We would, because the stated purpose for our support is so that Israel can defend against a potential attack.
No US politician is going to argue Israel can't defend itself.
The problem is Bibi and Likud re-directing that support for defense into offense.
Again, your complaint is that we're using a single source checker, but you offer no alternative.
If you want to say "Why don't you use 'x'?" I'm happy to look at it. So far, we're striking out.
But the bot DOES use two sources, MBFC and Ground.News.
Pelosi's attacker got as far as he did because Pelosi's protection was with her, and she wasn't home, which let Paul take the brunt of the attack.
"You aren't open to other ideas!"
"Here's a list of ideas we looked at."
"It's like talking to a wall!"
You sure you aren't looking at a mirror when you say that?
Still open to alternatives if you have any.
That's not what they want of Harris. They honestly believe that if we stop funding Israel, the genocide would stop.
It wouldn't. Israel has never needed our help to commit war crimes, but you can't convince them of that.
Oh, it's there, but like I said below, I've never been a peach fan. I think it's the texture, they come across as slimy.
https://thehill.com/homenews/4889914-kamala-harris-gun-owner-oprah/
"Harris: ‘If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot’ during event with Oprah"
No point meeting them because what they want, the complete defunding of Israel, is a political impossibility.
They aren't going to listen to the reasons it's a political impossibility, so there's no point talking to them.
Seems super easy... You mail in your ballot but forget to sign the back. Here in Oregon, the ballot is sent back to you for correction. You still have to return it on time, but you are allowed to correct it
They want to make it in PA so that the ballot is just pitched.
We are accepting other ideas, so far nobody has offered any.
So, for example, AllSides is great for tracking bias, but has no meter for credibility. We have no problem with a biased source, so long as it's credible.
So, for example, National Review has a right bias, but is highly credible. Fox News has a right bias and is not credible.
AllSides will just tell you both are right bias, which isn't helpful for our purposes.
The one we had a meeting with, had a good tracker for both, but wanted a 6 figure payment to access the API, which, as volunteers, we can't fund.
So far, the folks complaining about MBFC don't offer a solution, only complaints.
@jordanlund
@lemmy.world