top 82 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 30 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I can't believe I'm agreeing with something MTG put forth.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    If you are agreeing, you are part of the problem. This was essentially a bill to defund the police by taking body cameras away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Funny, that's not the reason AOC have for not voting for it.

    What I was agreeing with was the idea of defending Israel, not whatever was in the bill.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Pretty sure her tweet said that. Taking away iron dome missile and still giving them offensive weapons doesn't help anyone.

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

    I didn't read her tweet just saw video of her saying that the bill DID NOT reduce weapons payments for Israel. But I do admit that, as is often the case, the video I saw was just a snippet and not her full statement.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 58 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point

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

    Ugh.

    Listen to Marjorie Taylor Greene talk, and she's easily the worst of the worst. But sometimes she does something like this or speaks out against Trump, and in that respect she may actually be one of the better Republicans, which is an extremely, extremely low bar to clear.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    I wonder if there were bad hidden things in the bill again? (I know most of the US congress is bought by AIPAC)

    Like in the US, a bill often gets to congress that is named something like "the children are the future protections act" that provides free meals and better education for kids or something universally good, and then clause 7.1.2.5 says "all people of color are stripped of all rights and Lockheed Martin gets an extra 200 billion per year and a on-demand hit squad provided by the CIA and is immune to prosecution, and the police have the right to spy on every citizen and steal their wallets without a warrant."

    Because the majority of members of US congress have admitted to not actually reading the bills.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    There was nothing bad in the amendement itself.

    This was not a vote on the whole bill. It was a vote to change a part of the bill and strip out funding for some free weapons to Israel. It was voted on seperately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So basically it was free real estate

    Is this the confirmation that AOC is compromised?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I don't think so. It was a modification to this Biden bill to remove the Israel money.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8034

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

    The title of this post says it's amending the Defense Appropriations Act of 2026.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    It could also just be that it's MTG's bill and she's introducing it because she's explicitly antisemitic. It's like if a well-known white supremacist introduced articles of impeachment for Clarence Thomas because they can't stand having a black man on the court. Maybe if this is the one shot that can get it done you bite the bullet and do it because the result is worthwhile even if you're going to get asked why you teamed up with the white supremacist, but for a doomed bill that's only going to be a statement of principles, the benefit is limited and the person who introduced it is part of the statement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I don't know what point you're trying to make here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    If the personality of the person intruducing an amendement matters then AOC would never vote with any Republican, right?

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

    MTG's problematic aspect isn't her being a Republican. It's not even that she's a particularly bad person (she is). The perceived motivation for this messaging bill is antisemitism. This is Jewish space lasers lady.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 10 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    So? Her bill is about cutting off money for weapons to Israel not Jewish space lasers.

    4 real progressives voted yes.

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

    I suppose you could pretend that context and pretext simply don't exist. Poll taxes were just about raising money and English only laws are about government standardization.

    I'm also not of the opinion that the people voting for it made a heinous choice either. They were just willing to take questions about MTG's antisemitism in exchange for a minor messaging vote. Nothing anyone did here is important. AOC has put out statements much more critical of Israel than being vote 7 on a muddled messaging bill.

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

    AOC is career politician (insert add for term limits here) and as such she is tries to walk the middle line, carefully selecting her words and never goes far enough on her stance on certain issues that might get her in trouble, like her meandering support about Gaza and Israel. She is not the progressive darling we need, just the best the DNC has, and at times, that isn't saying much. We need a viable working class, progressive party that isn't afraid to fight.

    She is an outspoken surrogate for President Biden, a figure many fellow socialists have condemned as a warmonger. She has also carefully calibrated her messaging around the war in Gaza, declining to take some positions that have inflamed Jewish Americans.

    Ocasio-Cortez Loses the Democratic Socialists’ Endorsement Over Israel

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [+] 5 points 1 year ago* (10 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The bill removed “offensive” weapons, but left in “defensive” weapons. The distinction is meaningless; defensive weapon systems allow Israel to continue to prosecute it’s genocide without other countries (notably Iran) being able to act against them, so it still enables genocide.

    Agreed.

    If she votes against the bill: AOC opposes cutting military aid to Israel!

    If she votes for the bill: AOC voted to keep sending weapons to Israel!

    No. There were two distinct votes at play here.

    The first vote, for which she voted nay, was to amend the bill, removing the sending of weapons to Israel.
    The last vote, for which she voted nay, was to pass the bill itself.

    At issue here is the first vote only.

    This yearly military budget bill always gets passed, without exception, which AOC knows. She knew that, in the end, the bill would get passed despite her nay vote. That being the case, why did she vote against removing military aid to Israel?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    You aren't making your case here.

    It wouldn't have mattered how she voted on this bill to anyone that thinks she isn't far enough left, or left in the correct way, because that amendment wouldn't have eliminated all Israel weapons from the bill. As you know. Voted to stop sending some weapons to Israel? That's not enough, therefore she supports genocide. Didn't vote to stop sending some weapons to Israel? She supports genocide. It's 'heads I win, tails you lose'.

    She knew that, in the end, the bill would get passed despite her nay vote.

    Okay, she also knew that the amendment wouldn't get passed, so there's no harm in voting against it, right? You're applying two different standards of logic here. If you look at it through the lens of, "AOC wants to eliminate all military funding to Israel", then the votes are ideologically consistent; the first fails to meet the goal, so gets voted down, the second vote--the overall military appropriation--funds Israel, and so also gets voted down.

    You're setting up an unfalsifiable argument, where there's no condition that would lead you to believe that she's opposed to the genocide in Palestine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    All she had to do was what Al Green (D), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R), Summer Lee (D), Thomas Massie (R), Ilhan Omar (D), and, Rashida Tlaib (D) did: Vote yes on the amendment and no on the bill.

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

    ...And you expect me to believe that M-L wouldn't still be saying that she voted for an amendment to continue funding the Israeli military? That's simply not believable when she already voted against the whole bill.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    we're at a point where sadly even when you carefully explain it, with step by step instructions on why her vote was problematic, like you did right here, they either still act lost or still find ways to defend her vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    AOC says she supports sending weapons to Israel. You don't have pretend otherwise.

    https://lemmy.ml/post/33383345

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

    Can you tell me which sentence in that statement clearly says, "I support sending weapons to Israel"? Or are you making a lot of inferences based on you a priori beliefs?

    You're not proving your point.

    Hope that helps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    ...And so it's not enough that she voted against the appropriations bill that would have entirely funded the Israel war machine, she also needed to vote for the amendment to the bill that would have cut 'offensive weapons' in a bill that she was going to vote against...? source for the bill, source for vote record

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (15 children)

    Update: AOC clarifies she supports genocide and it is not about MTG

    https://lemmy.ml/post/33383345?scrollToComments=true

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    What she actually said, for anyone who cares:

    Marjorie Taylor Greene's amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza. Of course I voted against it. What it does do is cut off defensive Iron Dome capacities while allowing the actual bombs killing Palestinians to continue.

    I have long stated that I do not believe that adding to the death count of innocent victims to this war is constructive to its end. That is a simple and clear difference of opinion that has long been established.

    I remain focused on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza.

    For the record, I think this is a shitty explanation. The Iron Dome permits Israel to commit it's genocide with impunity and act as a belligerent in the region. I get the attempt to differentiate between defensive support and offensive support, but cutting of arms for the Iron Dome would be the fastest way to curb Israeli aggression. But this statement in no way, "clarifies that she supports genocide."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Well that is certainly one interpretation of her words. Maybe not the one closest to the truth but definitely one way of thinking lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    I mean I disagree I think it's absolutely closest to the truth. She's just trying to fudge what she means but that's exactly what the truth is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    No, her goal is to preserve life. Israel needs defense just like any other country. They don't need the other three billion dollars that we give them for offense. Removing their money for defense is the dumbest idea. That is what AOC is pointing out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Well that's just nonsense. First of all any money you send them for defense is money they don't have to spend a defense so they're spending offense. That's just common sense. Secondly giving them a giant suit of armor just allows them to act with impunity in the region. That giant suit of armor is what allows them to slaughter people with no thought to consequences. All she's doing is arming and equipping a genocidal fascist state. That's it. That's the truth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Because it's not money. It's the value of the equipment that they are given or allowed to spend the money on. We give them 500 million or whatever in credit towards American companies that make defensive equipment.

    If we only gave them the giant suit of armor, and nothing else, then that's all they could possibly use. Defense.

    If we give them no suit of armor but tons and tons of guns then that's all they could possibly use. Offense.

    That's the difference here, MTG wants to remove their defense so that they get more aggressive. AOC says that's ridiculous and we should remove their offense while keeping their defense solid. AOC cares about all life not just who's side is getting bombed now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Brother that didn't make any sense whatsoever. Did you not read my comment?

    Any money you give to a genocidal state. Any money whatsoever. Any equipment. Any Aid. Anything. That's funding genocide. End of story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I would support a drawdown of aid across the board.

    I would not support a plan that would make Israel more aggressive. That is what this MTG amendment would do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    The idea that taking away their armor makes them more aggressive is just nonsense.

    You are arguing that we should directly fund genocide here. You are sitting here saying that the American taxpayers should pay to murder children. Please be honest with yourself that's what you're arguing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The idea that Israel being immune to facing any blowback to it's endless aggression is somehow making it less aggressive is so absurd that I can only assume you're trolling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    So you would support the USA sending billions of dollars of defensive weapons to Russia to protect them from Ukrainian attack?

    Or are you a hypocritical toad?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Your ad homonym means that this conversation is over.

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

    Ah yes, the classic reddit loser move of reading off terms from the wikipedia entry on logical fallacies like they're magic incantations that win internet arguments.

    Maybe you should actually learn what ad-hominem means before trying to act like a mystical debate wizard, because nothing I said was one.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -4 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The cherry picked nature of only mentioning AOC. 428 other representatives did the same thing, which is the real story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/aoc-is-a-genocidal-con-artist

    People who say you should criticize AOC less because there are way worse members of congress act like she’s just passively sitting there being a mediocre lawmaker. She’s not. She’s actively anchoring the leftmost edge of the Overton window of US politics to militarism, capitalism, colonialism, and genocide. She’s actively stopping American politics from moving any further left than the nightmare we see before us.

    Leftists shouldn’t hate AOC less than the politicians to her right, they should hate her much more. It isn’t Mike Johnson’s responsibility to move the US government to the left, and it’s not Nancy Pelosi’s job. It’s hers. That’s what she was elected to do. That’s what she framed the goals of her entire political career as being. And she’s taking her stand firmly bracing against any leftward movement from America’s genocidal, warmongering, unjust, exploitative, tyrannical status quo.

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

    I mean, yeah, I don't disagree, but surely its more important for this specific article to note that there are only 6 representatives in the house who care about reducing the money going to Israel?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    This looks like a bad-faith AOC attack piece. I'm sure she's not perfect. I'm also sure that she's a better, more ethical politician than most in the USA (which isn't saying much, you guys have awful politicians).

    One might wonder why you choose to post this, instead of focusing on the way, way, way worse things also going on over there.

    Quite telling.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    One might wonder why you choose to post this, instead of focusing on the way, way, way worse things also going on over there.

    Because it's the truth. Because having a full picture of the situation is important for informed decision making. Because ignoring any news that makes 'your side' look bad is what magas do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    AOC clarified she supports sending weapons to Israel and this was not a mistake. https://lemmy.ml/post/33383345

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Uh-huh. https://i.redd.it/i2u9r76ylvdf1.jpeg

    I don't have all the info she does. I do abhor the war on Gaza and am against violence, especially the genocidal kind we see here. I also don't think there's an easy solution to the problem, nor that MTG's proposal would have done anything good.

    Let's just say we're mostly on the same side of this matter, nitpicking over details.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    I’m pretty sure a large contingent of her constituency is New York Jews, many of whom are probably Orthodox… It’s not a stretch to believe that many of those voters are also Zionists

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    It makes no sense. It's not like there's a gazzilion jews in America and that's why the majority of US politicians support Israel unconditionally. Jews in New York or elsewhere can cast only so many votes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 13 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Zohran Mamdani has destroyed that argument already.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    What impact does Zohran Mamdani realistically have over weapons sent to Israel?

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

    You mean his full boycott on Israel until it follows international law which goes far beyond a simple weapons emargo?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›