AOC: Always Offing Civilians
I forget where I heard this analogy, but it's like giving a bulletproof vest to someone on their way to shoot up a school.
I can't believe how much much she sucks on the issue of Gazan genocide. Total disappointment
How did AOC end up on pro israel side? AIpac got her too?
"Israel has a right to defend itself"
that's the party narrative, comrade
There were over 500 other politicians who endorsed this; but I think she built her brand among those who feel particularly betrayed. And there is also a dose of misogamy, here and there.
But why do people feel so betrayed after older votes and actions should have triggered this much earlier? And will most of this go away soon?
She became a strikebreaker three years ago. Kshama Sawant: Rail Workers Betrayed By Biden & The “Squad”
AOC justified her vote by claiming she was fighting “tooth and nail” for the additional sick days. Jamaal Bowman claimed he was “always fighting in solidarity with the workers.” But what the Congressional “Progressive” Caucus pulled was a con job, and a hamfisted one at that. They colluded with Pelosi to separate out the vote into two, promising their roughly 100 votes on the rotten TA in exchange for a separate vote on the sick day amendment, which they knew full well would get crushed in the Senate. It took only one day to confirm the brutal reality: that the majority of the “Squad,” in coordination with the leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, sold rail workers down the river while blowing smoke about paid sick days.
On November 30, Democratic Socialists of America’s (DSA) national center posted a statement of support for the rail workers which included this sentence:
“Any member of Congress who votes yes on the tentative agreement is siding with billionaires and forcing a contract on rail workers that does not address their most pressing demand of paid sick days.”
What then of their own members and endorsed elected officials in Congress who voted yes? What this statement implies, and what the actions of the “Squad” definitively prove, is that these elected officials are, and see themselves as, part of the capitalist state, the state that acts for the billionaires and against the interests of the majority, the working class.
A socialist cannot be a strike breaker. This needs to be the end of any pretense by DSA that the “Squad” is socialist, and should result in their expulsion from the organization. Failing that, the Squad’s betrayal of the working class becomes DSA’s betrayal.
We have very few progressive voices in the government, it sucks to have them betray principles we thought they had
They are politicians and they all get elected based on lies to their base.
AOC didn't even grow up in Bronx and campaigned hard on her being a girl from Bronx. If she was willing to lie about where she grew up, why wouldn't she spout bullshit to appeal to her constituents?
AOC calls herself a Bronx girl but also as far as i can tell, always admitted that while being born in the Bronx she moved to a nearby town as a child and went back and forth regularly to see family there. I'm not from NY so maybe I'm not the one to ask, but it doesn't seem that wild that she considers the Bronx part of her personality.
I'd rather be mad at her for substantive things like this vote.
Well born in the Bronx. It's not technically a lie, but it's misleading. Cozying up with Mama Bear Pelosi says it all, though.
Wait we have at least one ? A real one?? Where??!
"progressive" doesn't mean "leftist". Sometimes they agree on policy, but the progressive is just a brand of liberal. I mean, we're talking about a term embraced by Teddy Roosevelt and prohibitionists
ish
Shrugs
Hatred of marriage?
Anytime you send weapons to theocracies, people die. Religions are never happy with what they have, because a fictional god gave them the entire world. So they fight, kill, and die for their fictional gods.
NEVER send weapons to theocracies.
Iran is a theocracy, and I’d send them nukes if I had any.
Religion is less of a factor in state geopolitical decision-making than you think.
It’s just one facet of the superstructure among many.
many fail to see that even the crusades were never about christianity or the church, they were always about plundering resources.
The problem with Israel isn't Judaism. Israel doesn't even follow the Halakha. Israel is a racist settler colony most similar to Apartheid South Africa. Without religion you still have politicians in New Zealand attempting to pass racist laws.
This might destroy you from the inside but Israel is an Atheist state. The only Judaism they believe in is being racially descended from Jews.
https://vridar.org/2017/05/26/we-do-not-believe-in-god-but-he-nonetheless-promised-us-palestine/
we send tons of weapons to isreal and they're a theocracy.
AOC is trying to whip up funds for when she runs next election. I'm not too thrilled that she voted against cutting funds for Israel weapons. What was she thinking. So dumb, and felt like a betrayal. And in the time since as many of her allies urged her to own up to what she did to get her support back, she chose not to. So something is keeping her quiet. Usually in the US politics thats money. I'd be curious if anyone else has other theories. I really liked her as a presidential candidate, before this.
She voted against reduced funding for weapons for Israel because she would have been voting FOR funds for weapons for Israel. If she had the option to eliminate funding of weapons for Israel completely she would have supported that.
Years from now people could look back and say "AOC in 2025 voted to supply Israel with XXX million dollars of weapons while they were in the middle of destroying Gaza, and attacking Syria and Iran."
Would you really vote to supply weapons to Israel at this point in time?
Americans democrats act toward democratic politicians like a domestic abuse victims acts toward his abuser.
Yes i know your ex is worse. Yes i know we don't know them like you do. I'm sure they cried after they gave you your third black eyes this month.
She voted against reduced funding for weapons for Israel because she would have been voting FOR funds for weapons for Israel.
Thats not what I read about what she claimed were her motivations. She said she voted against it because she was in favor of giving them defensive weapons, but not offensive ones. As if the money to buy weapons wasnt easily moved from one to the other. Weapons are weapons.
"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"
Does that mean she would vote for giving "densive weapons" to Russia? What about Iran? So-called defensive weapons just allow impunity to use offensive weapons. It's like giving a bulletproof vest to a school shooter.
Yeah... Now post the rest.
Her distinction between offensive and defensive weapons is meaningless.
This is incorrect. The United States provides federal military funding to Israel and specifically and separately funds $500 million per year for their Iron Dome program. This is the $500 million of funding that MTG was seeing to eliminate.
"Israel is the leading global recipient of Title 22 U.S. security assistance under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program. This has been formalized by a 10-year (2019-2028) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Consistent with the MOU, the United States annually provides $3.3 billion in FMF and $500 million for cooperative programs for missile defense."
the MOU is about a yearly aid package, that MTG (who I hate) wanted to add an amendment to cut.
Thats a no brainer choice. Unless AOC or someone can show me a poison pill in that ammendment, its straightforward and simple to pick the only ethical and progressive vote.
And AOC failed to pick it for some reason. It wasnt complicated.
Omar made the right choice and called out AOC for failing to. And rightly so. DSA called AOC out as well. This is simple math. Lets do the simple math and stop pretending its calculus.
Do we all want to be funding weapons for Israel or do we not? That was the choice.
Are you claiming Omar and the DSA are just.. wrong? to call out AOC? https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/aoc-israel-ilhan-omar-iron-dome-rcna220394
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/11/us/politics/aoc-dsa-endorsement.html
I appreciate some of the points you are making, but I was responding to this statement that you made twice: "Her trying to parse out defensive vs offensive is a manipulation and a shallow sales job."
You're being deceptive if you are implying that AOC voted against reducing weapons to Israel and then tried to spin it by creating a distinction between offensive and defensive weapons.
AOC voted against the entire bill, rejecting all funding for Israel's military.
MTGs amendment cut funding of Israel's Iron Dome program. This is a defensive system, of course it is useful during war time but it is still a defensive system. AOC is not creating this distinction, it exists. I linked to the state department's site which indicates that the funding is considered separate from other military funding for Israel.
MTG wrote an amendment that is progressive and that all progressives must support? BS
If AOC had voted against a stand alone bill to eliminate Iron Dome funding then everyone's points would be completely valid and warranted. That's not what happened.
This is a defensive system, of course it is useful during war time but it is still a defensive system.
And there you go again, funding zionism.
While pretending Omar and the entire DSA misunderstood what this was about, but you do.
So what did it cut off?
And why did four "progressive Democrats" vote for it?
AOC's own statement expressed that she opposed eliminating funding of weapons to Israel.
the amendment is a separate vote from the main bill, she could have voted yes on the amendment and no on the bill. Imagine the allies sending ”defensive” weapons to WWII germany.
I see everyone's point but without the bill there is no military financing and no defensive weapons. The fact that it's MTGs amendment surely played a part in her decision.
That post was nine days ago… coincidence?
Incivility? I've never seen that from this user. Nor whining and complaining in lieu of self-validation or self-reflection. In fact, the time we got into a conversation about pogroms, I found them extremely respectful and informative, as well as in good faith.
The hypocrisy of that instance is stunning.