henchmannumber3 @ henchmannumber3 @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 27Joined 4 wk. ago
What is being discussed here is that she voted for military aid by voting against MTG's amendment that would have blocked $500M of military aid.
False. She voted against an amendment by MTG that had no chance of passing and voting for or against it was not voting for military aid for Israel. It was a waste of time and a political stunt by a racist conspiracy theorist. The aid was provided by the bill already. Voting against the bill is how you vote against the aid to Israel. And that's what she did. Discussing the amendment that had no chance of passing is like blaming someone for what they did in a dream you had about them.
It's a literal fact. She voted nay on the bill. You've literally posted screenshots of her post citing the voting record. You keep pretending that everything you reference and link to says something different than it actually says.
You did. Are you not tracking the thread?
Something something accusation is a confession.
Your entire position is based on bad faith. You claim things your own sources contradict. You claim things not in evidence. You literally quoted AOC and claimed she said the opposite of what she said.
Except you literally posted a statement that she doesn't support genocide. You're contradicting your own narrative.
Comparing AOC to Kamala is a nice touch. That lack of nuance will definitely push the electorate to the left in the primaries.
The statement you cited literally contradicts your claims. You said she funded genocide. The statement from the DSA literally said: "...the Congresswoman voted against the defense appropriations bill itself, voting against funding for the imperialist military-industrial complex and the Israeli genocide..."
You're misusing the term straw man. A straw man is when you're arguing against something someone else has not asserted, pretending that it's actually what they said. You have actually said she has voted to fund genocide when she actually voted against said funding and spoken out directly against genocide. You have intentionally chosen to ignore her actual actions and her words that contradict the narrative you're pushing. You are pushing a straw man, ironically enough.
Yes, the political stunt of an amendment that had no chance of passing, the one proposed by MTG of all people. Voting for or against an amendment to a bill that you also vote against is irrelevant. The bill provides funding to Israel. She voted against the bill. She voted against the funding.
I did. You apparently didn't.
"I remain focused on cutting the flow of munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza."
What part of that says "I support genocide" to you? What part of that says "I support funding genocide" to you?
You must intentionally ignore her actual words to believe she intends something else.
No, people criticizing her over the amendment and falsely claiming she voted for funding Israel's genocide are making a bad faith argument. Voting for or against the amendment was meaningless. It was never going to pass. It was introduced by MTG as a stunt. Not going along with a stunt by a crazy racist conspiracy theorist is nowhere near the same as supporting genocide or funding it.
The bill is what matters. Ignoring the greater context is acting in bad faith. Ignoring the effective result is acting in bad faith. And pounding this issue only helps get people to not vote for the more left-leaning candidates. It's a really weird fight for anyone claiming to be a progressive.
Again, that's the amendment, not the bill. The bill funded Israel. AOC voted against the bill. AOC voted against funding Israel.
The vote in question was for an amendment and was a meaningless one that was never going to pass and get added to the bill.
The vote she showed is the bill that actually funded Israel and she voted against it. You are disingenuously claiming that a meaningless vote on a doomed amendment for a bill she wasn't going to vote in favor of is the same thing as voting in favor of the bill.
She disagreed with other people about ingredients for a meal she refuses to eat and you're pretending the ingredients argument disagreement was the same as eating the meal.
It was an amendment that was never going to pass, not a bill. It's important to know and recognize the difference. An amendment is useless if it doesn't get added to the bill and voting for or against an amendment is different than voting for or against the bill.
It's like arguing over what goes in a shopping cart at a store where you're not going to buy anything anyway.