this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
209 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19073 readers
5069 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 214 points 3 months ago (3 children)

AIPAC is a foreign actor and shouldn't be allowed to make political contributions.

[–] [email protected] 81 points 3 months ago

And even if they're allowed, they should be treated by Democrats like a donation from the Kochs. They're a billionaire funded pro-Republican group. Anyone who works with them should be shunned.

[–] inclementimmigrant 34 points 3 months ago
[–] jordanlund 85 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I keep telling people, the AIPAC dollars are why you will never see a strong stand against Israel and nobody ever believes me...

[–] Ghostalmedia 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

“Nobody ever believes me”

2:37pst - 82 upvotes, 2 downvotes

I don’t know about that. Seems like a lot of people believe you here.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

They might be referring to people they see IRL. Like family or friends. I'm pretty sure, though, that those are made up things. Like birds and Finland.

[–] [email protected] 65 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Representative Cori Bush of Missouri, one of the most outspoken progressives in the House, lost her primary on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, falling to a campaign by powerful pro-Israel political groups intent on ousting a fierce critic of the nation’s genocide in Gaza.

Fixed

[–] cAUzapNEAGLb 60 points 3 months ago

Check out Jen Perelman in South Florida

She's going against Debbie Wasserman Schultz and is explicitly anti AIPAC and progressive

https://www.jen2024.org/

[–] Suavevillain 30 points 3 months ago

AIPAC strikes again.

[–] Linkerbaan 29 points 3 months ago

From a slight bit of hope yesterday back into the reality of israel owning American politics.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (4 children)

People were talking a lot about AIPAC money when Bowman lost his primary, but he lost with 41.3% to his opponent's 58.7%. It was a wipe-out because he was genuinely unpopular after making a series of unforced blunders. I'm sure that he would have lost, although perhaps not by so much, even with no AIPAC spending.

Now Bush lost with 46% to Bell's 51%. That's not nearly as one-sided as Bowman's loss, but I still find it strange that commentators are so quick to dismiss the ability of the people of St. Louis to make their own decisions. Maybe they were actually able to think for themselves, consider the two candidates, and pick the one they preferred rather than being led like sheep?

[–] [email protected] 38 points 3 months ago

The idea that money is unimportant in influencing votes is quite a take.

[–] Jericho_One 9 points 3 months ago

Alternative theory:

Being pro-Israel and anti-Netenyahu, and pro-Palestinian and anti-Homicidal death cult, is actually really popular amongst people who vote at the ballot box instead of voting online ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

maybe she shouldn't have sided with republicans and voted against the infrastructure bill.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is always a disingenuous attack. She voted against it because it was promised to passed along with Bulid Back Better. Conservatives in the senate blocked BBB, so she voted against it to show disapproval.