this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
348 points (97.8% liked)

politics

24958 readers
2478 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Vupware@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You make an important distinction, but by voting against the statement AOC is still saying “I don’t like the idea of defunding Israel’s Iron Dome”.

Is that not something to be frustrated with?

We have virtually no progressive politicians in the US. The ones that are progressive inevitably concede to safe and exhausted liberal ideologies, and this further proves that point.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

No she isn't. That vote means she does not want to support the totality of the messaging amendment, which includes saying offensive weapons are fine, the priority is America First, and that an antisemite should be lead writer on bills on Israel. You guys are acting like this was a real bill that just needed political support to pass and not voting for the Jewish Space Lasers lady's bill just supercedes every actually meaningful public statement on the issue she's made.

[–] Vupware@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

So I’m exposing my ignorance here, but I have a question.

Apart from MTG’s association, how am I to make the distinction between a “real” bill and a “statement “ bill?

I understand what you’re saying, and have been persuaded by your latest comment; I’m just hung up on that “just a statement bill” thing.

E: I guess it’s literally as simple as “MTG is such a joke that her bills will never pass”.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 5 days ago

Yeah, anything MTG puts forward that isn't already supported by Republicans is likely pointless nuttery (the supported stuff is dangerous nuttery). But more generally, these people all know when a bill is going to be 50/50 and when it's going to get 400 no votes.

That's not to say representatives never should be judged for their votes on doomed bills, but their vote should be in the context of it just being a statement itself, and with MTG writing the amendment, the statement is a muddled mess.