this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
715 points (93.4% liked)

politics

19091 readers
3554 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
 

“Jill Stein is a useful idiot for Russia. After parroting Kremlin talking points and being propped up by bad actors in 2016 she’s at it again,” DNC spokesman Matt Corridoni said in a statement to The Bulwark. “Jill Stein won’t become president, but her spoiler candidacy—that both the GOP and Putin have previously shown interest in—can help decide who wins. A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They do have the ability to percieve the results of their actions, and they know if they cut Israel loose, they lose the election.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Israeli vs. Palestinian support isn't nearly so overwhelming that there is simply one side that guarantees loss. This is an excuse by you for them, not a truth of politics.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago
  1. There's a world of policy positions between "give as many weapons as desired without condition" and "abandon Israel". AIPAC hasn't gone after Democrats that just express reservations and demand accountability and their effectiveness requires they actually have an argument that with a lot of ad money can sway meaningful numbers of voters.
  2. AIPAC's resources are not endless. They can drop big money in small races to influence them, but don't have the resources to veto a president. Those weren't crucial votes on Israel policy, they were members they thought were vulnerable. They couldn't oust Ilhan Omar and they're not even planning a challenge to Bernie Sanders despite his greater prominence and power. Learned helplessness however could give them everything they want without needing to have the actual power to force it.
  3. Finally, if you're trying to discourage antiwar opposition, saying she is effectively required to act in accordance with AIPAC's wishes is not going to sway anyone who's angry about Israel's genocide. If that were actually true then AIPAC supports genocide so, whether under duress or not, Democratic presidents will also be required to support genocide.