henchmannumber3

Except if you know the amendment will fail and you know the amendment is a stunt by a racist conspiracy theorist, you can't be expected to take it seriously.

But again, what's the endgame for this criticism? She resigns and someone more centrist or corporate or right leaning takes her place? She feels bad and remembers next time to virtue signal meaningless gestures instead of attempting to achieve plausible goals?

So you acknowledge it didn't have a chance of passing and was thus of completely null value, except as far as you get to use it to attack someone for not virtue signalling your preferred message. And it's really super important to drag her because doing so will magically help more leftists come to power in the US and topple the authoritarian regime...? What's your end game on this strategy? You'll die on a useless hill from a MAGA boot on your face and your last satisfied utterance will be, "at least we told AOC off that one time," is that it? Do you think this witch hunt will have any useful results?

AOC still voted against blocking military aid to Israel.

No, she didn't. Any number times zero is zero. She could have voted for an amendment to kick puppies and then voted against the bill and thus ultimately voted against kicking puppies. You don't seem to understand how bills and amendments work.

What result do you want to happen here?

At issue here is the first vote only.

The first vote was meaningless. It was a political stunt amendment by a racist conspiracy theorist. And a single vote for or against the amendment has no chance of affecting whether Israel got funds for more genocide.

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.

It's really weird that you're able to see this inevitability, yet you're not able to also see the inevitable failure of the amendment MTG put forth. This is exactly why all this foaming at the mouth over a doomed amendment vote is so misdirected! It had no practical, functional, or realistic bearing on anything in reality other than for MTG to tell her conspiracy theorist followers that she opposes Jewish people getting more space lasers or however she wants to spin it.

That being the case, why did she vote against removing military aid to Israel?

She explained her reasoning. Why are you asking what she intended when she already explained why? I don't agree with the reasoning, but it was still a meaningless act.

You're complaining she put expired ingredients in a meal that she threw out and never served anyone. Meanwhile Trump is dodging Epstein list revelations, ICE is brutalizing and human trafficking (and genociding) immigrants, but at least we have someone to attack and feel morally superior to who literally didn't fund Israel as was falsely claimed.

I think the claim that she funded or supports funding genocide by Israel is contradicted by the very public and verifiable voting record on the funding bill that continued funding Israel to which she voted nay. The entire premise of the attack is that she did something she didn't actually do.

Yes, I'm aware what they were quoting. It doesn't hold any meaning. It was a non sequitur.

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?

That AOC didn't vote for funding genocide, a fact you continue to ignore.

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.