152

Dangerous Precedent': Record AIPAC Spending Helps George Latimer Defeat Jamaal Bowman (www.commondreams.org)

submitted 4 days ago by TokenBoomer@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 48 points 4 days ago

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

[-] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 27 points 4 days ago

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 days ago

Like most people, they really really really like money

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days 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.

[-] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 51 points 4 days ago

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

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

It's the best government money can buy!

[-] OmnislashIsACloudApp@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

do you think he means me?

[-] culprit@lemmy.ml 34 points 4 days ago

No mention of Hillary Clinton endorsing the AIPAC candidate.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/06/13/clinton-endorses-bowmans-challenger-house/74082348007/

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 32 points 4 days ago

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

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 30 points 4 days ago

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 14 points 4 days 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 11 points 4 days ago

How is this not foreign interference?

Because AIPAC doesn't take any foreign money, it's funded entirely from within the U.S.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

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

[-] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

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 2 days ago

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

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days 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 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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 2 days ago

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

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Lattimer looks like he has brain worms

[-] exanime@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

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 2 days 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 3 days ago

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

load more comments

this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024

152 points (97.5% liked)

politics

18059 readers

2515 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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.
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.
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!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
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.
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