Ilhan Omar's Opponent Wants Her Hung

[Craig4]

This particular incident is typical of elected Republicans anymore.

I suspect she won't get the nomination. That's no cause for hope being as the Trumptrash she's appealing to won't care that she advocated political violence but rather that she shoplifted pet care supplies.

 

[Stacyhs]

Fair enough. I inferred the "conspire" part from context and body of work. I've answered Stacy's question, but I'm not going to defend the claim. Since it's not working for you, I withdraw it. Stacy, I'm sorry for accusing you of peddling a conspiracy theory.

Nuh uh. That's a backhanded "apology" if I've ever read one. You cannot quote me accusing you of 'conspiring' to do anything and realized you're backed into a corner you cannot get yourself out of. "Since it's not working for you, I withdraw it," isn't an admittance of error; it's an attempt to placate Cabbage by patronizing him.

Exactly what from the "context and body of (my) work" led you to infer I was accusing you of a conspiracy?

In reality you were just making an unfounded accusation against me, based on a misreading of what I meant by "so to speak".

Nope. I didn't misread anything. It was a direct reference to the sentence immediately preceding it. It had nothing to do with you thinking "Ms Omar would make an attractive dickgirl." You just thought, incorrectly, that you were being clever in the way you were doing it.

Obviously she shouldn't be executed unless she's actually proven guilty of treason. That said, I'd have no problem if Ms Omar were, so to speak,... hung,"

 

[crescent]

Thank you! Pictures are hung, people are hanged.

Speak for yourself!

Perhaps they would rather that she hung than hanged. Kinky, depraved bastards that they are....

 

[Giz]

I imagine it's only a matter of time before a US politician is murdered by someone who buys in to rhetoric by the woman in the OP. I don't imagine it will change much.

.

There’s been similar attempts in the USA:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting

 

[PhantomWolf]

There’s been similar attempts in the USA:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting

Who was the person running for office who's rhetoric convinced Hodgkinson to carry out this attack?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't believe that a party has to "accept" you as a candidate.

AIUI, this is accurate. A year or two ago there was a thread on here about a literal Nazi standing for the Repulican party in some district because there were no other candidates. I questioned why the Republican party couldn't disassociate themselves from him and was told by several posters in no uncertain terms that that's not how the American political system works and that any set-up where there are requirements for someone to stand as a candidate (such as reflecting the philosophy or political opinions of the party in question, or of not being a literal Nazi) would be a bad system.

Seems very odd to me, but that appears to be what the situation is.

 

[Belz...]

The whole post is Stacyhs's theory. I'm not going to highlight the whole post. Theory is that I'm conspiring to promote something.

Sorry, but "to work towards" is not the definition of "to conspire".

You're playing a silly word game, and I doubt anyone will be fooled.

 

[Giz]

Who was the person running for office who's rhetoric convinced Hodgkinson to carry out this attack?

Perhaps I was too subtle. Sometimes crazy or zealous people will take actions that are not reasonably justified. In the baseball case, he was a fan of Bernie. That doesn’t mean that Bernie had done anything wrong or should tone down his rhetoric.

 

[Susheel]

Did Bernie suggest murder? However, we do have evidence of the current President (then "candidate for-"overtly suggesting ("kiddingly of course") the murder of his political opponent.

 

[Cabbage]

Perhaps I was too subtle. Sometimes crazy or zealous people will take actions that are not reasonably justified. In the baseball case, he was a fan of Bernie. That doesn’t mean that Bernie had done anything wrong or should tone down his rhetoric.

Being too subtle is one thing. Completely missing the point (Violent behavior specifically inspired by the rhetoric of a political figure) is a different animal altogether.

 

[carlitos]

AIUI, this is accurate. A year or two ago there was a thread on here about a literal Nazi standing for the Repulican party in some district because there were no other candidates. I questioned why the Republican party couldn't disassociate themselves from him and was told by several posters in no uncertain terms that that's not how the American political system works and that any set-up where there are requirements for someone to stand as a candidate (such as reflecting the philosophy or political opinions of the party in question, or of not being a literal Nazi) would be a bad system.

Seems very odd to me, but that appears to be what the situation is.

Arthur Jones, Illinois third Congressional district. He was the only republican that ran in the primary in 2018, so he won. His opponent, William Lipinski, is the most conservative Democrat in the House of Representatives, so there isn't much point in opposing him in that particular district, which is pretty conservative / democrat leaning. Like blue dog democrats, lots of police and firemen, etc.

Lipinski almost lost the Democratic primary to a progressive candidate in 2018, and he will probably lose in 2020, so it might be a competitive election next time.

 

[theprestige]

AIUI, this is accurate. A year or two ago there was a thread on here about a literal Nazi standing for the Repulican party in some district because there were no other candidates. I questioned why the Republican party couldn't disassociate themselves from him and was told by several posters in no uncertain terms that that's not how the American political system works and that any set-up where there are requirements for someone to stand as a candidate (such as reflecting the philosophy or political opinions of the party in question, or of not being a literal Nazi) would be a bad system.

Seems very odd to me, but that appears to be what the situation is.

Look at it this way: Several people want to be the party's candidate. How does the party decide? The way the major US parties do it, ever registered party member casts a secret ballot for one of the aspiring nominees. This is the purpose of the primary process.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Arthur Jones, Illinois third Congressional district. He was the only republican that ran in the primary in 2018, so he won.

It just seems silly to me that a party can't actually reject a candidate, but instead is locked in to a position where they have to give the message that "yup, that guy represents our values", even when he doesn't.

IIRC, the Republicans had actually prevented him from running several times prior by using some loophole or other, but he managed to bypass that this time round. And so they were in the position where they were legally required to have him as the person representing their party in that district and took a lot of flack for having an actual Nazi representing them, even though there was nothing they could do to prevent it and had previously used every means possible to prevent it.

Anyway, this isn't really the thread for this. Nothing more productive is going to come from this discussion this time round than it did last time round, and it's only a minor digression in this thread in any case.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It just seems silly to me that a party can't actually reject a candidate, but instead is locked in to a position where they have to give the message that "yup, that guy represents our values", even when he doesn't.

They can, that is what primaries are supposed to determine.

 

[theprestige]

It just seems silly to me that a party can't actually reject a candidate, but instead is locked in to a position where they have to give the message that "yup, that guy represents our values", even when he doesn't.

Parties can and do reject candidates? How do you not understand this?

You're complaining that bad candidates can exist in a temporarily unrejected state, between the time they put themselves forward and the time the party makes its decision. But this is not a real problem. Also, I'm not sure how you would fix it.

How would you fix it? Who should decide who will represent a party? How should the decision be made?

 

[theprestige]

Also, the thread title is misleading. This woman is not yet Omar's opponent. And probably won't be.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

They can, that is what primaries are supposed to determine.

As I say, this is a digression that should probably be carried on, if at all, in the thread that is actually about this particular situation. With that in mind, this will be my last post on this subject in this thread.

I'll quote from his Wikipedia page:

In 2017, Jones declared his intent to run for the Republican nomination for Congress from Illinois's 3rd congressional district in 2018; he was the only declared candidate of that party. His candidacy was repudiated by the Illinois Republican Party[4][3] and the Republican National Committee. RNC spokesperson Michael Ahrens stated, "We condemn this candidate and his hateful rhetoric in the strongest possible terms".[13] Jones won the primary unopposed on March 20, 2018 and moved on to face Democratic incumbent Dan Lipinski in the general election. Following his primary victory, Republican party officials encouraged members not to vote for Jones.[14]

In January 2018, he became the only Republican candidate for Illinois's 3rd congressional district, despite that party's repeated disapproval of him gaining this position, as well as the controversy around him being a candidate.[15][16] Despite the GOP disavowing, 26.5 percent of voters still voted for him in the general election on November 6, 2018, as he lost by 47 points.

So there you have a situation where the party can't actually say "this guy doesn't represent us" but instead is forced to allow him to be the Republican candidate in that election. This is silly.

 

[carlitos]

It's worth mentioning that the Illinois Republican party has been a dumpster fire since 2004. Alan Keyes and Mike Ditka were considered viable Senate candidates to fill Obama's seat. Jack Ryan had his divorce records unsealed and released to the media to kneecap his campaign. The Republican governor before Blagojevich was in jail. That they weren't able to convince some functioning adult Republican to run a guaranteed losing Congressional campaign on Chicago's southwest side in 2018 is not surprising.

Plus it gives everyone an excuse to use that phrase from the Blues Brothers - "I hate Illinois nazis."

 

[ponderingturtle]

As I say, this is a digression that should probably be carried on, if at all, in the thread that is actually about this particular situation. With that in mind, this will be my last post on this subject in this thread.

I'll quote from his Wikipedia page:


So there you have a situation where the party can't actually say "this guy doesn't represent us" but instead is forced to allow him to be the Republican candidate in that election. This is silly.

It is democracy in action. It is putting the choice of the candidate in the hands of the people, instead of in the hands of the party elite. Not sure either one really works better though you have Trump as a result of one and Boris Johnson as a result of the other.

Who should choose, the voters or the party bosses? The primary system seems to result in it being harder to say that the leader does not really represent the values of the base as the base chose the leader. You do get odd situtations where they are not running candidates so anyone who signs up can run and get in.

It is a problem of not having competitive elections that some seats do not draw serious candidates.

 

[Pope130]

It just seems silly to me that a party can't actually reject a candidate, but instead is locked in to a position where they have to give the message that "yup, that guy represents our values", even when he doesn't.

---snip---.

If that were the system here then Bernie Sanders would not be allowed to run for the Democratic Party nomination, and the debates would be nowhere near so amusing.