this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2026
191 points (99.0% liked)

politics

28818 readers
2180 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Sunday would not commit to blocking any additional funding for the war in Iran, saying the president has so far failed to justify the war but “we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.”

The New York Democrat was asked on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” whether House Democrats would move to block a funding request if the White House were to ask for more money for the military.

Jeffries said the administration has so far “failed to make its case ... for this war of choice in the Middle East,” and unless President Donald Trump provides a “compelling rationale,” he’s “going to have a difficult case to make on Capitol Hill.”

Congress last year approved a $900 billion defense spending bill as part of routine annual budget appropriations, and the president signed the bill into law in December. But since the U.S. began its military operation in Iran, lawmakers have been considering the need to pass additional defense spending to bolster the U.S. military.

all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago

What a great leader. We all know the best leaders aren't able to commit to things.

[–] robocall@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Is this what the people of Brooklyn want?

[–] Akh@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago

What a fucking disappointment and tool. No doubt his tool district voted to re-elect him.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 10 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Shouldn’t this be 1’s?

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 hours ago

Different systems have different methods of doing surprise, but the implication here is you roll to see if you are surprised, and success means you are not surprised.

[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 11 hours ago

How about we commit to blocking Hakim Jeffries? Primary that fucking bitch. LFG.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 77 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

Him and Schumer must have dinner with McConnell every night because holy shit these two fucks are doing everything they can to screw over Democrats the same way McConnell has for over a decade.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

It doesn't matter who they have dinner with when they answer to their handlers at AIPAC. Israel wants this war so they will make a few noises to pretend to be opposition but do everything tangible to support it.

[–] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 3 points 10 hours ago

That’s what shits me about Jeffries and Schumer, the others are compromised, these blokes are in it for the money.

[–] LMurch@thelemmy.club 24 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

How did Jeffries go from being a rising star for the Democratic party to best buds with Schumer, McConnell and Fetterman?

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 22 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I don't really remember him ever being a rising star. He was in tight with Pelosi and able to pull a bunch of big money, but he was never the go to guy to present the Democratic case on an issue. No one ever talked about how that guy could be president some day.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 9 points 11 hours ago

This. He was groomed to be a party insider by the most insider of party insiders.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 13 hours ago

Neoliberals and old school Republicans have always been friendly because they've always had the same goals...

Like, you're right, but after we had to spend 4 years watching Biden do the same things and explicitly say he wished we could just go back to it any chance he got, it's kind of like saying the sky is blue

Even the DNC realized it a year ago. And they don't exactly keep their finger on the pulse.

Jefferies and Schumer are lame ducks and have been since this congress started.

We'll capture majorities in the midterms and the next congress Dems will be free to vote for the leadership they want, which should match what dem voters want.

At least closer than Biden/Schumer/Jeffries was

[–] Pogogunner@sopuli.xyz 29 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
[–] answersplease77@lemmy.world 13 points 12 hours ago

Aka AIPAC Shakur Jeffries

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 13 hours ago

Because there isn't a justification, Hakeem, you dimwitted fucking moron.

Democrats like this guy are literally less than useless. With friends like these who needs enemies.

[–] sandwich@piefed.social 16 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

So AIPAC gave him his marching orders?

[–] human@slrpnk.net 15 points 12 hours ago

Hakeem Jeffries won't commit to risking his AIPAC money.

[–] Steve@startrek.website 5 points 10 hours ago

What about Epstein?

[–] Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 hours ago
[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago

I won't commit to not spitting in this ghoul's face, should the opportunity arise.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 hours ago

When we talk about parasites of society, that leeches on the money of the state while offering nothing of value, this is it.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 12 hours ago

Alternative headline:

Invertebrate Continues To Lack Spine

[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 12 hours ago

Of course he won't be cause besides some procedural issues and some disagreements about goals and framing this war is decades in the making and bipartisan.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 10 hours ago

Why would he stop it. Dems and gop have been hoping for this for decades and this makes the GOP the bad guys

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 12 hours ago
[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Of course he won’t because his Israel checks won’t come in the mail anymore.