Anybody following this able to give a balanced summary? I find The Hill to tend right-leaning and don’t much trust their analysis.
The Hill seems to be placing the defeat of Bowman on his stance against the genocide in Palestine, which is becoming a sort of dog-whistle saying, “stand against the invasion of Palestine, and this is what happens to you.” It may in this case be true; I can believe it, but I don’t trust The Hill to not be constructing a narrative.
I think it I saw an article about how this was the most expensive primary for the House.
So yeah, because of his stance on Palestine (which was “genocide bad”) Israel interfered in our election.
But Schumer, Harrison, and Biden take more AIPAC money that pretty much anyone else, so they’re going to say this proves voters don’t want progress and love genocide.or some other crazy shit.
Our system is broken and abused, and a D by someone’s name clearly isn’t enough anymore.
This is all right, I’ll just add that Bowman was among the first to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, basically right after Oct 7th happened. A number of large progressive Dems have rallied to his side (including Bernie and AOC this past weekend), which clearly wasn’t enough.
This was also a D primary, so everyone had a D by their name.
It corrupts everyone. You aren’t keeping up with people taking 459 million “campaign donations” if you don’t. Its fucked. But yes, I’m glad we’re not both sidesing for a second and pointing out something that should never have been allowed in the first place.
The other shoe is this is the guy who pulled the fire alarm. The attack ads for his primary have been written for a long time and he didn’t have good odds no matter who primaried him. The Dems went with the conservative guy to get AIPAC to fund the campaign and because they don’t fundamentally care about ideology, just having the most seats.
Anybody following this able to give a balanced summary? I find The Hill to tend right-leaning and don’t much trust their analysis.
The Hill seems to be placing the defeat of Bowman on his stance against the genocide in Palestine, which is becoming a sort of dog-whistle saying, “stand against the invasion of Palestine, and this is what happens to you.” It may in this case be true; I can believe it, but I don’t trust The Hill to not be constructing a narrative.
AIPAc spent like 14 million against him.
I think it I saw an article about how this was the most expensive primary for the House.
So yeah, because of his stance on Palestine (which was “genocide bad”) Israel interfered in our election.
But Schumer, Harrison, and Biden take more AIPAC money that pretty much anyone else, so they’re going to say this proves voters don’t want progress and love genocide.or some other crazy shit.
Our system is broken and abused, and a D by someone’s name clearly isn’t enough anymore.
This is all right, I’ll just add that Bowman was among the first to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, basically right after Oct 7th happened. A number of large progressive Dems have rallied to his side (including Bernie and AOC this past weekend), which clearly wasn’t enough.
This was also a D primary, so everyone had a D by their name.
My point was Bowman’s opponent took 14 million from a foreign government to support their genocide
He has a D by his name, but he’s a piece of shit. If the party has standards he wouldn’t be in the party
But the party doesn’t have standards, because the party leaders take AIPAC money too.
Like, I thought it was pretty clear already, is it making sense yet?
Yup, what’s important for people to understand is that AIPAC is the single largest source of GOP money in Democratic primaries and campaigns.
They take money from right-wing billionaires and use it to back right-wing Democrats who they know can be relied upon to be obstructionist.
AIPAC funding needs to be banned within the party, same as they did with the NRA who tried to do the same thing.
With Hillary weighing in on the side of AIPAC to endorse the challenger, I’d say that the establishment is pretty comfortable taking AIPAC’s money.
I REALLY wish she’d just shut up and enjoy her long overdue retirement already 😮💨
Because the heads of the party are pocketing Israeli checks.
The D or R does not matter when it comes to Israel and its disgusting.
The only way to end it is to end lobbying.
This is where the “bOtH sIdEs” mockers usually are mysteriously absent.
Always hate seeing one of those disingenuous comments pop up.
The parties are not completely the same, but shit like this makes it seem like they can be sometimes.
It corrupts everyone. You aren’t keeping up with people taking 459 million “campaign donations” if you don’t. Its fucked. But yes, I’m glad we’re not both sidesing for a second and pointing out something that should never have been allowed in the first place.
Not everyone was a D, at least not the voters. There was a massive push to reregister a lot of Republicans and Independents as Democrats.
Israel/aipac flooded his opponent with money because bowman was critical of Isreal.
Dems also changed their minds one actually supporting the incumbents here.
This has never been a standard they apply to progressives.
Amazing how that happens every time
Compare the party’s treatment of Bowman to their treatment of Coathanger Cuellar.
The Hill fired Katie Halper, a Jewish women, in the past for agreeing that israel is an apartheid state at a time human rights organisations did so.
The Hill just fired one of their most popular reporters Briahna Joy Gray for being too anti-israel and pushing back on debunked rape hoaxes.
The Hill is 100% a Zionist propaganda outlet.
The other shoe is this is the guy who pulled the fire alarm. The attack ads for his primary have been written for a long time and he didn’t have good odds no matter who primaried him. The Dems went with the conservative guy to get AIPAC to fund the campaign and because they don’t fundamentally care about ideology, just having the most seats.