• fodor@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    43 minutes ago

    The post title is BS, but the content is worthwhile, lol. Singling out just one person? Come on now, don’t be a doofus.

  • crankyrebel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours 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

    • redchert@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I remember she had a “vacation” to Mauritania in her last semester of her PS bachelor. WHY would anyone visit the only plaCe were slavery Is offically legAl is beyond me.

    • moakley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      15 hours 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.

  • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    19 hours ago

    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.

    • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      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.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      19 hours ago

      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.

          • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            18 hours ago

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

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              17 hours ago

              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.

              • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                17 hours ago

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

                4 real progressives voted yes.

                • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  13
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  17 hours ago

                  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.

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 hours 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.”

    • ghen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      10 hours ago

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

  • Angelusz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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.

  • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    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

  • HocEnimVeni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    17 hours ago

    My money says she opposed the amendment because it would be unpopular in her constituency if she didn’t.