639
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2026
639 points (98.8% liked)
politics
29401 readers
2182 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are Democrats feeling the Bern at last?
Imagine if you will - a world where we would have had Bernie instead of Sweet Potato Hitler V1.
Never forget kids: The rich are the true and only enemy.
Hell, I'm still imagining a world where we had Gore instead of Junior.
I'm old. I'm STILL imagining a world where we got Dukakis instead of Reaganomics 2.0
Two easy ones:
No 9-11. There would have eventually been an attempt somehow, hell, maybe it would have been worse, like a dirty bomb. But the ball wouldn't have been dropped on staying alert. Climate activism. Still think it was far too late even by 2000 to prevent the worst that's coming (which tells you were I think we are now), but at least Gore knew the science and would have tried to change something.
Still would have had our problems, but it's such a different path, it's hard to say what would have still happened.
I have a hard time believing that Gore would have made a difference on preventing 9-11, but I'm sure the response would have been different. Maybe no Patriot Act, maybe no Afghanistan War, almost certainly no Iraq War. That's a big enough difference for me.
Bush was an idiot that blew off reports about Osama bin laden mobilizing. I don't think Gore would have, personally.
Was it Bush, or was it good ol' Dick wanting an excuse to go into the oil desert again?
It was safe to vote in order to appease the voters without actually doing anything because they knew the Republicans would shut it down.
If the vote were closer and couldn't survive Democratic unanimity, just enough of the rotating selection would oppose it to keep it from passing while the rest saved face.
It's a bad play I think if that's their plan. It shows that criticizing Israel is fair game, which has pretty much been against everything said in the past. It's an admission that they think that what Israel is doing is wrong. You can't put that back. AIPAC would not be in favor of this. If this is just appeasement, it's at least appeasement that can be pointed at to show what's wrong.
They may think of it like appeasement
But this is only the beginning of the anti-zionist snowball
I desperately hope you're right, but I suspect this is naïvely optimistic.
The Democratic Party has shown time and time again that they are willing to vote in line with the people if and only if their vote doesn't change the outcome.
I'll believe their votes on Israel mean anything when their votes – well – mean anything for the result.
Israel will only get more unpopular
More and more people see day after day the billions we spend sending weapons to Israel's genocide and ethnic cleansing campaigns, billions that aren't being used to help everyday americans
This type of resentment and anger is only growing, and will only grow faster as material conditions continue to worsen, which the vast majority of Americans are experiencing
So on top of the, rightfully, moral outrage at what Israel is, it's also fuelled by that economic outrage, and both are only increasing
With berniecrat types, like Zohran and others, we see massive grassroots motion precisely because they can authentically tackle both those aspects. Calling out the truth of Apartheid and Genocide, demanding Divestment, on top of taxing the rich, moving all those funds to instead help cost of living at home
More and more berniecrats are winning races across the country because people are demanding a disruption to the status quo. The scare mongering of the socialist label doesn't work anymore. People don't care, they just hear that those policies can improve things. And as those policies do improve things, it only gets more and more popular
A Candidate whose unapologetically anti-zionist shows authenticity, so people are more charitable to that candidates socialist policies and more willing to give them a chance. The Republican policies aren't working, the Liberal Democrat policies aren't working, so fuck it, we ball