this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
722 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19126 readers
3363 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Senator’s bid to make US military support conditional on whether Israel is violating human rights in Gaza fails by 72 votes to 11

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 81 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Anyone got a list of who supported it?

Edit: so far I found that it was Sanders (duh), Rand Paul, and 9 democrats. Not sure who

Edit 2: per https://www.businessinsider.com/which-senators-voted-bernie-sanders-resolution-israel-human-rights-violations-2024-1?amp

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky

Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico

Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon

Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland

Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts

Democratic Sen. Laphonza Butler of California

Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico

Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii

Democratic Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont

Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

[–] [email protected] 31 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Anyone got a list of who abstained? I want to do the math so I know how large the Senate Genocide Caucus is.

EDIT: I was trying to do math and kept overlooking how the article said that it was 72-11, which would mean 17 abstaining or absent. The Senate Genocide Caucus is 72 members wide.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If my arithmetic is correct, the Senate Genocide Caucus consists of 2 Independents, 32 Republicans, and 37 Democrats.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

=71. You're short 1. (vote was 72-11)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

I see what I did. I subtracted from 48 Republicans instead of 49. The Senate Genocide Caucus has 2 Independents, 33 Republicans, and 37 Democrats.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Grassley is in hospital

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago

Rand Paul accidentally stumbles into the correct opinion.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Rand (and Ron) Paul always confuses me.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What's there to be confused about?

Ron is a soft-spoken man who stood firm in his convictions, and was quietly friendly with white nationals and other horrible people. He's retired now.

Rand is a bit of a blow hard with no convictions, and is loudly friendly with white nationals and other horrible people. He's a sitting senator.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Because compared to other nameable Republicans, he occasionally votes in ways that are agreeable with many leftists. But like you said, he's also still a massive piece of shit.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...