this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
134 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3125 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
134
Democrats wrestle with whether to attend Netanyahu’s address to Congress as many plan to boycott (apnews.com)
submitted 4 months ago by givesomefucks@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 31 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

“I wish that he would be a statesman and do what is right for Israel. We all love Israel,” former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said recently on CNN about Netanyahu. “We need to help them and not have him stand in the way of that for such a long time.”

She added, “I think it’s going to invite more of what we have seen in terms of discontent among our own.”

  1. We don't "all love Israel".

  2. It's incredibly concerning leadership understands this hurts the party but won't even do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Hell, it's not even for the wrong reasons. As they keep saying, it's vital that we stop republicans. But for some reason that's not enough of a reason to stop supporting genocidal maniacs threatening WW3

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Reasons don’t stop Republicans, a House majority does.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Dem majorities rarely do either, tbh.

The Dem leadership consider compromise for the sake of compromise the highest virtue and refuse to adjust that belief to the realities that

A) The GOP is now a literal fascist party,

B) The fascist GOP does not ever negotiate in good faith, and thus

C) any compromise with them will be unacceptable concessions in exchange for little to nothing.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Democratic majorities are rare. The last time Democrats had control of Congress we got the ACA and DACA.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Democratic majorities are rare

Because the Dem leadership is obsessed with appealing to an increasingly tiny portion of the electorate, alienating everyone to the left of Reagan who isn't in the "Blue No Matter Who" cult of settling for second worst.

The last time Democrats had control of Congress we got the ACA and DACA

Which are both extremely watered down versions of what they initially promised. This due to the efforts of the very right wing Democrats the leadership keeps pushing over more progressive candidates whose policy positions are more in line with those of the population in general rather than the rich people, corporations and management side industry groups who donate a shitload of money to both Republicans and conservative Democrats.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So if you can’t get what you want, you’d rather have the opposite than settle?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Nope. That's both a strawman and a false dichotomy.

I'm saying that the Dems aren't good enough.

"Slightly better than literal fascists" is not a high enough bar and demanding more isn't the same thing as endorsing the fascists.

If that's still too hard to understand, let me put it this way: in spite of having done nothing to deserve it, you're being given the choice between being kicked in the head or stabbed in the liver.

Objecting to the lesser assault is NOT a request to be stabbed.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That’s an imperfect analogy. It’s more like defending yourself. You may still get stabbed, but you have a better chance of stopping the attacker than doing nothing.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

That’s an imperfect analogy

Of course it's imperfect. It was dumbed down for you to be able to understand it. Unsuccessfully, alas.

It’s more like defending yourself

No it's not. Saying that everyone being kicked in the head should stop complaining about the assault and in stead thank the assailants for not being the other, worse, assailants is NOT defending anyone.

You may still get stabbed

Yeah, that's the other thing I didn't cover: sometimes the kicking assailants will just straight up let you be stabbed anyway even if you elected enough of them.

They're being paid much more by the steel toe boot association and the combat knife manufacturers than anyone trying to make the assaults stop, after all..

you have a better chance of stopping the attacker than doing nothing

Protesting inaction in the face of fascism isn't nothing.

Advocating for the rotten status quo that allowed the rise of fascism, though? THAT'S doing nothing.

Going so far as shaming dissenting opinions, lumping everyone who's not satisfied with negative peace (the absence of disorder) in with the fascists? That's WORSE than doing nothing.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Because the Dem leadership is obsessed with appealing to an increasingly tiny portion of the electorate, alienating everyone to the left of Reagan who isn’t in the “Blue No Matter Who” cult of settling for second worst.

No, because land area determines the legislature and not population. The Republican Senate hasn't represented more than half the population in the US since 1996, but had control for most of that time. Every Democratic majority is a short-lived thing after massive uphill battle, because America leans hard to the right we value land area more than people.

In short: This is the best our government can do, because it's structurally deficient and Americans are pretty dumb.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, because land area determines the legislature and not population

That's a big part of the reason too, yes.

~~America~~ American law leans hard to the right ~~we~~ it values land area more than people

Fixed it for you. And guess who's had ample opportunity to do something, ANYTHING, about that throughout the decades and have hardly even tried beyond empty campaign ad sound bites? Starts with a D..

This is the best our government can do

Ridiculous defeatism.

because it's structurally deficient

Which SOME people have the power to do something about but actively avoid addressing outside of fundraising appeals.

Americans are pretty dumb.

Some are, but NOWHERE near the majority. For example, the largest share of the population that ever voted for Trump was 20%.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Some are, but NOWHERE near the majority.

I disagree with a lot in this post, but this is what I disagree with the most.

[–] Feliskatos@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Abrahamism sure has a stranglehold on the U.S.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Shit, it's the problem over there too...

They literally all worship the same God but too many people are still wanting to kill each other over the details

It was true when Emo Phillips said it, it's still true today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANNX_XiuA78

Even if one religion dominates large sections of the globe, over time it will fracture and create conflict again.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

And the conflict isn't just between people of different faiths. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre - the holiest place in all of Christianity, where Jesus rose from the dead - has been the site of many fights between the different branches of Christianity who care for the church. Monks beating each other up in the place where the Prince of Peace showed his divinity.

It's so bad that there's been a ladder leaning up against the church since the early 1700s because nobody can agree on who put it there and who should move it.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Netanyahu is actively throwing the Democrats and Biden under the bus on Twitter videos.

Biden still allowing Netanyahu to come and give a Trump endorsement speech in Congress has to be the weakest move I have ever seen. He's Netanyahu's bitch.

[–] Hotmailer@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

He's wanted by the ICJ. I hope someone has the courage to arrest his ass

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 4 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The last time Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the U.S. Congress, nearly 60 Democrats skipped his speech nine years ago, calling it a slap in the face to then-President Barack Obama as he negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran.

While some Democrats are saying they will come out of respect for Israel, a larger and growing faction wants no part of it, creating an extraordinarily charged atmosphere at a gathering that normally amounts to a ceremonial, bipartisan show of support for an American ally.

Netanyahu said in a release that he was “very moved” by the invitation to address Congress and the chance “to present the truth about our just war against those who seek to destroy us to the representatives of the American people and the entire world.”

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the highest-ranking Jewish official in the United States, gave a speech on the Senate floor that was harshly critical of the prime minister.

Schumer, D-N.Y., called the Israeli leader “an obstacle to peace” and urged new elections in Israel, even as he denounced Hamas and criticized Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Johnson spoke of asking Netanyahu to come to Washington, an invitation that Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York ultimately endorsed, albeit reluctantly.

The original article contains 1,284 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!