this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
192 points (100.0% liked)

politics

28709 readers
3035 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Troops have logged more than 110 complaints about such comments with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

Without any clear message coming from the White House with regard to the purpose of the Iran war, U.S. military commanders have turned to Jesus, apparently telling American troops that the war is “biblically sanctioned.”

The U.S. joined Israel in striking Iran early Saturday morning. By Monday evening, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, or MRFF, was “inundated” with complaints, receiving more than 110 grievances from U.S. military personnel stationed at dozens of sites across the Middle East, reported independent journalist Jonathan Larsen.

One such note included an anecdote from a noncommissioned officer, who reported that their commander had “urged us to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.”

The NCO’s complaint was lodged on behalf of 15 troops, including 11 Christians, one Muslim, and one Jew, according to Larsen. The officer stated that such remarks “destroy morale and unit cohesion and are in violation of the oaths we swore to support the [C]onstitution.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 15 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

Anecdotally, conversations with the terminally online type of leftists shows many to be still quite self-satisfied about not voting for Kamala, though.

Because, bOtHsIdEs would have started a religious war on behalf of a secular country.

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

You're not wrong, and to be clear I voted for Kamala just like I begrudgingly voted for Biden in 2020, and if somebody wants to argue things would be just as fucking horrible right now with Kamala as president, I would assume they're a troll or just a contrarian not worth arguing with.

But if we're looking at this as a continuum of who is to blame if the world were to end today, I do have to say I think there are plenty of more blameworthy people than just those on the left who either fell for propaganda or refused to compromise their values, and honestly (if not naively) believed they were making the right choice.

Regardless, we can't change that now, but if the world ends this way, as of this day I honestly would have to say the establishment Democrats are continuing to edge towards more complicit than blameless, even while knowing this is their chance to prove why they deserve any votes they don't receive.

If I could do 2024 again, I would still vote for Kamala, but I have to say, it makes me more than just a little angry to see so little effort by establishment Democrats to consider their constituents before their donors.

Why Can’t Top Democrats Just Say “No War With Iran”?

It's definitely not all Democrats, and there have been some (like Wyden) who have made their opinions very clear. Those democrats deserve every vote they can get. But shit like this from Schumer only helps to undermine democracy and public faith in the democratic party. It would be great to not have to constantly question who's interests he actually has in mind.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Yes, I fully understand all the caveats and the frustrations with the Democratic Party. I think a great deal of Democrats are in the camp you describe, including me.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about what seems to be a relatively small (but very vocal and quite smug) subset of the left that offer no truly viable options and then go on to lecture about how America and the DNC/Democratic Party deserves this kind of thing...if I didn't have a few of these types in my life, I'd think the online ones were an orchestrated campaign to throw elections to the right.

There are often several headlines per day that put the lie to how Republicans would be no different than the Democrats, and yet I've yet to see one of these types admit they were wrong or apologize for their claims. I mean, I get the fire in the belly - I was once a teenager, too. The sad part is that some of the people I know personally like this are way past the teen years.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The dem party leaders have complained about how this war was started, haven't heard much actual opposition to the war itself from them

They probably wouldn't have been so sloppy, but the messaging I heard was they would have backed up Israel unconditionally

[–] Didntdoit71@feddit.online 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Which is why we need anti-zionist liberals to run against them in the primaries. Find enough of those, I'll vote for the ones I can vote for...the rest is up to the people.