The bill removed “offensive” weapons, but left in “defensive” weapons. The distinction is meaningless; defensive weapon systems allow Israel to continue to prosecute it’s genocide without other countries (notably Iran) being able to act against them, so it still enables genocide.
Agreed.
If she votes against the bill: AOC opposes cutting military aid to Israel!
If she votes for the bill: AOC voted to keep sending weapons to Israel!
No. There were two distinct votes at play here.
The first vote, for which she voted nay, was to amend the bill, removing the sending of weapons to Israel.
The last vote, for which she voted nay, was to pass the bill itself.
At issue here is the first vote only.
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. That being the case, why did she vote against removing military aid to Israel?
we’re at a point where sadly even when you carefully explain it, with step by step instructions on why her vote was problematic, like you did right here, they either still act lost or still find ways to defend her vote.
Agreed.
No. There were two distinct votes at play here.
The first vote, for which she voted nay, was to amend the bill, removing the sending of weapons to Israel.
The last vote, for which she voted nay, was to pass the bill itself.
At issue here is the first vote only.
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. That being the case, why did she vote against removing military aid to Israel?
we’re at a point where sadly even when you carefully explain it, with step by step instructions on why her vote was problematic, like you did right here, they either still act lost or still find ways to defend her vote.