this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
306 points (96.6% liked)

politics

18870 readers
4775 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
306
Rep. Cori Bush Tells AIPAC She’s ‘Coming to Tear Your Kingdom Down’ After Primary Loss (www.thedailybeast.com)
submitted 1 month ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 170 points 1 month ago (5 children)

It took the 2nd most heavily funded House primary in US history to unseat a member of the squad. It came in 2nd only because the 1st was to unseat Jamaal Bowman.

The writing is on the wall, AIPAC's and the pro-fascist Israel lobby's days are numbered. Blowing exhorbitant amounts of cash every time a politician takes an anti-fascist Israel stance isn't a sustainable strategy.

[–] makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world 79 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Blowing exhorbitant amounts of cash every time a politician takes an anti-fascist Israel stance isn't a sustainable strategy

I want to agree with you on that, but it's pretty clear that promoting fascism is at least in the short-term very profitable. Plus the money they spend ousting anti-Isreal politicians means they are more likely to get US Military money, so they spend less on their own military, which frees up funds in order to... influence US politics. I don't like it, but so far it appears to be an effective strategy

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

I'm not saying that they'll run out of money, I'm saying that spending in a campaign has diminishing returns. In a single district there's only so many minds that can be changed by attack ads. Summer Lee was also critical of Israel, but they didn't even bother to try to unseat her because she wasn't vulnerable.

[–] kbin_space_program@kbin.run 39 points 1 month ago

Its hard to track down precise numbers but US aid to Bibi is in the range of 12 to 24 billion, so 12,000 to 24,000 million, just since october 7th, 2023.

Then keep in mind that in the last major attack from Iran, Israel itself did almost nothing. The US and its allies, including Jordan, did almost all of the heavy lifting on blocking the attack.

Bibi has money to burn and hes proven three times already that he wants Trump in charge of things.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Takes a lot to look at AIPAC successfully defeating two of their highest priority targets and giving it a negative spjn for AIPAC.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Regardless of their immediate success, the issue was that they had to do this at all. They didn't used to have to spend much to unseat a candidate they didn't like, and now they do. The campaigns they used to unseat both didn't even attack them over Israel, which says a lot about how the Democrat base feels about the issue. There were also some squad members, like Summer Lee, who are critical of Israel but not vulnerable enough for AIPAC to even bother. Money can only go so far.

[–] morphballganon@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Blowing exhorbitant amounts of cash every time a politician takes an anti-fascist Israel stance isn't a sustainable strategy.

We would need to compare how much they spend to how much they have, or how much they gain on the regular, before we could make that assertion.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

It's not a question of how much money they have to burn, it's a question of how effective the money they spend will be. In a single district, there's only so many minds that can be changed by attack ads.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Blowing exhorbitant amounts of cash every time a politician takes an anti-fascist Israel stance isn’t a sustainable strategy.

Money for us "normal folk" and AIPAC are completely different things. AIPAC can throw as much money around as they like. It's like claiming Louis Vuitton destroys millions of dollars in property every time they burn their unsold merchandise

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 77 points 1 month ago (50 children)

I will donate to her so set it up we should be helping her. It bullshit and should be 100% illegal. It literally a foreign government interfering in our elections. Why the fuck are we allowing this?

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago

In 2010 a Repub SCOTUS decided corporations are people. They were able to do so because in 2000 a Repub SCOTUS illegally decided the election for the Repubs.

[–] SoJB@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Well, the GOP had project 2025 planned for decades and the DNC had project “suppress any semblance of leftism in the US” going on since the Southern Strategy.

One of them succeeded.

load more comments (48 replies)
[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago

I hope she can

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Go get them, Ma'am. Fuck them for what they did to you. And then come back and run again next round pushing even harder.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›