Cori Bush defeated in Primary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cori Bush lost because she is bad at her job. She's now ranting against AIPAC and how she is "radicalized" and is going to go after "their kingdom". That shows you where her focus is, and it's not Missouri. The people of her district just decided it was time to pick someone who puts them first.

So AIPAC buying a candidate to unseat her was because......

What specifically about aipac explains Cori bush getting fewer votes than her opponent?

You should ask AIPAC why they invested so much money in her opponent. Yes, it was an investment. The minute he steps out of line, they will buy another candidate to oppose him.

Why would AIPAC back a hateful antisemite? Of course they are going to back whoever is not like that. It's just common sense. And then people vote however they want to.

Please provide proof of her antisemitism.

This piece outlines her views, her rhetoric, and her lack of engagement with the Jewish community in her district.
https://jewishinsider.com/2024/07/cori-bush-wesley-bell-st-louis-county-jewish-community/

Missouri has population of 6.1 million with Jews being 1.1% of that total. 62% of Missouri's 67,800 Jewish population live in the 2nd CD. The rest is spread out in the other 7CD. There is not enough of a Jewish vote to impact the race in the 1CD. It was the 8 million AIPAC dropped in the race.

So how did the money “impact” the race? Did Bell, in fact, not receive more votes?

Advertisers spend billions of dollars to affect how people spend their money but you believe campaign ads don't have a similar impact. Does that make sense to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cori Bush lost because she is bad at her job. She's now ranting against AIPAC and how she is "radicalized" and is going to go after "their kingdom". That shows you where her focus is, and it's not Missouri. The people of her district just decided it was time to pick someone who puts them first.

So AIPAC buying a candidate to unseat her was because......

What specifically about aipac explains Cori bush getting fewer votes than her opponent?

You should ask AIPAC why they invested so much money in her opponent. Yes, it was an investment. The minute he steps out of line, they will buy another candidate to oppose him.

Why would AIPAC back a hateful antisemite? Of course they are going to back whoever is not like that. It's just common sense. And then people vote however they want to.

Please provide proof of her antisemitism.

This piece outlines her views, her rhetoric, and her lack of engagement with the Jewish community in her district.
https://jewishinsider.com/2024/07/cori-bush-wesley-bell-st-louis-county-jewish-community/

Missouri has population of 6.1 million with Jews being 1.1% of that total. 62% of Missouri's 67,800 Jewish population live in the 2nd CD. The rest is spread out in the other 7CD. There is not enough of a Jewish vote to impact the race in the 1CD. It was the 8 million AIPAC dropped in the race.

So how did the money “impact” the race? Did Bell, in fact, not receive more votes?

Advertisers spend billions of dollars to affect how people spend their money but you believe campaign ads don't have a similar impact. Does that make sense to you?

Is that not the point of campaign advertising? Why are you acting outraged and surprised by something everyone does? It still doesn't "buy" votes. People go to the polls and ultimately decide. Sounds like you hate AIPAC, so vote for the candidate they don't back. It's that simple.

[Anonymous]

Good to see evil people lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cori Bush lost because she is bad at her job. She's now ranting against AIPAC and how she is "radicalized" and is going to go after "their kingdom". That shows you where her focus is, and it's not Missouri. The people of her district just decided it was time to pick someone who puts them first.

So AIPAC buying a candidate to unseat her was because......

What specifically about aipac explains Cori bush getting fewer votes than her opponent?

You should ask AIPAC why they invested so much money in her opponent. Yes, it was an investment. The minute he steps out of line, they will buy another candidate to oppose him.

Why would AIPAC back a hateful antisemite? Of course they are going to back whoever is not like that. It's just common sense. And then people vote however they want to.

Please provide proof of her antisemitism.

This piece outlines her views, her rhetoric, and her lack of engagement with the Jewish community in her district.
https://jewishinsider.com/2024/07/cori-bush-wesley-bell-st-louis-county-jewish-community/

Missouri has population of 6.1 million with Jews being 1.1% of that total. 62% of Missouri's 67,800 Jewish population live in the 2nd CD. The rest is spread out in the other 7CD. There is not enough of a Jewish vote to impact the race in the 1CD. It was the 8 million AIPAC dropped in the race.

So how did the money “impact” the race? Did Bell, in fact, not receive more votes?

Advertisers spend billions of dollars to affect how people spend their money but you believe campaign ads don't have a similar impact. Does that make sense to you?

Is that not the point of campaign advertising? Why are you acting outraged and surprised by something everyone does? It still doesn't "buy" votes. People go to the polls and ultimately decide. Sounds like you hate AIPAC, so vote for the candidate they don't back. It's that simple.

You don't get it. The votes they're buying don't occur in the voting booth at your local library, you buffoon. They occur in the halls of Congress.

Jesus Christ ... it's obvious you are playing dumb, but you don't have to try so hard. You're a natural!

[Anonymous]

Are they FARA registered? If so, no complaints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are they FARA registered? If so, no complaints.

They aren't registered. Thus, complaints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cori Bush lost because she is bad at her job. She's now ranting against AIPAC and how she is "radicalized" and is going to go after "their kingdom". That shows you where her focus is, and it's not Missouri. The people of her district just decided it was time to pick someone who puts them first.

So AIPAC buying a candidate to unseat her was because......

What specifically about aipac explains Cori bush getting fewer votes than her opponent?

You should ask AIPAC why they invested so much money in her opponent. Yes, it was an investment. The minute he steps out of line, they will buy another candidate to oppose him.

Why would AIPAC back a hateful antisemite? Of course they are going to back whoever is not like that. It's just common sense. And then people vote however they want to.

Please provide proof of her antisemitism.

This piece outlines her views, her rhetoric, and her lack of engagement with the Jewish community in her district.
https://jewishinsider.com/2024/07/cori-bush-wesley-bell-st-louis-county-jewish-community/

Missouri has population of 6.1 million with Jews being 1.1% of that total. 62% of Missouri's 67,800 Jewish population live in the 2nd CD. The rest is spread out in the other 7CD. There is not enough of a Jewish vote to impact the race in the 1CD. It was the 8 million AIPAC dropped in the race.

So how did the money “impact” the race? Did Bell, in fact, not receive more votes?

Advertisers spend billions of dollars to affect how people spend their money but you believe campaign ads don't have a similar impact. Does that make sense to you?

Is that not the point of campaign advertising? Why are you acting outraged and surprised by something everyone does? It still doesn't "buy" votes. People go to the polls and ultimately decide. Sounds like you hate AIPAC, so vote for the candidate they don't back. It's that simple.

You don't get it. The votes they're buying don't occur in the voting booth at your local library, you buffoon. They occur in the halls of Congress.

Jesus Christ ... it's obvious you are playing dumb, but you don't have to try so hard. You're a natural!

You are debating with more than one person. And you are the one that seems to be playing dumb. We are talking about a lobbyist group that spent money to advertise/campaign for a candidate to get voted into office, e,g. paying for political advertising that helps a candidate get elected to office by the constituents.

Now you are trying to conflate that with lobbyist groups in DC who sway elected officials to change their vote for bills and legislative action in the halls of Congress. These are two separate instances of lobbying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are they FARA registered? If so, no complaints.

They aren't registered. Thus, complaints.

Then yes that’s super problematic. Probably needs an AG investigation but that can’t happen before an election, and I don’t see a Trump AG loooking into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cori Bush lost because she is bad at her job. She's now ranting against AIPAC and how she is "radicalized" and is going to go after "their kingdom". That shows you where her focus is, and it's not Missouri. The people of her district just decided it was time to pick someone who puts them first.

So AIPAC buying a candidate to unseat her was because......

What specifically about aipac explains Cori bush getting fewer votes than her opponent?

You should ask AIPAC why they invested so much money in her opponent. Yes, it was an investment. The minute he steps out of line, they will buy another candidate to oppose him.

Why would AIPAC back a hateful antisemite? Of course they are going to back whoever is not like that. It's just common sense. And then people vote however they want to.

Please provide proof of her antisemitism.

This piece outlines her views, her rhetoric, and her lack of engagement with the Jewish community in her district.
https://jewishinsider.com/2024/07/cori-bush-wesley-bell-st-louis-county-jewish-community/

Missouri has population of 6.1 million with Jews being 1.1% of that total. 62% of Missouri's 67,800 Jewish population live in the 2nd CD. The rest is spread out in the other 7CD. There is not enough of a Jewish vote to impact the race in the 1CD. It was the 8 million AIPAC dropped in the race.

So how did the money “impact” the race? Did Bell, in fact, not receive more votes?

Advertisers spend billions of dollars to affect how people spend their money but you believe campaign ads don't have a similar impact. Does that make sense to you?

Is that not the point of campaign advertising? Why are you acting outraged and surprised by something everyone does? It still doesn't "buy" votes. People go to the polls and ultimately decide. Sounds like you hate AIPAC, so vote for the candidate they don't back. It's that simple.

I do hate AIPAC and any foreign entity or individuals who use money to buy off American politicians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cori Bush lost because she is bad at her job. She's now ranting against AIPAC and how she is "radicalized" and is going to go after "their kingdom". That shows you where her focus is, and it's not Missouri. The people of her district just decided it was time to pick someone who puts them first.

So AIPAC buying a candidate to unseat her was because......

What specifically about aipac explains Cori bush getting fewer votes than her opponent?

You should ask AIPAC why they invested so much money in her opponent. Yes, it was an investment. The minute he steps out of line, they will buy another candidate to oppose him.

Why would AIPAC back a hateful antisemite? Of course they are going to back whoever is not like that. It's just common sense. And then people vote however they want to.

Please provide proof of her antisemitism.

This piece outlines her views, her rhetoric, and her lack of engagement with the Jewish community in her district.
https://jewishinsider.com/2024/07/cori-bush-wesley-bell-st-louis-county-jewish-community/

Missouri has population of 6.1 million with Jews being 1.1% of that total. 62% of Missouri's 67,800 Jewish population live in the 2nd CD. The rest is spread out in the other 7CD. There is not enough of a Jewish vote to impact the race in the 1CD. It was the 8 million AIPAC dropped in the race.

So how did the money “impact” the race? Did Bell, in fact, not receive more votes?

Advertisers spend billions of dollars to affect how people spend their money but you believe campaign ads don't have a similar impact. Does that make sense to you?

Is that not the point of campaign advertising? Why are you acting outraged and surprised by something everyone does? It still doesn't "buy" votes. People go to the polls and ultimately decide. Sounds like you hate AIPAC, so vote for the candidate they don't back. It's that simple.

You don't get it. The votes they're buying don't occur in the voting booth at your local library, you buffoon. They occur in the halls of Congress.

Jesus Christ ... it's obvious you are playing dumb, but you don't have to try so hard. You're a natural!

You are debating with more than one person. And you are the one that seems to be playing dumb. We are talking about a lobbyist group that spent money to advertise/campaign for a candidate to get voted into office, e,g. paying for political advertising that helps a candidate get elected to office by the constituents.

Now you are trying to conflate that with lobbyist groups in DC who sway elected officials to change their vote for bills and legislative action in the halls of Congress. These are two separate instances of lobbying.

Don't be so daft! You have to bribe them with campaign donations before you can lobby them. Duh!

[Anonymous]

I'm impressed Missouri could produce a squad member, even if for only 2 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cori Bush lost because she is bad at her job. She's now ranting against AIPAC and how she is "radicalized" and is going to go after "their kingdom". That shows you where her focus is, and it's not Missouri. The people of her district just decided it was time to pick someone who puts them first.

So AIPAC buying a candidate to unseat her was because......

What specifically about aipac explains Cori bush getting fewer votes than her opponent?

You should ask AIPAC why they invested so much money in her opponent. Yes, it was an investment. The minute he steps out of line, they will buy another candidate to oppose him.

Why would AIPAC back a hateful antisemite? Of course they are going to back whoever is not like that. It's just common sense. And then people vote however they want to.

Please provide proof of her antisemitism.

DP

The confused look on the face of the person wielding the "anti-semitism" cudgel - hilarious.

"What do you mean "proof"? We don't need to provide "proof" of anything. We just say the magic word and people scurry away as fast as they can because they know it's just a tactic to stifle debate by signaling an attack of your opponent's personal and professional lives, and then we can return to our regularly schedule programming - The Corruption of America by a Foreign Government whose interests align with less than 2% of America's population.

It's come to the point that if one isn't pro-Israel, then one is labeled an antisemite.

No, but if you are virulently anti Israel, don’t want the state to exist, suggest that 10/7 was justified and Hamas is just good old “resistance” then yes, you might well be antisemitic. Plenty of people cloaking antisemitism in “critique of Israel.”

[Anonymous]

Haha all those rich white Bernie Sanders socialist gentrifyers who send $$ to Cori Bush and Jamal Bowman got beat because the voters prefer candidates who actually do their jobs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cori Bush lost because she is bad at her job. She's now ranting against AIPAC and how she is "radicalized" and is going to go after "their kingdom". That shows you where her focus is, and it's not Missouri. The people of her district just decided it was time to pick someone who puts them first.

So AIPAC buying a candidate to unseat her was because......

What specifically about aipac explains Cori bush getting fewer votes than her opponent?

You should ask AIPAC why they invested so much money in her opponent. Yes, it was an investment. The minute he steps out of line, they will buy another candidate to oppose him.

Why would AIPAC back a hateful antisemite? Of course they are going to back whoever is not like that. It's just common sense. And then people vote however they want to.

Please provide proof of her antisemitism.

DP

The confused look on the face of the person wielding the "anti-semitism" cudgel - hilarious.

"What do you mean "proof"? We don't need to provide "proof" of anything. We just say the magic word and people scurry away as fast as they can because they know it's just a tactic to stifle debate by signaling an attack of your opponent's personal and professional lives, and then we can return to our regularly schedule programming - The Corruption of America by a Foreign Government whose interests align with less than 2% of America's population.

It's come to the point that if one isn't pro-Israel, then one is labeled an antisemite.

No, but if you are virulently anti Israel, don’t want the state to exist, suggest that 10/7 was justified and Hamas is just good old “resistance” then yes, you might well be antisemitic. Plenty of people cloaking antisemitism in “critique of Israel.”

You same lot are cloaking islamophobia in anti-Hamas rhetoric. And there's is nothing antisemitic about resisting apartheid and genocide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haha all those rich white Bernie Sanders socialist gentrifyers who send $$ to Cori Bush and Jamal Bowman got beat because the voters prefer candidates who actually do their jobs

If that's your take, then you must be a Trump supporter.