So, they can still, but the point of the article is that it's becoming less and less true over time. AIPAC seems to have picked on the weakest candidates and not made an attempt to challenge some of their most vocal critics.
The American electorate is still fine with genocide, but the minority that doesn't like it is steadily growing and has become bigger than I think a lot of old-school political people realize.
TL;DR they went after people who were already vulnerable, and didn't attempt to challenge people who were threatening Israel's interests but also had strong prospects going into their primaries. They seem to a certain extent to have spent money in races where the incumbents were already facing a tough fight, so they could claim they were responsible if they did turn out to lose. You'll notice Summer Lee, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib are still around, and winning by 20+ point margins.
They scared
Which cult?
Honestly the whole thing that she "eviscerated" her in the debate (as the New York Times put it) is a bunch of horseshit.
Here's the exchange. I think Harris was a little taken aback because it was at least 50% complete fabrications, and that's harder to deal with in a debate setting than in a prosecutorial setting. It's fair to say she handled it a little poorly and Gabbard did a good job at landing the dishonest attacks. But most of what it accomplished, at the end of the day, was to accelerate the putting of those lies into the public discourse in a big way as talking points, alongside the idea that if anyone in Harris's office was prosecuting people who broke the law at the time, that represents a fair reason to attack Harris today because obviously what she should have been doing was letting them go and instructing every prosecutor in California to do the same, and that wouldn't have caused any problems.
I have no idea, and people do do some ignorant shit in the name of protests sometimes, but I’m just waiting to hear that this was either (a) some kind of horseshit exaggeration of an underlying reality that bears only a vague resemblence to what the Jewish students are saying happened, or else (b) a false flag.
I am getting the strong impression that my attempts to engage in good faith are wasted on you
Good luck with your talking points I guess
here's an article i read not too long ago from a reputable organization that proves that this is literally true
Yes. It was true in October and November of 2023, and then it stopped being true as domestic production fell from the peak it achieved in those months. Pretty sure I touched on this.
Your link is actually a really good overview of a lot of the issues involved, why this is still a massive problem whatever level of "progress" has been made, and the successes and failures of the current administration. Like I said, if you're up for a fact based discussion, that sounds great. It sounds like maybe you are not though. Like you didn't even seem to be aware that both of our arguments give the same date for the peak; you offered the October 2023 article as a sort of counterargument for me saying the peak was November 2023...
the policies are put in place to guarantee american hegemony and it doesn't matter if it's the chinese or the americans that will continue to fuck over the world for their own interests; i need these green products to continue earning a living in this country and so do many other people.
This is a fascinatingly specific type of non-answer to what I asked you. I asked whether climate-friendly policies that don't directly impact China were of interest to you. It kinda sounds like the answer is "no"...
nice cherry picking
Focusing on working class wages is not cherry-picking. I care more about what happens to working-class wages than I do about overall wages (although, it's also relevant that the biggest decline that I could find for overall wages relative to inflation was 3 percentage points). Doesn't that seem like a good thing to focus on? Or no?
this one is literally in recent living memory and so easy to find on google that it's crystal clear you're sealioning.
Yeah. Biden used to be much more conservative; he was part of that whole Clinton revolution of right-wing Democrats that was so horrifying in the 1990s. I didn't expect all that much out of him and then he somehow wound up being this super-progressive president, by the standards of Washington, and the Democratic congress more or less (with some fuckin HUGE asterisks on that it's true) went along with it. I was surprised. We need more of that; he was, of course, only progressive by the fairly low standards of Washington.
But it's still weird to me that you're clinging to the talking points when I'm clearly open to the conversation. IDK. Good luck I guess. You're giving me a chance to air out some of the factual details and expand on them, so I'm fine with talking about it even if you don't seem like you can really make sense of what I'm saying.
Fuck the DNC; on that we can agree
then why did you use it as an example that democrats have changed?
You are aware that "the Democrats" are not a monolith; that they have multiple people and even multiple subgroups within them? I used Bernie Sander's almost-successful candidacy as an example. The group of Democrats that kneecapped his presidency, I don't like, no. Replacing those jerks sounds great.
Yeah. I agree with queermunist about the inaccuracy of using the lower bound as if it was the estimate, which almost all of the media is currently doing. 😢
Tell them I love them
I have absolutely no idea why you keep insisting that I like genocide (or Israel buying candidates?). It makes it pointless to talk to you because you are attacking points of view that have nothing to do with what I think. I just don't want to have an extensive argument about what it is that I believe with someone telling me, no, you don't, you believe this other thing instead. That's the reason I have generally given up on talking to you; I'm not sure what I was thinking just now. Mostly I was just trying to help you understand this article.
You asked a perfectly fair question though which I will answer -- here's a poll about the Americans' feelings about the war. How you ask the questions and what questions you ask and how you tee them up make a pretty significant difference to what people say, but that one seems pretty honestly organized and comprehensive, and they're transparent about what exactly they asked. 34% say the way Israel is fighting the "war" is unacceptable, 38% say it's acceptable, 26% say they're not sure.
I think that attitude is because they're profoundly confused about what is happening in Gaza because of our atrocious media, not that 38% of Americans understand that it's a genocide and want Israel to be doing that. I only summarized as "fine with genocide" because I thought they were fine with aid to Israel (which a lot of them don't understand the implications of)... I have now learned from reading this that they don't. The little four-quadrants chart shows that if you limit it to people who say "yes" or "no" about military aid to Israel, you get 64% "no." Holy shit. That's way higher than I thought.