Well that's definitely your own experience on federated platforms, but I wasn't speaking to that circumstance. I made a mastodon account and criticized our government's massive funding of Israel in spite of our lack of critical infrastructure and healthcare and got spammed with "Israel has a right to defend itself, and you 're a trumper if you think otherwise" type comments by people that post one response and then immediately block you. Which is laughable and couldn't be further from the truth. That is the perpetual echo chamber I was referring to from my personal experience.
Not a fun story but new CEO comes in, pricing structure heavily modified to be more aggressive towards bringing clients into our ecosystem of products, we lose a whale of a client, 7 percent of the company is laid off including the newest guy on my team,and then magically acquire new responsibilities for the same pay. Capitalism baby.
Fighting fascism with fascism to prevent fascism. It should be their new slogan
Exactly. Rip Bozo
Which of the suggested policies in the article would you consider to be radical?
If President Biden—or any Democratic replacement—wants to get back in the race, they need a positive moral vision to run on, not just dire warnings.
To win back support, the Democratic candidate must offer a positive and coherent vision centered on care and progressive policies, rather than relying solely on anti-Trump rhetoric.
100 percent this. My local DSA chapter is often the only group showing up to school board meetings to pressure a vote that would protect LGBTQ+ kids from discriminatory and harmful legislation. We do mutual aid regularly to serve our homeless community. We organize rallies in support of unions, Palestinian liberation, healthcare access, etc. We network with other local non profits and engage in events that directly benefit the community like creating care packages for women (and girls) seeking abortion access. We have working groups for environmental restoration work. The list goes on.
We have other political action groups in the area for both major parties. Wanna guess how involved they are with the most marginalized and underserved communities in the area?
People need to log off social media once in awhile and actually work in their community before posting empty platitudes to an echo chamber.
The only moral reason to tariff EVs would be for the devastatingly exploitive working and living conditions for children mining lithium in the Congo. But it's Biden so obviously, apartheid regimes aren't really on his radar and this is purely an attempt to stir up drama with China while we continue to invest in oil fracking.
I think I'd rather vote for the dead worm in his brain
Ah yes, the pet issue of yet another slaughter of innocent civilians bought and paid for by US tax dollars, this time in 4k
Most of Congress supports the Israeli genocide including Democrats as well
After the Biden administration launched airstrikes on Yemen without congressional approval, multiple progressive members of Congress expressed outrage while demanding a cease fire in Gaza.
After the Biden administration launched airstrikes on Yemen without congressional approval, multiple progressive members of Congress expressed outrage while demanding a cease fire in Gaza. Jake Johnson January 12, 2024 U.S. Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush speak at a press conference outside of the U.S. Capitol on December 7, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
U.S. lawmakers said Thursday that the Biden administration’s barrage of airstrikes in Yemen — launched in coordination with American allies but without congressional approval — was blatantly unconstitutional and dangerous, heightening the risk of a full-blown regional conflict.
“This is illegal and violates Article I of the Constitution,” U.S. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) wrote on social media following the strikes. “The people do not want more of our taxpayer dollars going to endless war and the killing of civilians. Stop the bombing and do better by us.”
The Biden administration said the airstrikes, which it characterized as a response to Houthi attacks on commercial shipping vessels in the Red Sea, hit more than 60 targets in Yemen. Administration officials reportedly briefed congressional leaders on its plans to bomb Yemen, but there was no formal authorization from lawmakers.
“This is an unacceptable violation of the Constitution,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) echoed Jayapal, writing that U.S. President Joe Biden is “violating Article I of the Constitution by carrying out airstrikes in Yemen without congressional approval.”
“The American people are tired of endless war,” Tlaib added. Sign up for our weekend newsletter A weekly digest of our best coverage Email Address
Article I of the Constitution states that Congress has the power to “declare war,” and the War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973 seeks to constrain the president’s ability to take unilateral military action. As Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman have explained, the War Powers Resolution “does not authorize the president to use force,” calling the belief that it does “a common misperception.”
“It takes a limited view of the president’s authority to introduce U.S. armed forces into such situations in the absence of congressional authorization or an attack on the United States,” Egan and Bridgeman noted.
The WPR states that, within 48 hours of a military action, the president must deliver a report to Congress explaining the rationale and legal authority under which such an action was launched. The statute clarifies that the president can only take military action under three circumstances: “(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
In a statement, U.S. President Joe Biden called the Yemen strikes “defensive,” signaling the administration’s intention to invoke Article II of the Constitution as its legal foundation for Thursday’s bombing campaign. Article II designates the president as commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, and it has been used by multiple administrations as a blank check for military action.
Yemen’s Houthis have been targeting ships in the Red Sea since October, when Israel launched its devastating assault on the Gaza Strip in response to a deadly Hamas-led attack. The Houthis say they are acting to prevent genocide by blockading ships headed for Israel.
The U.S. and allied nations have been working to repel Houthi attacks on commercial vessels since October, shooting down Houthi drones and missiles and sinking Houthi ships in the Red Sea.
The White House said Thursday that Houthi attacks on commercial shipping have had “very little” impact on the U.S. economy. "Congressional authorization isn't some sort of courtesy, it's a legal requirement for this kind of act."
Stephen Miles, the president of Win Without War, called the U.S. strikes on Yemen “deeply troubling,” arguing that “it’s an action clearly at odds with both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.”
“Congressional authorization isn’t some sort of courtesy, it’s a legal requirement for this kind of act,” Miles wrote. “And since we’re all about to hear a whole lot about ‘self-defense’ let’s be very clear. Under the WPR, presidents are required to seek authorization before knowingly introducing U.S. forces into where combat may become imminent. It was written expressly for situations like this.”
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said Thursday that the worsening cycle of violence in the Middle East is why she “called for a cease-fire early.”
“Violence only begets more violence,” Lee added. “We need a cease-fire now to prevent deadly, costly, catastrophic escalation of violence in the region.”
This story was first posted at Common Dreams.
After the Biden administration launched airstrikes on Yemen without congressional approval, multiple progressive members of Congress expressed outrage while demanding a cease fire in Gaza.
After the Biden administration launched airstrikes on Yemen without congressional approval, multiple progressive members of Congress expressed outrage while demanding a cease fire in Gaza. Jake Johnson January 12, 2024 U.S. Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush speak at a press conference outside of the U.S. Capitol on December 7, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
U.S. lawmakers said Thursday that the Biden administration’s barrage of airstrikes in Yemen — launched in coordination with American allies but without congressional approval — was blatantly unconstitutional and dangerous, heightening the risk of a full-blown regional conflict.
“This is illegal and violates Article I of the Constitution,” U.S. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) wrote on social media following the strikes. “The people do not want more of our taxpayer dollars going to endless war and the killing of civilians. Stop the bombing and do better by us.”
The Biden administration said the airstrikes, which it characterized as a response to Houthi attacks on commercial shipping vessels in the Red Sea, hit more than 60 targets in Yemen. Administration officials reportedly briefed congressional leaders on its plans to bomb Yemen, but there was no formal authorization from lawmakers.
“This is an unacceptable violation of the Constitution,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) echoed Jayapal, writing that U.S. President Joe Biden is “violating Article I of the Constitution by carrying out airstrikes in Yemen without congressional approval.”
“The American people are tired of endless war,” Tlaib added. Sign up for our weekend newsletter A weekly digest of our best coverage Email Address
Article I of the Constitution states that Congress has the power to “declare war,” and the War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973 seeks to constrain the president’s ability to take unilateral military action. As Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman have explained, the War Powers Resolution “does not authorize the president to use force,” calling the belief that it does “a common misperception.”
“It takes a limited view of the president’s authority to introduce U.S. armed forces into such situations in the absence of congressional authorization or an attack on the United States,” Egan and Bridgeman noted.
The WPR states that, within 48 hours of a military action, the president must deliver a report to Congress explaining the rationale and legal authority under which such an action was launched. The statute clarifies that the president can only take military action under three circumstances: “(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
In a statement, U.S. President Joe Biden called the Yemen strikes “defensive,” signaling the administration’s intention to invoke Article II of the Constitution as its legal foundation for Thursday’s bombing campaign. Article II designates the president as commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, and it has been used by multiple administrations as a blank check for military action.
Yemen’s Houthis have been targeting ships in the Red Sea since October, when Israel launched its devastating assault on the Gaza Strip in response to a deadly Hamas-led attack. The Houthis say they are acting to prevent genocide by blockading ships headed for Israel.
The U.S. and allied nations have been working to repel Houthi attacks on commercial vessels since October, shooting down Houthi drones and missiles and sinking Houthi ships in the Red Sea.
The White House said Thursday that Houthi attacks on commercial shipping have had “very little” impact on the U.S. economy. "Congressional authorization isn't some sort of courtesy, it's a legal requirement for this kind of act."
Stephen Miles, the president of Win Without War, called the U.S. strikes on Yemen “deeply troubling,” arguing that “it’s an action clearly at odds with both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.”
“Congressional authorization isn’t some sort of courtesy, it’s a legal requirement for this kind of act,” Miles wrote. “And since we’re all about to hear a whole lot about ‘self-defense’ let’s be very clear. Under the WPR, presidents are required to seek authorization before knowingly introducing U.S. forces into where combat may become imminent. It was written expressly for situations like this.”
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said Thursday that the worsening cycle of violence in the Middle East is why she “called for a cease-fire early.”
“Violence only begets more violence,” Lee added. “We need a cease-fire now to prevent deadly, costly, catastrophic escalation of violence in the region.”
This story was first posted at Common Dreams.
“I’m sorry your Amazon packages are delayed, but you know, there’s a genocide…” @MyriamFrancoisC with a sublime reply when preposterously asked if the Houthis should have been bombed sooner. This is a must watch.
“I’m sorry your Amazon packages are delayed, but you know, there’s a genocide…” @MyriamFrancoisC with a sublime reply when preposterously asked if the Houthis should have been bombed sooner. This is a must watch.
