: from his constituents. They could recall him, or replace him in the next election. He faces consequences from the Democratic party: they can refuse to support his re-election.
He faces serious consequences from the people he represents, but not from the Senate or the federal government.
Censure is nothing. It carries no penalty. Democratic support for Tlaib's censure was easy to give because it carried no actual cost. There is no way that Democratic support for censure would translate to support for her expulsion. A legislator who isn't facing censure just isn't trying hard enough.
Bernie is free to call it a genocide if he wants. The fact that he isn't (ostensibly) tells us that his constituency doesn't want him to do that.
Your opinions don't represent reality.
Ad hominem.
You say that as if I didn't already argue the same baseless assertion you made multiple times.
My response was to a comment that did nothing to further your position whatsoever:
That comment does not address anything about Bernie Sanders, genocide, expulsion, censure, or any other topic previously raised. That comment wasn't your first ad hominem argument; you previously declared I was "out of touch with reality". I ignored the ad hominem part and focused solely on the actual issue. With your second, there was no actual issue to continue the argument: just the ad hominem. With nothing else to address, I merely needed to identify it as such to discredit it.
Your on-topic argument is based primarily on the false idea that Tlaib was censured for calling Israel's actions a "genocide". That is not true. The Democratic legislators who joined the Republicans in censuring her cited not "genocide", but "from the river to the sea", which they deemed to be a call for the destruction of Israel and the murdering of Jews.
The remainder of your argument is based on the idea that the UN deems "genocide" to be an act that justifies military intervention. You presented the idea that a senator could be expelled for suggesting military intervention should be used against an "ally". You have yet to provide any sort of citation or other support for that point. You pivoted instead to Tlaib's censure, without further addressing that point.
I have argued that the Senate is specifically empowered to discuss military intervention, including intervention against an ally. I will generally cite Article I, Section 8 of the constitution to support that point.
I would say that if a senator is expelled for doing something the Senate is specifically empowered to do, everyone who supports such an expulsion is an enemy of the constitution, and we have much, much bigger problems to contend with than the Israel/Palestine debate.
Back then: "This will ensure we never tolerate genocide again!"
Now: mandatory genocide denial
The pure irony of shaming the people working the hardest to stop genocide by calling them complicit in genocide.
Is it complacency if he's forced to either deny genocide or lose his position to stop it?
Losing his position does the opposite of stop it. That's the problem.
Right, so why would anyone call him complicit?
Perhaps because of people like you intentionally framing the question of complicity wrong?
I called him complicit by asking a question wrong hours later?
Yeah actually
https://tlaib.house.gov/posts/tlaib-statement-on-the-ongoing-genocide-of-palestinians-and-invasion-of-rafah
She was then immediately threatened with expulsion with a quickly passing Censure Vote 234-188
https://apnews.com/article/congress-house-censure-resolution-tlaib-8085189047a4c40f2d44ada4604aa076
A censure vote has no practical effect but certainly sends a strong message of disapproval.
And for what, btw? Bernie has opposed arms to Israel at every turn, what difference does word choice make?
Your link says she was censured not for using the term "genocide", but for repeating the slogan "from the river to the sea". Your article quotes Representative Brad Schneider (D, Illinois) as describing as "nothing else but the call for the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews".
Did he? My memory is jumbled. It has Bernie full steam ahead defending genocide for at least three months
If you watch the video they cite he clearly does call for a ceasefire, and furthermore says, as is practically his catchphrase since a year ago, that "Israel has a right to defend itself and go after hamas but it does not have the right to go to war against the entire Palestinian people."
I don't know how you could misconstrue that as defending genocide in any way, shape, or form but if you are against his explicit stance in this case then you want war to continue and more civilians to die, so fuck you I guess.
For a year now he has been the biggest voice in "not sending Netanyahu another penny" unless proof that Palestinian human rights are upheld and aid is brought into the nation, which sadly has not been the policy stance of the majority of congress.