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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
AOC is voting to send weapons to a genocide here. You deem that optically worse than voting for an amendement against it because the person who filed the amendement is antisemitic?
She's already getting called out by a human rights lawyer for complicity in genocide. Way to go. https://x.com/CraigMokhiber/status/1946593970148249744
Ahh now that it fits the division you seek you're all about human rights lawyers but once they talk about subjects hexbear doesn't like it's all color revolution and slander?
I disagree but again that's politics. I think it's easy to throw shit from the audience but when it comes to navigating these things it's far more than just ideals and instead of progress we drag any sense of it through the mud because it's imperfect.
Y'all had a different tune to play when Ukraine was unfolding
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
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.
I don't have all the info she does. I do abhor the war on Gaza and am against violence, especially the genocidal kind we see here. I also don't think there's an easy solution to the problem, nor that MTG's proposal would have done anything good.
Let's just say we're mostly on the same side of this matter, nitpicking over details.
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.
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?
This is intentionally misleading, and it's framed in such a way as to make AOC look bad regardless of how she voted.
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.
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!
The propaganda spin from tankies will make it seem like she's in favor of genocide regardless of what she did in this instance; she certainly didn't have to power to introduce and amendment that would have stripped ALL Israel funding from the bill, so no matter what she does, it's going to be 'wrong' to tankies.
$10 says that saying this gets me muted and/or banned from .ml.
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?
...And so it's not enough that she voted against the appropriations bill that would have entirely funded the Israel war machine, she also needed to vote for the amendment to the bill that would have cut 'offensive weapons' in a bill that she was going to vote against...? source for the bill, source for vote record
JustEnoughDucks
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •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 doesn't like this.
geneva_convenience
in reply to JustEnoughDucks • • •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.
thanks AV
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •So basically it was free real estate
Is this the confirmation that AOC is compromised?
geneva_convenience
in reply to thanks AV • • •Yes this is a very strong admission from AOC that she has not changed her stance and is still lockstep on genocide with the establishment when needed.
This is probably the best take on it xcancel.com/zei_squirrel/statu…
Zaktor
in reply to JustEnoughDucks • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to Zaktor • • •Zaktor
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to Zaktor • • •Zaktor
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to Zaktor • • •Zaktor
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •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.
geneva_convenience
in reply to Zaktor • • •Lussy [any, hy/hym]
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to Lussy [any, hy/hym] • • •Lussy [any, hy/hym]
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to Lussy [any, hy/hym] • • •Lussy [any, hy/hym]
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to Lussy [any, hy/hym] • • •HocEnimVeni
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to HocEnimVeni • • •Doom
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to Doom • • •Doom
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •I'm just saying this whole argument of progressives and Dems and RINOs and stupid shit is part of why there is no actual progress.
A) their job is to represent their voters. Not enforce their own opinions
B) progressives consume each other like crabs in a bucket while terrible politicians don't care and move ahead
geneva_convenience
in reply to Doom • • •Doom
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to Doom • • •Doom
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •Politicians actions aren't.
https://x.com/AOC/status/1946588421197046084
geneva_convenience
in reply to Doom • • •Doom
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •Ahh now that it fits the division you seek you're all about human rights lawyers but once they talk about subjects hexbear doesn't like it's all color revolution and slander?
I disagree but again that's politics. I think it's easy to throw shit from the audience but when it comes to navigating these things it's far more than just ideals and instead of progress we drag any sense of it through the mud because it's imperfect.
Y'all had a different tune to play when Ukraine was unfolding
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
geneva_convenience
in reply to Doom • • •"I am wrong but you are .ml".
Great argument. You get to support genocide now.
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
geneva_convenience
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •Update: AOC clarifies she supports genocide and it is not about MTG
lemmy.ml/post/33383345?scrollT…
geneva_convenience
2025-07-19 16:11:28
ghen
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to ghen • • •NauticalNoodle
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to NauticalNoodle • • •NauticalNoodle
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to NauticalNoodle • • •NauticalNoodle
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to NauticalNoodle • • •Angelusz
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •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.
geneva_convenience
in reply to Angelusz • • •AOC clarified she supports sending weapons to Israel and this was not a mistake. lemmy.ml/post/33383345
geneva_convenience
2025-07-19 16:11:28
Angelusz
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •Uh-huh. i.redd.it/i2u9r76ylvdf1.jpeg
I don't have all the info she does. I do abhor the war on Gaza and am against violence, especially the genocidal kind we see here. I also don't think there's an easy solution to the problem, nor that MTG's proposal would have done anything good.
Let's just say we're mostly on the same side of this matter, nitpicking over details.
geneva_convenience
in reply to Angelusz • • •Not sending weapons to Israel would not have done any good? What?
fodor
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to fodor • • •apotheotic (she/her)
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience doesn't like this.
geneva_convenience
in reply to apotheotic (she/her) • • •caitlinjohnst.one/p/aoc-is-a-g…
AOC Is A Genocidal Con Artist
Caitlin Johnstone (Caitlin’s Newsletter)apotheotic (she/her)
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to apotheotic (she/her) • • •We all know the establishment is corrupt.
The progressives are the ones supposed to not be voting with the establishment.
Semester3383
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •This is intentionally misleading, and it's framed in such a way as to make AOC look bad regardless of how she voted.
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.
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!
The propaganda spin from tankies will make it seem like she's in favor of genocide regardless of what she did in this instance; she certainly didn't have to power to introduce and amendment that would have stripped ALL Israel funding from the bill, so no matter what she does, it's going to be 'wrong' to tankies.
$10 says that saying this gets me muted and/or banned from .ml.
geneva_convenience
in reply to Semester3383 • • •AOC says she supports sending weapons to Israel. You don't have pretend otherwise.
lemmy.ml/post/33383345
geneva_convenience
2025-07-19 16:11:28
Semester3383
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •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.
geneva_convenience
in reply to Semester3383 • • •Semester3383
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •Roll Call 212 Roll Call 212, Bill Number: H. R. 4016, 119th Congress, 1st Session
Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representativesgeneva_convenience
in reply to Semester3383 • • •