My response was to a comment that did nothing to further your position whatsoever:
“Your opinions don’t represent reality.”
That comment does not address anything about Bernie Sanders, genocide, expulsion, censure, or any other topic previously raised. That comment wasn’t your first ad hominem argument; you previously declared I was “out of touch with reality”. I ignored the ad hominem part and focused solely on the actual issue. With your second, there was no actual issue to continue the argument: just the ad hominem. With nothing else to address, I merely needed to identify it as such to discredit it.
Your on-topic argument is based primarily on the false idea that Tlaib was censured for calling Israel’s actions a “genocide”. That is not true. The Democratic legislators who joined the Republicans in censuring her cited not “genocide”, but “from the river to the sea”, which they deemed to be a call for the destruction of Israel and the murdering of Jews.
The remainder of your argument is based on the idea that the UN deems “genocide” to be an act that justifies military intervention. You presented the idea that a senator could be expelled for suggesting military intervention should be used against an “ally”. You have yet to provide any sort of citation or other support for that point. You pivoted instead to Tlaib’s censure, without further addressing that point.
I have argued that the Senate is specifically empowered to discuss military intervention, including intervention against an ally. I will generally cite Article I, Section 8 of the constitution to support that point.
I would say that if a senator is expelled for doing something the Senate is specifically empowered to do, everyone who supports such an expulsion is an enemy of the constitution, and we have much, much bigger problems to contend with than the Israel/Palestine debate.
My response was to a comment that did nothing to further your position whatsoever:
That comment does not address anything about Bernie Sanders, genocide, expulsion, censure, or any other topic previously raised. That comment wasn’t your first ad hominem argument; you previously declared I was “out of touch with reality”. I ignored the ad hominem part and focused solely on the actual issue. With your second, there was no actual issue to continue the argument: just the ad hominem. With nothing else to address, I merely needed to identify it as such to discredit it.
Your on-topic argument is based primarily on the false idea that Tlaib was censured for calling Israel’s actions a “genocide”. That is not true. The Democratic legislators who joined the Republicans in censuring her cited not “genocide”, but “from the river to the sea”, which they deemed to be a call for the destruction of Israel and the murdering of Jews.
The remainder of your argument is based on the idea that the UN deems “genocide” to be an act that justifies military intervention. You presented the idea that a senator could be expelled for suggesting military intervention should be used against an “ally”. You have yet to provide any sort of citation or other support for that point. You pivoted instead to Tlaib’s censure, without further addressing that point.
I have argued that the Senate is specifically empowered to discuss military intervention, including intervention against an ally. I will generally cite Article I, Section 8 of the constitution to support that point.
I would say that if a senator is expelled for doing something the Senate is specifically empowered to do, everyone who supports such an expulsion is an enemy of the constitution, and we have much, much bigger problems to contend with than the Israel/Palestine debate.