More than 100 House Democrats voted against a Republican resolution condemning the antisemitic terrorist attack in Boulder and Colorado’s sanctuary state laws on Monday. The resolution, introduced by Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), cleared the lower chamber 280-113, with 75 Democrats joining Republicans to pass the measure. Democrats fumed over language in the resolution expressing “gratitude to law enforcement, including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, for protecting the homeland.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaks with reporters about the spending and tax bill embraced by President Trump and Republicans, at the Capitol in Washington, Friday, June 6, 2025. AP House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaks with reporters about the spending and tax bill embraced by President Trump and Republicans, at the Capitol in Washington, Friday, June 6, 2025. AP The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP’s campaign arm, charged that Democrats voting against the bill “sided with terrorists over police officers and flat-out refused to condemn antisemitism.” STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST NEWS BY SUBSCRIBING TO MORNING REPORT NEWSLETTER 2000 Porsche Boxster S Ad 2000 Porsche Boxster S ISEECARS Learn more call to action icon “Democrats have become the pro-terrorist, anti-cop, antisemitic caucus. And they’re proud of it,” the NRCC wrote on X. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) slammed Evans as a “joke” ahead of the vote. “Who is this guy? He’s not seriously concerned with combating antisemitism in America. This is not a serious effort,” Jeffries told reporters. “Antisemitism is a scourge on America. It shouldn’t be weaponized politically.” Evans shot back that the “wildly offensive sentiment” expressed by Jeffries is “why antisemitism persists.” This image provided by the Boulder police shows Mohamed Sabry Soliman. AP This image provided by the Boulder police shows Mohamed Sabry Soliman. AP “The Left is unserious about finding real solutions,” the congressman argued on X. “Condemning terrorism is not a joking matter.” Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who is Jewish and voted no on the resolution, argued on the House floor that the measure was being put forward to simply “score political points.” “You weren’t here, Mr. Evans, last term, but there were about 10 antisemitism resolutions that effectively said the same thing solely to score political points,” Goldman said. “We Jews are sick and tired of being used as pawns.” Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.) speaks to reporters during a news conference on the steps of the Colorado Capitol in Denver on Thursday, May 29, 2025. ZUMAPRESS.com Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.) speaks to reporters during a news conference on the steps of the Colorado Capitol in Denver on Thursday, May 29, 2025. ZUMAPRESS.com In his floor speech, Evans stated: “As a former police officer and Army veteran of the global war on terror, I know how Colorado’s radical leftists leaders and laws prioritize illegal immigrants over public safety — allowing antisemitic terrorists like Mohammed Sabry Soliman to strike.” Related video: 'We Jews Are Sick And Tired Of Being Used As Pawns': Rep. Dan Goldman Lambasts GOP Colleague During Fiery Remarks (Slingshot News) And I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado,Video Player is loading. Slingshot News 'We Jews Are Sick And Tired Of Being Used As Pawns': Rep. Dan Goldman Lambasts GOP Colleague During Fiery Remarks 0 View on Watch View on Watch Soliman, an Egyptian national who overstayed his visa, allegedly used Molotov cocktails and a makeshift flamethrower during the June 1 attack targeting peaceful marchers who were calling for the release of Hamas-held hostages in Gaza. Fifteen people were injured in the firebombing, during which Soliman allegedly shouted, “Free Palestine.” “The passing of my resolution ensures we condemn all acts of antisemitism and affirms that the free and open collaboration between state and local law enforcement with their federal counterparts is key in preventing future attacks like this,” the congressman continued. A separate resolution introduced by Reps. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) and Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), who more generally denounced the uptick in antisemitic attacks in the US, passed 400-0.
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment