Oh, so now they can stop things. I see.
forming a task force with a diverse set of stakeholders to discuss the matter further
I guess we can just infer what this means…
Democrats will negotiate with anyone except the victims of a genocide.
Not true. They will negotiate with anyone wealthy, powerful, and who donate to them like the AIPAC. It just so happens that the victims of genocide tend to not fall into that group.
I wonder if they sung the fight song while doing this…
The only time Democrats and Republicans in congress can put aside differences is when it’s to support Israel or fuck over progressive candidates.
As though democrats do anything else.
as if they are the same, uniparty.
This is why people say during elections that it doesn’t matter which partythey vote for
It made it easier for the Nazis to walk in the front door.
I think the point is that there’s Nazis and there’s flamboyant Nazis. Aye is pronounced the same on both sides of the aisle, as evidence by their voting records.
There’s bipartisan support to keep arming fascists. The nazis are calling from inside the house.
So our choices are Nazi’s or genocidal maniacs. Fuck the DNC.
No they’re both genocidal maniacs, one also dabbles on the homefront.
Fucking shameful.
Captured Congress, doesn’t matter which side when it comes to Israel.
Sad but true. Democrats are slightly better, but not much.
They claim to be.
No, they are. Israel hates the Democrats. But like I said, it’s a very slight degree of difference. Biden sent humanitarian aid to Gaza despite what Israel said. Trump brags about wanting to deport all Palestinians.
Israel hates the Democrats
Yeah, no one likes someone who is so desperate for approval that they have no morals.
Their PR is better for progressives.
Who’s PR?
I’m not sure if there’s a typo there so I’m going to answer the two most likely options.
Whose PR? The Democrats.
Who is PR? public relations
What about republicans? How did they vote?
Given that it was an internal DNC vote… they didn’t
Exactly the same as the Democrats. Uniparty strikes again!
“Forming a task force” man, go fuck yourself. Do these assholes even know what’s going on over there?
Fucking dicks
Dems since the 1970s: “We need a two state solution”
Palestinians: “We’re applying for statehood”
Dems: “No”
By “two state” we meant “Israel and Israel”.
10 years from now the task force report comes out. “It was a genocide somebody should have stopped it. Let’s form a new task force to figure out who was at fault.”
The trusty 4 stage strategy.
The cartoonish evil is a feature, not a bug. The dems have held massive control over who’s in power for decades. I don’t care anymore if it’s evil or stupid to field candidates guaranteed to turn the population right, it leads to the same outcome. They gain enough from having a big persecutin’, government-controlling daddy like Trump that it doesn’t matter, they have zero intention to change.
“Oh noes, we can’t do all the things you poors and empathetic humans want, don’t you know Trump is in charge?” (Something Hakeem Jefferies has basically said, referencing the American people making a “mandate” for Trumpism.)
oh they’re well aware but like the majority of first world nations, heaven forbid you upset Israel. Just look at the UK. you get arrested for even mentioning or wearing a t shirt with the P and/or G word.
Do you guys think Jeffrey Epstein was the first or the only guy using videos of United States politicians engaging in pedophelia to blackmail them for Israel?
Do you think Tom Artiom Alexandrovich knew Epstein, or his associates/handlers in Israel?
To the surprise of no one.
What kind of a messed up headline is that?
Serious question, what is wrong with the headline? The article is only 4 paragraphs long and the headline basically sums what is written in the article. Id get it if you thought the article itself was shitty but I stared at the headline long enough without seeing anything wrong so I gotta ask, what am I missing?
The headline reads as if by voting against the embargo, they were recognizing a Palestinian state. Of course, with a bit of general knowledge about the situation, it should be clear that that is not the correct reading.
It’s an example of “headlinese”, the odd rules used to shorten headlines. It’s at least decades old and comes from newspapers where space was limited. In this case the comma subs in for “and”.
That said, I agree it’s old-fashioned and confusing, and wouldn’t be missed if news sites collectively agreed to stop doing it.
It just hit me that I use “headlinese” in pull request titles at work.
Can you really count “Fixes” as headlinese?
Thank God I don’t commit like that. Or worse, all downcase.
Fixed headlinese:
Democrats vote down resolution calling for arms embargo on Israel, Palestinian state recognition
The main problem with the headline is: which Democrats where? Which country? Is this an important bill with grave consequences or an opinion poll?
Come on now. For which Democrats and which country don’t be naive. Intellectual dishonesty is never been helpful for anyone ever and you should stop practicing it. As for the other two questions that’s not necessary for a title that’s what the article is for. That’s the context you’re supposed to get from reading articles not skimming titles.
Those are answered in the article.
Look, “Times of Israel” is not a source that I know or trust. So I’m not going to waste my time clicking through and reading the article, unless I’m convinced this is a really noteworthy story that’s worth reading.
So in that sense, the headline writers have failed to convert me into a reader. Because I can’t tell if this is the entire House Democratic caucus; or if it’s the Democratic party convention of Putnam Co., GA; or if it’s democratic reformers in monarchical Saudi Arabia.
A headline is supposed to convey a simple straight forward summary of the article, without any question or confusion about the content.
This headline is anything but straight forward … it can mean multiple things to multiple different groups of people … and the writer and news agency can feign ignorance and call it all a misunderstanding if anyone reading it questions the headline.
A sign of a bad news agency or an unreliable source is when they produce headlines that beg more questions about the presentation, journalist, writer, or news agency than the actual article they shared.
I thought it was straightforward.
Democrats voted on a resolution for an arms embargo, and the vote failed.
Your explanation isn’t straightforward though.
Democrats voted on a resolution for an arms embargo, and the vote failed
This could mean the Democrats voted for the resolution, but it failed. It could also mean the Democrats voted against the resolution, making it fail. All we know is the Dems voted, and the vote failed. The statement isn’t clear which way they voted.
My first assumption was that it was only the Democrats voting, which seems to have been the case, as it was a DNC internal vote. If there were more than democrats voting on it, then to say that it was the democrats who were voting would seem to me to be unnecessary or misleading.
They certainly could have mentioned the DNC in the title to make it more more clear, though.
That’s actually less straightforward
Yeah I still don’t understand the people having a problem with this?
The comma does the heavy lifting and is unfotunately ambiguous.
Democrats vote down resolution calling for arms embargo on Israel, recognizing Palestinian state
This could easily mean:
Democrats vote down resolution that is calling for arms embargo on Israel and recognizing Palestinian state
Democrats vote down resolution that is calling for arms embargo on Israel while recognizing Palestinian state
In the case the resolution is unnamed in the headline:
Democrats vote down resolution thus calling for arms embargo on Israel and recognizing Palestinian state
Democrats vote down resolution thus calling for arms embargo on Israel, recognizing Palestinian state in the process
What things? How are you reading it that’s what I’m not understanding either. You say it can convey multiple things but I’m not seeing it.
I replied to someone else with this but I’ll post it here as well.
The comma does the heavy lifting and is unfotunately ambiguous.
Democrats vote down resolution calling for arms embargo on Israel, recognizing Palestinian state
This could easily mean:
Democrats vote down resolution that is calling for arms embargo on Israel and recognizing Palestinian state
Democrats vote down resolution that is calling for arms embargo on Israel while recognizing Palestinian state
In the case the resolution is unnamed in the headline:
Democrats vote down resolution thus calling for arms embargo on Israel and recognizing Palestinian state
Democrats vote down resolution thus calling for arms embargo on Israel, recognizing Palestinian state in the process
I’m sure this is somehow Trump’s fault /s
Removed by mod
