750
Just a few years too late.
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2026
750 points (98.7% liked)
politics
29498 readers
4547 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Best time to cut ties with Israel was 20 years ago.
Second best time is now
load more comments
(1 replies)
Are Democrats feeling the Bern at last?
Imagine if you will - a world where we would have had Bernie instead of Sweet Potato Hitler V1.
Never forget kids: The rich are the true and only enemy.
Hell, I'm still imagining a world where we had Gore instead of Junior.
Two easy ones:
No 9-11. There would have eventually been an attempt somehow, hell, maybe it would have been worse, like a dirty bomb. But the ball wouldn't have been dropped on staying alert. Climate activism. Still think it was far too late even by 2000 to prevent the worst that's coming (which tells you were I think we are now), but at least Gore knew the science and would have tried to change something.
Still would have had our problems, but it's such a different path, it's hard to say what would have still happened.
I have a hard time believing that Gore would have made a difference on preventing 9-11, but I'm sure the response would have been different. Maybe no Patriot Act, maybe no Afghanistan War, almost certainly no Iraq War. That's a big enough difference for me.
Bush was an idiot that blew off reports about Osama bin laden mobilizing. I don't think Gore would have, personally.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm old. I'm STILL imagining a world where we got Dukakis instead of Reaganomics 2.0
I'm ancient. George McGovern instead of Dick Nixon.
I'm prehistoric. George III instead of Washington
Republicans: not even once.
I wasn't born, but a world in which Carter won re-election instead of Reagan or Humphrey defeated Nixon would have been..... So much better.
Even Eisenhower, best of a bad lot, did nothing to stop the red scare and instead used it as an opportunity to remove homosexuals and leftists from the civil service.
Not even once.
It was safe to vote in order to appease the voters without actually doing anything because they knew the Republicans would shut it down.
If the vote were closer and couldn't survive Democratic unanimity, just enough of the rotating selection would oppose it to keep it from passing while the rest saved face.
It's a bad play I think if that's their plan. It shows that criticizing Israel is fair game, which has pretty much been against everything said in the past. It's an admission that they think that what Israel is doing is wrong. You can't put that back. AIPAC would not be in favor of this. If this is just appeasement, it's at least appeasement that can be pointed at to show what's wrong.
They may think of it like appeasement
But this is only the beginning of the anti-zionist snowball
load more comments
(3 replies)
If the Ds had enough votes to block passage, magically, just one would vote against.
We need a country to bribe our reps more than Israel does, this is the only way. Oops, I mean donate.
China, you're our only hope.
Imagine if the people of the nation had enough money for food, shelter, and political donations.
lol imagine if we achieve the death of US imperialism and the dawn of global communism simply by bribing the politicians more than the capitalists do.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This idea that China is somehow going to save you or the world is brain death.
Xi loves what Trump is doing. Why would he risk stabilizing the U.S. when he could just not and continue to madly profit?
Also are you Han Chinese? Because if not, see my first point.
load more comments
(1 replies)
We need a country to bribe our reps more than Israel does
It's a circular scheme. Money we spend arming Israel goes to their weapons manufacturers. Their MIC collects a profit, which is milled back into campaign donations to US Congresscritters. Congresscritters take the money and rubber stamp more tax-dollars to Israel, to buy more weapons, to generate more profit, to bribe more of Congress.
China, you’re our only hope.
President Xi, please liberate our people.
load more comments
(4 replies)
It's nice, but we need meaningful campaign finance reform. We need to get Israeli money, and all foreign money, as far away from our political campaigns as possible.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I suspect a lot of Dems knew it wouldn't pass and are virtue signaling. Let's see if there's a blue wave in November and if so, whether they still have the backbone to cut off Israel.
This wouldn't be an issue if we just had campaign finance reform.
Virtue signaling is a good start.
Don’t underestimate the value of moving the Overton Window
load more comments
(1 replies)
Meaningless posturing because they knew it wouldn't win. Wake me up when they have a majority and actually do something with it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Hey Dems, this is the kind of hings we want. Keep it up. Do actual healthcare and debt reduction next!
Future: Sorry, even though there are 55 Democratic senators now, six of them won't vote for it because of inscrutable reasons and there's just nothing we can do!
And apologists wonder why we don't like the Dem neo-libs.
If they did this about 2 years ago we wouldn't have Trump.
I guess an eventual response is better than no response. Although for many is this juat a decision to win votes? Like I want representatives that have morals, but I suppose ones that listen to their voters is better than the current situation
I too can never quite shake the feeling that at least sometimes the supposed opposition is just theatre. Especially when they know it won't make any functional difference, they can say "well, gosh darn it, we tried" when in reality they'll always magically never have enough votes to do the right thing.
load more comments
(2 replies)
..now? They just did this now? What was the inflection point?
They were probably told to wait until Israel got most of what it wanted and then were allowed to do this to save face. Fuck all democrats who voted yes previously, this will not absolve them. They deserve to rot in the same cesspit with Trump and Netanyahu.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The inflection point was they knew it's gonna pass anyway, so they used the opportunity to feign alignment with their voters for a change.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
failed just as planned. i can’t take them ~~seriously~~ never mind i do take them seriously after they rejected the call to stop taking AIPAC money. of course they are not going to stop. they just need to choose the defectors. and shumer is too cowardly to answer for his own demands
Cool! Now let's do that 2 years ago
If you know popular legislation will fail then it's easier to support it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm assuming they know it won't pass because of the Republican majority so they are virtue signaling. I can't trust either side.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Schumer (D-Tel Aviv) voted against.
And yet the Dems are leaving him as leader?
Democrats: against every war but the current war.
The war to end all wars
Bare minimum but a start I guess
DIdn't the DNC vote those sorts of policies down in terms of adding em to the next platform when they run? Seem to recall seeing that recently.
If so, my guess is this is a political maneuver to try and reclaim the votes they lost for unflinching support of Israel. It's the "Well, we can all vote no now, to look good to the voters and hedge our bets to get elected -- but then once elected, we just go back to the status quo, which we technically never said we'd veer away from, so no harm no foul".
Now send iron dome to Gaza and sanctions against Israel
The Democratic base’s shift on Israel was recent and seismic, and the leadership is lagging a bit. They will come around to the new party consensus soon, and the Democratic party will be the anti-Zionist party. They will have to in order to win elections; it is already an 80/20 issue among Democratic voters, and that 80 is only going to grow.
The GOP base is likely to remain more split on the issue for a while. Most of their youngest voters are essentially groypers at this point (whether they self-identify with that label or not). They hate Israel and Jews in general. But the larger portion of Republicans are evangelical Christian Zionists who see Israel as instrumental in their end times prophecy. Trump and GOP leadership is still catering solely to this group, and party leadership could remain locked in this mode for while.
Republicans may become even more Zionist as AIPAC funding and Zionist former Democrats flee the Democratic party to join the other side. Another political realignment in a decade of political realignments.
load more comments
(1 replies)
75%?
Netanyahu did this. Allowing support for Israel to become a partisan issue in the US will go down as one of the classic blunders.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The dems are whores for corporate money and this war actually threaten said money
Would have been nice if their line in the sand was genocide but I guess this is still better than the alternative
view more: next ›