137
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/33487836

By MEE staff
Published date: 21 July 2025 21:11 BST

The New York lawmaker voted against an amendment by Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene last week that sought to block $500m in Congress' annual defence spending bill for Israel's Iron Dome programme.

Fellow Democrats Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar [as well as Democrats Al Green of Texas, Summer Lee of Pennsylvania and Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky - PL] had supported Taylor Greene's amendment, which eventually lost in a 422-6 vote.

In a post on X on Saturday, Ocasio-Cortez claimed that Greene's amendment did "nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 65 points 2 days ago

Big swing and a miss for AOC there.

[-] [email protected] 36 points 2 days ago

AOC doesn't miss. You're not listening to her or paying attention to the details/fine print. You can fuckin bet she is

[-] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago

She handled this terribly. She has a coherent position, not a great one but one I could accept, but the crash out has been disheartening

[-] [email protected] 21 points 2 days ago

You just posted evidence that you respond to clickbait headlines without knowing what the article says or is even about. Hallmark of a conservative voter

[-] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago
[-] [email protected] 26 points 2 days ago

AOC’s defense of her vote is a swing and a miss because it rests on a false distinction. She claims the amendment only cuts funding for the Iron Dome (a "defensive" system) and not for the bombs killing Palestinians, but that’s misleading.

The Iron Dome isn’t neutral; it enables Israel to continue bombing Gaza with impunity by shielding it from retaliation. It’s part of the war apparatus, not separate from it.

By opposing this amendment, AOC helped maintain the full structure of US military aid that underwrites the genocide she says she opposes. Her rationale sounds nuanced, but in practice, it protects the status quo.

And while she says she's focused on cutting offensive munitions, the reality is that the US is sending Israel billions in lethal aid right now, and this amendment was a chance to actually stop some of it. Voting against it doesn’t show strategy; it shows inconsistency and a failure to act when it counts. If you’re serious about ending genocide, like she keeps insisting she is, you take every shot you can. This was one, and she missed it.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

The iron dome protects innocents. Thats why its important. Offensive capabilities need to be cut.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

It protects the genocidal state of Israel from retaliation. If you want to protect innocents, fund an iron dome for Gaza instead of 2,000lbs bombs to drop on tents.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

That's generally true, but her handling is the real problem.

It's not a great position, but the real problem is she's crashing out over genuine criticism

[-] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

Because knowing that a response to your aggression is harmless lets you get away with being aggressive. So funding their defense system allows Israel to attack countries in the region, killing people without any due process.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)
[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

? I googled and checked urban dictionary but it didn't help.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It’s a variation of the fairly well known “read the fucking manual” (RTFM) only in this case it’s referring to the article, not the manual. Also, there was a typo

[-] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago

Read Fucking The Article.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Ah, not much I can do if they flub the acronym then. Thanks for the clarification.

this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
137 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24887 readers
2784 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS