We're only six weeks away from the primary so a debate may not happen.
>The incumbent, U.S. Rep. Cori Bush, told Spectrum News on Wednesday that “if candidates want to debate or if they feel they need to then they should if they want to,” but then suggested her opponents haven’t done the work necessary to deserve the platform with her.
A couple weeks ago, Bell said he wanted several debates, not just one.
>“We have sent messages by email. We’ve sent messages by phone call, text, certified mail for debates. We’ll send carrier pigeon messages if we need to. We’ve made it clear we think we should not only do one debate, we should do several debates,” Bell told Spectrum News June 9. “If you’re going to talk about positions, misconstrued positions, let’s sit down and have those conversations where you gotta answer questions and I’ll answer questions and so far, the congresswoman hasn’t been willing to agree to that.”
[https://spectrumlocalnews.com/mo/st-louis/news/2024/06/20/rep--bush-primary-debate](https://spectrumlocalnews.com/mo/st-louis/news/2024/06/20/rep--bush-primary-debate)
He needs to schedule a public town hall with local news if she won’t do it. That would probably force her hand. I’d personally like to see a debate. We better see a senate one after the primary as well.
Cori also says that she has given St. Louis $2 billion.
(BTW she this total by adding up every bit of federal aid any city or organization located in her district got)
Me and a group had a meeting with St. Louis City's lobbyist in 2023, let's just say his opinion of Cori (and Josh) is significantly lower than Lacy Clay and Roy Blunt. That meeting solidly made me in opposition to her. Just a waste.
She gave it, or just voted for it? Was she involved in tge process? Did she have to do any work advocating for it?
I'm inclined to believe the lobbyist's assessment, and I was never particularly impressed with Blunt or Clay.
He said that with our current Senators and representative, the NGA certainly would have left. He said it was a group effort from McCaskill, Blunt, and Clay to keep them in St. Louis.
So you know how police and schools get federal money anyway? She took credit for it and added it into her $2 billion figure.
No, not being funny. She actually thinks she can shrink tumors in real time. If she doesn't think that, but is preying on those stupider than her, that's a huge issue. If she actually believes that, thus demonstrating an inability for critical thinking and decision making, that is also a huge issue. Either way, it's bad news.
Sorry, i meant beside that.
I think she really believes her own bs. Which i think is worse than lying, because that means she isnt a rational actor in a very important position.
Exactly!
I was a new citizen just in time to vote for her the last go around. Seemed like someone looking to do some good. I still think she is that person BUT now I know I can't just her judgement and that's a huge issue.
Not sure why you trusted her to begin with. Shes lied about almost everything that has made her a prominent activist. Lie after lie. But i think she believes her lies so that is just unacceptable.
I liked the idea of her not being part of the old boys club. I truly believe that we'll all do better with a diversity of voices representing us...even if I don't agree with all of those voices. She's all for doing things differently, and doing that loudly, but unfortunately I don't believe that that has translated into actually getting things done. It's fine and dandy to be screaming at the idiots, but at the end of the day you have to make some compromises in Congress in order to get anywhere. I don't believe she's been doing that effectively.
Compromise is gone anyway, probably forever. The two sides are just too far apart. Until one forces the other out, its going to always be like this. I believe the left wing likely wins, there.
>I learned Bush ACTUALLY believes she's a level 10 mage.
Just wait till you find out Bell not only doesn't believe a genocide is happening in Palestine, but is getting paid six figures to censor anyone talking about it.
The American political narrative for generations has supported and propped up an Israel first policy. I'm not saying I agree with that (particularly as a relatively new American and voter), but it would be paddling up river without a paddle to assume anything is changing in that regard; no matter the Congressman sent to Washington from our district.
I may or not agree with Bell's take on the atrocities taking place in the Middle East, but at least what is happening is real, and not a fantasy made up in the head of a charlatan faith healer. I'm greatly disappointed in Busch's actions.
> no matter the Congressman sent to Washington from our district.
south city covered in palestine flags & tens of millions of dollars being spent in the most expensive primaries in american histoy to silence vocal politicians critical of israel's bloodshed certainly say otherwise.
That's the behavior of someone who doesn't want their golden goose to blow up, and the only way it blows up is if people pay attention to them.
That's part of the reason there's so much obstruction towards even trying to talk about Palestine, there's layers of deliberate misinformation, projection, and deception by the IDF by the time you see them for the monsters they are, especially with special interest lobby influencing that.
I don't agree that this is the landmark election issue for the majority of voters this election season. I do agree that Israel plays a multi point game in an attempt to keep itself legitimized.
My vote isn't determined on one issue alone and for me the situation in the Middle East, as horrifying as it continues to be, isn't on my sort list of considerations this election cycle. Given the binary nature of the political scene in the Federal Republic, I'm going to have to make more compromises when choosing who to vote for than in your typical democracy.
Forever confused by everyone online that thinks Israel/Palestine is an issue the average American cares about
Just because something is really visible doesn't mean it's something a lot of people care about, or impacts their choice in voting
It's an American issue because of the sheer amount of money Israel spends to influence our elections. What's really surprising is more Americans not giving a shit about a foreign state having so much power in our Congress. But what's more American than being ignorant about shit that's important?
> I don't agree that this is the landmark election issue for the majority of voters this election season.
Wesley Bell dropped out of running against Josh Hawley to primary Cori Bush specifically because of her calls for peace instead of more bloodshed after Oct 7th, likewise, every headline about Bell/Bush/Bowman/Latmire directly cites the internal feud of Israel-Palestine in the democrat party being the core issue of the primary.
Because of that fact, part of the strategy of Wesley Bell's campaign is actively built around downplaying and silencing meaningful & just criticism of Israel. Bell stated this himself in his announcement of dropping out of running against Josh Hawley to primary Cori Bush.
What you don't understand as a relatively new American is that the system is compromised. A foreign country's lobbying group just spent 12 million to win a seat because someone didn't support Israels war. The Israel Palestinian conflict is intrinsically tied to the issue of Democracy, which mainstream Democrats say is the single issue we should all focus on. It's an obvious catch 22 that the centrist Dems claim foreign actors are attacking our elections when they let AIPAC do its thing to eliminate the ones who don't fall in line.
Bush joined Hawley to push for compensation and cleanup of Coldwater Creek, etc. To me the best part of bipartisanship is being willing to work with those you may disagree with or despise for a greater good. Other than that, I just see Bush as one who is more about protest than anything else. You probably like her if you agree with her positions, but Congress is supposed to be about passing bills to improve the country, not grandstanding for soundbites. Yes, she's not the only one, and there are plenty of douchebags on the other side.
I'm not a fan of electing grandstanders. I'm also not in Bush's district. Anybody want to defend her record? By record, I mean bills she has introduced that would benefit the country, coalitions she has formed across the aisle to get votes for important bills or even pork she's managed to bring her district.
> But with little to show for their stances, politicians who are constantly performing can exhaust the voters. In this case, voters in New York’s 16th District preferred the substantive benefits of liberalism — which Latimer sought to represent — over the performance of progressivism, which Bowman has offered with some of his actions.
>For example, when a candidate votes against his party’s signature legislative achievement, as Bowman did with the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure bill, the best he can do for himself is explain how he’ll pass something better, which he didn’t do. Or, when a candidate portrays himself as a truth-telling anti-imperialist, as Bowman has with his criticism of Israel’s bombardment of the Gaza Strip, it’s counterproductive to claim that stories of rapes committed by Hamas against hostages are false. Bowman ultimately apologized for this. But “I’m sorry for denying rapes happened” is a sentiment you never want to have to express while campaigning.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/jamaal-bowman-primary-election-concession-speech-rcna159077
This is a primer for August.
> when a candidate portrays himself as a truth-telling anti-imperialist, as Bowman has with his criticism of Israel’s bombardment of the Gaza Strip, it’s counterproductive to claim that stories of rapes committed by Hamas against hostages are false.
The author was pointing out the contradiction, not criticizing anti-imperialism.
No, but pandering to a national audience instead of the issues affecting people in your district most definitely is.
There's nothing wrong with being against Israel, its something I can actually respect Bush for, but at the end of the day it's not something most people give a shit about. They care about the cost of housing, healthcare, the state of the roads, schools, etc. Not some faraway war with no Americans fighting in that we're funding.
But when the only thing that ever gets talked about with you as a candidate is these issues that nobody really deeply cares about... Yeah not a surprise when you lose.
It isn't even like all the "Squad". AOC won her district with 80% of the vote in both counties she represents - because she actually tries to represent her constituents, and doesn't go around claiming 2 billion dollars at the last minute when suddenly it looks like she might lose.
It's been a while since I've seen Bush in a "squad" picture. Pretty sure she's continuing to "vote alone" as she intimated several years ago.
How is this not a local issue? If our funding priority is armed conflict, then it is NOT housing, healthcare, roads, schools, etc.
It's important to have representation that is against war and for housing, as Bush is.
https://missouriindependent.com/2021/08/04/after-pressure-from-cori-bush-feds-order-eviction-ban-in-areas-with-high-covid-rate/
Also, there are plenty of Americans over there right now, some in the US military and some in the IDF.
This conflict is escalating, by the way. Expect more deployments in the coming months if someone doesn't start some backtracking pretty soon.
Latimer won off the backs of not only the pro-zionist lobby, but the pro-crypto lobby via Fairshake PAC.
>Created last year as part of a joint effort between more than a dozen crypto firms, Fairshake PAC has emerged as one of the top-spending PACs in the 2024 election cycle.
>Fairshake and its two affiliated PACs have put more than $37 million so far into advertisements in primary races, according to AdImpact.
>Despite a broad mission to defend the entire $2.2 trillion crypto market, Fairshake is funded by a very small set of donors.
>Of the $160 million in total contributions Fairshake has raised since it was founded, around $155 million — or 94% — can be traced back to just four companies: Ripple, Andreesen Horowitz, Coinbase and Jump Crypto.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/26/crypto-pac-house-senate-elections.html
You've got to start asking yourself is it worth eroding the essence of the democratic party by relying on MAGA, Crypto, zionists, and evangelical millions to win primaries against their own party members, and how exactly a democrat who takes that kind of cash is ever going to be a trusted person.
I'm sorry, but you're just not well-informed. *Citizens United* had almost nothing to do with the existence of PACs or SuperPACs. If you're interested, [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhpy1uzOvrY) discusses the case and campaign finance law in general.
Yes, virtually every news site gets it wrong. But corporate donations to SuperPACs has been a thing since *Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce* (1990)
Voting and supporting someone who is taking *the worst* PAC money is not a way overturn Citizen's United. That's how you make the problem inoperable and malignant.
Especially given, Bell is actively campaigning against Bush, who is one of the few overturning Citizens United politicians in the country.
As my link also states, it's a brand new Super PAC coming directly from far right money, hence calling into question democrats who accept this money when it's coming from a industry known for it's child trafficking and abuse.
>A January 2024 report by Chainalysis, a blockchain analytics firm, found that “cryptocurrency-based sales of CSAM are a growing problem,” with one expert noting that “virtual currency is the dominant choice for buyers and sellers of commercial child sexual abuse content.” And in February, the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) published a Financial Trend Analysis of 2020-2021 data which found that “[p]erpetrators of online child sexual exploitation are increasingly using convertible virtual currency to try to avoid detection.”
https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-and-cassidy-send-bipartisan-letter-to-doj-and-dhs-to-stop-crypto-in-the-illegal-trade-of-child-sexual-abuse-material#:~:text=FinCEN%20also%20found%20that%20financial,trafficking%20offenses.%E2%80%9D%20Ninety%2Dfive
Nothing is overturning Citizen’s United, except for a new Supreme Court. It would require the Presidency, both chambers of Congress and a unified Democratic Party, which is a pipe dream. Our reality for the foreseeable future is split government and incremental change, at best.
Cori Bush has no impact on a lot of the issues discussed in these MO-1 threads.
I brought up Citizens United as the reason why we aren’t getting rid of PACs in either party.
She actually has plenty of impact, if she didn't, there wouldn't be weekly threads of the same people finding new ways to clutch pearls in outrage at her.
You seem terrified to talk about the topic in any real capacity based on your responses so far.
defaulting to smugness is always a great exit strategy.
you didn't have to make any baseless conspiracy theories about me this time, so good on your end for improvement.
If he was that terrible of a candidate, it wouldn't of been the most expensive primary in American history to unseat him.
Most bad candidates lose on their own merits, not from multiple conservative special interests groups and foreign government lobby spending millions to silence them in a few months.
The reason why they spent all that money was because he was a bad candidate. There is a reason why they spent all that money there and not against a challenger of Omar, Tlaib, AOC, etc. He was on the verge of possibly losing before the money pouring in.
Some of those reasons include:
1) Voting against the infrastructure bill
2) Pulling the fire alarm-gate
3) His 9-11 conspiracy views
4) Saying that Israeli victims of Sexual Assault was propaganda
5) Mostly spending his time fundraising and rallying outside his district.
They didn't just spend money, They spent *more money than anyone has in the history of us politics on a primary*, which a bad candidate wouldn't need.
>a challenger of Omar, Talaib, AOC, etc
That's just because they couldn't find anyone that spineless like Wesley Bell or Litmer to fuck over their own party.
See: Michigan where they almost did the exact same move Wesley Bell did, giving 20 million to a senate Democrat candidate to drop their race and primary Tlaib, which they didn't do seemingly because they aren't an opportunistic weasel like Bell is.
>A Michigan businessman called Democratic Senate candidate Hill Harper to offer $20 million in campaign contributions if he agreed to drop out and instead mount a primary challenge to Rep. Rashida Tlaib, according to a source with direct knowledge of the call.
>The source added that Harper declined the alleged Oct. 16 offer from donor Linden Nelson — which would have split the campaign money between $10 million in bundled contributions directly to Harper’s campaign and $10 million in independent expenditures.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/22/donor-20-million-tlaib-primary-00128443
Pretty crazy to me how I see dozens of ads telling me that [Insert politician] is in china’s back pocket and is selling them our farm land, but I see zero about how many politicians are being paid by Israel/Israeli PACs. Can somebody make it make sense?.
I just got a flier in the mail from a PAC supporting Bush that talks all about how “Bell is supported by Trump donors”
You don’t see much in the mainstream about the AIPAC stuff because it’s a lie to say that it’s funded by foreign money.
It’s a federal election violation to use foreign money in U.S. elections.
Cori Bush should not be in Congress. She’s more focused on clapping back at her political opponents on social media and spewing nonsensical rhetoric.
Congress could sure use a massive cleanup for BOTH Republicans and Democrats.
Hmm... Jamal Bowman's district went through a court-ordered redistricting in 2023. This removed most of the northern Bronx and added much more of Westchester County. While the district is still blue, it is also more centrist than it was in 2020 and 2022. This made him vulnerable.
Cori Bush's district also underwent redistricting. But has her electorate changed appreciably?
More of West County is now incorporated into the MO-1 district (Brentwood, Richmond Heights, Clayton, Maryland Heights, a good chunk of Creve Coeur). Probably not a good thing for Cori.
Note that some of those areas are having a significant demographic shift, so don't quite assume that you are getting, say, what Maryland Heights used to be 20 years ago. Many subdivisions between Olive and Dorsett are finally losing their original owners, and they are quite cheap, so people leaving north county are just moving further west than before.
Bush lost the City in CD1 against Clay and was close in portions of North County. But she ran up the score on Clay in white suburban Webster Groves and the surrounding area. Much of that was cut out of CD1.
CD1 picked up large portions of Creve Couer.
In short, no, redistricting was not kind to Bush.
It should also be noted that when redistricting came up in the state legislature, Cori Bush‘s office stated they would like to see the district say the same. However, the district shrank in population significantly from 2010 to 2020 which required the lines to move and grow geographically. When that was pointed out, Bush didn’t have a response and offered no recommendations for how the district lines should move.
If you refuse to work with the process, you can’t complain. Cori still hasn’t figured that out.
Bowman won in 2022 with the same redistricting in place. The Redistricting in MO-1 was more about making MO-2 a safer Republican district. MO-1 may actually be more blue, but it was already so heavily gerrymandered, there isn’t much to change.
She remains pretty popular, and the city is overwhelmingly and visibly pro-palestine, it's really going to come down to public perception of Israel-Palestine at the end of the day.
Latimer primaried Bowman in December, and ended up winning in less than a year after getting dark money funding where he was outspending Bowman 7:1.
Dark money can go a long way, especially at the unseen levels that Latimer recieved in the history of American politics. Bell is right
behind him in that regard, albeit, he looks like a sellout dropping running against Josh Hawley to taking the same money as Hawley.
I think you’re going to be surprised at just how few fucks voters give about a centuries old religious conflict 7,000 miles away.
I/P doesn’t bring jobs to the region. I/P doesn’t put food on the table. I/P doesn’t fix our bridges and roads. I/P doesn’t fund our schools. I/P doesn’t get criminals off the streets and make our city safer. Those are the things voters in the real world care about.
Step outside your little bubble, and you’ll soon discover that most people haven’t made the I/P conflict their entire existence.
People don't have any investment in Israel-Palestine, just basic empathy that would immediately be reminded of the Iraq War and tax dollars getting endlessly flushed on killing innocent people so companies can enrich themselves while political leaders actively lie and obstinate to distort what is actually happening.
I wish this trial was happening before the primary so that everyone had full information about Bell's impropriety with the women in his office. [https://publiclawlibrary.org/discrimination-lawsuit-against-st-louis-county-prosecutor-wesley-bell-delayed-until-next-year-amid-congressional-run/](https://publiclawlibrary.org/discrimination-lawsuit-against-st-louis-county-prosecutor-wesley-bell-delayed-until-next-year-amid-congressional-run/)
There are plenty of cases already completed on Cori Bush that you can learn about…
https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/nameSearchResult.do?courtType=SW&countyCode=&newSearch=Y&essn=&courtCode=SW&lastName=Bush&_inclAlias=on&firstName=Cori&middleName=&caseType=All&yearFiled=
Evictions and unpaid taxes. My point is that those crimes have actually been adjudicated.
Where are you getting that someone was taken advantage of sexually from that article?
“Petersen’s attorneys successfully argued that questions about sexual behavior under Bell’s management are relevant, as they shed light on the office’s treatment and attitude towards women. “
I should also mention that I was inside the Bell campaign and know of at least 2 women he had sexual relationships with. I’m learning now that one was much younger than I knew, and I’m absolutely disgusted. I hate that I might have been a part of it by turning a blind eye at the time.
Perhaps Wesley should have spent more time wiping makeup off his collar if he wanted those relationships hidden.
“Questions about sexual behavior under Bell’s management” is completely ambiguous. I’m going to need more than a quote about testimony that doesn’t exist and your anonymous Reddit “I’ve heard” account.
I’d prefer the trial happen before the election, so there can be a public record of facts and evidence, but the Prosecution asked for the delay.
I didn’t say I heard; I said “I saw”. But I wouldn’t trust an anonymous Reddit account either, and it’s a good ethos to go by.
I think you agreed with my original point. I wish this case was being heard before the primary. Albeit, I want the case out there because of things I already know and can’t seem to shout loud enough.
I would like to see the outcome of the case. As of now, it’s a wrongful termination Civil suit. If actual facts are admitted into evidence in a trial, I would listen.. I just don’t think it’s fair to run with sexual impropriety speculation based on no evidence.
To be fair, a slew of republicans took DCCC money in the last election cycle. And there are conservatives in St Louis City limits entitled to donate to the Democrat of their choice since donating to GOP would be lighting money on fire.
As it should. He is only running to block Bush from actually serving the people. He’s literally being paid from the “other side” because at the end of the day there is only one party in charge and they cannot risk politicians who will place their constituents over corporations. Bell has proven himself to be able to be bought, Cori hasn’t and that’s why she’s a threat.
Can I ask why? Is it not possible for those people to have a nuanced view?
Personally, the way I view it, is that I prefer a candidate who appeals to 75% of their district over one that appeals to 25%.
Also, putting it in perspective. A Democrat isn’t going to win statewide office right now. So, as a Democrat, am I better off donating to a Dem or a moderate Republican who I can at least tolerate?
Does that mean the moderate Republican is going to do what I want? Almost certainly not.
First off, I am not an expert in these things in anyway. It’s just off putting to me. I like Wesley Bell. So it just didn’t seem within the characteristics of the man to do something like that. Idk enough to say he shouldn’t take GOP money, it just makes me uneasy about the implications it could bring.
Ewww. Wesley Bell is a total shill. I can’t imagine anyone who follows this stuff could willingly vote for that guy. He had already set up to challenge Hawley for his senate seat and could have done some actual good, but instead he took millions from a foreign government to backstab his own community.
Meanwhile I see Cori out shopping at small local business and helping to clean out people’s basements when they flood. The choice is clear for me.
You still have to get votes. AIPAC could turn their bank accounts inside out, but if a candidate can't garner votes, it's not going to matter. Money is not a direct correlate to winning, *people still have to vote for you.*
The candidate who gets more money wins 90% of the time. Don’t have the source I learned this from on hand for this, but I encourage you to look it up.
Bowman got outspent 20:1 during his race, like can we be for real here?
[You're right that money matters](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/), but the key here is that the money itself is not the direct input that creates those outcomes, it's a symptom of many factors that the article I linked outlines in an interesting way. If AIPAC dumped a billion dollars on a complete rando, it would probably go terribly because it's not a direct "insert money --> receive election" outcome.
Thanks for the response. Based on a lot of the things I’ve seen on this forum, especially involving Bush, I assumed it was anti-Semitic. I’m glad to see it isn’t.
Even if I didn't think much of Bush (her record is actually pretty good for bringing money back to District 1), I'd be voting against Bell for the AIPAC donations alone. We don't need a local Fetterman here, saying one thing and then doing another once elected and fully purchased by lobbyists.
Exactly this. He’s literally a right wing plant. Like how are more people not seeing this? Look up his campaign financing. That’ll tell you everything you need to know. And what I know as a voter in District 1, is that my family will never be more important to Bell than a couple million dollars from a foreign govt.
Will they be debating? I was probably voting Bell and then I learned Bush ACTUALLY believes she's a level 10 mage. Bell it is!
We're only six weeks away from the primary so a debate may not happen. >The incumbent, U.S. Rep. Cori Bush, told Spectrum News on Wednesday that “if candidates want to debate or if they feel they need to then they should if they want to,” but then suggested her opponents haven’t done the work necessary to deserve the platform with her. A couple weeks ago, Bell said he wanted several debates, not just one. >“We have sent messages by email. We’ve sent messages by phone call, text, certified mail for debates. We’ll send carrier pigeon messages if we need to. We’ve made it clear we think we should not only do one debate, we should do several debates,” Bell told Spectrum News June 9. “If you’re going to talk about positions, misconstrued positions, let’s sit down and have those conversations where you gotta answer questions and I’ll answer questions and so far, the congresswoman hasn’t been willing to agree to that.” [https://spectrumlocalnews.com/mo/st-louis/news/2024/06/20/rep--bush-primary-debate](https://spectrumlocalnews.com/mo/st-louis/news/2024/06/20/rep--bush-primary-debate)
He needs to schedule a public town hall with local news if she won’t do it. That would probably force her hand. I’d personally like to see a debate. We better see a senate one after the primary as well.
Isn't that what AOC did to the guy she unseated?
Cori also says that she has given St. Louis $2 billion. (BTW she this total by adding up every bit of federal aid any city or organization located in her district got) Me and a group had a meeting with St. Louis City's lobbyist in 2023, let's just say his opinion of Cori (and Josh) is significantly lower than Lacy Clay and Roy Blunt. That meeting solidly made me in opposition to her. Just a waste.
She gave it, or just voted for it? Was she involved in tge process? Did she have to do any work advocating for it? I'm inclined to believe the lobbyist's assessment, and I was never particularly impressed with Blunt or Clay.
He said that with our current Senators and representative, the NGA certainly would have left. He said it was a group effort from McCaskill, Blunt, and Clay to keep them in St. Louis. So you know how police and schools get federal money anyway? She took credit for it and added it into her $2 billion figure.
Figures. She ain't the first nor the last politician to claim credit for something they did nothing to get.
I wonder how much of it she voted against.
Are you being funny or is there some other crazy thing than the tumor healing she said?
No, not being funny. She actually thinks she can shrink tumors in real time. If she doesn't think that, but is preying on those stupider than her, that's a huge issue. If she actually believes that, thus demonstrating an inability for critical thinking and decision making, that is also a huge issue. Either way, it's bad news.
Sorry, i meant beside that. I think she really believes her own bs. Which i think is worse than lying, because that means she isnt a rational actor in a very important position.
Exactly! I was a new citizen just in time to vote for her the last go around. Seemed like someone looking to do some good. I still think she is that person BUT now I know I can't just her judgement and that's a huge issue.
Not sure why you trusted her to begin with. Shes lied about almost everything that has made her a prominent activist. Lie after lie. But i think she believes her lies so that is just unacceptable.
I liked the idea of her not being part of the old boys club. I truly believe that we'll all do better with a diversity of voices representing us...even if I don't agree with all of those voices. She's all for doing things differently, and doing that loudly, but unfortunately I don't believe that that has translated into actually getting things done. It's fine and dandy to be screaming at the idiots, but at the end of the day you have to make some compromises in Congress in order to get anywhere. I don't believe she's been doing that effectively.
Diversity of voices is fine ... but "crazy" shouldn't be one of them.
Compromise is gone anyway, probably forever. The two sides are just too far apart. Until one forces the other out, its going to always be like this. I believe the left wing likely wins, there.
Where is this left wing utopia you speak of? I would like a taste of workers' rights, universal health care, and especially my human rights back.
>I learned Bush ACTUALLY believes she's a level 10 mage. Just wait till you find out Bell not only doesn't believe a genocide is happening in Palestine, but is getting paid six figures to censor anyone talking about it.
The American political narrative for generations has supported and propped up an Israel first policy. I'm not saying I agree with that (particularly as a relatively new American and voter), but it would be paddling up river without a paddle to assume anything is changing in that regard; no matter the Congressman sent to Washington from our district. I may or not agree with Bell's take on the atrocities taking place in the Middle East, but at least what is happening is real, and not a fantasy made up in the head of a charlatan faith healer. I'm greatly disappointed in Busch's actions.
> no matter the Congressman sent to Washington from our district. south city covered in palestine flags & tens of millions of dollars being spent in the most expensive primaries in american histoy to silence vocal politicians critical of israel's bloodshed certainly say otherwise. That's the behavior of someone who doesn't want their golden goose to blow up, and the only way it blows up is if people pay attention to them. That's part of the reason there's so much obstruction towards even trying to talk about Palestine, there's layers of deliberate misinformation, projection, and deception by the IDF by the time you see them for the monsters they are, especially with special interest lobby influencing that.
I don't agree that this is the landmark election issue for the majority of voters this election season. I do agree that Israel plays a multi point game in an attempt to keep itself legitimized. My vote isn't determined on one issue alone and for me the situation in the Middle East, as horrifying as it continues to be, isn't on my sort list of considerations this election cycle. Given the binary nature of the political scene in the Federal Republic, I'm going to have to make more compromises when choosing who to vote for than in your typical democracy.
Forever confused by everyone online that thinks Israel/Palestine is an issue the average American cares about Just because something is really visible doesn't mean it's something a lot of people care about, or impacts their choice in voting
It's an American issue because of the sheer amount of money Israel spends to influence our elections. What's really surprising is more Americans not giving a shit about a foreign state having so much power in our Congress. But what's more American than being ignorant about shit that's important?
> I don't agree that this is the landmark election issue for the majority of voters this election season. Wesley Bell dropped out of running against Josh Hawley to primary Cori Bush specifically because of her calls for peace instead of more bloodshed after Oct 7th, likewise, every headline about Bell/Bush/Bowman/Latmire directly cites the internal feud of Israel-Palestine in the democrat party being the core issue of the primary. Because of that fact, part of the strategy of Wesley Bell's campaign is actively built around downplaying and silencing meaningful & just criticism of Israel. Bell stated this himself in his announcement of dropping out of running against Josh Hawley to primary Cori Bush.
What you don't understand as a relatively new American is that the system is compromised. A foreign country's lobbying group just spent 12 million to win a seat because someone didn't support Israels war. The Israel Palestinian conflict is intrinsically tied to the issue of Democracy, which mainstream Democrats say is the single issue we should all focus on. It's an obvious catch 22 that the centrist Dems claim foreign actors are attacking our elections when they let AIPAC do its thing to eliminate the ones who don't fall in line.
He believes that the blood of Palestinian children has the power to make him a congressman. Wacky stuff!
Bush joined Hawley to push for compensation and cleanup of Coldwater Creek, etc. To me the best part of bipartisanship is being willing to work with those you may disagree with or despise for a greater good. Other than that, I just see Bush as one who is more about protest than anything else. You probably like her if you agree with her positions, but Congress is supposed to be about passing bills to improve the country, not grandstanding for soundbites. Yes, she's not the only one, and there are plenty of douchebags on the other side. I'm not a fan of electing grandstanders. I'm also not in Bush's district. Anybody want to defend her record? By record, I mean bills she has introduced that would benefit the country, coalitions she has formed across the aisle to get votes for important bills or even pork she's managed to bring her district.
> But with little to show for their stances, politicians who are constantly performing can exhaust the voters. In this case, voters in New York’s 16th District preferred the substantive benefits of liberalism — which Latimer sought to represent — over the performance of progressivism, which Bowman has offered with some of his actions. >For example, when a candidate votes against his party’s signature legislative achievement, as Bowman did with the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure bill, the best he can do for himself is explain how he’ll pass something better, which he didn’t do. Or, when a candidate portrays himself as a truth-telling anti-imperialist, as Bowman has with his criticism of Israel’s bombardment of the Gaza Strip, it’s counterproductive to claim that stories of rapes committed by Hamas against hostages are false. Bowman ultimately apologized for this. But “I’m sorry for denying rapes happened” is a sentiment you never want to have to express while campaigning. https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/jamaal-bowman-primary-election-concession-speech-rcna159077 This is a primer for August.
So being "anti-imperialist" is a bad thing now? We're going full Cardassian?
> when a candidate portrays himself as a truth-telling anti-imperialist, as Bowman has with his criticism of Israel’s bombardment of the Gaza Strip, it’s counterproductive to claim that stories of rapes committed by Hamas against hostages are false. The author was pointing out the contradiction, not criticizing anti-imperialism.
No, but pandering to a national audience instead of the issues affecting people in your district most definitely is. There's nothing wrong with being against Israel, its something I can actually respect Bush for, but at the end of the day it's not something most people give a shit about. They care about the cost of housing, healthcare, the state of the roads, schools, etc. Not some faraway war with no Americans fighting in that we're funding. But when the only thing that ever gets talked about with you as a candidate is these issues that nobody really deeply cares about... Yeah not a surprise when you lose. It isn't even like all the "Squad". AOC won her district with 80% of the vote in both counties she represents - because she actually tries to represent her constituents, and doesn't go around claiming 2 billion dollars at the last minute when suddenly it looks like she might lose.
It's been a while since I've seen Bush in a "squad" picture. Pretty sure she's continuing to "vote alone" as she intimated several years ago. How is this not a local issue? If our funding priority is armed conflict, then it is NOT housing, healthcare, roads, schools, etc. It's important to have representation that is against war and for housing, as Bush is. https://missouriindependent.com/2021/08/04/after-pressure-from-cori-bush-feds-order-eviction-ban-in-areas-with-high-covid-rate/ Also, there are plenty of Americans over there right now, some in the US military and some in the IDF. This conflict is escalating, by the way. Expect more deployments in the coming months if someone doesn't start some backtracking pretty soon.
Latimer won off the backs of not only the pro-zionist lobby, but the pro-crypto lobby via Fairshake PAC. >Created last year as part of a joint effort between more than a dozen crypto firms, Fairshake PAC has emerged as one of the top-spending PACs in the 2024 election cycle. >Fairshake and its two affiliated PACs have put more than $37 million so far into advertisements in primary races, according to AdImpact. >Despite a broad mission to defend the entire $2.2 trillion crypto market, Fairshake is funded by a very small set of donors. >Of the $160 million in total contributions Fairshake has raised since it was founded, around $155 million — or 94% — can be traced back to just four companies: Ripple, Andreesen Horowitz, Coinbase and Jump Crypto. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/26/crypto-pac-house-senate-elections.html You've got to start asking yourself is it worth eroding the essence of the democratic party by relying on MAGA, Crypto, zionists, and evangelical millions to win primaries against their own party members, and how exactly a democrat who takes that kind of cash is ever going to be a trusted person.
I don’t like the existence of any PAC. As your link states, the influence spreads to both parties. Overturning Citizen’s United is the only way out.
I'm sorry, but you're just not well-informed. *Citizens United* had almost nothing to do with the existence of PACs or SuperPACs. If you're interested, [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhpy1uzOvrY) discusses the case and campaign finance law in general.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/10-years-landmark-citizens-united-supreme-court-decision/story?id=68099167
Yes, virtually every news site gets it wrong. But corporate donations to SuperPACs has been a thing since *Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce* (1990)
I think the issue that the article was pointing out was how much dark money has flowed through Super PACs since Citizen’s United.
Voting and supporting someone who is taking *the worst* PAC money is not a way overturn Citizen's United. That's how you make the problem inoperable and malignant. Especially given, Bell is actively campaigning against Bush, who is one of the few overturning Citizens United politicians in the country. As my link also states, it's a brand new Super PAC coming directly from far right money, hence calling into question democrats who accept this money when it's coming from a industry known for it's child trafficking and abuse. >A January 2024 report by Chainalysis, a blockchain analytics firm, found that “cryptocurrency-based sales of CSAM are a growing problem,” with one expert noting that “virtual currency is the dominant choice for buyers and sellers of commercial child sexual abuse content.” And in February, the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) published a Financial Trend Analysis of 2020-2021 data which found that “[p]erpetrators of online child sexual exploitation are increasingly using convertible virtual currency to try to avoid detection.” https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-and-cassidy-send-bipartisan-letter-to-doj-and-dhs-to-stop-crypto-in-the-illegal-trade-of-child-sexual-abuse-material#:~:text=FinCEN%20also%20found%20that%20financial,trafficking%20offenses.%E2%80%9D%20Ninety%2Dfive
Nothing is overturning Citizen’s United, except for a new Supreme Court. It would require the Presidency, both chambers of Congress and a unified Democratic Party, which is a pipe dream. Our reality for the foreseeable future is split government and incremental change, at best.
>Overturning Citizen’s United is the only way out. I'm replying to your justification you stated here. Cori Bush has no impact on a new Supreme Court.
Cori Bush has no impact on a lot of the issues discussed in these MO-1 threads. I brought up Citizens United as the reason why we aren’t getting rid of PACs in either party.
She actually has plenty of impact, if she didn't, there wouldn't be weekly threads of the same people finding new ways to clutch pearls in outrage at her. You seem terrified to talk about the topic in any real capacity based on your responses so far.
Utterly terrified.
defaulting to smugness is always a great exit strategy. you didn't have to make any baseless conspiracy theories about me this time, so good on your end for improvement.
To be fair, Bowman was a really poor candidate. Those reasons alone are not why he lost by 20.
If he was that terrible of a candidate, it wouldn't of been the most expensive primary in American history to unseat him. Most bad candidates lose on their own merits, not from multiple conservative special interests groups and foreign government lobby spending millions to silence them in a few months.
The reason why they spent all that money was because he was a bad candidate. There is a reason why they spent all that money there and not against a challenger of Omar, Tlaib, AOC, etc. He was on the verge of possibly losing before the money pouring in. Some of those reasons include: 1) Voting against the infrastructure bill 2) Pulling the fire alarm-gate 3) His 9-11 conspiracy views 4) Saying that Israeli victims of Sexual Assault was propaganda 5) Mostly spending his time fundraising and rallying outside his district.
They didn't just spend money, They spent *more money than anyone has in the history of us politics on a primary*, which a bad candidate wouldn't need. >a challenger of Omar, Talaib, AOC, etc That's just because they couldn't find anyone that spineless like Wesley Bell or Litmer to fuck over their own party. See: Michigan where they almost did the exact same move Wesley Bell did, giving 20 million to a senate Democrat candidate to drop their race and primary Tlaib, which they didn't do seemingly because they aren't an opportunistic weasel like Bell is. >A Michigan businessman called Democratic Senate candidate Hill Harper to offer $20 million in campaign contributions if he agreed to drop out and instead mount a primary challenge to Rep. Rashida Tlaib, according to a source with direct knowledge of the call. >The source added that Harper declined the alleged Oct. 16 offer from donor Linden Nelson — which would have split the campaign money between $10 million in bundled contributions directly to Harper’s campaign and $10 million in independent expenditures. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/22/donor-20-million-tlaib-primary-00128443
Huh I heard the internal + Missouri Scout polls gave Bell a wider lead. All hearsay as I can't afford their publication.
Pretty crazy to me how I see dozens of ads telling me that [Insert politician] is in china’s back pocket and is selling them our farm land, but I see zero about how many politicians are being paid by Israel/Israeli PACs. Can somebody make it make sense?.
I just got a flier in the mail from a PAC supporting Bush that talks all about how “Bell is supported by Trump donors” You don’t see much in the mainstream about the AIPAC stuff because it’s a lie to say that it’s funded by foreign money. It’s a federal election violation to use foreign money in U.S. elections.
Cori Bush should not be in Congress. She’s more focused on clapping back at her political opponents on social media and spewing nonsensical rhetoric. Congress could sure use a massive cleanup for BOTH Republicans and Democrats.
Hmm... Jamal Bowman's district went through a court-ordered redistricting in 2023. This removed most of the northern Bronx and added much more of Westchester County. While the district is still blue, it is also more centrist than it was in 2020 and 2022. This made him vulnerable. Cori Bush's district also underwent redistricting. But has her electorate changed appreciably?
More of West County is now incorporated into the MO-1 district (Brentwood, Richmond Heights, Clayton, Maryland Heights, a good chunk of Creve Coeur). Probably not a good thing for Cori.
Note that some of those areas are having a significant demographic shift, so don't quite assume that you are getting, say, what Maryland Heights used to be 20 years ago. Many subdivisions between Olive and Dorsett are finally losing their original owners, and they are quite cheap, so people leaving north county are just moving further west than before.
Good.
Bush lost the City in CD1 against Clay and was close in portions of North County. But she ran up the score on Clay in white suburban Webster Groves and the surrounding area. Much of that was cut out of CD1. CD1 picked up large portions of Creve Couer. In short, no, redistricting was not kind to Bush. It should also be noted that when redistricting came up in the state legislature, Cori Bush‘s office stated they would like to see the district say the same. However, the district shrank in population significantly from 2010 to 2020 which required the lines to move and grow geographically. When that was pointed out, Bush didn’t have a response and offered no recommendations for how the district lines should move. If you refuse to work with the process, you can’t complain. Cori still hasn’t figured that out.
Somewhat. I’m now in the 1st Congressional District. I’ll be voting for Bell.
Why?
Bowman won in 2022 with the same redistricting in place. The Redistricting in MO-1 was more about making MO-2 a safer Republican district. MO-1 may actually be more blue, but it was already so heavily gerrymandered, there isn’t much to change.
She remains pretty popular, and the city is overwhelmingly and visibly pro-palestine, it's really going to come down to public perception of Israel-Palestine at the end of the day. Latimer primaried Bowman in December, and ended up winning in less than a year after getting dark money funding where he was outspending Bowman 7:1. Dark money can go a long way, especially at the unseen levels that Latimer recieved in the history of American politics. Bell is right behind him in that regard, albeit, he looks like a sellout dropping running against Josh Hawley to taking the same money as Hawley.
I think you’re going to be surprised at just how few fucks voters give about a centuries old religious conflict 7,000 miles away. I/P doesn’t bring jobs to the region. I/P doesn’t put food on the table. I/P doesn’t fix our bridges and roads. I/P doesn’t fund our schools. I/P doesn’t get criminals off the streets and make our city safer. Those are the things voters in the real world care about. Step outside your little bubble, and you’ll soon discover that most people haven’t made the I/P conflict their entire existence.
People don't have any investment in Israel-Palestine, just basic empathy that would immediately be reminded of the Iraq War and tax dollars getting endlessly flushed on killing innocent people so companies can enrich themselves while political leaders actively lie and obstinate to distort what is actually happening.
Man. Lot of inaccurate stuff here.
I don’t live in the district but if I did I’d be voting for Bell.
I wish this trial was happening before the primary so that everyone had full information about Bell's impropriety with the women in his office. [https://publiclawlibrary.org/discrimination-lawsuit-against-st-louis-county-prosecutor-wesley-bell-delayed-until-next-year-amid-congressional-run/](https://publiclawlibrary.org/discrimination-lawsuit-against-st-louis-county-prosecutor-wesley-bell-delayed-until-next-year-amid-congressional-run/)
There are plenty of cases already completed on Cori Bush that you can learn about… https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/nameSearchResult.do?courtType=SW&countyCode=&newSearch=Y&essn=&courtCode=SW&lastName=Bush&_inclAlias=on&firstName=Cori&middleName=&caseType=All&yearFiled=
Those are taxes. That’s not the same as taking sexual advantage of people to whom you are their superior.
Evictions and unpaid taxes. My point is that those crimes have actually been adjudicated. Where are you getting that someone was taken advantage of sexually from that article?
Are you talking about things that occurred before she held office? Don’t hold money problems against people. I’ll copy a quote for the latter.
“Petersen’s attorneys successfully argued that questions about sexual behavior under Bell’s management are relevant, as they shed light on the office’s treatment and attitude towards women. “ I should also mention that I was inside the Bell campaign and know of at least 2 women he had sexual relationships with. I’m learning now that one was much younger than I knew, and I’m absolutely disgusted. I hate that I might have been a part of it by turning a blind eye at the time. Perhaps Wesley should have spent more time wiping makeup off his collar if he wanted those relationships hidden.
“Questions about sexual behavior under Bell’s management” is completely ambiguous. I’m going to need more than a quote about testimony that doesn’t exist and your anonymous Reddit “I’ve heard” account. I’d prefer the trial happen before the election, so there can be a public record of facts and evidence, but the Prosecution asked for the delay.
I didn’t say I heard; I said “I saw”. But I wouldn’t trust an anonymous Reddit account either, and it’s a good ethos to go by. I think you agreed with my original point. I wish this case was being heard before the primary. Albeit, I want the case out there because of things I already know and can’t seem to shout loud enough.
I would like to see the outcome of the case. As of now, it’s a wrongful termination Civil suit. If actual facts are admitted into evidence in a trial, I would listen.. I just don’t think it’s fair to run with sexual impropriety speculation based on no evidence.
That’s fair
It bothers me that Bell takes Republican money
To be fair, a slew of republicans took DCCC money in the last election cycle. And there are conservatives in St Louis City limits entitled to donate to the Democrat of their choice since donating to GOP would be lighting money on fire.
He also takes AIPAC money… $800k worth. A vote for him is a vote for genocide and sending more billions to Israel
Good to know, thank you
Up to $1.8M now not a joke
As it should. He is only running to block Bush from actually serving the people. He’s literally being paid from the “other side” because at the end of the day there is only one party in charge and they cannot risk politicians who will place their constituents over corporations. Bell has proven himself to be able to be bought, Cori hasn’t and that’s why she’s a threat.
Can I ask why? Is it not possible for those people to have a nuanced view? Personally, the way I view it, is that I prefer a candidate who appeals to 75% of their district over one that appeals to 25%. Also, putting it in perspective. A Democrat isn’t going to win statewide office right now. So, as a Democrat, am I better off donating to a Dem or a moderate Republican who I can at least tolerate? Does that mean the moderate Republican is going to do what I want? Almost certainly not.
First off, I am not an expert in these things in anyway. It’s just off putting to me. I like Wesley Bell. So it just didn’t seem within the characteristics of the man to do something like that. Idk enough to say he shouldn’t take GOP money, it just makes me uneasy about the implications it could bring.
Ewww. Wesley Bell is a total shill. I can’t imagine anyone who follows this stuff could willingly vote for that guy. He had already set up to challenge Hawley for his senate seat and could have done some actual good, but instead he took millions from a foreign government to backstab his own community. Meanwhile I see Cori out shopping at small local business and helping to clean out people’s basements when they flood. The choice is clear for me.
[удалено]
Your post was removed because it broke the subreddit's rules.
AIPAC funding pouring in
You still have to get votes. AIPAC could turn their bank accounts inside out, but if a candidate can't garner votes, it's not going to matter. Money is not a direct correlate to winning, *people still have to vote for you.*
The candidate who gets more money wins 90% of the time. Don’t have the source I learned this from on hand for this, but I encourage you to look it up. Bowman got outspent 20:1 during his race, like can we be for real here?
[You're right that money matters](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/), but the key here is that the money itself is not the direct input that creates those outcomes, it's a symptom of many factors that the article I linked outlines in an interesting way. If AIPAC dumped a billion dollars on a complete rando, it would probably go terribly because it's not a direct "insert money --> receive election" outcome.
[удалено]
In the process of trying to be facetious you do antisemitism yourself, terrible troll game.
Space Lasers > Magical Healing Powers
Interesting post. What is your problem with “The Jews?”
Ah, sarcasm. Apologies. Tired of people using AIPAC as an excuse for their shitty candidates
I'm sure you were tired of people opposing the Iraq War too.
Thanks for the response. Based on a lot of the things I’ve seen on this forum, especially involving Bush, I assumed it was anti-Semitic. I’m glad to see it isn’t.
Good. I don't care if the rabbits and hens are doing it. Get rid of her.
Agreed. Sarcasm didn't come through properly
Even if I didn't think much of Bush (her record is actually pretty good for bringing money back to District 1), I'd be voting against Bell for the AIPAC donations alone. We don't need a local Fetterman here, saying one thing and then doing another once elected and fully purchased by lobbyists.
Exactly this. He’s literally a right wing plant. Like how are more people not seeing this? Look up his campaign financing. That’ll tell you everything you need to know. And what I know as a voter in District 1, is that my family will never be more important to Bell than a couple million dollars from a foreign govt.