"How's that supposed to work out, advocating against your own party leaders as a strategy to gain support of voters?"
I'm pretty sure that is an exact quote from your first comment. Tell me if I'm wrong, and if that is something that I just made up out of thin air. I could have sworn that those were your own words. Perhaps you are correct, that one should never, ever, under any circumstance talk about wanting a change in leadership within our own party -- especially if every single person who advocates change is doing the devil's work.
And perhaps I was not clear: I am not interested in if Senator Schumer has expressed concern about Netanyahu in strongly worded messages. I have no problem believing that he has. But you would have a problem identifying a single action that he has taken when it comes to providing the weapons that he uses to kill innocent people in the Gaza genocide, the attack on Lebanon, the war in Iran, or to stop the violent theft of lands in the West Bank.
"I think we'd do more good accurately representing the party and our elected officials, who have always acted and communicated responsibly about our Mideast ally."
Again, I am quite sure that this is an exact quote from you. I could be wrong, but of course I am not. That is an extremely weak statement, that one that you had just made up there ..... unless it is just something you heard someone else say, and you didn't think for your self. You might notice that even now, there are differences of opinion within "the party and our elected officials" regarding Netanyahu and American policy towards Israel and other nations in that region.
Those differences were found here on this forum back in 2006, when former president Jimmy Carter published his most important book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." Different forum members had very different responses to that book. Perhaps you would be so kind as to inform us of which side was "accurately representing the party" -- those who agreed with Jimmy Carter, or those who disagreed with him?
" 'I accept that in your mind, speaking the truth about one of those party leaders is wrong.'
"You made that up, and it's not okay."
Finally, I rarely respond to borderline meows. But because you are a good man, I'll point out your error. In my mind, as a direct result of not only your original post here, but from years of reading and enjoying your contributions, I have come to understand that speaking about anything someone -- we can accurately narrow that down to Democrats -- points out is wrong with "leadership," you tend to spontaneously react by identifying it as anti-party, the work of our enemies. That has been a feature of your contributions here for exactly as long as I have known you here. And that's okay, it is simply who you are, and like I have always said, you are a good man and a loyal Democrat. It's just that high among our differences is our opinions on what "loyalty" demands.
= new reply since forum marked as read