this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
232 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19115 readers
3481 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
 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday singled out AIPAC as a 'special interest group pushing a wildly unpopular agenda,' starting a new debate about the pro-Israel organization's involvement in the party

The debate has been simmering since AIPAC's United Democracy Project super PAC spent unprecedented sums to unseat two progressive Democrats in their respective primaries over the summer – largely, but not exclusively, bankrolled by donations from Republican megadonors in an election year that was far and away the most expensive in history.

As internal Democratic debate over the party's ills and its future reached fever pitch in recent days, AIPAC was once again catapulted to the center of the matter.

"Weird to have a whole discourse about 'special interest groups' that completely leaves out corporate and industry lobbies – by far the most influential 'groups' in the Democratic Party," Jeremy Slevin, a senior adviser to AIPAC foe Sen. Bernie Sanders, wrote on Sunday.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the most nationally prominent AIPAC critic despite, ironically, being attacked from the left as an apologist for the group earlier this summer, singled out the pro-Israel organization while echoing Slevin's point. "If people want to talk about members of Congress being overly influenced by a special interest group pushing a wildly unpopular agenda that pushes voters away from Democrats then they should be discussing AIPAC," she tweeted in response.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 44 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

AIPAC is blue NRA. They both need to be disbanded.

[–] Maggoty 40 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

They aren't even blue. They do not care about our political parties. Their interest is as a lobby group to benefit Israel. It's full name is The American Israel Public Affairs Committee. And the contents match the name on the tin.

They aren't alone, just to throw a dart and find a couple from the hundreds of organizations as an example, there's the Japan External Trade Organization and the Irish National Caucus. That there is such a group isn't alarming. What's alarming is their level of influence in Democratic Party Politics while obviously preferring Trump and conservative Democrats. Other groups simply lobby for their interest, whereas AIPAC seeks to shape the field of play for our domestic politics, in the favor of Israel.

[–] finitebanjo 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

The fact that there is such a group absolutely is alarming. If the DNC had just some SCOTUS picks or a senate supermajority they could end Citizens United, add new maximum political donations, and we could all put this nightmare behind us, but that's never going to happen.

[–] Maggoty 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Biden had a trifecta, they could have pushed legislation to reorganize SCOTUS. This is yet another issue on the flaming pile of things Democrats could have done but did not because it's better to be able to campaign on it.

[–] finitebanjo 0 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Dems had 48 to Republican 50 under Biden's first two years, only got to pick a majority leader who calls votes because of 2 independents caucusing and the Vice President Tiebreaker.

After 2 years it became 48:3:49 and they no longer held the House, either.

Dismissing SCOTUS judges would require supermajority, while expanding the court was highly controversial.

[–] Maggoty 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Re-organizing the court is a normal bill. And yes the Republicans are going to make sure anything they don't like is highly controversial. If that's why you aren't doing something then you're just keeping their seat warm for them.

[–] finitebanjo -1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Controversial as in even getting 48 Democrats on board would be difficult, but even if they did then they still couldn't pass a normal bill without Republican help as I outlined they were outnumbered for all 4 years.

[–] Maggoty 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The independents are more progressive than them, not less. And keeping the filibuster is a self inflicted injury.

I have no sympathy for the boy who does nothing more than cry wolf while he loses his sheep.

[–] finitebanjo 0 points 9 hours ago

Sinema voted alongside Trump's policy stance more than 50% of the time. Angus King Jr 37%. Now Joe Manchin is also an Independent.

But on average you might be right, because Bernie Sanders weighs the average down with 16.7%.

Using Trump as a measure for conservative, the average Democrat is quite a bit more progressive than an Independent.

[–] homesweethomeMrL 7 points 19 hours ago

Hell of a picture choice, Haaretz. Bra-vo.

load more comments
view more: next ›