upvote

points

by soupfordummies1 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby delecti12 minutes ago|
next
[-]
On this subject, they won't, because they mostly want this war too. Most members of both parties have taken AIPAC money. Most of them are also glad somebody is finally attacking Iran, especially without them having to sign their name on a use of force authorization or declaration of war.
reply
upvoteby dlev_pika25 minutes ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Best case scenario is when they lose the majority
reply
upvoteby watwut1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Republicans in congress support it. It is not about congress not having abstract spine.

It is about republican congressmen actively supporting all of this.

reply
upvoteby russdill1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
And bonus, they don't have to go on record voting for all the things they support but know are immensely unpopular.
reply
upvoteby alecbz1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
How can you tell the difference?
reply
upvoteby 29 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby nielsbot1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Plot twist: The Dem leadership (Schumer, Jeffries, et al) also supports this.

That's why their main complaints have been procedural: "Why didn't you come to us first with your plans?". And why they slow-walked the vote on a war powers act.

reply
upvoteby rootusrootus1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The dems have no power against a unified GOP front, and they already look pretty weak on issues like this. They are trying to figure out how they can mollify their base while attracting enough centrist voters to retake Congress later this year. I don't care for the dem leadership but I feel a little sympathy for them. Catering to their loudest supporters is a pretty big reason they are the minority party right now.
reply
upvoteby overfeed10 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Catering to their loudest supporters is a pretty big reason they are the minority party right now.

By "loudest supporters" - are you referring to the donor class? Money is speech, after all.

The Democratic party has an identity crisis: it's failing to balance special interests and their traditional constituents - post-Goldwater/ southern-strategy. Instead of activating their base, they seem to be courting the political center that has been hollowed out by Maga and polarization, incidentally matching the desires of their donors who abhor any kind of populist leftist politics, including anything in instituted by FDR.

reply
upvoteby hdgvhicv31 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Where trumps Republican Party have spent the last 10 years not catering from their loudest supporters?

Either the majority of Americans want this war, in which case the Dems have to be quiet, or they don’t, in which case the dems should be making it the number one issue.

Sadly I suspect the answer is not in the side of the Hollywood version of post ww2 America.

Now is the time to insert the “are we the bad guys” meme.

reply
upvoteby rootusrootus1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Approximately never. We are in a situation where Congress is unusually beholden to their constituents for once, because those people care deeply about Donald Trump. So this is what they want; not just the war, but everything -- they want all the power to rest with Trump.
reply
upvoteby feb01202526 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I think you're mistaken about who congress is beholden to at this particular point in time...

The war has record low approval ratings, even among Trump's base.

reply
upvoteby dlev_pika24 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I’m just hoping Schumer doesn’t advocate for merging with IDF, if the GOP loses the majority
reply
upvoteby overfeed4 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Joe and Eileen Bailey[1] support the war, which is why Schumer is staying tight-lipped.

1. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/19/imaginary-frie...

reply
upvoteby losvedir1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I think they have 60 days from when hostilities begin, right?
reply
upvoteby krferriter50 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
No. This war has been illegal from day one. The 60 window without prior authorization only applies if the US is attacked. The US was not attacked.
reply
upvoteby 39 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby varispeed1 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
If everyone is somewhat implicated in Epstein files, then everyone is afraid of Putin / Netanyahu who might pull up the files. It's funny how they are so scared to face justice, but also interesting how American law enforcement became so corrupt.

Protecting pedos on such a scale?

reply
upvoteby pfannkuchen1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
There's a very strange problem with this whole thing where, of course, whatever these powerful people have done behind closed doors that is illegal and exploitative and harmful is terrible and they should be put to justice.

However, if the direction of the country is being seriously altered via blackmail, IMO that is many orders of magnitude worse than anything they could have done. Like we are currently bombing yet another middle eastern country for no clear reason.

I would personally be open to some kind of Epstein jubilee where we absolve everyone involved in order to nullify the blackmail.

Like it's not great, it's terrible for the victims and for justice, but at the moment we are getting terrible from both ends, could we at least reduce it to one end?

reply
upvoteby pjc501 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That creates a far worse problem down the line because they will just do it again, more publicly.

Really the rot set in with the pardons of Nixon and Oliver North.

reply
upvoteby pfannkuchen1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Can you justify that assertion? How would they do it again, more publicly?

It's not like a blackmail ring is that easy to set up, it seems to have taken a lot of heavy lifting to get this one going.

reply
upvoteby paulryanrogers22 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
When people see what others have gotten away with, they become emboldened themselves.
reply
upvoteby bdbdbdb1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
We always talk about what these powerful people "have done", as if it's all over. Surely Epstein's death did not bring about the end of billionaire sex trafficking? Someone stepped in. These guys are still raping people on private planes and private islands
reply
upvoteby pfannkuchen24 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
But why are we focusing on the raping, and not on what the American government is doing that has no clear rational motive without “Israel has captured the government” and a very clear rational motive with “Israel has captured the government”?

If the American government continues to perform actions that are blatantly against the interests of America and Americans, the impact of that on Americans is going to be (and may be already) massively massively worse than the person to person level crimes we are focusing on.

Does it just feel so bad thinking about it that a lot of people have a hard time even going there mentally? I really don’t get it.

reply