Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's debatable ? It's a fact that for a period in his life Ellison felt black empowerment, equality, pride were more important than Farrakhan's anti-white, anti-Semitic ideology. Whether he sincerely changed his mind or realized he couldn't succeed politically with that outlook is a matter of opinion.
I'm not really sure how this response is appropriate in the context of what I was saying, but at least you got to sound clever I guess.
I'll tell you what's not debatable: the OP isn't here to have a fact based discussion. Unless I missed one, none of his links have provided anything meaningful. They're op-ed that are usually poorly defended. I've yet to see any primary sources from him or anything that justifies a claim, such as his apology letter being a lie. That's a bold claim and if it goes undefended, only a moron would take it seriously. I am not that, so I don't believe the Daily Caller has a reason to believe Ellison is lying. Because if they did, they'd share it.
I value intelligence. The OP does not. And that's not me necessarily saying the OP isn't intelligent. But he doesn't value debate. So why is he on a public forum? Does he want his dick stroked? Do you get what I'm saying? He just wants everyone to agree with him. He exclusively finds sources that confirms his points. I'll issue you a challenge: find one intelligent person who say that good debate involves exclusively confirmation bias.
I'm not taking a radical position in this debate. Ellison has some involvement with the Nation of Islam and Farrakhan. Fairly short termed and seemed based on the issue of black nationalism more so than religion. I've found nothing of substance that suggests anything else is true, and I have looked. CNN said he was involved for a decade, but they didn't provide anything to back that up accept by saying he defended Farrakhan from criticisms of anti-semitism, and has since taken that back, which according to the Daily Caller, was a lie, but again, no proof based argument for that. The Nation of Islam wrote an article saying they think he's a hypocrite for taking back his defenses of Farrakhan. Substance is important, and most of the most severe allegations are lacking. The more reasonably ones, limited involvement with a shady organization in his youth, are valid and I'm hardly rejecting that those are the case (so climb the **** down from your assumed place of moral superiority). He's publicly stated remorse. If you think he's lying, back it up or say nothing.
False equivalency Jimbo. The man renounced his past association decades ago and he's been DEAD for over 6 years. So try again.
The modern day KKK loves your boy Trump.
Obama really put the KKK fear into you didn't he ?
You don't really believe that Obama believed that stuff do you ?
He was just trying to get his gal Hillary in the White House and save his "legacy" .
Good thing most of his "legacy" can be cancelled out by Trump because it was mostly executive orders. Bye Bye Obama Legacy !
Obama really put the KKK fear into you didn't he ?
You don't really believe that Obama believed that stuff do you ?
He was just trying to get his gal Hillary in the White House and save his "legacy" .
Good thing most of his "legacy" can be cancelled out by Trump because it was mostly executive orders. Bye Bye Obama Legacy !
I provided you a link showing the KKK's endorsement of Trump in 2016. So you obfuscate with the garbage above? You can dance around the facts as much as you like but they are still staring right back at you.
The Democrats should realize that the former Democrat voters that went with Trump are not going to go back to the Democrat fold if a racist anti-Semite like Ellison is made head of the party. People have grown weary of the identity politics that has become the core of the Democratic Party.
I'm going to start with this: The link you posted is utter garbage. It provides no context and honestly just seems to be making **** up at times. It's using it's own bias as fact, painting a letter of Ellison's as dishonest without justifying or explaining how it's dishonest. If you take that seriously, please do not waste either of our time with responding. I have better and more useful people to talk to.
As for his decade long involvement, I've found nothing to confirm that. Any direct involvement he had with that Nation of Islam lasted a year and half, and he, according to himself, never actually joined that Nation of Islam and only worked for them. If you want to insist that the one source of news you read can read his mind, that's fine, but I don't believe in magic or any of that bull****, so I'm not going to. He had defended Farrakhan throughout the 90s, and from what I'm gathering, is mainly for the man's views on black nationalism. If your belief that Ellison is anti-Semitic because he's voiced support for a man who was though never (from what I've seen) supported the actual anti-Semitism, I'm going to have a hard time taking that seriously, and preemptively call you a hypocrite since it's unlikely that you've never supported someone who had one or several morally repugnant views. I for one am a fan of Abraham Lincoln. I think he was a great first Republican president. He also thought black people were genetically inferior. Does that mean I think black people are inferior? If I am understanding your logic correctly, the ONLY way your reasoning can be consistent is if you think that.
So just bear in mind how dangerously vacuous that is. If you are a Lutheran, for example, I can call you an anti-Semite because Martin Luther, the founder of that religion, hated Jews, basically wanting to see them expelled from Europe, either by death or forced relocation. Do you see the problem? I don't deny that Ellison once supported Farrakhan. To be totally frank, I'm not sure if I even care that he still does because from what I've found, he's never voiced support for the man's anti-Semitism, rather had instances in the 90s where he defended the man from those criticisms and described him as a strong black leader.
So here's what I'll say. Provide a link directly to a primary source of Ellison being anti-Semitic, and I'll take you seriously. But if I get another Daily Caller op-ed, I will carry on thinking of you exactly as you are and not speak to you as this would be a waste of my time.
Funny, you conveniently skipped over the links I provided via the Wikipedia page on Ellison. Here they are again, for your reference.
On the Wikipedia page for Ellison, the "Issues and Controversies" section has a specific entry regarding Louis Farrahkan and history with the Nation of Islam. The entry cites sources from CNN, The Washington Post, and MinnesotaDaily. See citations 108-112 in the references section.
In summary, Ellison did, in fact, have ties with Nation of Islam, and did indeed defend Farrakhan, and other openly anti-Semitic figures per cited sources above.
Note that the sources include CNN, and The Washington Post, both being arguably credible sources, and generally acceptable to left leaning folks.
Keith Ellison is a great choice for DNC chair.. I haven't heard Keith say anything Anti-Semitic.
I agree with the bold. I reviewed the OP article and the previous article that was linked to that one as a "source" (which was odd considering it was the same publication lol).
The original source provided the following quote of Ellison:
Quote:
Speaking of Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, Ellison said, “I’m looking for public diplomacy. You understand what I am saying? Public diplomacy. And this is not to say that I don’t want the U.S. to be friends with Israel. I just want the United States to have a lot of friends. Right? And to be in a position with the friend to say – you are wrong and you must stop. But now we say it and it doesn’t happen even though our GDP is you know four times larger than the second largest country. Right? It just doesn’t make any mathematical sense,†he said, according to audio of the speech released by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
“But it makes all the sense in the world when you see that that country has mobilized its Diaspora in America to do its bidding in America.â€
“The question is, with all of us here, we ought to be able to do at least as much,†Ellison said to the Muslim audience. “You understand what I am trying to say? That we got a lot of work to do. I’m working on it. We’re working on it together, and by supporting with my campaign you’re keeping me in business doing this stuff.â€
“I’m telling you now, with some of the money that you give to me, one of the things I do is I make sure that in Minnesota that whoever I’m supporting wins. And I tell them, this is the hard-earned dollars of Muslim-Americans. OK, so they know.â€
The blue were is actual words as referenced in the recording from 2010.
None of what he said was anti-Semitic.
He stated the the Diaspora (i.e. Jews) of Israel lobby for support in America with their words and money and they make friends in America. He felt that Muslim Americans need to do the same thing so hat people in our government will see them as friends too.
An anti-Semite is basically a racist against Jews based on both their ethnicity and religious practices. Ellison, which the speech referenced in the OP by the link's own source (of itself lol) did not show that Ellison said anything that was anti-Semitic.
Funny, you conveniently skipped over the links I provided via the Wikipedia page on Ellison. Here they are again, for your reference.
On the Wikipedia page for Ellison, the "Issues and Controversies" section has a specific entry regarding Louis Farrahkan and history with the Nation of Islam. The entry cites sources from CNN, The Washington Post, and MinnesotaDaily. See citations 108-112 in the references section.
In summary, Ellison did, in fact, have ties with Nation of Islam, and did indeed defend Farrakhan, and other openly anti-Semitic figures per cited sources above.
Note that the sources include CNN, and The Washington Post, both being arguably credible sources, and generally acceptable to left leaning folks.
Ok, but, as I've stated multiple times, I am not rejecting that he did these things. I'm rejecting the unfounded conclusions being reached from these things. The CNN article even said that Ellison never actually endorsed an anti-Semitic idea.
If you want my honest critique of Ellison, it's that he's too loyal to various ideologies and doesn't often enough give enough critique of the ideologies he supports. It's a problem that many are guilty of. I've almost certainly been guilty of it at times, and I'd imagine you as well. But to stretch a flaw of shortsightedness to claim that this man is anti-Semitic and unfit for the position he's being considered for seems more about politics than any actual concern with ethics. He's already said he shouldn't have defended the anti-Semitism. If you want to believe that's a lie, go for it. But that's because you're choosing to, not because there's some reason that is based on evidence.
He's publicly stated remorse. If you think he's lying, back it up or say nothing.
I don't know if he's lying. I can't prove he knew that Farrakhan and others he supported were virulent anti-white, anti-Semitic. I can reason that someone of Ellison's intelligence and involvement with black liberation did know.
I'm not judging the guy. Makes sense to me that a black man would place leaders' view of black people above their anti-Semitism.
I provided you a link showing the KKK's endorsement of Trump in 2016. So you obfuscate with the garbage above? You can dance around the facts as much as you like but they are still staring right back at you.
You keep bringing up the KKK thing , Obama already tried that and it's a LOSING tactic .
Plus Trump already denounced KKK, its beating a dead horse . You can keep bringing it up if you want .
I'm not dancing around any facts .
KKK "endorsing " a candidate for attention like they did for both Clinton and Trump is different than someone taking action and following a racist and hateful person like Farrakhan for years . Do you not see the difference ?
I don't know if he's lying. I can't prove he knew that Farrakhan and others he supported were virulent anti-white, anti-Semitic. I can reason that someone of Ellison's intelligence and involvement with black liberation did know.
I'm not judging the guy. Makes sense to me that a black man would place leaders' view of black people above their anti-Semitism.
It's not just anti-Semitism either . He hates whites in general .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
