• moakley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 days 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.

  • crankyrebel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days 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

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      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?

      • Semester3383@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

      • appropriateghost@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days 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.

      • Semester3383@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 days 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
      11
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      4 days 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.

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • ghen@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          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.

          • njm1314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            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.

            • ghen@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

              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.

              • njm1314@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 days ago

                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.

                • ghen@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  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.

              • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 days ago

                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.

          • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            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?

              • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                3 days 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.

  • fodor@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    3 days 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.

        • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          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.

          • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            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?

            • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              We all know the establishment is corrupt.

              The progressives are the ones supposed to not be voting with the establishment.

  • Angelusz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    4 days 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
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days 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
    14
    ·
    4 days ago

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