AIPAC had to spend 100s of millions to get Israel friendly democrats elected instead because they were scared the decent democrats would win the races and stop supporting genocide thanks to all the protesting people were doing.
Yeah, and it worked. The Democratic party remains dominated by hardcore ideological Zionists who didn’t move one inch in response to pressure, even if it cost them the election.
You’re missing the point, if it didn’t work the zionists wouldn’t had to spend so much money to affect an election in their favour.
Citizen’s united, first-past-the-post and the relentless attacks on the objectively better candidate really screwed people over during the election. Donald Trump is way worse on Palestine and on every other issue.
You’re missing the point, if it didn’t work the zionists wouldn’t had to spend so much money to affect an election in their favour.
No, the point is that it didn’t make a lick of difference to the actual situation in Gaza. Also, Zionists spend just as much on Republicans, so you’re point doesn’t work even if it were relevant.
Trump is way worse on Palestine
He objectively isn’t, you’re just a denialist when it’s your team doing it. In that sense, Trump is slightly better for Palestine, because at least under him, liberals are willing to acknowledge the extent of what’s happening and stop engaging in denialism and excuse making.
More than half of Democrats also say the Israeli government bears “a lot” of responsibility for the continuation of the war, compared to about 4 in 10 Republicans.
On the other hand, about half of Republicans say they sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians, while Democrats are more likely to say they sympathize with both groups equally.
What exactly is your point? Because none of that has any bearing on what I’ve said, and it seems like you’re just desperately throwing non-sequitors at the wall to defend the Democrats. (Which reinforces my “at least under Trump, liberals don’t engage in these disengenuous defences of genocide” perspective.)
AIPAC had to spend 100s of millions to get Israel friendly democrats elected instead because they were scared the decent democrats would win the races and stop supporting genocide thanks to all the protesting people were doing.
Yeah, and it worked. The Democratic party remains dominated by hardcore ideological Zionists who didn’t move one inch in response to pressure, even if it cost them the election.
You’re missing the point, if it didn’t work the zionists wouldn’t had to spend so much money to affect an election in their favour.
Citizen’s united, first-past-the-post and the relentless attacks on the objectively better candidate really screwed people over during the election. Donald Trump is way worse on Palestine and on every other issue.
No, the point is that it didn’t make a lick of difference to the actual situation in Gaza. Also, Zionists spend just as much on Republicans, so you’re point doesn’t work even if it were relevant.
He objectively isn’t, you’re just a denialist when it’s your team doing it. In that sense, Trump is slightly better for Palestine, because at least under him, liberals are willing to acknowledge the extent of what’s happening and stop engaging in denialism and excuse making.
https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/republicans-are-more-likely-than-democrats-to-see-israel-as-a-us-ally-ap-norc-poll/
What exactly is your point? Because none of that has any bearing on what I’ve said, and it seems like you’re just desperately throwing non-sequitors at the wall to defend the Democrats. (Which reinforces my “at least under Trump, liberals don’t engage in these disengenuous defences of genocide” perspective.)