even george bush refused to accept jerusalem as the capital of israel

bud · September 8, 2012

and rightly so. under international law, which pretty much everyone, including u.s. and canada accept, east jerusalem is part of the palestinian territory.

not often a political fix is displayed so publicly. watch this bizarre sequence of events:

it's actually kind of hilarious, in a sad kind of way.

but i guess this is part of america's 2 party system and obama has to compete with sheldon adelson's romney for donation money and avoid getting AIPAC's finger wagging.

cybercoma · September 8, 2012

Play-by-play of the video for those of us that can't watch at the moment?

Bonam · September 8, 2012

I like how the camera pans to the two Arabs in the crowd every time during the votes.

bud · September 8, 2012

Play-by-play of the video for those of us that can't watch at the moment?

here is the play-by-play by alison weir

The videos begin with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the handpicked chairman of the convention, standing at the podium.

Villaraigosa calls on the Chair of the Platform Drafting Committee, former Ohio governor Ted Strickland. Strickland moves that the rules be suspended to permit an amendment to the platform.

This passes quickly, as many people clearly have no idea what’s going on. Strickland then introduces the required amendment, and it is immediately seconded.

Villaraigosa then says, in the normal Roberts Rules of Order rite: “Is there any further discussion. Hearing none, the matter requires a two-thirds vote in the affirmative. All those delegates in favor say “aye.”

There is a large “aye” vote.

He then says, “All those delegates opposed say no.”

There is a “no” vote that is at least as loud, perhaps a touch louder.

Villaraigosa then says, “In the opinion of the…” He suddenly stops, then says, “Let me do that again.”

Things are going wrong and Villaraigosa has no idea what to do. The motion has just been defeated, since it requires a two-thirds vote and it has clearly failed to get this. Nevertheless, Villaraigosa soldiers on.

“All of those delegates,” he begins, in the tones of a school master admonishing recalcitrant students, “in favor say ‘aye.”

There is a large “aye” vote.

Villaraigosa then says, “All those opposed say ‘no.’”

There is an equally large “no” vote.

Villaraigosa looks like a deer caught in the headlights. He gazes straight ahead and then from side to side, a foolish half smile fleetingly on his face. He starts to say, “I, um… I guess…” He gives his head a slight shake and looks behind him.

A woman official can be heard quietly telling him, “You’ve got to let them do what they’re gonna do.”

Villaraigosa announces, “I’ll do that one more time.”

Keep in mind that the amendment has already twice failed the two-thirds test. According to all rules of procedure the amendment has been rejected. Nevertheless, Villaraigosa says again, “All those delegates in favor say ‘aye.’”

There is a large “aye” vote.

Villaraigosa says: “All those delegates opposed say ‘no.’”

There is an equally large (in fact, it may be a slightly larger) “no” vote. The amendment has now been defeated three times. At minimum, half the delegates have rejected it.

Is Villaraigosa going to repeat this vote a fourth time… possibly all night until they finally get it right?

No. Perhaps someone has finally signaled to him to ignore the vote and simply read his lines. Or maybe he has figured this out for himself. By now, he has probably realized that his chances of being the next Obama have slipped through his fingers, thanks to uppity delegates who won’t get with the program.

He decrees: “In the opinion of the Chair, two thirds have voted in the affirmative [boos can be heard] and the platform has been amended as shown on the screen.” He thanks Strickland for his service.

Meanwhile, the boos increase in volume and begin to sweep the convention, while those in favor of the fix that just went through on national TV cheer loudly – apparently unconcerned that clear principles of fairness and proper procedure have just been flushed, in full public view, down the Democratic toilet, the alleged “people’s” party.

cybercoma · September 8, 2012

That is awesome! But what are they voting on?

Again... can't watch the video at the moment. Still at work.

Edited September 8, 2012 by cybercoma

punked · September 8, 2012

Bud you are playing fast and lose with the Facts here. Bush and Republicans have on many occasions just like Obama and Democrats said that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Bush however just Like Obama would never move the embassy to Israel because it is a bad idea. 4

You are dead wrong on this one and don't know what you are talking about.

punked · September 8, 2012

That is awesome! But what are they voting on?

Again... can't watch the video at the moment. Still at work.

Yep he chaired the Shit out of that platform vote. Total power play but who cares the US position (which Obama) never changed and which hasn't been changed form the time that Reagan made it official US policy has been that “The status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.”

This is about politics not policy no one in the world thinks Obama who had 4 years to change policy will. However there are 700,000 Jewish votes in Florida (where Obama leads) and there is no path to a Republican presidency unless they can win Florida.

Edited September 8, 2012 by punked

Bonam · September 8, 2012

The "ayes" were clearly louder than the "nos" in the third vote. Regardless, an absurd and farcical way to vote on an issue of import. If the voiced vote isn't completely clear (almost unanimous), then votes should be submitted on paper and tallied.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Bonam

punked · September 8, 2012

Not to mention the "ayes" were clearly more numerous than the "nos".

Yah but in order to have a platform change at any convention it isn't a majority vote it should be a 2/3rds majority vote. Problem is that they could have had a 2/3rds majority vote for sure if they whipped their people but instead they let the people who really care about these issue fill the hall during the voting while those who didn't care were off getting lunch.

It happens at conventions far to often. At the NDP convention the weed people often try to force these issues when everyone else has stepped out of the hall, and they think they might have 2/3rds. Then all the delegates have to rush back and have their voices herd to. Although we are reaching a tipping point on that front every convention they seem to have more and more people. I think I'll vote with them next time. I think it is time.

Bonam · September 8, 2012

Like I said, if the issue actually matters, and the procedure is to put it to a popular vote, they should have made it possible for all registered democrats, democrat party officials, or whoever it is that's supposed to get a say on these things in the democrat party, a chance to vote, and have had those votes properly tallied.

Either the whole issue is purely for show and doesn't matter, in which case this thread is irrelevant, or the Democrats are utterly incompetent at the very most basic mechanics of democracy, such as actually counting votes.

punked · September 8, 2012

Like I said, if the issue actually matters, and the procedure is to put it to a popular vote, they should have made it possible for all registered democrats, democrat party officials, or whoever it is that's supposed to get a say on these things in the democrat party, a chance to vote, and have had those votes properly tallied.

Either the whole issue is purely for show and doesn't matter, in which case this thread is irrelevant, or the Democrats are utterly incompetent at the very most basic mechanics of democracy, such as actually counting votes.

I think in this case it really doesn't matter because Obama said "these things need to be in the platform, you are nominating me to run on this platform so it has to have the things I support in it." That is true he isn't like Romney who says "Fuck the Republican platform I am going to run on whatever I want from one day to the next" he doing something the Dems have wanted for a long time. Running on what they want, so they can give him those two small issues that don't matter at all.

Bonam · September 8, 2012

I think in this case it really doesn't matter because Obama said "these things need to be in the platform, you are nominating me to run on this platform so it has to have the things I support in it." That is true he isn't like Romney who says "Fuck the Republican platform I am going to run on whatever I want from one day to the next" he doing something the Dems have wanted for a long time. Running on what they want, so they can give him those two small issues that don't matter at all.

So in that case what is bud making a fuss about? Also, if it was already all pre-arranged that these changes had to be in the party platform, why have a vote on it? Why vote on something already pre-determined? Just for show? Is that kind of like a show trial for someone who's already been found guilty?

Edited September 8, 2012 by Bonam

punked · September 8, 2012

So in that case what is bud making a fuss about?

Bud hates Israel and doesn't care what political party wins as long as they make that country weaker. So why not lie about this issue to try and Shame the Dems for the next time they make a platform. Seriously check out his posting history.

Edited September 8, 2012 by punked

Bonam · September 8, 2012

Bud hates Israel and doesn't care what political party wins as long as they make that country weaker. So why not lie about this issue to try and Shame the Dems for the next time they make a platform. Seriously check out his posting history.

Oh I know all about his posting history and his hatred for Israel. I mean, he's been here for years, changing his username multiple times, there was "dub" and also "Naomi Glover". All the same poster. Not sure how "shaming" the party that has the less hardline pro-Israeli stance of the two furthers his agenda, though.

GostHacked · September 8, 2012

So the Dem party is officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.

There seemed to be an equal number of people based on the AYE, NO.... NO seemed slightly louder. And the man at the podium says it's 2/3s for the AYE.

Should have a ballot vote. But what is the reasoning for this?

punked · September 8, 2012

So the Dem party is officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.

There seemed to be an equal number of people based on the AYE, NO.... NO seemed slightly louder. And the man at the podium says it's 2/3s for the AYE.

Should have a ballot vote. But what is the reasoning for this?

How about you read the thread.

wyly · September 9, 2012

there are 700,000 Jewish votes in Florida (where Obama leads) and there is no path to a Republican presidency unless they can win Florida.

of which maybe 50% are ineligible to vote (children) and of the remainder possibly around 50% vote republican anyways...so that brings the number down to around 175K...

September 9, 2012

"even george bush refused to accept jerusalem as the capital of israel"

Which George Bush are you referring to? George W. or George H.W.?

punked · September 9, 2012

of which maybe 50% are ineligible to vote (children) and of the remainder possibly around 50% vote republican anyways...so that brings the number down to around 175K...

Which was the margin of victory for Obama in Florida. Obama won something like 65% of the Jewish vote last time so your numbers are off.

-TSS- · September 9, 2012

West-Jerusalem is in Israel and East-Jerusalem in the Palestine-territory. The only problem is that Israel considers Jerusalem as indivisible that is what they say now, not necessarily forever.

MiddleClassCentrist · September 9, 2012

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow

It's in there near the beginning for Sept 6th episode.

They had PRE-SCRIPTED the accepting of the motion on the teleprompter. Jon Stewart makes fun of it pretty well.

Even though 2/3rds were required to pass. They did it by listening and it was very very close.

Edited September 9, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

September 9, 2012

It was close, but "listening" is a pretty inaccurate way of determining a 2/3 vote at best, and if people from one camp yell as loud as they can, while people from the other camp speak in a normal voice, a minority could appear louder than the majority. But then, I don't think the vote ultimately means very much, if anything. There are official acts regarding the U.S. stand on this issue, so the "democratic platform" isn't going to change anything.

Edited September 9, 2012 by American Woman

TheNewTeddy · September 9, 2012

Parliament, the Judicial system, and the Executive are in Jerusalem. Illegal or not, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

bud · September 10, 2012

Parliament, the Judicial system, and the Executive are in Jerusalem. Illegal or not, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

despite what israel says, east jerusalem is not recognized to be part of israel by the world. including u.s. and canada.

September 10, 2012

Parliament, the Judicial system, and the Executive are in Jerusalem. Illegal or not, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

I think Ron Paul said it best: “If Israel wants their capital to be Jerusalem, then the United States should honor that. How would we like it if some other nation said, ‘We decided to recognize New York City as your capital instead, so we will build our embassy there’?”

And Ron Paul isn't exactly a staunch supporter of Israel.

And really, this is the bottom line:

In the meantime, with or without “international approval,” the city that King David designated as the capital of Israel and the Jewish people is 45 years unified, 3,000-plus years Jewish, and still going strong.

Link