this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
579 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19120 readers
3155 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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
579
US Senate to vote on Bernie Sanders-led effort to stop arms sales to Israel (www.middleeasteye.net)
submitted 5 days ago by IndustryStandard@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
78 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

On Wednesday, the US Senate will hold a vote on whether to approve the Pentagon’s request to send another $20bn in armaments to Israel, after a year in which the Biden administration has supplied billions of dollars of arms used in Israel's devastating war on Gaza.

Among the weapons to be approved are 120mm tank rounds, high explosive mortar rounds, F-15IA fighter aircraft, and joint direct attack munitions, known as JDAMs, which are precision systems for otherwise indiscriminate or "dumb" bombs.

Separate resolutions are being brought forward for each weapon type, including its cost to US taxpayers. However, together, the initiative is known as the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRDs).

As a result of intensive lobbying from pro-Israel groups like Aipac and the Democratic Majority For Israel, no arms transfer to Israel has been blocked.

The resolutions likely to gain the highest levels of support are expected to involve the tank rounds, which have been responsible for killing hundreds of civilians in northern Gaza in particular, and the JDAMs, which caused the death of well-known figures such as Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah in southern Lebanon, and six-year-old Hind Rajab in Gaza City.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

By holding your nose instead of organizing around alternatives you are perpetuating the crisis.

Or as Briahna Joy Gray worded more aptly yesterday;

I'm afraid that you're organizing people into a burning house.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

The irony that you can't see she's saying the same thing I am is too much bub

If you really think me and her are disagreeing, then me repeatedly explaining this won't help anyone

My advice would be asking someone else for assistance, maybe how I'm explaining it is the problem. But I don't think it is.

Edit:

So no one else has to click on a twitter link:

I'm afraid that you're organizing people into a burning house. The Democratic Party has demonstrated that it would rather have Republicans win than to disappoint its donor class & actually embrace the policies that would make the material improvements to those people's lives that you're talking about. There's a reason why Kamala Harris would not support an arms embargo. She took more money from Raytheon than even Donald Trump did. She's a part of an administration where the secretary of Defense was a Raytheon board member. These are material realities that are constraining the politics of the Democratic Party, & no nice lady coming along or nice man coming along who loves his grandkids & eats an ice cream cone, & put sunshades on and hangs out with Barack Obama can change that reality."

When election day rolled around, she still did the same as me:

Advocating for mitigating damage when that was the only other option.

When talking about next election, she says we need a better candidate. Same thing I've been saying.

Like, I understand that we agree, but trying to get you to understand that has been insanely frustrating