“It might change how they talk about [Israel],” one moderate House Democrat said of their colleagues
So stealing land, committing genocide and syphoning a huge amount of dollars for military support (leaving other programs unfunded), isn’t enough. But a heavy handed influence of our elections gets their attention?
They dont know anyone being genocided personally. But losing elections, well that could happen to them personally. Sick fucks far too removed from the people they lord over to feel anything a human being may describe as compassion.
I’m not. The US Military is sneakily a very large commercial partner in Hollywood. They frequently loan out equipment, bases, personnel, and more to movies that depict the armed forces as good guys. Top Gun, Battleship, Goldeneye, Iron Man 1/2, The Day After Tomorrow, and the Transformers movies are all sponsored by the US Military. So it makes sense they’d be at a movie/culture festival. Not to mention it’s a target rich environment for their core demo: men between the ages of 18 and 25
Much of the spending came after a poll in March from pro-Israel group Democratic Majority for Israel showed Bowman trailing by 17 points.
So he was down 17 points pre-AIPAC money. Then after AIPAC spent a record breaking amount of money, he remained down 17 points and lost by that exact margin.
The ungodly amount of money probably didn’t radically change the opinion of what most of his constituents were going to do in the ballot box.
Maybe he would’ve closed the gap a bit, but he wasn’t in great shape to begin with.
You should definitely take the NY Post’s summary of Democratic Majority for Israel’s factual claim at face value, those are both highly reputable and trustworthy organizations /s
Around the same time Bowman had his own poll (the DMFI poll is effectively a pro-Latimer poll) with him up +1. Also weak for an incumbent, but there’s no reason to place the baseline at -17. AIPAC money almost certainly had a strong effect on the race, otherwise they wouldn’t have felt spending $14.5 million was a good use of their donation money. That’s fully half of all their expenditures reported thus far. The people with full time jobs focused on influencing US policy very much believe spending money influences elections.
“The unfortunate reality is that the alternative is costly and chaotic legal proceedings in courtrooms across the country,” they said in a statement. “While we are confident that we would prevail in any future litigation given the profound misrepresentations about our families and the opioid crisis, we continue to believe that a swift negotiated agreement to provide billions of dollars for people and communities in need is the best way forward.”
We tried to buy our way out because we’re guilty af, but failed.
I agree with another poster that I’m not sure how I feel about this. If this results in them taking greater responsibility for the harm they’ve done, great. If this ends up letting them off easier, travesty.
Unless you watch Fox, then the world is coming to an end every time a stranger or an unknown car comes down your street. Especially if they have darker skin.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.