this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2026
119 points (98.4% liked)

politics

30610 readers
1883 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The top House Democrats on the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees said Monday that they will oppose efforts led by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) to cut the $3.3 billion in U.S. aid to Israel expected under the memorandum of understanding if and when they come to a vote on the House floor.

Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, told Jewish Insider he plans to oppose the effort to strip the aid out of the 2027 State Department Appropriations bill, calling it a “got-me vote the Republicans are trying to play with.”

“There’s just too many factors to say … ‘We’re taking away $3.3 billion,’” Meeks said, noting the U.S. provides military aid to other countries like Egypt and Jordan. “I don’t think that it would be the wise thing … not good policy.”

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, also told JI he plans to oppose the amendment to cut the $3.3 billion.

“I’m against that,” Smith said of the attempt to cut the $3.3 billion. “I don’t think it has support because it cuts off humanitarian aid, military aid — all aid for Israel. So I don’t think there’s support for it, but we’ll see.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Big tents are a tradeoff for sure. I suppose as long as we stick to a core platform that resonates with the American people and dont go soft on it to bring in one off contributors, we can do it.

fundamentally Non-negotiable though:

  • no zionists/war criminals
  • Social justice
  • civil rights
  • economic programs
  • education