On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 2:49:32 AM UTC-4,
irishra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 9:17:50 PM UTC-4,
thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 8:21:57 PM UTC-4,
irishra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > So who will the Democrat Presidential & VP Candidates in 2020?
> >
> >
> >
> > Leading contender for 2020 POTUS is Creepy Uncle Joe Biden. He has name and face recognition, has the support of the Will and Grace LBGYNTTQQIAAPFARIESRUS crowd, has enough experience near the Oval Office to be competent, and most of all is a loyal self-proclaimed Zionist, so he will get the Benjamin votes necessary to fiance the campaign. Biden has the Beau brain cancer sympathy vote, and the creepy chick licker will seem moderate next to the incumbent pussy grabber.
> >
> > For VP Biden will choose Kamala Harris as first female VP and to counter complaints of chick licking. She is duplicitous enough and pro-Zionist enough for the Jews to feel comfortable with her replacing Biden if he should keel over in the oval office from a botox or hair-club-for-men hair-plug infection.
> >
> > Booker is out for now, Dems need a break from a back to black candidate. Gabbard is out, she is too pretty and too antiwar. Bernie will never work, he is the only candidate not willing to take Zionist money. Funny huh, an honest Jew who can't be bought or sold won't get elected.
> I'm going to filter out your endless, obsessive all-consuming hatred for Jews, which is still a
> total mystery to me, and focus on your prediction. Oddly enough, I tend to agree that
> Biden and Harris are currently the most likely Democrat candidates.
For all the recent tumult over Israel in Washington, the policy debate remains extremely narrow.
In part, some Hill staff members and former White House officials say, this is because of the influence of megadonors: Of the dozens of personal checks greater than $500,000 made out to the largest PAC for Democrats in 2018, the Senate Majority PAC, around three-fourths were written by Jewish donors.
This provides fodder for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and for some, it is the elephant in the room.
According to Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national-security adviser and one of Obama’s closest confidants, several members of the Obama administration wanted to adopt a more assertive policy toward Israel but felt that their hands were tied. “The Washington view of Israel-Palestine is still shaped by the donor class,” Rhodes told me
“The donor class is profoundly to the right of where the activists are
Another former member of the Obama White House, who asked not to be named, fearing professional retaliation, said that concerns about donors among Democrats dominated not just “what was done but what was not done, and what was not even contemplated.” Even the timing of the administration’s policies toward Israel was dictated by domestic politics.
Faced with a 2016 United Nations Security Council resolution condemning settlements, the Obama administration abstained (effectively supporting the resolution), but only after having signaled it would not consider backing any resolution before November.
“There is a reason the U.N. vote did not come up before the election in November,” the former official said. “Was it because you were going to lose voters to Donald Trump? No. It was because you were going to have skittish donors.
That, and the fact that we didn’t want Clinton to face pressure to condemn the resolution or be damaged by having to defend it.” What worries establishment Democrats, the former official added, is that the partisan divide over Israel will concretize — with Republicans defined as pro-Israel, Democrats defined as anti-Israel — and that the party coffers will empty.
“The fight over Israel used to be about voters. It’s more about donors now.”
“Israel today has around $40,000-per-head income. Iran’s is $5,000. In the United States, it’s $59,000. So why does Israel need financial help from anyone?”
“There’s no major donor that I can think of who is looking for someone to take a Bernie-like approach.”
Sanders, who outraised Hillary Clinton early in the 2016 primaries by obtaining millions of small-donor contributions, was immune to pressure from donors like Saban. “If you don’t rely on a traditional fund-raising model, then you have more freedom on these types of issues,” Rhodes said. “You’re not worried about the one-hour phone call that you’re going to have to do after the presidential debate with a really angry donor.”
It's All About The Benjamins Baby !
How the Battle Over Israel and Anti-Semitism Is Fracturing American Politics
By Nathan Thrall March 28, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/magazine/battle-over-bds-israel-palestinians-antisemitism.html