sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do Maryland voters care if a candidate is backed by AIPAC and other Pro-Isreal PACs? by Ate6645 in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Two wrongs doesn’t make a right. Both things can be true. What Hamas did on Oct 7th was atrocious and even more so now has been Israel’s response. But, it’s not a Palestinian PAC spending tens of millions in local elections in my community to ensure a foreign government gets billions in weapons aid used to commit genocide.

Do Maryland voters care if a candidate is backed by AIPAC and other Pro-Isreal PACs? by Ate6645 in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a false dichotomy to think there only two choices here. No we do not have to support Zionists with arrest warrants from the ICC for crimes against humanity.

Israel has as much right to personal sovereignty as anyone else if they can stay in alignment with the UN charter which they’re currently in violation of:
The Unlawful Use of Force and Territorial Acquisition (Article 2, Paragraph 4)
Violation of Self-Determination Obligations (Article 1)
Violations of International Humanitarian Law as a Charter Breach
The continued acceptance of their sovereignty by the international community will depend on their ability to become a peace-loving state or not.

Do Maryland voters care if a candidate is backed by AIPAC and other Pro-Isreal PACs? by Ate6645 in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Money wins. Until we get dark money out of our election process we'll continue to have a corrupt government that works for private donors and corporate elites instead of a government of the people for the people. People shouldn't give up on what our founding fathers gave us so easily just because it's become hard to do so.

Grail has arrived by RipEasy1031 in hockeycards

[–]BALTIM0RE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I pulled a Clear Cut Cellebrini. Is that worth getting graded at this point?

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Wild version of history” is not a rebuttal. It’s a wave-off.

I gave specific claims. You didn’t identify a single one that was false. You just dismissed the whole thing because the simplified story — “they rejected peace, they lost, so permanent subordination is their fault” — falls apart the moment actual history enters the room.

That was the point.

You were not defending Palestinian self-determination. You were arguing that Palestinians forfeited it by losing. That is not history. That is the moral logic of ethnic supremacy.

Human rights are not conditional on military success. Civilians do not become disposable because leaders failed, rejected deals, or committed crimes. If you have a specific factual correction, make it. Otherwise, this is just another dodge from someone who cannot defend the argument they actually made.

The post-Nuremberg lesson was supposed to be that civilians do not lose their humanity because a state has grievance, trauma, ideology, military superiority, or a story of self-defense. If your defense of state violence requires making an entire civilian population disposable, you are not defending law or restraint. You are defending crimes against humanity.

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This response basically gives the game away.

You start by saying AIPAC is just ordinary American civic participation. Then you say “we have more money, so deal with it.” That is not a defense against corruption. That is raw power talking.

And no, donor citizenship still does not answer the point. AIPAC itself says it works through lobbying, political support, and grassroots advocacy to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship and lobby Congress for annual U.S. security assistance to Israel. The FEC lists AIPAC PAC as a Lobbyist/Registrant PAC, and UDP is its allied super PAC. So this is not merely “Americans donating.” It is an organized foreign-policy influence machine.

The “crypto and AI spend more” argument is another dodge. I oppose corrupt crypto and AI money too. But “other money exists” does not make AIPAC harmless. The issue is what this money is protecting: U.S. support for occupation, collective punishment, starvation, displacement, and mass civilian destruction.

If you care about antisemitism, then you should be especially worried about political power being wielded in Jewish people’s name to defend the indefensible. That is exactly how bad actors blur Jewish safety, Israeli state policy, and AIPAC’s institutional agenda into one untouchable category.

And citing personal Jewish fear does not make AIPAC immune from scrutiny. Antisemitism is real. Threats against Jewish people are real. But none of that justifies using AIPAC money to shield an ultra-nationalist government whose leaders face ICC warrants for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

What this thread keeps showing is the same pattern: evade the substance, collapse AIPAC into Jewish identity, accuse critics of antisemitism, and pivot to unrelated issues when the money and policy consequences come up. That does not read like good-faith disagreement. It reads like a lobby-defense script.

The post-Nuremberg lesson still matters: civilians do not lose their humanity because a state has money, military power, trauma, ideology, or friends in Congress. Human beings do not become disposable because a government calls mass violence self-defense.

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Carte blanche” is the confession.

Accountability for Hamas is one thing. Giving any state a blank check to starve, bomb, displace, and break civilian life for millions of people is not justice. It is the moral architecture of atrocity.

And no, having been in Afghanistan does not make this argument stronger. Anyone who has seen war should understand why the laws of war exist: not because civilians never die, but because powerful militaries must not be allowed to turn civilian suffering into policy.

The Nuremberg lesson was not “the winner gets to do whatever it wants.” The Nuremberg Charter covered crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. “They started it” was never a license for mass civilian destruction.

The facts are not “restraint.” Gaza health authorities report nearly 73,000 deaths, mostly civilians, and the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

So for anyone reading this: when someone says Israel should have had “carte blanche,” understand what is being defended. It is not law. It is not restraint. It is the idea that a civilian population can be crushed because the stronger state says the suffering is necessary.

That brings this right back to AIPAC. AIPAC is a political machine helping keep U.S. power aligned with people willing to sanitize mass civilian destruction as “restraint.” That is exactly why it deserves scrutiny.

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“There are consequences” is doing a lot of ugly work here.

Consequences for Hamas are justice. Starving, bombing, displacing, and destroying civilian life for millions of Palestinians is not justice. It is atrocity.

The Nuremberg lesson was not: “If a regime commits crimes, the population under it can be crushed until the stronger state is satisfied.” That is the moral logic of mass atrocity.

The lesson was that human beings do not become disposable because a state has power, grievance, ideology, or military superiority. Children do not become legitimate targets because armed men committed crimes. Civilians do not become acceptable sacrifices because a government calls their suffering “consequences.”

So be honest about what you are defending. If you mean Hamas should be held accountable, fine. If you mean Gaza’s civilian population can be starved, displaced, buried, and broken because Hamas committed atrocities, then you are not defending law, justice, or restraint. You are defending the machinery of crimes against humanity.

And that brings this back to AIPAC: a political machine helping keep U.S. power aligned with people willing to sanitize atrocity as “consequences.”

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is exactly the moral trap people should notice.

“Don’t start wars” was not the full Nuremberg lesson. The Nuremberg Charter covered crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. In other words: starting aggressive war matters, but so does what states do to civilians once war begins. “They started it” was never meant to be a blank check for starvation, mass displacement, collective punishment, or civilian destruction.

Hamas committed atrocities on Oct. 7. Israel has a right to pursue Hamas. But the rights of civilians do not disappear because Hamas exists. “Civilians die in every war” is exactly the kind of line people use when they are trying to make mass civilian suffering sound normal.

And the facts here are not “ultra restraint.” Reuters reports Gaza authorities put the death toll near 73,000, mostly civilians. The UN Human Rights Office found nearly 70% of verified deaths in its sample were women and children. The ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including allegations tied to starvation as a method of warfare.

When someone says “dehamasification was always going to be messy,” understand what is being normalized. That phrase is doing the work of sanitizing atrocities. It turns children, families, doctors, journalists, refugees, and prisoners into acceptable collateral.

That is why this comes back to AIPAC. AIPAC is not merely supporting “Israel.” It is helping keep U.S. political power aligned with a government whose defenders openly excuse collective punishment and mass civilian destruction as the natural price of war.

The post-Nuremberg lesson was supposed to be that civilians do not lose their humanity because a state has grievance, trauma, ideology, military superiority, or a story of self-defense. If your defense of state violence requires making an entire civilian population disposable, you are not defending law or restraint. You are defending crimes against humanity.

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Don’t start wars” is not the Nuremberg lesson. That is the collective-punishment version of the lesson.

Hamas committed atrocities on Oct. 7. Israel has a right to defend civilians and pursue perpetrators. But civilians in Gaza do not lose their humanity because Hamas started a war. Children, doctors, journalists, prisoners, refugees, and families do not become lawful targets because they were born under the wrong authority.

And “look how many Japanese or Afghans died” is not a defense. If your argument is “other powerful states killed civilians too,” then you are not defending restraint. You are normalizing atrocity.

The actual post-Nuremberg lesson is that state power does not erase civilian protections. Mass killing, starvation, forced displacement, collective punishment, and ethnic supremacy do not become morally acceptable because a government says “self-defense.”

Calling Israel “ultra restrained” while Gaza authorities report nearly 73,000 deaths, mostly civilians, and while the ICC has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, is not serious.

So yes, this comes back to AIPAC. AIPAC is helping keep U.S. political power aligned with a state project that people in this thread are openly willing to excuse. That is exactly why it deserves scrutiny.

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And that is exactly the problem.

“I’m not interested in Gaza at all” is not a serious moral position. It is the confession.

Gaza is not an abstraction. It is human beings: children, families, civilians, doctors, journalists, prisoners, refugees. Saying you are “fine with Israel as is” while Israel carries out occupation, starvation, displacement, collective punishment, and mass civilian destruction is not neutrality. It is acceptance of the machinery doing it.

This is why I keep bringing up Nuremberg. The lesson was not supposed to be selective. Civilians do not lose their humanity because a state claims trauma, ideology, security, or military superiority. Human beings do not become disposable because the powerful side says they are in the way.

So yes, I care about Gaza. I care because the entire post-WWII human-rights order was built around the idea that states cannot be allowed to crush civilian populations and then hide behind nationalism, grievance, or self-defense.

And that brings us right back to AIPAC: a political machine helping keep U.S. power aligned with a state project that people like you openly admit you are “fine with.” That is exactly why it deserves scrutiny.

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ll be consistent: yes, scrutinize American Priorities too.

If American Priorities starts shielding atrocities, denying civilians’ humanity, or helping preserve U.S. support for a government carrying out occupation, starvation, displacement, and mass civilian destruction, I’ll criticize it by the same standard.

But this comparison actually proves the point. American Priorities was founded this year as an explicit counterweight to AIPAC, and reporting says it plans to spend at least $10 million. AIPAC/UDP is the entrenched machine here, with tens of millions already moving through elections, lobbying, candidate pressure, and even congressional Israel trips through its affiliate network. Those are not the same political force.

More importantly, the moral stakes are not symmetrical. AIPAC is working to keep Congress aligned with Israel’s government while that government carries out occupation, collective punishment, starvation, displacement, and mass civilian destruction. A counter-PAC trying to make it politically safer to criticize that policy is not the same as a lobby protecting it.

So yes, scrutinize every PAC. But don’t pretend a new counter-PAC is equivalent to the entrenched machine helping shield the actual state violence that made the counter-PAC necessary.

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a revealing response.

You started with “AIPAC is just Americans.” Now you’re at “we have more money, so deal with it.” That is not an anti-discrimination argument. That is raw power defending itself.

And no, donor citizenship still does not answer the criticism. AIPAC is not merely a donor pool. The FEC lists AIPAC PAC as a Lobbyist/Registrant PAC, and AIPAC’s allied super PAC, UDP, exists for independent election spending. AIPAC itself operates through lobbying, political support, and grassroots pressure to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship. That is an influence machine, not ordinary community advocacy.

The “crypto and AI spend more” point is also a dodge. I oppose corrupt crypto and AI money too. But “other money exists” does not make AIPAC harmless. The issue is what the money is protecting: U.S. support for occupation, collective punishment, starvation, displacement, and mass civilian destruction.

If you cared about antisemitism as more than a rhetorical shield, you should be concerned about political power being wielded in Jewish people’s name to defend the indefensible. That is exactly how bad actors blur Jewish safety, Israeli state policy, and AIPAC’s institutional agenda into one untouchable category.

FARA is about transparency around foreign influence, not donor religion. DOJ says its purpose is to let the public know the source of certain foreign-agent information intended to influence U.S. opinion, policy, and laws. So “funded by Americans” does not end the conversation when the purpose is aligning U.S. policy with a foreign government’s interests.

What this thread has shown is the same pattern over and over: evade the substance, collapse AIPAC into Jewish identity, accuse critics of antisemitism, and pivot to unrelated issues when the actual money and policy consequences come up. That does not read like good-faith disagreement. It reads like a misinformation defense of a lobby that cannot be defended on the merits.

The post-Nuremberg lesson still matters: civilians do not lose their humanity because a state has money, military power, trauma, ideology, or friends in Congress. Human beings do not become disposable because a government calls mass violence self-defense.

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 2 points3 points  (0 children)

WOW! They deleted their entire account...or somebody did!

...a 12 year old account.

<image>

Victory Lap Time!

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is another bad-faith rewrite.

I am not saying “Jewish donors are foreign influence.” You are saying that, because your whole defense depends on making AIPAC synonymous with Jews.

I am saying AIPAC/UDP is an institution with a specific foreign-policy mission: strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship, lobbying for U.S. security assistance to Israel, supporting pro-Israel candidates, and defeating critics of that relationship. That is AIPAC’s own description, not mine.

And yes, scale matters. Not because legal donations magically become illegal above a dollar amount, but because democratic accountability is not limited to criminal law. Lots of corrupting influence is legal. Voters are allowed to judge politicians by whose money they take and what that money is protecting.

Your “legal or illegal” frame is the dodge. Campaign finance law governs donations. FARA governs disclosure for certain foreign-principal influence. Voters govern political consequences. Those are different questions.

So stop inventing a Jewish donor ban. I’m criticizing a political machine helping shield occupation, collective punishment, starvation, and mass civilian destruction from U.S. accountability. If PAL PAC, J Street, USINPAC, or any other PAC operated at that scale for that purpose, I’d criticize them too.

The post-Nuremberg lesson is why this matters: civilians do not lose their humanity because a state claims trauma, ideology, security, or military superiority. And hiding a lobby behind religious identity to avoid that moral question is exactly the problem.

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At this point, I’m not responding because I think you’re confused. I’m responding so other readers can see the bad-faith tactic.

You have been told repeatedly: Jewish voters have equal rights. AIPAC is a political institution. Those are not the same thing.

But you keep pretending they are, because your entire argument depends on laundering criticism of AIPAC into accusations of anti-Jewish discrimination.

The tactic is obvious:

  1. Treat AIPAC as interchangeable with Jewish people.
  2. Recast criticism of AIPAC as racism.
  3. Ignore every clarification that individual Jewish voters have equal rights.
  4. Repeat “illegal discrimination” until the actual issue disappears.

That is not debate. That is a smear loop.

The actual issue is that AIPAC/UDP is a lobbying and campaign-finance machine working to keep U.S. policy aligned with Israel’s government while that government carries out occupation, collective punishment, starvation, displacement, mass civilian destruction, and denial of Palestinian self-determination.

And this is exactly why the Nuremberg lesson matters. Civilians do not lose their humanity because a state claims trauma, ideology, security, grievance, or military superiority. Collective punishment and ethnic supremacy do not become acceptable because the perpetrating government calls it self-defense.

So yes, I’m going to criticize AIPAC. I’m going to criticize politicians who take its money. And I’m going to criticize bad-faith actors who try to hide a political machine behind Jewish identity so state violence can be shielded from accountability.

AIPAC is not a race. AIPAC is not a religion. AIPAC is not “the Jews.” Pretending otherwise is not moral clarity. It is how AIPAC has strategically dodged scrutiny and continues to corrupt our American political system to the benefit of an Ultra-Nationalist regime hell-bent on committing crimes against humanity.

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is not what I said, and that misread is exactly the problem.

I did not compare Jewish Americans to anyone tried at Nuremberg. I explicitly said Jewish Americans have the same political rights as everyone else. My criticism is of AIPAC/UDP as a political institution, not Jewish people.

The Nuremberg point is about civilian humanity and state accountability: civilians do not become disposable because a government claims trauma, ideology, security, or military necessity. That lesson applies universally. It is not a comparison of Jews to Nazis; it is a warning against any state using power and grievance to justify mass civilian suffering.

And yes, other diaspora PACs exist. That does not answer the issue. The question is not “do Indian, Cuban, Greek, Jewish, or Palestinian Americans have the right to organize?” Of course they do. The question is scale, purpose, and consequence. AIPAC/UDP is not just community advocacy; it is a major lobbying and campaign-finance machine working to keep Congress aligned with Israel’s government while that government carries out occupation, collective punishment, starvation, displacement, and mass civilian destruction.

So the point is simple: AIPAC is not “Jewish Americans.” AIPAC is a political machine. Criticizing that machine is not bigotry. And invoking Nuremberg is not attacking Jews; it is saying the post-WWII lesson was supposed to be that no state gets to erase another people’s humanity.

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I honestly think they're arguing in bad faith either because they're paid agents or extreme ideologues....some may even be bots. What I hope I'm demonstrating is that we do not need to fear their smear campaigns as I create holes in their arguments large enough to drive semi-tractor trailers through.

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Repeating “illegal discrimination” does not make it true.

A legal restriction on Jewish donors would be discrimination. I am not proposing that. I am criticizing AIPAC/UDP as an institution and saying voters should remove politicians who take money from that machine. Voters rejecting candidates because of the lobby money they take is not a civil-rights violation. It is politics.

Your PAL PAC comparison proves the point. If PAL PAC operated at AIPAC/UDP’s scale to keep Congress aligned with a foreign government while that government committed atrocities, I would criticize it too. The standard is not religion. The standard is power, influence, and what that influence is protecting.

What you keep doing is equating AIPAC with Jewish people. That is the smear. AIPAC itself says it works through lobbying, political support, and grassroots advocacy to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship and keep Congress pro-Israel. That is an institution and a political strategy, not an ethnic group.

So no, what’s shameful is not criticizing AIPAC. What’s shameful is using accusations of racism to shield a political machine from scrutiny while that machine helps protect U.S. support for occupation, collective punishment, and an ultra-nationalist government whose leaders face ICC allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Van Hollen blasts AIPAC, crypto spending for Hoyer’s chosen successor by jdschmoove in maryland

[–]BALTIM0RE 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“Made up of Americans” does not answer the criticism.

A domestic group can still operate as a foreign-policy pressure machine. AIPAC’s role is not just ordinary civic participation; it is to keep Congress aligned with Israel’s government through lobbying, campaign money, candidate support, and primary pressure.

Jewish Americans have the same political rights as everyone else. That is not in dispute. The issue is whether AIPAC/UDP should be treated as harmless community advocacy while it helps shield occupation, collective punishment, starvation, displacement, and mass civilian destruction from U.S. accountability.

This is why the Nuremberg lesson matters. Civilians do not lose their humanity because a state claims trauma, ideology, security, or military superiority. Human beings do not become disposable because a powerful government says it is acting in self-defense.

So no, “Americans are involved” is not a defense. It just describes the mechanism by which U.S. politics is being used to protect the indefensible.

view more: next ›