politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Anybody following this able to give a balanced summary? I find The Hill to tend right-leaning and don't much trust their analysis.
The Hill seems to be placing the defeat of Bowman on his stance against the genocide in Palestine, which is becoming a sort of dog-whistle saying, "stand against the invasion of Palestine, and this is what happens to you." It may in this case be true; I can believe it, but I don't trust The Hill to not be constructing a narrative.
AIPAc spent like 14 million against him.
I think it I saw an article about how this was the most expensive primary for the House.
So yeah, because of his stance on Palestine (which was "genocide bad") Israel interfered in our election.
But Schumer, Harrison, and Biden take more AIPAC money that pretty much anyone else, so they're going to say this proves voters don't want progress and love genocide.or some other crazy shit.
Our system is broken and abused, and a D by someone's name clearly isn't enough anymore.
This is all right, I’ll just add that Bowman was among the first to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, basically right after Oct 7th happened. A number of large progressive Dems have rallied to his side (including Bernie and AOC this past weekend), which clearly wasn’t enough.
This was also a D primary, so everyone had a D by their name.
My point was Bowman's opponent took 14 million from a foreign government to support their genocide
He has a D by his name, but he's a piece of shit. If the party has standards he wouldn't be in the party
But the party doesn't have standards, because the party leaders take AIPAC money too.
Like, I thought it was pretty clear already, is it making sense yet?
Yup, what's important for people to understand is that AIPAC is the single largest source of GOP money in Democratic primaries and campaigns.
They take money from right-wing billionaires and use it to back right-wing Democrats who they know can be relied upon to be obstructionist.
AIPAC funding needs to be banned within the party, same as they did with the NRA who tried to do the same thing.
With Hillary weighing in on the side of AIPAC to endorse the challenger, I'd say that the establishment is pretty comfortable taking AIPAC's money.
I REALLY wish she'd just shut up and enjoy her long overdue retirement already 😮💨
Because the heads of the party are pocketing Israeli checks.
The D or R does not matter when it comes to Israel and its disgusting.
The only way to end it is to end lobbying.
It corrupts everyone. You aren't keeping up with people taking 459 million "campaign donations" if you don't. Its fucked. But yes, I'm glad we're not both sidesing for a second and pointing out something that should never have been allowed in the first place.
Not everyone was a D, at least not the voters. There was a massive push to reregister a lot of Republicans and Independents as Democrats.