politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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! 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Every single Dem politician should be screaming about this at the top of their lungs. This is a direct threat to them as well, but they're not gonna do it.
Why?
Because AIPAC and their billionaire donors are telling them to stand down.
Establishment Dems put more effort into resisting Mamdani than they put into resisting Trump since 2016.
Can you share some source for this aipac claim? I mean, fuck aipac, but I just want to make sure we don’t go down the shouting about the evil Jewish billionaires controlling everything route.
Cuomo is one of war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu’s legal defense team members. He has worked tirelessly on behalf of AIPAC for years.
Regardless, AIPAC gets all its special favors for terrorist state Israel by complete regulatory capture in the US. It’s how they’ve convinced Americans to give up their own constitutional right to free speech - if you criticize Israel too harshly, American gestapo will arrest you.
So, of course they consider Mamdani an existential threat. Once voters realize socialist policies help them in a tangible way instead of further funneling money to billionaires like Miriam Adelson, there is going to be a political reckoning resulting in AIPAC having no power and Israel being left to fend for itself without US intervention. They’re terrified of this scenario.
It's also been baked into law that if you are an independent contractor, you cannot be offered government contracts if you criticize Israel.
There's no "source", AIPAC deals directly with politicians and those discussions are not public. But we know that AIPAC gives lots of money to Democrats to the point that they can and have dictated policy, and we know that AIPAC's spokesperson has been on national news shows specifically to fearmonger about Mamdani both before and after the election. Most direct source here is gonna be using your noggin.
Wouldn't this be a source?
Not a source that AIPAC is telling dem leaders to stand down, which is what was requested.
But if you want to see it, Majority Report did a segment on it last week. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4H84ZeYNN4
Democrats are obsessed with Israel. This ain't hard evidence, but it's telling
https://youtu.be/Ms8tGyopFrQ
Brother in Christ, Democrats have been controlled opposition for quite some time. It wasn't until Bernie, AOC, Mamdani, and others of their class that began to stand out from the Establishment. With Citizens United, there isn't much of a difference in terms of which party sucks Corporate dick.
Yeah, I’m not refuting that. I’m asking about the AIPAC claim. Because, as I stated, this feels like the dangerous “evil Jewish billionaires” thinking that we should not idly engage in. Mamdani is Muslim, so falling into the trap that the Jews are behind this is…fucking dangerous. Why make that assumption without any evidence?
https://www.trackaipac.com/states/newyork
$1.7 million from aipac to chucky.
Now don't take my word for it... Verify.
But he also went on record saying that his job is to keep the left pro-Israel.
AIPAC doesnt represent Jews, they represent the interests of the government of Israel in America.
https://www.thejc.com/news/usa/democrats-reassert-commitment-to-supporting-israel-in-2024-party-platform-rzak474e
maybe Israel should stop shouting anti-semitism at every criticism
This is an interesting question and I didn't have an immediate answer. Let me start off by pointing out that many many Jews in the US are horrified at the genocide in Gaza and do not want to be associated with AIPAC at all. The Jewish community in the US seems to be engaging in very serious internal debate on the topic (https://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/daughter-defense-apartheid/).
AIPAC itself doesn't seem to have any direct statements about Mandami at all. They do make the dubious claim that there "are more than 6 million pro-Israel Americans" (https://www.aipac.org/). Since there are an estimated 7.1 to 7.7 million Jews in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews) they claim to represent the vast majority of Jews in the US.
I'm guessing that OP is referring to a sermon by Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove (https://pasyn.org/sermons/2025/on-the-record/). I can't find any statements on if he is or is not an official member of AIPAC but he is generally described as a very conservative by various Jewish publications. Jonathan Shulman then encouraged rabbis across the country to sign the letter. (https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-873068). He left AIPAC after 18 years because "the group's brand was becoming increasingly toxic amid the war in Gaza." As of Friday, over 1,000 rabbis have signed (https://jewishmajority.org/a-rabbinic-call-to-action).
My read on this is that AIPAC is now known to be bad marketing and it's already getting rebranded; the people behind it will just regroup under a new name. While they didn't claim responsibility for the letter, their supporters created and spread it.
edit: typos
I think if you don't know the roll AIPAC has played in modern politics, it's on you to go get a baseline education. It s not something some one should have to educate you on in a short form post. They've played a transformative role in US politics and are practicing why we can't have nice things as a country.
I'm not saying the interest isn't valid, but I also feel like understanding AIPAC is table stakes in US politics
I'm not saying the influence of AIPAC isn't important, but I feel like being a patronizing twat instead of seizing a moment to help educate someone on the topic isn't a great way to welcome people to the cause.
To be fair, he WAS being a patronizing twat to a patronizing twat who was hinting that any criticism of AIPAC might be antisemitic like the Dem leadership keeps doing every time anyone criticizes their favorite fascist apartheid regime.
Also, politeness or lack of same aside, AIPAC IS big and influential enough that there's no excuse to not know about them when discussing American politics and prejudice against Muslim politicians.
It's the equivalent of never having heard of Citizens United, the Heritage Foundation, or the Federalist Society.
Exactly and I'm not even saying that it's not ok to be interested, just that, like if you don't know who or what AIPAC is coming into a political discussion forum, this ain't the place to start.
Like you couldn't have gotten through 2023-2025 being even adjacent to politics and not have developed some understanding of the role in US politics.
And, honestly, it's hard to evaluate how important AIPAc really is to US politics. We readily acknowledge things like the Heritage foundation or project for a new American century, but we rarely discuss what interests are have idealogically captured the Democratic party.
I'm trying to find the exact quote, because I heard it referenced on a podcast and I'm not sure Schumer actually said this, but the circumstantial evidence is strong, that Schumer specifically did not endorse Mamdani because he sees his primary role as serving Israel. I want to dig into this more later because that's an astonishing admission if true.
Here's an archive link to the NYT column where Bret Stephens quotes him as telling him "My job, is to keep the left pro-Israel.”
Dude literally said they spent more trying to fight him than they would be taxed. It really is just a dick measuring contest with rich people. They do not take risk assessment seriously.
They are the same group of billionaires. Just with different T-shirts to perform for the poor