I thinking Bowman might have missed the Overton window in his district:
Bowman’s troubles started last fall, when he began speaking out in the days after Oct. 7 as one of Congress’s leading critics of Israel’s war with Hamas. His stand — for a cease-fire and against American military aid — galvanized younger Democrats and the party’s left flank.
But in a heavily Jewish district, it also helped foment a backlash that led Jewish leaders to recruit a formidable primary challenger, George Latimer; prompted a pro-Israel lobby to pump a record-shattering $15 million into the race; and eventually lit a match under old tensions over race, class and ideology.
Edit: After thinking about this some more I feel like this is a great example of what makes being a politician so hard and why sometimes taking the stand on right side of history can make things worse.
Bowman obviously wants to do the right thing and end the Gaza invasion, so he spoke out publicly against it. He doesn't seem to understand his constituency though, and as a result there's a good chance he's going to lose his seat at the table.
Unfortunately his speaking out publucly doesn't really seem to have moved the needle towards improving the situation in Gaza.
So by speaking out without understanding his constituents he might be losing his seat, we citizens of the United States are potentially losing one vote for progressive issues, we're potentially gaining a vote for aggressive pro-Isreali causes, and the invasion of Gaza rolls on without even noticing.
So was Bowman's sacrifice worth it? I guess we'll see in November.
How is this not foreign interference? It should be doubly so if money is free speech. They are directly influencing our lives, at all.90 winning, I’d even say those tinfoil hat jyoo conspiracy theorists have some credence, its just Israel not the Jewish people.
Oh, it absolutely is, but it’s ok because it was used against a progressive. Which party is gonna do something about it? The one that hates progressives, or the other one that really hates progressives?
Foreign funding and domestic funding with the express purpose of gaining advantage for a foreign nation is a distinction without any practical difference.
I remember when the party threw its weight behind Henry Cuellar because his opponent was a progressive, and claimed it was because he was an incumbent.
Eli5: How does record AIPAC spending prevent people from voting? It still comes down to people voting so isn’t it safe to say more people voted for the person who won than people who voted for the losing candidate?
Edit: come on this isn’t reddit. I’m not concerned with this question of who was running and what they are in favor of. As far as I have been attentive to politics there has always been campaign contributions from lobbyists with the intent to have their interests protected. I do not understand why or how that would affect the outcome of the election unless one candidates total campaign funds were a pot more than the others. I also don’t understand why is thes any new precedent? Hopefully with this added clarity the down votes won’t burry the comment and further discussion can be had.
But how does that keep people from voting? I’m not being a dick it’s a genuine question. Corporations dump trillions into advertising but that doesn’t prevent me from comparing products and choosing the product that best fits my needs. Matter of fact, there was a post today I saw that was about the futility of targeted ads having no better results than traditional marketing.
Sorry you’re getting downvoted to hell. You’re right. Sometimes people want everything to be a conspiracy or something aside from the simpler truth which is that voters just wanted somebody different.
It doesn’t. But it puts their agenda up front and center for those that can be manipulated by it a whole lot easier.
Sort of similar to how people here will urge you to not vote for Biden. Most people will see this as people essentially just shitting into a fan, but at its core, it’s really a way to circumvent having to directly show support for Trump on a left-leaning social media platform where they’d get banned.
So where did all the pro-Isreal propaganda get pushed to? The anti-Isreal propaganda is everywhere. (I don’t know a better word than propaganda to use here but I don’t mean it as any sense of invalidating or dismissing eirher the anti-Isreal/pro-Isreal sentiment)
Personally, I think there’s a fuck-ton of nuance to the issue and I find that it’s best not to listen to a bunch of high-school kids lecturing everyone on who to vote for based on foreign affairs that they weren’t even aware were happening less than a year ago.
Where the others went?
This is lemmy. You’re not allowed to accept that the situation is nuance led as fuck. Even if you mostly agree with the hive.
I said I was ignoring you then. And I did. And now I’m ignoring your current nonsense now. You see, it’s a thing that can be activated at will. And don’t mistake my responding to you as some form of hypocrisy. Or that your little trolling attempt was successful. I’m fully allowed to respond to whatever bullshit you bring me. That is my right. I will however choose when I wish- to ignore discussing whatever dumb shit you try and bring up as a means to distract from the point to create a straw man as is pretty much ALL you do.
And considering that you’re incapable of stopping yourself from mouthing off at anyone who dares to disagree with your little agenda, it’s pretty easy to do.
You should probably get used to it. I have seen that I’m not the only one that does it.
Oh, and for the record- and on the topic of ignoring things… As I’ve said and you’ve ignored before- I don’t have a problem with the far left.
I have a huge problem with the “far left.” And you should too.
Two things. Opposition to genocide is not a “little agenda” just because it pisses you off to see people who don’t unconditionally support everything centrist Democrats do.
And your distinction about the far left versus the “far left”? Bullshit. You hate everyone to your left and tell yourself that they’re to your right to justify it.
One- You seem to take GREAT offense to my accusing some people of being fake far lefters. So much so that you can’t help yourself and seem compelled to respond to my every comment about it. It’s almost like… you’re incapable of not responding to my every comment on the topic. It’s like… yOu jUsT cAn’T iGnOre mE! (Waaah!)
Two- gEnOciDe is absolutely a “little agenda.” When positioned from the perspective of the far right trolls that pretend to support it. The same people you get incredibly upset about when people accuse you of being- but adamantly defend them when people go on the offensive on them.
You really need to choose a lane buddy.
And three- you claim time-and-again that you’re going to vote for Biden. At this point: I’m calling bullshit. And I’m pretty sure we both know it’s bullshit. And my evidence is One and Two from just above this paragraph if you need a reference.
This is not what ignoring me looks like. This is utterly indistinguishable from previous conversations we’ve had, except you’ve made your genocide support much clearer.
Everything to your left must be all the way to your right. You’ve never considered once that genocide is wrong and that you’re wrong for supporting it.
And I don’t support genocide no matter how much you interpret my opposition to MAGA bots parading themselves around as far lefters.
Dude… you’re not getting the point I’ve tried to fucking tell you- over and over again!
I’m not accusing you of shit. If you’re legit- you’re fine. But you HAVE to know here are bad actors among you. And the fact that you STILL constantly come at me when I’m only trying to pull weeds from YOUR garden, makes me think you want them there.
If you’re not in favor of a Trump win and genuinely don’t support him in any way, then why not join me and the others in weeding out those among you that are there in bad faith?
And I don’t support genocide no matter how much you interpret my opposition to MAGA bots parading themselves around as far lefters.
You have no evidence whatsoever of these “maga bots” except that they oppose Netanyahu’s genocide. That’s not evidence. That’s you making shit up about people you disagree with.
I’m not accusing you of shit.
You keep calling me a trumpist.
But you HAVE to know here are bad actors among you
Yeah, I’m talking to one. You constantly lie about the anti-genocide left because you want to discredit the left, opposition to genocide, or both.
If you’re not in favor of a Trump win and genuinely don’t support him in any way, then why not join me and the others in weeding out those among you that are there in bad faith
I’m not going to join your personal mccarthyist inquisition against everyone to your left just because you’ve imagined that there’s Russian psyops behind every rock.
I honestly don’t get your angle here.
Like I said last time you said this: I criticize those to my right. You should try it sometime.
Holy shit! I don’t think I have ever in my life seen someone choose what they want someone else to say more than you do. And the amount of people you do this to is…. Well. Everyone you disagree with. Your modlog show that.
So it seems you either have a VERY serious reading comprehension problem, or you’re willfully trolling.
My guess is it’s both.
I’m done wasting time with you on this, so go ahead and have the all important last word you always seem to so badly crave. I’m going to go ahead and take the high road out of this embarrassment of a discussion. I’ll be temporarily blocking you so I don’t even get notified that you responded. That’s how little I am interested in hearing what you have to say.
But don’t think to bring this up as some antagonistic bullshit excuse to accuse me of paying attention to your nonsense after I said I wouldn’t. You’re not that good of a troll. I’m just simply done with THIS discussion. As I was done with the other individual discussions.
I’ll be temporarily blocking you so I don’t even get notified that you responded.
Next time you badmouth the anti-genocide left for being both anti-genocide and to your left, I’ll be there. And you will have conveniently unblocked me, just like you totally ignored me.
Decided to check in on you after Biden’s performance at the debate, and I find you getting utterly trounced by someone who seems to be fully on the level. If you can’t understand why someone would be at least hesitant to support Genocide Joe (while fully acknowledging that Genocide Donald is our only other option), I just can’t take you seriously.
Are you implying that by spending more money they are blocking you from seeing the opposition? That’s absolutely not the case.
It would be more like people raising hands around you and you see mostly green hands and only a few blue hands and thus less-informed people will be more likely to lean towards the majority.
That’s an awfully… interesting way of saying he lost his primary, which as an incumbent is not a particularly easy to do. Blame foreign money all you want, your voters voted for who they wanted. Primary voters are the most politically aware kind of voters, most people don’t vote, even fewer take the time to vote in primaries. Apparently those voters wanted somebody new.
Then why did they spend $15 million on a primary campaign? Why does a campaign for President costs $1 billion now? Maybe 🤔 they just like spending money.
I have no faith in them be able to pass something like this. Not when this is what the Republicans have been dreaming of for the last 50 years. But I hope they keep trying.
I have no faith in them be able to pass something like this. Not when this is what the Republicans have been dreaming of for the last 50 years. But I hope they keep trying.
They haven’t. The ruling is only 40 years old from 1984. And it was actually a Reagan era interpretation based on Reagan EPA era. Not sure when the Republicans changed their mind on this though.
Edit: this probably is a trump era, fauci backlash, change. Maybe tea party roots. But this level of anti intellectualism and Republicans getting nominated to dismantle and not govern didn’t exist until probably 2010. Mitt Romney, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield probably all wanted and supported agencies to do their bidding. Mitch used his power to guy like Anit Pai in the FCC which Obama approved…
Definitely tea party roots, libertarians have been against it for ages.
Reagan really kicked is off on the trajectory of privatization, trusting corporations to bed good stewards of the people. It was a steady trajectory really kicked in to high gear with the recession since blood was on the water
Now the right hates any part of the government that doesn't hold a gun, and would rather drink poison than impede corporate profits.
Interesting, I was going off the NYT summary when the news broke:
Forty years ago, when Chevron was decided by a unanimous but short-handed six-member Supreme Court, with three justices recused, it was generally viewed as a victory for conservatives. In response to a challenge from environmental groups, the justices sustained a Reagan-era interpretation of the Clean Air Act that loosened regulation of emissions, saying the Environmental Protection Agency’s reading of the statute was “a reasonable construction” that was “entitled to deference.”
It’s a compromise position. Under Chevron, Conservative justices couldn’t strike down regulations that put limits on corporations. At the same time, more liberal justices (leftist justices don’t really exist) couldn’t reverse agencies that had been captured and start ending regulations.
This ruling only makes sense for their position if they think they can hold onto the judiciary indefinitely.
Completely disagree. First of all there’s a difference in Reagan Era and Reagan endorsed. However it’s not just Chevron we’re talking about here. It’s the idea of dismantling the regulatory state in general. That’s much older than Chevron. That sentiment can be traced back to Phyllis Schlafly. That sentiment can be traced back to the John Birch Society. That sentiment can be traced back to the business plot.
They saw chevron as useful when Republicans had control over all the major agencies, but with gov agencies driven by experts and scientists who can ignore the Republicans screaming then chevron isn’t helping them anymore. And that’s part of why they try to get as many partisan judges into the system as possible, to get their way through corrupt courts instead.
I am hopeful this could pass. Congress knows they are not technical subject matter experts. They don’t like looking like fools when they talk about the Internet being a bunch of tubes. They want to be able to pass legislation and delegate the details to experts, at least to some degree. They don’t want the overhead of that nuance and detail it takes agencies to define. I am surprised the judiciary wants that responsibility…
With agencies Congress has a scapegoat to drag in the muck and make them look good on TV. Without agencies, Congress is responsible for their own laws and being very explicit about some technical details. They look bad if shit breaks now.
This ruling doesn’t stop the ability to delegate. It stops the deference to the executive branch to interpret however they feel. If their interpretation is good, it can stand. Congress doesn’t have to say how much heavy metal is acceptable in drinking water, it just has to explicitly say setting a limit is the responsibility of the agency.
But doesn’t a lot of this come down to “ambiguity” in statutes which can be attributed to lack of technical expertise. In the example of you make is there a difference between:
Congress saying the agency is responsible for ensuring drinking water is safe vs the agency is limiting heavy metals in drinking water? If a statute says the agency is responsible for regulating drinking water safety including, but not limited to, heavy metal levels can they also regulate microplastics?
If ambiguity is at play doesn’t that require congress to provide more technical definition to some degree?
It’s crazy it goes to the courts. In an early published ruling Gorush’s ruling was talking about the compound of laughing gas because he confuse it for an air pollutant…
It depends on how they wrote the law, the destructive device rule is fairly good imo as it both covers the things congress wants and anything that is using a different name for the same result and gives the attorney general the ability to exclude things for sporting only.
With Chevron, it would stand, without it the court gets to ignore all reason and reject an agency’s interpretation even if it’s sane and carefully constructed by experts. The court gets to challenge every individual decision and reason made by the agency which the law doesn’t make explicit
As the ruling said. The chevron defense hadn’t been used since 2016, agencies have their opinions overturned or narrowed more recently. Courts were already disagreeing with agencies, and the standard to take their interpretation was just wasting time.
As stated in the dissent, ignoring your own precedence for years to create an impression that a useful legal principle isn’t useful and to create an excuse to overturn it doesn’t make for an actual reasonable argument to overturn it.
On the flip side, if the agencies’ interpretation is pants-on-head crazy it also stands under Chevron but shouldn’t under a fair examination by a court.
It probably won’t work. SCOTUS will just declare the new legislation unconstitutional and then go lounge on their billionaire provided yachts while the rest of us drown in sewage.
If it actually gets passed, I think it has a good chance of holding up. The big problem with Chevron deference, despite its convenience, is that the Administrative Procedures Act says that courts are supposed to do the exact opposite.
commondreams.org
Oldest