you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Sure, but this bill was never actually going to do that. If this was an actual bill that could be passed, fine it doesn't have to be perfect to be worthwhile and it doesn't matter who introduced it. But this wasn't that. It was purely a statement bill, and that statement is colored by who wrote it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You make an important distinction, but by voting against the statement AOC is still saying “I don’t like the idea of defunding Israel’s Iron Dome”.

    Is that not something to be frustrated with?

    We have virtually no progressive politicians in the US. The ones that are progressive inevitably concede to safe and exhausted liberal ideologies, and this further proves that point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    No she isn't. That vote means she does not want to support the totality of the messaging amendment, which includes saying offensive weapons are fine, the priority is America First, and that an antisemite should be lead writer on bills on Israel. You guys are acting like this was a real bill that just needed political support to pass and not voting for the Jewish Space Lasers lady's bill just supercedes every actually meaningful public statement on the issue she's made.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    So I’m exposing my ignorance here, but I have a question.

    Apart from MTG’s association, how am I to make the distinction between a “real” bill and a “statement “ bill?

    I understand what you’re saying, and have been persuaded by your latest comment; I’m just hung up on that “just a statement bill” thing.

    E: I guess it’s literally as simple as “MTG is such a joke that her bills will never pass”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, anything MTG puts forward that isn't already supported by Republicans is likely pointless nuttery (the supported stuff is dangerous nuttery). But more generally, these people all know when a bill is going to be 50/50 and when it's going to get 400 no votes.

    That's not to say representatives never should be judged for their votes on doomed bills, but their vote should be in the context of it just being a statement itself, and with MTG writing the amendment, the statement is a muddled mess.

  • source
  • parent