comment: >
  
  Just keep the receipts for later and save the impassioned speech when running for President
context: the GOP should worry about Santos and Gaetz, to start >
  
  Santos was awarded two committee assignments.    
  Sure, he stepped down.. but the fact that a known lying Freshman Republican got a spot over others just shows they have absolutely nobody of good character or integrity elected to the House this cycle. >
  
  Not to mention two purple hearts >
  
  And a Nobel Prize for Mathematics >
  
  And the "Most Truthful Guy Ever" award. >
  
  Has he been awarded the Congressional Medal Of Fucking Over Voters because he took the cake and should be a star on pornhub. >
  
  AOC: "This is about targeting women of color"
  GOP: "And?" >
  
  I think that the people wearing swastikas with their Trump 2024 shirts are a bit more antisemitic that anything she said. >
  
  Or MTG “joking” that a Jewish tour group at the US Capitol was performing “reconnaissance.”  But nah, “all about the Benjamins” is where the GQP draws the line. >
  
  I assume this is simply something McCarthy was forced to concede in the three-page secret document that allowed him to become Speaker. Some racist demanded this concession and McCarthy didn’t oppose it. 
  At some point, the three pages of concessions will be exhausted, and then McCarthy’s usefulness will cease to exist.
  EDIT: McCarthy had to make additional concessions recently to get enough Republican voters to pass this. 😂 >
  
  MTG is speaker in all but name. >
  
  The hand behind the puppet. >
  
  The party at AIPAC is gonna be wild! >
  
  A woman of color AND a muslim AND a democrat - checks almost all the white supremacist fundie boxes >
  
  But don't worry the GOP has a Muslim woman of color in the House, so they can't be racist. Her name, in case you were wondering, is George Santos. >
  
  Oh, I met her once! Super nice lady, told me if I gave her all my money she'd exchange it for Iraqi dinars, and you know how they're about to explode in value. >
  
  Ilhan Omar didn't even make any kind of antisemitic statements.  She criticized Isreael the government, not the Jewish people. >
  
  Truth is a defense against charges of slander. >
  
  Got it, so anti-Semitic and racist remarks are okay if they're "true"? >
  
  I'm saying if something is a fact it's not racist or antisemitic.
  Harvey Weinstein is Jewish. He's also a sexual predator. Calling him a sexual predator isn't racist or antisemitic. >
  
  That's because he is only one and not a group >
  
  Right but if it's a fact that a a group like AIPAC is influencing American political policy, it's not antisemitic or racist to state as such. >
  
  Then you should complain about all lobbyists >
  
  When they're representing corporations or foreign governments I absolutely do, lobbying groups made up of regular citizens or tradesman I support to even the paying field until and unless all lobbying is abolished. >
  
  Aipac is funded by Americans so is it representative of a foreign government? Also consider that aipac has criticized Israel before >
  
  It's about what she says and how she says it. They cannot stand a difference of opinion. >
  
  
  Yeah... I'm pretty sure it's more cuz she's Muslim, but yeah, women too
  
  quoted from the thread >
  
  GOP, scientifically ignorant religious bigots, misogynists, homophobes and racists. >
  
  I love her willingness to call this out openly.
  If anything she was still more, diplomatic about it than I probably would have been in such a situation. >
  
  Yet they keep the lying sack of shit Santos! WTH? >
  
  Counterpoint: it's not about removing her because she's a woman of color, it's about removing her because forcefully left-wing. If Ilhan Omar had all the same opinions as idiots like Candace Owens or Shukri Abdirahman, they absolutely would have let her keep her seat. >
  
  We wouldn't have this abortion and birth control and CRT obsession on the right if Republicans had no interest in targeting women specifically and people of color specifically. They would not be a thing. >
  
  It’s also about targeting people who habitually tell the truth about US policy and it’s ramifications at home and abroad. She was booted cuz she can’t be bought by corporate interest. >
  
  Ding, ding >
  
  Yeah... I'm pretty sure it's more cuz she's Muslim, but yeah, women too.
  Unless you watch Fox News, in which case those are all liberal lies. 
    It's really because as a 3 term member of congress and Somali immigrant she has neither the experience or first hand knowledge needed to be on the Foreign Affairs Committee. >
  
  What does her immigration status have to do with being on FAC? If anything, as someone from another country she should have unique insights. >
  
  You've got a point.   Her credentials are practically tailor made for the FAC.  It's almost as if the GOP is only removing her out of spite and cuz she's Muslim. >
  
  Does she have some leaked email or texts or anything specifically indicating that this was racially motivated?
  I hate the right but come on.  It's about partisan politics and being vindictive, not ethnicity.  It's backlash for Dems not wanting partisan hacks like MTG on house committees.  It boils down to "owning the libs" and that bizarre mentality. >
  
  So is there any actual evidence of 'targeting women of color' or is this just a random accusation?  
  Also, after reading the quote that got her in trouble, it's incredibly ironic how she says accusing her of antisemitism is meant to derail any debate and then accuse Republicans of Islamophobia. >
  
  I do believe the GOP is doing that, however I also believe, despite her skin color, she is actually really bad at her job and shouldn’t have really gotten it in the first place. I’d be happy to see her replaced by a much more competent person of color in that role. But more importantly for the country, what’s important in that role, more so than judging someone by their outward exterior and placing them by those credentials, why don’t we look at their qualifications for the job to determine weather or not they are fit for it and make decisions based on that? >
  
  Soon the that are going to target women with brains.
  The GOP doesn’t need some sassy pants broad telling a bunch of white men what is right and wrong.  
  Back to the stone ages we go. >
  
  Let’s not reduce everything to race. This is about targeting socialist-bent types who aren’t exactly pro-Israel. We all know how Republicans treat black people of their party. If Ilhan was a pro-Israel POC with strong capitalist views she’d still be on the committee. >
  
  All connected.  In the real world, you cannot separate white supremacy from capitalism because of how it historically developed and spread across the world through colonialism and imperialism.  The base is racist, and therefore so is the superstructure, which includes the political power structure. >
  
  For sure. I just think people mistake the branch for the root. Racism as an ideology is a historical outgrowth of capitalism, as you noted. In modern times, capitalist adherents and “model minorities” do not get punished, whereas BILPOC, who historically supported socialist movements or movements with socialist tendencies, do. >
  
  
  AOC delivers impassioned speech against GOP move to oust Ilhan Omar: ‘This is about targeting women of colour’
  
  Or maybe the GOP house members want to date Ilhan Omar and got rejected.  You never know with their intentions. >
  
  And Jeffries threw Omar under the bus in his speech. Typical moderate Democrat shit. >
  
  What did he say? >
  
  He said she made mistakes in her comments in years past that she has since apologized for. It's too harsh terms from her own party leadership imo >
  
  Oh fuck that. Not shocking from Jeffries, but it's pretty sad how owned the Dem establishment is by AIPAC >
  
  Politics aside, I’ll say as a Jewish person that what Omar said is antisemitic. I don’t care if you are left or right, I just don’t like that’s it’s the people who aren’t Jewish that are deciding what is and isn’t antisemitism. I find it scary that the votes are completely one side or the other based on party, not an individuals personal beliefs on the matter. >
  
  Only Jewish people are allowed to decide what is considered valid criticism of the Israeli government? >
  
  That’s not what I said. I’m telling you that what she said was antisemitic from the perspective of just about every Jewish person I know (myself included). If you look at the quote(s) it’s very apparent that it’s not just about Israel. It’s about Jewish people and our right to exist. >
  
  Tell them to get literal Christian nationalists off of the committees if they have a problem with antisemitism. >
  
  And they should… One side isn’t less antisemitic than the other. They both suck. I don’t understand why my peoples hardships is everyone’s pointing the finger. >
  
  Well I can’t approve of them stripping someone of committee assignments for antisemitic remarks when they are enabling republicans who are literal Christian nationalists is all. It’s clear what this is to me and it’s not about antisemitism. >
  
  It isn’t about whether or not what she said was antisemitic. Calling her Antisemitic was undoubtedly used as a crutch by the right to remove her. BUT that doesn’t make what she said right or not antisemitic. Both sides can be wrong. I’m simply calling out as a Jewish person that she is antisemitic, but that doesn’t mean I’m supportive of crazy nationalists. >
  
  That’s fair I guess. As a Jewish person myself I’m just very angry that republicans keep enabling these huge bigots. I don’t know if I belong in this country if they get total control of the government back, but I’ll have nowhere to go. >
  
  Another way to look at it is that almost just as many democrats voted no, and were ok with an antisemite being there. Because it’s all about politics and they don’t really care about you or I. Omar is just a voting number to them, and they cared more about that number than voting yes to remove her for being what they pretend to not be. That speaks volumes to me too. As I said, both sides are so morally skewed it’s baffling. 
  I guess if they get total control and antisemitism gets even more widespread then there’s always Canada or Mexico lmao. Or even Israel. Hopefully one would take us 😂 >
  
  They voted no because it makes no sense to remove her from committees. I would have voted no as well. >
  
  When AOC said "color" she wasn't spelling it like the British. Article is unreadable. >
  
  There's been a lot of vile attacks on AOC, but insinuating that she's a Brit has to be a new low... >
  
  she should be so lucky >
  
  Being a "woman of colour" is not a license to spread hate. >
  
  To defend Republicans a little - this is about diversity.  I get that Omar represents diversity but the conservatives aren't willing to stop there.  They want to go further.  They want representation for true minorities.  Like geriatric pedophiles, young pedophiles, male pedophiles, female pedophiles, geriatric sex traffickers, young sex traffickers, male sex traffickers, female sex traffickers, geriatric racists, young racists, male racists, female racists.  The list goes on... >
  
  It's almost like you literally have to have lied about your entire resume and life story, or posted pictures of yourself murdering AOC to get a committee assignment under a Republican-led House these days. >
  
  Nah it’s because she’s anti-Israeli. Which for the record I support, but all the other AIPAC hacks in congress don’t, including democrats (they just don’t say it out loud). If MTG got ousted for Facebook conspiracies, Omar can get ousted for her “anti semetic conspiracies” too. >
  
  I'm pretty sure MT got ousted for a bit more than Facebook conspiracies. >
  
  Nah it was a bunch of Qanon type stuff. Frazzledrip, pizzagate, mass shooting conspiracies, Jewish space lasers (space lasers are actually possible as a weapon, they just have never been actually used. The nazis looked into it during ww2). There was also stuff about executing politicians for treason, but I see people on here calling for that all the time. >
  
  Omar has said some not great things with respect to Jews and some criticism is deserved. However, her treatment by the openly anti-Semitic Republican Party is grossly undeserved, targeted, racist and wrong. >
  
  Meanwhile the GOP tries to conceal their racism and xenophobia by labelling Omar an "anti-Semite" for criticizing israel. >
  
  Seems kinda pointless to make your argument against exactly the same as their argument for. >
  
  TIL that Schiff and Swalwell are women of color. >
  
  Jeffries is a backstabbing POS.
  No wonder Dems lose.... >
  
  Right, you play to the base by ousting a popular Muslim woman who the base thinks is "extreme". It's about all of those things.
  The reason why Omar is notorious to the base is because she is a Muslim woman. It might not be only racist, it is also politically pragmatic, but it certainly is born out of racism and xenophobia that the GOP stokes >
  
  I saw a right-wing website once (I think it was around 2017/18), it was about the women of the Democratic Party. The banner was a collage of 6 women (iirc, AOC, Pelosi, Harris, someone else, and Omar). The pictures of the first five were all shots of them looking angry or like they were yelling at someone. Omar was just her smiling, wearing her hijab. 
  I found that choice of pictures incredibly insightful. Xenophobia, racism, and sexism. Stacked bigotry, like an onion. What's at the core? Severe isolation from genuine cultural heritage; the emptiness of what it means to be white. If there's no hierarchy, no codified racial castes, what's the point of even being white? It must be stressful, being a white nationalist. >
  
  Women of colour.
  Women actually. >
  
  As a liberal, I would prefer that Democrats lead the way on the Separation of Church and State, and secularization of government.  No religious nuts of ANY stripe. >
  
  You are implicitly imposing a religious test on high office, how is that a separation of church and state? >
  
  My overarching interest is a government that is not infected by medieval superstition of ANY kind.  I want smart, thoughtful, and logical representatives where magical thinking doesn't pollute reality. >
  
  What legislation that she wrote or sponsored, or vote that she made lead you to believe that Ilhan Omar’s work as a congresswoman was not smart, thoughtful, or logical and therefore based on “medieval superstition?” >
  
  Can you name any Democrat who voted to remove her from the committee? >
  
  To be fair, "well no" is a pretty useless argument devoid of any substance. >
  
  Which are? >
  
  So spite. >
  
  Maybe they should actually give a defense instead of playing the race card.... >
  
  And non-Christians >
  
  Republicans are fascists. >
  
  This countries leadership is a joke. We got addict chomos deciding the rules. How can we take republicans seriously if they’re no more than a political crime ring? >
  
  This has been weird to me since I just assumed that whoever was in power in Congress kicked the other party out of all the powerful committees right away. 
  Either way though, I figured someone not 100% pro Israel would never be welcome in the foreign affairs committee just because America is how it is. >
  
  They won’t even deny it anymore >
  
  I watched it awhile ago. She's so powerful and on point. I wish I had a rep like her but unfortunately I live in Oklahoma >
  
  Muslim and a foreigner too.  The MAGAs get a trifecta! >
  
  Biggest tantrum since the no call on LeBron. >
  
  No way. The GOP? Are we sure? This doesn’t sound like them at all and I am shocked. >
  
  “Republicans said that their desire to remove Ms Omar was a matter of consistency….”
  They are certainly the party of consistency at this point. Consistently doing whatever might help them get more power and stay in power. >
  
  Glad to see her removed. >
  
  Why? >
  
  no its not , its about people who blatantly support terrorism >
  
  Source? >
  
  Always a victim!! No, only those who hate America.