Cori Bush defeated in Primary

[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?

So they persuaded voters to use their vote on Bell. Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

They aren't registered. Thus, complaints.

AIPAC is not Israeli. So it’s just a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

[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!

Ok you lost me. So Congress voted for Bell?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP.

I love how you think anyone who doesn’t support The Squad is somehow a MAGA.

[Anonymous]

It's absolutely WILD that anyone thinks its okay for foreign interference in any election and buying elections. It's one thing to not like someone, but to think it's okay to let money from special interests dictate elections vs the people is the exact opposite of "democracy" that Americans think they have. It wasn't a fair fight- let's get the PAC money out and see what the results are then. And if you think money isn't an issue, why did AIPAC have to spend 8 MILLION DOLLARS to get her out if she wasn't a real threat? 8 MILLION!! Do you know other things that money could go towards in this country? My God, you people are all sociopaths that think this is ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good to see evil people lose.

Evil is clearly subjective. You don't get to dictate what evil is or isn't, anonymous troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not that PP but my take is not far off from that and I am as far as one can be from a Trump supporter. This is the best Twitter is not real life story ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely WILD that anyone thinks its okay for foreign interference in any election and buying elections. It's one thing to not like someone, but to think it's okay to let money from special interests dictate elections vs the people is the exact opposite of "democracy" that Americans think they have. It wasn't a fair fight- let's get the PAC money out and see what the results are then. And if you think money isn't an issue, why did AIPAC have to spend 8 MILLION DOLLARS to get her out if she wasn't a real threat? 8 MILLION!! Do you know other things that money could go towards in this country? My God, you people are all sociopaths that think this is ok.

Yeah, it would be wild. Except AIPAC isn’t foreign no matter how many times you insist it is. If it was foreign it would be illegal, as has been established several times.

[Anonymous]

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

Four, unfortunately. And the MAGA trifecta packs nearly every Missouri Democrat into only two districts so not that surprising.

[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.

Thank you, Abe Ribicoff.


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:

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

They aren't registered. Thus, complaints.

AIPAC is not Israeli. So it’s just a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

Working on behalf of a foreign government is what triggers the need to register— and it’s totally legitimate to do so, as long as you’re registered. You’ll remember Mike Flynn serving time for failing to do so.

[Anonymous]

Do we hate Cori Bush now? Waiting for marching orders.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of foreign money in politics, the guy that first convinced Bush to run for office - she tried to primary Claire McCaskill - was indicted for being a Russian agent.
https://www.stlpr.org/government-politics-issues/2023-04-18/three-st-louis-residents-indicted-on-charges-of-illegally-pushing-pro-russian-propaganda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely WILD that anyone thinks its okay for foreign interference in any election and buying elections. It's one thing to not like someone, but to think it's okay to let money from special interests dictate elections vs the people is the exact opposite of "democracy" that Americans think they have. It wasn't a fair fight- let's get the PAC money out and see what the results are then. And if you think money isn't an issue, why did AIPAC have to spend 8 MILLION DOLLARS to get her out if she wasn't a real threat? 8 MILLION!! Do you know other things that money could go towards in this country? My God, you people are all sociopaths that think this is ok.

Yeah, it would be wild. Except AIPAC isn’t foreign no matter how many times you insist it is. If it was foreign it would be illegal, as has been established several times.

The Forward viewed this differently in 2018

https://forward.com/opinion/395676/its-time-for-aipac-to-register-as-a-foreign-agent/

[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!

Ok you lost me. So Congress voted for Bell?

Let's try a remedial approach ...

An organization that should be required to register as a foreign agent spent nearly $10M to promote the campaign of one individual, and to disrupt the campaign of another individual. OF COURSE campaign finance reform is badly need to close this corrupt, treason-adjacent loophole.

When that campaign spending resulted in more votes for the former individual, they are beholden to the foreign agent's agenda the moment they are seated - and certainly if they hope to keep their job. Therefore, they comply with what their handler from the foreign agent instructs them to do, and they keep their job as long as they prioritize the interests of that foreign agent over those of America and their actual constituents.

Lemme guess? You still have some nonsense to distract from the conversation. Such a card!