190
submitted 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) by Fuswoo@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 17 points 3 hours ago

Dude this makes me just hate Israel more. I don't know who's giving them PR advice but EVERYTHING about Israel just makes them look more and more like monsters.

I used to just brainlessly accept Israel = Democracy = Good

The propaganda worked.

But ever since this while AIPAC shit surfaced I finally saw just how horrific they are... Then I thought wait...maybe they are the assholes in the middle east too?

Sure enough you look at what and who they are and it's just pure evil monster.

Before anyone jumps in Israel =/= Judaism

Jews are fine.

Israel are the baddies

[-] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 hours ago

Why? I do not understand American leadership's obsession with Israel.

[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 9 points 3 hours ago

AIPAC spends $50 to $100 million per election cycle, while also most likely directing a multiple of that in outside spending. And has been for decades.

[-] MushuChupacabra@piefed.world 14 points 4 hours ago

So much for that First Amendment.

[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 19 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

If, under the "Citizens United" precedent, a corporation is free to spend money on politics because "money is speech" under the 1st Amendment's protection on freedom of speech...... then a university has the freedom of speech to not spend money as they see fit.

Plus the general concept of freedom of association that is part of our 1st Amendment rights.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 hours ago

Logically, you're right, but these motherfuckers are operating on a slight modification of Wilhoit's law:

"~~Conservatism~~ Zionism consists of exactly one proposition ... There must be ~~in-groups~~ Zionists whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside ~~out-groups~~ anti-zionists whom the law binds but does not protect.” --Frank Wilhoit"

[-] anewfox@lemmy.zip 9 points 4 hours ago

this bill is just the whole "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" bullshit that christofascists believe.

[-] Yew@lemmy.world 110 points 7 hours ago

Protect Freedom Act.... penalizes you for expressing your opinion.

[-] PwnTra1n@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

“The party of liberty and freedom. We take liberties and your freedom, seriously!”

[-] yakko@feddit.uk 29 points 6 hours ago

If they ever pass the "National Guard Doing Normal And Good Things act" head for the hills

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 15 points 5 hours ago

They are talking about the Southern version of "freedom", where they are preoccupied with the "freedom" to buy and sell others and to control how others live their lives.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 16 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

It's about states' rights!

A state's right to do what?

^own slaves^

[-] chaogomu@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Technically it was about states rights to ban slavery. The South was not at all happy about plans to "contain" slavery. They wanted full, mandatory expansion.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

Of course! Its double plus good!

[-] SoupBrick@pawb.social 38 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Jake Auchincloss (Massachusetts)

Kathy Castor (Florida)

Gilbert Ray Cisneros Jr. (California)

Jim Costa (California)

Joe Courtney (Connecticut)

Henry Cuellar (Texas)

Donald G. Davis (North Carolina)

Lois Frankel (Florida)

Laura Gillen (New York)

Jared F. Golden (Maine)

Vicente Gonzalez (Texas)

Greg Landsman (Ohio)

George Latimer (New York)

Susie Lee (Nevada)

John W. Mannion (New York)

Jared Moskowitz (Florida)

Donald Norcross (New Jersey)

Jimmy Panetta (California)

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Washington)

Josh Riley (New York)

Bradley Scott Schneider (Illinois)

Hillary J. Scholten (Michigan)

Kim Schrier (Washington)

Brad Sherman (California)

Darren Soto (Florida)

Haley M. Stevens (Michigan)

Thomas R. Suozzi (New York)

Shri Thanedar (Michigan)

Dina Titus (Nevada)

Ritchie Torres (New York)

Juan Vargas (California)

Eugene Simon Vindman (Virginia)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/every-democrat-who-voted-to-defund-schools-that-boycott-israel/ar-AA2bvV2v

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 hours ago

Doing the flying spaghetti monster's work! 🫡

[-] ramble81@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

Freaking Cuellar again. He won his primary and his opponent is a republican. So he’s trying to court their votes since he’s in Texas.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 21 points 6 hours ago

Traitors everyone of them

[-] Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world 8 points 5 hours ago

Really a who's who of dem assholes. I'm pleasantly surprised to not see my rep on there

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 37 points 7 hours ago

It won't pass the Senate and is an insanely stupid thing to do before midterms...

[-] cattywampas@lemmy.world 14 points 6 hours ago

Lol let them cook. I hope they "rename" an ocean too.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 5 points 6 hours ago

It won't pass the Senate

Why not? There are already plenty of state laws that do as much.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago

Because of the filibuster...

The same reason the only thing that passes is budget reconciliation...

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 6 points 6 hours ago

The problem here is that Zionism is more or less bipartisan. I wouldn't necessarily bet my life savings on it, but given the number of states with anti-BDS laws I have no trouble imagining that such a law would get 60 votes.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

I have no trouble imagining that such a law would get 60 votes.

I can imagine I'm in Narnia...

But it doesn't mean my dog will start talking.

If you think there are 60 who will vote for it, sit down and try to write down which Dems would. You'll feel better when you cant get to 60

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 5 hours ago

The ones who voted no here for instance.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Forty out of 47 Senate Democrats voted in favor of one of the resolutions to block a $295 million sale of bulldozers, which the initiative’s author, Senator Bernie Sanders, claimed would be used to demolish homes in the West Bank, Gaza and Lebanon. Fifty-nine senators — mostly Republicans — voted against blocking the sale.

Thirty-six Democrats backed another resolution aimed at blocking a $152 million sale of 1,000-pound bombs to the IDF, which Sanders argued would be used in Gaza and Lebanon. Sixty-three senators voted against blocking the sale.

So...

You don't understand how your link backs up my point?

117th congress passed 2.0%, 118th passed 1.4%, and the 119th is about to end at 0.6%...

In this congress 18,500 Bill introduced, 104 became law. Except for annual budget, almost all of them were very small things no one cares about. Something this big hasn't been able to pass for a very very long time now.

Senators not voting for one bill, doesn't mean they'd vote yes for the opposite. That is an incredibly basic way to think

[-] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)
  1. They don't even do filibusters any longer. They just "call it". They're too lazy to actually filibuster.
  2. The filibuster can be surpassed at any time with a simple majority vote. This is called "the nuclear option" because that term scares the shit out of voters. But, it's just a simple majority vote.

The reason they pass budget reconciliations is because that's what they want to pass. If they want something to pass, they skip the filibuster with a simple majority vote. If they don't want something to pass, they say "oh no, the filibuster, so sorry, just not enough votes."

There have been something near 200 "exceptions" to the filibuster... all passed with a simple majority vote.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Yeah...

So "simple" to get 60 Senators on the same page in 2026...

How the fuck did you think people needed that explained though?

[-] OwOarchist@pawb.social 14 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Making it illegal to *checks notes* stop buying things.

I guess that's what "freedom" means these days.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 8 points 5 hours ago

"Socialism is bad; they will tell you what to buy. Also, government will take over businesses."

--Republicans, staying silent for this and for tiny-d donnie's administration acquiring direct ownership stakes in public companies...

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 18 points 7 hours ago

2nd people, you have a tyrannical government right now

[-] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 hours ago

They are all a bunch of chickens. They would only rise up if it was a brown person doing this.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

Im not sure even that would be enough tbh.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

But they'd sure talk a big game. And maybe commit some hate crimes locally.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

Yes, they, as fascist are wont to do, go after easy targets. They are little piss babies after all

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 1 points 4 hours ago

Armchair warrior.

They were always cowards and cosplayers.

[-] Major_Tsiom@fedia.io 11 points 6 hours ago

Is shit like this supposed to make us accept Israel or hate them even more?

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 6 hours ago

Most likely a trap for the House Dems stupid enough to vote for it.

It hurts everyone, but it hurts people with a D by their name more.

[-] Janx@piefed.social 8 points 6 hours ago

"Freedom of Speech"... Apparently, it's only for when you want to funnel dark money to extremist politicians, not when students and their schools (rightfully) criticize an ally.

[-] kibblebits@quokk.au 8 points 7 hours ago

Woo, shit’s about to fall down.

[-] dan1101@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

Because of grifters, nazi jews, and pedophiles no less.

[-] kibblebits@quokk.au 0 points 6 hours ago
[-] dan1101@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

Some Americans certainly. Not a majority. There is hope, but a lot of things are bad.

[-] kibblebits@quokk.au -1 points 6 hours ago

Ehhh… 66% imho

[-] Blibly@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

Fascist bullshit

[-] Herbie@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

This just screams America first. A job well done everybody.. soon America will be great again.. right? /S

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 6 hours ago
[-] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 2 points 5 hours ago

KEEPING money is ILLEGAL!

-Republicans AND 33 Democrats!

this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2026
190 points (99.0% liked)

politics

31022 readers
2757 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS