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
I like Crockett for being a bit of a firecracker. She's smart, she knows the law, and knows the exact right spots to push on to point out the obvious corruption of the right. She seems incorruptible.
Talarico has a softer approach, isn't as combative, and leans on his faith a bit much I would say. I would say he probably plays better in Texas politics than Crockett might. He also seems incorruptible.
Two different personalities who are both qualified for what we need right now, but two different tools in a toolbox.
Crockett denies Isreals war crimes so for many that's a non-starter. Though neither are perfect, I believe Talarico has committed to stopping offensive weapons transfers. I think he is marginally more progressive.
However both but especially crockett are still kinda mainstream Dems, Crockett does have the benefit of being on the house oversight committee and had good questioning to Pam bondi. She has a lot of the smoke, but her policies are same old same old.
Tal has a big up against crockett that will play big come the general election here in Texas.
Talerico is a white male. Crockett isn't. This is Texas we are talking about and, as disappointing it is to say, it will play a massive role in an already uphill battle. He's just more electable at face value for that fact alone.
I like both candidates, tal gets the edge for his funding methods to be sure, but the electability argument is a big one when you are talking about a Senate seat that hasn't been held by a dem since LBJ.
That's something that often gets lost in primaries it seems.. regardless of which candidate you prefer, which one is going to beat the Republican nominee?
Definitely getting "can win in Texas" vibes from Talarico.
Flipping Texas is the important part here. I don't care much which of the two does it, as long as it happens.
Her election funding would suggest otherwise
Not sure what you're trying to illustrate here?
The majority of her campaign funds come from small donors. She doesn't take AIPAC money. What's your point?
A plurality, but importantly not a majority.
She received more from large individual donors and PACs combined than from small donors.
Do you either not math or stats? It seems you don't understand how numbers or percentages work...
Not trying to be insulting, but c'mon here. You posted something you clearly do not understand, to a response you don't understand, and are clearly just trying to prove a point you failed at.
It seems it's YOU that don't understand: people rich enough to make large individual donations tend to be the kind of elites who expect something in return for their largesse, as do PACs.
With that in mind, it's COMPLETELY reasonable to combine those groups to compare with the small donors who represent a wider swath of her constituency and thus incentivize less corrupt practices.
False, see above.
Equally false.
My fucking nonexistent god the projection! 🤦
Did you not read and understand the second picture you posted at all?
The largest percentage of donors is at the top there. It's not AIPAC or corporate interests, it's small donors.
What in the world are you not understanding about your own posts here?
Add up the large individual contributions and the PAC contributions.
Is that larger or smaller than the small individual contributions %?
Is the small individual contributions greater or lesser than 50%? Keep in mind that to be the "majority" you must have more than 50%.
Yes, I did. Unlike you and my response to you.
Again, the combination of the latter two is very much more relevant than the two separately. The donations NOT from small donors outweigh the donations FROM small donors
Literally nothing. It's you that seem to refuse to acknowledge my solid point that a comparison of "small donors" and "not small donors" is the more apt one and that 55.25 is a larger percentage than 44.74.
Either way, over 72% of those PAC donations coming from business interests is an even more revealing stat.
If Crockett is smart (and the interview I've seen has left me incredibly unconvinced on that) she's bending herself into a pretzel for J Street PAC money knowing full well that's spewing nonsense.
(Please forgive the source I wasn't able to find the interview elsewhere while on mobile)
https://xcancel.com/KweenInYellow/status/2023925865931853872
Didn't she take money from AIPAC, while Talarico is reportedly not funded at all by them?
Nope.
Bruh what are you talking about?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Arsq9-90dyQ
Crockett is like, 10/10 took the Israel funded trip, 110% in the bag for Israel.
Literally data online saying that she didn't take AIPAC money.
Alliances or voting history are different things. Don't try to make a point if you can't back it up.