Let us all hope she is cleaning out her office a year from now.
If a politician blamed a crime on illegal immigrants or a Muslim and then it ended up being a white citizen, it would be a story. False accusations are not honest mistakes. They are a sign of hatred and bigotry.Is there more to this? Is the uproar over assuming white supremacy was to blame in the first place? Why shouldn't "liberal media" be quiet about it? Just seems like an honest mistake.
So the issue is we have a Congresswoman who is showing a "sign of hatred and bigotry" toward __________.If a politician blamed a crime on illegal immigrants or a Muslim and then it ended up being a white citizen, it would be a story. False accusations are not honest mistakes. They are a sign of hatred and bigotry.
I agree. I can understand her jumping to the wrong conclusion (not saying it was appropriate) but deleting the tweet is not enough, and an apology is in order.She should apologize for her mistake and that should be the end of this story.
Yeah, but whereas Corbyn was literally the leader of Labor, Tlaib is just some random member of congress. She's irrelevant aside from that.She’s Jeremy Corbyn.
She gets Trump's base all riled up.Yeah, but whereas Corbyn was literally the leader of Labor, Tlaib is just some random member of congress. She's irrelevant aside from that.
For me, to show hatred and bigotry toward Muslims and immigrants is shameful, whereas hatred and bigotry toward white supremacists is admirable.If a politician blamed a crime on illegal immigrants or a Muslim and then it ended up being a white citizen, it would be a story. False accusations are not honest mistakes. They are a sign of hatred and bigotry.
Whites. Adding supremist does not change much since she is one who is overly broad with her strokes. She recently stated anyone who supports Israel as unamerican. She made a statement based on zero facts to stir up racial hatred. It is inexcusable and not a 'mistake'So the issue is we have a Congresswoman who is showing a "sign of hatred and bigotry" toward __________.
Could you fill in the blank?
Do you think she knew it was not white supremacy all along and tweeted that anyway or are you saying it wasn't a mistake due to her inherent bigotry? The latter, right?Whites. Adding supremist does not change much since she is one who is overly broad with her strokes. She recently stated anyone who supports Israel as unamerican. She made a statement based on zero facts to stir up racial hatred. It is inexcusable and not a 'mistake'
Inexcusable?Whites. Adding supremist does not change much since she is one who is overly broad with her strokes. She recently stated anyone who supports Israel as unamerican. She made a statement based on zero facts to stir up racial hatred. It is inexcusable and not a 'mistake'
She called Trump a white supremacist, so where does she draw the line. Trump Supporters maybe? Don't really care about an anti-semite wrongly and hypocritically getting in her high-horse about white supremists. She is vile.For me, to show hatred and bigotry toward Muslims and immigrants is shameful, whereas hatred and bigotry toward white supremacists is admirable.
She is building quite a history, so has lost all benefit of the doubt from me.Inexcusable?
I'm not a huge Tlaib fan, but she jumped to an erroneous conclusion which she later removed.
People are being ridiculous in their extreme reactions. Can't we just disagree with her, or say she jumped to a conclusion not supported by facts? Do we have to just go all the way to 11 every time on this stuff?
Seems like a pretty good place to draw the line.She called Trump a white supremacist, so where does she draw the line.
Do you believe that was her intent?Whites. Adding supremist does not change much since she is one who is overly broad with her strokes. She recently stated anyone who supports Israel as unamerican. She made a statement based on zero facts to stir up racial hatred. It is inexcusable and not a 'mistake'
Benefit of the doubt? She made a mistake, and deleted her tweet. What benefit of the doubt does she require?She is building quite a history, so has lost all benefit of the doubt from me.
Bigot is a justifiable criticism. White supremist is over the top.and . . . ?
So are you on record as saying Trump is a white supremacist?Seems like a pretty good place to draw the line.
Making false accusations is more than just made a mistake. It is intentional and displays her bigotry.Benefit of the doubt? She made a mistake, and deleted her tweet. What benefit of the doubt does she require?
She was upset folks got killed, and misattributed the rationale for the murder, jumping to an inaccurate, but not wholly illogical, conclusion.
I have pretty good friends who react too quickly in these types of situations who, before the evidence is in, assume it's a group typically associated with this type of behavior.Making false accusations is more than just made a mistake. It is intentional and displays her bigotry.
It would be interesting for her to explain what triggered her to jump to such a conclusion. With her history of anti-semitic remarks it is ironic that a crime she linked to white supremist turned out to be by black anti-semitics.I have pretty good friends who react too quickly in these types of situations who, before the evidence is in, assume it's a group typically associated with this type of behavior.
Several times i've called them on it, saying we should wait until more information is known before jumping to conclusions. Several times they've been right, several times my heed for caution was prudent. Doesn't make them bigoted, and they weren't intentionally inflaming racial tensions (which in this case doesn't even make sense).
The most reasonable answer is they're upset at a loss of life, want to speak out against those who perpetrated the crimes, and fell into the mental trap of assuming they knew who was responsible before the facts were in.
I think your second sentence answered the first. She was off on the skin color.It would be interesting for her to explain what triggered her to jump to such a conclusion. With her history of anti-semitic remarks it is ironic that a crime she linked to white supremist turned out to be by black anti-semitics.
I'm not sure you're going to win a lot of people over with the "He's just a bigot, not a white supremacist" message.Bigot is a justifiable criticism. White supremist is over the top.
But it is completely an opposite ideology. The later lines up with her hatred from a liberal pro-Arab anti-semitic views.I think your second sentence answered the first. She was off on the skin color.
Do you have anything showing she is anti-Semitic? All I’ve seen is criticism of Israel being twisted this way. The tweet she deleted would indicate that she is against groups targeting Jewish people.But it is completely an opposite ideology. The later lines up with her hatred from a liberal pro-Arab anti-semitic views.
I don't see that. If she knew the identity of the perpetrator and then lied about it, then, yes that would be intentional.Making false accusations is more than just made a mistake. It is intentional and displays her bigotry.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ilhan-omar-and-rashida-tlaib-partnered-with-vicious-anti-semites-to-plan-their-trip-to-israel/Do you have anything showing she is anti-Semitic? All I’ve seen is criticism of Israel being twisted this way. The tweet she deleted would indicate that she is against groups targeting Jewish people.
If there was a white girl raped and Trump tweeted blaming hispanic illegals when no facts were known, would that not be intentional based on his bigotry? People here would be upset about such a conclusion and justifiably so.I don't see that. If she knew the identity of the perpetrator and then lied about it, then, yes that would be intentional.
This appears to be a mistake based on her preconceived notions. And we have seen that mindset in threads about terrorist attacks (although not recently since the mods cautioned against that) in which, immediately following the attack, a small percentage of people assumed that the perpetrator was Muslim or from the Middle East (well before there was any identifying information regarding race, ethnicity, or religion).
White supremacy isn't an ethnicity or race.If there was a white girl raped and Trump tweeted blaming hispanic illegals when no facts were known, would that not be intentional based on his bigotry? People here would be upset about such a conclusion and justifiably so.
These are some rough articles, but they at least inspired me to read some from more reputable sources.https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ilhan-omar-and-rashida-tlaib-partnered-with-vicious-anti-semites-to-plan-their-trip-to-israel/
https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/commentary/rashida-tlaib-spouts-politically-correct-anti-semitism-the-21st-century
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/anti-semitism/the-case-against-ilhan-omar-and-rashida-tlaib/
Of course.. attack the sourceThese are some rough articles, but they at least inspired me to read some from more reputable sources.
Well...they can’t attack or condemn her.Of course.. attack the source
To a lot of people with Rashida's views, any white Trump voter is a white supremacist. Besides, hispanic illegals are not a race either, but it would still be bigoted to jump to such conclusion.White supremacy isn't an ethnicity or race.
I don't think those same folks would agree with you.To a lot of people with Rashida's views, any white Trump voter is a white supremacist.
I said she should apologizeWell...they can’t attack or condemn her.
Dude, come on. That comparison completely ignores the context that provided the basis for her incorrect assumption. It was a mass shooting at a kosher market and they established that the motive was anti-Semitism before she tweeted it I believe. Given those established facts what percentage chance would a reasonable person put on it being a white supremacist? 95%? Higher?If there was a white girl raped and Trump tweeted blaming hispanic illegals when no facts were known, would that not be intentional based on his bigotry? People here would be upset about such a conclusion and justifiably so.
Marching orders?Dude, come on. That comparison completely ignores the context that provided the basis for her incorrect assumption. It was a mass shooting at a kosher market and they established that the motive was anti-Semitism before she tweeted it I believe. Given those established facts what percentage chance would a reasonable person put on it being a white supremacist? 95%? Higher?
By comparison, if a girl (not sure why her race matters) is raped, what percentage chance would a reasonable person put on the attacker being an undocumented Hispanic person? 5%? less?
This is a patently absurd argument. She made a careless mistake. Members of Congress make them every day, like everyone else. Other than people with a strong motivation to protect the reputation of white supremacists, why would anyone possibly care about this?
Is this a big Fox News World story? Christ. A GOP member of congress blatantly lied and then contradicted herself, about the events surrounding the impeachment charges, today. Imagine thinking Tlaib's dumb tweet unfairly vilifying white supremacists (the horror!) is a more important story than that.Marching orders?
If there was a white girl raped and Trump tweeted blaming hispanic illegals when no facts were known, would that not be intentional based on his bigotry? People here would be upset about such a conclusion and justifiably so.
Many people here rip on Trump for his hair, weight, and saying he’s orange.Her own anti-Semitic views are pretty well known to me, and I'm not a fan of hers at all. That said, racial/ethnic supremacists of any type are unintelligent people, and their views should be strongly condemned. If a person hates another person for no reason than beyond a difference in physical appearance, they are not smart.
She is the David Duke of the left. She casts votes and spews rhetoric which reeks of anti-semitism. She deserves criticism. By itself, this event could be dismissed and excused.Dude, come on. That comparison completely ignores the context that provided the basis for her incorrect assumption. It was a mass shooting at a kosher market and they established that the motive was anti-Semitism before she tweeted it I believe. Given those established facts what percentage chance would a reasonable person put on it being a white supremacist? 95%? Higher?
By comparison, if a girl (not sure why her race matters) is raped, what percentage chance would a reasonable person put on the attacker being an undocumented Hispanic person? 5%? Less?
This is a patently absurd hypothetical comparison. She made a careless mistake. Members of Congress make them every day, like everyone else. Other than people with a strong motivation to protect the reputation of white supremacists, why would anyone possibly care about this?