On Wednesday, the US Senate will hold a vote on whether to approve the Pentagon’s request to send another $20bn in armaments to Israel, after a year in which the Biden administration has supplied billions of dollars of arms used in Israel’s devastating war on Gaza.

Among the weapons to be approved are 120mm tank rounds, high explosive mortar rounds, F-15IA fighter aircraft, and joint direct attack munitions, known as JDAMs, which are precision systems for otherwise indiscriminate or “dumb” bombs.

Separate resolutions are being brought forward for each weapon type, including its cost to US taxpayers. However, together, the initiative is known as the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRDs).

As a result of intensive lobbying from pro-Israel groups like Aipac and the Democratic Majority For Israel, no arms transfer to Israel has been blocked.

The resolutions likely to gain the highest levels of support are expected to involve the tank rounds, which have been responsible for killing hundreds of civilians in northern Gaza in particular, and the JDAMs, which caused the death of well-known figures such as Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah in southern Lebanon, and six-year-old Hind Rajab in Gaza City.

  • Carvex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    He filled stadiums with his message, she couldn’t fill half a highscool gym. It’s time for a new party on the actual left.

    • esc27@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      29 minutes ago

      Stadiums don’t vote. The last few weeks before the election there were several posts on lemmy about big crowds attending Haris events while Trump struggled to fill venues and bored his attendees. We now now how that turned out…

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      We don’t need a new party.

      We need to get the neo liberals out of leadership positions at the DNC.

      We’re the party of FDR, not billionaires and fossil fuel corporations.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        We need to rebuild social capital. FDR didn’t just happen by himself, he had a backing of growing labor movement, and a much more community-oriented, civically-involved America.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          48 minutes ago

          We have that…

          Like, you don’t need to convince voters that shit is broken, everyone is well aware shit is broken.

          There’s just not an option that will honestly try to fix the root problem fucking everything up:

          Wealth Inequality

          When both parties are pro-corps and anti-worker…

          The problem isn’t growing a movement of voters, it’s finding a way to get a candidate past the primary so they can win the general.

          Every election there’s two fights:

          1. Fight the DNC moderates in the primary

          2. Fight the Republicans and the DNC moderates in the general

          If we don’t win the first one, there’s a very strong chance the candidate who makes it to the general won’t be able to beat the Republican in the general. Because they’re not what the politically disengaged want.

          The good news tho is that there is very very few voters who would even want to pull another PUMA and vote R in the general if a progressive makes it. Some will 100% try it. And the media will shit their pants trying to convince us it won’t work.

          But it can still work just as well today as it did 16 years ago when they voted R instead of for a Black guy with a progressive campaign.

          There’s very few neoliberal voters, it’s just the people running the party pretend that’s the base.

          • aesthelete@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            40 minutes ago

            We have that…

            We absolutely do not have that. We have a couch-dwelling population that hasn’t been civically engaged in a meaningful way in fifty years and running. Social capital has atrophied since the 60s by every discernible metric.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              35 minutes ago

              Maybe with the people you spend time with.

              But lots of people are putting work in, all over the country.

              Just don’t expect to hear about it from the party, or any of the big media organizations owned by billionaires for the express purpose of maintaining the status quo so they can keep their ill gotten wealth.

              Quick edit:

              Not sure why you’re talking about the 60s like everyone was hippies…

              The majority of the population back then was fighting school busing like Biden was to preserve segregation, or the ones screaming insults and throwing rocks at children for going to the school they were told to attend.

              Like, it’s important to understand the present, but you can’t do that when you’re obviously confused about the past…

              • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                23 minutes ago

                Maybe with the people you spend time with.

                If you’re spending your time with a large amount of civically involved, mutual-aid-providing people in America, you’re actually in the minority.

                EDIT: Not sure why you’re talking about the 60s like everyone was hippies…

                EDIT: Because I’m talking about statistical measures of things. Not feels and vibes like you’re thinking. It’s a well-studied subject, but I know nobody believes in reading or studying anymore.

      • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Changing a party from the inside when its leadership is Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton is a tough ask. When push comes to shove every democrat falls in line for the center right candidate. Including the ‘progressives’.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          When push comes to shove every democrat falls in line for the center right candidate.

          “Democrats” aren’t enough to win. We need the people who normally aren’t engaged, and the most common reason they give is "both parties only care about the rich’.

          Dems continually moving to the right just depresses turnout and allows Republicans to win

          Including the ‘progressives’.

          Buddy, progressives hold their noses and show up to vote for the least worse option. Personally I’ve been doing it for decades.

          Progressives aren’t the problem, they’re some of the most politically engaged people in America.

          They just get blamed by the neo liberals everytime a neoliberal loses.

          Because:

          We need the people who normally aren’t engaged, and the most common reason they give is "both parties only care about the rich’.

          Dems continually moving to the right just depresses turnout and allows Republicans to win

          If the DNC wants wins elections, they need to start giving Dem voters what they want, not aiming for “slightly more than trump would do”.

          Doesn’t matter that they should still vote D, the politically disengaged won’t vote unless they want the candidate to win or the incumbent out of office.

          When a moderate Dem is in office, that means Republicans win the election

          It’s very very important we finally learn this lesson. So I’m willing to put some time in to help you understand, even if it’s incredibly frustrating explaining this for the millionth time.

          I’m willing to put the time in help.

          • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            25 minutes ago

            Buddy, progressives hold their noses and show up to vote for the least worse option. Personally I’ve been doing it for decades.

            Rewarding Democrats bad behavior is what got you into this mess.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        FDR was the 10th wealthiest President in history, and T. Roosevelt was 4th. They were the neo-liberals of their time, even if they did some things to improve the working class.

        Source

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        At this point it would be easier for the progressives in the party to show they don’t approve the status quo (hahahahaha) by forming a new party (even if it means giving the keys to the White House to the Republicans) instead of trying to change the existing party from the inside.

        You know why it won’t happen? Because they don’t mind the status quo as long as they get elected.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        We need to get the neo liberals out of leadership positions at the DNC

        And how do you suggest we do that?

        • psvrh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 hours ago

          The same way the Tea Party primaried out moderate Republicans.

          Show up and vote.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            The same way the Tea Party primaried out moderate Republicans.

            Democrats protect centrist incumbents and ONLY centrist incumbents. When they have primaries at all.

            Show up and vote.

            For who you’re ordered to and didn’t have a say in.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 hour ago

              AOC and the squad got in there. Some of them got voted out during primaries because progressives were no shows. If progressives can’t show up to vote during primaries, I don’t know how we’re expected to take a general election.

            • psvrh@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              The RNC saw moderates kicked out by voters in primaries, and candidates made sure to run.

              Why can’t the DNC and progressive voters do the same?

              • Krono@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Why can’t the DNC and progressive voters do the same?

                Because the DNC is structured explicitly to prevent progressive challengers.

                There are many examples, but one big one is the DNC vendor banlist. The DNC says that any vendors who work with progressive primary challengers will be banned from any future work with the party.

                This means that progressive challengers often cannot find vendors to do basic things like print flyers and signs, and finding experienced staff to hire is nearly impossible. And of course, “centrist” candidates have not been bothered by this.

                And then at the top of the DNC you have hundreds of superdelegates and party officials who are overwhelmingly center right or rightwing. These people cannot be voted out directly.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Because the moderates running the DNC would rather keep control of the party with a republican president than let a progressive into the general.

                If a progressive wins the general, they get to nominate DNC leadership, and if the DNC fights it, that’s four years for the Dem president to start a new party in retaliation.

                08 Obama was a wake up call for the DNC. Unfortunately what they learned wasn’t how to win an election, it was what they need to do to keep their position as leaders for the only other viable option besides fascism.

                And unfortunately for everyone living in America, for them to hold party control, it means every four years a fascist gets elected, and when a moderate Dem does win, they don’t actually fix anything.

                But when the DNC lets foreign governments, billionaires, and corporations throw millions into primary campaigns supporting both a D and R to guarantee they always win regardless of general results…

                Why the fuck are you still blaming voters?

                • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 minutes ago

                  Why the fuck are you still blaming voters?

                  Because that’s who chooses the leaders.

                  I vote in primaries; a lot of you online progressives aren’t there voting with me. I voted for Katie Porter for senator in California, but the managerial class that actually shows up to vote wanted Schiff and so they got him.

                  EDIT: I find it hilarious that people advocating against showing up to vote in every other case always show up to downvote my comments.

                  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 hour ago

                    Because that’s who chooses the leaders.

                    LMAO

                    Good one bub.

                    Until we get dirty money out of at least the primaries and an actually non biased DNC, it’s not voters deciding.

                    It’s donors who flood primaries to ensure they don’t need to worry about who wins a general.

                    For fucks sake, NH didn’t even get a presidential primary this year, because they keep voting more progressive than the DNC wants.

                    How the actual fuck is trump their fault?

                    My state votes so late that the DNC calls the primary months before we vote… How am I supposed to have an effect?

                    If you want to blame primary voters, blame the handful the DNC allows to vote first (or at all) before they call it over.

                    But it would make a hell of a lot more sense to blame the DNC for all the rat fuckering they do.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          That’s how progress works…

          When someone is talking about a progressive from literally 80 fucking years ago, hopefully there’s some stuff they did almost a century ago that modern society finds distasteful

          If there isn’t, that likely just means society hasn’t made any progress in the almost century that’s gone by.

          I truly hope that makes sense, if not please let me know what’s still causing confusion. This is an important point that comes up regularly, so I’m willing to put some time in to clear this up for you

          • eldavi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            like today’s democrats, fdr ignored the constructive criticisms that would have prevented such a painful episode; the democrats back then are more alike than unlike to the democrats of today.

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I agree - too many people mistakenly believe the Dems can be reformed into an actual leftist party. This just isn’t going to happen. They’re corrupt to the core - a center-right fundraising organization eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and they would rather the country burn than do anything against the wishes of their wealthy donors.