this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
332 points (98.0% liked)

politics

24870 readers
3050 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

According to the UK, splashing something with paint to express a political opinion means that you are a terrorist.

[–] ileftreddit@piefed.social 108 points 1 day ago (3 children)

CCTV footage will likely show the perps to be off duty cops, lol

[–] REDACTED 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Off duty cops are rarely pro-Palestine supporters

[–] ileftreddit@piefed.social 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Um, they rarely support Palestine but they’d love to vandalize the office of someone who does…. The premise of my comment was that this vandalism was made to look like leftists had done it when it was actually an off-duty cop or some other right wing agitator

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago

Nah, this is perfectly on brand for anti Israel activists. They are the only ones who care and pay attention to AOC in this matter. The red paints fits as well. Attacking their allies because they aren’t radical enough is daily practice for anti Israel activists as well.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 day ago

That was literally their point.

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 57 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Off duty? Nah. Those motherfuckers probably got paid overtime for it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 61 points 1 day ago (14 children)

Perhaps I'm not up to speed, but she was one of the first reps to call Israel's actions a genocide. What gives?

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 147 points 1 day ago (19 children)

It's more bad-faith horseshit to get leftists to destroy one another, which a lot of leftists love to lap up because their critical thinking isn't real strong and they love nothing more than being "holier than" some kind of previously respected icon.

MTG's amendment left intact the funding for offensive weapons, but cut the funding for defensive weapons for Israel. So there is literally no way AOC could win. Leaving aside the fact that it was a kooky MTG amendment that was never going to pass in the first place... If she voted for the amendment, then everyone who is currently screaming that she's a fake leftist who supports genocide could say "See? SHE VOTED FOR KEEPING ISRAEL'S FUNDING INTACT, SHE SUPPORTS GENOCIDE!" Since she voted against it, they are currently screaming "See? SHE VOTED AGAINST DEFUNDING ISRAEL, SHE SUPPORTS GENOCIDE!"

It's just more can't-win, let's-eat-the-leftest-person-because-we're-super-leftist-I-promise horseshit.

Here's AOC voting against funding for Israel, in an actual bill that was actually a non-Hobson's-choice opportunity to vote against aid for Israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/biden-meets-with-aoc-in-wake-of-her-vote-against-military-aid-for-israel/

And her voting against the actual funding bill providing aid to Israel: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025212

I've also seen people say Bernie is a Zionist, because he says "ethnic cleansing" instead of "genocide." Both Bernie and AOC's vocal opposition to genocide doesn't matter to these people. Actually, it's that genuine leftism that they represent that makes them dangerous, and worthwhile to engineer cooked-up horseshit to use to get other people to turn on them, so the Marco Rubios of the world can take over un-contested.

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Meanwhile Republicans figured out decades ago that alienating your own party (even the "radicals") doesn't get you elected, and simply protesting the chosen candidate by just not voting doesn't actually help you achieve your goals. It's a hard pill for establishment Democrats and leftists to swallow, but it's truth.

Republicans weren't doing Nazi salutes on stage at presidential inaugurations until recently, but they have been pandering to the far right for a very long time. They've gradually moved further and further right, while the left has been ignoring their own base in order to welcome aboard the fiscal conservatives (and their donations) slowly jumping ship.

Paul Weyrich created the new right movement. He voted Republican for his entire life, but he also seemed to really hate the establishment Republican party. He was quite vocal about it, and as every election year approached, he would start shit talking Republicans for not focusing enough on conservative social issues.

Before Weyrich and the creation of a moral majority, "fiscal conservatives/Rockefeller Republicans," who didn't really care about social issues were the backbone of the Republican party. Abortion was mainly just an issue conservative Catholics and nobody else cared about. Once Weyrich created his movement though, he used public pressure to change the party little by little. It took his whole life, and he didn't actually live to see the absolute batshit fruits of his labor, but without Paul Weyrich, there would be no Donald Trump and no Project 2025.

There would also be way fewer rich conservatives who have pressured the democratic party to embrace a move towards moderate centrism.

1983:Righting Reagan's Revolution

The 1980 presidential election rewarded incompetence, and that incompetence moved right into the White House. If you have to find out who makes the decisions over there, you will go insane. I challenge you to go to the White House and find out. You'll be in St. Elizabeths in short order, and I'll come visit you."

He thinks Reagan has ignored issues most important to Weyrich: school prayer, an end to abortion, pornography, government "hand-outs"--issues that appeal to what he calls "cultural" conservatives, grass-rooters most concerned about family, God and country. That concern includes free enterprise, a balanced budget and a pre-eminent weapons system for America

1998: Religious Right, Frustrated, Trying New Tactic on G.O.P.

Early in March, Paul Weyrich, the godfather of social conservatives, summoned about 25 prominent leaders from the religious and political right for a secret meeting in his office here overlooking the rail yards behind Union Station.

They fumed that they had been used and abused, like some cheap date. In one election after another, they said, conservative foot soldiers had dutifully worked the phone banks, walked the precincts and turned out masses of voters for Republican candidates who had promised action on issues like abortion, pornography and homosexuality. And the Republicans, they complained, had consistently failed to deliver.

2000: Hard Right Burning for Bush?

Perhaps it was because he was recovering from painful back surgery, but a few weeks before the Republican convention, Paul Weyrich, a founder of the religious right, was awful grumpy about George

He did this kind of shit nonstop until he eventually shaped the right into what it is today. If you didn't know who he was, and you just heard the way he described his frustration towards the Republican party when he first got involved in politics back in the 70s, you might just as easily think you were listening to a leftist complain about Democrat centrists in 2025.

Weyrich hailed as conservative pioneer

“In the early ‘70s, when most conservatives were reduced to wringing their hands and resigning themselves to life in the political wilderness, Paul just seemed to know what was needed to break the liberal stranglehold,” recalled Feulner.

Paul Weyrich: Father of a New Right

Weyrich waved aloft a monograph from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a right-of-center think tank. The study carefully examined both sides of a controversial issue—the federal funding of a supersonic transport plane (the SST). The Senate had just voted 51-46 to halt government support of the SST, which some conservative hawks favored to maintain U.S. technological superiority over the Soviets. The AEI report arrived in Allott’s office after the Senate debate.

A puzzled Weyrich contacted William Baroody, Sr., AEI president and a member of his church. “Great study,” he said. “But why didn’t we get it sooner so we could use it in the debate?” Baroody explained: “We didn’t want to try to affect the outcome of the vote.” Unspoken was the admission that AEI didn’t want to be too “political” and jeopardize its tax-exempt status. For one of the few times in his life, Weyrich was speechless.

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Spot on. It would have played out the same way no matter what she did.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 6 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah. There's always something to capitalize on.

There are some fucking emergencies going on, among them the literal starvation of everyone in Gaza. Go up to the US Capitol building or your local Brooks Brothers, or fucking wherever, and spray-paint "PEOPLE IN GAZA ARE DYING TONIGHT"? Fuckin' spot on, man, please do. Go and shit on the lefty-est person you can find because you found a tiny chink in her behavior that you can exploit and start bullying her over for the next year and a half? Honestly, man, it really irritates me.

I think the reason they like to do it is because she's vulnerable. If they were protesting the people actually killing Palestinians, or the people taking over our country and cancelling democracy, they might punch back real hard. That's scary, so let's go throw some paint on someone who is in a precarious enough position that she'll have to just take it.

Honestly, fuck 'em. Like I say it irritates me.

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

She's the chosen lightning rod and MTG is the chosen lightning. Everyone ignores her voting record and stares into the flash.

Because it's that easy. Textbook. But it shows that progressives are a threat. And we'll see more of this. Especially at midterms.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 3 points 14 hours ago

Yeah. I guess that's a good way to look at it, is they're spending so much energy on it because the progressive momentum is steadily building. I just wish their energy would quit translating into success.

[–] mrodri89@lemmy.zip 2 points 14 hours ago

That's some crazy shit to try and distract from the Epstein files. How the fuck do you know if your "ally" is using a weapon defensively or offensively.

Stupid shit.

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works -1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Bernie is a Zionist because he supports the continued existence of Israel and a two state solution. That’s unacceptable to many pro Palestinian activists who want the destruction of Israel.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

"Everyone who doesn't want the destruction of Israel = Zionist"

Well, by that definition, sure, he's a Zionist. On the other hand, if you say that a Zionist is a ham sandwich, he's not a Zionist. The point is: Words are fun, we can redefine them to make all kinds of great arguments.

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Supporting the continued existence of Israel is the essence of Zionism.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 1 points 10 minutes ago

Look at the goalposts go lol

"He's not a REAL supporter of Palestine"

"Why does it not count, all these things he did to materially support Palestine, from inside the US government where it can actually make a real material difference in a way that almost no one else on earth is able to do when they care about Palestine?"

"Because he doesn't want to see Israel destroyed. That means it doesn't count."

Fuck outta here

[–] mrodri89@lemmy.zip 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Wait, I looked it up and found this amendment introduced by MTG that AOC voted no on. It didn't seem to have to do with the defensive weapons at all.

It was to defund the Israeli Cooperative Programs. https://www.congress.gov/amendment/119th-congress/house-amendment/55/all-info?s=a&r=3

I googled that program and found the below.

Israeli Cooperative Programs refer to various initiatives and collaborations that involve cooperative efforts between Israel and other countries, organizations, or communities. These programs can span multiple sectors, including agriculture, technology, education, and research. Here are some key aspects:

Agricultural Cooperatives: Israel is known for its advancements in agricultural technology and practices. Cooperative programs often focus on sharing these innovations with other countries, particularly in areas like water management, irrigation, and sustainable farming techniques.

Technology and Innovation: Israel has a robust tech ecosystem, often referred to as "Startup Nation." Cooperative programs may involve partnerships with foreign companies or governments to foster innovation, share technology, and develop new products or services.

Research and Development: Many Israeli universities and research institutions engage in cooperative programs with international partners to conduct joint research projects, share knowledge, and develop new technologies.

Cultural and Educational Exchanges: These programs may also include cultural exchanges, educational partnerships, and initiatives aimed at promoting understanding and collaboration between Israel and other nations.

Economic Cooperation: Israel engages in various economic cooperative agreements that facilitate trade, investment, and economic development with other countries.

Overall, Israeli Cooperative Programs aim to leverage Israel's expertise and innovations to foster collaboration and mutual benefit across different sectors and regions.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 2 points 14 hours ago

I'm pretty sure there was a genuine amendment defunding the Iron Dome that MTG introduced. I could be wrong but I saw that in sources that don't just make stuff up.

She proposed a big handful of amendments; maybe Iron Dome is in ICP and they just don't like to publicize it very much, or maybe it was in one of the other amendments.

[–] NaibofTabr 31 points 1 day ago (12 children)

I mean... it really doesn't take much to get people on the left to turn on each other. It's kind of a historic problem with leftist ideological groups in general - they're awfully quick to declare each other the wrong type of leftist, or not leftist enough, and then refuse to cooperate.

There certainly are outside provocateurs, but I wouldn't leap to that conclusion in every occasion. Hanlon's razor applies.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

"If you're saying I voted for military funding, you are lying," she wrote. "Drag me for my positions all you want, but lying about them doesn't make you part of the 'left.' If you believe neo-Nazis are welcome and operating in good faith, you can have them."

She did though, right?

[–] dukeofdummies@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Like, the most devils advocate I can be for her vote is that she's arguing that we shouldn't take away their shield, we should take away their spear.

To which... I still don't see the logic. Because if you can block with one hand you're free to stab with the other. If all you have is stabby implements, you got no way to deal with when they stab back.

They'd be forced to be less aggressive, which they seem intent to be.

[–] Aspharr@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

The best explanation I heard was that any funding at all, even if it's for a "defensive" weapon, is still funding that makes doing their genocide easier.

Another good take I heard is something along the lines of "they have healthcare and we don't, they can fund their fucking iron dome themselves".

[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

They're not entitled to billions of dollars of our money every year. Especially when they continually treat Palestinians the way they do.

[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

I'm tired of giving them fucking ANYTHING. They routinely brutalize a people they keep stateless. It would be bad enough not putting diplomatic pressure on them to try to stop let alone give them billions of our tax dollars every year.

[–] smol_beans@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

She also throws Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Al Green under the bus to make this stupid rant.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

It's not military when it's a defensive rocket battery staffed by military dumb dumb

[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Sure hoping that's sarcasm, for you sake.

[–] bold_atlas@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

If it's purely defensive weapon then why don't they sell them to Russia, Iran or North Korea?

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 hours ago

Or better yet, and more to the point, if they're just defensive, why aren't we giving the Gazans and iron dome system to shoot down any Israeli aircraft that cross into their skies? The Gazans have just as much right to armed self defense as the Israelis do.

load more comments
view more: next ›