4 ms·

US sure likes israel... https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/saar-urges-250-visiting-us-state-legislators-to-pass-anti-bds-laws-in-their-states/ https:

US sure likes israel... https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/saar-urges-250-visiting-us-state-legislators-to-pass-anti-bds-laws-in-their-states/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/saar-urges-250-... 250 us legislators had to fly there (probably paid by the taxpayers) a few days ago. Sadly, looking at the US politics, whichever side you vote, israel wins.

therobots927 1y ago
I agree. That’s why I won’t vote unless someone NOT funded by AIPAC is on the ballot.
- lazyasciiart 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - hedora 1y ago
    They’ve had lots of impact on Gaza though.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > I won’t vote unless someone NOT funded by AIPAC is on the ballot Then you're electorally irrelevant. Particularly if your only civic (in)action is not voting.
  - sporkxrocket 1y ago
    No, they're a vote that can be won by someone willing to stand up to AIPAC. I also will not vote for a Zionist. At some point, if we live in a real democracy, someone will put winning an election over being controlled by Israel.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > they're a vote that can be won by someone willing to stand up to AIPAC If they cast a blank ballot, sure. Otherwise, betting on new turnout is a losing strategy. Particularly if you’re counting on that off cycle or in a primary.
      - sporkxrocket 1y ago
        There’s enough rage built up against Israel that it will tip the scale. For instance, how many elections do you think the Democrats need to lose before they address the desires of their only potential voters?
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > enough rage built up against Israel that it will tip the scale There isn’t. Not across partisan lines. There is to flip primaries. But those too lazy or stupid to vote don’t affect those.
        sporkxrocket 1y ago
        There really is and every poll will demonstrate that.
    - hedora 1y ago
      That’s not how US elections work. Fun fact: If people like you would get off their asses on Election Day, Texas would have been a blue state for the last 15 years. The GOP would be done, and we could meaningfully decide between the Bidens and Bernies of this world.
      - sporkxrocket 1y ago
        The US was “blue” when we helped Israel start the genocide. Too many democrats are far too lost in cable tv style politics and absolutely refuse to address how far over the red line they’ve stepped with their support for Israel. They will continue to lose elections until this is addressed.
        hedora 1y ago
        The only way it will be addressed is if people like you hold your nose and vote reliably for the least bad choice. At that point, the GOP splinters or moves to center (they’re currently pandering to the rightmost 1/3 of the country, and would have to pander to the right 1/2 if you voted), and the “blue” people you dislike become the new “red”. Then, the candidates that are against things like genocide will have some sort of chance in hell of winning. Of course, it’s a moot point for this genocide, since the above will take a decade. Continue to protest by not voting, and you’ll be wishing for the days when Trump was in office.
      - mensetmanusman 1y ago
        People that don’t vote are just voting to let someone else decide.
aegypti 1y ago
Those are US state legislators. We have 7,386 of them. Sometimes a few wander outside during their election races. You could easily fit that delegation into New Hampshire’s House of Representatives of 400 seats. Meanwhile it’s more than double California’s total state legislature size of 120 seats. It’s fun!
- forgotoldacc 1y ago
  Still a strangely high number. Imagine 250 representatives all going to a country with a similar population. It'd be mighty strange if 250 representatives from across the US went to Kyrgyzstan. Frankly, I'd find it strange if 250 went next door to Mexico all in the same year and that's a directly neighboring country that's actually relevant to US interests and the US's single biggest trade partner. Israel gets some sort of special treatment and it's really, really weird. It's treated with higher reverence than any state within US borders is.
  - throwaway3060 1y ago
    It would be more accurate to compare to England, France, or Canada. The US relationship with Mexico is complicated.
    - forgotoldacc 1y ago
      Sure. Let's ignore the country with the biggest source of immigrants to the US and largest modern cultural and demographic influence. We can move the goalpost and go with those examples. When was the last time 250 representatives visited any of those countries? (This is also an account that exclusively posts defending Israel)
      - throwaway3060 1y ago
        None of which has anything to do with which countries politicians feel most comfortable visiting. If the political class felt much affinity with Mexico (rightly or wrongly), I imagine that there would be much less talk of a border wall. Clearly they do not feel the same way about Canada. I doubt that there are recorded numbers just for politicians, but these are all popular destinations for Americans in general. Now, if there's something else odd about this statistic other than just the number you want to point out, that's a different story.

therobots927 1y ago

I agree. That’s why I won’t vote unless someone NOT funded by AIPAC is on the ballot.

lazyasciiart 1y ago
[flagged]
- hedora 1y ago
  They’ve had lots of impact on Gaza though.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> I won’t vote unless someone NOT funded by AIPAC is on the ballot Then you're electorally irrelevant. Particularly if your only civic (in)action is not voting.
- sporkxrocket 1y ago
  No, they're a vote that can be won by someone willing to stand up to AIPAC. I also will not vote for a Zionist. At some point, if we live in a real democracy, someone will put winning an election over being controlled by Israel.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > they're a vote that can be won by someone willing to stand up to AIPAC If they cast a blank ballot, sure. Otherwise, betting on new turnout is a losing strategy. Particularly if you’re counting on that off cycle or in a primary.
    - sporkxrocket 1y ago
      There’s enough rage built up against Israel that it will tip the scale. For instance, how many elections do you think the Democrats need to lose before they address the desires of their only potential voters?
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > enough rage built up against Israel that it will tip the scale There isn’t. Not across partisan lines. There is to flip primaries. But those too lazy or stupid to vote don’t affect those.
        sporkxrocket 1y ago
        There really is and every poll will demonstrate that.
  - hedora 1y ago
    That’s not how US elections work. Fun fact: If people like you would get off their asses on Election Day, Texas would have been a blue state for the last 15 years. The GOP would be done, and we could meaningfully decide between the Bidens and Bernies of this world.
    - sporkxrocket 1y ago
      The US was “blue” when we helped Israel start the genocide. Too many democrats are far too lost in cable tv style politics and absolutely refuse to address how far over the red line they’ve stepped with their support for Israel. They will continue to lose elections until this is addressed.
      - hedora 1y ago
        The only way it will be addressed is if people like you hold your nose and vote reliably for the least bad choice. At that point, the GOP splinters or moves to center (they’re currently pandering to the rightmost 1/3 of the country, and would have to pander to the right 1/2 if you voted), and the “blue” people you dislike become the new “red”. Then, the candidates that are against things like genocide will have some sort of chance in hell of winning. Of course, it’s a moot point for this genocide, since the above will take a decade. Continue to protest by not voting, and you’ll be wishing for the days when Trump was in office.
    - mensetmanusman 1y ago
      People that don’t vote are just voting to let someone else decide.

aegypti 1y ago

Those are US state legislators. We have 7,386 of them. Sometimes a few wander outside during their election races. You could easily fit that delegation into New Hampshire’s House of Representatives of 400 seats. Meanwhile it’s more than double California’s total state legislature size of 120 seats. It’s fun!

forgotoldacc 1y ago
Still a strangely high number. Imagine 250 representatives all going to a country with a similar population. It'd be mighty strange if 250 representatives from across the US went to Kyrgyzstan. Frankly, I'd find it strange if 250 went next door to Mexico all in the same year and that's a directly neighboring country that's actually relevant to US interests and the US's single biggest trade partner. Israel gets some sort of special treatment and it's really, really weird. It's treated with higher reverence than any state within US borders is.
- throwaway3060 1y ago
  It would be more accurate to compare to England, France, or Canada. The US relationship with Mexico is complicated.
  - forgotoldacc 1y ago
    Sure. Let's ignore the country with the biggest source of immigrants to the US and largest modern cultural and demographic influence. We can move the goalpost and go with those examples. When was the last time 250 representatives visited any of those countries? (This is also an account that exclusively posts defending Israel)
    - throwaway3060 1y ago
      None of which has anything to do with which countries politicians feel most comfortable visiting. If the political class felt much affinity with Mexico (rightly or wrongly), I imagine that there would be much less talk of a border wall. Clearly they do not feel the same way about Canada. I doubt that there are recorded numbers just for politicians, but these are all popular destinations for Americans in general. Now, if there's something else odd about this statistic other than just the number you want to point out, that's a different story.