For the anti Israel & AIPAC crowd

[Stryder50]

The tea party was destroyed.

More like dissolved and merged into other agendas.

The Tea Party was never a political organization~party, more a citizens advocacy association.
We never had a charter from higher "authority" or membership cards.

 

[Stryder50]

You have no problem worshipping a traitor.

I'm an atheist~agnostic; I worship no-one.
I support a pragmatic POTUS who is the very rare non-professional politician holding that office.
The traitors are the legions who HATE him, as a person and possibly more than as a political figure.
His ideology is opposite of the marxist-socialist ideology of the parasites who hate him.

 

[Stryder50]

LOL you literally just make shit up, and then pat yourself on the back for it. Whats even worse? You think thats actually an argument.
You are a complete moron.

Sorry Charlie, comments from the peanut gallery of idiots you belong to have no positive influence on me.
That post was presenting the polar opposite of the idiot posters point.
I pat myself on the back no more than you anti-USA posers and pseudo-Liberals pat yourselves with your communist delusions.

 

[TNHarley]

Sorry Charlie, comments from the peanut gallery of idiots you belong to have no positive influence on me.
That post was presenting the polar opposite of the idiot posters point.
I pat myself on the back no more than you anti-USA posers and pseudo-Liberals pat yourselves with your communist delusions.

You are one crazy old man.

 

[SaxonJackson]

I'm an atheist~agnostic; I worship no-one.

Except for Trump.

 

[Stryder50]

Except for Trump.

Support is not the same as worship.
But most atheists, with no religious background or study, confuse the two often. Like you and a few other Left-wingnuts here.

 

[SaxonJackson]

worship ...

... Trump!

 

[Stryder50]

... Trump!

And you worship: Harris, Biden, Obama, Clinton's ....

 

[YoursTruly]

Where is your thread denouncing these others, specifically, as you did Israel?

One thread for each.

What part of "any" do you not understand? Is that word too tough for you? Too long, maybe?

 

[YoursTruly]

Yes, the image is accurate but highly misleading if used to suggest AIPAC (or Israel) has "very little control" over U.S. elected officials, elections, or foreign policy.The data comes from OpenSecrets and correctly shows federal lobbying expenditures for 2024. AIPAC spent $3,324,268 on direct lobbying of Congress and agencies, ranking #191 out of thousands of organizations. For context, total U.S. federal lobbying hit a record ~$4.4 billion that year, with giants like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($72M+), National Association of Realtors ($54M+), and Big Pharma far ahead.


Lobbying disclosures measure one specific activity: registered lobbyists contacting officials on bills. This is not a full picture of political influence, especially for AIPAC.Here's why the image misleads on AIPAC's actual power:

• AIPAC's real muscle is in elections, not traditional lobbying. AIPAC itself doesn't give huge direct lobbying dollars like business trade groups. Instead, it pours resources into campaign finance through its PAC and affiliated super PAC (United Democracy Project / UDP). In the 2023-2024 election cycle:
  • AIPAC PAC raised ~$57.9 million and contributed millions directly to candidates.
  • Combined with UDP's outside spending (ads, etc.), AIPAC and its allies spent $95 million to $127 million on federal races—making it one of the biggest single-issue spenders.
  • They targeted and helped defeat prominent critics of Israel (e.g., $14.6M+ against Rep. Jamaal Bowman, $8.6M+ against Rep. Cori Bush in Democratic primaries).
    
    
  This is orders of magnitude more than their lobbying spend and had concrete electoral impact.
• AIPAC's model is different by design. It builds long-term relationships, mobilizes a large grassroots base (hundreds of thousands of members), endorses bipartisan candidates, and funds early in politicians' careers. It also coordinates with pro-Israel donors and other PACs. OpenSecrets and FEC data show pro-Israel groups overall are highly effective at this, even if raw lobbying numbers look small.
  
  
  
• "Control" over foreign policy is overstated on all sides. The U.S.-Israel relationship enjoys broad bipartisan support in Congress (decades of aid, intelligence sharing, etc.), rooted in strategic interests, shared democratic values, evangelical Christian voters, and historical factors—not solely AIPAC money. AIPAC advocates aggressively for it and has a strong winning record on key votes.

The image isolates one narrow, disclosed metric (lobbying) while ignoring where AIPAC actually flexes: electoral spending and organizing. That's why it can create a false impression of weakness. For full context, check OpenSecrets' AIPAC profile directly—it tracks both lobbying and the much larger campaign/ outside spending. Influence in D.C. is rarely just about the raw lobbying rank.

 

[rosends]

Yes, the image is accurate but highly misleading if used to suggest AIPAC (or Israel) has "very little control" over U.S. elected officials, elections, or foreign policy.The data comes from OpenSecrets and correctly shows federal lobbying expenditures for 2024. AIPAC spent $3,324,268 on direct lobbying of Congress and agencies, ranking #191 out of thousands of organizations. For context, total U.S. federal lobbying hit a record ~$4.4 billion that year, with giants like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($72M+), National Association of Realtors ($54M+), and Big Pharma far ahead.


Lobbying disclosures measure one specific activity: registered lobbyists contacting officials on bills. This is not a full picture of political influence, especially for AIPAC.Here's why the image misleads on AIPAC's actual power:

• AIPAC's real muscle is in elections, not traditional lobbying. AIPAC itself doesn't give huge direct lobbying dollars like business trade groups. Instead, it pours resources into campaign finance through its PAC and affiliated super PAC (United Democracy Project / UDP). In the 2023-2024 election cycle:
  • AIPAC PAC raised ~$57.9 million and contributed millions directly to candidates.
  • Combined with UDP's outside spending (ads, etc.), AIPAC and its allies spent $95 million to $127 million on federal races—making it one of the biggest single-issue spenders.
  • They targeted and helped defeat prominent critics of Israel (e.g., $14.6M+ against Rep. Jamaal Bowman, $8.6M+ against Rep. Cori Bush in Democratic primaries).
    
  This is orders of magnitude more than their lobbying spend and had concrete electoral impact.
• AIPAC's model is different by design. It builds long-term relationships, mobilizes a large grassroots base (hundreds of thousands of members), endorses bipartisan candidates, and funds early in politicians' careers. It also coordinates with pro-Israel donors and other PACs. OpenSecrets and FEC data show pro-Israel groups overall are highly effective at this, even if raw lobbying numbers look small.
  
  
  
• "Control" over foreign policy is overstated on all sides. The U.S.-Israel relationship enjoys broad bipartisan support in Congress (decades of aid, intelligence sharing, etc.), rooted in strategic interests, shared democratic values, evangelical Christian voters, and historical factors—not solely AIPAC money. AIPAC advocates aggressively for it and has a strong winning record on key votes.

The image isolates one narrow, disclosed metric (lobbying) while ignoring where AIPAC actually flexes: electoral spending and organizing. That's why it can create a false impression of weakness. For full context, check OpenSecrets' AIPAC profile directly—it tracks both lobbying and the much larger campaign/ outside spending. Influence in D.C. is rarely just about the raw lobbying rank.

Swing and a miss for the AI. The analysis misses the central point of the post. The image also (afaict) isn't about control of anything. What prompt did you use to generate that response?

 

[YoursTruly]

And you worship: Harris, Biden, Obama, Clinton's ....

If you have to lie to make a point, then you really don't have one. Do you?