The House approved a resolution backing Israel and condemning Hamas on Wednesday, the first piece of legislation to clear the lower chamber in more than three weeks because of the extended Speaker stalemate.
The legislation, which spans four pages, was the first measure approved under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who clinched the gavel hours before the chamber voted on the resolution. He succeeded former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in the position after the California Republican was ousted from the top job earlier this month.
The House approved the resolution in a 412-10-6 vote, a strong show of support for Israel after Hamas launched an unprecedented attack on the U.S. ally Oct. 7, massacring more than 1,000 civilians in the south of the country, kidnapping more than 200 and raining thousands of rockets down across the country.
Great, virtue signalling is so important at this time of crisis. It’s not like we have real issues to deal with.
This ain’t virtue signalling…
Republicans legit support Israel for three reasons:
-
A fringe Christian belief that for Armageddon the Jewish people need to control Israel and start the first battle.
-
They want to conflate religion and ethnicity like Israel, and use the existence of Israel as rationale for America being a “Christian nation”.
-
They really hate Muslims.
- Spending billions to destabilize the Middle East is a core part of their identity
Bro… 412 voted yes, meaning like 90% of Democrats also support Israel’s apartheid state and terrorism. Granted, most of them probably only approve due to military industrial complex
bribes“donations”, but that’s only microscopically better than religious fundamentalism or fascism.Well apparently this resolution doesn’t say much more than that israel can defend itself against terrorism, and that Hamas shouldn’t commit terrorism.
Of course there’s a message between the lines but in itself there isn’t much wrong with it
And don’t forget there’s an existential convergence for the US as well, having completely genocided the natives off their land, it would be quite hypocritical for them to condemn others for the light version of it
Heyyy someone read the article. :-)
They might be different domestically but when it comes to foreign policy the US only has the bomb brown people party
deleted by creator
3b. They are addicted to the dopamine hits they get from bombing brown people.
-
Funny how Republicans play hardball with Ukraine but by contrast give a blank check to Israel. How quickly their concerns about debt and a path to victory faded away lmao.
Republicans and democrats coming together to commit genocide
All 412 of them are absolute monsters. We are cultivating such a grotesque, hypocritical, and self-destructive culture in the US.
There’s 433. Are 19 of them okay in your opinion?
Edit: I literally forgot how many voted to approve before I commented
Last numbers I heard on the news are that something like 5700 civilians died in Gaza following Israel’s air strikes.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The House approved a resolution backing Israel and condemning Hamas on Wednesday, the first piece of legislation to clear the lower chamber in more than three weeks because of the extended Speaker stalemate.
The first bill that I’m gonna bring to this floor in just a little while will be in support of our dear friend Israel,” Johnson said in the House chamber after winning the gavel.
“We’re going to show not only Israel, but the entire world, that the barbarism of Hamas that we have all seen play out on our television screens and wretched and wrong, and we’re gonna stand for the food in that conflict,” he added.
Last week, the White House unveiled a roughly $100 billion supplemental request that includes funds for Israel, Ukraine, U.S. border security and allies in the Indo-Pacific region.
Biden has pledged U.S. support to Israel in its declaration of war against Hamas, and made note of his supplemental request in a statement following Johnson’s election as Speaker.
), Al Green (Texas), Summer Lee (Pa.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.).
The original article contains 850 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
One observation: this was a typical sense of the House given the situation and there were 10 Congress critters voting no. AOC voting no means she obviously is not contemplating running for statewide office.
Yeah, can’t be that she won’t compromise her morals for her career…
The why doesn’t matter. The end result is simply an observation.
AOC voting no means she obviously is not contemplating running for statewide office.
That is an assumption. And the only way it would make sense is if AOC would be willing to compromise her positions in the hopes it will get her a higher office.
It does not mean that the only reason she stuck to her morals is she isn’t running for higher office.
Maybe you meant something else, but that’s not what you typed.
Again, the why doesn’t matter. The result is that a partisan Democratic base now has a reason not to like her in a primary.
Again, the why doesn’t matter
It matters because you made an assumption that discredited her and presented it as obvious facts.
The only reason I’m still trying to explain is this is important to understand in every facet of communication. If you just misspoke, no big deal it happened to me yesterday too. But it’s concerning if you don’t see the issue
It doesn’t matter because by the time she reaches a primary the only consideration is if she voted for the measure or not… Not any ideological reason you come up with.
Honestly, the further she stays away from the NY State Democratic Party, the better. If she runs for something bigger, I want her to win and/or maintain her dignity, not get held back by weird intra-party rivalries and kissing machine boss rings.
The Democratic party is who elects folks in New York. To think you can win there without them is fantasy.
I meant I don’t want her to run for governor of NY (or Senator) if it means getting dragged into the state party’s dysfunction. Look how poorly they handled the 2022 election. She has a chance to be president someday (or, at the very least, play a role like Bernie Sanders) and staying out of state politics probably helps with that.
She has a chance to be president someday
Not without winning a statewide race.
There’s precedent for it happening. It was awhile ago but in 2016, President Donald J. Trump (from NYC) won without holding a statewide office while his opponent, Secretary Hillary R. Clinton, lost despite having been a NY Senator based further upstate.
Smart assery aside, I don’t think someone like AOC needs a stepping stone the way other politicians do. She‘s a national figure already and has a donor network and all the rest. Basically every other politician needs to take the conventional path you’re talking about.
The reason Trump won was money, which is often the reason. During normal days, money can not be generated by someone who is not a proven winner (ie state or nationwide). He also won due to the electoral college (which is another conversation). The other exception was Eisenhower. But, these are exceptions and, for the most part, a candidate must prove they can win bigger electi9ns than district level.
As someone recently said “Senators dream of being President, Congressmen dream of being King.”
