this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2025
121 points (83.4% liked)

United States | News & Politics

8330 readers
245 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] limer@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 week ago (3 children)

There were over 500 other politicians who endorsed this; but I think she built her brand among those who feel particularly betrayed. And there is also a dose of misogamy, here and there.

But why do people feel so betrayed after older votes and actions should have triggered this much earlier? And will most of this go away soon?

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 week ago

She became a strikebreaker three years ago. Kshama Sawant: Rail Workers Betrayed By Biden & The “Squad”

AOC justified her vote by claiming she was fighting “tooth and nail” for the additional sick days. Jamaal Bowman claimed he was “always fighting in solidarity with the workers.” But what the Congressional “Progressive” Caucus pulled was a con job, and a hamfisted one at that. They colluded with Pelosi to separate out the vote into two, promising their roughly 100 votes on the rotten TA in exchange for a separate vote on the sick day amendment, which they knew full well would get crushed in the Senate. It took only one day to confirm the brutal reality: that the majority of the “Squad,” in coordination with the leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, sold rail workers down the river while blowing smoke about paid sick days.

On November 30, Democratic Socialists of America’s (DSA) national center posted a statement of support for the rail workers which included this sentence:

“Any member of Congress who votes yes on the tentative agreement is siding with billionaires and forcing a contract on rail workers that does not address their most pressing demand of paid sick days.”

What then of their own members and endorsed elected officials in Congress who voted yes? What this statement implies, and what the actions of the “Squad” definitively prove, is that these elected officials are, and see themselves as, part of the capitalist state, the state that acts for the billionaires and against the interests of the majority, the working class.

A socialist cannot be a strike breaker. This needs to be the end of any pretense by DSA that the “Squad” is socialist, and should result in their expulsion from the organization. Failing that, the Squad’s betrayal of the working class becomes DSA’s betrayal.

[–] Stillwater@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

We have very few progressive voices in the government, it sucks to have them betray principles we thought they had

[–] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They are politicians and they all get elected based on lies to their base.

AOC didn't even grow up in Bronx and campaigned hard on her being a girl from Bronx. If she was willing to lie about where she grew up, why wouldn't she spout bullshit to appeal to her constituents?

[–] Stillwater@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 week ago

AOC calls herself a Bronx girl but also as far as i can tell, always admitted that while being born in the Bronx she moved to a nearby town as a child and went back and forth regularly to see family there. I'm not from NY so maybe I'm not the one to ask, but it doesn't seem that wild that she considers the Bronx part of her personality.

I'd rather be mad at her for substantive things like this vote.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 8 points 1 week ago

Well born in the Bronx. It's not technically a lie, but it's misleading. Cozying up with Mama Bear Pelosi says it all, though.

[–] limer@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Wait we have at least one ? A real one?? Where??!

[–] doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

"progressive" doesn't mean "leftist". Sometimes they agree on policy, but the progressive is just a brand of liberal. I mean, we're talking about a term embraced by Teddy Roosevelt and prohibitionists

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 4 points 1 week ago

Hatred of marriage?

[–] doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago

I forget where I heard this analogy, but it's like giving a bulletproof vest to someone on their way to shoot up a school.

[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago

AOC: Always Offing Civilians

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That post was nine days ago… coincidence?

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Incivility? I've never seen that from this user. Nor whining and complaining in lieu of self-validation or self-reflection. In fact, the time we got into a conversation about pogroms, I found them extremely respectful and informative, as well as in good faith.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 14 points 1 week ago

The hypocrisy of that instance is stunning.

[–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I can't believe how much much she sucks on the issue of Gazan genocide. Total disappointment

[–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How did AOC end up on pro israel side? AIpac got her too?

[–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"Israel has a right to defend itself"

[–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

that's the party narrative, comrade

[–] DreamAccountant@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Anytime you send weapons to theocracies, people die. Religions are never happy with what they have, because a fictional god gave them the entire world. So they fight, kill, and die for their fictional gods.

NEVER send weapons to theocracies.

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The problem with Israel isn't Judaism. Israel doesn't even follow the Halakha. Israel is a racist settler colony most similar to Apartheid South Africa. Without religion you still have politicians in New Zealand attempting to pass racist laws.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Iran is a theocracy, and I’d send them nukes if I had any.

Religion is less of a factor in state geopolitical decision-making than you think.
It’s just one facet of the superstructure among many.

[–] Sandouq_Dyatha@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

many fail to see that even the crusades were never about christianity or the church, they were always about plundering resources.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

This might destroy you from the inside but Israel is an Atheist state. The only Judaism they believe in is being racially descended from Jews.

https://vridar.org/2017/05/26/we-do-not-believe-in-god-but-he-nonetheless-promised-us-palestine/

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

we send tons of weapons to isreal and they're a theocracy.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

AOC is trying to whip up funds for when she runs next election. I'm not too thrilled that she voted against cutting funds for Israel weapons. What was she thinking. So dumb, and felt like a betrayal. And in the time since as many of her allies urged her to own up to what she did to get her support back, she chose not to. So something is keeping her quiet. Usually in the US politics thats money. I'd be curious if anyone else has other theories. I really liked her as a presidential candidate, before this.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (4 children)

She voted against reduced funding for weapons for Israel because she would have been voting FOR funds for weapons for Israel. If she had the option to eliminate funding of weapons for Israel completely she would have supported that.

Years from now people could look back and say "AOC in 2025 voted to supply Israel with XXX million dollars of weapons while they were in the middle of destroying Gaza, and attacking Syria and Iran."

Would you really vote to supply weapons to Israel at this point in time?

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (9 children)

She voted against reduced funding for weapons for Israel because she would have been voting FOR funds for weapons for Israel.

Thats not what I read about what she claimed were her motivations. She said she voted against it because she was in favor of giving them defensive weapons, but not offensive ones. As if the money to buy weapons wasnt easily moved from one to the other. Weapons are weapons.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

AOC's own statement expressed that she opposed eliminating funding of weapons to Israel.

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

the amendment is a separate vote from the main bill, she could have voted yes on the amendment and no on the bill. Imagine the allies sending ”defensive” weapons to WWII germany.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I see everyone's point but without the bill there is no military financing and no defensive weapons. The fact that it's MTGs amendment surely played a part in her decision.

Americans democrats act toward democratic politicians like a domestic abuse victims acts toward his abuser.

Yes i know your ex is worse. Yes i know we don't know them like you do. I'm sure they cried after they gave you your third black eyes this month.

load more comments
view more: next ›