“Federal Election Commission records show Stein paid $100,000 in July to a consulting outfit that has worked with Republican campaigns, as well as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s independent presidential bid. The firm, Accelevate, is operated by Trent Pool. The Intercept reported that he appeared to be part of the mob that breached the grounds of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6., 2021. The Journal hasn’t independently verified the reporting.”

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
0 points

That’s not my argument.

Then what is? It’s fine to buy candidates as long as your PAC has the fig leaf of US funding when it operates on behalf of a foreign government? Because that’s what happened. Israel didn’t like the incumbents. AIPAC spent loads of money on their challengers.

Back in 2022, we were told that when the party propped up the anti-choice, pro-nra, anti-labor Henry Cuellar against his progressive challenger Jessica Cisneros, it absolutely wasn’t because he was a centrist and she a progressive. It was that the party protects its incumbents in order to maintain the incumbency advantage and the proven track record for winning.

But we just saw the party do absolutely fucking nothing at all to protect the progressive incumbents Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, while their opponents took boatloads of cash from AIPAC to sink them.

As far as I’m concerned, the party supports Netanyahu’s ongoing genocide, and in exchange AIPAC spends heaps of money in opposition to progressive incumbents that party leadership refuses to protect.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I understand what you’re trying to say, but you’ve mixed in 3 different topics into a blender to build up a narrative. This is literally a gish gallop and it’s intentional.

The only thing I pushed back was that AIPAC was taking money directly from Israel and circumventing FARA, which is a common conspiratorial talking point.

Now in addition to addressing FARA, you want to talk about

  • incumbent advantage and popularity of these candidates

  • dems support for genocide,

  • the influence of lobbying in elections.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

The only thing I pushed back was that AIPAC was taking money directly from Israel and circumventing FARA, which is a common conspiratorial talking point.

Ok, let’s both take a step back here, I ask that you humor me for a moment. Could you please quote where I said that Israel directly funded AIPAC in contravention of FARA? I don’t recall making such an assertion, but you seem to be arguing as though I did.

Accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist for noticing that AIPAC spent loads of money to essentially buy candidates is low. Calling it a gish gallop when I expanded on it is lower still.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Netanyahu. AIPAC bought two candidates right out in the open. The party welcomes foreign interference against progressives.

Isn’t the implication here that Israel - a foreign entity - is directing an american Lobby directly?

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 189K

    Comments