The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on Thursday that would force President Joe Biden to send weapons to Israel, seeking to rebuke the Democrat for delaying bomb shipments as he urges Israel to do more to protect civilians during its war with Hamas.
The Israel Security Assistance Support Act was approved 224 to 187, largely along party lines. Sixteen Democrats joined most Republicans in voting yes, and three Republicans joined most Democrats in opposing the measure.
The act is not expected to become law, but its passage underscored the deep U.S. election-year divide over Israel policy as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government seeks to wipe out militants who attacked Israel on Oct. 7, killing around 1,200 people and seizing 253 hostages, according to Israeli tallies.
Everyone. THE REPUBLICANS sent the weapons.
The Republicans voted to pass a bill in the House to send the weapons. It will almost certainly fail in the Senate but, even if it doesn’t, Biden would have to sign it into law. I don’t see Biden signing a bill to override himself, and there is no way that Congress would get the required 2/3 in each chamber to override. This bill was just a performative stunt.
Sure but the point is, after months of pithy quips about how the Democrats will support genocide of the Palestinians and the Republicans will support genocide of everyone including the Palestinians;
here we see that even on this specific issue, the parties have differences. So make the right choice.
Did I say otherwise?
This isn’t wrong, but this argument gets made over and over and over again in every political thread on almost every topic, whether or not it fits the flow of the conversation. People don’t want to be preached at and it’s going to be self defeating.
EDIT: Tone deaf establishment apologists are going to lose again and still not understand why. “Republicans suck more” is far less compelling than some people think, no matter how true. Winning elections and winning arguments are different things.
It says exactly that in the 3rd paragraph of the summary.
Um, OK, but I was responding to a comment that said something different.
A stunt to show the Republicans are sending weapons to Israel.
Why would he have to sign it into law? He could veto it. Might even be just the excuse he needs to stop supporting a genocide. As if just supporting the genocide wasn’t enough, now he can say he’s not supporting the Republicans too.
That’s what I meant. For it to take effect he would have to sign it into law. There is no reason for him to do that.
Watch as all the totally-not-parroting-russian-propaganda crowd remain eerily silent.
They must wait until they are fed the proper response.
It was just locker room talk
Right, all the anti-genocide protestors will disperse because a U.S bill that hamstrings any attempt to stop the genocide MAY fail… and hence critics will remain eerily silent.
Exactly my first thought.
Feels like they should be adding critical contextual information like this to the titles. I know the headline writers hate the idea of people just reading the headline to get informed (because clicks are needed for ads), but people do get informed that way. It’s a very different story if “Congress rebukes Biden on Israel” than “Republicans rebuke Biden on Israel”, and I expect “US House” translates into an average reader’s mind much more as “Congress” than “Republicans”.
Which is why we need tests before voting. The average American is too ill informed to be trusted with voting.
The Republicans have brought in all sorts of other hurdlers for voting but oddly nothing that would test the intelligence of their electorates.
I can’t imagine how such tests would be fair and not abused. It might make for a more effective electorate if there weren’t so many poorly informed votes in the mix, but making that happen is almost certain to lead to abuse and very unlikely to produce the desired result.
Lead to abuse agreed, but why do you think it’s very unlikely to produce the desired result?
Two reasons:
Fair enough, I think I agree anyway, but the idea of an unbiased test that filters out ignorant people is appealing.
Frankly, democracy in it’s current form is struggling, so it seems like we need to make some serious adjustments.
Civics test, not political test.
How does a civics test prove competency to vote. And do you bar someone from voting for not knowing what the three branches of government are? What’s the correct answer to “are we a democracy”? Is there a reason a single-issue voter shouldn’t be able to vote if they don’t know things irrelevant to their single issue?
Yes.
Matter of opinion.
No.
A civics test would confirm you understand how government functions. Not that you have the right opinions.
My proposal was sardonic. The right has tried to revive anti-voter measures but none that would reduce the ability of their halfwit supporters to cast their ballots.
Yeah they had those in the South in the 50’s and 60’s. It, uh, wasn’t a good thing.
Yes. That’s the joke. They can’t do it now because their constituents are morons.
Their constituents were morons back in the day too, they just made either separate tests or tests that for cultural reasons were easier for the “right people” to pass. Lots of them would have failed the literacy tests too, so they made alternate options that only white people would qualify for.
Better say that louder. I can’t hear you over the general white noise all the blindly and mindlessly pointing fingers make.
And that’s exactly why we can’t vote for genocide Joe. Don’t forget to sit out this election or vote third party - that’s the only way to have a meaningful impact and improve the lives of Palestinians! /s
I almost at that onion ☺️
After Biden sent more. This is just them sending back the big bombs
While that may be so… it’s an important election.