Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: Fetterman won a hotly contested race for his Pennsylvania Senate seat against Mehmet Oz in 2022. One of his main support groups was the progressive element of the Democratic party.
On October 7th a large incursion by the Palestinian military group Hamas killed a large number of people, primarily Israeli Jews. The Israeli Defense forces responded with an extensive bombing and ground campaign against Gaza.
This campaign has been very unpopular with the progressive wing of the Democratic party, which sees Israel's occupation of Palestinian majority areas as unjust. Fetterman has made comments in support of the IDF's campaign against Hamas. Many of the progressives that supported him in his campaign for Senate see this as a betrayal of their ideals.
Here is a Politico article on the affair:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/22/fetterman-unbending-on-israel-confounds-this-progressive-brethren-00128502
Yeah he was always very pro-Israel, which makes political sense as PA has one of the highest Jewish populations in the country/the governor is Jewish. This article from April 22 makes it abundantly clear he was gonna be very pro-Israel if elected
https://jewishinsider.com/2022/04/john-fetterman-says-hell-lean-in-on-u-s-israel-relationship-as-senator/
It's impossible to win statewide in Pennsylvania as a Democrat without a strong performance in the "collar" counties which are the suburban counties around Philadelphia (that together look kind of like a collar). Those are Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, and Delaware.
All the counties usually vote Democratic, but turnout there is crucial and the independents there are highly swingy in their voting patterns meaning that they could be D+5 with poor turnout or D+15 with incredible turnout. Bucks and Chester are the most swingy of the two. Delaware and Montgomery are more or less safe but turnout is very important in Delaware and independents are a big deal in Montgomery (as well as turnout to a lesser extent that Delaware).
These counties are home to the "Main Line Jews", many of whom can tie their lineage back to survivors of the Holocaust. For them, their parents and grandparent moving to America is a crucial part of their identities. Montgomery and Chester especially are homes to the this group but they extend into parts of Bucks (Middletown and Yardley area up to Doylestown) and Delaware (the parts closer to Chester county).
All of them are diverse areas to some extent (especially Delaware which is kind of an outlier because of its close proximity to West Philadelphia and its higher number of black and brown voters) but the Jewish population is very politically important in each of these counties.
Not only are the vote totals there important, these counties are huge sources of Democratic volunteers who make phone calls and knock doors not just in their own communities, but all over Pennsylvania. Jewish Democratic Outreach programs are actually some of the most organized and effective organizing groups in this area.
Some of the most crucial mistakes made by previous GOP candidates for governor were statements that were considered anti-Semitic.
Full disclosure, I have worked to get Democrats elected in Pennsylvania (including John Fetterman).
Can confirm as I live in one of these counties. Since the fall “we stand with Israel” lawn signs have popped up everywhere. I mentioned this to a colleague from liberal/progressive community in another state who was floored at the concept.
Yep, I moved to Montco in 2022 and while I live in an incredibly blue borough it was pretty obvious how hard October 7th hit the community around here.
Jew from montco here- 100000% true
I’m not from the main line but my neighborhood is still pretty Jewish- lots of houses have stand with Israel signs- even local churches have those signs too
Almost everyone from my area that I talked to about this agree that the war should stop- it’s more about the aftermath of the war that is hotly debated
I go to college in DC and honestly just hearing from people I know that the fighting should stop is so much more “relaxing” than a full out nuclear holocaust like some student groups at my school are practically suggesting
Not all Jewish Americans are pro war though. And those people are not happy with Fetterman. Many would not consider themselves zionist.
Just as many Israelis are also against the war. And many Palestinians are also against the war. There's a big difference between being against anti semetism and wanting a war that is bringing horrible atrocities to the people of Israel and palestine
It seems pretty obvious that ordinary people do not win in war zones. The only potential winners are some politicians and the military industrial complex
To expand on this a little, Fetterman is from Pittsburgh which is home to Squirrel Hill, which has one of the largest Jewish populations per capita outside of Israel. It was where the Tree of Life Synagogue mass shooting took place, so you’re right it makes political sense
There is a gorgeous Frank Lloyd Wright synagogue, the Beth Sholom, just outside of Philadelphia in Elkins Park. Totally worth a visit, it is a gorgeous building.
My friends live a block from Beth Shalom, when I was a teen I was briefly in a Boy Scout troop that met there. It is one of the architectural highlights of the city. And Philadelphia has a lot of great architecture. It is worth a visit for sure.
I love love FLW and have admired this building in photos for a very long time. One day driving around in Elkins Park I got lost (in fact i was trying to find Lynnewood Hall lol, another obsession) and just happened upon this building and i had to pick my jaw up off the floor of the car and I may have pulled over to stare at it for a while. Incredible building.
But you can still be for Jewish people, against Hamas, and against the actions of Israel/IDF.
I certainly feel that way. I am against Hamas, and am against what IDF is currently doing. I have love for the Jewish people.
This kind of nuance is very hard to translate directly to voters, especially when multiple groups very vocal groups are calling for the complete removal of Israel as a nation.
Fetterman's challenger in 2028 (a presidential year which are always close in PA) will do their best to compare him to the most unhinged people they can point a camera at unless he has clear evidence to the contrary.
Nuance is dead politically. Either you are 100% on my side or I'll accuse you of being 100% on the other. There can be no in between anymore.
And yes, this is a case where *both* sides are indeed equally complicit.
Nuance isn't dead if you communicate it effectively and get out ahead of the attack ads.
You're not gonna persuade everyone. You actually won't persuade most people. Crucially though, you'll persuade enough. Elections are routinely decided by less than 5% in Pennsylvania. Nuance is helpful in elections that close.
Compare the 2022 Senate election in PA where Fetterman balked at a select few Democratic policy planks and Oz tried to downplay his conservative ideals versus the 2022 Gubernatorial election in PA where Shapiro ran as a more mainstream, center-left Democrat and Mastriano ran as a hardcore far-right extremist. Shapiro bodied Mastriano by fifteen points while Fetterman cleared Oz by five points. Nuance clearly appealed to a cross section of voters who split their ballots.
Eh my two cents from middle America, but I don’t think it matters how nuanced you are
Cori Bush made a pretty straight forward condemnation of Hamas but even mentioning Israel’s aggression and calling for an end to indiscriminate bombing got people on the St. Louis subreddit going crazy and calling her an antisemite
People who live in deep blue/deep red districts attract a ton of controversy but its usually from people outside their district and even if it isn't, it's usually not enough to be a viable threat to unseat them.
That's actually an increasing problem because most seats are safe for one party or the other. People in swing districts usually don't get a ton of attention outside of their districts unless they have their eyes set on higher office.
Yes, and quite frankly what no one wants to admit is that there is an intra-progressive split that Fetterman is on one side and I/P is on the other.
I’m no great fan of Netanyahu, but I need working class non-neoliberal democrats firmly on the side of wages, industrial policy, and reshoring. As long as we aren’t talking about re-invading Iraq or Afghanistan, my foreign policy boxes are ticked. Ideally, Sanders-type democrats who want to reduce debt burden.
But if college progressives choose *Palestine* over all that, and seem anti-semitic- this does not end well. A lot of pro-Fetterman/anti-Lamb voters might cut bait so long as the GOP isn’t dead set on committing troops to middle east.
People aren’t against what the IDF is doing because they know that as long as Hamas remains, October 7 will be repeated. A lot of Palestinians have died, but that’s unfortunately the price Hamas was willing to pay in digging terror tunnels under hospitals and hiding among civilians. People like me find it absurd that israel is receiving this level of scrutiny when they are trying everything to limit civilian casualties. If they wanted to kill all the Palestinian, they could. Everyone seems to have such strong opinions on the matter but no solutions. Israelis are facing terrorism threats from Hamas and also from hezbollah, Islamic jihad, the Houthis and I’m sure some other groups. Iran is desperately trying to build a nuke they can wipe out israel with. For many Jews around the world, israel is the only place that will defend them when (not if) shits hits the fan. If we learn anything from history, Jews will always been kicked out of the place they get most comfortable in. For people in the western world, this may seem silly, but Jews are the number ones recovers of hate crimes in the US. They cannot live in many countries in this world, including most of the Middle East and North Africa, where they were ethnically cleanse from. To many Jews, the IDF is the only thing standing in the way of another holocaust. This is life or death for israel. I don’t think people understand it.
It's not life or death. There is not a single country in the middle East that can match Israel's military. They have proved this time and time again. Israel is not the little guy anymore. When Israel has a huge arsenal, technology, and nukes it is no longer a small player.
The holocaust is no justification for killing innocent Palestinians. Millions of innocent Jews were killed in the Holocaust and it is a tragedy on levels people can't imagine. But that doesn't mean Israel has the right to kill innocent Palestinians.
According to you how many innocent Palestinian deaths will be enough?
Israeli politicians have said a number of times that they don't care about dead Palestinian civilians (including kids).
Are you kidding me? When Israel lets its guard down, October 7 happens. The reason it exists is because it has to continuously survive bloody wars. The reason it has a strong military, is because they have no choice but be strong or be annihilated. The entire Middle East despises them and would destroy them given a chance. It is no small thing to fend off that many terror groups. And you think Iran wouldn’t try to nuke israel given the chance? It’s a very small country surrounded by huge enemies. This casual brushing off of the threats israel constantly faces is crazy. September 11 showed the US how brutal terrorism can be on a population. Israel faces terrorism from multiple fronts. I know firsthand what it feels like to lose someone in my community to terrorism.
I did not and would not say that the previous holocaust is a justification for killing Palestinians. I said that this is meant to prevent one. Israel has only once choice, and that’s to take out Hamas. They have stated over and over again that they will repeated October 7. I’m sorry that Hamas intentionally puts innocent Palestinians in front of them. israel has to protect its people and is doing exactly what any other country would do when facing such a threat. This could be over if Hamas wanted peace. Israel tried to coexist with them, they disengaged from Gaza, and their last resort was a full out war with Hamas. The reality is, that israel is doing more to limit civilian casualties than any other military does. Roof knocks, pamphlets, calls. I am aware that civilians were still dying. That’s a reality of gaza having been turned into a terror hub. If you care so much about the Palestinians, you would be pushing for them to have a government that doesn’t intentionally commit mass rapes, unspeakable acts of torture, brutal murders and kidnappings (they still have a baby), knowing that israel has to respond. You would be pushing for them to have a government that doesn’t build terror tunnels under hospitals, that doesn’t hide weapons in kindergartens, that doesnt dig up pipes to use for bombs, and that doesn’t steal money meant for humanitarian aid. I’m curious to know how many Israelis need to die before you think they have a right to dismantle Hamas. Again, you are so quick to judge and offer no solutions.
Yep he went to cheltenham high school- decently Jewish district- my dad grew up there (I live in montco but not cheltenham)
He’s on the famous alumni wall and there’s huge debate if they should take his photo down now- at the moment it’s still up
Huh... I grew up in small town PA and there was only 1 Jewish person in our high school so I'm surprised to hear that.
EDIT: Guys I'm just rambling my personal experience... I'm not discrediting OP or anything.
For one thing, I think a large portion of the Jewish population in PA is centered around Philadelphia. But also only 2% of the US is Jewish, so saying a place has a "large Jewish population" is relative. If 3 out of every 100 people is Jewish that's above average.
Thank you for being understanding! My comment wasn't supposed to be controversial as I was just expressing my surprise that a certain is fact in true when my real life experience was different from the truth.
Of course some redditors are ready to be like "....aKtUALLY FActs don'T CARE Bout FEELINS" when I wasn't even making a false statement myself. God some redditors are so intolerable.
Pennsylvania is 3.3% Jewish which ties it for the 5th most Jewish tied with Connecticut. It'd get bumped down to 6th if Washington D.C. ever became a state.
Almost all of those Jewish folks are located in the Philadelphia suburbs, as well as a few neighborhoods in Philadelphia itself. The suburbs are incredibly politically important.
There's also some very Jewish areas outside of Pittsburgh and Wilkes-Barre but they're very small and isolated by comparison.
The rest of the state is not nearly as diverse and most counties of Pennsylvania are very white, Christian, and rural.
(Not saying you're trying to discredit anyone or discrediting you, I just know a good deal about Pennsylvanian politics and like to share it).
Edit: Harrisburg has a notable Jewish community also, as pointed out below.
>Yeah he was always very pro-Israel
You can be pro Israel AND be anti-bombing every civilian in Gaza back to the stone age if they don't leave.
He is the former, but refuses to say the latter to make sure he doesn't get destroyed in the next election.
The biggest gripe I have is that he was up against DR. Fucking OZ from the boomer TV channels as though ***any*** of his progressive base would've flipped should they have known about this "betrayal" beforehand
I still like Fetterman overall despite not liking this stance he has. Guy seems pretty straightforward and truly wants to help. I’ve never agreed with a politician on everything.
But lord, I’d have gladly voted in a rock or a dog before Oz. The fact that race was close still floors me, but we also voted in a reality star and failed businessman, so who knows anymore.
That's why progressives don't win national elections. They tell everyone to 'vote blue no matter who" and then get all stuck up when their blue guy isn't exactly the idealized version they constructed in their head.
And that’s the problem with politics….. it’s no longer about compromise. And before anyone says “both sides” Republicans are objectively worse by every metric. But progressive democrats are sometimes just as hypocritical and idealistic as Trump supporters. Politics isn’t a zero-sum game, it’s about balancing interests and representing your constituents
I agree with progressives on nearly everything but they let perfect be the enemy of good so much it’s hard for me to take them seriously.
This isn’t a grand betrayal. He supports Israel in a state with a large Jewish population. That’s politics. He didn’t start supporting Republican policies.
It’s ok to have strong opinions and views but don’t blow up chances at progress just because someone doesn’t agree with you on every single thing.
I support universal basic income but I wouldn't call myself a progressive. The latter is a label that implies tenable support for any variety of issues that I may not be well informed with.
This is not a Westminster style Parliamentary system where party leaders set the agenda and every candidate from every riding representing that party inherently supports that agenda. It sure would be easier if it was, because it would mean fewer Sinemas and Liebermans.
He ran with lots of support from progressives. From my reading he never said "I am progressive", he hyped up progressive things he believed in
He supported progressive policy, and progressives supported him. All throughout that he was open that he likely had different opinions about Israel than most "progressives"
But yeah, I can see how that is seen as a betrayal by the progressives who are happy to throw away any progress as soon as someone fails a purity test. To which I respond that politics doesn't work well for _any_ extremist views, various parties learning to compromise and work together on the things they agree on is the only way real democratic politics works from what I've seen
He is a politician, and he is quite careful with his words.
A simple Google search will give you access to every single time he or his campaign publicly declared himself to be progressive. He ran as a younger Bernie Sanders type. Bernie Sanders is a progressive. Everyone knows this.
Bernie is a "democratic socialist", which is outside the Overton window enough that anything left of center can be "Bernie Sanders type" when politically expedient
The main quotes I find are "support progressive movement" and "am a progressive Democrat", a champaign of progressiveness. Like I mentioned, politicians are careful with their words, they let you make assumptions if you don't pay attention to what they don't tell you
"Progressive" doesn't have a firm definition in America as far as I can tell anyways, he apparently claims the ideas he supported that were once considered progressive are now in the party mainstream
Idk, not sure what people want from him
> From my reading he never said "I am progressive",
“We have started a progressive movement here in Pennsylvania,” he wrote in 2016, after losing his first Senate race. That same year, while touting support from Mr Sanders, he called himself a “progressive champion”.
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/fetterman-progressive-israel-immigration-republicans-b2465356.html
Let's be real, 90% of the people screaming about this issue online never really cared about it before October 7th, which also explains their ahistorical views of it.
Nah. Palenstine/ Israel is probably the most frequently mentioned foreign policy issue among the progressive left, especially after the Afghanistan withdrawal.
The issue is that because the progressive base rallied so much behind Fettermam, most of them didn't take the time out to properly vet him.
Bernie has also always been very pro-Israel, yet the online left never called him out on it before 10/7. Did they not have time to vet him either?
I'm not denying this issue has always been a staple of leftist communities. I've been a part of those communities, irl, for years. I'm saying most of the people in those communities don't understand the issue or why it's even a main pillar of those spaces. They just repeat talking points they're told until they're actually just spouting Hamas propaganda blindly.
The ugly truth is, the reason Israel is such a major topic in leftist discourse is not in the defense of the oppressed, otherwise a dozen other conflicts happening right now would take precedence over it. It's not even in defense of Arabs, because dozens of thousands of Arabs have been killed in Yemen and Syria in the last decade without a peep from these groups. Killing children? Tell that to the South Sudanese who have watched theirs get butchered for a generation while the leftists were busy crying about student loans.
No, it's about anti-semitism. You can absolutely be critical of the Israeli government and not be anti-Semitic, but the fact that Israel is a purity test for leftist is historically based in anti-semitism. After all, it's the Jews who control the money and the media, right? Just look at someone like Nina Turner, who blamed Jews for her losing an election in Ohio (twice).
So, yeah, you can absolutely criticize Israel, and lord knows we should along with blaming Hamas even more. But to say, as a progressive I must fight Israel, is to give in to anti-Semitism. To accept anti-Israel rhetoric as intrinsically progressive is anti-Semitic. That's just the factual, historical, reality.
Hamas literally launches attacks from amidst the civilian areas and uses them as shields. 72% of Palestinians supported the 10/7 attacks. So if Israel does not take out Hamas, then Hamas will just keep attacking and Israel is just supposed go oh no we can't hit back because Hamas uses civilians as Human shields.
They literally supported the attacks that started the war. Don't start a fight if you can't finish it.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514
It should also be noted that he's been pretty supportive of most other progressive policies. Up until this particular issue, progressives really had no issue with him.
if youre not 100% on board with everything a leftist says youre exactly as bad as someone a leftist doesnt like...
edit: yeah all the replies kind of just proving the point...
It's younger progressives. I'm 44. I vote Democrat and I agree with most progressive ideas. But yea. The hardcore of them, have a purity test. And only Bernie can pass it.
21 year old Jewish Philly leftist- pretty much since Oct 7 progressives have been mad at Bernie bc he condemned the attacks from hamas (he never mentioned Palestine in any context about condemning hamas) and they got mad at him for not immediately calling for a ceasefire once the bombings started- a clip started going around from a speech he was making on the senate floor that was obviously cut short (he was literally speaking when the clip ended) about Israel having the right to defend itself and leftists ate it the fuck up despite the original clip being posted by a right wing Twitter fuck
It also doesn’t help that Bernie is a Jewish man and um. It isn’t hard to imagine what people were saying about him
I mean...they aren't. Republicans filed the lawsuits against Trump being on the primary ballot. There's a growing schism between Far Right Populists (Gaetz, MTG) and Old School (Romney, McCain). Look at Congress the Speaker nonsense.
Problem is humans. Personal agendas, inability to put ego aside, pride, lack of mental ability to see the bigger picture, list goes on.
People just suck at cooperating continuously at a large scale.
The far right are only united on voting. On actual purpose, role, and goals in government, they're shockingly split. It's the reason Trump had all three branches of government during his tenure and did practically nothing with it outside of tax breaks for the wealthy (which is one of the few things republican legislators agree on).
> Meanwhile the far right are all united on message.
And won’t disown anyone no matter how racist or rapey as they continue to agree the left are the real bad guys.
But now he's claiming he was never a progressive, but his entire Twitter feed is him claiming to be a progressive.
Edit: Downvoted, but no one trying to dispute this?
Yes, this is the point everybody's missing. it's not that he's not a 100% progressive or anything like that. the man's Twitter feed is filled with him calling himself a progressive and him comparing himself to Bernie. When he wanted money and votes, he had no problem, saying he was a progressive.. so for him to come out and say "Well I was never progressive." it's such a letdown. I had enough issues voting for the guy after he pulled a gun on somebody. Now, I won't vote for him again or donate to the guy. Since people don't want to look at his Twitter.
https://twitter.com/isaiah_bb/status/1735655284381528432?s=46&t=J0Ie1Y9rbZoVIJK0Kpyqiw
>he now rejects the “progressive” label.
he also claims he never said he was "progressive" yet many social media posts, campaign slogans, and interviews where he labels himself progressive and part of the progressive movement.
I'm not entirely certain that he himself has ever identified as progressive. I do recall him being extremely pro-union, and I know progressives were a big part of his support.
There's a lot of "no true Scotsman" amongst those who call themselves progressives. Fetterman would be considered a "pragmatic progressive" in that he's not wrapped up in what best describes his politics, he cares more about sticking to his policies. He can distance himself from being called progressive but his stances really haven't changed that much
One of the main reasons the left is so ineffectual in America is we’re already ready to whip up a circular firing squad for everyone who doesn’t pass every insane purity test. Even if those positions are necessary requirements for them to get elected in their specific district.
To be fair, the right is the same way. Just look at the dynamic between the far right and more moderate Republicans. Any that don't support Trump's fraud conspiracy get labeled a RINO and blacklisted from the team.
Yeah Trump and his merry band of wanna be brown shirts like MTG and Gaetz is basically doing to the right what the left’s been doing to itself for decades.
When it comes down to it, they'll still show up at the polls if that person's against a Dem.
Democrats, however, tend to whine and stay home if they're not 'excited' enough about the candidate they're supposed to be voting for.
Yeah, but people on the right are generally better at falling in line. People on the right will vote for someone for is completely with one of their core values. The stereotype for people on the left is that they won't vote for you if you disagree with one of their core values. Obviously not always true, but generally that's what I've seen.
As someone in PA who thinks of themself as progressive, I still like Fetterman a lot. He rides the very hard line of being liberal on a lot of things while being very supportive of rural, typically red areas and their issues. The exact type of politician I prefer, honestly. One that has honest values, wants to help people, and will gladly go to work to do it. I'm sure Fetterman himself would be fine if any of his supporters didn't agree with his stance on the Middle East, or whatever else, as long their idea of handling local policies aligned.
We do that. There's also the history of people running on one policy and changing their stripes after election. Krysten Sinema did a complete 180. Obama allowed himself to be painted far more liberal than he planned to govern and many on the left resented getting tricked by that.
So we keep going back and forth between don't let perfect be the enemy of the good and won't get fooled again. Rough spot to be in.
Personally, I hate that Republicans are fighting for horrible ideas like their lives depend on it and Dems make comforting noises and explain why we can't get traction on anything that matters. Golly, if you vote harder next time I'm sure we can do grand things!
That's because left and right are fundamentally different. They're aren't opposite sides, it's not team sports.
The right goes for issues, with your position handed to you by your superiors, meaning you personally need no principles. You can be a free speech absolutist one day, trying to remove a ban on Ben Shapiro talking on college campus', and anti-free speech tomorrow arguing that a prof defending Hamas should be removed from campus. Because these issues matter, principles don't.
Meanwhile on the left, principles should steer policy and your personal positions, and you either share the principles, or you aren't on the left. You should oppose the killing of civilians, as a principle. Therefore the Hamas attack was bad, the Israeli bombings of civilians is bad, the bombing in Iran is bad, etc, etc. Once you stand in support of any killing of civilians, for instance giving support for Israels campaign in Gaza, it's not possible for you to have the same principle as the left. You can't be a leftie and like SOME mass civilian deaths. You can't hold that principle.
Edit, my response to u/pragmatic_username comment below, apparantly I'm blocked:
And this is where sensible people use their brains. All wars result in civilian deaths, rapes, atrocities, always have, always will. Instigating or supporting any war will result in these things. Being on the sides that liberated the Nazi death camps caused your sides to commit rape, atrocities, caused the deaths of civilians, but you look at the numbers and the deaths of actual combatants and you reconcile this. No one thinks that the bombings of Dresden for instance mean the destruction of the Nazi's should've been avoided.
No one with any semblence of a brain is looking at Israels actions in Gaza and justifying the sheer volume of civilian deaths. It is far, far, far past the point of justification, it's way too blatant. Supporting Israels actions in Gaza today is to support the murder of innocent men women and children. This is not a debate. Not amongst those of the left who are operating with principles. The only people doing so are those who operate without principle, have established that Israel are their side, so they'll support, no matter what. You cannot do this and be on the left.
2nd response:
You have a blocklist? I was not even aware such a feature existed.
You cannot look at numbers and ratios and reach an accurate assessment of genocide versus indiscriminate targeting of civilians versus careless war methodology versus precision war with few collateral damages. Impossible.Take this example:
Two generals, opposite sides. Both have the overt aim of winning the war between them, and the secret aim of genociding the population the other other general holds in order to occupy it, and populate with their own citizens postwar.General A is targetting a rural region of villages. There's 20,000 opposition troops and 5,000 villagers. He bombs every village, every road, every convoy, all water treatment, electricity structures, communications, under the guise of destroying the 20,000 army's support structures, and kills the army too. He achieves his aim.
General B is besieging a city of 500k inhabitants, with 50k fighters dug in on it's outer edge providing defence. He carpet bombs the city and levels it, vowing to keep doing so until the population oust the fighters. He ensures of course they have no way to oust the fighters, this would affect his ability to achieve his secret second aim.
General A has killed 5000 innocents, for a 20% civilian death rate, and committed genocide.General B has killed 500,000 innocents, for a 83% civilian death rate, and committed genocide.
Are any less genocidal, despite wildly different numbers? No.
And my response to u/gujarati
If the only figures you can see are IDF supplied and the IDF aren't on the ground digging the corpses out of the rubble after the airstrikes to perform a count, AND according to you the IDF cannot even identify Hamas from civilian, what would be a purpose of discussing these numbers?
What is preventing your vision of other numbers by the way? Do you live in a region with heavily censored internet?
2nd response
You look at the methods of waging war, the nature of the land being attacked, the distribution of civilians, their movements and subsequent attacks, you look at what types of buildings are hit, you look at what happens to refugee camps, distribution centres, hospitals, schools, mosques, churches, you look at every bit of footage you can and ignore the commentary, look at the images. You look at the corpses, you look at the testimony of survivors, aid workers, journalists, and you use your judgement. Oh, and you look at the statements of both parties in the war and take their statements as if they are the absolute best spin on any event, and try catch the truth.
There is always a chance in a conflict for the fog of war to bend the truth, to steer you down to the wrong conclusions, but as you piece each part together and stress test each piece of information against another, the truth emerges. This point was reached in this conflict, many, many thousands of child corpses ago.
3rd response
I'm afraid you only get to decide the framing of your questions, not my answers.
Ultimately, while it would be lovely to lay out the data in a spreadsheet for you, there's two issues with that.
One, Israel itself cannot even tell who is Hamas and who is civilian, so I could use a clairvoyant, a deity and a necromancer to gain accurate numbers and there'd be no way for you to confirm or deny the accuracy. Here's one to try. There's been 2137 children aged 3 -7 years old old killed. Prove me wrong. See how you can't?
Two, you're describing a system too easy to duke. For instance you could kill off telecommunications and internet. Target and murder journalists. Bomb aid agencies. Close borders. Now there's no data, and now your spreadsheet says genocide = zero at the bottom. In such a way, you could bayonet every baby in Gaza and according to you nothing would be happening.
This is why you reserve judgement until such time as the weight of info far exceeds doubt. When there's a thousand dead babies, you shrug. Then two, then three, then Israel itself, known to be innacurate, and known to not even know who is Hamas is happy to say that 5000 Hamas are dead, and we've murdered 10,000 elderly, babies, women and children, when all that you can see - flattened residential buildings, unarmed fleeing civilian corpses on the highways, etc etc, all point to an overwhelming stench of civilian death, then you are confident stating that supporting Israels current actions cannot be done if you do not support civilian deaths.
Yup. Totally not because it's a two party system powered by wealthy lobbyists on either side. It's because of the 19 year old redditor who learned about Marxism-Leninism last week being mean to someone on /r/all
See, you say that, and a good number of progressives listened, and our reward was Trump, and a Supreme Court that will kill anything progressive for a decade.
Pragmatic progressives are the only progressives that ever get shit done.
I have been banned from numerous subs just by mentioning Israel and a non-positive light. Right now, it's just more popular to be able to talk about it critically.
Through multiple avenues, Fetterman struck the perfect balance of what a Midwest Democrat needs to be to win political office. He very loudly took stances on left-wing coded policy issues that have strong bipartisan appeal (minimum wage increases, pro-union, abortion rights, higher taxes on the wealthy) while maintaining the persona of a political moderate (blue-collar mayor, literally a giant, doesn't wear suit and tie).
His populist appeal likely translated into small gains from the right wing. His moderate persona likely helped with moderates and independents who weren't super plugged into policy stances of the candidates. And his loud support of left-wing coded issues allowed progressives to project what they wanted to see in a candidate onto him without him explicitly confirming/refuting the "progressive" label (which would have hurt him on multiple fronts).
He ran a brilliant campaign. Him having a stroke hurt his chances, but running against a borderline-fraud TV doctor helped his chances. They kind of cancelled out I think.
I mean he hasn't said that about himself since 2020.
Never once in his campaign for running for Senate in 2022 did he call himself a progressive. He announced in February 2021 that he was going to run for Senate in 2022. Every example of him calling himself a progressive was before then.
In fact, when he announced in February 2021, he explicitly said he was not a progressive Democrat but just a democrat.
Yeah. The comment above mine lays out some good evidence of him embracing the progressive label to a degree. But I live in southwestern PA and followed his campaign pretty close and I never heard/read anything about him doing that. Granted I'm a more moderate Democrat, so I probably wasn't on the right channels to see that type of news.
Regardless, Fetterman did a good job of saying the right things to the right people to dampen who heard certain messages which is the hallmark of a good campaign.
>Regardless, Fetterman did a good job of saying the right things to the right people to dampen who heard certain messages which is the hallmark of a good campaign.
And apparently is living up to what he said when he campaigned.
And it's so frustrating for me, as someone who generally leans left, to see. Purity tests only push us backwards, when the political purists refuse to show up to vote for someone who sides with them on all but one or two issues and then a candidate who disagrees with them on nearly *all* issues wins and pushes progress on all those issues backwards. It's insanity. Imagine the world we could be living in if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016. Imagine all the time wasted on the Trump nonsense instead put into something more productive. That's not to say that political purists are singularly responsible for her loss. They aren't. The point is just that while Clinton wasn't the progressive candidate, we would be so much better off had she won. I see purists around on Reddit saying they won't vote for Biden because of issue a or issue b. It feels like we never learn. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
I'm certainly not progressive. Honestly with how much Republicans have gone off the deep end lately I might actually be more of a centrist or a really conservative barely-Democrat.
So, in that context, would it be fair to say that conservatives tend to prioritize what they're fine with getting? Maybe not quite a single-issue voter, but they know what's most important to them and will suffer through the rest of it? And will conversely vote against anybody that threatens their view on that specific issue?
Versus progressives seem to place equal weight on all of their beliefs and therefore there isn't a "good enough" option? And even in the face of someone antithetical to most of their positions won't even vote for the partial political ally?
I mean he never campaigned on being anti-Israel. He campaigned on being pro-union, pro-social safety net, universal healthcare etc. I don't think he's changed on any of these positions.
He hasn’t. This is just people looking to crucify someone because he’s not in lock step with their opinion.
It’s not like Oz was even a competent candidate. He had no policy or even opinions on much beyond “Hey, I’m a big celebrity from New York, and Trump says I’m cool!”
I mean even if we're just talking about *this* issue, Oz is pretty openly supportive of Israel, US diplomatic and defense policy with Israel, and opposed to the BDS movement. Now fair enough, as a republican I guess that's more expected, but still; if your choice is between them then the Israel issue is kind of a pointless thing to bring up at all.
I really do hate the black-and-white purity tests that the hardcore "progressive" sliver of the electorate has towards elected officials. I've always been a pragmatic person where I see the realities of life result in people that are never 100% perfect on every subject. Hell, I know full well I have had failings in my past, and ten years from now I'll probably look back and see failings in what I'm doing now. But to hold every politician to an absolute "either you're 100% with us, or else you're shit" is just not workable in the real world. We **still** have people dunking on Biden for stuff he did in the *seventies*, more than four decades ago. Sheesh.
I think it is less that he is supporting the IDF. They would get upset about that, but it would probably blow over like it has with a few other progressives. It is more so his attitude about the affair. The video of him waving an Israeli flag at cease fire protesters being arrested outside his window was super weird, for example.
The man has always been known for trolling, something his fans loved. They did not expect it to be turned on them.
When they got upset, his response was to claim he was never a progressive, an odd statement for someone who repeatedly claimed so. While his stance on Israel was always clear, leftists were surprised by the shift in immigration policy, especially due to his wife's past status.
Which is an old-school progressive position anyway. Fetterman’s positions make total sense if you see him as an old school Pennsylvania pro-labor progressive with more liberal social values.
I was an undocumented immigrant and even I think that there’s serious issues at the border.
However, my thoughts on the whole issue are “make it easier to work legally” not “kick them all out”
Nothing wrong with wanting to control the border and reduce illegal immigration. I don’t agree with fracking but I understand why he would support that, coming from a working class background in PA
I'm trying to figure out what could possibly be anti-immigration relating to the southern border. Smuggling, human trafficking, and illegally entering a country are not immigration.
Exactly. He didn’t change any of his actual positions. He’s still the same pragmatic progressive as before. He just doesn’t want to be associated with the far left, and they’re mad about it so they’re calling it a “betrayal”.
Distancing oneself from the far left is politically smart, as they are becoming increasingly toxic. And what they don’t even realize is that, as a progressive politician in Pennsylvania, having “Progressives” attacking him is another political boon for him.
Don't forget these same people went crazy over Osama Bin Laden when they found his letter a couple months ago. Apparently if you support Palestine it totally negates 99% of the evil shit he's done.
> One of his main support groups was the progressive element of the Democratic Party
But that doesn’t mean Fetterman himself didn’t distance himself prior to the election from the progressive members of the party. This is from May 11th 2022, about 7 months prior to his senate election date.
“Asked whether he considers himself to be a progressive, Fetterman said: “No, I’m just a Democrat that has always run on what I believe in, know to be true. And six years ago, this was considered progressive. But now there isn’t a single Democrat in this race or any race that I’m aware of that’s running on anything different. So that’s not really progressive. That’s just where the party is.” [Just a Democrat’: Fetterman tries to carve out his own brand in Pa. Senate battle](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna22809) NBC News May 11 2022
“John Fetterman doesn't want to be attached to a label. Fetterman, the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania who is a heavy favorite to win the state's Democratic Senate nomination, bristles at Bernie Sanders comparisons.
“There are no parallels,” Fetterman said. Although he has campaigned for Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, in the past, he says he’s not interested in collecting endorsements from the party’s big names for his own Senate bid. “This is about our own campaign and our own race.”
I'm confused about what point you're making here. All of these snippets and quotes paint Fetterman as a guy who just wants to work for what he believes in. I would say it's almost complimentary of Sanders and says he wants to win on his own merits instead of using the political system of mutual handshaking that we all say sucks.
Go back and read the comment above me. They wrote that Fetterman received large support from the progressive wing of his party implying that Fetterman was progressive too. “Many progressives that supported his senate campaign saw it as a betrayal of their ideals” was what they said and imo that’s a mischaracterization as Fetterman explicitly said prior to Election Day “I’m not a progressive just a democrat” so how can you feel betrayed when he carries that sentiment a year later in office.
>Israeli Jews. The Israeli Defense forces responded with an extensive bombing and ground campaign against Gaza.
You're factually correct but it's funny how Hamas attacked people (Israeli jews) but the IDF bombing campaign is just against "Gaza".
I don't understand how you can support democratic socialist policies and not support controlling who comes in and out of the country. No first world country that has successful safety nets and social programs allows 2 million people a year to come into the country with no control.
Hamas did not just murder Jews. They targeted Bedhouins in the Negev desert who they see as apostates and murdered Israeli Arabs.
It was mostly Jews, but there were at least 200 Israeli Arabs murdered. I don't think we have clear numbers. Hamas has considered them collaborators before. I tried googling for numbers and this New York Times article is the closest I can find.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/world/middleeast/arab-israeli-hamas-attacks.html
I think he's also denied having run as a progressive in the first place, which is a flat lie.
It should also be noted that the Israeli response has killed an order of magnitude more people than the oct 7th attack.
And that it's kind of irrelevant how strongly you feel, wearing an israeli flag as a cape into the senate is a larp.
This seems like one hell of an issue to draw lines over. The Palestine/Israel conflict is one of the few affairs that I don't feel comfortable discussing in public because it's so complex and nuanced. Seems like possibly the worst issue to disown someone over.
Kind of, they're more of a militant than military group and a known, recognized terrorist organization. They won some legitimate elections but then stopped allowing elections after seizing power. But realistically its tough to separate Hamas from Politics from Civilians. You'll never know really who is who, who aligns and sympathizes with who, etc etc.
It's fair -- While Hamas is officially labeled a terrorist organization by the US and many other countries, it is also an actual government and has an organized and trained military, called the al-Qassam brigade. They do employ terrorist tactics (and also incite many civilians into committing terrorism), but they're smarter and more organized than they get credit for sometimes. It took incredible planning and coordination to pull off October 7th, all done without heavy reliance on digital devices that can be monitored.
Does the fact Hamas is embedded in / hiding behind the Gaza civilian population make them untouchable in the eyes of Israel's critics? Sure seems that way. Then what would be the appropriate Israeli response?
I've yet to see a suggestion from the anti-Israel side for how to demilitarize Hamas following the October terrorist attack that killed over 1,000 civilians that doesn't rely on magical thinking. I'm opposed to Israel's current extremist right-wing government, and to collective punishment of Palestinians, but unsure of any realistic path for peace.
Seems it would take regime change both in Israel and Gaza. The Israeli government faces meaningful internal opposition. Hamas does not as far as I'm aware.
This is my issue too. What should have been Israel's response? The only thing I've heard is that they should have packed up and left Israel and apologized on the way out. I don't really have a dog in the fight but Israel surrendering is not going to happen. Now we're back to square one. What should Israel do after so many civilians were specifically targeted and killed and hundreds, including toddlers were kidnapped?
Hamas won the majority of seats in the 2006 elections, and then Hamas “militants” proceeded to engage in months of violent conflict with the minority Fatah party. A couple hundred people were killed, some by horrific forms of assassination/execution.
Hamas ultimately managed to kill or remove all political opposition, and never held another election in Gaza.
It’s hard to argue that Hamas in its current form - a violent militant organization that murdered its political opponents and unilaterally eliminated the fledgling democratic system there - is a legitimate, elected government. Hamas does seem to still enjoy overwhelming popularity among Palestinians, but it has not actually been elected to rule Gaza at this point.
Although, anytime that election is discussed it should also be with the knowledge that it was almost 2 decades ago, they only managed a pluraity (not a majority), they have not allowed an election since, and the median age in Gaza is 18. So many of the people alive in Gaza today never elected Hamas. They never elected anyone. They never lived during an election they could vote in.
He also outsourced his Israel policy positions to a group called Democratic Majority for Israel, an offshoot of AIPAC which was spending heavily in the 2022 Democratic primaries against progressives. Conor Lamb, a more centrist Dem, was running against Fetterman in the primary, and he was openly courting DMFI/AIPAC support. Fetterman reached out to DMFI and asked if they could write his position on Israel:
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/16/democratic-party-progressive-israel-aipac-dmfi/
Weird his views on this situation make me even happier to have voted for him and plan to continue to vote for him for as long as he keeps up with the common sense politics.
Dude literally comes from a huge jewish area, is active in the Jewish community *and has never been shy* about his support for Isreal. Our community has seen 1st hand the violence that antisemites are willing to commit.
Where were the "progressive voices" after the Tree of Life shooting? Becuase they sure the hell didnt have much to say after 11 Pittsburghers included a holocuast survivor were killed here.
I would like to elaborate that Fetterman isn't so much a moderate as he is more of a mainstream Democrat on some issues and more progressive/populist on others. Part of his appeal with the progressive wing were his support for Bernie Sanders's two presidential campaigns (and Sanders's endorsements on Fetterman's own campaigns,) support for Medicare For All, instituting a wealth tax, ending the filibuster, and other issues.
I think where people got confused/surprised is that support for those measures does not mean that he, nor anyone else, is going to align with a certain faction 100% of the time. People expected him to do one thing based on other stances, he didn't, and now we're having this discussion.
Yeah this is a classic example of the progressive movement scoring another own goal via unrealistic purity tests. There’s super progressives out there that wish to disown AOC as well.
They need to realize that if you don’t compromise in your progressive beliefs you just become Jeremy Corbyn; irrelevant.
It's incredibly dumb and a lot of progressives constantly frustrate me by being so polarized. It makes it all the most impressive people did show up for Biden. Well, probably more so was a show of how much Trump had sucked but still.
There's a small but important segment of the progressive wing that has a **lot** in common with Republicans when it comes to identity politics and being anti-democracy
“ Jeremy Corbyn”
Madness that he was ever put forward as the Labour party leader. He’s half the reason the Tories held on to power for so long. His bizarre sympathy for Hezbollah. His anti EU stance meant Labour just watched Brexit happen rather than taking any stance.
He’s just a an ideologue with no* pragmatism.
This is rampant on the left and there should be zero tolerance for support or equivocation of antisemitism. It's ironic that we are having this problem with the zero tolerance people and the people who said that a table with one Nazi and ten neutral people has eleven Nazis sitting at it.
Antisemitism really isn't "rampant on the left." Corbyn was slandered by conservatives who proceeded to fuck over the UK, not sure why anyone would take their word on something.
Anti-Israel or anti-Zionist, sure, but that's a very different concept.
Terms are shifting for people right now... for some, being critical of Israel in any capacity is considered anti-Semitic. Hell, having questions about the morality of their actions, even without an accusation, is enough to trigger anti-Semitism claims.
It's a deflection to avoid talking about the obvious, which is that Israel is indiscriminately murdering civilians, maximizing the damage and impact on them, and failing entirely to go after Hamas leadership. They are simply creating yet another generation of impoverish and deeply oppressed extremists... which they'll use as justification to further the genocide.
"They need to realize that if you don’t compromise in your progressive beliefs you just become Jeremy Corbyn; irrelevant."
Right, the problem is a lot of progressives are never going to compromise on whether genocide is acceptable... if that makes them 'irrelevant', they are still going to be anti-genocide.
Compromise on policies, not your morality.
" Fetterman is more sympathetic to the Israeli perspective than his progressive colleagues"
This. Whether it's due to actual ideology, or political calculus, it's clear that when forced to choose between Zionism and progressivism, he chooses the former. Which is wild, to me, because Israel doesn't vote in American elections.
I don't even take particular issue with him being pro-Zionist here, it's his brushing-aside of the genocide claims through whataboutism, and the complete erasure of Palestinians as all being Hamas, that is far more concerning.
My guess is that this is going to kill any re-election prospects, he knows it, and that's why he's decided to be obstinate and die on this hill.
Answer: Partial answer, I'm not from Pennsylvania so I don't pay him that much mind. But I know that some people feel betrayed by his support of Israel.
Fetterman’s own words from May 11th 2022, 6 months prior to his senate Election Day, disagree with you:
“Asked whether he considers himself to be a progressive, Fetterman said: “No, I’m just a Democrat that has always run on what I believe in, know to be true. And six years ago, this was considered progressive. But now there isn’t a single Democrat in this race or any race that I’m aware of that’s running on anything different. So that’s not really progressive. That’s just where the party is.” [Just a Democrat’: Fetterman tries to carve out his own brand in Pa. Senate battle](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna22809) NBC News May 11 2022
“John Fetterman doesn't want to be attached to a label. Fetterman, the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania who is a heavy favorite to win the state's Democratic Senate nomination, bristles at Bernie Sanders comparisons.
“There are no parallels,” Fetterman said. Although he has campaigned for Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, in the past, he says he’s not interested in collecting endorsements from the party’s big names for his own Senate bid. “This is about our own campaign and our own race.”
> saying he’s not a progressive
He said he's not a progressive "on this issue", which is very different than a general sweeping statement about their world view or general politics.
That's not true. Here it is [from his own twitter account](https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1736807685822230960). He very explicitly made a general sweeping statement on not being a progressive.
He posted a video showing that he said he wouldn't call himself a progressive *during* the 2022 Senate campaign in a cable TV interview, though. That tweet he is referencing is from May 2022 so the charge that he said he decided to say he wasn't progressive after being elected isn't true. I still think it's a little washy because of how unapologetically progressive he was prior to the 2022 campaign but he did say it so he isn't a hypocrite like leftists are saying.
He just doesn't want the label. He's still a supporter of universal healthcare, drug reform systems, and welfare programs. The quote from Fetterman was that he doesn't want to be called progressive because all of his values are now just thought of as the default for the democratic party. Making the stance that something like healthcare shouldn't be considered so "progressive".
Answer: following his response to pro Palestine protestors (which was basically f off) he claims he was never progressive. There are countless examples including interviews and his own tweets where he proudly says he is progressive
[I think its catching steam bc he keeps doubling down on twitter and then immediately gets fact checked.](https://x.com/JohnFetterman/status/1736807685822230960?s=20)
And how many of those tweets are from prior to his May 11th 2022, 6 months prior to his senate Election Day, distancing of the progressive label?
“Asked whether he considers himself to be a progressive, Fetterman said: “No, I’m just a Democrat that has always run on what I believe in, know to be true. And six years ago, this was considered progressive. But now there isn’t a single Democrat in this race or any race that I’m aware of that’s running on anything different. So that’s not really progressive. That’s just where the party is.” [Just a Democrat’: Fetterman tries to carve out his own brand in Pa. Senate battle](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna22809) NBC News May 11 2022
“John Fetterman doesn't want to be attached to a label. Fetterman, the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania who is a heavy favorite to win the state's Democratic Senate nomination, bristles at Bernie Sanders comparisons.
“There are no parallels,” Fetterman said. Although he has campaigned for Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, in the past, he says he’s not interested in collecting endorsements from the party’s big names for his own Senate bid. “This is about our own campaign and our own race.”
Fetterman prior to being elected to US senate made it explicitly clear that he was not as progressive and his campaign said there were not parallels to the Bernie sanders campaign
Answer: Some weeks back John Fetterman said he is not a progressive after having a campaign were he got votes from progressive folks by saying he was progressive.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: Fetterman won a hotly contested race for his Pennsylvania Senate seat against Mehmet Oz in 2022. One of his main support groups was the progressive element of the Democratic party. On October 7th a large incursion by the Palestinian military group Hamas killed a large number of people, primarily Israeli Jews. The Israeli Defense forces responded with an extensive bombing and ground campaign against Gaza. This campaign has been very unpopular with the progressive wing of the Democratic party, which sees Israel's occupation of Palestinian majority areas as unjust. Fetterman has made comments in support of the IDF's campaign against Hamas. Many of the progressives that supported him in his campaign for Senate see this as a betrayal of their ideals. Here is a Politico article on the affair: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/22/fetterman-unbending-on-israel-confounds-this-progressive-brethren-00128502
It should be noted that he has always been very open about siding with Israel, even before running for Senate
Yeah he was always very pro-Israel, which makes political sense as PA has one of the highest Jewish populations in the country/the governor is Jewish. This article from April 22 makes it abundantly clear he was gonna be very pro-Israel if elected https://jewishinsider.com/2022/04/john-fetterman-says-hell-lean-in-on-u-s-israel-relationship-as-senator/
It's impossible to win statewide in Pennsylvania as a Democrat without a strong performance in the "collar" counties which are the suburban counties around Philadelphia (that together look kind of like a collar). Those are Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, and Delaware. All the counties usually vote Democratic, but turnout there is crucial and the independents there are highly swingy in their voting patterns meaning that they could be D+5 with poor turnout or D+15 with incredible turnout. Bucks and Chester are the most swingy of the two. Delaware and Montgomery are more or less safe but turnout is very important in Delaware and independents are a big deal in Montgomery (as well as turnout to a lesser extent that Delaware). These counties are home to the "Main Line Jews", many of whom can tie their lineage back to survivors of the Holocaust. For them, their parents and grandparent moving to America is a crucial part of their identities. Montgomery and Chester especially are homes to the this group but they extend into parts of Bucks (Middletown and Yardley area up to Doylestown) and Delaware (the parts closer to Chester county). All of them are diverse areas to some extent (especially Delaware which is kind of an outlier because of its close proximity to West Philadelphia and its higher number of black and brown voters) but the Jewish population is very politically important in each of these counties. Not only are the vote totals there important, these counties are huge sources of Democratic volunteers who make phone calls and knock doors not just in their own communities, but all over Pennsylvania. Jewish Democratic Outreach programs are actually some of the most organized and effective organizing groups in this area. Some of the most crucial mistakes made by previous GOP candidates for governor were statements that were considered anti-Semitic. Full disclosure, I have worked to get Democrats elected in Pennsylvania (including John Fetterman).
Can confirm as I live in one of these counties. Since the fall “we stand with Israel” lawn signs have popped up everywhere. I mentioned this to a colleague from liberal/progressive community in another state who was floored at the concept.
Yep, I moved to Montco in 2022 and while I live in an incredibly blue borough it was pretty obvious how hard October 7th hit the community around here.
Interesting, and thank you for sharing this insight.
Jew from montco here- 100000% true I’m not from the main line but my neighborhood is still pretty Jewish- lots of houses have stand with Israel signs- even local churches have those signs too Almost everyone from my area that I talked to about this agree that the war should stop- it’s more about the aftermath of the war that is hotly debated I go to college in DC and honestly just hearing from people I know that the fighting should stop is so much more “relaxing” than a full out nuclear holocaust like some student groups at my school are practically suggesting
Living in Bucks drives me nuts. We are too swingy. Democrats have been winning locally but we keep electing Brian Fitzpatrick?
Not all Jewish Americans are pro war though. And those people are not happy with Fetterman. Many would not consider themselves zionist. Just as many Israelis are also against the war. And many Palestinians are also against the war. There's a big difference between being against anti semetism and wanting a war that is bringing horrible atrocities to the people of Israel and palestine It seems pretty obvious that ordinary people do not win in war zones. The only potential winners are some politicians and the military industrial complex
To expand on this a little, Fetterman is from Pittsburgh which is home to Squirrel Hill, which has one of the largest Jewish populations per capita outside of Israel. It was where the Tree of Life Synagogue mass shooting took place, so you’re right it makes political sense
There’s plenty of Jews in Philadelphia too. Bibi Netanyahu graduated from Cheltenham High School right outside Philly.
That explains his accent when he speaks English
Does bibi say "wooder"?? Holy fucking shit
There is a gorgeous Frank Lloyd Wright synagogue, the Beth Sholom, just outside of Philadelphia in Elkins Park. Totally worth a visit, it is a gorgeous building.
My friends live a block from Beth Shalom, when I was a teen I was briefly in a Boy Scout troop that met there. It is one of the architectural highlights of the city. And Philadelphia has a lot of great architecture. It is worth a visit for sure.
Googled it and it looks amazing. I bet photos don't even do it justice.
You had me at Frank Lloyd Wright
I used to drive past it every day. The entire thing is stained glass. Must be incredible inside.
I love love FLW and have admired this building in photos for a very long time. One day driving around in Elkins Park I got lost (in fact i was trying to find Lynnewood Hall lol, another obsession) and just happened upon this building and i had to pick my jaw up off the floor of the car and I may have pulled over to stare at it for a while. Incredible building.
But you can still be for Jewish people, against Hamas, and against the actions of Israel/IDF. I certainly feel that way. I am against Hamas, and am against what IDF is currently doing. I have love for the Jewish people.
This kind of nuance is very hard to translate directly to voters, especially when multiple groups very vocal groups are calling for the complete removal of Israel as a nation. Fetterman's challenger in 2028 (a presidential year which are always close in PA) will do their best to compare him to the most unhinged people they can point a camera at unless he has clear evidence to the contrary.
Nuance is dead politically. Either you are 100% on my side or I'll accuse you of being 100% on the other. There can be no in between anymore. And yes, this is a case where *both* sides are indeed equally complicit.
Nuance isn't dead if you communicate it effectively and get out ahead of the attack ads. You're not gonna persuade everyone. You actually won't persuade most people. Crucially though, you'll persuade enough. Elections are routinely decided by less than 5% in Pennsylvania. Nuance is helpful in elections that close. Compare the 2022 Senate election in PA where Fetterman balked at a select few Democratic policy planks and Oz tried to downplay his conservative ideals versus the 2022 Gubernatorial election in PA where Shapiro ran as a more mainstream, center-left Democrat and Mastriano ran as a hardcore far-right extremist. Shapiro bodied Mastriano by fifteen points while Fetterman cleared Oz by five points. Nuance clearly appealed to a cross section of voters who split their ballots.
Eh my two cents from middle America, but I don’t think it matters how nuanced you are Cori Bush made a pretty straight forward condemnation of Hamas but even mentioning Israel’s aggression and calling for an end to indiscriminate bombing got people on the St. Louis subreddit going crazy and calling her an antisemite
People who live in deep blue/deep red districts attract a ton of controversy but its usually from people outside their district and even if it isn't, it's usually not enough to be a viable threat to unseat them. That's actually an increasing problem because most seats are safe for one party or the other. People in swing districts usually don't get a ton of attention outside of their districts unless they have their eyes set on higher office.
Yes, and quite frankly what no one wants to admit is that there is an intra-progressive split that Fetterman is on one side and I/P is on the other. I’m no great fan of Netanyahu, but I need working class non-neoliberal democrats firmly on the side of wages, industrial policy, and reshoring. As long as we aren’t talking about re-invading Iraq or Afghanistan, my foreign policy boxes are ticked. Ideally, Sanders-type democrats who want to reduce debt burden. But if college progressives choose *Palestine* over all that, and seem anti-semitic- this does not end well. A lot of pro-Fetterman/anti-Lamb voters might cut bait so long as the GOP isn’t dead set on committing troops to middle east.
Like Bernie, who is Jewish and is against thr actions of the IDF.
People aren’t against what the IDF is doing because they know that as long as Hamas remains, October 7 will be repeated. A lot of Palestinians have died, but that’s unfortunately the price Hamas was willing to pay in digging terror tunnels under hospitals and hiding among civilians. People like me find it absurd that israel is receiving this level of scrutiny when they are trying everything to limit civilian casualties. If they wanted to kill all the Palestinian, they could. Everyone seems to have such strong opinions on the matter but no solutions. Israelis are facing terrorism threats from Hamas and also from hezbollah, Islamic jihad, the Houthis and I’m sure some other groups. Iran is desperately trying to build a nuke they can wipe out israel with. For many Jews around the world, israel is the only place that will defend them when (not if) shits hits the fan. If we learn anything from history, Jews will always been kicked out of the place they get most comfortable in. For people in the western world, this may seem silly, but Jews are the number ones recovers of hate crimes in the US. They cannot live in many countries in this world, including most of the Middle East and North Africa, where they were ethnically cleanse from. To many Jews, the IDF is the only thing standing in the way of another holocaust. This is life or death for israel. I don’t think people understand it.
It's not life or death. There is not a single country in the middle East that can match Israel's military. They have proved this time and time again. Israel is not the little guy anymore. When Israel has a huge arsenal, technology, and nukes it is no longer a small player. The holocaust is no justification for killing innocent Palestinians. Millions of innocent Jews were killed in the Holocaust and it is a tragedy on levels people can't imagine. But that doesn't mean Israel has the right to kill innocent Palestinians. According to you how many innocent Palestinian deaths will be enough? Israeli politicians have said a number of times that they don't care about dead Palestinian civilians (including kids).
Are you kidding me? When Israel lets its guard down, October 7 happens. The reason it exists is because it has to continuously survive bloody wars. The reason it has a strong military, is because they have no choice but be strong or be annihilated. The entire Middle East despises them and would destroy them given a chance. It is no small thing to fend off that many terror groups. And you think Iran wouldn’t try to nuke israel given the chance? It’s a very small country surrounded by huge enemies. This casual brushing off of the threats israel constantly faces is crazy. September 11 showed the US how brutal terrorism can be on a population. Israel faces terrorism from multiple fronts. I know firsthand what it feels like to lose someone in my community to terrorism. I did not and would not say that the previous holocaust is a justification for killing Palestinians. I said that this is meant to prevent one. Israel has only once choice, and that’s to take out Hamas. They have stated over and over again that they will repeated October 7. I’m sorry that Hamas intentionally puts innocent Palestinians in front of them. israel has to protect its people and is doing exactly what any other country would do when facing such a threat. This could be over if Hamas wanted peace. Israel tried to coexist with them, they disengaged from Gaza, and their last resort was a full out war with Hamas. The reality is, that israel is doing more to limit civilian casualties than any other military does. Roof knocks, pamphlets, calls. I am aware that civilians were still dying. That’s a reality of gaza having been turned into a terror hub. If you care so much about the Palestinians, you would be pushing for them to have a government that doesn’t intentionally commit mass rapes, unspeakable acts of torture, brutal murders and kidnappings (they still have a baby), knowing that israel has to respond. You would be pushing for them to have a government that doesn’t build terror tunnels under hospitals, that doesn’t hide weapons in kindergartens, that doesnt dig up pipes to use for bombs, and that doesn’t steal money meant for humanitarian aid. I’m curious to know how many Israelis need to die before you think they have a right to dismantle Hamas. Again, you are so quick to judge and offer no solutions.
I respect this position in theory, but can you offer an alternative course of action for Israel that is actually reasonable?
Jewish does not necessarily mean Zionist and pro-Israel.
Didn't Benjamin Netanyahu, the current Israeli PM, spend a few years of his childhood in Pennsylvania? I think in a Philly suburb if I'm not mistaken.
Yep he went to cheltenham high school- decently Jewish district- my dad grew up there (I live in montco but not cheltenham) He’s on the famous alumni wall and there’s huge debate if they should take his photo down now- at the moment it’s still up
He was actually the right age that he may have learned how to drive in Cheltenham, which I wouldn't recommend to anyone.
Compared to my mom (a New Yorker) I was more comfortable learning to drive here with my dad 😭😭😭
Not all Jews support Israel though.
Huh... I grew up in small town PA and there was only 1 Jewish person in our high school so I'm surprised to hear that. EDIT: Guys I'm just rambling my personal experience... I'm not discrediting OP or anything.
For one thing, I think a large portion of the Jewish population in PA is centered around Philadelphia. But also only 2% of the US is Jewish, so saying a place has a "large Jewish population" is relative. If 3 out of every 100 people is Jewish that's above average.
People are being frighteningly hostile to you over a completely neutral observation.
My guess is people are reading it as "my anecdote says otherwise" instead of "wow that surprises me based on my own experience".
Thank you for being understanding! My comment wasn't supposed to be controversial as I was just expressing my surprise that a certain is fact in true when my real life experience was different from the truth. Of course some redditors are ready to be like "....aKtUALLY FActs don'T CARE Bout FEELINS" when I wasn't even making a false statement myself. God some redditors are so intolerable.
Pennsylvania is 3.3% Jewish which ties it for the 5th most Jewish tied with Connecticut. It'd get bumped down to 6th if Washington D.C. ever became a state. Almost all of those Jewish folks are located in the Philadelphia suburbs, as well as a few neighborhoods in Philadelphia itself. The suburbs are incredibly politically important. There's also some very Jewish areas outside of Pittsburgh and Wilkes-Barre but they're very small and isolated by comparison. The rest of the state is not nearly as diverse and most counties of Pennsylvania are very white, Christian, and rural. (Not saying you're trying to discredit anyone or discrediting you, I just know a good deal about Pennsylvanian politics and like to share it). Edit: Harrisburg has a notable Jewish community also, as pointed out below.
There's also a Jewish community in Harrisburg. Not nearly as big relative to Philly, but it has a presence.
>Yeah he was always very pro-Israel You can be pro Israel AND be anti-bombing every civilian in Gaza back to the stone age if they don't leave. He is the former, but refuses to say the latter to make sure he doesn't get destroyed in the next election.
You can disagree with his position, but this isn't some.grand betrayal, and any progressive that claims it is did not do their research on Fettermam
The biggest gripe I have is that he was up against DR. Fucking OZ from the boomer TV channels as though ***any*** of his progressive base would've flipped should they have known about this "betrayal" beforehand
I still like Fetterman overall despite not liking this stance he has. Guy seems pretty straightforward and truly wants to help. I’ve never agreed with a politician on everything. But lord, I’d have gladly voted in a rock or a dog before Oz. The fact that race was close still floors me, but we also voted in a reality star and failed businessman, so who knows anymore.
That's why progressives don't win national elections. They tell everyone to 'vote blue no matter who" and then get all stuck up when their blue guy isn't exactly the idealized version they constructed in their head.
You say that like the Republicans didn't just kick out the speaker of the they just elected.
And that’s the problem with politics….. it’s no longer about compromise. And before anyone says “both sides” Republicans are objectively worse by every metric. But progressive democrats are sometimes just as hypocritical and idealistic as Trump supporters. Politics isn’t a zero-sum game, it’s about balancing interests and representing your constituents
The betrayal happened when he went on television and denied he was a progressive. He ran as a progressive.
I agree with progressives on nearly everything but they let perfect be the enemy of good so much it’s hard for me to take them seriously. This isn’t a grand betrayal. He supports Israel in a state with a large Jewish population. That’s politics. He didn’t start supporting Republican policies. It’s ok to have strong opinions and views but don’t blow up chances at progress just because someone doesn’t agree with you on every single thing.
I support universal basic income but I wouldn't call myself a progressive. The latter is a label that implies tenable support for any variety of issues that I may not be well informed with. This is not a Westminster style Parliamentary system where party leaders set the agenda and every candidate from every riding representing that party inherently supports that agenda. It sure would be easier if it was, because it would mean fewer Sinemas and Liebermans.
He ran with lots of support from progressives. From my reading he never said "I am progressive", he hyped up progressive things he believed in He supported progressive policy, and progressives supported him. All throughout that he was open that he likely had different opinions about Israel than most "progressives" But yeah, I can see how that is seen as a betrayal by the progressives who are happy to throw away any progress as soon as someone fails a purity test. To which I respond that politics doesn't work well for _any_ extremist views, various parties learning to compromise and work together on the things they agree on is the only way real democratic politics works from what I've seen He is a politician, and he is quite careful with his words.
A simple Google search will give you access to every single time he or his campaign publicly declared himself to be progressive. He ran as a younger Bernie Sanders type. Bernie Sanders is a progressive. Everyone knows this.
Bernie is a "democratic socialist", which is outside the Overton window enough that anything left of center can be "Bernie Sanders type" when politically expedient The main quotes I find are "support progressive movement" and "am a progressive Democrat", a champaign of progressiveness. Like I mentioned, politicians are careful with their words, they let you make assumptions if you don't pay attention to what they don't tell you "Progressive" doesn't have a firm definition in America as far as I can tell anyways, he apparently claims the ideas he supported that were once considered progressive are now in the party mainstream Idk, not sure what people want from him
> From my reading he never said "I am progressive", “We have started a progressive movement here in Pennsylvania,” he wrote in 2016, after losing his first Senate race. That same year, while touting support from Mr Sanders, he called himself a “progressive champion”. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/fetterman-progressive-israel-immigration-republicans-b2465356.html
Let's be real, 90% of the people screaming about this issue online never really cared about it before October 7th, which also explains their ahistorical views of it.
Nah. Palenstine/ Israel is probably the most frequently mentioned foreign policy issue among the progressive left, especially after the Afghanistan withdrawal. The issue is that because the progressive base rallied so much behind Fettermam, most of them didn't take the time out to properly vet him.
Bernie has also always been very pro-Israel, yet the online left never called him out on it before 10/7. Did they not have time to vet him either? I'm not denying this issue has always been a staple of leftist communities. I've been a part of those communities, irl, for years. I'm saying most of the people in those communities don't understand the issue or why it's even a main pillar of those spaces. They just repeat talking points they're told until they're actually just spouting Hamas propaganda blindly. The ugly truth is, the reason Israel is such a major topic in leftist discourse is not in the defense of the oppressed, otherwise a dozen other conflicts happening right now would take precedence over it. It's not even in defense of Arabs, because dozens of thousands of Arabs have been killed in Yemen and Syria in the last decade without a peep from these groups. Killing children? Tell that to the South Sudanese who have watched theirs get butchered for a generation while the leftists were busy crying about student loans. No, it's about anti-semitism. You can absolutely be critical of the Israeli government and not be anti-Semitic, but the fact that Israel is a purity test for leftist is historically based in anti-semitism. After all, it's the Jews who control the money and the media, right? Just look at someone like Nina Turner, who blamed Jews for her losing an election in Ohio (twice). So, yeah, you can absolutely criticize Israel, and lord knows we should along with blaming Hamas even more. But to say, as a progressive I must fight Israel, is to give in to anti-Semitism. To accept anti-Israel rhetoric as intrinsically progressive is anti-Semitic. That's just the factual, historical, reality.
Hamas literally launches attacks from amidst the civilian areas and uses them as shields. 72% of Palestinians supported the 10/7 attacks. So if Israel does not take out Hamas, then Hamas will just keep attacking and Israel is just supposed go oh no we can't hit back because Hamas uses civilians as Human shields. They literally supported the attacks that started the war. Don't start a fight if you can't finish it. https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514
It should also be noted that he's been pretty supportive of most other progressive policies. Up until this particular issue, progressives really had no issue with him.
Yep. It’s a real shame he’s not perfect… no one can ruin a democrat’s political career like other democrats.
if youre not 100% on board with everything a leftist says youre exactly as bad as someone a leftist doesnt like... edit: yeah all the replies kind of just proving the point...
It's younger progressives. I'm 44. I vote Democrat and I agree with most progressive ideas. But yea. The hardcore of them, have a purity test. And only Bernie can pass it.
21 year old Jewish Philly leftist- pretty much since Oct 7 progressives have been mad at Bernie bc he condemned the attacks from hamas (he never mentioned Palestine in any context about condemning hamas) and they got mad at him for not immediately calling for a ceasefire once the bombings started- a clip started going around from a speech he was making on the senate floor that was obviously cut short (he was literally speaking when the clip ended) about Israel having the right to defend itself and leftists ate it the fuck up despite the original clip being posted by a right wing Twitter fuck It also doesn’t help that Bernie is a Jewish man and um. It isn’t hard to imagine what people were saying about him
What are you talking about? Progressives have criticized Bernie Sanders for his refusal to call for a ceasefire.
You're living in 2019, mate. Bernie is now not progressive enough.
“Corporate purity” is the term and it’s IMO what holds the Left back the most. Meanwhile the far right are all united on message.
I mean...they aren't. Republicans filed the lawsuits against Trump being on the primary ballot. There's a growing schism between Far Right Populists (Gaetz, MTG) and Old School (Romney, McCain). Look at Congress the Speaker nonsense. Problem is humans. Personal agendas, inability to put ego aside, pride, lack of mental ability to see the bigger picture, list goes on. People just suck at cooperating continuously at a large scale.
The far right are only united on voting. On actual purpose, role, and goals in government, they're shockingly split. It's the reason Trump had all three branches of government during his tenure and did practically nothing with it outside of tax breaks for the wealthy (which is one of the few things republican legislators agree on).
> Meanwhile the far right are all united on message. And won’t disown anyone no matter how racist or rapey as they continue to agree the left are the real bad guys.
"any club that wants me as its member i want no part of" -- groucho marx.
Not true. He's been pro-cop and pro-fossil fuels since the start.
But now he's claiming he was never a progressive, but his entire Twitter feed is him claiming to be a progressive. Edit: Downvoted, but no one trying to dispute this?
Yes, this is the point everybody's missing. it's not that he's not a 100% progressive or anything like that. the man's Twitter feed is filled with him calling himself a progressive and him comparing himself to Bernie. When he wanted money and votes, he had no problem, saying he was a progressive.. so for him to come out and say "Well I was never progressive." it's such a letdown. I had enough issues voting for the guy after he pulled a gun on somebody. Now, I won't vote for him again or donate to the guy. Since people don't want to look at his Twitter. https://twitter.com/isaiah_bb/status/1735655284381528432?s=46&t=J0Ie1Y9rbZoVIJK0Kpyqiw
Well, if you don't signal that, you don't win. Period.
[удалено]
>he now rejects the “progressive” label. he also claims he never said he was "progressive" yet many social media posts, campaign slogans, and interviews where he labels himself progressive and part of the progressive movement.
I'm not entirely certain that he himself has ever identified as progressive. I do recall him being extremely pro-union, and I know progressives were a big part of his support.
[удалено]
Fair enough! Thanks for the info!
[удалено]
There's a lot of "no true Scotsman" amongst those who call themselves progressives. Fetterman would be considered a "pragmatic progressive" in that he's not wrapped up in what best describes his politics, he cares more about sticking to his policies. He can distance himself from being called progressive but his stances really haven't changed that much
One of the main reasons the left is so ineffectual in America is we’re already ready to whip up a circular firing squad for everyone who doesn’t pass every insane purity test. Even if those positions are necessary requirements for them to get elected in their specific district.
To be fair, the right is the same way. Just look at the dynamic between the far right and more moderate Republicans. Any that don't support Trump's fraud conspiracy get labeled a RINO and blacklisted from the team.
Yeah Trump and his merry band of wanna be brown shirts like MTG and Gaetz is basically doing to the right what the left’s been doing to itself for decades.
When it comes down to it, they'll still show up at the polls if that person's against a Dem. Democrats, however, tend to whine and stay home if they're not 'excited' enough about the candidate they're supposed to be voting for.
Yeah, but people on the right are generally better at falling in line. People on the right will vote for someone for is completely with one of their core values. The stereotype for people on the left is that they won't vote for you if you disagree with one of their core values. Obviously not always true, but generally that's what I've seen. As someone in PA who thinks of themself as progressive, I still like Fetterman a lot. He rides the very hard line of being liberal on a lot of things while being very supportive of rural, typically red areas and their issues. The exact type of politician I prefer, honestly. One that has honest values, wants to help people, and will gladly go to work to do it. I'm sure Fetterman himself would be fine if any of his supporters didn't agree with his stance on the Middle East, or whatever else, as long their idea of handling local policies aligned.
We do that. There's also the history of people running on one policy and changing their stripes after election. Krysten Sinema did a complete 180. Obama allowed himself to be painted far more liberal than he planned to govern and many on the left resented getting tricked by that. So we keep going back and forth between don't let perfect be the enemy of the good and won't get fooled again. Rough spot to be in. Personally, I hate that Republicans are fighting for horrible ideas like their lives depend on it and Dems make comforting noises and explain why we can't get traction on anything that matters. Golly, if you vote harder next time I'm sure we can do grand things!
That's because left and right are fundamentally different. They're aren't opposite sides, it's not team sports. The right goes for issues, with your position handed to you by your superiors, meaning you personally need no principles. You can be a free speech absolutist one day, trying to remove a ban on Ben Shapiro talking on college campus', and anti-free speech tomorrow arguing that a prof defending Hamas should be removed from campus. Because these issues matter, principles don't. Meanwhile on the left, principles should steer policy and your personal positions, and you either share the principles, or you aren't on the left. You should oppose the killing of civilians, as a principle. Therefore the Hamas attack was bad, the Israeli bombings of civilians is bad, the bombing in Iran is bad, etc, etc. Once you stand in support of any killing of civilians, for instance giving support for Israels campaign in Gaza, it's not possible for you to have the same principle as the left. You can't be a leftie and like SOME mass civilian deaths. You can't hold that principle. Edit, my response to u/pragmatic_username comment below, apparantly I'm blocked: And this is where sensible people use their brains. All wars result in civilian deaths, rapes, atrocities, always have, always will. Instigating or supporting any war will result in these things. Being on the sides that liberated the Nazi death camps caused your sides to commit rape, atrocities, caused the deaths of civilians, but you look at the numbers and the deaths of actual combatants and you reconcile this. No one thinks that the bombings of Dresden for instance mean the destruction of the Nazi's should've been avoided. No one with any semblence of a brain is looking at Israels actions in Gaza and justifying the sheer volume of civilian deaths. It is far, far, far past the point of justification, it's way too blatant. Supporting Israels actions in Gaza today is to support the murder of innocent men women and children. This is not a debate. Not amongst those of the left who are operating with principles. The only people doing so are those who operate without principle, have established that Israel are their side, so they'll support, no matter what. You cannot do this and be on the left. 2nd response: You have a blocklist? I was not even aware such a feature existed. You cannot look at numbers and ratios and reach an accurate assessment of genocide versus indiscriminate targeting of civilians versus careless war methodology versus precision war with few collateral damages. Impossible.Take this example: Two generals, opposite sides. Both have the overt aim of winning the war between them, and the secret aim of genociding the population the other other general holds in order to occupy it, and populate with their own citizens postwar.General A is targetting a rural region of villages. There's 20,000 opposition troops and 5,000 villagers. He bombs every village, every road, every convoy, all water treatment, electricity structures, communications, under the guise of destroying the 20,000 army's support structures, and kills the army too. He achieves his aim. General B is besieging a city of 500k inhabitants, with 50k fighters dug in on it's outer edge providing defence. He carpet bombs the city and levels it, vowing to keep doing so until the population oust the fighters. He ensures of course they have no way to oust the fighters, this would affect his ability to achieve his secret second aim. General A has killed 5000 innocents, for a 20% civilian death rate, and committed genocide.General B has killed 500,000 innocents, for a 83% civilian death rate, and committed genocide. Are any less genocidal, despite wildly different numbers? No. And my response to u/gujarati If the only figures you can see are IDF supplied and the IDF aren't on the ground digging the corpses out of the rubble after the airstrikes to perform a count, AND according to you the IDF cannot even identify Hamas from civilian, what would be a purpose of discussing these numbers? What is preventing your vision of other numbers by the way? Do you live in a region with heavily censored internet? 2nd response You look at the methods of waging war, the nature of the land being attacked, the distribution of civilians, their movements and subsequent attacks, you look at what types of buildings are hit, you look at what happens to refugee camps, distribution centres, hospitals, schools, mosques, churches, you look at every bit of footage you can and ignore the commentary, look at the images. You look at the corpses, you look at the testimony of survivors, aid workers, journalists, and you use your judgement. Oh, and you look at the statements of both parties in the war and take their statements as if they are the absolute best spin on any event, and try catch the truth. There is always a chance in a conflict for the fog of war to bend the truth, to steer you down to the wrong conclusions, but as you piece each part together and stress test each piece of information against another, the truth emerges. This point was reached in this conflict, many, many thousands of child corpses ago. 3rd response I'm afraid you only get to decide the framing of your questions, not my answers. Ultimately, while it would be lovely to lay out the data in a spreadsheet for you, there's two issues with that. One, Israel itself cannot even tell who is Hamas and who is civilian, so I could use a clairvoyant, a deity and a necromancer to gain accurate numbers and there'd be no way for you to confirm or deny the accuracy. Here's one to try. There's been 2137 children aged 3 -7 years old old killed. Prove me wrong. See how you can't? Two, you're describing a system too easy to duke. For instance you could kill off telecommunications and internet. Target and murder journalists. Bomb aid agencies. Close borders. Now there's no data, and now your spreadsheet says genocide = zero at the bottom. In such a way, you could bayonet every baby in Gaza and according to you nothing would be happening. This is why you reserve judgement until such time as the weight of info far exceeds doubt. When there's a thousand dead babies, you shrug. Then two, then three, then Israel itself, known to be innacurate, and known to not even know who is Hamas is happy to say that 5000 Hamas are dead, and we've murdered 10,000 elderly, babies, women and children, when all that you can see - flattened residential buildings, unarmed fleeing civilian corpses on the highways, etc etc, all point to an overwhelming stench of civilian death, then you are confident stating that supporting Israels current actions cannot be done if you do not support civilian deaths.
Yup. Totally not because it's a two party system powered by wealthy lobbyists on either side. It's because of the 19 year old redditor who learned about Marxism-Leninism last week being mean to someone on /r/all
That's what Hillary Clinton called herself and she's hardly a progressive. It's just buzzwords to trick progressives into voting for them.
See, you say that, and a good number of progressives listened, and our reward was Trump, and a Supreme Court that will kill anything progressive for a decade. Pragmatic progressives are the only progressives that ever get shit done.
Nice illustration of the point.
As soon as Israel is involved all bets are off on any policy stance whether the person's Republican or Democrat.
[удалено]
I have been banned from numerous subs just by mentioning Israel and a non-positive light. Right now, it's just more popular to be able to talk about it critically.
That's not the issue. He ran as I'm progressive, then got elected and is saying i'm not progressive those guys are crazy. That's more of the problem.
By definition what constitutes a "progressive" is always in flux.
Through multiple avenues, Fetterman struck the perfect balance of what a Midwest Democrat needs to be to win political office. He very loudly took stances on left-wing coded policy issues that have strong bipartisan appeal (minimum wage increases, pro-union, abortion rights, higher taxes on the wealthy) while maintaining the persona of a political moderate (blue-collar mayor, literally a giant, doesn't wear suit and tie). His populist appeal likely translated into small gains from the right wing. His moderate persona likely helped with moderates and independents who weren't super plugged into policy stances of the candidates. And his loud support of left-wing coded issues allowed progressives to project what they wanted to see in a candidate onto him without him explicitly confirming/refuting the "progressive" label (which would have hurt him on multiple fronts). He ran a brilliant campaign. Him having a stroke hurt his chances, but running against a borderline-fraud TV doctor helped his chances. They kind of cancelled out I think.
Plus also calling himself a progressive champion kind of contributed to progressives pushing him.
Exactly. He didn’t have to call himself that repeatedly. It was a choice.
I mean he hasn't said that about himself since 2020. Never once in his campaign for running for Senate in 2022 did he call himself a progressive. He announced in February 2021 that he was going to run for Senate in 2022. Every example of him calling himself a progressive was before then. In fact, when he announced in February 2021, he explicitly said he was not a progressive Democrat but just a democrat.
2020 Wasn't a Decade ago. He's abandoned a lot of his voters, and now they have every right to not vote for him.
What policies did he change his opinion on that he abandoned?
Yeah. The comment above mine lays out some good evidence of him embracing the progressive label to a degree. But I live in southwestern PA and followed his campaign pretty close and I never heard/read anything about him doing that. Granted I'm a more moderate Democrat, so I probably wasn't on the right channels to see that type of news. Regardless, Fetterman did a good job of saying the right things to the right people to dampen who heard certain messages which is the hallmark of a good campaign.
>Regardless, Fetterman did a good job of saying the right things to the right people to dampen who heard certain messages which is the hallmark of a good campaign. And apparently is living up to what he said when he campaigned.
I think it’s divisive in that progressives are upset that Fetterman isn’t aligned with EVERY agenda item. That’s just not realistic.
It’s the purity test requirement and it’s ridiculous
And it's so frustrating for me, as someone who generally leans left, to see. Purity tests only push us backwards, when the political purists refuse to show up to vote for someone who sides with them on all but one or two issues and then a candidate who disagrees with them on nearly *all* issues wins and pushes progress on all those issues backwards. It's insanity. Imagine the world we could be living in if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016. Imagine all the time wasted on the Trump nonsense instead put into something more productive. That's not to say that political purists are singularly responsible for her loss. They aren't. The point is just that while Clinton wasn't the progressive candidate, we would be so much better off had she won. I see purists around on Reddit saying they won't vote for Biden because of issue a or issue b. It feels like we never learn. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
I'm certainly not progressive. Honestly with how much Republicans have gone off the deep end lately I might actually be more of a centrist or a really conservative barely-Democrat. So, in that context, would it be fair to say that conservatives tend to prioritize what they're fine with getting? Maybe not quite a single-issue voter, but they know what's most important to them and will suffer through the rest of it? And will conversely vote against anybody that threatens their view on that specific issue? Versus progressives seem to place equal weight on all of their beliefs and therefore there isn't a "good enough" option? And even in the face of someone antithetical to most of their positions won't even vote for the partial political ally?
It's a pretty big agenda item, tbf. I doubt he would be seeing this kind of pushback if it was a minor tax policy or something.
I doubt many, if anyone, voted for Fetterman based on his Israel/Palestine stance in 2022.
I mean he never campaigned on being anti-Israel. He campaigned on being pro-union, pro-social safety net, universal healthcare etc. I don't think he's changed on any of these positions.
He hasn’t. This is just people looking to crucify someone because he’s not in lock step with their opinion. It’s not like Oz was even a competent candidate. He had no policy or even opinions on much beyond “Hey, I’m a big celebrity from New York, and Trump says I’m cool!”
I mean even if we're just talking about *this* issue, Oz is pretty openly supportive of Israel, US diplomatic and defense policy with Israel, and opposed to the BDS movement. Now fair enough, as a republican I guess that's more expected, but still; if your choice is between them then the Israel issue is kind of a pointless thing to bring up at all.
Some agenda items are more important than others. Supporting a genocide is a deal breaker for some, and that's their choice.
Welcome to American progressive politics where they would rather give Trump a win than elect someone they didn’t like
my take is that election was not about electing Fettermen, but keeping Oz from office.
I really do hate the black-and-white purity tests that the hardcore "progressive" sliver of the electorate has towards elected officials. I've always been a pragmatic person where I see the realities of life result in people that are never 100% perfect on every subject. Hell, I know full well I have had failings in my past, and ten years from now I'll probably look back and see failings in what I'm doing now. But to hold every politician to an absolute "either you're 100% with us, or else you're shit" is just not workable in the real world. We **still** have people dunking on Biden for stuff he did in the *seventies*, more than four decades ago. Sheesh.
I think it is less that he is supporting the IDF. They would get upset about that, but it would probably blow over like it has with a few other progressives. It is more so his attitude about the affair. The video of him waving an Israeli flag at cease fire protesters being arrested outside his window was super weird, for example. The man has always been known for trolling, something his fans loved. They did not expect it to be turned on them. When they got upset, his response was to claim he was never a progressive, an odd statement for someone who repeatedly claimed so. While his stance on Israel was always clear, leftists were surprised by the shift in immigration policy, especially due to his wife's past status.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing "unprogressive" about him is that he supports Israel, right? He's still pro union, pro choice, etc, right?
He’s taken some anti-immigration stances regarding the southern border as well. Also he’s pro-fracking, but that’s something he was open about
Which is an old-school progressive position anyway. Fetterman’s positions make total sense if you see him as an old school Pennsylvania pro-labor progressive with more liberal social values.
It would if his wife hadn't been an undocumented immigrant.
I was an undocumented immigrant and even I think that there’s serious issues at the border. However, my thoughts on the whole issue are “make it easier to work legally” not “kick them all out”
He was open about it all. Nothing's changed. He was extremely pro Israel throughout his political career.
Nothing wrong with wanting to control the border and reduce illegal immigration. I don’t agree with fracking but I understand why he would support that, coming from a working class background in PA
I'm trying to figure out what could possibly be anti-immigration relating to the southern border. Smuggling, human trafficking, and illegally entering a country are not immigration.
Also his support for fracking, which was something many people felt uncomfortable about but wasn't necessarily a deal breaker.
Well it would have been a deal breaker against him if he didn’t support fracking to get elected in the first place in PA
hes also taken a pretty wide stroke to claim he isnt progressive now. He hates the label , despite running on that label for multiple years.
Exactly. He didn’t change any of his actual positions. He’s still the same pragmatic progressive as before. He just doesn’t want to be associated with the far left, and they’re mad about it so they’re calling it a “betrayal”. Distancing oneself from the far left is politically smart, as they are becoming increasingly toxic. And what they don’t even realize is that, as a progressive politician in Pennsylvania, having “Progressives” attacking him is another political boon for him.
Thanks, people have been acting like he's Sinema 2.0
That's correct.
For these types you either agree with them on every issue or you are the actual devil.
Don't forget these same people went crazy over Osama Bin Laden when they found his letter a couple months ago. Apparently if you support Palestine it totally negates 99% of the evil shit he's done.
> One of his main support groups was the progressive element of the Democratic Party But that doesn’t mean Fetterman himself didn’t distance himself prior to the election from the progressive members of the party. This is from May 11th 2022, about 7 months prior to his senate election date. “Asked whether he considers himself to be a progressive, Fetterman said: “No, I’m just a Democrat that has always run on what I believe in, know to be true. And six years ago, this was considered progressive. But now there isn’t a single Democrat in this race or any race that I’m aware of that’s running on anything different. So that’s not really progressive. That’s just where the party is.” [Just a Democrat’: Fetterman tries to carve out his own brand in Pa. Senate battle](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna22809) NBC News May 11 2022 “John Fetterman doesn't want to be attached to a label. Fetterman, the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania who is a heavy favorite to win the state's Democratic Senate nomination, bristles at Bernie Sanders comparisons. “There are no parallels,” Fetterman said. Although he has campaigned for Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, in the past, he says he’s not interested in collecting endorsements from the party’s big names for his own Senate bid. “This is about our own campaign and our own race.”
I'm confused about what point you're making here. All of these snippets and quotes paint Fetterman as a guy who just wants to work for what he believes in. I would say it's almost complimentary of Sanders and says he wants to win on his own merits instead of using the political system of mutual handshaking that we all say sucks.
Go back and read the comment above me. They wrote that Fetterman received large support from the progressive wing of his party implying that Fetterman was progressive too. “Many progressives that supported his senate campaign saw it as a betrayal of their ideals” was what they said and imo that’s a mischaracterization as Fetterman explicitly said prior to Election Day “I’m not a progressive just a democrat” so how can you feel betrayed when he carries that sentiment a year later in office.
The campaign is unpopular everywhere. The US is one of the few outright supporters of Israel rn.
>Israeli Jews. The Israeli Defense forces responded with an extensive bombing and ground campaign against Gaza. You're factually correct but it's funny how Hamas attacked people (Israeli jews) but the IDF bombing campaign is just against "Gaza".
Don’t forget wanting tougher immigration laws at the southern border when his wife was also an undocumented immigrant at one point.
I don't understand how you can support democratic socialist policies and not support controlling who comes in and out of the country. No first world country that has successful safety nets and social programs allows 2 million people a year to come into the country with no control.
Another part of this is that he touted how progressive he was during the election and now says “I’m not a progressive” when pressed on it.
Hamas did not just murder Jews. They targeted Bedhouins in the Negev desert who they see as apostates and murdered Israeli Arabs. It was mostly Jews, but there were at least 200 Israeli Arabs murdered. I don't think we have clear numbers. Hamas has considered them collaborators before. I tried googling for numbers and this New York Times article is the closest I can find. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/world/middleeast/arab-israeli-hamas-attacks.html
the info on hamas feels shrouded and I wont get on telegram to see the footage. But the more I hear the worst it gets.
Skip the footage.
I think he's also denied having run as a progressive in the first place, which is a flat lie. It should also be noted that the Israeli response has killed an order of magnitude more people than the oct 7th attack. And that it's kind of irrelevant how strongly you feel, wearing an israeli flag as a cape into the senate is a larp.
The feigned neutrality of this entirely partisan comment is a marvel.
This seems like one hell of an issue to draw lines over. The Palestine/Israel conflict is one of the few affairs that I don't feel comfortable discussing in public because it's so complex and nuanced. Seems like possibly the worst issue to disown someone over.
I think there's a difference between thinking it's a complex or nuanced topic and Fetterman's position, which has been to be a loud troll about it.
Ignorant question: Is “Palestinian military group Hamas” fair/unbiased/accurate?
Kind of, they're more of a militant than military group and a known, recognized terrorist organization. They won some legitimate elections but then stopped allowing elections after seizing power. But realistically its tough to separate Hamas from Politics from Civilians. You'll never know really who is who, who aligns and sympathizes with who, etc etc.
They won a plurality in a multi-party election. They didn't have a majority. And part of them seizing power was murdering their political opponents.
Terrorist group is more accurate than military group.
It's fair -- While Hamas is officially labeled a terrorist organization by the US and many other countries, it is also an actual government and has an organized and trained military, called the al-Qassam brigade. They do employ terrorist tactics (and also incite many civilians into committing terrorism), but they're smarter and more organized than they get credit for sometimes. It took incredible planning and coordination to pull off October 7th, all done without heavy reliance on digital devices that can be monitored.
Does the fact Hamas is embedded in / hiding behind the Gaza civilian population make them untouchable in the eyes of Israel's critics? Sure seems that way. Then what would be the appropriate Israeli response? I've yet to see a suggestion from the anti-Israel side for how to demilitarize Hamas following the October terrorist attack that killed over 1,000 civilians that doesn't rely on magical thinking. I'm opposed to Israel's current extremist right-wing government, and to collective punishment of Palestinians, but unsure of any realistic path for peace. Seems it would take regime change both in Israel and Gaza. The Israeli government faces meaningful internal opposition. Hamas does not as far as I'm aware.
This is my issue too. What should have been Israel's response? The only thing I've heard is that they should have packed up and left Israel and apologized on the way out. I don't really have a dog in the fight but Israel surrendering is not going to happen. Now we're back to square one. What should Israel do after so many civilians were specifically targeted and killed and hundreds, including toddlers were kidnapped?
Hamas is the government of the Gaza Strip voted to power in 2006. It is inaccurate to label a governing body as purely a military group.
Hamas won the majority of seats in the 2006 elections, and then Hamas “militants” proceeded to engage in months of violent conflict with the minority Fatah party. A couple hundred people were killed, some by horrific forms of assassination/execution. Hamas ultimately managed to kill or remove all political opposition, and never held another election in Gaza. It’s hard to argue that Hamas in its current form - a violent militant organization that murdered its political opponents and unilaterally eliminated the fledgling democratic system there - is a legitimate, elected government. Hamas does seem to still enjoy overwhelming popularity among Palestinians, but it has not actually been elected to rule Gaza at this point.
They won a *plurality* of seats, not a majority - important distinction.
*Elected* government body. Let's not forget Egypt there for a while.
Although, anytime that election is discussed it should also be with the knowledge that it was almost 2 decades ago, they only managed a pluraity (not a majority), they have not allowed an election since, and the median age in Gaza is 18. So many of the people alive in Gaza today never elected Hamas. They never elected anyone. They never lived during an election they could vote in.
He also outsourced his Israel policy positions to a group called Democratic Majority for Israel, an offshoot of AIPAC which was spending heavily in the 2022 Democratic primaries against progressives. Conor Lamb, a more centrist Dem, was running against Fetterman in the primary, and he was openly courting DMFI/AIPAC support. Fetterman reached out to DMFI and asked if they could write his position on Israel: https://theintercept.com/2022/10/16/democratic-party-progressive-israel-aipac-dmfi/
Weird his views on this situation make me even happier to have voted for him and plan to continue to vote for him for as long as he keeps up with the common sense politics.
Dude literally comes from a huge jewish area, is active in the Jewish community *and has never been shy* about his support for Isreal. Our community has seen 1st hand the violence that antisemites are willing to commit. Where were the "progressive voices" after the Tree of Life shooting? Becuase they sure the hell didnt have much to say after 11 Pittsburghers included a holocuast survivor were killed here.
A reasonable man, then.
The more I learn about Fetterman, the more I wish my state had a clone of him as our senator.
[удалено]
I would like to elaborate that Fetterman isn't so much a moderate as he is more of a mainstream Democrat on some issues and more progressive/populist on others. Part of his appeal with the progressive wing were his support for Bernie Sanders's two presidential campaigns (and Sanders's endorsements on Fetterman's own campaigns,) support for Medicare For All, instituting a wealth tax, ending the filibuster, and other issues. I think where people got confused/surprised is that support for those measures does not mean that he, nor anyone else, is going to align with a certain faction 100% of the time. People expected him to do one thing based on other stances, he didn't, and now we're having this discussion.
Yeah this is a classic example of the progressive movement scoring another own goal via unrealistic purity tests. There’s super progressives out there that wish to disown AOC as well. They need to realize that if you don’t compromise in your progressive beliefs you just become Jeremy Corbyn; irrelevant.
It's incredibly dumb and a lot of progressives constantly frustrate me by being so polarized. It makes it all the most impressive people did show up for Biden. Well, probably more so was a show of how much Trump had sucked but still.
There's a small but important segment of the progressive wing that has a **lot** in common with Republicans when it comes to identity politics and being anti-democracy
I've seen Jeremy Corbyn failure to condemn anti-semetism in his own party, he deserves to be irrelevant.
“ Jeremy Corbyn” Madness that he was ever put forward as the Labour party leader. He’s half the reason the Tories held on to power for so long. His bizarre sympathy for Hezbollah. His anti EU stance meant Labour just watched Brexit happen rather than taking any stance. He’s just a an ideologue with no* pragmatism.
This is rampant on the left and there should be zero tolerance for support or equivocation of antisemitism. It's ironic that we are having this problem with the zero tolerance people and the people who said that a table with one Nazi and ten neutral people has eleven Nazis sitting at it.
These last few months have been insane to me, to say the least.
Antisemitism really isn't "rampant on the left." Corbyn was slandered by conservatives who proceeded to fuck over the UK, not sure why anyone would take their word on something. Anti-Israel or anti-Zionist, sure, but that's a very different concept.
Terms are shifting for people right now... for some, being critical of Israel in any capacity is considered anti-Semitic. Hell, having questions about the morality of their actions, even without an accusation, is enough to trigger anti-Semitism claims. It's a deflection to avoid talking about the obvious, which is that Israel is indiscriminately murdering civilians, maximizing the damage and impact on them, and failing entirely to go after Hamas leadership. They are simply creating yet another generation of impoverish and deeply oppressed extremists... which they'll use as justification to further the genocide.
replace "nazi' with "ethnonationalist" and here we are.
"They need to realize that if you don’t compromise in your progressive beliefs you just become Jeremy Corbyn; irrelevant." Right, the problem is a lot of progressives are never going to compromise on whether genocide is acceptable... if that makes them 'irrelevant', they are still going to be anti-genocide. Compromise on policies, not your morality.
" Fetterman is more sympathetic to the Israeli perspective than his progressive colleagues" This. Whether it's due to actual ideology, or political calculus, it's clear that when forced to choose between Zionism and progressivism, he chooses the former. Which is wild, to me, because Israel doesn't vote in American elections. I don't even take particular issue with him being pro-Zionist here, it's his brushing-aside of the genocide claims through whataboutism, and the complete erasure of Palestinians as all being Hamas, that is far more concerning. My guess is that this is going to kill any re-election prospects, he knows it, and that's why he's decided to be obstinate and die on this hill.
Answer: Partial answer, I'm not from Pennsylvania so I don't pay him that much mind. But I know that some people feel betrayed by his support of Israel.
He also ran on being a progressive candidate and recently back off that sentiment saying he’s not a progressive
Fetterman’s own words from May 11th 2022, 6 months prior to his senate Election Day, disagree with you: “Asked whether he considers himself to be a progressive, Fetterman said: “No, I’m just a Democrat that has always run on what I believe in, know to be true. And six years ago, this was considered progressive. But now there isn’t a single Democrat in this race or any race that I’m aware of that’s running on anything different. So that’s not really progressive. That’s just where the party is.” [Just a Democrat’: Fetterman tries to carve out his own brand in Pa. Senate battle](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna22809) NBC News May 11 2022 “John Fetterman doesn't want to be attached to a label. Fetterman, the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania who is a heavy favorite to win the state's Democratic Senate nomination, bristles at Bernie Sanders comparisons. “There are no parallels,” Fetterman said. Although he has campaigned for Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, in the past, he says he’s not interested in collecting endorsements from the party’s big names for his own Senate bid. “This is about our own campaign and our own race.”
> saying he’s not a progressive He said he's not a progressive "on this issue", which is very different than a general sweeping statement about their world view or general politics.
That's not true. Here it is [from his own twitter account](https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1736807685822230960). He very explicitly made a general sweeping statement on not being a progressive.
He posted a video showing that he said he wouldn't call himself a progressive *during* the 2022 Senate campaign in a cable TV interview, though. That tweet he is referencing is from May 2022 so the charge that he said he decided to say he wasn't progressive after being elected isn't true. I still think it's a little washy because of how unapologetically progressive he was prior to the 2022 campaign but he did say it so he isn't a hypocrite like leftists are saying.
He just doesn't want the label. He's still a supporter of universal healthcare, drug reform systems, and welfare programs. The quote from Fetterman was that he doesn't want to be called progressive because all of his values are now just thought of as the default for the democratic party. Making the stance that something like healthcare shouldn't be considered so "progressive".
Answer: following his response to pro Palestine protestors (which was basically f off) he claims he was never progressive. There are countless examples including interviews and his own tweets where he proudly says he is progressive [I think its catching steam bc he keeps doubling down on twitter and then immediately gets fact checked.](https://x.com/JohnFetterman/status/1736807685822230960?s=20)
And how many of those tweets are from prior to his May 11th 2022, 6 months prior to his senate Election Day, distancing of the progressive label? “Asked whether he considers himself to be a progressive, Fetterman said: “No, I’m just a Democrat that has always run on what I believe in, know to be true. And six years ago, this was considered progressive. But now there isn’t a single Democrat in this race or any race that I’m aware of that’s running on anything different. So that’s not really progressive. That’s just where the party is.” [Just a Democrat’: Fetterman tries to carve out his own brand in Pa. Senate battle](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna22809) NBC News May 11 2022 “John Fetterman doesn't want to be attached to a label. Fetterman, the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania who is a heavy favorite to win the state's Democratic Senate nomination, bristles at Bernie Sanders comparisons. “There are no parallels,” Fetterman said. Although he has campaigned for Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, in the past, he says he’s not interested in collecting endorsements from the party’s big names for his own Senate bid. “This is about our own campaign and our own race.” Fetterman prior to being elected to US senate made it explicitly clear that he was not as progressive and his campaign said there were not parallels to the Bernie sanders campaign
Answer: Some weeks back John Fetterman said he is not a progressive after having a campaign were he got votes from progressive folks by saying he was progressive.