“Everyone who doesn’t want the destruction of Israel = Zionist”
Well, by that definition, sure, he’s a Zionist. On the other hand, if you say that a Zionist is a ham sandwich, he’s not a Zionist. The point is: Words are fun, we can redefine them to make all kinds of great arguments.
I’m pretty sure there was a genuine amendment defunding the Iron Dome that MTG introduced. I could be wrong but I saw that in sources that don’t just make stuff up.
She proposed a big handful of amendments; maybe Iron Dome is in ICP and they just don’t like to publicize it very much, or maybe it was in one of the other amendments.
Yeah. I guess that’s a good way to look at it, is they’re spending so much energy on it because the progressive momentum is steadily building. I just wish their energy would quit translating into success.
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.
Why did a little handful of different accounts all suddenly interject to this same comments section to leave short one-off comments about how AOC is definitely the worst for doing this, all within a few minutes of each other, on this mostly-dead comments section roughly one hour ago? That’s weird.
Okay, sure, that part I agree with. She should have voted “yes” on the doomed amendment and maybe gotten into it more afterwards about how even “defensive” funding for Israel is a terrible thing to do at this point. My point was (a) this is being ginned up into the entirety of her Israel position, overriding a ton of pro-Palestinian things she has been consistently doing that are way bigger deals than this, pretty consistently throughout her career, and I think it’s being done on purpose by people who are trying to hurt the left (who will wind up hurting Palestinians a lot more than helping them through the effort) (b) saying that her and Bernie are weak on Palestine in general is a sign that you’re probably listening to some people who are lying to you on purpose. Those two are among the strongest Palestine supporters in congress, probably second only to people like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.
So yeah if you want to condemn her vote on this, fine. If you want to spin it up into her being pro-genocide or in any way deserving of her office being vandalized or her being singled out as a genocide supporter, you are helping some people who are lying and hurting the Palestinian cause (as well as lot of domestic left issues). That’s my point.
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.
Honestly, I read it as kind of similar to Putin’s “outlandish lying on purpose to show dominance” strategy.
They are to someone’s face telling them that they’re so dumb that they think living wages aren’t as important as being able to buy a new game system and play their stupid games while they shovel burgers into their fat working-class faces. It’s negging as a way of emphasizing that they’ll never be capable or organized enough to play at the big people’s table, so go play your games, loser.
That’s how I read it. Maybe they think the people seeing this poster are dumb enough that they’ll think “You know, he’s right, I do want a new game system.” But I feel like it’s a deliberate insult to remind the underlings of their place. That’s how I read it.
“In the amount of time it takes to vote, you could play three games of pool. Three! Now dat’s fresh.”
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.
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?
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.
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.
Old and busted: Tying burning tufts of wool to the sparrows and cats and letting them loose in the enemy city to set the whole thing on fire
New hotness: Lighting the electric vehicles on fire and letting them drive through the streets on their programming, and cause mayhem
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?
It was a very, very early instance of the horseshit lie that is easy and bite-sized, and sort of reality adjacent, where anyone who’s trying to explain the reality sounds like they’re making some kind of lame excuse and is easy to shout down and dismiss. In retrospect, it should have been an all-hands-on-deck emergency to make sure that strategy didn’t work and take hold.
Someone whose primary purpose is the cred and self-aggrandization, and not the political impact
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…
Why are you arguing that the person burning that police car must be “progressive”?
I mean, I’m not real into extended arguments about what words mean what things. The main point I took is that this kind of political vandalism is much more commonly the tactic of right-wing agitators, especially when the target is conveniently one of the highest-profile left people in power in government and the grounds for the attack are so flimsy and nonsensical from a standpoint of actually trying for change for the Palestinian people by someone who cares about Palestinian people.
I agree with that point. If you want to get into extended semantics to distract from that argument into some kind of hair-splitting about particular words, I’m going to take it as you don’t really have any substantive way to disagree with it.
Look at the goalposts go lol
“He’s not a REAL supporter of Palestine”
“Why does it not count, all these things he did to materially support Palestine, from inside the US government where it can actually make a real material difference in a way that almost no one else on earth is able to do when they care about Palestine?”
“Because he doesn’t want to see Israel destroyed. That means it doesn’t count.”
Fuck outta here