CCTV footage will likely show the perps to be off duty cops, lol
Off duty? Nah. Those motherfuckers probably got paid overtime for it.
The footage will be lost before it can show any duty cop.
Perhaps I'm not up to speed, but she was one of the first reps to call Israel's actions a genocide. What gives?
It's more bad-faith horseshit to get leftists to destroy one another, which a lot of leftists love to lap up because their critical thinking isn't real strong and they love nothing more than being "holier than" some kind of previously respected icon.
MTG's amendment left intact the funding for offensive weapons, but cut the funding for defensive weapons for Israel. So there is literally no way AOC could win. Leaving aside the fact that it was a kooky MTG amendment that was never going to pass in the first place... If she voted for the amendment, then everyone who is currently screaming that she's a fake leftist who supports genocide could say "See? SHE VOTED FOR KEEPING ISRAEL'S FUNDING INTACT, SHE SUPPORTS GENOCIDE!" Since she voted against it, they are currently screaming "See? SHE VOTED AGAINST DEFUNDING ISRAEL, SHE SUPPORTS GENOCIDE!"
It's just more can't-win, let's-eat-the-leftest-person-because-we're-super-leftist-I-promise horseshit.
Here's AOC voting against funding for Israel, in an actual bill that was actually a non-Hobson's-choice opportunity to vote against aid for Israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/biden-meets-with-aoc-in-wake-of-her-vote-against-military-aid-for-israel/
And her voting against the actual funding bill providing aid to Israel: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025212
I've also seen people say Bernie is a Zionist, because he says "ethnic cleansing" instead of "genocide." Both Bernie and AOC's vocal opposition to genocide doesn't matter to these people. Actually, it's that genuine leftism that they represent that makes them dangerous, and worthwhile to engineer cooked-up horseshit to use to get other people to turn on them, so the Marco Rubios of the world can take over un-contested.
I mean... it really doesn't take much to get people on the left to turn on each other. It's kind of a historic problem with leftist ideological groups in general - they're awfully quick to declare each other the wrong type of leftist, or not leftist enough, and then refuse to cooperate.
There certainly are outside provocateurs, but I wouldn't leap to that conclusion in every occasion. Hanlon's razor applies.
Maybe. It's real hard for me not to notice the pattern recognition of "Kamala Harris supports genocide!" "AOC supports genocide!" "Bernie supports genocide!", basically literally any person in American politics who's trying to do some kind of leftist thing with any level of popularity, there's some kind of bizarre moon logic whereby they must support genocide and we've got to start screaming it at them and never support them again.
I will agree with you that some stupid features of the left tend to provide some nice dry powder for this kind of thing but I don't remember this kind of thing happening in American politics any time previous to the social-media-mass-shilling age of political discourse. Like circa 2000, there was a super vigorous protest movement, but it was aimed at shadowy neoliberal quasi-governments, fascist police, war machines... you know, the enemy. No one was out screaming at Al Gore for destroying the climate and throwing red paint at his offices.
Al Gore may not have really invented the Internet, but when he was in politics we haven't figured out how to really weaponize it for political purposes yet. It's not bizarre moon logic, it's active manipulation.
"Genocide" is one of those hot button terms that short-circuit people's critical thinking whenever someone invokes it, that's why provateuers online like tossing it about. ("Pedo" is another one, which has been in the news lately). Turns out getting lasting peace in the region is difficult and can't be reduced to slogans....
Al Gore may not have really invented the Internet
Which, to point out, he never actually said. He said "creating" - which is actually accurate, since he pushed the policies that allowed for it to exist. Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn support his stance that he was a primary driver behind its development from a policy perspective. I believe they even said no other politician has been as important to the internet (rough paraphrase, someone else can grab the exact quote) as Gore.
The claim that he said he "invented the internet" came from dirtbag pundits, of course.
I think we need to acknowledge that left-wing groups (especially online) have just as much of a problem with extremists as right-wing groups do. It's not quite as systemic and weaponized as what's described in Innuendo Studio's excellent video, but it is there and it can just as easily result in violent behavior.
Whenever a community turns into an echo chamber, the ideological aspects of that community switch from principles to performances. The members of the community start trying to prove that they're holier-than-thou, usually to gain nothing more than attention.
but I don't remember this kind of thing happening in American politics any time previous to the social-media-mass-shilling age of political discourse.
I think you're right, but I think this has less to do with some false-flag conspiracy and more to do with the accelerant nature of social media in general. I think a lot of this kind of behavior is driven by the one-upmanship impulse, and the effect of online communities is to concentrate a self-selecting group of people with similar interests. The larger the group becomes, the more an individual has to work to stand out and receive recognition from the rest of the group. Frequently the easiest way to do that is to demonstrate some extreme form of whatever the group's ideology is.
Basically I think a lot of this is just people looking for an ego-stroking. It's attention-seeking behavior, the kind you see in teenagers. They fall into some community or other and then find a community-acceptable way to exhibit their narcissistic tendencies.
An old joke to your point:
A person calls the police and starts shouting, "help! There's a DEMOCRAT masturbating on my lawn!" The dispatcher says they're sending an officer and then asks, "uhhh... How do you know this person is a democrat?"
The caller responds, "they're not fucking everyone else, only themselves."
This is a bad faith interpretation of why leftists are upset. No one is saying the bill was enough. However, it would have had the effect of blocking Israel's defense aid, and in this desperate moment where Israel is being allowed to starve a whole people to death with no repercussions, it was something we could have done to mitigate their freedom to continue to do so. In her statement, AOC didn't just mention the offensive-vs.-defensive aid thing--she also brought up protecting innocent civilians, implying that not providing the defensive aid would result in innocent Isrealis dying. In the context of innocent Palestinians being a day or two from mass death, that is a fucking cop-out.
The bill providing funding for Israel, she voted against. Pretty sure I mentioned that.
So further if your metric for being able to support a vigorously left-wing politician who's been voting against aid for Israel, calling it a genocide, yelling about it on the house floor, and so on and so on, including pushing for justice for working people whose voice is basically nonexistent within the US congress, is that never once do they say one dumb thing on Twitter, then I would wonder who in or out of politics you would be willing to support. This is like the people who are yelling about how Mamdani is a "fake leftist" and as a good leftist they can't support him because he's just a fake for the Democrats and they won't get fooled again...
Being upset or disappointed with someone is not the same as not supporting them at all. Being in power naturally tends to pull people to the right--it's in the nature of serving the American empire--and it's the job of the people to remind them of why we supported them in the first place to hopefully prevent that.
Okay. I'm upset that people are using this absurdly skewed framing of this whole event and trying to blow it up into the whole of AOC's Israel stance and ignoring the backdrop of her entire vigorous opposition to Israel in both word and deed. Since I'm upset, can I come to your house and throw a bunch of paint over your doors and windows and write slogans about you? I feel like that would be a good way to "remind" you about good principles of political progress and online discourse.
Or is that something we're only doing to prominent successful leftists when we're upset, and that scenario would be a completely different story?
Any substantive cut on Israel’s funding needs to be made if it is introduced. I literally don’t care what they’re defunding or who introduced the bill; the less my taxpayer dollars go to genocidal psychos, the better. End of story.
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.
Spot on. It would have played out the same way no matter what she did.
Yeah. There's always something to capitalize on.
There are some fucking emergencies going on, among them the literal starvation of everyone in Gaza. Go up to the US Capitol building or your local Brooks Brothers, or fucking wherever, and spray-paint "PEOPLE IN GAZA ARE DYING TONIGHT"? Fuckin' spot on, man, please do. Go and shit on the lefty-est person you can find because you found a tiny chink in her behavior that you can exploit and start bullying her over for the next year and a half? Honestly, man, it really irritates me.
I think the reason they like to do it is because she's vulnerable. If they were protesting the people actually killing Palestinians, or the people taking over our country and cancelling democracy, they might punch back real hard. That's scary, so let's go throw some paint on someone who is in a precarious enough position that she'll have to just take it.
Honestly, fuck 'em. Like I say it irritates me.
She's the chosen lightning rod and MTG is the chosen lightning. Everyone ignores her voting record and stares into the flash.
Because it's that easy. Textbook. But it shows that progressives are a threat. And we'll see more of this. Especially at midterms.
TL;DR is at MTG put forth a bill to remove funding for Israel's missile defense system from the US budget. 429/435 House reps voted against it, including AOC, but then she made a very tone-deaf tweet basically saying "The bill was trying to remove funding for Israel's ability to defend themselves from the people they're genociding, of course I voted against it!" and it's causing massive backlash against her.
If I had to guess, some kind of right wing nonsense, probably done by a Trump supporter. Any truly progressive person wouldn’t resort to vandalism in the first place
AOC supports what’s going on in Gaza? lol. Wut.
She literally just voted against throwing more money at the Iron Dome.
The other way round, she voted against blocking military aid for the iron dome
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-861796
https://www.newarab.com/news/aoc-defends-decision-back-fresh-us-military-aid-israel
Didn't she literally vote against the MTG amendment that stripped all funding from Israel?
See, that's how the propaganda works. She voted against the MTG amendment that stripped a tiny tiny fraction of the funding from Israel. Which was always going to fail, pretty much unanimously, because MTG. And then, when the whole bill (with whole funding for Israel) came to the floor, she voted against it. And also, separate bills which are just for funding Israel in the past
But it's been consistently presented to you with wording that makes it sound like she had a chance to strip all funding from Israel, and she decided not to. Search "horseshit" in this comments section, it's a little complicated, but basically, no she literally didn't vote against what you described.
So she should have voted symbolically for it like the five Democrats who did?
I don't care how much money it takes away from Israel they deserves no money while it's committing a genocide.
I'll just copy and paste.
For the uninitiated: MTG's amendment left intact the funding for offensive weapons, but cut the funding for defensive weapons for Israel. So there is literally no way AOC could win. Leaving aside the fact that it was a kooky MTG amendment that was never going to pass in the first place... If she voted for the amendment, then everyone who is currently screaming that she's a fake leftist who supports genocide could say "See? SHE VOTED FOR KEEPING ISRAEL'S FUNDING INTACT, SHE SUPPORTS GENOCIDE!" Since she voted against it, they are currently screaming "See? SHE VOTED AGAINST DEFUNDING ISRAEL, SHE SUPPORTS GENOCIDE!"
It's just more can't-win, let's-eat-the-leftest-person-because-we're-super-leftist-I-promise horseshit.
Edit: Here's AOC voting against funding for Israel, in bills that were actually non-Hobson's-choice opportunities to vote against aid for Israel:
And her voting against the actual funding bill providing aid to Israel (both offensive and defensive): https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025212
I was going to link to those from my comment above, but I guess my brain malfunctioned before I got to it. I've said the exact same thing on this topic a sufficient number of times that it's like I'm getting that World War 1 disorder where you can't pull a trigger anymore because the weight of doing it over and over is insupportible.
I don't care what's politically expedient. I don't care what's politically acceptable.
I care about my Representatives standing up for what's morally acceptable.
Continuing to give any sort of funds to a state committing genocide is tangential support of that genocide.
I do not care that AOC has also voted down other Israel funding bills when she has been consistent on funding the Iron Dome.
I do not care about her preconceived notions about how this would leave "Israelis defenseless". Israel is entirely surrounded by US military bases on all sides and is capable of manufacturing the Iron Dome missiles.
Israel would simply need to use the $9 million already allocated to them ( for their genocide) instead of the $500 million of United States taxpayer money so that they can continue to be the most belligerent Empire in the Middle East.
Edit:
As you pointed out this vote was never going to win and so was symbolic. This would have been an easy win with her constituents with how unpopular Israel currently is instead she is currently doubling down and accusing people of being fake leftists for criticizing her position.
Unfortunately she seems to have lost the plot
I do not care that AOC has also voted down other Israel funding bills when she has been consistent on funding the Iron Dome.
I feel like you've been infected at this point, and can't really grasp what I'm trying to explain here.
She has not been consistent on funding the Iron Dome. She has been consistent, as far as I know, about trying to defund US aid for Israel in any way she can. This whole thing is a weird and stupid blowing-up of one isolated vote of a stupid amendment proposed by the worst person in congress that was never going to pass, and then a pretty dumb way she chose to explain it.
When has she ever voted, previous to this, to give funding for the Iron Dome? Or did you just make up this "consistency" randomly on the spot because it fit in with the ginned-up stuff you'd already seen about this one particular weird blown-up situation?
Look you would have a point if it weren't for the fact that they were five other Democrats that supported mtg and all of them are pro Palestinian.
Voting for stripping any money away is unequivocally a win when the country is responsible for a genocide.
It's not infectious. I just really really really want my tax dollars to stop funding a genocide.
As far as her voting consistently on the Iron Dome funding I'll go look into her voting record and report back because this is something I heard consistently. It's one of the places where her and Bernie Sanders seem to be weak.
It's one of the places where her and Bernie Sanders seem to be weak.
My guy lol
Okay, sure. Read up. Find the votes and their statements on the floor, I actually think you'll find it pretty interesting.
How's your research going?
Here's some stuff if you've had trouble finding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgpLpKwcIM
because this is something I heard consistently
I'm sure this is true. I would really, really recommend that you take a hard look at why people you're paying attention to are consistently lying to you, and maybe reevaluate how much you want to keep paying attention to them going forward if all they're trying to do is deceive you into not supporting leftist figures.
What kind of perpetrator takes a photo of their activity... Do they want to get caught?
Someone whose primary purpose is the cred and self-aggrandization, and not the political impact
It’s probably some right winger trying to attack her from the left in an effort to split her support. Attacks from the right make her stronger, so they’ll attack from the left to make leftists abandon her.
And reading the comments on Lemmy, it's working.
This is what the left does best. Eat itself.
"If you're saying I voted for military funding, you are lying," she wrote. "Drag me for my positions all you want, but lying about them doesn't make you part of the 'left.' If you believe neo-Nazis are welcome and operating in good faith, you can have them."
She did though, right?
Like, the most devils advocate I can be for her vote is that she's arguing that we shouldn't take away their shield, we should take away their spear.
To which... I still don't see the logic. Because if you can block with one hand you're free to stab with the other. If all you have is stabby implements, you got no way to deal with when they stab back.
They'd be forced to be less aggressive, which they seem intent to be.
The best explanation I heard was that any funding at all, even if it's for a "defensive" weapon, is still funding that makes doing their genocide easier.
Another good take I heard is something along the lines of "they have healthcare and we don't, they can fund their fucking iron dome themselves".
It's not military when it's a defensive rocket battery staffed by military dumb dumb
If it's purely defensive weapon then why don't they sell them to Russia, Iran or North Korea?
My personal opinion she should have voted against funding the genocidal regime of Israel and this is the consequence 🤷
They're committing a genocide. No amount of wishy-washy Behavior about whether or not is real people deserve a right to defense matters anymore when they've systematically slaughtered 200,000 Palestinians and these defensive systems are enabling that Slaughter.
Israel would be much less bold if they didn't have their missile system to protect them from any retaliatory strikes like the strike on Iran.
I see a potential backdrop for a photo shoot.
She should just paint the place red. And when they do it in another color… paint it in that color.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News