How can anybody vote for AIPAC

That lobbies are a reality is bad enough. With a multitude of lobbies backing a politician, politicians do not have to kowtow to each and every one of them, knowing they are replaceable and are more likely to see striking a balance between keeping the lobbies happy as long as they are reasonable, BUT also keeping the voters happy.

AIPAC apparently seems to have gotten so much influence, that many politicians seem to put that particular lobby above all others AND the voters. A troubling development, maybe as bad as when the tobacco lobbies were very powerful. How can somebody vote for a politician knowing that he is taking money from a lobby that literally can dictate to him, because that politician rightfully or wrongly thinks that AIPAC can make or break him?

I wouldnt vote for any politican that takes money from AIPAC and would go as far as expecting an open statement that he or she doesnt, simply because in all matters dear to AIPAC he is not going to represent the voter or the best interest of the nation.

Originally posted by Cassius666

I wouldnt vote for any politican that takes money from AIPAC and would go as far as expecting an open statement that he or she doesnt, simply because in all matters dear to AIPAC he is not going to represent the voter or the best interest of the nation.

Then you sir will never vote again.

Both parties have 1 thing in common, their support for the AIPAC.

After the last round of Congressman were elected, there were some new Congressmen.

At their first recess, did the Newbs go home to their Ridings.....

No, they flew , I believe 70 of them, to Israel to meet their Master`s , and recieve their orders.

I would say vote out the politicians that constantly side with them, but who doesn't?

We need to start over.

It aint like ALL take money from them. I am fairly sure Rand Paul doesnt.

reply to post by Cassius666

It aint like ALL take money from them. I am fairly sure Rand Paul doesnt.

You could be right.

mjayrosenberg.com...

AIPAC-Authored House Iran Resolution

The resolution was written by AIPAC and introduced in both Houses by the AIPAC faithful. It would have passed the Senate 99-1 except that the one, Rand Paul, used the unanimous consent rule to keep it off the floor. Not to worry, Senators Reid and McConnell will make sure it passes later.

mjayrosenberg.com...

Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Bob Casey (D-PA) offered their own “no containment” language to the sanctions bill and the Senate moved to quickly to accept it.

However, amending a bill once it is already on the Senate floor requires unanimous consent and one, and only one, senator objected. Rand Paul (R-KY) said that he would oppose the containment clause unless a provision was added specifying that “nothing in the Act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran…"

Neither the Democratic or Republican leadership would accept that (knowing that AIPAC wouldn’t) and Paul’s objection killed the bill, for the time being. In other words, the purpose of “no containment” language is precisely to make war virtually automatic. Because Paul’s provision would thwart that goal, it was unacceptable.

Maybe voters should be more aware of a lobby becoming so powerful that questioning their representatives allegiance is a valid approach and in turn express their want for AIPAC-free candidates. That would require a large portion of the population to become educated on the matter though.

Reform would be required where donations towards the political process are not towards an individual, but towards a pool of money, which is divided up. Of course a war chest going for half a billion will be a thing of the past I guess, but that is okay, because everyone will be on a level playingfield and there are plenty of cheap media to inform the public about your views and goals, such as the internet. The only downside I see is that companies which made money campaigning will loose business.

If ISAF/Nato goes to war in the next 3 years, it would do so after one war ended like 5 years ago and another started before that, which is still ongoing, with a couple of conflicts in between here and there and of course potential conflicts on the horizon.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Cassius666

I wouldnt vote for any politican that takes money from AIPAC and would go as far as expecting an open statement that he or she doesnt, simply because in all matters dear to AIPAC he is not going to represent the voter or the best interest of the nation.

Then you sir will never vote again.

Both parties have 1 thing in common, their support for the AIPAC.

After the last round of Congressman were elected, there were some new Congressmen.

At their first recess, did the Newbs go home to their Ridings.....

No, they flew , I believe 70 of them, to Israel to meet their Master`s , and recieve their orders.

here's a related thread:

81 U.S. Congressmen to visit Israel in coming weeks !

AIPAC is super strong and super dangerous.