cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/48345159

When he launched his campaign last week for a Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat, Representative Seth Moulton made sure that one of his first moves was to announce that he is returning campaign donations that he received from individuals affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and would no longer accept campaign support from the group. Also last week, popular podcast hosts Jennifer Welch and Angie Sullivan pressed Senator Cory Booker to answer whether he considered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal; The Ringer’s Van Lathan told Governor Gavin Newsom that Lathan would not support a 2028 candidate who took money from AIPAC, resulting in the governor literally squirming and using the word “interesting” repeatedly; radio host Charlamagne tha God asked Governor Josh Shapiro if AIPAC donations improperly influence U.S. decisions on Israeli-Palestinian issues; and MSNBC’s Eugene Daniels asked Kamala Harris if Israel’s actions over the last two years constitute genocide.

  • Kay Ohtie@pawb.socialEnglish
    52·
    1 day ago

    I am utterly exhausted by the “pancakes vs waffles tweet”-style responses like this. The person you replied to didn’t mention Harris nor even Biden, they talked about a trend in changes they’re wishing the media was better about highlighting, because it and politicians will talk a lot more about elsewhere-issues than here. Ceasing support for Israel is fast and easy, so it becomes, now the they’re finally paying attention, an easy score for “pick me” points, because outright stating in non-hyperbolic language that we’ve got a literal dictator brewing with systems of fascism merging together and coming up with solutions is a lot more complicated than rejecting one PAC donor.

    At this point I’m treating these comments as MAGA psyops trying to tear up the left, because no one actually gives a shit about Harris except Republicans in their talking points. Even the Dem politicians shut up about her.

    • SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.worldEnglish
      65·
      1 day ago

      Life would have been better with her and you’d have to have your head buried quite far into the sand to not understand it was literally a choice between her or Trump.

      I’m not sure why you’re mentioning Biden here though.

      • Kay Ohtie@pawb.socialEnglish
        41·
        9 hours ago

        My mistake was reading your post as sarcasm instead of being genuine. There are far too many folks who keep saying that with a very sarcastic attitude when no one was remotely mentioning her and it’s an extremely MAGA tactic to just bring her up out of nowhere as if it was an argument being made instead of the actual conversation.

        My apologies on the misinterpretation and launching off of that.

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          8 hours ago

          I wasn’t sure if they were being sarcastic or not, either, for exactly the same reasons. It’s honestly hard to tell in certain situations.

          I happen to know a few IRL who legit cannot see, or refuse to see, how foolish they were and are about the two choices facing us, and so they constantly, because of their feelings of guilt that they don’t want to admit to, will go on the attack about something something Kamala and argle bargle Biden, even if the topic is something Taco is doing to utterly stripmine and ruin this country.

          I think these types that I know that genuinely seem to hold these positions are deep narcissists that like to make it all about themselves and how they’ve personally passed a purity test they’ve set up for everyone. If it wasn’t Gaza, it’d be something else. These same individuals definitely found an excuse when the choice was Hillary or Trump. They’ll put themselves on a higher moral plane because of $SINGLE_ISSUE, declare everyone else to be immoral and happily prance off to either not vote at all or vote for Jill Stein or whatever, or, not even kidding, vote for Taco to really stick it to the “liberals” (remember, they use “liberals” as a bad term, because they are so edgy and too cool for liberalism).

          When it comes to online, I’m with you - I think a lot of it might be bots, paid psyop agents mixed in with some people that maybe genuinely believe the positions they are taking…