(03-14-2024 04:29 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Schumer , Like Mitch needs to step down his Leadership position. He’s out of touch with reality

Yes on both.

I will give McConnell credit though, for having the perfect response to Schumer. I saw it on X so I assume his staff wrote it for him, but still.

Good gosh just when I think democrats can't get any stupider they just keep proving me wrong.

(03-14-2024 12:25 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  I guess I missed where Israel became the 51st state and our government controlled theirs?

Really? How arrogant can you get?

Bibi should have responded, "I think the US should have a national referendum on whether Schumer should be allowed to stay in the Senate."

(03-14-2024 12:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 11:37 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Sounds like election interference. Why is that only bad in one direction?

and FOREIGN GOVERNMENT election interference at that.

Yet we allow AIPAC to give infinite money to go after any politicians they don't view as pro-Israel enough.

(03-15-2024 08:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 12:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 11:37 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Sounds like election interference. Why is that only bad in one direction?

and FOREIGN GOVERNMENT election interference at that.

Yet we allow AIPAC to give infinite money to go after any politicians they don't view as pro-Israel enough.

Anti-Israel elements have the same privileges as AIPAC.

But at any rate, donating/spending money on behalf of a political candidate is just not the same as an incumbent Senator (and the Majority Leader, at that) publicly calling for another country to hold an election, to vote for a particular political outcome in that election, and then to threaten changes in US policy towards that country if such an election and such an outcome is not forthcoming. I’m honestly curious if any other office-holder has ever done that before, much less while speaking from the floor of the US Senate.

(03-15-2024 09:13 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 08:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 12:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 11:37 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Sounds like election interference. Why is that only bad in one direction?

and FOREIGN GOVERNMENT election interference at that.

Yet we allow AIPAC to give infinite money to go after any politicians they don't view as pro-Israel enough.

Anti-Israel elements have the same privileges as AIPAC.

But at any rate, donating/spending money on behalf of a political candidate is just not the same as an incumbent Senator (and the Majority Leader, at that) publicly calling for another country to hold an election, to vote for a particular political outcome in that election, and then to threaten changes in US policy towards that country if such an election and such an outcome is not forthcoming. I’m honestly curious if any other office-holder has ever done that before, much less while speaking from the floor of the US Senate.

Especially from a nation that sends yours probably hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The 'threat' is obvious.

(03-15-2024 09:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:13 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 08:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 12:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 11:37 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Sounds like election interference. Why is that only bad in one direction?

and FOREIGN GOVERNMENT election interference at that.

Yet we allow AIPAC to give infinite money to go after any politicians they don't view as pro-Israel enough.

Anti-Israel elements have the same privileges as AIPAC.

But at any rate, donating/spending money on behalf of a political candidate is just not the same as an incumbent Senator (and the Majority Leader, at that) publicly calling for another country to hold an election, to vote for a particular political outcome in that election, and then to threaten changes in US policy towards that country if such an election and such an outcome is not forthcoming. I’m honestly curious if any other office-holder has ever done that before, much less while speaking from the floor of the US Senate.

Especially from a nation that sends yours probably hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The 'threat' is obvious.

So we should send them hundreds of billions of dollars and expect nothing out of it? We should prop up a client state but have no control over said client state? Hell no. Either we should not give you billions of dollars a year, or our money should come with strings attached. The "threat" should be obvious, Israel only exists because we've funded and armed them for decades, when we say jump the response should be how high, instead it's the exact opposite they made demands of us and we give them whatever the hell they demand. We do this exact same garbage with the Saudi's. That royal family would have been murdered decades ago if it wasn't for our weapons and money, yet again they don't follow what we want they make us go over there and kiss their ring and kiss their arses, will tell us to go fu*k ourselves, and we'll give them more money and weapons. Either don't fund these type of client states, or they need to act like client states and give deference to what Daddy Warbucks wants. We pick option 3 of giving both of them unlimited money and weapons and then letting them cuck us.

(03-15-2024 09:49 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So we should send them hundreds of billions of dollars and expect nothing out of it? We should prop up a client state but have no control over said client state? Hell no. Either we should not give you billions of dollars a year, or our money should come with strings attached. The "threat" should be obvious, Israel only exists because we've funded and armed them for decades, when we say jump the response should be how high, instead it's the exact opposite they made demands of us and we give them whatever the hell they demand. We do this exact same garbage with the Saudi's. That royal family would have been murdered decades ago if it wasn't for our weapons and money, yet again they don't follow what we want they make us go over there and kiss their ring and kiss their arses, will tell us to go fu*k ourselves, and we'll give them more money and weapons. Either don't fund these type of client states, or they need to act like client states and give deference to what Daddy Warbucks wants. We pick option 3 of giving both of them unlimited money and weapons and then letting them cuck us.

The issue is this prick (who was VERY outspoken in decrying foreign influence recently... in case you missed it) publicly interfering with a free foreign election...

If you want to have strings, that's fine... but those strings... JUST LIKE THE SUPPORT TO WHICH YOU ARE ATTACHING STRINGS is/should be the official policy of the US... and should be focused on policies... not on 'people'.... unless those people are our 'enemies'.... and not simply a duly elected politician whom we disagree with politically.

I recognize that Democrats hold the bar of 'enemy' quite low... but this is insanity.

A Jew in this country is afforded the right the criticize Israel, question their decisions,!differ from the assigned narrative the rest of society is required to stick to, all without being called antisemitic. No one else is given that right.

(03-15-2024 10:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:49 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So we should send them hundreds of billions of dollars and expect nothing out of it? We should prop up a client state but have no control over said client state? Hell no. Either we should not give you billions of dollars a year, or our money should come with strings attached. The "threat" should be obvious, Israel only exists because we've funded and armed them for decades, when we say jump the response should be how high, instead it's the exact opposite they made demands of us and we give them whatever the hell they demand. We do this exact same garbage with the Saudi's. That royal family would have been murdered decades ago if it wasn't for our weapons and money, yet again they don't follow what we want they make us go over there and kiss their ring and kiss their arses, will tell us to go fu*k ourselves, and we'll give them more money and weapons. Either don't fund these type of client states, or they need to act like client states and give deference to what Daddy Warbucks wants. We pick option 3 of giving both of them unlimited money and weapons and then letting them cuck us.

The issue is this prick (who was VERY outspoken in decrying foreign influence recently... in case you missed it) publicly interfering with a free foreign election...

If you want to have strings, that's fine... but those strings... JUST LIKE THE SUPPORT TO WHICH YOU ARE ATTACHING STRINGS is/should be the official policy of the US... and should be focused on policies... not on 'people'.... unless those people are our 'enemies'.... and not simply a duly elected politician whom we disagree with politically.

I recognize that Democrats hold the bar of 'enemy' quite low... but this is insanity.

There's really no point in having this argument, because the reality is there are only like maybe 10 politicians that want to seriously change the fundamental relationship with the US and Israel (and I might be over stating that number). The rest of this fake posturing is just trying to distract the extremely angry portion of the Dem base who's furious at them while continuing to fund, arm, and cover for Israel just as much and as hard as ever. Thankfully this is fooling no one who is angry about it, no one is falling for their crap except I guess people on the right who seem to be falling for the lies that the Dems aren't completely cosigning every single action taking by Bibi and Israel in private and just hand wringing in public.

(03-15-2024 10:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:49 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So we should send them hundreds of billions of dollars and expect nothing out of it? We should prop up a client state but have no control over said client state? Hell no. Either we should not give you billions of dollars a year, or our money should come with strings attached. The "threat" should be obvious, Israel only exists because we've funded and armed them for decades, when we say jump the response should be how high, instead it's the exact opposite they made demands of us and we give them whatever the hell they demand. We do this exact same garbage with the Saudi's. That royal family would have been murdered decades ago if it wasn't for our weapons and money, yet again they don't follow what we want they make us go over there and kiss their ring and kiss their arses, will tell us to go fu*k ourselves, and we'll give them more money and weapons. Either don't fund these type of client states, or they need to act like client states and give deference to what Daddy Warbucks wants. We pick option 3 of giving both of them unlimited money and weapons and then letting them cuck us.

The issue is this prick (who was VERY outspoken in decrying foreign influence recently... in case you missed it) publicly interfering with a free foreign election...

If you want to have strings, that's fine... but those strings... JUST LIKE THE SUPPORT TO WHICH YOU ARE ATTACHING STRINGS is/should be the official policy of the US... and should be focused on policies... not on 'people'.... unless those people are our 'enemies'.... and not simply a duly elected politician whom we disagree with politically.

I recognize that Democrats hold the bar of 'enemy' quite low... but this is insanity.

nice rebuttal ... b0j0 didn't think that knee-jerk through...

NG also brought up another good point about "eradication" ... it's one I've given Bibi shite about due to slow playing the works....

regardless, this is another section of their 'holy war' with monies to be made ... plain and simple .... it has always been passe in muh book...

it's always going to be one until @Vitrification #sand2glass - thank you for that cool word, mon shere ...

(03-15-2024 10:46 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 10:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:49 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So we should send them hundreds of billions of dollars and expect nothing out of it? We should prop up a client state but have no control over said client state? Hell no. Either we should not give you billions of dollars a year, or our money should come with strings attached. The "threat" should be obvious, Israel only exists because we've funded and armed them for decades, when we say jump the response should be how high, instead it's the exact opposite they made demands of us and we give them whatever the hell they demand. We do this exact same garbage with the Saudi's. That royal family would have been murdered decades ago if it wasn't for our weapons and money, yet again they don't follow what we want they make us go over there and kiss their ring and kiss their arses, will tell us to go fu*k ourselves, and we'll give them more money and weapons. Either don't fund these type of client states, or they need to act like client states and give deference to what Daddy Warbucks wants. We pick option 3 of giving both of them unlimited money and weapons and then letting them cuck us.

The issue is this prick (who was VERY outspoken in decrying foreign influence recently... in case you missed it) publicly interfering with a free foreign election...

If you want to have strings, that's fine... but those strings... JUST LIKE THE SUPPORT TO WHICH YOU ARE ATTACHING STRINGS is/should be the official policy of the US... and should be focused on policies... not on 'people'.... unless those people are our 'enemies'.... and not simply a duly elected politician whom we disagree with politically.

I recognize that Democrats hold the bar of 'enemy' quite low... but this is insanity.

There's really no point in having this argument , because the reality is there are only like maybe 10 politicians that want to seriously change the fundamental relationship with the US and Israel (and I might be over stating that number). The rest of this fake posturing is just trying to distract the extremely angry portion of the Dem base who's furious at them while continuing to fund, arm, and cover for Israel just as much and as hard as ever. Thankfully this is fooling no one who is angry about it, no one is falling for their crap except I guess people on the right who seem to be falling for the lies that the Dems aren't completely cosigning every single action taking by Bibi and Israel in private and just hand wringing in public.

yet, here we are....

(03-15-2024 10:47 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 10:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:49 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So we should send them hundreds of billions of dollars and expect nothing out of it? We should prop up a client state but have no control over said client state? Hell no. Either we should not give you billions of dollars a year, or our money should come with strings attached. The "threat" should be obvious, Israel only exists because we've funded and armed them for decades, when we say jump the response should be how high, instead it's the exact opposite they made demands of us and we give them whatever the hell they demand. We do this exact same garbage with the Saudi's. That royal family would have been murdered decades ago if it wasn't for our weapons and money, yet again they don't follow what we want they make us go over there and kiss their ring and kiss their arses, will tell us to go fu*k ourselves, and we'll give them more money and weapons. Either don't fund these type of client states, or they need to act like client states and give deference to what Daddy Warbucks wants. We pick option 3 of giving both of them unlimited money and weapons and then letting them cuck us.

The issue is this prick (who was VERY outspoken in decrying foreign influence recently... in case you missed it) publicly interfering with a free foreign election...

If you want to have strings, that's fine... but those strings... JUST LIKE THE SUPPORT TO WHICH YOU ARE ATTACHING STRINGS is/should be the official policy of the US... and should be focused on policies... not on 'people'.... unless those people are our 'enemies'.... and not simply a duly elected politician whom we disagree with politically.

I recognize that Democrats hold the bar of 'enemy' quite low... but this is insanity.

nice rebuttal ... b0j0 didn't think that knee-jerk through...

NG also brought up another good point about "eradication" ... it's one I've given Bibi shite about due to slow playing the works....

regardless, this is another section of their 'holy war' with monies to be made ... plain and simple .... it has always been passe in muh book...

it's always going to be one until @Vitrification #sand2glass - thank you for that cool word, mon shere ...

The reality is I'm arguing about a posture from Schumer that is completely fake, a complete lie, meant to do nothing but attempt to distract those of us who think the US is funding a Genocide, while they continue to fund and arm said Genocide just as hard as ever. So my apologies, I wasted my time and your time arguing with someone who 100% supports everything that's going on over there and is just cosplaying that he doesn't to attempt to save the electoral disaster that is coming for them.

(03-15-2024 10:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The reality is I'm arguing about a posture from Schumer that is completely fake, a complete lie, meant to do nothing but attempt to distract those of us who think the US is funding a Genocide, while they continue to fund and arm said Genocide just as hard as ever.

But why 'interfere with a foreign election' while doing so? If he had spoken about Bibi's policies etc etc etc no problem... but he called for a 'new election'.... at a time in this nation when 'election interference' is a major issue.

He's shot himself in the foot, and if he is trying to appeal to democrats, he's outing them as hypocrites. Not a good look.

(03-14-2024 04:29 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Schumer , Like Mitch needs to step down his Leadership position. He’s out of touch with reality

That decrepit old fool needs to be handed over to Hamas in exchange for hostages however many we can get freed for him.

Useless idiot would have the holocaust starting all over again.

Enlightened Chuck believes Hamas wants to live in peace with Israelis.

Guy fell out of the stupid tree and hit every limb on the way down. New York deserves a FOOL like him.

Spot on, BD.

Schumer is and always has been an idiot who has far too much power.

(03-15-2024 09:49 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:13 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 08:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 12:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  and FOREIGN GOVERNMENT election interference at that.

Yet we allow AIPAC to give infinite money to go after any politicians they don't view as pro-Israel enough.

Anti-Israel elements have the same privileges as AIPAC.

But at any rate, donating/spending money on behalf of a political candidate is just not the same as an incumbent Senator (and the Majority Leader, at that) publicly calling for another country to hold an election, to vote for a particular political outcome in that election, and then to threaten changes in US policy towards that country if such an election and such an outcome is not forthcoming. I’m honestly curious if any other office-holder has ever done that before, much less while speaking from the floor of the US Senate.

Especially from a nation that sends yours probably hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The 'threat' is obvious.

So we should send them hundreds of billions of dollars and expect nothing out of it? We should prop up a client state but have no control over said client state? Hell no. Either we should not give you billions of dollars a year, or our money should come with strings attached. The "threat" should be obvious, Israel only exists because we've funded and armed them for decades, when we say jump the response should be how high, instead it's the exact opposite they made demands of us and we give them whatever the hell they demand. We do this exact same garbage with the Saudi's. That royal family would have been murdered decades ago if it wasn't for our weapons and money, yet again they don't follow what we want they make us go over there and kiss their ring and kiss their arses, will tell us to go fu*k ourselves, and we'll give them more money and weapons. Either don't fund these type of client states, or they need to act like client states and give deference to what Daddy Warbucks wants. We pick option 3 of giving both of them unlimited money and weapons and then letting them cuck us.

What you fail to understand in all of this is the back flow that finds our politicians bank accounts.

Once you understand the $$$ trail everything will start adding up. Both literally and figurative.

WATCH: Joe Biden Fans the Flames With Concerning Reaction to Schumer's Call for Regime Change in Israel

Quote:On Thursday, Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called for regime change in Israel on the floor of the United States Senate in what can only be described as a shockingly open display of a powerful U.S. leader engaging in blatant foreign election interference.

“As a lifelong supporter of Israel, it has become clear to me: The Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after Oct. 7,” Schumer proclaimed. "I believe that holding a new election once the war starts to wind down would give Israelis an opportunity to express their vision for the post-war future."

The speech was especially noteworthy considering Schumer's status as America's highest-ranking elected Jewish official, and also considering his prior statements about how the United States must remain guarded and "vigilant" about other countries' attempts at interfering in our elections.

While Israel's response was, to paraphrase, to tell Schumer and the Biden administration to go pound sand, we didn't hear from the so-called leader of the free world Thursday regarding what was arguably one of the biggest speeches given of Schumer's career on a subject of such international importance.

But we did hear President Joe Biden Friday on the matter. In brief comments made while sitting next to Ireland's Prime Minister Leo Varadkar in the White House ahead of St. Patrick's Day, here's what Biden had to say:

"Sen. Schumer contacted my senior staff that he was going to make that speech, and I'm not gonna elaborate on the speech. He made a good speech and I think he expressed a serious concern shared not only by him but by many Americans."

\Watch:

Considering Biden has previously put on big public shows of support for Israel while still attempting to straddle the line, this will be news to Bibi Netanyahu, who while aware of how Biden has been working behind the scenes to oust him, probably didn't expect him to admit out in the open that Schumer's statement calling for regime change was a "good speech."

It's been a terrible week for relations between the United States and Israel, with the latter undoubtedly feeling as though they've been stabbed in the back by who they thought was their staunchest ally amid a war they can't afford to lose:

Yep. And all because Biden wants to win Michigan. Absolutely disgraceful.

Quote:“ The Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after Oct. 7,”

This is the most troubling comment. It's none of his/our business to state what 'the needs of Israel' are or what leadership 'fits' it.