Congressman Jerry Nadler, who represents the 10th Congressional District in New York State. 

By Hannah Reale

On Tuesday, August 1, Symphony Space is hosting a community town hall called “Get Organized.” On their website, Symphony Space says that the event was organized by Congressman Jerry Nadler with the purpose of “discussing Washington and the way to get involved.”

The event will feature Congressman Nadler, who represents New York’s 10th District, along with speakers from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Swing Left, and NY Indivisible. The DCCC works to get Democrats elected and keep them in office. Swing Left was created after the 2016 election as an organized effort to elect Democratic representatives in swing states in 2018. NY Indivisible “[engages] citizens to monitor, report and take action on the comments and votes of legislators to ensure transparency and inclusiveness for all.”

Register here for Tuesday’s event. It will be held in the Peter Jay Sharp Theatre and will last from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., with doors opening at 5:15 p.m.

NEWS | 23 comments | permalink
    1. bravo says:

      Term limits.

      • B.B. says:

        Term limits are not the solution they promise to be; the answer is rather quite simple, people need to get out and vote.

        New York state and city have some of if not the highest levels of voter apathy in the country. How BdeB became mayor is recent proof of this, and will likely prevail again in November.

        Same is true for federal or offices in Albany. Lacking any true competition once in few ever leave of their own accord. Charles Rangel admitted to all sorts of crimes, but yet won re-election over and over until finally retired.

        All term limits have done so far in NYC for the most part is create a game of political musical chairs. Current BPs, public advocate, and comptroller are all seasoned political hacks from the democratic machine.

        Cast out of one office by term limits they scouted around for another (soon to be vacated by same process) office then moved in. A process that likely will be repeated 2021 when a large number of offices (mayor, bulk of city council, comptroller, public advocate, etc…) will be forced out by term limits.

        The other downside to term limits is that insulated from facing voters again, it gives cover to politicians to push through things and not be held accountable.

        Melissa Mark-Viverito is on a tear pushing through every progressive/democratic/left ideal she can before her term ends in November.

        One saving grace of term limits is that the Quinn woman got what was coming to her, so there is at least some good.

        • Independent says:

          One saving grace of term limits is that the Quinn woman got what was coming to her, so there is at least some good.

          Whatever her faults, would “the Quinn woman”, as you refer to former NYC Council Speaker and Mayoral candidate Christine Quinn, have been a worse Mayor than the individual who defeated her and all his other rivals to become our current, most esteemed Mayor? Are you convinced of that?

          Charles Rangel admitted to all sorts of crimes, but yet won re-election over and over until finally retired.

          Let me ask you something, B.B., since, from (at least most of) the comments of yours that I have read (including this one), you appear to be a rather reasonable, honest and intelligent fellow. Do you think Mr. Rangel would have enjoyed the same impunity, had he been White? Is his case not a rather clear one of ‘Black privilege’?

    2. Sean says:

      Will there be snacks?

      • Independent says:

        Would you, after witnessing a spectacle such as the one being advertised here, still have an appetite?

        (For /food/, I mean…)

    3. Chris says:

      Swing left ought to be getting rid of politicians like Nadler. Swing left should support opposition to the corrupt NY politicians that are currently in office and destroying the city and the state before it is to late.

      • ScooterStan says:

        Re: “corrupt NY politicians … destroying the city and the state”

        Ummm…WHO and HOW? Which “politicians” are corrupt and what have they done to prove your charge of corruption?

        And exactly HOW are the city and state being destroyed?

        As usual, NO SPECIFICs……just blanket allegations un-supported by facts.

        So typical of the latest faux-populist “Off with their heads” non-think.

        • OriginalMark says:

          SS – facts are for losers!
          The eternally miserable base everything on “feelings”.
          Seriously, if it’s all so terrible, why do they stay? I guess some people just need to be miserable so will live in misery just to be content.

    4. Bill says:

      I thank Congressman Nadler for his leadership. Complaining won;t change anything, action will.

    5. dirk says:

      I’d love to swing high

    6. jay says:

      Good for him to show up in his district for once…

    7. Scott says:

      Nadler is a co-sponsor of a bill that would criminalize support of BDS against Israel. 20 years in prison and up to $1M fine for exercising free speech. Shame on him.

      • bravo says:

        Let’s try openly harassing and calling for boycott of Ireland. Sectarian wars, the terrorism of IRA, catholic church with unlimited powers, tax dodging/money laundering heaven… No?
        Openly calling for destruction of a country, in the 21st century, is only, exclusively about a country that happens to be the only Jewish country on earth, that’s ok? We’ve heard this s*t for centuries. From the alt-right to Jews: zios, go to Israel. From the left: zios, we want to kill Israel.Shame on YOU.

        • Scott says:

          Yeah, throwing people in prison for supporting a boycott should solve all of Israel’s problems.

          Can you even think clearly about this?

          I thought Nadler and the left were all about social justice. Seems not to be the case when it comes to Israeli apartheid.

          • bravo says:

            Israel doesn’t have problems. You have a problem with Israel. If you have problem with Jews living safely, for a change, in their own country, it’s your problem. Very very very old problem: we were here before you, we’ll be here after you.

            • Scott says:

              Try to stay on topic.

              How does imprisoning American citizens for 20 years for exercising their free speech help Israel? Answer the question.

          • Independent says:


            Do you not see a contradiction between your final paragraph, above, especially the final sentence of it, and your subsequent post (made in reply to bravo) below (August 3, 2017 at 10:43 am)?

            Is the topic for discussion in this sub-thread to be restricted to the proposed legislation, co-sponsored by Jerrold Nadler, that would criminalize support for BDS? If yes, then wouldn’t said topic exclude the opinions and characterizations concerning either BDS, per se or the State of Israel, per se, of either yourself or anyone else here?

        • Independent says:

          How is criminalizing support of BDS not a violation of the First Amendment? Can you or anyone else who supports this bill articulate that?

          Freedom of speech and of political expression mean nothing if they do not protect that which is controversial and even that which may be widely deemed “hateful” or otherwise repugnant, reprehensible or reprobate. Popular speech needs no protection. I am hardly the first to point that out. And I do so without comment on BDS, as what I or anyone else happens to think of it is entirely beside the point here. (For the record, I happen to not be inclined favorably toward BDS, though I am emphatically non-Zionist. I also happen to be a Jew.)

          As for your analogy, can you cite any specific reason to assume or suspect that openly calling for a boycott of Ireland– or any other nation, for that matter– would be subject to criminal or even punitive civil penalties of the sort proposed by this anti-BDS bill?

          The same First Amendment that grants people the right to support BDS, grants opponents of BDS, like yourself, the right to express their objections to it. The First Amendment is a two-way street.

          • bravo says:

            Did you try organizing for boycott of any country? Like, harassing and physically attacking its citizens, violently shutting down lectures, celebrating terrorists blowing up school buses? No? Try it. Nobody tells you not to do it but it will have consequences – unless it’s against Jews, right?
            By the way, the founder of BDS lives in Tel Aviv with his girlfriend. Getting their national health care, I might add.

          • bravo says:

            Violently (repeat that) shutting down lectures, vandalizing property, harassing and physically attacking Jews, calling for their murder – how’s that for the freedom of speech. Try that with any other country, you’d be arrested. But it is never ever tried with any other country, that’s the problem. You are free to try it, you might find it educational.
            Also this: the “founder” of BDS lives in Tel Aviv with his girlfriend. Gets their free medical care for all, too, I might add.

            • Independent says:


              Physically attacking people, obviously, is clearly illegal and never protected by the First Amendment. Violently shutting down lectures, last I checked, was also rather clearly illegal– indeed /criminal/– behavior and accordingly subject to penalty-of-law. (Though I would grant that enforcement may, in some or even many cases, be selective and capricious.) The characterization of harassment is quite a bit more subjective but even there, there are rather clearly defined legal criteria and qualifications of what constitutes harassment and when these are met, the acts-in-question are subject to penalty-of-law.

              Are you saying that it is impossible to support BDS without being guilty of one or more of the above criminal offenses? I find that difficult to believe. If you are making such an assertion, please back it with evidence.

              I would also seriously question whether merely supporting the BDS cause invariably involves “celebrating terrorists blowing up school buses”. But even if it would, what I pointed-out in my previous post regarding the First Amendment would still apply.

              (Again, I do not support BDS but that should be beside the point here.)