News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The non-progressive forerunner dared to say that we might want to reconsider sending unconditional arms to Israel. In response, AIPAC released a series of negative ads against him. This split the non-progressive votes, and cleared the way for the progressive to win.
As glad as I am to see a progressive win in the primaries, it's sickening that a foreign influence lobby has that much sway over US internal politics, and it isn't even a secret...
I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, it's even worse than most people realize. AIPAC is catching on to their drop in support and is now funneling their money to politicians through proxy PACs, such as the United Democracy Project (UDP). Also, since unrestricted arms sales to Israel is not a popular position, they didn't bother attacking Malinowski on that issue. Instead, they put out ads on the topic of him funding ICE, since they knew that would hurt him more.
Good news is that AIPAC has now paid for the focus group polling, and field tested the idea of attacking politicians on the topic of ICE support. This should embolden progressive candidates to attack establishment politicians on this issue.
Here is a longish article on AIPAC and the NJ special election for more details. Also, Ryan Grimm has a great summary in the first third of this video. It looks like Breaking Points covers this election again today, but I haven't had a chance to watch the new episode yet.
I see.
Hopefully this win and others like Mamdani's embolden a new push for progressive candidates, especially now when the republican base is weakening, and people are losing patience with establishment Dems.
As long as elections aren't obstructed by the fascists (that's a big if), then this is actually a really good opportunity for progressive politics, if it's seized on. Like, I can't think of a better time to run on a progressive platform.
Hopefully the tankies don't succeed at convincing everyone not to vote. They're as dangerous as maga to the progressive cause.
Be careful with Mamdani. He’s placed a few Israeli supporters in positions. I want to believe he won organically, but you never know. Maybe they were placed there due to political games he was forced to play, but still double take territory.
Ah, thank you for not explaining that while literally walking out the d
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this post (and that's not my downvote).
Edit: I like your joke and I'm happy I could help. To be fair, I already heard about this AIPAC blunder, so I didn't need to rely on how this specific article was written.
(I was walking out the door, like the author while writing the article)
Edit: 🤦♂️ I get it now 🤣
You didn't answer his first question. The primary question he asked
So he ended his response early like he states the article did.
Them:
You:
Surely you can't be serious. Nobody is going to be able able to jump into the author's brain like that, and it is obviously not a serious "primary" question.
That is right. When you don't know you don't say. You should have just not answered at all.
Please re-read the exchange. I clearly and concisly answered the primary question, which is about what happened in regard to AIPAC funding in the election.
How about we see that differently. The first question is what I consider the primary question.
The first question obviously wasn't a serious question, but they were clearly confused about who AIPAC was funding.
No AIPAC did not accidentally fund the progressive. Instead they accidentally went after the moderate with the best chances of winning. I was happy to clear that up.
This you? Not understanding what the guy said in his post. The thread we are in right now. Comprehension isn't my problem. I know what I'm talking about here but you keep trying to move the goal posts.
I think it is you who still doesn't comprehend what they were saying. They weren't getting sassy with me, they were making a joke while thanking me for the explaination. They made that perfectly clear in the later response.
Goodbye.
Glad I could help! 🙋♂️