Republican Muslim refugee Dalia al-Aqidi announces she’s running against Ilhan Omar

[Orbitus]

I'm just gonna sit back and read in silence the notion that nowaday nobody on the left would legitimately switch to the right, and that everyone who does are just "no true scotsmen" or people trying to milk it.
Okay.

Not the current right wing party. Not with how racist Trump and his supporters are.

[JohnBrown1917]

I'm just gonna sit back and read in silence the notion that nowaday nobody on the left would legitimately switch to the right, and that everyone who does are just "no true scotsmen" or people trying to milk it.
Okay.

Switching to the GoP or becoming right-wing[probably becease they became rich/want to grift] are very different things. They can just support Biden or Buttigieg or something. Why is always switching to an extreme position[far right] with you guys?

[Draco-Onis]

I'm just gonna sit back and read in silence the notion that nowaday nobody on the left would legitimately switch to the right, and that everyone who does are just "no true scotsmen" or people trying to milk it.
Okay.

You can actually read what I wrote about policies, ideologies and how the right has changed to have a discussion and the gap is now monumental or turn of your brain and continue your ramblings seems you have settled on the latter.

- - - Updated - - -

Not the current right wing party. Not with how racist Trump and his supporters are.

I think it's much worse than that the current GOP centers around one thing complete and total allegiance to Trump anyone who disagrees gets kicked out it's a cult. There's no guiding principle that would appeal to anyone to switch aside from loving Trump.

[Malaky]

Switching to the GoP or becoming right-wing[probably becease they became rich/want to grift] are very different things. They can just support Biden or Buttigieg or something. Why is always switching to an extreme position[far right] with you guys?

Huh. Is supporting Biden or Buttigieg switching to the right... how?
The only options you're legitimizing here are ones where the guy on the left... stays on the left?
Okay.

You can actually read what I wrote about policies, ideologies and how the right has changed to have a discussion and the gap is now monumental or turn of your brain and continue your ramblings seems you have settled on the latter.

The gap is wider, yes, but not because of the right, because the left has become increasingly radical over these last years while the center and right hasn't.
They're like the people of old who watched the sun circle the sky and thought it was moving, when they were the one drifting away from the center.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it's much worse than that the current GOP centers around one thing complete and total allegiance to Trump anyone who disagrees gets kicked out it's a cult. There's no guiding principle that would appeal to anyone to switch aside from loving Trump.

Yawn. Projectionist fantasy.

[JohnBrown1917]

Huh. Is supporting Biden or Buttigieg switching to the right... how?
The only options you're legitimizing here are ones where the guy on the left... stays on the left?
.

Oh right, I forgot the far right of the US consider centre-right conservatives to be left-wing.


Sorry, my bad, this is a waste of time.

[Themius]

Oh right, I forgot the far right of the US consider centre-right conservatives to be left-wing.


Sorry, my bad, this is a waste of time.

In America when it comes to just what is left or right people are entirely myopic about it.

[Azadina]

The gap is wider, yes, but not because of the right, because the left has become increasingly radical over these last years while the center and right hasn't.
They're like the people of old who watched the sun circle the sky and thought it was moving, when they were the one drifting away from the center.

Yawn. Projectionist fantasy.

Yeah agree with the bold. Except I'd have to add that it's completely delusional fantasy too.

[JohnBrown1917]

Yeah agree with the bold.

No, you see. Things like providing healthcare for those who need it is 'radical' while neo-nazi marches are very moderate and normal.

[Dacien]

That misses the mark, though.
The hypocrisy in that post was not about this person being part of the GOP in any way. It was about her being propped up as a "Muslim" challenger first and foremost. If you look at her coverage, that is what even right wing media focuses on - the very kind that tends to decry identity politics. Just look at how the other contenders are described in the article from the OP. "Businessman", "activist", etc. They get their job titles as codifiers. But what is the first thing it tells us about al-Aqidi? That she is a Muslim refugee. It's what they focus on, what they want you to know about her. That is using her religious/ethnic background not just to sell her, but also to make a point. Hence the hypocrisy allegation. It's not about a Muslim running. It is about how that Muslim running is being treated.
If it was just happening and the media was just business as usual, it would be dandy, as it should be. But since there is coverage focusing on her background - and even threads created here, which we haven't seen many of for Omar's other challengers - yeah, I can see why people would call it out.

I guess that's a fair point, but it just seems like it's a no-win situation for the GOP. They're proud to be diversifying and including more POC in their tent. How would it be received if the GOP were downplaying her Muslim identity?

[Kaleredar]

As opposed to the racist thing they do, the racist things they say, and the racist people the dems court?

Uh, yes?

Again, coupled with your own lack of self-awareness of the criticisms of your own party... you don't seem to know how utterly laughable the false-parallel concept of "BUT BOTH SIDES..." as a defense of the republicans is today, do you? Because it's just that: a false parallel.

If you're going to be so utterly uninformed about politics, you should really stay out of it.

Have you considered the possibility that maybe the reason they're joining the party is neither short-sightedness nor mistaken belief but actual, valid reasons and that the republican party does stand for valid economic and moral positions?

Like... what?

In other words, do you accept the possibility that it's not them being wrong... but you?

No, because the evidence bears out that that isn't the case.

If republicans cared about small government, they wouldn't be supporting people that advocate greater government oversight of people's personal conduct. Things like... oh, say, being against gay marriage, being against women's right to choose, etc. If the republicans cared about responsible government spending, they wouldn't support signing a blank check, payed for by taxpayer money, for building a loon's pet project on the mexican border. They wouldn't support a budget projected to balloon deficits, passed by the guy they put in power. If the republicans stood for family values, they wouldn't support a thrice-married man that actively cheated on his spouses with prostitutes who bragged to children about his sexual conquests. If the Republicans stood for "The strength of America" or "democracy abroad" they wouldn't support a man that bad mouths every US intelligence agency and branch of the military who simultaneously denigrates America's power abroad by shunting and alienating allies on a whim while supporting and having ties to authoritarian regimes.

But they DO support those things. And I really don't care what their platform says they stand for, what their platform does speaks louder. Loud enough to make all of those pithy "GOP stands for god, family and country" claims nothing but empty words that only embarrass the concept of each.

[Elegiac]

I guess that's a fair point, but it just seems like it's a no-win situation for the GOP. They're proud to be diversifying and including more POC in their tent. How would it be received if the GOP were downplaying her Muslim identity?

Maybe they should stop espousing blatantly islamophobic rhetoric and policies and they wouldn't be called out on their hypocrisy.

Are y'all seriously that sheltered that you think the GOP's lack of diversity is solely a function of a media narrative and not because of actual shit you do and believe in?

[unfilteredJW]

Yawn. Projectionist fantasy.

Good lord, the irony here.

[Malaky]

No, because the evidence bears out that that isn't the case.

Thanks, all I wanted to know to define your character.
If you can't even accept the possibility of being wrong, there's no helping you.

Uh, yes?
Again, coupled with your own lack of self-awareness of the criticisms of your own party... you don't seem to know how utterly laughable the false-parallel concept of "BUT BOTH SIDES..." as a defense of the republicans is today, do you? Because it's just that: a false parallel.
If you're going to be so utterly uninformed about politics, you should really stay out of it.

You know what's laughable? "Only one side is evil".

Spare me.

[Freighter]

Maybe they should stop espousing blatantly islamophobic rhetoric and policies and they wouldn't be called out on their hypocrisy.

Are y'all seriously that sheltered that you think the GOP's lack of diversity is solely a function of a media narrative and not because of actual shit you do and believe in?

Now why would they do that?

[Malaky]

Yeah agree with the bold. Except I'd have to add that it's completely delusional fantasy too.

True, this whole "cult of trump" thing is something that only someone who has no idea how republicans/right wingers think would believe.

[Machismo]

Now why would they do that?

Well... you know, to not be racist.

[Kaleredar]

Thanks, all I wanted to know to define your character.
If you can't even accept the possibility of being wrong, there's no helping you.

"The possibility that one is wrong" is unnecessary, when all the evidence points to me being correct. I looked at the actions of both parties. I decided that the republicans were full of horseshit. I decided that long ago, and frankly nothing I've seen has done anything to change my mind.

You could argue the possibility that all birds are actually just government surveillance drone. But that doesn't make you "woke," that makes you an idiot, and using "WELL THEY MIGHT BE, YOU'RE NOT EVEN CONSIDERING THAT THEY MIGHT BE WHICH MAKES YOU WRONG!" is not an adequate defense of that nonsense.

You know what's laughable? "Only one side is evil".

Spare me.

I didn't say the democrats had a spotless record. But that's not the point of contention here.

A person that jaywalks and a person that breaks into people's houses and kills them in their sleep are both lawbreaking individuals. Pointing out that the murderer is an awful person and should be thrown in jail doesn't mean the jaywalker didn't break the law. But it's even more meaningless to say that they're both equal because they both broke the law.

That's what you're claiming here. "How can you judge a serial killer when jaywalkers also exist?"

[Malaky]

"The possibility that one is wrong" is unnecessary

The possibility of being wrong is always a necessity, even then evidence seems preponderant. The chance that you might be wrong is always there, and anyone with an interest in truth should recognize that possibility.

The fact that you're not interested in that and actually consider it "unnecessary" makes you a cultist.

That's what you're claiming here. "How can you judge a serial killer when jaywalkers also exist?"

What I'm claiming is that getting in a hissy fit for the racism of one side while willfully and utterly ignoring the racism of the other is a mark of hipocrisy.
If you were moved by principles you'd be enraged by both, but you're not. Because what moves you is mere convenience.

You don't care about racism, you care about who does it as that accusation furthers your interests.

[Stormspellz]

The gap is wider, yes, but not because of the right, because the left has become increasingly radical over these last years while the center and right hasn't.
They're like the people of old who watched the sun circle the sky and thought it was moving, when they were the one drifting away from the center.

simply wrong, in fact you said it best

Yawn. Projectionist fantasy.

[Kaleredar]

Which is what makes you a cultist.
The possibility of being wrong is always a necessity, even then evidence seems preponderant. The chance that you might be wrong is always there, and anyone with an interest in truth should recognize that possibility.

And the possibility that the earth is flat is "always there."

But, much like your notion that the republican party being one of any sort of moral or economic standpoint, no evidence exists to support it.

What I'm claiming is that getting in a hissy fit for the racism of one side while willfully and utterly ignoring the racism of the other is a mark of hipocrisy.

You haven't presented any actual evidence of racism on the side of the democratic party. I'm not talking about the opinions of "liberals" on twitter or tumblr or whatever you think "the democrats" are made up of.

I'm talking about the actions of democratic politicians, receiving wide democratic support, for supporting racist policies or condoning racist people, as the republicans have done and continue to do.

Claiming something exists doesn't make it true, no matter how much Trump's rhetoric would seek to establish otherwise.