492
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 May 2026
492 points (99.2% liked)
politics
29728 readers
3048 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
MTG is no longer in congress, so there is no reaching across the aisle to sign legislation. She quit literally the day her pension became vested.
MTG was in congress when she drafted a bill to reduce military aid to Israel, and AOC voted against it.
So I take then you know that was the only issue the bill addressed, with no riders, so you're certain it should have passed. The MTG bill definitely didn't fund any wacko conservative garbage, right?
Well, no. Pretty much the only bills that get passed in modern era Congress are omnibus budget bills. MTG’s Israeli funding reduction was a specific amendment to one such bill, which AOC chose to vote against.
I’m sure the rest of what got passed had all sorts of whacko conservative garbage within, because they control the entire federal government at this time. This is likely partially why AOC voted against the actual bill as well.
That said, if you consider Israeli control of the US government an existential threat, which I do, then that makes it even more important to find opportunities to work with the conservatives in power to curtail Israel’s influence, which MTG’s amendment would have done.
AOC could have had her cake and eaten it too, by voting to pass the amendment to remove some funding to Israel, and then casting a performative nay vote for the overall budget bill.
So yeah, I’m disappointed that she chose partisan politics above achieving an impactful, measurable result. But that’s liberals for you. The only reason I care is because I hold AOC to a higher standard than most of them, because she is by far the closest to representing my own values in terms of her actual voting record and what she claims to believe in.
To other users reading this: This user tends to argue in bad faith and I'd advise tagging them accordingly, but I'll just clarify for the record:
AOC voted against that bill because it actually enabled offensive bombs to continue while gutting defensive Iron Dome measures. AOC has long been a proponent of defensive measures that protect civilian life, independent of national flags. However, given the latest number of loopholes that Israel has used, AOC has as of April 1st adjusted her position to refuse ALL military aid to Israel.
Cash is fungible. Israel doesn’t care what it’s earmarked for, giving them money further enables the genocide. The important thing is that the US attempt to apply leverage by reducing what we give them.
My positions on Israeli genocide and the shameful involvement of the US, due to our government being captured wholly by Israel, have been consistent throughout.
It’s funny you make this claim however. The bad faith argument was from AOC claiming that she had to vote no because of offensive weaponry, when in fact she did so because her esteemed colleagues told her to heel. After the vote, she changes her position. Interesting.
Speculative.
Perhaps. But just to put a fine point on this matter - I am glad that AOC came around to the correct position on whether we should continue funding the terrorist nation state of Israel, in that we absolutely should not. They are literally using this money to buy off our politicians so that they don’t work for us, instead they work for Israel. It’s wrong in every possible way.
I sincerely hope this is how AOC will vote regarding bankrolling Israel in the future, regardless of whether the authors of said bills have an R next to their name, or whether she perceives them to be a hypothetical future opponent in a presidential race.