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

politics

19120 readers
2318 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's the weirdest support for a third party I've ever seen. None.

WHO are you talking about? Jill Stein? One of the Pokemon or something? What fully-considered third party is your gravely serious suggestion?

I know. You don't have one. And you won't for 3.5 years.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Having an active imagination is great. But all the third parties did not pack up their bags and go to a hotel in Moscow.

They are all still in America. Still working on the ground. Including the Greens.

[–] reddwarf@feddit.nl 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Keep a close eye on that Green party, my guess is that you will see and hear nothing for 3.5 years and then they magically start bleating again in the next presidential election.

In fact, I would put money on it but the betting offices are no fools and do not take that particular bet.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Just because Democrats stop talking about them does not mean they stop existing

[–] RedSeries@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Existing and being relevant are two very different things. They don't try to win local elections or midterms. As far as a party goes.. they're like a surprise party with one person, no decorations, no cake, and no presents. And then they get pissy when you call that out and leave.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Harris had a 5 point lead until she opened her mouth.

[–] RedSeries@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago

Oh, she had a lead, okay. When did Jill have the lead? I'll wait.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The greens aren't still working on the ground; they've already accomplished their goal of getting Trump elected.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Nobody has put in more work to get Trump elected than Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

I am still amazed they managed to pull off this massive of a loss against the easiest possible opponent.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

against the easiest possible opponent

If policies or respect actually mattered in politics, I would agree with you. But, Trump has a few things going for him:

  • A cult of personality.
  • Endless media coverage.
  • Alternative facts.
  • Emotionally-driven campaign goals.
  • His "tell it how it is" attitude and lack of self-censorship.*

*Not that much of it is based in reality, but freedom of speech diehards appreciate that.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How exactly is Trump the "easiest possible opponent"?

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Harris had 5 point lead before opening her mouth.

Harris dropped out in the 2020 primary because she polled less than 1%. She only got to run because the the DNC convinced themselves they could run an even worse candidate against Trump until three months before the election.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So you think the polls were accurate?

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

Harris' popularity in 2020 was certainly accurate.

They invented this thing called a primary so that does not happen. Democrats did not have one.

I do believe if the elections were two weeks after Harris became candidate she would have had a better chance of winning.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

How does your response answer my question?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 2 days ago

They are all still in America. Still working on the ground. Including the Greens.

Hahahaha... Assuming any of this is good faith, you must be very young.

The Green Party is not a real party, and if you think they're going to do shit until the next presidential election (assuming we have one), then you're in for a massive disappointment.

They've been doing this for at least 30 years now. If they were a real party, they wouldn't vanish for 4 years.