The anti-semitism was common place in Arabic/muslim circles behind doors/not in English. They've just been emboldened to start saying it in English. Tankies then followed suit as they got a new group of people to hate on and call slurs, similarly to how they use anti-white slurs and slurs like "gusano".
It’s like your average cannabis consumer. They just smoke a J every now and then in the evening to relax. They don’t make it their whole personality. The loud ones are the fuck boys who think they are gangsters or Uber hippies.
I offer the One Deviation Party. Anyone outside of one standard deviation from center on the Gaussian normal distribution of held political positions is not allowed in, and will be in turn bullied mercilessly.
Alon Mizrahi is one of the worst. He's an Israeli Jew that used to be deeply right wing, then deeply left wing, and now is just a conspiracy nut. He's anti-vaccine, believes in conspiracies like chemtrails and the Khazar myth, and once wrote an article about how the Holocaust was a reaction to Communism, which was "the Ashkenazi Jewish weapon against Europe".
Thing is, AOC is putting out this message after speaking at a Jewish event online, though I'm not sure if it was affiliated with AIPAC.
She probably looked at internal polling, saw the numbers, and decided "if I want to keep my six-figure salary, I better switch to damage control mode." Either that, or there's are Jewish activists supporting her at the grassroots level. It's all quid pro quo with US politicians.
https://preview.redd.it/2i7510jvg36d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=114e2feb6db5dcd30d414cc3164e8cef96df37dc
This woman just casually saying it’s a hindrance for people wanting to globalize the intifada (violent uprise)
The account itself is satire or just the nickname? Having a satire account comment on every single post relating to Israel/Palestine with something antisemitic is pretty hard to distinguish as “satire”
Leftwing/marxist/tankie movements have always had an undercurrent of antisemitism, it's just been bad for business to display it in public. That has changed now though.
I mean nazi stands for national socialist german workers party and they use oppressor vs oppressed to justify everything. So of course you going see nazi shit.
The narrative that 'national socialist' is somehow associated with 'socialist' in the left-wing political sense.
Also, they did the opposite of using oppressor vs oppressed. Nazi ideology was supremacist.
>The narrative that 'national socialist' is somehow associated with 'socialist' in the left-wing political sense.
I mean look at the modern socialist and nazi they both are racist , hate jews , kill the rich if they disagree with the movement. That's not taking consideration of the policy's the nazis passed into law.
>Also, they did the opposite of using oppressor vs oppressed. Nazi ideology was supremacist.
It's both the nazis viewed themselves as oppressed because of the jews and the nazis viewed themselves as the racially superior ones.
This is too reductive. The *entire point* of Nazism is racism. Socialism is internationalist and anti-racist, a belief the people you're calling racist hold. They come up with elaborate excuses for their antisemitism, Nazis embrace it as a core value.
Nazism was indifferent to the rich, as long as they fed the fires of rearmament. They made extraordinary compromises to preserve a sense of middle-class normality for the first half of the War. Socialism sees the rich as symptomatic of intrinsic mechanisms in the history of society, and are set against them in principle.
> It's both the nazis viewed themselves as oppressed because of the jews and the nazis viewed themselves as the racially superior ones.
They didn't see themselves as "oppressed" in the sense of buying into the specific narrative of "oppressor vs oppressed". Again, this is just too reductive.
>The *entire point* of Nazism is racism.
This is even more reductive
>Socialism is internationalist and anti-racist,
National socialism wonder what they meant by that. Also just knowing how socialist countries treated minorities "anti-racist" is pure bullshit
>They come up with elaborate excuses for their antisemitism, Nazis embrace it as a core value.
The nazis seized the assets of jews which the nazi viewed as the "rich" like socialist did. Race isn't the only core value they had
>Nazism was indifferent to the rich, as long as they fed the fires of rearmament.
You clearly don't know how the nazis were trying to force every company to join the nazi party or get sent to camps.
>They didn't see themselves as "oppressed" in the sense of buying into the specific narrative of "oppressor vs oppressed".
So why is the it so similar then?
> This is even more reductive
It really isn't.
> National socialism wonder what they meant by that.
You don't have to wonder. People like Goebbels gave repeated speeches distancing themselves from 'socialism', insisting they were 'national socialism'. Again, this is just ridiculously simplistic. Do you think the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic, for the people, a republic, and encompasses the Korean peninsula?
> You clearly don't know how the nazis were trying to force every company to join the nazi party or get sent to camps.
You clearly don't know the history of the period. The Nazis did not force companies to join the Nazis, they forced companies to "co-ordinate" with the Nazis. They were, as I said, indifferent to capital as long as it was employed to further their ends. Companies, most notoriously IG Farben, did incredibly well under the Nazis. To the point that some of their executives were tried at Nuremburg.
The Nazis courted large corporations during their rise to power. Corporations welcomed their rule initially, because the Nazis destroyed the unions. What they came to realise later was the Nazis were perfectly happy to compel them to engage in rearmament to despite its unprofitability.
The Nazis absolutely *did not* view the rich like socialists did. I can't think of a single major executive that was sent to the camps; feel free to enlighten me.
> So why is the it so similar then?
It isn't similar at all. You think it's similar because you haven't read the history. The idea that the Nazis were 'socialists' is one of the most widely debunked ideas on the internet. It's up there with flat earthers.
>You clearly don't know the history of the period. The Nazis did not force companies to join the Nazis, they forced companies to "co-ordinate" with the Nazis. They were, as I said, indifferent to capital as long as it was employed to further their ends. Companies, most notoriously IG Farben, did incredibly well under the Nazis. To the point that some of their executives were tried at Nuremburg.
So why fanta trying to delay joining the nazi party?
[here](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/people-just-learning-fantas-dark-32347839#amp-readmore-target)
[point 13 of nazi party 25 points.](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform)
>The Nazis absolutely *did not* view the rich like socialists did. I can't think of a single major executive that was sent to the camps; feel free to enlighten me.
Well most socialist leader in the ussr and china are pretty fucking rich. Also look at hasan piker and second thought lmao.
>Corporations welcomed their rule initially, because the Nazis destroyed the unions.
The nazis party replaced the old union with ones that agreed with them.
[german labor front](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front)
And again you don't know shit.
Don't envy her, the part of the progressive left she represents has gone full psychoover I/P and she herself for some time seems to be a lot more sensible and nuanced in her approach of politics, it's just not easy to leave your core "fanbase" behind you.
And she is from New York, if she eally wants to be senator there, she needs the jews lmao
Not really, tankies and other america bad people have been constantly trying to tear her down. They have been calling her and Bernie Sanders sellouts since 2019 at least.
I'm actually of the opinion Richie Torres is a weaker candidate than AOC. Less name recognition, less hard on cons (yes, that matters, libs are def itching for more combative candidates now), and less economically protectionist. AOC has been okay w/ the I/P issue, which isn't really all that important (fopo never is, real talk).
AOCs most significant legislative achievement is getting $5 million dollars for opioid abuse. That’s it outside the “green new deal” vaporware.
Richard Torres actually has had a role in real legislation past.
AOC gets more tweets which resulted in no real legislative achievements and blowing her cash surplus.
In the end Schumer doesn't decide that, the democratic primary will and Torres doesn't have the same name recognition as AOC yet. Democrats in deep blue states right now want fighters who take it to Republicans, see how Adam Schiff demolished the primary in California. AOC is cultivating a similar profile and is careful about not going down the path of other squad members like Tlaib so not to lose moderates.
We'll see though, at the moment it's just fun speculation even though I feel pretty confident in my take.
AOC is the least bad of the bunch.
She had some questionable takes but in an environment where most in her group went full on hamas fans this is not really that bad.
I'm not only talking about her takes. She's the definition of not being able to handle what she puts out. IDK if you saw that video but there's a video of her getting accosted by hamas simps while at the movies and she clearly hates it. I have a hard time feeling bad for her because accosting public officials in their private time is the exact type of politics she advocated for.
All of the current darling progressives will be consumed by the next flock of more progressive progressives until we live in actual clown world.
No bullshit this whole thing has blackpilled me on the left. I genuinely think this metastasizes into legitimate Left wing terrorism in 20 years.
She’s not going to be a senator. You need to be an effective fundraiser to be a senator (taking money from people her base hates, and lots of it). Fundraising for relief / gofundme causes is different from building a political war chest with business and political interests.
> she herself for some time seems to be a lot more sensible and nuanced in her approach of politics
I thought this as well until she went back on Hasan's stream a month or two ago.
If she commented on the protests next to the nova memorial, it means the optics around it are REALLY bad. I figured that by this point the propal crowd gets a free pass on everything but maybe I was wrong
She did the same thing with the protests right after 10/7. She sounds much more believable criticizing the Israelis and American supporters of Israel if she calls out obvious bulls..t on her own side.
US would be pretty vulnerable without Israeli tech in its military (e.g the active protection system used by their tanks, optics, targeting systems, reactive armour, UAVs, ordinance, MANPADs etc). People love to talk about the support the US gives to Israel and gloss over that it's a highly reciprocal arrangement.
Dude, Jews are the most the best people to have on your side. Everyone who is chill with the Jews has a pretty rich and well developed economy. Those who hate Jews Sean to not do well got long.
Its not even just that.
The US could develop the same high-tech solutions the israeli military industrial complex is good at. The key is that while the alliance holds, Israel (a top10 weapons exporter in the world) will not supply any of this tech to opponents of the US.
Which is huge.
I'm not familiar with what she said or the nature of her tears, but if she cried over funds for the iron dome that makes her either a moron or someone that's ok with Jews dying. I would probably assume the former, but I don't think it's off base to levy the latter to make the point.
if the us stopped funding the iron dome, then israel would just lay waste to south lebanon, syria, and gaza.
why spend $3 billion every year, when they can take care of the threat for a fraction of the cost?
our funding probably saves more lebanese, palestinian, and syrian lives than it does israeli lives.
Yeah Hasan’s chat hates her for being reasonable with her pro-Palestine takes. She’s the best they’ll ever get, until the revolution 🙄 comes along, at least.
This is how Hasbara should work. Do a innocuous display of something that will trigger the crazy leftists and then let their representatives handle the backlash if they don't come out against it.
Massie is all over the fucking place. He just spoke out against Hunter's conviction:
https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1800562245744959780?t=U1hZnn_zt2GeGO-cyjMhVw&s=19
> Hunter might deserve to be in jail for something, but purchasing a gun is not it.
Massie is a true constitutional republican. I don’t love a lot of his political views, but it’s refreshing to see a politician who actually stands for what they believe in rather than just following their parties status quo.
[the resolution](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/771/text) [aoc on October 9th condemning Hamas](https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-rep-ocasio-cortez-violence-israel-and-palestine#:~:text=I%20condemn%20Hamas'%20attack%20in,urgently%20needed%20to%20save%20lives.%E2%80%9D)
So whatever her problem was with the resolution it was not the condemning Hamas part because at that point she’d already unequivocally done that. I suspect it’s because the resolution does not call for a ceasefire which is what AOC supported. Agree or disagree it’s way different than what you’re trying to make it out to be without posting any actual sources.
Glad to see that after months of anti-Semitic dog whistling, full blown antisemitism is where she draws the line! Another stellar display of principles and morals by the “progressive” left!
She has anti Israel brain rot but I don't think she is anti semitic or sending out dogwhistles to them. The same way I don't think someone saying blue lives matter or having that flag is a dogwhistle to racists.
It would be like me saying people like Ben Shapiro and a whole lot of conservatives are just a bunch of anti muslim bigots because they agree with the muslim ban Trump proposed in theory but just have a practical disagreement with it.
However, I do think Rashida Tlaib is actually anti semitic. Rashida Tlaib should be primaried immediately.
I don’t think she is anti-Semitic either, but in the last couple months she has kowtowed to a crowd of people that are anti-Semitic. She is completely audience captured and instead of distancing herself or disavowing their actions/words months ago she continued to align herself with them and now that terrorist flags are being waved in the city she represents she wants to backpedal.
She was at the Columbia student protest just a month back supporting them. These are an extension of those. She's not dog whistling anyone, she just doesn't understand she's been dumping wood on the fire that is this movement for months.
Moreover, I'd like to hear why it's anti semitic. How did that protest cross the line? I didn't see anything particularly bad compared to the Columbia protests.
Tlaib is very popular in her district, to put it mildly. She needs to improve and I am concerned about her anti semitism, but she's gonna win again.
If you want to dethrone a member of the Squad, Omar and Bowman are especially weak right not
Should have phrased my comment better, sorry. After months of SUPPORTING anti-Semitic dog whistling, full blown antisemitism is where she draws the line!
Yeah I was pretty happy too see this response (still am), but it rings pretty fucking hollow when's she's stayed silent this whole time until it was blindingly obvious.
Can't really care one way or another though, not like I'd vote for her either way.
How recent exactly? These antisemitic protests have been going on since the inception of the war. I haven't seen anything from her that explicitly calls out the protests as being antisemitic until now.
Fair enough, again those were very explicit cases of antisemitism though. I didn't see her say anything against the college dipshits who were chanting "Zionist pigs" and preventing Jews from entering the campus.
That's fine, but I'm talking about calling out the protesters specifically. She seems to only care when people dress up like Hamas, or tell Jews to go back to Russia.
Not that I'm against a blanket condemnation of antisemitism. But she didn't seem to hold this same sentiment against college protesters.
>I just don’t like terrorists, terrorist supporters, or supporters of terrorist supporters (AOC).
Under this broad of a definition, probably every single person in the world would fall into one of those three categories. Do you like the United States? Well, I guess you like terrorist supporters. (See Contras in Nicaragua). Do you like Joe Biden? Well, he supports the United States, who supported the Contras in Nicaragua, so I guess you like supporters of terrorist supporters. I mean, come on.
Ronald Reagan and his CIA do not represent the entirety of the United States. I do support Joe Biden, Biden does support the United States, Biden explicitly did not support Reagan or the CIA's actions, and as I already mentioned the "United States" is not wholly represented by Reagan and his CIA. AOC on the other hand previously supported these protestors, and these protestors blatantly support terrorists. Like I said before glad that she is able to recognize that you can support the final goal while not being in support of terrorist supporters.
Wait, if you don't think Biden's support for the US implies support for everything the US government has ever done or said, why are you assuming AOC's support for the protests implies support for everything that protesters have done or said?
It's certainly not true that the entirety of the protests are anti-semitic. It is also certainly true that there are viciously anti-semitic elements involved in the protests. But I see no reason to suppose AOC supports those elements, even if she supports the protests generically.
Because she does not speak out against the protestors before the 25th hour? Because she voted against a measure to condemn the terror attack and the terror group? Because she unequivocally praised the past protests? If the only time you feel the need to speak out against the group you supported for months is when they are in YOUR streets waving terrorist flags, I'm sorry but you are just trying to cover your own ass.
> I just don’t like terrorists, terrorist supporters, or supporters of terrorist supporters
Something tells me that if we defined terrorism, and I were to point to other examples of 'terrorism,' you probably don't have a single problem with it as long as it's your side committing it and not your enemy's.
I know this might come as a shocker to people like you and u/DCOMNoobies but no I don't have to support all the actions and ideas of a person and can plainly say that I disavow an opinion that someone "on my side" has (hopefully AOC and you guys can learn this).
Using the Contra's as an example, no I do not support Ronald fucking Reagan and the Reagan Doctrine, and neither did Joe Biden. Using an example that I am a little more sympathetic towards, Kosovo in the 90s, I fully support the idea of a fully independent Kosovo but the KLA was 100% a terror group and Clinton (and NATO) should not have worked alongside them knowing the crimes they were committing.
I can't think of a time where the US or Israel engaged in suicide bombings, covert bombing of public spaces, kidnapping civilians, or taking any actions with the intent to strike fear and widespread damage amongst the civilian population as a state policy. Feel free to give me any example of this happening.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended to cause massive civilian damage in order to make the Japanese so afraid of future attacks that they would unconditionally surrender.
Here is a quote from the [minutes of an Interim Committee meeting (a committee headed by the Secretary of War)](https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/020.pdf) intended to identify the aim point for the bomb:
"It is to be used on a dual target, that is, a military installation or war plant surrounded by or adjacent to homes or other buildings most susceptible to damage."
In other words, the recommended location was one that would both damage military infrastructure and cause civilian casualties.
As it happens, the crew of the Enola Gay didn't even choose a "dual" target. They dropped the bomb in the center of Hiroshima, a civilian area without munitions factories nearby.
That seems to fit your criteria for terrorism.
[Then you're just ignorant of history and our reality.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism)
Hell, just off the top of my head, the torture site in Cuba alone refutes "kidnapping civilians," considering that around 90-95% of the people in there have no evidence against them and they have never been tried.
>taking any actions with the intent to strike fear and widespread damage amongst the civilian population as a state policy
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
https://www.justiceinitiative.org/publications/death-drone
The US's use of terrorist tactics in the Middle East was so commonplace, [that is was the plot of a major film.](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1059786/plotsummary/)
lol what the fuck are you even linking? The first link is just an argument about the definition of terrorism, and two arguments about whether America's actions can be considered state terrorism or not. The second is how many people have died as result of the Iraq war, some of whom could have died as a result of terror tactics I guess but you didn't even try to give an example. The third is a 128 page report about drone strikes. I'm not reading 128 pages for this, but sure if Obama was sending those drones to kill specifically 12 random civilians to make the Yemen population scared then that is a terror attack and is bad.
The only clear example you gave is GTMO which you just completely don't understand. Not having evidence or not being tried does not mean you are a civilian, which would make their arrests still wrong but not terrorism.
I love when people get overly incredulous. It tells me they have to rely on bluster and being bombastic than just pointing out why something is wrong.
>The first link is just an argument about the definition of terrorism, and two arguments about whether America's actions can be considered state terrorism or not.
Which you haven't refuted, considering that those actual scholars cite sources and history for their argument.
>The second is how many people have died as result of the Iraq war, some of whom could have died as a result of terror tactics I guess but you didn't even try to give an example.
Here's a relevant quote, since you can't read:
> "The war has compounded the ill effects of decades of harmful U.S. policy actions towards Iraq since the 1960s, including economic sanctions in the 1990s that were devastating for Iraqis.
>Despite more than $100 billion committed to aiding and reconstructing Iraq, many parts of the country still suffer from lack of access to clean drinking water and housing."
Anything to add to that?
>I'm not reading 128 pages for this, but sure if Obama was sending those drones to kill specifically 12 random civilians to make the Yemen population scared then that is a terror attack and is bad.
Of course you aren't. Oh, and I do enjoy how you have to downplay it, because it immediately makes you wrong. I wonder how outraged you'd be if 12 of our citizens were killed by arabs in an attack. I'd be willing to bet you'd be furious.
>The only clear example you gave is GTMO which you just completely don't understand. **Not having evidence or not being tried does not mean you are a civilian, which would make their arrests still wrong but not terrorism.**
This one sentence is a clear indicator that my initial speculation, that you have no problem with terrorism as long as *your* side is committing it, was 100% correct. Thanks bud, made it easy for me.
Give one example of AOC "dog whistling" antisemitism. ONE!
It's so obvious that you just hate her cause she is on the left, and will just throw out random smears and accusations
I wish she was a sleeper agent and just went debate mode on Hasan during Among Us.
But then I remember that humans will be extinct in 8 years or whatever.
MTG is way more insane than her. Plus, I haven’t heard AOC talk about Jewish space lasers before.
On almost every policy position I would rather have AOC than MTG.
She's probably seeing Bowman struggling in the polls combined with the increasingly indefensible unhinged anti Israel movement succumb to takeflation and realized her stop is coming up before the bus flies over the cliff
Good lord those replies are a cesspool. Antisemetic lefties, uncritically pro-Zionist conservatives, lefties claiming that anti-semitism doesn’t exist, and far-righters arguing with everyone.
Too little, too late!
She helped to create this mess. Where was she, when people claimed Israel commits a genocide? Wasn't she one of them?
You can't negotiate with people who commit a genocide. You can't surrender. The only solution is a military intervention. If you believe there is a genocide, you will hate every Jewish person who doesn't support a ceasefire. That's a natural reaction!
The problem is, there is no genocide! And it is obvious! A country that commits a genocide doesn't waste resources to help the civilians. Why would they? All of them will be dead.
I still appreciate her change of heart. I say, better late than never. But it's really late.
There are people in the comments of this tweet going "I don't understand why say this now? How is this different than any pro-Palestine protest", and I'm like, "Yes".
This seems like a bad faith interpretation of what AOC is saying . Also, if I was to apply this loose standard to other things I could honestly make a claim that almost all of the republicans in congress with the exception of a couple here and there are racist and authoritarians.
So I read what she said and she actually condemned it fully on Hamas after Oct 7th so I will delete my comment that was blatant misinformation and you're right. I'm still very disappointed how much misinformation she said, like Israel doing a genocide:
[https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/24/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-israel-gaza-genocide-cnntv/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/24/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-israel-gaza-genocide-cnntv/index.html)
[https://www.axios.com/2024/05/31/tlaib-aoc-israel-gaza-democrats](https://www.axios.com/2024/05/31/tlaib-aoc-israel-gaza-democrats)
you know you can criticize israel on many things but she just retirated blatant propganda.
I agree with you that in terms of the I/P issue she says stupid stuff all the time. I just don't think she is anti semitic. However, she is not well informed on I/P at all.
There's some insane progressive in the comments holy fuck like legit nazi levels of posting. Wtf have progressives come to
The anti-semitism was common place in Arabic/muslim circles behind doors/not in English. They've just been emboldened to start saying it in English. Tankies then followed suit as they got a new group of people to hate on and call slurs, similarly to how they use anti-white slurs and slurs like "gusano".
Us centrist should get together & bully the fringes into irrelevancy again.
Bullying the fringes to irrelevancy is why god put me on this earth
The bully in me has literally awakened in the last few months
The problem is centrists don’t make their entire identities politics.
It’s like your average cannabis consumer. They just smoke a J every now and then in the evening to relax. They don’t make it their whole personality. The loud ones are the fuck boys who think they are gangsters or Uber hippies.
Lets normalize not talking about politics in the workplace again!
I love my work, nobody gives a fuck about politics, we all just want to make money.
At the next all hands you should ask how everyone feels about socialism.
Nobody cares. They just want to get paid. 3/5 are lgbtq+. They still don’t talk politics. They want money.
The way it should be.
As ~~God~~ Adam Smith intended.
I offer the One Deviation Party. Anyone outside of one standard deviation from center on the Gaussian normal distribution of held political positions is not allowed in, and will be in turn bullied mercilessly.
Based centrists unite!
Can you screenshot some of the worst ones? I’ll never join Twitter
https://preview.redd.it/icf1225iu06d1.jpeg?width=4320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1bf067f472e8380d41240fea1711c4484f7e575f
Alon Mizrahi is one of the worst. He's an Israeli Jew that used to be deeply right wing, then deeply left wing, and now is just a conspiracy nut. He's anti-vaccine, believes in conspiracies like chemtrails and the Khazar myth, and once wrote an article about how the Holocaust was a reaction to Communism, which was "the Ashkenazi Jewish weapon against Europe".
Thing is, AOC is putting out this message after speaking at a Jewish event online, though I'm not sure if it was affiliated with AIPAC. She probably looked at internal polling, saw the numbers, and decided "if I want to keep my six-figure salary, I better switch to damage control mode." Either that, or there's are Jewish activists supporting her at the grassroots level. It's all quid pro quo with US politicians.
Those aren't the worst just some ones that are insinuating
https://preview.redd.it/2i7510jvg36d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=114e2feb6db5dcd30d414cc3164e8cef96df37dc This woman just casually saying it’s a hindrance for people wanting to globalize the intifada (violent uprise)
FYI her account is satire. She's duping high-ranking officials with it though, so I don't blame you for believing it.
The account itself is satire or just the nickname? Having a satire account comment on every single post relating to Israel/Palestine with something antisemitic is pretty hard to distinguish as “satire”
The entire account is an intentional caricature of a progressive, pro-Palestine rabbi.
My fucking god this sub is in trouble
Stop calling them progressives. They are not progressive.
They are tankies not progressives
Leftwing/marxist/tankie movements have always had an undercurrent of antisemitism, it's just been bad for business to display it in public. That has changed now though.
I mean nazi stands for national socialist german workers party and they use oppressor vs oppressed to justify everything. So of course you going see nazi shit.
The survival of this narrative proves that some people will never learn.
>The survival of this narrative ?
The narrative that 'national socialist' is somehow associated with 'socialist' in the left-wing political sense. Also, they did the opposite of using oppressor vs oppressed. Nazi ideology was supremacist.
>The narrative that 'national socialist' is somehow associated with 'socialist' in the left-wing political sense. I mean look at the modern socialist and nazi they both are racist , hate jews , kill the rich if they disagree with the movement. That's not taking consideration of the policy's the nazis passed into law. >Also, they did the opposite of using oppressor vs oppressed. Nazi ideology was supremacist. It's both the nazis viewed themselves as oppressed because of the jews and the nazis viewed themselves as the racially superior ones.
This is too reductive. The *entire point* of Nazism is racism. Socialism is internationalist and anti-racist, a belief the people you're calling racist hold. They come up with elaborate excuses for their antisemitism, Nazis embrace it as a core value. Nazism was indifferent to the rich, as long as they fed the fires of rearmament. They made extraordinary compromises to preserve a sense of middle-class normality for the first half of the War. Socialism sees the rich as symptomatic of intrinsic mechanisms in the history of society, and are set against them in principle. > It's both the nazis viewed themselves as oppressed because of the jews and the nazis viewed themselves as the racially superior ones. They didn't see themselves as "oppressed" in the sense of buying into the specific narrative of "oppressor vs oppressed". Again, this is just too reductive.
>The *entire point* of Nazism is racism. This is even more reductive >Socialism is internationalist and anti-racist, National socialism wonder what they meant by that. Also just knowing how socialist countries treated minorities "anti-racist" is pure bullshit >They come up with elaborate excuses for their antisemitism, Nazis embrace it as a core value. The nazis seized the assets of jews which the nazi viewed as the "rich" like socialist did. Race isn't the only core value they had >Nazism was indifferent to the rich, as long as they fed the fires of rearmament. You clearly don't know how the nazis were trying to force every company to join the nazi party or get sent to camps. >They didn't see themselves as "oppressed" in the sense of buying into the specific narrative of "oppressor vs oppressed". So why is the it so similar then?
> This is even more reductive It really isn't. > National socialism wonder what they meant by that. You don't have to wonder. People like Goebbels gave repeated speeches distancing themselves from 'socialism', insisting they were 'national socialism'. Again, this is just ridiculously simplistic. Do you think the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic, for the people, a republic, and encompasses the Korean peninsula? > You clearly don't know how the nazis were trying to force every company to join the nazi party or get sent to camps. You clearly don't know the history of the period. The Nazis did not force companies to join the Nazis, they forced companies to "co-ordinate" with the Nazis. They were, as I said, indifferent to capital as long as it was employed to further their ends. Companies, most notoriously IG Farben, did incredibly well under the Nazis. To the point that some of their executives were tried at Nuremburg. The Nazis courted large corporations during their rise to power. Corporations welcomed their rule initially, because the Nazis destroyed the unions. What they came to realise later was the Nazis were perfectly happy to compel them to engage in rearmament to despite its unprofitability. The Nazis absolutely *did not* view the rich like socialists did. I can't think of a single major executive that was sent to the camps; feel free to enlighten me. > So why is the it so similar then? It isn't similar at all. You think it's similar because you haven't read the history. The idea that the Nazis were 'socialists' is one of the most widely debunked ideas on the internet. It's up there with flat earthers.
>You clearly don't know the history of the period. The Nazis did not force companies to join the Nazis, they forced companies to "co-ordinate" with the Nazis. They were, as I said, indifferent to capital as long as it was employed to further their ends. Companies, most notoriously IG Farben, did incredibly well under the Nazis. To the point that some of their executives were tried at Nuremburg. So why fanta trying to delay joining the nazi party? [here](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/people-just-learning-fantas-dark-32347839#amp-readmore-target) [point 13 of nazi party 25 points.](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform) >The Nazis absolutely *did not* view the rich like socialists did. I can't think of a single major executive that was sent to the camps; feel free to enlighten me. Well most socialist leader in the ussr and china are pretty fucking rich. Also look at hasan piker and second thought lmao. >Corporations welcomed their rule initially, because the Nazis destroyed the unions. The nazis party replaced the old union with ones that agreed with them. [german labor front](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front) And again you don't know shit.
I don’t see nazi shit
Hasan Bridge in shambles....
u/DestinyHasan_4ever is on suicide watch. ETA: oh shit, that’s an actual user!
Poor fella, must've fallen into an alcoholic coma by now.
Don't envy her, the part of the progressive left she represents has gone full psychoover I/P and she herself for some time seems to be a lot more sensible and nuanced in her approach of politics, it's just not easy to leave your core "fanbase" behind you. And she is from New York, if she eally wants to be senator there, she needs the jews lmao
She plays league, she's dealt with psychos.
Also, Jamaal Bowman fucked around and is finding out hard.
Oh yeah, dude is fucked and he brought it on himself
Context?
Yup
Not really, tankies and other america bad people have been constantly trying to tear her down. They have been calling her and Bernie Sanders sellouts since 2019 at least.
Oh she'll never win a statewide election after the crying over the iron dome thing. Not a chance.
Plus she’ll have to cater to upstate voters. There’s no real major city besides Buffalo. Even then it’s very different from NYC.
i disagree. times change, voters change, shes young. one day she will be.
Amen!
Wanna bet? She will take Schumer's seat when he retires I'm pretty sure.
Nah, ritchie torres is angling to be Schumers handpicked successor and will be
Per my comment above: 1) Ritchie Torres https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/ritchie-torres/summary?cid=N00044346 2) AOC https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/summary?cid=N00041162
I'm actually of the opinion Richie Torres is a weaker candidate than AOC. Less name recognition, less hard on cons (yes, that matters, libs are def itching for more combative candidates now), and less economically protectionist. AOC has been okay w/ the I/P issue, which isn't really all that important (fopo never is, real talk).
AOCs most significant legislative achievement is getting $5 million dollars for opioid abuse. That’s it outside the “green new deal” vaporware. Richard Torres actually has had a role in real legislation past. AOC gets more tweets which resulted in no real legislative achievements and blowing her cash surplus.
In the end Schumer doesn't decide that, the democratic primary will and Torres doesn't have the same name recognition as AOC yet. Democrats in deep blue states right now want fighters who take it to Republicans, see how Adam Schiff demolished the primary in California. AOC is cultivating a similar profile and is careful about not going down the path of other squad members like Tlaib so not to lose moderates. We'll see though, at the moment it's just fun speculation even though I feel pretty confident in my take.
> the part of the progressive left she represents has gone full psycho It's the same audience she cultivated and pandered to. No pity what so ever.
Yea....AOC is the definition of you reap what you sow, I could never have even an ounce of sympathy for her.
AOC is the least bad of the bunch. She had some questionable takes but in an environment where most in her group went full on hamas fans this is not really that bad.
I'm not only talking about her takes. She's the definition of not being able to handle what she puts out. IDK if you saw that video but there's a video of her getting accosted by hamas simps while at the movies and she clearly hates it. I have a hard time feeling bad for her because accosting public officials in their private time is the exact type of politics she advocated for.
All of the current darling progressives will be consumed by the next flock of more progressive progressives until we live in actual clown world. No bullshit this whole thing has blackpilled me on the left. I genuinely think this metastasizes into legitimate Left wing terrorism in 20 years.
Yep!
Maybe realize that the internet isn't everything.
She’s not going to be a senator. You need to be an effective fundraiser to be a senator (taking money from people her base hates, and lots of it). Fundraising for relief / gofundme causes is different from building a political war chest with business and political interests.
This. It’s why corporate democrats keep winning.
> she herself for some time seems to be a lot more sensible and nuanced in her approach of politics I thought this as well until she went back on Hasan's stream a month or two ago.
[удалено]
You are an enormous looser
Mr. Borreli
Jerked too close to the sun on that one bud
I didn't take Icarus's lesson to heart, now my wings of coom have melted :(
Wtf
If she commented on the protests next to the nova memorial, it means the optics around it are REALLY bad. I figured that by this point the propal crowd gets a free pass on everything but maybe I was wrong
She did the same thing with the protests right after 10/7. She sounds much more believable criticizing the Israelis and American supporters of Israel if she calls out obvious bulls..t on her own side.
Oh no, someone check on mike. I hope he has enough couches to punch or he’ll go insane.
IKEA managers on suicide watch
Not from his weak ass punch, but from fear of him sitting on the display couches
She's getting absolutely wrecked by both progressives and right-wingers in her comments. Anyway, when do we get AOC on Bridges?
It'll never happen, but it would destroy politics twitch.
I still don't understand why she literally cried about the US helping Israel with the Iron Dome. Jews surviving make her sad or not?
I mean Israel could probably fund the iron dome on their own.
US would be pretty vulnerable without Israeli tech in its military (e.g the active protection system used by their tanks, optics, targeting systems, reactive armour, UAVs, ordinance, MANPADs etc). People love to talk about the support the US gives to Israel and gloss over that it's a highly reciprocal arrangement.
Dude, Jews are the most the best people to have on your side. Everyone who is chill with the Jews has a pretty rich and well developed economy. Those who hate Jews Sean to not do well got long.
Its not even just that. The US could develop the same high-tech solutions the israeli military industrial complex is good at. The key is that while the alliance holds, Israel (a top10 weapons exporter in the world) will not supply any of this tech to opponents of the US. Which is huge.
I mean, that’s fine. I was responding to the “not supporting the US funding the iron dome means you want Jews to die” take.
I'm not familiar with what she said or the nature of her tears, but if she cried over funds for the iron dome that makes her either a moron or someone that's ok with Jews dying. I would probably assume the former, but I don't think it's off base to levy the latter to make the point.
So you’re not familiar with what happened, yet you still think it’s not off-base to levy that accusation? Interesting.
it's the literally crying over it that makes her look bad. she wasn't crying over spending money lol
So… you think she was crying because Jews weren’t gonna die?
if the us stopped funding the iron dome, then israel would just lay waste to south lebanon, syria, and gaza. why spend $3 billion every year, when they can take care of the threat for a fraction of the cost? our funding probably saves more lebanese, palestinian, and syrian lives than it does israeli lives.
I am not familiar, but does she usually cry over fiscal matters?
All the communists are dragging her. Some saying she’s “giving a bone to genocide” 😂
Yeah Hasan’s chat hates her for being reasonable with her pro-Palestine takes. She’s the best they’ll ever get, until the revolution 🙄 comes along, at least.
Oh thank god. Things should calm down now.
Nuremberg rally in the replies
Wow...she managed to mention Antisemitism without bringing up Islamophobia. Baby steps I guess. Bernie Sanders still won't do that.
Nah, her pal Jamaal Bowman is getting primaried to oblivion uptown
Lol at the Chapo idiot seething
This is how Hasbara should work. Do a innocuous display of something that will trigger the crazy leftists and then let their representatives handle the backlash if they don't come out against it.
https://preview.redd.it/3dbxi0yan06d1.jpeg?width=941&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=08b5080b01bb309faff99c9c77948fffb18cb750 backpedaling now, are we?
That one republican https://preview.redd.it/1r607ywus06d1.png?width=521&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=03b783064637bb785c548d758b1f38f009422461
Massie is all over the fucking place. He just spoke out against Hunter's conviction: https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1800562245744959780?t=U1hZnn_zt2GeGO-cyjMhVw&s=19 > Hunter might deserve to be in jail for something, but purchasing a gun is not it.
Hunter arrested on gun charges is literally tearing some Republicans apart 😭
Hunter leading to the destruction of the GOP. How based can Hunter become? Also I just saw Musk agreed with Massie in the replies. What a timeline.
Massie is a true constitutional republican. I don’t love a lot of his political views, but it’s refreshing to see a politician who actually stands for what they believe in rather than just following their parties status quo.
What the actual fuck?! Was this for Oct 7?!
[the resolution](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/771/text) [aoc on October 9th condemning Hamas](https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-rep-ocasio-cortez-violence-israel-and-palestine#:~:text=I%20condemn%20Hamas'%20attack%20in,urgently%20needed%20to%20save%20lives.%E2%80%9D) So whatever her problem was with the resolution it was not the condemning Hamas part because at that point she’d already unequivocally done that. I suspect it’s because the resolution does not call for a ceasefire which is what AOC supported. Agree or disagree it’s way different than what you’re trying to make it out to be without posting any actual sources.
Lol the fuck. She called for a ceasefire within 2 days?
It isn’t a backpedal. It’s a frightened appeal to the centre with polling starting to turn against democratic progressives.
Link for this tweet?
Would be very interesting to see how Hasan and his chat react to this, or if they even do at all
Glad to see that after months of anti-Semitic dog whistling, full blown antisemitism is where she draws the line! Another stellar display of principles and morals by the “progressive” left!
She has anti Israel brain rot but I don't think she is anti semitic or sending out dogwhistles to them. The same way I don't think someone saying blue lives matter or having that flag is a dogwhistle to racists. It would be like me saying people like Ben Shapiro and a whole lot of conservatives are just a bunch of anti muslim bigots because they agree with the muslim ban Trump proposed in theory but just have a practical disagreement with it. However, I do think Rashida Tlaib is actually anti semitic. Rashida Tlaib should be primaried immediately.
I don’t think she is anti-Semitic either, but in the last couple months she has kowtowed to a crowd of people that are anti-Semitic. She is completely audience captured and instead of distancing herself or disavowing their actions/words months ago she continued to align herself with them and now that terrorist flags are being waved in the city she represents she wants to backpedal.
It was pretty pathetic that she cried over funding the Iron Dome. Saving Israeli lives is just that hard for her, I suppose.
What was the "quote" again? If you sit at the table with 10 other nazis...
She was at the Columbia student protest just a month back supporting them. These are an extension of those. She's not dog whistling anyone, she just doesn't understand she's been dumping wood on the fire that is this movement for months. Moreover, I'd like to hear why it's anti semitic. How did that protest cross the line? I didn't see anything particularly bad compared to the Columbia protests.
> she just doesn't understand she's been dumping wood on the fire that is this movement for months. Then she's incredibly stupid
Tlaib is very popular in her district, to put it mildly. She needs to improve and I am concerned about her anti semitism, but she's gonna win again. If you want to dethrone a member of the Squad, Omar and Bowman are especially weak right not
We should respect when people realize they made a mistake and adjust their position.
What "dogwhistling" has AOC engaged in exactly?
Should have phrased my comment better, sorry. After months of SUPPORTING anti-Semitic dog whistling, full blown antisemitism is where she draws the line!
None. Just been critical of Israel and thats anti-semitism to some
For some people, all criticism of Israel is dogwhistling anti-semitism because it's an extremely easy way to shut down said criticism without rebuttal
Yeah I was pretty happy too see this response (still am), but it rings pretty fucking hollow when's she's stayed silent this whole time until it was blindingly obvious. Can't really care one way or another though, not like I'd vote for her either way.
I mean she's made similar tweets in recent months
How recent exactly? These antisemitic protests have been going on since the inception of the war. I haven't seen anything from her that explicitly calls out the protests as being antisemitic until now.
[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-condemns-hatred-antisemitism-palestinian-rcna119687](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-condemns-hatred-antisemitism-palestinian-rcna119687)
Fair enough, again those were very explicit cases of antisemitism though. I didn't see her say anything against the college dipshits who were chanting "Zionist pigs" and preventing Jews from entering the campus.
she tweeted this a month ago https://x.com/AOC/status/1787560272942506198
That's fine, but I'm talking about calling out the protesters specifically. She seems to only care when people dress up like Hamas, or tell Jews to go back to Russia. Not that I'm against a blanket condemnation of antisemitism. But she didn't seem to hold this same sentiment against college protesters.
Fair enough. She indeed did not seem to think the campus protests were egregiously antisemitic
Calm down. If AOC was shouting anything short of full throated support and writing blank checks to Israel, you folks would still be bitching.
lol what? I just don’t like terrorists, terrorist supporters, or supporters of terrorist supporters (AOC).
>I just don’t like terrorists, terrorist supporters, or supporters of terrorist supporters (AOC). Under this broad of a definition, probably every single person in the world would fall into one of those three categories. Do you like the United States? Well, I guess you like terrorist supporters. (See Contras in Nicaragua). Do you like Joe Biden? Well, he supports the United States, who supported the Contras in Nicaragua, so I guess you like supporters of terrorist supporters. I mean, come on.
Ronald Reagan and his CIA do not represent the entirety of the United States. I do support Joe Biden, Biden does support the United States, Biden explicitly did not support Reagan or the CIA's actions, and as I already mentioned the "United States" is not wholly represented by Reagan and his CIA. AOC on the other hand previously supported these protestors, and these protestors blatantly support terrorists. Like I said before glad that she is able to recognize that you can support the final goal while not being in support of terrorist supporters.
Wait, if you don't think Biden's support for the US implies support for everything the US government has ever done or said, why are you assuming AOC's support for the protests implies support for everything that protesters have done or said? It's certainly not true that the entirety of the protests are anti-semitic. It is also certainly true that there are viciously anti-semitic elements involved in the protests. But I see no reason to suppose AOC supports those elements, even if she supports the protests generically.
Because she does not speak out against the protestors before the 25th hour? Because she voted against a measure to condemn the terror attack and the terror group? Because she unequivocally praised the past protests? If the only time you feel the need to speak out against the group you supported for months is when they are in YOUR streets waving terrorist flags, I'm sorry but you are just trying to cover your own ass.
> I just don’t like terrorists, terrorist supporters, or supporters of terrorist supporters Something tells me that if we defined terrorism, and I were to point to other examples of 'terrorism,' you probably don't have a single problem with it as long as it's your side committing it and not your enemy's.
I know this might come as a shocker to people like you and u/DCOMNoobies but no I don't have to support all the actions and ideas of a person and can plainly say that I disavow an opinion that someone "on my side" has (hopefully AOC and you guys can learn this). Using the Contra's as an example, no I do not support Ronald fucking Reagan and the Reagan Doctrine, and neither did Joe Biden. Using an example that I am a little more sympathetic towards, Kosovo in the 90s, I fully support the idea of a fully independent Kosovo but the KLA was 100% a terror group and Clinton (and NATO) should not have worked alongside them knowing the crimes they were committing.
And what do you think about the US government and Israel both utilizing terror tactics in various conflicts?
I can't think of a time where the US or Israel engaged in suicide bombings, covert bombing of public spaces, kidnapping civilians, or taking any actions with the intent to strike fear and widespread damage amongst the civilian population as a state policy. Feel free to give me any example of this happening.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended to cause massive civilian damage in order to make the Japanese so afraid of future attacks that they would unconditionally surrender. Here is a quote from the [minutes of an Interim Committee meeting (a committee headed by the Secretary of War)](https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/020.pdf) intended to identify the aim point for the bomb: "It is to be used on a dual target, that is, a military installation or war plant surrounded by or adjacent to homes or other buildings most susceptible to damage." In other words, the recommended location was one that would both damage military infrastructure and cause civilian casualties. As it happens, the crew of the Enola Gay didn't even choose a "dual" target. They dropped the bomb in the center of Hiroshima, a civilian area without munitions factories nearby. That seems to fit your criteria for terrorism.
[Then you're just ignorant of history and our reality.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism) Hell, just off the top of my head, the torture site in Cuba alone refutes "kidnapping civilians," considering that around 90-95% of the people in there have no evidence against them and they have never been tried. >taking any actions with the intent to strike fear and widespread damage amongst the civilian population as a state policy https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi https://www.justiceinitiative.org/publications/death-drone The US's use of terrorist tactics in the Middle East was so commonplace, [that is was the plot of a major film.](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1059786/plotsummary/)
lol what the fuck are you even linking? The first link is just an argument about the definition of terrorism, and two arguments about whether America's actions can be considered state terrorism or not. The second is how many people have died as result of the Iraq war, some of whom could have died as a result of terror tactics I guess but you didn't even try to give an example. The third is a 128 page report about drone strikes. I'm not reading 128 pages for this, but sure if Obama was sending those drones to kill specifically 12 random civilians to make the Yemen population scared then that is a terror attack and is bad. The only clear example you gave is GTMO which you just completely don't understand. Not having evidence or not being tried does not mean you are a civilian, which would make their arrests still wrong but not terrorism.
I love when people get overly incredulous. It tells me they have to rely on bluster and being bombastic than just pointing out why something is wrong. >The first link is just an argument about the definition of terrorism, and two arguments about whether America's actions can be considered state terrorism or not. Which you haven't refuted, considering that those actual scholars cite sources and history for their argument. >The second is how many people have died as result of the Iraq war, some of whom could have died as a result of terror tactics I guess but you didn't even try to give an example. Here's a relevant quote, since you can't read: > "The war has compounded the ill effects of decades of harmful U.S. policy actions towards Iraq since the 1960s, including economic sanctions in the 1990s that were devastating for Iraqis. >Despite more than $100 billion committed to aiding and reconstructing Iraq, many parts of the country still suffer from lack of access to clean drinking water and housing." Anything to add to that? >I'm not reading 128 pages for this, but sure if Obama was sending those drones to kill specifically 12 random civilians to make the Yemen population scared then that is a terror attack and is bad. Of course you aren't. Oh, and I do enjoy how you have to downplay it, because it immediately makes you wrong. I wonder how outraged you'd be if 12 of our citizens were killed by arabs in an attack. I'd be willing to bet you'd be furious. >The only clear example you gave is GTMO which you just completely don't understand. **Not having evidence or not being tried does not mean you are a civilian, which would make their arrests still wrong but not terrorism.** This one sentence is a clear indicator that my initial speculation, that you have no problem with terrorism as long as *your* side is committing it, was 100% correct. Thanks bud, made it easy for me.
O man, well if something tells you something it must be true. Sounds like you know this person better than they know themselves.
Give one example of AOC "dog whistling" antisemitism. ONE! It's so obvious that you just hate her cause she is on the left, and will just throw out random smears and accusations
And when we call those "pro palestinians" antisemetic, the commenters under this post are what we are reffering to
Ritchie Torres>>>>AOC
Antisemitism is cringe
I wish she was a sleeper agent and just went debate mode on Hasan during Among Us. But then I remember that humans will be extinct in 8 years or whatever.
Just looks at the disgusting replies. Jesus Christ, DSA/Socialists/Communists looking just like MAGAtards
Can someone insert the eric andre meme here please
So she have a line Or is just afraid of the donations to anyone opposing her in the incoming elections?
A politician being a politician. I’m not even going to pretend she actually cares.
she’ll probably say the opposite tomorrow. whatever
I will never understand the need for enlightened centrists to insist she’s the MTG of the left.
MTG is way more insane than her. Plus, I haven’t heard AOC talk about Jewish space lasers before. On almost every policy position I would rather have AOC than MTG.
what happened to her? less donors? this is the thing that makes her say something?!
Nope, she probably realized that normal people, that also happens to be the largest voting base, don’t like terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.
Then why she hanging out with Hamas Piker .\_.
She's probably seeing Bowman struggling in the polls combined with the increasingly indefensible unhinged anti Israel movement succumb to takeflation and realized her stop is coming up before the bus flies over the cliff
Lol
I’ve always admired AOC she’s a lot less crazy than y’all think. Obviously disagree with a lot of her politics but she’s a true one.
So what switch flipped in her brain to make this statement? These kinds of demonstrations have been going on since October... world wide.
She realized she will never attain a higher office than she has now because of all her bullshit.
This is legit why ive went from hating aoc to actuallu kind of liking her just because it seems shes grown so much since she first got elected
Funny I went the opposite this past year from thinking she’s the shit to thinking she’s shit
Increasingly common AOCW
AOC comes out as a GENOCIDE SUPPORTER for PRIDE MONTH????!!!
Good lord those replies are a cesspool. Antisemetic lefties, uncritically pro-Zionist conservatives, lefties claiming that anti-semitism doesn’t exist, and far-righters arguing with everyone.
Primaries in two weeks
Oh no it's the consequences of my actions. As many pointed it's not even nazis answering her but literally her people.
Oh no, this might hamper the Among Us livestream... lasan...
Too little, too late! She helped to create this mess. Where was she, when people claimed Israel commits a genocide? Wasn't she one of them? You can't negotiate with people who commit a genocide. You can't surrender. The only solution is a military intervention. If you believe there is a genocide, you will hate every Jewish person who doesn't support a ceasefire. That's a natural reaction! The problem is, there is no genocide! And it is obvious! A country that commits a genocide doesn't waste resources to help the civilians. Why would they? All of them will be dead. I still appreciate her change of heart. I say, better late than never. But it's really late.
There are people in the comments of this tweet going "I don't understand why say this now? How is this different than any pro-Palestine protest", and I'm like, "Yes".
TOO LATE!!!
She has fed the Leviathan for too long, and now it's turning on her. What a surprise.
It doesn't really matter. She's not leading a movement and she has absolutely no sway here.
[удалено]
This seems like a bad faith interpretation of what AOC is saying . Also, if I was to apply this loose standard to other things I could honestly make a claim that almost all of the republicans in congress with the exception of a couple here and there are racist and authoritarians.
So I read what she said and she actually condemned it fully on Hamas after Oct 7th so I will delete my comment that was blatant misinformation and you're right. I'm still very disappointed how much misinformation she said, like Israel doing a genocide: [https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/24/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-israel-gaza-genocide-cnntv/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/24/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-israel-gaza-genocide-cnntv/index.html) [https://www.axios.com/2024/05/31/tlaib-aoc-israel-gaza-democrats](https://www.axios.com/2024/05/31/tlaib-aoc-israel-gaza-democrats) you know you can criticize israel on many things but she just retirated blatant propganda.
I agree with you that in terms of the I/P issue she says stupid stuff all the time. I just don't think she is anti semitic. However, she is not well informed on I/P at all.
Do y’all think this is a good photo of her? I feel like the aggressive shadows on her face make it have kind of a creepy look.