The footage will be lost before it can show any duty cop.

Um, they rarely support Palestine but they’d love to vandalize the office of someone who does…. The premise of my comment was that this vandalism was made to look like leftists had done it when it was actually an off-duty cop or some other right wing agitator

That was literally their point.

The best explanation I heard was that any funding at all, even if it's for a "defensive" weapon, is still funding that makes doing their genocide easier.

Another good take I heard is something along the lines of "they have healthcare and we don't, they can fund their fucking iron dome themselves".

I'm tired of giving them fucking ANYTHING. They routinely brutalize a people they keep stateless. It would be bad enough not putting diplomatic pressure on them to try to stop let alone give them billions of our tax dollars every year.

If it's purely defensive weapon then why don't they sell them to Russia, Iran or North Korea?

I mean... it really doesn't take much to get people on the left to turn on each other. It's kind of a historic problem with leftist ideological groups in general - they're awfully quick to declare each other the wrong type of leftist, or not leftist enough, and then refuse to cooperate.

There certainly are outside provocateurs, but I wouldn't leap to that conclusion in every occasion. Hanlon's razor applies.

Spot on. It would have played out the same way no matter what she did.

Meanwhile Republicans figured out decades ago that alienating your own party (even the "radicals") doesn't get you elected, and simply protesting the chosen candidate by just not voting doesn't actually help you achieve your goals. It's a hard pill for establishment Democrats and leftists to swallow, but it's truth.

Republicans weren't doing Nazi salutes on stage at presidential inaugurations until recently, but they have been pandering to the far right for a very long time. They've gradually moved further and further right, while the left has been ignoring their own base in order to welcome aboard the fiscal conservatives (and their donations) slowly jumping ship.

Paul Weyrich created the new right movement. He voted Republican for his entire life, but he also seemed to really hate the establishment Republican party. He was quite vocal about it, and as every election year approached, he would start shit talking Republicans for not focusing enough on conservative social issues.

Before Weyrich and the creation of a moral majority, "fiscal conservatives/Rockefeller Republicans," who didn't really care about social issues were the backbone of the Republican party. Abortion was mainly just an issue conservative Catholics and nobody else cared about. Once Weyrich created his movement though, he used public pressure to change the party little by little. It took his whole life, and he didn't actually live to see the absolute batshit fruits of his labor, but without Paul Weyrich, there would be no Donald Trump and no Project 2025.

There would also be way fewer rich conservatives who have pressured the democratic party to embrace a move towards moderate centrism.

1983:Righting Reagan's Revolution

The 1980 presidential election rewarded incompetence, and that incompetence moved right into the White House. If you have to find out who makes the decisions over there, you will go insane. I challenge you to go to the White House and find out. You'll be in St. Elizabeths in short order, and I'll come visit you."

He thinks Reagan has ignored issues most important to Weyrich: school prayer, an end to abortion, pornography, government "hand-outs"--issues that appeal to what he calls "cultural" conservatives, grass-rooters most concerned about family, God and country. That concern includes free enterprise, a balanced budget and a pre-eminent weapons system for America

1998: Religious Right, Frustrated, Trying New Tactic on G.O.P.

Early in March, Paul Weyrich, the godfather of social conservatives, summoned about 25 prominent leaders from the religious and political right for a secret meeting in his office here overlooking the rail yards behind Union Station.

They fumed that they had been used and abused, like some cheap date. In one election after another, they said, conservative foot soldiers had dutifully worked the phone banks, walked the precincts and turned out masses of voters for Republican candidates who had promised action on issues like abortion, pornography and homosexuality. And the Republicans, they complained, had consistently failed to deliver.

2000: Hard Right Burning for Bush?

Perhaps it was because he was recovering from painful back surgery, but a few weeks before the Republican convention, Paul Weyrich, a founder of the religious right, was awful grumpy about George

He did this kind of shit nonstop until he eventually shaped the right into what it is today. If you didn't know who he was, and you just heard the way he described his frustration towards the Republican party when he first got involved in politics back in the 70s, you might just as easily think you were listening to a leftist complain about Democrat centrists in 2025.

Weyrich hailed as conservative pioneer

“In the early ‘70s, when most conservatives were reduced to wringing their hands and resigning themselves to life in the political wilderness, Paul just seemed to know what was needed to break the liberal stranglehold,” recalled Feulner.

Paul Weyrich: Father of a New Right

Weyrich waved aloft a monograph from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a right-of-center think tank. The study carefully examined both sides of a controversial issue—the federal funding of a supersonic transport plane (the SST). The Senate had just voted 51-46 to halt government support of the SST, which some conservative hawks favored to maintain U.S. technological superiority over the Soviets. The AEI report arrived in Allott’s office after the Senate debate.

A puzzled Weyrich contacted William Baroody, Sr., AEI president and a member of his church. “Great study,” he said. “But why didn’t we get it sooner so we could use it in the debate?” Baroody explained: “We didn’t want to try to affect the outcome of the vote.” Unspoken was the admission that AEI didn’t want to be too “political” and jeopardize its tax-exempt status. For one of the few times in his life, Weyrich was speechless.

This is a bad faith interpretation of why leftists are upset. No one is saying the bill was enough. However, it would have had the effect of blocking Israel's defense aid, and in this desperate moment where Israel is being allowed to starve a whole people to death with no repercussions, it was something we could have done to mitigate their freedom to continue to do so. In her statement, AOC didn't just mention the offensive-vs.-defensive aid thing--she also brought up protecting innocent civilians, implying that not providing the defensive aid would result in innocent Isrealis dying. In the context of innocent Palestinians being a day or two from mass death, that is a fucking cop-out.

See, that's how the propaganda works. She voted against the MTG amendment that stripped a tiny tiny fraction of the funding from Israel. Which was always going to fail, pretty much unanimously, because MTG. And then, when the whole bill (with whole funding for Israel) came to the floor, she voted against it. And also, separate bills which are just for funding Israel in the past

But it's been consistently presented to you with wording that makes it sound like she had a chance to strip all funding from Israel, and she decided not to. Search "horseshit" in this comments section, it's a little complicated, but basically, no she literally didn't vote against what you described.