• agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 个月前

      They’re there to sheepdog the voters into believing progressive candidates a valued part of the democratic party despite the fact that more than most of the good things progressives have accomplished are entirely outside of the chambers of congress. The democrats refuse to work with progressives unless they are forced too, like that time the progressives asked Pelosi to consider stock trading bans and she denied them until it was clear that was horrible PR, then decided to around to vocally supporting it later, once the political will to pass the bill was dying down. Progressives are there for show.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 个月前

      They already did. Though they absolutely 100% need to stop voting for that dogshit party as well.

      • dodgy_bagel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 个月前

        Ah yes, insurrectionist part II electric boogaloo.

        The choices on the table are dogshit or arsonic, but if you don’t choose you’re still going to have to eat one of them.

        In order to avoid eating either, we should probably focus on getting the one off the table that will fucking kill you.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 个月前

          Just don’t eat either of them? It’s not hard. You simply go eat something else and ridicule people who are eating the dogshit.

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 个月前

              That would be cool. But no I’m just not going to eat dog shit. Millions of other foods, and hundreds of other candidates, I don’t get any bonus points by voting for the winner. It’s literally the least you can do.

  • Drusas@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 个月前

    No, she was censured for seemingly calling for the end of Israel. That is not the same as Palestinian freedom.

    • coradora@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 个月前

      She only called for the end of the apartheid state that systematically tortures the Palestinians under its brutal occupation. She called for equal rights for all Palestinian people so that they are no longer second class citizens.

      It was wrong when America, Britain, South Africa, and countless other colonialist countries did it in the past, and it is wrong for Israel to do it now. Apartheid is a disgusting system that brutalizes millions of innocent civilians. The average age in Gaza is like 19 years old. They are mostly children.

      Do you condemn Israel for the murder of over 4000 children?

      • Drusas@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 个月前

        This has nothing to do with me. I’m just stating a fact. She was censured for the river to the sea comment, not for calling to end the apartheid state.

        • coradora@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 个月前

          What do you think the statement from the river to the sea means? It means that in all lands of current day Israel/Palestine, the Palestinian people should exist as first class, free citizens of the state. Not as second class citizens of an apartheid government.

          It’s not calling for the genocide of Jews. It’s calling for the end of Israel’s brutal occupation and for the peaceful coexistence of all people, like they lived before the region was carved up by European colonial governments.

          • Drusas@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 个月前

            You’re arguing that to the wrong person. I understand nuance. Apparently House representatives do not.

          • prole@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 个月前

            It refers to a one-state solution. A legitimately possible solution with a lot of support. And no, it’s not anti-semitism and it’s not about killing or getting rid of anyone. It’s bad faith to frame it as such.

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 个月前

      AIPAC has heavy stakes in the Democratic Party. They run primary challenges and fund conservatives against anyone who expresses anything close to Palestinian sympathy. (Summer Lee is a good recent/current example.)

      Those 22 Ds likely exist at the behest of AIPAC money.