|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 21 2026 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2026 00:56 Billyboy wrote:My prediction is this just keeps going, Israel and Hezbollah continue fighting, eventually Hezbollah has some success, either killing soldiers or one of their rockets gets some civilian's. Then Israel responds with their ballistics and cruise missiles at IGRC and QUDs. Iran calls foul, threatens or blocks the strait, the US give them more and begs Israel to stop. Rinse and repeat. You might be a little behind the new, Iran has already closed the strait again.
They could be cheeky about it and use strait closures to send morse signals.
|
On June 21 2026 01:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2026 00:56 Billyboy wrote:
And this is how Iran plays the US like a fiddle. They put Lebanon in any deal, then they have Hezbollah attack Israel, who responds every time (hell never stops) and then Iran proper goes, those Israelis did it again we need more concessions. And the US is capitulating so hard that they fall all over themselves to get the "deal" back on track. And rinse repeat Iran gets more. While you're not wrong about Iran exploiting this issue, this isn't a masterstroke by Iran but a colossal avoidable failure by the US. They created a coalition without discussing the goals of the coalition and now they cannot end the war unilaterally because they do not agree with their coalition partner regarding whether the goals have been met. What Iran is doing is simply refusing to allow the Israel US coalition to end. In a vacuum if there was a dispute between Israel and Iran over Hezbollah then closing the strait for everyone would be utterly intolerable, they'd never do that, it would be a colossal and indefensible overreaction. And the US wants desperately for that to be the situation, for this to be two separate wars and for them not to be involved in the second Lebanon one. But both Iran and Israel want this to be a theatre within the broader coalition conflict, Iran because if the US remains the adversary then they can act accordingly, and Israel because they want to keep the US involved. And it is incredibly difficult to say that the coalition has met its goals and ended and the conflict for which it was created is over when they couldn't be bothered to do the paperwork at the front end. They win or lose with their coalition partner and Israel absolutely does not accept that the war is lost.
Totally agree that this is much more a US failure than Iran. I’m sure even Iran is shocked at how far the US bent over. Their only risk is over playing their hand and Netanyahu being Trump back in his fold.
My only push back would be that it was discussed and the initial goals were inline, you know the ones Oblade said were already achieved a bunch, then wait and see, and now wait for it to be super official well I get downloaded on how we still won. The difference is Israel never capitulated, there goals have remained the same and they are not stopping until it’s done.
That Israel and the US are so far apart now shows how far Trumps goalposts have moved.
On June 21 2026 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2026 00:56 Billyboy wrote:My prediction is this just keeps going, Israel and Hezbollah continue fighting, eventually Hezbollah has some success, either killing soldiers or one of their rockets gets some civilian's. Then Israel responds with their ballistics and cruise missiles at IGRC and QUDs. Iran calls foul, threatens or blocks the strait, the US give them more and begs Israel to stop. Rinse and repeat. You might be a little behind the new, Iran has already closed the strait again.
Exactly, rinse and repeat
|
United States44247 Posts
On June 21 2026 01:24 Billyboy wrote:
My only push back would be that it was discussed and the initial goals were inline, you know the ones Oblade said were already achieved a bunch, then wait and see, and now wait for it to be super official well I get downloaded on how we still won. The difference is Israel never capitulated, there goals have remained the same and they are not stopping until it’s done.
The discussion is not complete until you agree not only on what constitutes a victory but also what constitutes a defeat. The US is convinced that the coalition has been defeated and is willing to give in to basically every Iranian demand. Israel is not. At this point they should consult the coalition agreement to see who is right.
|
On June 20 2026 03:24 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 02:57 LightSpectra wrote:On June 20 2026 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:44 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2026 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:09 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2026 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:A Democratic Socialist has jumped ahead of a Democrat that's been in office since the challenger was born. A Democratic socialist born in 1997 is threatening to unseat a veteran Democrat who first took office in 1997.
In Colorado’s first congressional district, 29-year-old Melat Kiros leads corporate-backed 30-year incumbent Diana DeGette by five points, according to a new poll.
The survey, by Data for Progress, finds Kiros leading DeGette 41% to 36%. The poll was conducted on behalf of Justice Democrats, a progressive super PAC backing Kiros’s campaign, and the American Priorities PAC.
The poll comes as outside cash floods into the Denver race. Super PACs linked to the real estate lobby, the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, and the Democratic establishment – and some that have seemed to emerge out of nowhere – have all descended into the race in support of DeGette, and against Kiros.
The race echoes dynamics playing out in Democratic primaries across the country: a progressive challenger, channeling pent-up voter frustration at the old-guard, pitching a momentous bid against an incumbent or party-friendly candidate. zeteo.comIt'll be interesting to see how establishment Democrats handle this increasing trend of voters recognizing them as oppositional to their own ostensible ideals. Sounds like you’re pushing a reformist narrative where non performing elected officials can be challenged within existing party structures. The problem with this kind of reformist narrative is that it excuses inaction, it turns waiting for change into a virtue. When direct action is required to destroy the hostile power structures there are always voices crying out “why not simply reform them gradually over time”. But in practice it’s simply another voice calling for the status quo, you’re either a revolutionary or you’re a counterrevolutionary. This is a classic example of reformist propaganda. If you think about it the people trying to make things better within the system are the worst of all, they know how bad the system is and they’re choosing to co opt and undermine the opposition to that system and turn it into just another layer of control. For that reason I regret to inform you that you were directly and personally involved in genocide (unspecified). But for a world where you actually believed and vociferously argued this with others here. The thread would be a lot more interesting, that's for sure. + Show Spoiler +What a lot of people don't understand is that people trying to make things better are the enemy because by trying to make things better within a broken system they're just propping up that system and allowing it to harm even more people. That is why I reserve all my criticism for helpers and never criticize bad actors, like Ronald Reagan. By which I mean I, like Reagan (great actor btw), reserve all my criticism for helpers.
I'm glad you think that this kind of contribution makes the thread more interesting though. There was a risk of there being an actual discussion of Kiros and her policies vs the incumbent + Show Spoiler +and I didn't want to allow that. Not when there was a high horse with nobody riding it and genocide taking place. Was there? Taking AIPAC money is something dyhb (iirc) has mentioned and an ongoing debate among these factions. What are people's thoughts on that (or any of the policy differences between them or these factions generally)? "I'll take any motherfucker's money if he givin' it away." -- Clay Davis There's no legal obligation to do what a lobbyist/PAC asked for after taking their money. It's more important to look at platform and voting/policy history, although for relatively blank slate candidates in primaries, who they take donations might be the only information you have to judge. I generally lean toward "take any money" myself, but... I think the Newsom example kinda encapsulates the way this can be exploited. Legal obligations aside, do we have any notable examples of a politician "betraying" so to speak their lobbyists and PACs after taking their money? Or is it something that ostensibly "could" happen but doesn't? Also, money is addicting. If someone gives you money, and tells you that they will give you more money if you do X, a lot of people will do X instead of not getting more money.
Yeah, it's also not unrelated to how Trump managed to get where he is. The people around him/ostensible peers have always known Trump was scum, but the potential to get more money/wealth/power kept them friendly with him until/unless it becomes entirely unsustainable for them.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, too few of them reached their limit and their insatiable greed/hubris helped give us Trump 2x.
@LightSpectra What happened here?
On June 20 2026 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 03:29 LightSpectra wrote:On June 20 2026 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 02:57 LightSpectra wrote:On June 20 2026 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:44 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2026 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:09 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2026 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:A Democratic Socialist has jumped ahead of a Democrat that's been in office since the challenger was born. A Democratic socialist born in 1997 is threatening to unseat a veteran Democrat who first took office in 1997.
In Colorado’s first congressional district, 29-year-old Melat Kiros leads corporate-backed 30-year incumbent Diana DeGette by five points, according to a new poll.
The survey, by Data for Progress, finds Kiros leading DeGette 41% to 36%. The poll was conducted on behalf of Justice Democrats, a progressive super PAC backing Kiros’s campaign, and the American Priorities PAC.
The poll comes as outside cash floods into the Denver race. Super PACs linked to the real estate lobby, the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, and the Democratic establishment – and some that have seemed to emerge out of nowhere – have all descended into the race in support of DeGette, and against Kiros.
The race echoes dynamics playing out in Democratic primaries across the country: a progressive challenger, channeling pent-up voter frustration at the old-guard, pitching a momentous bid against an incumbent or party-friendly candidate. zeteo.comIt'll be interesting to see how establishment Democrats handle this increasing trend of voters recognizing them as oppositional to their own ostensible ideals. Sounds like you’re pushing a reformist narrative where non performing elected officials can be challenged within existing party structures. The problem with this kind of reformist narrative is that it excuses inaction, it turns waiting for change into a virtue. When direct action is required to destroy the hostile power structures there are always voices crying out “why not simply reform them gradually over time”. But in practice it’s simply another voice calling for the status quo, you’re either a revolutionary or you’re a counterrevolutionary. This is a classic example of reformist propaganda. If you think about it the people trying to make things better within the system are the worst of all, they know how bad the system is and they’re choosing to co opt and undermine the opposition to that system and turn it into just another layer of control. For that reason I regret to inform you that you were directly and personally involved in genocide (unspecified). But for a world where you actually believed and vociferously argued this with others here. The thread would be a lot more interesting, that's for sure. + Show Spoiler +What a lot of people don't understand is that people trying to make things better are the enemy because by trying to make things better within a broken system they're just propping up that system and allowing it to harm even more people. That is why I reserve all my criticism for helpers and never criticize bad actors, like Ronald Reagan. By which I mean I, like Reagan (great actor btw), reserve all my criticism for helpers.
I'm glad you think that this kind of contribution makes the thread more interesting though. There was a risk of there being an actual discussion of Kiros and her policies vs the incumbent + Show Spoiler +and I didn't want to allow that. Not when there was a high horse with nobody riding it and genocide taking place. Was there? Taking AIPAC money is something dyhb (iirc) has mentioned and an ongoing debate among these factions. What are people's thoughts on that (or any of the policy differences between them or these factions generally)? "I'll take any motherfucker's money if he givin' it away." -- Clay Davis There's no legal obligation to do what a lobbyist/PAC asked for after taking their money. It's more important to look at platform and voting/policy history, although for relatively blank slate candidates in primaries, who they take donations might be the only information you have to judge. I generally lean toward "take any money" myself, but... I think the Newsom example kinda encapsulates the way this can be exploited. Legal obligations aside, do we have any notable examples of a politician "betraying" so to speak their lobbyists and PACs after taking their money? Or is it something that ostensibly "could" happen but doesn't? Brad Lander has acknowledged taking money from pro-Israel PACs but is primarying Dan Goldman because Lander is pro-Palestine https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/nyregion/lander-goldman-israel-nyc-primary.html I've heard Lander has a questionable history with swearing off funding only to take it later but not what you're suggesting? I don't see that there? It seems like Goldman would be the candidate that would be in a position to betray AIPAC if you believe his rhetoric about them being problematic?
|
I don't know what qualifies as a "betrayal" of AIPAC since I don't know what they ask of Congressmen they donate to, but Goldman did vote against the recent $14B subsidy to Israel.
|
On June 21 2026 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:@LightSpectra What happened here? Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 03:29 LightSpectra wrote:On June 20 2026 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 02:57 LightSpectra wrote:On June 20 2026 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:44 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2026 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:09 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2026 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:A Democratic Socialist has jumped ahead of a Democrat that's been in office since the challenger was born. [quote] zeteo.comIt'll be interesting to see how establishment Democrats handle this increasing trend of voters recognizing them as oppositional to their own ostensible ideals. Sounds like you’re pushing a reformist narrative where non performing elected officials can be challenged within existing party structures. The problem with this kind of reformist narrative is that it excuses inaction, it turns waiting for change into a virtue. When direct action is required to destroy the hostile power structures there are always voices crying out “why not simply reform them gradually over time”. But in practice it’s simply another voice calling for the status quo, you’re either a revolutionary or you’re a counterrevolutionary. This is a classic example of reformist propaganda. If you think about it the people trying to make things better within the system are the worst of all, they know how bad the system is and they’re choosing to co opt and undermine the opposition to that system and turn it into just another layer of control. For that reason I regret to inform you that you were directly and personally involved in genocide (unspecified). But for a world where you actually believed and vociferously argued this with others here. The thread would be a lot more interesting, that's for sure. + Show Spoiler +What a lot of people don't understand is that people trying to make things better are the enemy because by trying to make things better within a broken system they're just propping up that system and allowing it to harm even more people. That is why I reserve all my criticism for helpers and never criticize bad actors, like Ronald Reagan. By which I mean I, like Reagan (great actor btw), reserve all my criticism for helpers.
I'm glad you think that this kind of contribution makes the thread more interesting though. There was a risk of there being an actual discussion of Kiros and her policies vs the incumbent + Show Spoiler +and I didn't want to allow that. Not when there was a high horse with nobody riding it and genocide taking place. Was there? Taking AIPAC money is something dyhb (iirc) has mentioned and an ongoing debate among these factions. What are people's thoughts on that (or any of the policy differences between them or these factions generally)? "I'll take any motherfucker's money if he givin' it away." -- Clay Davis There's no legal obligation to do what a lobbyist/PAC asked for after taking their money. It's more important to look at platform and voting/policy history, although for relatively blank slate candidates in primaries, who they take donations might be the only information you have to judge. I generally lean toward "take any money" myself, but... I think the Newsom example kinda encapsulates the way this can be exploited. Legal obligations aside, do we have any notable examples of a politician "betraying" so to speak their lobbyists and PACs after taking their money? Or is it something that ostensibly "could" happen but doesn't? Brad Lander has acknowledged taking money from pro-Israel PACs but is primarying Dan Goldman because Lander is pro-Palestine https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/nyregion/lander-goldman-israel-nyc-primary.html I've heard Lander has a questionable history with swearing off funding only to take it later but not what you're suggesting? I don't see that there? It seems like Goldman would be the candidate that would be in a position to betray AIPAC if you believe his rhetoric about them being problematic?
You were talking about Lander though?
After what you said about Lander, I would need a citation (preferably with a relevant quote pulled out).
Did he oppose the subsidy itself or "poison pills" attached to it?
|
On June 21 2026 01:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2026 01:24 Billyboy wrote:
My only push back would be that it was discussed and the initial goals were inline, you know the ones Oblade said were already achieved a bunch, then wait and see, and now wait for it to be super official well I get downloaded on how we still won. The difference is Israel never capitulated, there goals have remained the same and they are not stopping until it’s done. The discussion is not complete until you agree not only on what constitutes a victory but also what constitutes a defeat. The US is convinced that the coalition has been defeated and is willing to give in to basically every Iranian demand. Israel is not. At this point they should consult the coalition agreement to see who is right.
Come on now, Trump thinking about even 5 minutes from now is a stretch. That’s why even manipulating him to do what you want is a huge risk, because the wind could blow him in another direction any moment, or someone might shake their keys.
Why would Trump need a plan or consider what losing might look like when he obliterates them over and over and defeated them 55 times!!!
|
On June 21 2026 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2026 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:@LightSpectra What happened here? On June 20 2026 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 03:29 LightSpectra wrote:On June 20 2026 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 02:57 LightSpectra wrote:On June 20 2026 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:44 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2026 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:09 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Sounds like you’re pushing a reformist narrative where non performing elected officials can be challenged within existing party structures. The problem with this kind of reformist narrative is that it excuses inaction, it turns waiting for change into a virtue.
When direct action is required to destroy the hostile power structures there are always voices crying out “why not simply reform them gradually over time”. But in practice it’s simply another voice calling for the status quo, you’re either a revolutionary or you’re a counterrevolutionary. This is a classic example of reformist propaganda. If you think about it the people trying to make things better within the system are the worst of all, they know how bad the system is and they’re choosing to co opt and undermine the opposition to that system and turn it into just another layer of control.
For that reason I regret to inform you that you were directly and personally involved in genocide (unspecified). But for a world where you actually believed and vociferously argued this with others here. The thread would be a lot more interesting, that's for sure. + Show Spoiler +What a lot of people don't understand is that people trying to make things better are the enemy because by trying to make things better within a broken system they're just propping up that system and allowing it to harm even more people. That is why I reserve all my criticism for helpers and never criticize bad actors, like Ronald Reagan. By which I mean I, like Reagan (great actor btw), reserve all my criticism for helpers.
I'm glad you think that this kind of contribution makes the thread more interesting though. There was a risk of there being an actual discussion of Kiros and her policies vs the incumbent + Show Spoiler +and I didn't want to allow that. Not when there was a high horse with nobody riding it and genocide taking place. Was there? Taking AIPAC money is something dyhb (iirc) has mentioned and an ongoing debate among these factions. What are people's thoughts on that (or any of the policy differences between them or these factions generally)? "I'll take any motherfucker's money if he givin' it away." -- Clay Davis There's no legal obligation to do what a lobbyist/PAC asked for after taking their money. It's more important to look at platform and voting/policy history, although for relatively blank slate candidates in primaries, who they take donations might be the only information you have to judge. I generally lean toward "take any money" myself, but... I think the Newsom example kinda encapsulates the way this can be exploited. Legal obligations aside, do we have any notable examples of a politician "betraying" so to speak their lobbyists and PACs after taking their money? Or is it something that ostensibly "could" happen but doesn't? Brad Lander has acknowledged taking money from pro-Israel PACs but is primarying Dan Goldman because Lander is pro-Palestine https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/nyregion/lander-goldman-israel-nyc-primary.html I've heard Lander has a questionable history with swearing off funding only to take it later but not what you're suggesting? I don't see that there? It seems like Goldman would be the candidate that would be in a position to betray AIPAC if you believe his rhetoric about them being problematic? You were talking about Lander though? After what you said about Lander, I would need a citation. Did he oppose the subsidy itself or "poison pills" attached to it?
Are you asking lightsaber to look into this man’s heart and know his intent? And then are you going to believe his answer.
Or is this, sure you have receipts but it doesn’t fit my world view so I’m going to decide it wasn’t his intent to protect my world view and never learn anything?
|
On June 21 2026 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2026 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:@LightSpectra What happened here? On June 20 2026 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 03:29 LightSpectra wrote:On June 20 2026 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 02:57 LightSpectra wrote:On June 20 2026 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:44 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2026 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:09 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Sounds like you’re pushing a reformist narrative where non performing elected officials can be challenged within existing party structures. The problem with this kind of reformist narrative is that it excuses inaction, it turns waiting for change into a virtue.
When direct action is required to destroy the hostile power structures there are always voices crying out “why not simply reform them gradually over time”. But in practice it’s simply another voice calling for the status quo, you’re either a revolutionary or you’re a counterrevolutionary. This is a classic example of reformist propaganda. If you think about it the people trying to make things better within the system are the worst of all, they know how bad the system is and they’re choosing to co opt and undermine the opposition to that system and turn it into just another layer of control.
For that reason I regret to inform you that you were directly and personally involved in genocide (unspecified). But for a world where you actually believed and vociferously argued this with others here. The thread would be a lot more interesting, that's for sure. + Show Spoiler +What a lot of people don't understand is that people trying to make things better are the enemy because by trying to make things better within a broken system they're just propping up that system and allowing it to harm even more people. That is why I reserve all my criticism for helpers and never criticize bad actors, like Ronald Reagan. By which I mean I, like Reagan (great actor btw), reserve all my criticism for helpers.
I'm glad you think that this kind of contribution makes the thread more interesting though. There was a risk of there being an actual discussion of Kiros and her policies vs the incumbent + Show Spoiler +and I didn't want to allow that. Not when there was a high horse with nobody riding it and genocide taking place. Was there? Taking AIPAC money is something dyhb (iirc) has mentioned and an ongoing debate among these factions. What are people's thoughts on that (or any of the policy differences between them or these factions generally)? "I'll take any motherfucker's money if he givin' it away." -- Clay Davis There's no legal obligation to do what a lobbyist/PAC asked for after taking their money. It's more important to look at platform and voting/policy history, although for relatively blank slate candidates in primaries, who they take donations might be the only information you have to judge. I generally lean toward "take any money" myself, but... I think the Newsom example kinda encapsulates the way this can be exploited. Legal obligations aside, do we have any notable examples of a politician "betraying" so to speak their lobbyists and PACs after taking their money? Or is it something that ostensibly "could" happen but doesn't? Brad Lander has acknowledged taking money from pro-Israel PACs but is primarying Dan Goldman because Lander is pro-Palestine https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/nyregion/lander-goldman-israel-nyc-primary.html I've heard Lander has a questionable history with swearing off funding only to take it later but not what you're suggesting? I don't see that there? It seems like Goldman would be the candidate that would be in a position to betray AIPAC if you believe his rhetoric about them being problematic? You were talking about Lander though? After what you said about Lander, I would need a citation (preferably with a relevant quote pulled out). Did he oppose the subsidy itself or "poison pills" attached to it?
The Lander donations I was referring to was from J Street, although I just read that they also endorsed Goldman. So I'm not sure if that counts I guess, feel free to disregard my previous comment.
12 Democrats did vote for it in the House, so evidently it's not too poisoned to ever vote for.
|
On June 21 2026 02:50 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2026 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2026 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:@LightSpectra What happened here? On June 20 2026 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 03:29 LightSpectra wrote:On June 20 2026 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 02:57 LightSpectra wrote:On June 20 2026 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:44 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2026 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
But for a world where you actually believed and vociferously argued this with others here. The thread would be a lot more interesting, that's for sure. + Show Spoiler +What a lot of people don't understand is that people trying to make things better are the enemy because by trying to make things better within a broken system they're just propping up that system and allowing it to harm even more people. That is why I reserve all my criticism for helpers and never criticize bad actors, like Ronald Reagan. By which I mean I, like Reagan (great actor btw), reserve all my criticism for helpers.
I'm glad you think that this kind of contribution makes the thread more interesting though. There was a risk of there being an actual discussion of Kiros and her policies vs the incumbent + Show Spoiler +and I didn't want to allow that. Not when there was a high horse with nobody riding it and genocide taking place. Was there? Taking AIPAC money is something dyhb (iirc) has mentioned and an ongoing debate among these factions. What are people's thoughts on that (or any of the policy differences between them or these factions generally)? "I'll take any motherfucker's money if he givin' it away." -- Clay Davis There's no legal obligation to do what a lobbyist/PAC asked for after taking their money. It's more important to look at platform and voting/policy history, although for relatively blank slate candidates in primaries, who they take donations might be the only information you have to judge. I generally lean toward "take any money" myself, but... I think the Newsom example kinda encapsulates the way this can be exploited. Legal obligations aside, do we have any notable examples of a politician "betraying" so to speak their lobbyists and PACs after taking their money? Or is it something that ostensibly "could" happen but doesn't? Brad Lander has acknowledged taking money from pro-Israel PACs but is primarying Dan Goldman because Lander is pro-Palestine https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/nyregion/lander-goldman-israel-nyc-primary.html I've heard Lander has a questionable history with swearing off funding only to take it later but not what you're suggesting? I don't see that there? It seems like Goldman would be the candidate that would be in a position to betray AIPAC if you believe his rhetoric about them being problematic? You were talking about Lander though? After what you said about Lander, I would need a citation (preferably with a relevant quote pulled out). Did he oppose the subsidy itself or "poison pills" attached to it? The Lander donations I was referring to was from J Street, although I just read that they also endorsed Goldman. So I'm not sure if that counts I guess, feel free to disregard my previous comment. 12 Democrats did vote for it in the House, so evidently it's not too poisoned to ever vote for.
I'll consider your previous assertion retracted.
That's not really a citation for your new claim and I wasn't asking if it was "too poisoned [for some other Democrats] to vote for"? I asked if you said "Goldman did vote against the recent $14B subsidy to Israel." because he actually opposed the subsidy or not.
I'm gathering that you figured out (presuming you didn't know before you said it) that he didn't actually oppose the $14B subsidy to Israel? He in fact voted for a larger subsidy?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/118-2024/h38
So when I asked: Do we have any notable examples of a politician "betraying" so to speak their lobbyists and PACs after taking their money?
We've thus far demonstrated the correct answer is "No".
|
H.R. 7217 was primarily for Iron Dome funding which was uncontroversial even among pro-Palestine Democrats until this year to my knowledge. I don't see how it's helpful to conflate an unrelated resolution that was for bolstering Israel's offensive capabilities against Gaza and was heavily shilled by AIPAC.
|
On June 21 2026 03:50 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2026 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2026 02:50 LightSpectra wrote:On June 21 2026 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2026 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:@LightSpectra What happened here? On June 20 2026 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 03:29 LightSpectra wrote:On June 20 2026 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 02:57 LightSpectra wrote:On June 20 2026 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]Was there?
Taking AIPAC money is something dyhb (iirc) has mentioned and an ongoing debate among these factions. What are people's thoughts on that (or any of the policy differences between them or these factions generally)? "I'll take any motherfucker's money if he givin' it away." -- Clay Davis There's no legal obligation to do what a lobbyist/PAC asked for after taking their money. It's more important to look at platform and voting/policy history, although for relatively blank slate candidates in primaries, who they take donations might be the only information you have to judge. I generally lean toward "take any money" myself, but... I think the Newsom example kinda encapsulates the way this can be exploited. Legal obligations aside, do we have any notable examples of a politician "betraying" so to speak their lobbyists and PACs after taking their money? Or is it something that ostensibly "could" happen but doesn't? Brad Lander has acknowledged taking money from pro-Israel PACs but is primarying Dan Goldman because Lander is pro-Palestine https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/nyregion/lander-goldman-israel-nyc-primary.html I've heard Lander has a questionable history with swearing off funding only to take it later but not what you're suggesting? I don't see that there? It seems like Goldman would be the candidate that would be in a position to betray AIPAC if you believe his rhetoric about them being problematic? You were talking about Lander though? After what you said about Lander, I would need a citation (preferably with a relevant quote pulled out). Did he oppose the subsidy itself or "poison pills" attached to it? The Lander donations I was referring to was from J Street, although I just read that they also endorsed Goldman. So I'm not sure if that counts I guess, feel free to disregard my previous comment. 12 Democrats did vote for it in the House, so evidently it's not too poisoned to ever vote for. I'll consider your previous assertion retracted. That's not really a citation for your new claim and I wasn't asking if it was "too poisoned [for some other Democrats] to vote for"? I asked if you said "Goldman did vote against the recent $14B subsidy to Israel." because he actually opposed the subsidy or not. I'm gathering that you figured out (presuming you didn't know before you said it) that he didn't actually oppose the $14B subsidy to Israel? He in fact voted for a larger subsidy? https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/118-2024/h38 So when I asked: Do we have any notable examples of a politician "betraying" so to speak their lobbyists and PACs after taking their money? We've thus far demonstrated the correct answer is "No". H.R. 7217 was primarily for Iron Dome funding which was uncontroversial even among pro-Palestine Democrats until this year to my knowledge. I don't see how it's helpful to conflate an unrelated resolution that was for bolstering Israel's offensive capabilities against Gaza and was heavily shilled by AIPAC.
How thoroughly did you compare and contrast how each aid package was budgeted, because this seems like another misleading/unsupported statement.
Best I can tell he absolutely supported the subsidy he voted against, it was other aspects (namely the IRS poison pill) he and Democrats openly said they were voting against.
Somewhat ironic it would come up this way as what was supposed to make the pill "poison" was people interpreting this Republican trick as someone like Goldman actually opposing the aid (which he effectively voted for later with the poison removed).
EDIT: Regardless, I think it's pretty clear at this point no one (besides perhaps yourself still) would mark this as some notable betrayal of lobbyists/PACs by the politician those lobbyists/PACs support.
|
4D Chess:
Dohsama bin Largo will likely have to bomb Tel Aviv to win the midterms by appeasing iran into opening a strait no american ever heard about but somehow makes gas expensive.
|
On June 21 2026 04:39 KT_Elwood wrote:
4D Chess:
Dohsama bin Largo will likely have to bomb Tel Aviv to win the midterms by appeasing iran into opening a strait no american ever heard about but somehow makes gas expensive.
While still very unlikely, I don't think Netanyahu/Israel/(right-wing) Jewish people actually appreciate how easily MAGA could slip into "well they're not exactly wrong about Jews needing to go..."
They aren't beholden to the same neocon world domination view that placed Israel as an indispensable cultural and military outpost. Perhaps Netanyahu just feels like he has no other choice but to risk it for self-preservation in the immediate term.
|
Uh oh, oBlade forgot to tell Trump that it is impossible to toll the strait. That’s right, negotiator and chief is now threatening to toll it himself if Iran doesn’t agree to his surrender.
"There will be NO TOLLS in the Hormuz Strait for 60 days during the Cease Fire Period, and there will be NO TOLLS after the 60 day period has expired, unless they are imposed by and for the United States of America, should the deal not be completed, for services rendered as the Guardian Angel to the countries of the Middle East for purposes of both past, present, and future reimbursement of costs," Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.
|
United States44247 Posts
|
Perhaps he just mixed it up and meant the US will pay the toll to Iran.
|
On June 21 2026 05:40 Billyboy wrote:
Perhaps he just mixed it up and meant the US will pay the toll to Iran.
Surely Trump will get Mexico to pay for it?
|
On June 21 2026 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2026 04:39 KT_Elwood wrote:
4D Chess:
Dohsama bin Largo will likely have to bomb Tel Aviv to win the midterms by appeasing iran into opening a strait no american ever heard about but somehow makes gas expensive.
While still very unlikely, I don't think Netanyahu/Israel/(right-wing) Jewish people actually appreciate how easily MAGA could slip into "well they're not exactly wrong about Jews needing to go..." They aren't beholden to the same neocon world domination view that placed Israel as an indispensable cultural and military outpost. Perhaps Netanyahu just feels like he has no other choice but to risk it for self-preservation in the immediate term.
It's not really indispensable with Saudi-Arabia nearby.
But yeah it's a state literally dumped in a place surrounded by states with wildly different people. Tends to foster aggressive tendencies.
It's unfortunate that Jerusalem wasn't in Russia. Plenty of room there.
|
On June 21 2026 05:44 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2026 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2026 04:39 KT_Elwood wrote:
4D Chess:
Dohsama bin Largo will likely have to bomb Tel Aviv to win the midterms by appeasing iran into opening a strait no american ever heard about but somehow makes gas expensive.
While still very unlikely, I don't think Netanyahu/Israel/(right-wing) Jewish people actually appreciate how easily MAGA could slip into "well they're not exactly wrong about Jews needing to go..." They aren't beholden to the same neocon world domination view that placed Israel as an indispensable cultural and military outpost. Perhaps Netanyahu just feels like he has no other choice but to risk it for self-preservation in the immediate term. It's not really indispensable with Saudi-Arabia nearby. But yeah it's a state literally dumped in a place surrounded by states with wildly different people. Tends to foster aggressive tendencies. It's unfortunate that Jerusalem wasn't in Russia. Plenty of room there.
USSR was slaughtering Jews at a pace that made Hitler envious, so probably not the best place. Wisconsin maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
