We’ve knowingly set this planet on an irreversible course towards destruction but at least a handful of sociopaths got to live lavishly before they died
This is what the institutionalists are focusing their efforts on now: Disavowing #HasanPiker.
Not white Christian nationalists? Not the broligarchs? Not the AI overlords?
Nope, the guy encouraging young people to use their collective political power for good.
F*ck that noise.
hello, i’m a democratic congressman/woman. i know it costs $50 to fill your gas tank with the cheap gas, you have to pull out your credit card to keep food on the table, and you can barely afford housing. that’s why i’m online today posting lies about hasan piker.
Hasan: Jews are not a monolith. When they’re portrayed as a monolith in support of a genocidal apartheid state that a majority of Americans have turned against, that will worsen antisemitism, which is bad.
Dem Establishment: HASAN SAID MURDER ALL JEWISH AMERICANS! MUSLIM!!
This is so demoralizing, man. I fucking hate this party to my core and if I could take every phone bank call, every hour canvasing, every cent I donated to this utterly owned and worthless party I would in heartbeat.
Hard to overstate how a psychoticly selfish 87 year old judge with pancreatic cancer not retiring actually doomed this country in ways no person alive today will see rectified
A few more tweets from members of Congress condemning a streamer in defense of Israel and then Americans will be able to afford groceries. Keep posting. You're so close.
the only difference between ben gvir & an isis commander is that ben gvir is a part of a war cabinet that uses f35s. both entities committed genocides, both are at times beneficial to immediate us interests in the region. both often become an issue. one gets unconditional support
Jeffries naming Moskowitz — one of the most pro-Israel Democrats — as ranking member of HFAC’s Middle East subcommittee tells you *everything* you need to know about Dem party leaders’ preferred plan for dealing with their base’s fury at Israel (ignore it, maybe it’ll go away)
Briahna Joy Gray argues that the political debate over “defund the police” has been deliberately narrowed to whether the phrase is electorally damaging and what the wording means, rather than whether its underlying policy should be defended.
Gray argues that “defund could not be more literal,” and says opponents have succeeded in pushing politicians to debate the phrase instead of explaining or defending their previous support for “defund the police.”
She points to continued growth in police budgets since 2020 and argues that the underlying case for “defunding” is “one of the easiest things to prove and support.”
@briebriejoy | @FDsignifier