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
Yes...
That's what the quoted words mean...
There's nothing yet, but will like eventually show up here:
https://democrats.org/news/
This vote was just the committee. Martin could be making all these calls himself, but that would be undemocratic.
He's going thru committees, they vote on if it goes to all ~400.voting members of the party. Once that vote happens and it passes (or very unlikely fails) then they would announce it.
Billionaires own the media.
Ask yourself why as soon as the party elected Martin, every billionaire owned talking head suddenly did a 180....
That's not a bad sign that billionaires wont stop shit talking the party, it means they lost control of it and they're willing to sabatoge it even if it helps trump.
Because if they don't control the DNC, a real FDR type could get into the oval.
That's what they're scared of, and everyone from Faux to CNN leaped to act like this was the DNC loving Israel.
C'mon...
You really didn't see any of this on your own?
I'm seriously asking, because it's hard for me to predict how an average person sees shit like this
I always understood dark money as donations made in a way that obfuscated who was actually donating so I was wondering if direct "contributions" from AIPAC were still considered ok since it's just a "regular" donation.
Not really to be honest. I've always seen the media as attacking Democrats when it's economic policy that helps people and attacking Republicans when it's culture war stuff. I didn't notice a shift when the new chair took over, not to say you're wrong and it didn't happen.
PACs are "dark money".
Some kinds are worse than others, but AIPAC is "American Israel PAC".
It was literally created because it's predecessor was finally forced to register as a foreign agent. Bso the first people it donated to, was everyone on the committee that decides who has to register as a foreign agent.
But the reason this ain't just flipping a light switch, is the DNC can say "no PACs" but they can't legally prevent a PAC from spending money... By definition a PAC can not coordinate with a campaign.
That's what happened with Kat and Bliss. Neither are pro-Israel, both had spoken out.
But AIPAC was more afraid of Kat than Bliss, so they bought ads for Bliss even tho he was publicly condemning Israel. literally no one can prevent anyone from running a campaign ad.
So the DNC could take the easy win for the press and just say they banned it, but theyre trying to find a way to actually fix it, not just get the credit for saying they will.
Last I heard they were talking about requiring a candidate who got a PAC ad, to pay that much to the state party from their own campaign funds.
But the obvious problem with that, is AIPAc or someone can dump expensive and purposefully ineffective ads to bankrupt a campaign.
Like, we need to change the actual laws, and to do that we need to gain seats, not just Ds but progressives willing to fix shit.
We're making progress, it's just the absolute worst time for people to be giving up on the party. No matter what happens, we need people voting in Dem primaries.
Thanks for the info! The hardest part is definitely getting the votes to actually change laws. Voting to cut off a money supply can't be popular among the more selfish politicians. :/
The fight definitely isn't over...
But the hardest part is. That was getting the DNC back from neoliberals, who had held control of it for 30+ years.
That happened 15 months ago.
And none of the next steps, would be possible if that hadn't happened.