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

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

            …And you expect me to believe that M-L wouldn’t still be saying that she voted for an amendment to continue funding the Israeli military? That’s simply not believable when she already voted against the whole bill.

      • appropriateghost@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 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.