33
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Keeponstalin@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Sundial@lemm.ee 21 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Israel's escalation and invasion of Lebanon is most likely to make the Democrats more unpopular. It's not a coincidence that these escalations happened so close to the election. Israel has been wanting to attack Lebanon since at least the spring, and the US had to talk them down. These events just make the Democrats more unpopular and make a Trump presidency more likely. Which would be Israel's wet dream given how pro-zionist he is.

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 14 points 2 months ago

He's not pro-zionist, lol.

He's pro Trump and staying out of jail.

[-] Sundial@lemm.ee 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Zionists and AIPAC have enough money to make sure Trump is the most pro-zionist president ever.

[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 months ago

I'm sure he isn't pro-zionist

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 months ago

Bernie Sanders forcing through this funding bill might end up single handedly saving this election... but it would have been so fucking easy for Harris to tell AIPAC to fuck off.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

but it would have been so fucking easy for Harris to tell AIPAC to fuck off.

And lose millions of votes, ultimately handing the presidency to Trump? Smart move.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago

Isreali Americans aren't a fully democratic voting block and the attrition would likely be pretty low - by contrast youth turnout is what Democrats really need to drive to secure their victory.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Not all Israelis are zionists. Not all zionists are israelis. You are still refusing to understand the full scope of things.

When Reagan broke the unions, single-handedly neutering the largest base of support for Democrats at the time. Groups like The aipac moved into fill that void. If Democrats could easily abandon aipac money by now they would have. As much as it would be morally correct to do it. It would be a bit of a political death sentence as long as money is considered speech.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 months ago

I'm well aware that not all Isrealis are zionists - in fact, based on my very biased and empirical sample, the majority of American Jews aren't zionists and support a two state or one state secular solution. I've met one due who is legitimately "get them off our land and let us create an exclusively Jewish state"... You're vastly overestimating how much money AIPAC brings to the table, there are much more significant donors out there.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Please elaborate. How much is AIPAC giving in total. Who are the groups who could give more, but aren't. And why aren't they.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago

That's some extreme sealioning there - you stated the majority of money was coming from AIPAC and offered no clarification... for my reps we've got: House Rep - zero from AIPAC, Senator #1 - zero from AIPAC, Senator #2 - zero from AIPAC.

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/members-list?cong_no=118&cycle=2024

Why don't you answer those questions for yourself and actually study the facts before making baseless claims. Don't spread bullshit misinformation about a topic you know nothing about.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Your realistic choices are Harris or Trump.

I'm pretty sure that you're not going to be happier with Trump in office if your objection is US support for Israel, and especially US-Iran conflict, seeing both past policy and that Iran got caught in the act of trying to off Trump several months back.

But, your vote.

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 15 points 2 months ago

only one party wants to deport all immigrants. but yeah, vote foreign policy while they work to evict you

[-] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 months ago

USA foreign policy has always been fuck you

[-] echo@lemmings.world 4 points 2 months ago

Oh fuck off with this propaganda. This treats all Muslims as if they are fucking idiots who have no idea what is going on.

[-] zigmus64@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

I’m not sure if “middleeasteye.net” is a reliable source…

[-] Deceptichum@quokk.au 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It is actually a very reliable source, with a focus on the Middle East.

It’s a UK paper, founded by David Hearst (former Guardian writer and correspondent).

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

I don't know that a reporter in Ontario is the best person to write about this and I find it hard to believe that this outlet couldn't find a single Arab-American writer to cover this.

Which sure makes this article suspicious.

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The headline alone is complete trash. This election is not about arab-americans losing "enthusiasm". It's about both candidates supporting genocide.

this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
33 points (70.9% liked)

News

23680 readers
3779 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS