this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
758 points (95.7% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2883 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 92 points 2 weeks ago (30 children)

All the one-issue voters: uhh... what now?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 59 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Well, now Democrats will start coming up with excuses for why conditioning or ceasing arms sales to Netanyahu isn't within her power.

EDIT: I already voted for Harris.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 26 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It is within the President's power to use executive authority to halt the military financing to Israel.

(While this could maybebe overruled by congress, it would be a huge blow to Israel in the interim)

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 34 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So in May the (majority Republican) House passed H.R.8369 - Israel Security Assistance Support Act:

This bill specifies that no federal funds may be used to withhold, halt, reverse, or cancel the delivery of defense articles or defense services to Israel. Also, no funds may be used to pay the salary of any Department of Defense (DOD) or Department of State employee who acts to limit defense deliveries to Israel.

This bill attempts to force the completion of arms sales to Israel. This basically amounts to the legislative branch meddling directly with how the executive branch conducts foreign policy and defense policy, which the White House objected to (completely correctly). Biden threatened to veto the act if it were sent to him. The bill was placed on the Senate's legislative calendar on May 21, 2024, and has not been voted on. It will probably not go anywhere at this point.

The executive branch has already been actively delaying some military equipment transfers to Israel, that's why the House pushed this act.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So if the Dems wanted to repeal this bill, they would need to control the house, correct?

[–] zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 31 points 2 weeks ago

Nah, the bill was never passed in the senate so it isn't law at all. Just unenforceable posturing.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If Democrats controlled the House the bill would likely not have passed there in the first place.

In any case it doesn't matter because the Senate will probably never vote on it, and even if they did and it passed Biden would veto it.

It's also important to understand that this bill would not add any new arms transfers to Israel, but only compel the completion of existing transfers which the executive branch had chosen to withhold.

Ultimately, the point is that Congress does not have the authority to force the transfer of US military equipment to a foreign power. The disposition of military equipment is the purview of the Department of Defense, and trade with other national governments is the purview of the Department of Foreign Affairs, both of which report to the President.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Thankfully it costs nothing to not send weapons.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is essentially the crux of the issue. Congress can designate funds in the budget for aid to Israel and they can specify what the funds are for (military equipment, humanitarian aid, loans, etc), but they don't have the authority to perform the actual transfer of the funds (or material paid for by the funds) to Israel, that falls under the authority of the executive branch. Congress can provide the money but they can't actually force the spending of the money.

Praise be to the system of checks and balances.

I don't know why you're getting downvotes, I think you've got it right.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago

people are panicing because harris might lose and acting like morons towards anyone who doesn't unequivocally support her atm. add to that many people don't understand how the system works on top of it. 🤷 its no matter internet points are useless to me anyway. =)

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

It is within the President’s power to use executive authority to halt the military financing to Israel.

It is, yes. But Democrats are fucking outstanding at inventing bureaucratic hurdles to stand in the way of things they ran on but don't want to do.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

EDIT: I already voted for Harris.

Is this the new "I condemn hamas" disclaimer everyone is required to have in their comments in order to criticize the democratic party?

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

Always has been. "I voted for the person, you can't say I'm voting for Trump or third party."

We have to otherwise we get smug liberals posting strawmen.

[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 29 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Two days before the election with no substance?

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 28 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

With no time for AIPAC to completely rat fuck the election and get Trump elected. Give her some time to help prevent the destruction of democracy and if she doesn't move on the issue then she'll reap what she sows.

[–] nieminen@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

This was my thought as well. I get the feeling she's been fairly quiet on the subject until now due to the power AIPAC has in our politics. If she spoke out this whole time, I'm sure they would have thrown all their financial and political power against her.

I hope we're right.

[–] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Me too. Although even once Harris takes office, AIPAC would still have a lot of power and influence. But I'm choosing to remain optimistically hopeful here.

[–] nieminen@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

All we need to do is freaking STOP standing in the way of the UN. How many times has the US vetoed the UN in attempts to assuage the horrors being visited on these Gazan people.

Yep, hopefully Harris will be able to direct the US reps at the UN to stop doing that much.

Unfortunately it seems there's a law that requires the US to defund where the UN recognizes Palestine as an independent state (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/unesco-votes-to-admit-palestine-over-us-objections/2011/10/31/gIQAMleYZM_story.html / https://archive.is/67xzK ) but I don't think that applies to the scenario you just discussed.

(I also don't get how that law works with the US supporting a two state solution - how can the US support a two state solution, one of which being Palestine - and defund those who recognize two states too?)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

and if she doesn’t move on the issue then she’ll reap what she sows.

But the next election will be the most important election ever and Republicans will be ready to commit N+1 genocides if elected.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 17 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Obama promised he'd close Guantanamo....

This seems about the same

Maybe start saying it outside of Muslim heavy areas and more than two days out and it won't look so much like pandering

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 19 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Obama was prevented from closing Gitmo by congress. IIRC, a big part of the problem was how to handle the criminal cases; all of the prisoners ("detainees") in Gitmo have been tortured, the chain of evidence has multiple breaks in it, and it's highly debatable that they can be tried in any kind of court. Yet intelligence agencies remain convinced that the remaining prisoners are guilty of terrorism. Congress didn't want to move any of them to the US, because they didn't want purported terrorists being held on US soil because ???

The president isn't supposed to be able to act unilaterally, but we've allowed that Overton window to shift towards heavily authoritarian.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 10 points 2 weeks ago

He was prevented by language in bills he signed, and that was only after the Republicans took control in 2010. The failure to close Gitmo was just the same dithering and cautiousness that doomed or degraded many of his other optimistic goals. The whole reason Gitmo is bad is because it can be governed by unilateral executive decisions. It's one of those situations where he had real power to decide how things worked, but wanted everything to process through a slow bureaucracy rather than taking a more active role.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 weeks ago

For fuck sake... HE TRIED

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

It's hilarious how libs think this is any different from what genocide joe has been saying for the past year.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Nothing? This is nothing new from her. Its no commitment..its vaguely worded trash.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

As someone who is frequently called a single issue voter over a number of different issues:

Ummm what? Her statement was insultingly empty (the entire article is air) and the title contradicts what she's been saying for 6 months. I'm not suddenly about to put a Harris billboard on my lawn

[–] logi@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not suddenly about to put a Harris billboard on my lawn

Do they have billboards saying "reluctantly voting Harris out of necessity"?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Do they have billboards saying "reluctantly voting Harris out of necessity"?

They should. The overwhelming majority of Biden voters voted against Trump more than for Biden and I'd bet the farm that, while probably to a significantly lesser degree, Harris is going to win in the same way.

The Dem leadership hasn't updated the pillars of their electoral and policymaking strategy since 1992 and it really shows.

Even when Harris or Walz say something truly based that gets the Left hopeful for real change in the right direction (which has happened a few times), some apparatchik always takes pains to point out that it's "not part of the platform" 😮‍💨

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 9 points 2 weeks ago

Press releases walking back good things she said was kind of the hallmark of her primary campaign in 2020 too.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah I really wish she had been saying this before yesterday.

load more comments (23 replies)