this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
153 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4693 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
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16955018

"Jamaal and our movement were such a threat to right-wing power, to GOP megadonors, and to AIPAC's influence in Congress that they had to spend $15 million to defeat us," said one progressive organizer.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 52 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Money can't buy happiness but it can buy you the American government.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's the best government money can buy!

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 49 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 28 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Almost like the dnc goal is to always do what fucks over those wanting to move the party left

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Like most people, they really really really like money

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] culprit@lemmy.ml 35 points 4 months ago
[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago

The precedent was the Citizens United ruling. This is just a case in point.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 30 points 4 months ago (3 children)

How is this not foreign interference? It should be doubly so if money is free speech. They are directly influencing our lives, at all.90 winning, I'd even say those tinfoil hat jyoo conspiracy theorists have some credence, its just Israel not the Jewish people.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

How is this not foreign interference?

Oh, it absolutely is, but it's ok because it was used against a progressive. Which party is gonna do something about it? The one that hates progressives, or the other one that really hates progressives?

[–] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The only response I have is money needs to be removed from politics.

[–] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Oh I completely agree, just wanted to point out that AIPAC is homegrown interventionism, not foreign like people tend to think.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Israel definitely has to have some form of contact though. There's absolutely no way they dont.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Foreign funding and domestic funding with the express purpose of gaining advantage for a foreign nation is a distinction without any practical difference.

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

classic emotional response disconnected from reality. AIPAC is not Israel. Take your crying about Jews and apply it to Citizens United please.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

You fucken think Israel has no contact with AIPAC? Really?

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Lattimer looks like he has brain worms

[–] exanime@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Precedent? I don't even know why they bother when they can simply legally and openly bribe whomever wins anyway

[–] Shyfer@ttrpg.network 3 points 4 months ago

Right? I was about to say, this can't be the first politician AIPAC has bought and placed into our government.

[–] zerog_bandit@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Yes, it's a dangerous precedent to have someone in office who calls rape and sexual violence "propaganda".

load more comments
view more: next ›