this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025

116 points (83.7% liked)

United States | News & Politics

8285 readers

457 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

pangyuehung@lemmy.ml

yogthos@lemmy.ml

116

AOC voted against MTG’s amendment to strip Israel funding from the Defense Appropriations Act of 2026 (lemmy.ml)

submitted 4 days ago by geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml

99 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I can't believe I'm agreeing with something MTG put forth.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The thing about setting fires to burn things down is that you often cant control what happens after the fire is lit.

[–] turdburglar@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 days ago

even a stupid clock is broken twice a day,

[–] AlHouthi4President@lemmy.ml 27 points 3 days ago

600+ days into livestreamed extermination and mass starvation in Gaza and these wretched people say they care.

[–] HumanPrimate@sh.itjust.works 58 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point

[–] moakley@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago

Ugh.

Listen to Marjorie Taylor Greene talk, and she's easily the worst of the worst. But sometimes she does something like this or speaks out against Trump, and in that respect she may actually be one of the better Republicans, which is an extremely, extremely low bar to clear.

[–] nullpotential@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Magic The Gathering?

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago

Marjorie taylor greene

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

Every time I read it as that.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 33 points 4 days ago (14 children)

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@lemmy.ml 33 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Auntievenim@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So basically it was free real estate

Is this the confirmation that AOC is compromised?

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 13 points 3 days ago

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 https://xcancel.com/zei_squirrel/status/1946356344765968642

load more comments (13 replies)

[+] Semester3383@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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 1 points 3 hours 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.

[–] appropriateghost@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 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.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] crankyrebel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

AOC is career politician (insert add for term limits here) and as such she is tries to walk the middle line, carefully selecting her words and never goes far enough on her stance on certain issues that might get her in trouble, like her meandering support about Gaza and Israel. She is not the progressive darling we need, just the best the DNC has, and at times, that isn't saying much. We need a viable working class, progressive party that isn't afraid to fight.

She is an outspoken surrogate for President Biden, a figure many fellow socialists have condemned as a warmonger. She has also carefully calibrated her messaging around the war in Gaza, declining to take some positions that have inflamed Jewish Americans.

Ocasio-Cortez Loses the Democratic Socialists’ Endorsement Over Israel

load more comments