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?
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.
All she had to do was what Al Green (D), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R), Summer Lee (D), Thomas Massie (R), Ilhan Omar (D), and, Rashida Tlaib (D) did: Vote yes on the amendment and no on the bill.
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.
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?
Removed by mod
Agreed.
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?
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’.
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.
All she had to do was what Al Green (D), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R), Summer Lee (D), Thomas Massie (R), Ilhan Omar (D), and, Rashida Tlaib (D) did: Vote yes on the amendment and no on the bill.
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.
this is a ridiculous lie or terrible reading comprehension
She is not your friend nor a revolutionary. Socdems are always like this.
AOC says she supports sending weapons to Israel. You don’t have pretend otherwise.
https://lemmy.ml/post/33383345
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.
Here
Removed by mod