759,935 American Voters Pulled a Lever for Members of “The Squad” in 2018


In 2018:

110,318 voters in New York’s 14th Congressional District voted for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  This district is 18.41% white.

267,703 voters in Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District voted for Ilhan Omar.  The district is 67.39% white.

165,355 voters in Michigan’s 13th District voted for Rashisa Talib. The district is 33.4% white.

216,559 voters in Massachusetts’s 7th District voted for Ayanna Pressley.  The district is 33.69% white.

The President of the United States says that these four women of color should leave the country because they don’t love America.  Would he say the same thing about 759,935 people who voted for this members of the House of Representatives?  These women were duly elected by their constituencies.  Unless, of course, the elections were rigged.  🙂

7 thoughts on “759,935 American Voters Pulled a Lever for Members of “The Squad” in 2018

  1. Jimmy Dick,

    I am not sure why you introduce race into a discussion about draft dodgers during the Vietnam era. As someone who lived through that period and remembers it quite clearly, most of those who ran off to Canada were white.



  2. I would love to see some proof, James, to back up your claim of draft dodgers using the Love it or Leave it saying. Instead, I see through the study of history and primary sources the use of the slogan in conjunction with those who sought and still seek to use the guise of patriotism to hide behind as they utter their evil, racist rhetoric. Then I see people defend those racists by deflecting criticism behind a wall of nonsense like you do constantly.

    So, don’t say another word unless you can show me proof to back up your claim.


  3. The jury is still out

    This type of thinking is exactly the problem. You can’t acknowledge that “The Squad” are patriotic Americans whom you just happen to disagree with politically. No, they are communists or socialists or hold allegiance to some other foreign entity. Their goals must be evil. This impugning of motives makes rational political discourse and bridge building impossible. Seriously, Mitt Romney’s father was born in Mexico. He’s criticized the president. What would you say to someone who told Mitt Romney that if he hates America, he can go back to where he came from? And then when you objected to that said, “Well, the jury is still out on if he’s anti-American.”

    And John is not suggesting voters leave the country. He’s asking rhetorically that if Trump feels “The Squad” are not Americans and should leave the country, what does that say of all the people who voted for them? Are they not “Real Americans” either? Basically, where does it end?

    “Love it or leave it” is a conservative trope. As if it’s somehow more American to ignore every flaw and defend the US rhetorically no matter one. As if conservatives don’t constantly complain about things (Abortion, the debt (when there’s a Democratic president), the entertainment industry, science education, college professors, taxes, government regulation, free speech that offends them, and so on). Again, what would you say if, Paul Ryan complained about the national debt, Obama had said. “If you don’t like it, you can leave! Go home and fix the corrupt crime ridden cesspool in Ireland and show us how it’s done.”


  4. Jimmy Dick,

    You miss the point entirely. I was not commenting on the morality or immortality of the Vietnam War. That is an entirely different debate. If a man did not support that war, he could have sought alternative service which was legally permissible at the time. He also could have gone to Canada or he could have gone to jail. All of these choices would have shown integrity.

    The “Love it or Leave it” saying was adopted by many who moved to Canada (and a few to other places.) I respect their choice. This option applies not only to Vietnam opponents but also to any foreign or domestic U.S. policy.


  5. Jim in STL,

    I will give you two reasons. One is intuitive and as such I would not use it in a formal debate. The other has a somewhat more objective basis.

    First, I will take the observable and arguably falsifiable reason. These women never extol the virtues of the country but take every opportunity to bare their critical teeth at any projection of U.S. influence in the world. A couple of them have made intentionally ambiguous remarks in support of international organizations which have shown enmity toward the U.S. and American citizens. To call them “blame-America-firsters” would be mild. There is a difference between being critical of U.S. foreign policy and blaming the country for just about everything based on a bias that our founding has hopelessly tainted everything we do.

    Their practical arguments for open borders bespeak a distain for the traditional concept of the nation-state. These ladies do not believe in the traditional concept of citizenship but in the internationalist concept of residency. This is implicitly anti-American in one degree or another.

    Finally, Jim, I will give you my intuitive reason. During the 1960s a pornography case came to the Supreme Court. The arguments were being made, and the legal team supporting the pornographer asked how a viewer would define pornography in distinction from a nude painting by a great Renaissance master. Apparently the lawyer was very clever at developing his argument and ended up confounding a particular justice. In frustration the justice finally blurted out, “I can’t define porn, but I know it when I see it.” (or words go that effect). So let me put it this way, Jim. I have known a lot of Americans in my life. These people have come from all political persuasions. Many of them have been liberals who were nonetheless as pro-American as any conservative. These four freshmen do not fit into that category.


  6. James – why would you entertain the notion that “the four representatives” – the “squad” as some are calling them – might be anti American? What constitutes “American” in your estimation?


  7. Isn’t it interesting how the people who said “Love it or leave it” during the Vietnam War did so in support of a morally and ethically wrong war? Isn’t it interesting how people who say things like that today do so in support of morally and ethically bankrupt ideology which is self-centered? Isn’t it interesting how they invoke patriotism while uttering racist and bigoted statements? Isn’t it interesting how the people who support “Love it or leave it” today lack integrity?


Comments are closed.