19
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2025
19 points (100.0% liked)
Progressive Politics
3062 readers
1211 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I read this as her calling those trying to paint her as supporting the Israeli military as "neo nazis".
These are her words. Get out of here with your lies.
people's support for aoc despite her actions and words has become a depressing reminder of how little americans pay attention the machinations of our government and i think it because it's labeled as politics.
it's so much worse than bernie because he made me believe that all this shit was happening because the information that could educate people to make information decisions required intention and action instead of being passively spoonfed by the main stream media, but now seeing that that the information is freely available at everyone's fingertips online like aoc's responses has made me realize that everyone doubles down on their ignorance like maga does.
Most of them only care the part of the progressive movement which affects them. The 15 dollar minimum wage, LGBT movement, free healthcare, or whatever else drives them to it.
Brown children getting burned alive does not affect them. So they defend it.
i've heard this before and always felt like it was a cynical take; but it's getting harder and harder to regard it as nothing more than cynicism as i keep seeing examples like aoc.
Which is just as bad
I disagree. It would be far worse for her to bring her colleagues down than to call out misinformation from who she perceives to be bad actors.
I think calling anti-genocide people neo-nazis is just as bad
Anti genocide people and people being angry at her on twitter are two different groups. There is overlap, but they are not the same group and not the same subject for this conversation.
No they are not
She is talking about MTG's bill specifically.
It was an amendment that was never going to pass, not a bill. It's important to know and recognize the difference. An amendment is useless if it doesn't get added to the bill and voting for or against an amendment is different than voting for or against the bill.
It's like arguing over what goes in a shopping cart at a store where you're not going to buy anything anyway.
AOC clarified she believes that Israel should get those free missiles. Stop strawmanning.
You're misusing the term straw man. A straw man is when you're arguing against something someone else has not asserted, pretending that it's actually what they said. You have actually said she has voted to fund genocide when she actually voted against said funding and spoken out directly against genocide. You have intentionally chosen to ignore her actual actions and her words that contradict the narrative you're pushing. You are pushing a straw man, ironically enough.
What's this? https://www.dsausa.org/statements/on-the-iron-dome-vote/
A statement that agrees she didn't fund genocide, contrary to your false claims.
Straight up lying now I see.
It's a literal fact. She voted nay on the bill. You've literally posted screenshots of her post citing the voting record. You keep pretending that everything you reference and link to says something different than it actually says.
True
What is being discussed here is that she voted for military aid by voting against MTG's amendment that would have blocked $500M of military aid.
False. She voted against an amendment by MTG that had no chance of passing and voting for or against it was not voting for military aid for Israel. It was a waste of time and a political stunt by a racist conspiracy theorist. The aid was provided by the bill already. Voting against the bill is how you vote against the aid to Israel. And that's what she did. Discussing the amendment that had no chance of passing is like blaming someone for what they did in a dream you had about them.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/aoc-israel-gaza/ (via this lemmy post)
Yes, that's a subjective perspective on the matter. And...?
I also keep seeing this:
"The progressive congresswoman deserves the heat she's getting for her vote against a bill that would've held back aid to Jerusalem"
People keep calling the amendment a bill, which it is not. Even the PhD author of that article is misconstruing the vote in question despite correctly identifying it as an amendment elsewhere.
AOC voted against the bill that funded Israel. Full stop. Saying otherwise is counterfactual, i.e a lie. Full stop.
You can quibble over the repercussions of the amendment vote. I wouldn't have voted for or against it personally. But saying she voted for funding Israel is not correct. Saying she funds genocide is not only incorrect but would be defamation if she weren't a public figure.
But I will ask again, what is the value of attacking AOC on this point? Will it drive voters further to the left? Will it win primaries for progressive candidates? Will it in any way affect the funding of genocide in Gaza? What is the value of this fight? If it's just feeling self-righteous but doesn't have any useful results, why pursue it so fiercely? The only people this fight benefits are those who want someone farther right than AOC in office.