Comes in many forms. All should be contested. Some will say what it constitutes is debatable but as a certain SCOTUS justice once said when trying to define obscenity: I know it when I see it.
The left-wing and Islamic forms are well known and have gotten the most attention. The far right forms are less familiar though and until recently much more fringe and inconsequential. Let's make some attempt to review them.
Neo-Nazis -
People who equate American policy with Jewish policy and thus end up siding with hostile foreign actors like Iran, Russia, and even al Qaeda in the most virulent strains.
Russophiles -
Putin lovers who blame the US for various things. Syria, the refugee crisis, NATO moving east, Ukraine, etc.
Secessionists -
Little need be said here. Wanting to break up the US is about as anti-American as it gets short of blowing the place up.
Rabid neo-con bashers -
These are the types that tend to see any foreign intervention as a neo-con operation. If they don't side with foreign powers outright they certainly attempt to hamstring necessary applications of American power much in the way leftists will try to hamstring the police domestically.
Much of the above stems from foreign policy ignorance - which is common among the general public. But this is weaponized ignorance.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
Those are a different group of people than what I was talking about. But whatever. If you think you can read that and know Chuck Schumer is 'Israel first', more power to you. To me it looks like clear evidence he is pro-Israel. 'Israel first' is much more debatable. The guy is an American. Not an Israeli. If a Jew.
[–] KosherHiveKicker ago (edited ago)
"God has chosen him to protect Israel" ...not the United States of America.... ISRAEL.