Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
Money can't buy happiness but it can buy you the American government.
It's the best government money can buy!
Remember when the DCCC was mad at AOC and said any consultants who work with candidates trying to unseat incumbents would be blacklisted? https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democratic-leaders-stand-firm-on-incumbent-favor-rule-rebuff-liberal-cries-of-blacklist/2019/04/02/117a7714-54bd-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html
Almost like the dnc goal is to always do what fucks over those wanting to move the party left
Like most people, they really really really like money
I remember when the party threw its weight behind Henry Cuellar because his opponent was a progressive, and claimed it was because he was an incumbent.
No mention of Hillary Clinton endorsing the AIPAC candidate.
The precedent was the Citizens United ruling. This is just a case in point.
Eli5: How does record AIPAC spending prevent people from voting? It still comes down to people voting so isn't it safe to say more people voted for the person who won than people who voted for the losing candidate?
Edit: come on this isn't reddit. I'm not concerned with this question of who was running and what they are in favor of. As far as I have been attentive to politics there has always been campaign contributions from lobbyists with the intent to have their interests protected. I do not understand why or how that would affect the outcome of the election unless one candidates total campaign funds were a pot more than the others. I also don't understand why is thes any new precedent? Hopefully with this added clarity the down votes won't burry the comment and further discussion can be had.
It doesn’t. But it puts their agenda up front and center for those that can be manipulated by it a whole lot easier.
Sort of similar to how people here will urge you to not vote for Biden. Most people will see this as people essentially just shitting into a fan, but at its core, it’s really a way to circumvent having to directly show support for Trump on a left-leaning social media platform where they’d get banned.
So where did all the pro-Isreal propaganda get pushed to? The anti-Isreal propaganda is everywhere. (I don't know a better word than propaganda to use here but I don't mean it as any sense of invalidating or dismissing eirher the anti-Isreal/pro-Isreal sentiment)
TV, Facebook, Instagram, radio ads, billboards, etc. Basically all the places where boomers bask
Personally, I think there’s a fuck-ton of nuance to the issue and I find that it’s best not to listen to a bunch of high-school kids lecturing everyone on who to vote for based on foreign affairs that they weren’t even aware were happening less than a year ago.
Where the others went?
This is lemmy. You’re not allowed to accept that the situation is nuance led as fuck. Even if you mostly agree with the hive.
high-school kids
"Anyone who disagrees with me on anything must be younger than me and therefore wrong." - Boomer logic.
Yawn…. Is there anything that doesn’t offend you? Seriously man. I’m not engaging with you on this anymore.
You said you were gonna ignore me last time you spewed your hatred for the anti-genocide left.
That does not obligate me to ignore you.
I said I was ignoring you then. And I did. And now I’m ignoring your current nonsense now. You see, it’s a thing that can be activated at will. And don’t mistake my responding to you as some form of hypocrisy. Or that your little trolling attempt was successful. I’m fully allowed to respond to whatever bullshit you bring me. That is my right. I will however choose when I wish- to ignore discussing whatever dumb shit you try and bring up as a means to distract from the point to create a straw man as is pretty much ALL you do.
And considering that you’re incapable of stopping yourself from mouthing off at anyone who dares to disagree with your little agenda, it’s pretty easy to do.
You should probably get used to it. I have seen that I’m not the only one that does it.
Oh, and for the record- and on the topic of ignoring things… As I’ve said and you’ve ignored before- I don’t have a problem with the far left.
I have a huge problem with the “far left.” And you should too.
You're spectacularly bad at ignoring me.
Two things. Opposition to genocide is not a "little agenda" just because it pisses you off to see people who don't unconditionally support everything centrist Democrats do.
And your distinction about the far left versus the "far left"? Bullshit. You hate everyone to your left and tell yourself that they're to your right to justify it.
Now go back to "ignoring" me.
Three things:
One- You seem to take GREAT offense to my accusing some people of being fake far lefters. So much so that you can’t help yourself and seem compelled to respond to my every comment about it. It’s almost like… you’re incapable of not responding to my every comment on the topic. It’s like… yOu jUsT cAn’T iGnOre mE! (Waaah!)
Two- gEnOciDe is absolutely a “little agenda.” When positioned from the perspective of the far right trolls that pretend to support it. The same people you get incredibly upset about when people accuse you of being- but adamantly defend them when people go on the offensive on them.
You really need to choose a lane buddy.
And three- you claim time-and-again that you’re going to vote for Biden. At this point: I’m calling bullshit. And I’m pretty sure we both know it’s bullshit. And my evidence is One and Two from just above this paragraph if you need a reference.
K? Bye!
This is not what ignoring me looks like. This is utterly indistinguishable from previous conversations we've had, except you've made your genocide support much clearer.
Everything to your left must be all the way to your right. You've never considered once that genocide is wrong and that you're wrong for supporting it.
Okay buddy. You’re free to falsely accuse me of whatever you’d like. Until you get your boy elected, it’s a free country.
You falsely accuse me of being a trumpist constantly.
Like you do to anyone who doesn't support Netanyahu's genocide.
I'm voting for Biden. Lie about me all you want. Not that you need encouragement. You can't even tell the truth about ignoring me.
Sure thing bud. Keep defending those conservative bots. You’re only telling on yourself.
You can't defend your support for genocide, so you pretend that anyone who doesn't support genocide must be to your right. Vote for Biden if you can.
And you can’t defend your support for Trump. Sooo…. I guess it’s a stalemate.
And you can’t defend your support for Trump.
I don't support Trump, no matter how much you interpret my opposition to the genocide you love as such.
And I don’t support genocide no matter how much you interpret my opposition to MAGA bots parading themselves around as far lefters.
Dude… you’re not getting the point I’ve tried to fucking tell you- over and over again!
I’m not accusing you of shit. If you’re legit- you’re fine. But you HAVE to know here are bad actors among you. And the fact that you STILL constantly come at me when I’m only trying to pull weeds from YOUR garden, makes me think you want them there.
If you’re not in favor of a Trump win and genuinely don’t support him in any way, then why not join me and the others in weeding out those among you that are there in bad faith?
I honestly don’t get your angle here.
And I don’t support genocide no matter how much you interpret my opposition to MAGA bots parading themselves around as far lefters.
You have no evidence whatsoever of these "maga bots" except that they oppose Netanyahu's genocide. That's not evidence. That's you making shit up about people you disagree with.
I’m not accusing you of shit.
You keep calling me a trumpist.
But you HAVE to know here are bad actors among you
Yeah, I'm talking to one. You constantly lie about the anti-genocide left because you want to discredit the left, opposition to genocide, or both.
If you’re not in favor of a Trump win and genuinely don’t support him in any way, then why not join me and the others in weeding out those among you that are there in bad faith
I'm not going to join your personal mccarthyist inquisition against everyone to your left just because you've imagined that there's Russian psyops behind every rock.
I honestly don’t get your angle here.
Like I said last time you said this: I criticize those to my right. You should try it sometime.
Do you think that people are pouring millions of dollars into elections because they are stupid and wasting it? This seems like a bad faith question.
But how does that keep people from voting? I'm not being a dick it's a genuine question. Corporations dump trillions into advertising but that doesn't prevent me from comparing products and choosing the product that best fits my needs. Matter of fact, there was a post today I saw that was about the futility of targeted ads having no better results than traditional marketing.
It does not prevent people from voting.
It may, however, amplify distortions of the truth or bold-face lies.
With regards to AIPAC it amplifies the voice of a group that is ONLY concerned with the advancement of Israeli interests.
Well said and good point.
Organization trumps money. The problem is that a lot of progressive organizations aren't able to mobilize voters for elections like this.
Organising requires funds, though.
It hasn't yet, so that's a false statement.
^Holds finger right near your eyeball and says, but i'm not touching you, see, i'm not touching you.
Lattimer looks like he has brain worms
Precedent? I don't even know why they bother when they can simply legally and openly bribe whomever wins anyway
Right? I was about to say, this can't be the first politician AIPAC has bought and placed into our government.
Yes, it's a dangerous precedent to have someone in office who calls rape and sexual violence "propaganda".
That's an awfully... interesting way of saying he lost his primary, which as an incumbent is not a particularly easy to do. Blame foreign money all you want, your voters voted for who they wanted. Primary voters are the most politically aware kind of voters, most people don't vote, even fewer take the time to vote in primaries. Apparently those voters wanted somebody new.
Then why did they spend $15 million on a primary campaign? Why does a campaign for President costs $1 billion now? Maybe 🤔 they just like spending money.
