Maybe not, but it’s getting them!
Straight from the “there is no such thing as human rights” crowd who also happens to be the “Israel has rights” crowd.
Israel has no right to anything of mine, but my senators and reps in Congress do have the right to decide to give Israel money (or not) since making those decisions is their job, with an obligation to represent my interests. They don’t always make the decisions I want them to, but It doesn’t involve Israel having “rights”.
Congress is looking at decisions regarding Israel permanently becoming part of our technological development, intelligence and integrating our development of military hardware. The reasoning is obvious, they believe future representation may choose not to give funds to Israel, this way we give them the funds without ever having to get congressional approval.
So they are voting to give Israel a right to your tax dollars.
“How much money are we spending on missiles being used by Israel?”
“We don’t know it’s integrated into our missile development budget, it isn’t a line item”
They can word it any way they like, but in the US “permanent” requires a constitutional amendment, and even those aren’t necessarily permanent.
Why the fuck is Israel always the first question. Fuck Israel let them deal with their own shit, keep American dollars in America.
Israel wants to keep their universal healthcare. They like that we fund part of their military so they can have it.
It’s kind of interesting that we don’t frame that particular argument in this country.
Some do. They are not invited to such shows.
Indeed.
Don’t forget near-free university education too!
States do not have rights. People have rights. The people of Isreal have a right to exist. The people of Palestine have a right to exist. They have a right to live, have their basic needs met, recieve an education, work, and travel. And they have a right to self governance, to form and uphold a state of their collective choosing. They have a right to individual religious choice and practice. They have a right to justice and to protect themselves and to fight back against oppression.
Some of the things they do not have: 1) Genetic or historical rights to a land/buildings/real-estate (you have a right to your own personal property alone, and you have a right to get back property stolen from you. You do not have a right to property your ancestors owned 100 generations ago, even if it was confirmed to be stolen from them). 2) Rights to establish apartheid states. 3) Rights to kill non-combatants. 4) Rights to restrict access to basic infrastructure and resources of non-combatants. 5) Rights to take non-combatants as hostages or prisoners of war, or to torture anyone. 6) Rights to intentionally attack humanitarians bringing aid into a war zone. 6) Rights to enforce religious restrictions and choice onto others. Etcetera, etcetera.
That does go for everyone, including both sides of the Gaza war, but of course only one side is committing some of these crimes and committing all of them with overwhelming force, tech and money backing them.
No country has a right to exist. People have rights. States have responsibilities.
I really liked Mamdami’s answer: Israel has a right to exist as a state with equal rights for all (or something like that). Thing is, people could only get angry if they were willing to argue for a Jewish supremacist state, which of course they blindly do, but everyone watching is like, “Wait a minute. I want Israel to exist, of course, but I don’t like arpartheid.”
I can understand that answer from a politician. I can understand why Mamdani gave that answer.
But Israel has no right to exist period, under any context, unless “Israel” is a government-sanctioned province of the Palestinian state overseen by the rightful owners of the land on which it is based: the Palestinians.
It is stolen land. It is to be returned.
While I entirely agree with the premise of this position, it’s going to be entirely unpopular, or rather as unpopular as suggesting Americans should pull up stakes and leave the continent since we did, in fact, steal this land from the native Americans.
There’s no practical way to get there from here. But we might be able to either establish a two state solution, in which Palestine has a fair amount of land and its own sovereignty (and is facilitated with support from the international community and reparations), or a single state solution in which Israel relinquishes its identity as a Jewish state for a secular one in which all its inhabitants are afforded the same access to civil rights and justice.
The road to either of these (imperfect) solutions is going to be long and arduous, and opposed by most of the monied interests that currently dominate the world.
That’s kind of tricky, though. How far back into history would you need to go to find the truly “rightful” owners of that long contested land?
In the context of Isreal, who is actively taking land at this moment, you don’t really need to go back in history. Like they never stopped taking the land.
To Palestinians.
Would you ask that about Crimea?
El-Sayed’s response really is great, and the perfect example of how to respond to “AnTiSeMiTiSm” accusations. Just like the US and other countries, you’re allowed to criticize leaders and countries. To be a patriot it’s actually required…
Agreed, except that’s not Mamdani, that’s Abdul El-Sayed.
Yes.
America funds Israel’s single payer program but won’t let its own citizens have one.
I’m disappointed with the US regularly, but gotta say it’s really great watching the current movement with Mamdami and El-Sayed unfolding.
Don’t forget Claire Valdez, Darializa Chevalier, Troy Jackson, Francesca Hong, Oliver Larkin, Summer Lee, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez… sanity is waking up here finally
EDIT: How could I forget Zohran Mamdani, Chris Rabb, Donovan McKinney, (edit 2) Milan Kiros, Justin J Pearson
Lmao AOC Pelosi voted to arm apartheid Pissrael, get her out of that list.
I couldn’t stand seeing this guy at first because he looks like my incredibly obnoxious narcissistic cousin. Now I love seeing posts about him because he says bangers like this.
But I fear that the positive reinforcement associated with seeing El Sayed’s face is gonna make me less likely to call out my cousin when he’s an asshole to his wife and the rest of his family. All of them also support Israel, so it’s kinda hard to defend any of them, though.
Sorry I didn’t really contribute to the conversation, just felt the need to share this.
Human pattern recognition could use a few updates
Can someone please explain the prominence of el Sayed. Is his placement a strategic or precious position?
I get that he’s progressive it’s more I am trying to get my head around American politics and why some elected are particularly important.
Well, he’s running for US Senate (100 Senators total), which a much more powerful office than US Representative (435 Representatives total). Democrats have a pretty good chance of gaining majority in the US house of Representatives, but they’ll do well to pull even in the Senate (currently at +3 to Republicans I think). So, the Democrat candidates running for Senate have a chance of making a much bigger impact to the balance of power (James Talarico in Texas is also an example of this). The fact that Abdul El-Sayed is 1) a (extremely handsome…) Muslim man, and 2) from the left progressive end of the party is making waves.
The reason everyone was focused on this primary is because AES flies in the face of decades of democrat strategies.
The democrat consultants would all say that “In a purple state like Michigan, you should run the most conservative democrat possible. Otherwise, you’ll lose. Moderates win states which constantly flip from democrat to republican”.
AES is michigan voters rejecting that notion and running someone that is to the left of a lot of democrats currently in office. That’s them ignoring what the establishment want. It’s even more significant because he was outspent 9:1 (10:1? 12:1? That’s a fuzzy number, but by a lot).
The general will prove whether or not this was a good strategy (I think it is). And if it is successful, it upsets the narrative of a LOT of pundits. It shouldn’t be possible (according to them) for Abdul to wins.
This is why this is generally seen as a very important election.
In a purple state like Michigan, you should run the most conservative democrat possible. Otherwise, you’ll lose.
Yeah, that’s not necessarily true.
People who vote for conservative Democrats are way more into the things that MAGA Republicans like: Voting R to prove your manhood; Voting R to own the libs; Voting R to deport all the immigrants; Voting R to keep trans women out of women’s sports (all ten of them.)
Then there’s independents who are really only concerned about how the economy is doing, or rather how their own household is doing. If it’s doing poorly, they vote against the incumbent. If their household is doing well, they’ll keep the current guy to avoid rocking the boat.
Then there’s the breed of Democrat who is interested in platform issues. They’re not all interested in the same platform issues:
Some really want universal healthcare.
Some really want to stop support of the Gaza genocide.
Some want serious action on the climate crisis.
Some want a jobs guarantee.
Some want full access to women’s reproductive healthcare, including abortion, to be guaranteed nationwide.Some want a combination of these things.
And then there’s those Democrats who will vote blue no matter who, because they acknowledge the crisis of democracy that’s unfolding in the US. The Republican party is actively attempting a coup in order to secure themselves a permanent majority, a step towards a one-party state, and autocracy. If that happens, then our elected officials don’t need to care at all about what the public thinks, since the peaceful transition of power as been eliminated. (That also puts non-peaceful transition of power in the center of the table, but that’s a different conversation.)
But this last batch of Democrats try to express their policy opinions in the primaries rather than in the general elections, and back any Democratic candidate that makes it to the general. So some of these Dems are voting in progressive candidates in the belief that progressive Democrats are better winners against Republicans than centrist ones.
(To elaborate on this hypothesis, Republicans are going to Republican: FOX News just has them by the balls, and there’s nothing for them, but a Democratic candidate that has something to offer will draw apathetic Democrats to the election polls, tipping the election in their favor. And in the current clime, we’re seeing this happen repeatedly.)
So what the centrists are banking on is a voting bloc that likes establishment Democrats that take corporate money and are beholden to the lobbies of their campaign contributors, that doesn’t like progressives (who try to be beholden to their constituency) and yet are not so hardline that they vote Republican, who do the same thing. That would be the corporations and the lobbyists themselves, I think.
Democrats as a group don’t identify as blue the way Republicans identify as Red. This is evident in the messaging crisis on the Democratic side. They vote D because they’re interested in the policies that benefit them, or to stop MAGA from taking over the country. Establishment Democrats seem to be looking for blues that identify as blue.
Maybe there’s a demographic that I’m missing, but from here it seems that our Blue Dog Democrats are out of touch.
In a purple state like Michigan, you should run the most conservative democrat possible. Otherwise, you’ll lose.
Yeah, that’s not necessarily true.
People who vote for conservative Democrats are way more into the things that MAGA Republicans like: Voting R to prove your manhood; Voting R to own the libs; Voting R to deport all the immigrants; Voting R to keep trans women out of women’s sports (all ten of them.)
Then there’s independents who are really only concerned about how the economy is doing, or rather how their own household is doing. If it’s doing poorly, they vote against the incumbent. If their household is doing well, they’ll keep the current guy to avoid rocking the boat.
Then there’s the breed of Democrat who is interested in platform issues. They’re not all interested in the same platform issues:
Some really want universal healthcare.
Some really want to stop support of the Gaza genocide.
Some want serious action on the climate crisis.
Some want a jobs guarantee.
Some want full access to women’s reproductive healthcare, including abortion, to be guaranteed nationwide.Some want a combination of these things.
And then there’s those Democrats who will vote blue no matter who, because they acknowledge the crisis of democracy that’s unfolding in the US. The Republican party is actively attempting a coup in order to secure themselves a permanent majority, a step towards a one-party state, and autocracy. If that happens, then our elected officials don’t need to care at all about what the public thinks, since the peaceful transition of power as been eliminated. (That also puts non-peaceful transition of power in the center of the table, but that’s a different conversation.)
But this last batch of Democrats try to express their policy opinions in the primaries rather than in the general elections, and back any Democratic candidate that makes it to the general. So some of these Dems are voting in progressive candidates in the belief that progressive Democrats are better winners against Republicans than centrist ones.
(To elaborate on this hypothesis, Republicans are going to Republican: FOX News just has them by the balls, and there’s nothing for them, but a Democratic candidate that has something to offer will draw apathetic Democrats to the election polls, tipping the election in their favor. And in the current clime, we’re seeing this happen repeatedly.)
So what the centrists are banking on is a voting bloc that likes establishment Democrats that take corporate money and are beholden to the lobbies of their campaign contributors, that doesn’t like progressives (who try to be beholden to their constituency) and yet are not so hardline that they vote Republican, who do the same thing. That would be the corporations and the lobbyists themselves, I think.
Democrats as a group don’t identify as blue the way Republicans identify as Red. This is evident in the messaging crisis on the Democratic side. They vote D because they’re interested in the policies that benefit them, or to stop MAGA from taking over the country. Establishment Democrats seem to be looking for blues that identify as blue.
Maybe there’s a demographic that I’m missing, but from here it seems that our Blue Dog Democrats are out of touch.
90% of our representatives of both parties are bought by Israel through AIPAC and private donors like Miriam Addleson. This organization dumped 36 million dollars into this election to try to get their preferred outcome. His win is a big deal because it is a win for the American people against runaway corruption.
To be clear, he is not elected. He won the democratic party nomination for the senate from Michigan. He is prominent because he is Muslim and progressive and is not the kind of candidate we usually get from the democrats for a seat this important. Most of the prominent democrats (elected or in party leadership) had supported his opponent. Also much more money was spent against him in the nominating race than for him. And much of the funding supporting his opponent (or denigrating him) was from AIPAC.
Yeah, if elected he will be 1/100 people voting in half of congress.
Granted his vote being 1/100 is better than being in the house which has 435.
So if you can get the right 269 people to agree on something good, it will go to the president and be vetod.
Option 1: The American people are tired of being exploited and are electing candidates which will genuinely represent their interests, setting the stage for an economic renaissance of sorts after American workers have been heavily exploited since the 90’s (really the 80’s but everyone had money then so no one cared).
Option 2: The American people are tired of being exploited. The elites which control the country and media recognize this and are allowing meager concessions as a pressure release valve to prevent an actual revolution (as they did to end the Battle of Los Angeles following the Rodney King verdict) where people demand the full profits created by their labor, and instead are satisfied with cheaper housing, food, and gas (but still probably all more expensive than they were like 20 years ago).
Unfortunately option 2 is much more likely. Every win for the people is worth celebrating, but I trust no Democrat, especially a self-described capitalist like El-Sayed. My hope for him is the same as my hope for Mamdani: that he will decrease the suffering of the working class, allowing us to be exploited a little bit less and thereby have a little more time for organizing and raising class consciousness. DSA is not the revolution and never can be, but with any hope they can be a stepping stone towards it.
Option 2 is reality, everything else is fantasy
he’s just doing the rounds like mamdani did, happens to every “upset”.
establishment plays their games trying to fearmonger/gotcha while the new guy gets a bunch of free publicity
Does Israel have a right to exist through? It’s a rogue state founded by terrorists after all.
Yes.
Israel’s existence is a massive fuckup and part of the multiple failed partition experiments of the 20th century. But it’s been a real country for the past 80 years and there’s no way forward to undo that now.
Palestine is also a real country and Israel doesn’t have a right to genocide. The US likes to pretend otherwise so it can exert more control in the Middle East, but all they’re doing is making things worse for everyone.
As much as people on both sides may hate it, a two state solution is really the only viable solution at this point.
I don’t think a two state solution is possible.
If only because the Israelis want to isolate Jewish people from their neighbors.
Prior to the birth of Zionism, the Arab Jews and the Arab Muslims of the area spoke each other’s languages and celebrated each other’s holidays. The Arab Christians got in on it as well. All of them were also united in their hatred of the Ottomans.
Then the European Jews started buying up land and making little exclusive communities. They refused to integrate and eventually started fighting their neighbors, Jewish and Muslim alike. Things got worse from there.
So yeah, cutting more than 100 years of history short, now we need a full de-nazifacation and a forced integration of the European Jews into the local Arab culture. With equal rights for all.
But it’s been a real country for the past 80 years and there’s no way forward to undo that now.
Rhodesia supporter spotted.
“j/k we don’t have to ask. You’ll just let us do it. Losers, lmao”
100%. god is real too
Huh?
“Does Israel have a right to your tax dollars?”
Yes.
“god is real too” is sarcasm, negating my statement of “yes”.
It seemed clear to me at the time of writing.
All these progressive candidates living my dream. Also I never knew I wanted to say that on cnn till now
