Ocasio-Cortez accuses some Senate Democrats of blocking legislation (CNN)

[ItsjustMe]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) criticized the Senate Democrats pushing for bipartisan compromise saying they are helping block key legislation in the Democrat's agenda.

[Budi]

1. Of course she did.

😴

[JohnSJ]

2. I suspect those who were critical some Democrats toward Representative Omar

for not engaging with her privately for the grouping of the US with the Taliban privately, instead of through a public medium, will issue the same criticism toward Rep. Ocasio-Cortez for not engaging with those Democrats privately

[Budi]

3. LOL. That's actually humorous.

Hard hitting ain't it.

[JohnSJ]

4. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

[Budi]

6. I realize the VA election was a stunner but the damage control is just ...

...too obvious.

Oh well, its expected.

[TiberiusB]

11. AOC said something! Must attack...NOW!

You'd have a point if only the two situations weren't totally different.
Manchin, Sinema, Feinstein, and the other blue dogs blocking filibuster reform/elimination and any further reconciliation bills have had months and, in the case of Joe Manchin, been very vocal in the media about his positions (Sinema and Feinstein less so). Representative Omar was effectively stabbed in the back by Democrats within hours.
Plus, she has the advantage of being correct. The U.S. has committed massive human rights atrocities and war crimes, and you don't even have to work that hard to see them.
Just look back on the genocide of Native Americans, slavery and its aftermath, the Philippine/American war, the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam and the illegal bombing of Cambodia, the destabilization and funding of coups in Chile and Iran (and so, so many others), the Contras, both illegal Gulf Wars, the U.S./U.N. sanctions against Iraq that led to the deaths of 500,000 children (look up Madeleine Albright), the use of depleted uranium ammunition in Iraq, the ongoing support for oppressive autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia (you know, possibly the biggest funder of state sponsored terrorism, the home to Osama bin Laden, and the buyer for U.S. weapons used in Yemen)...
Hamas is hardly a hero, but pretending the U.S. doesn't make them look like amateurs is selective blindness.

[JohnSJ]

16. Your bias is duly noted, especially since this is not the first time Rep Ocasio-Cortez has lashed

out publicly at Democrats who disagree with her

As for all the issues that you decided to throw in with your collective blame, ignores the original question I brought up, if she has a disagreement with fellow Democrats, why do it publicly?

There was outrage expressed when other Democrats voiced criticism in disagreement with Rep Ocasio-Cortez and Rep Omar, but it is ok for them to voice criticism publicly, but not expect a public rebuttal?

Sure thing

[TiberiusB]

19. You mean my accurate assestment with examples to back it up?

Your bias is fully on display.

There have been efforts going on for months to sway people like Manchin to see reason. You just conveniently ignore that and skip forward to the present day because it fits your narrative. AOC calling out Democrats in the past is irrelevant in this case, especially in light of the fact that you seem to be holding that up as proof of being hypocritical without evaluating each case on its merits. AOC is just the hip thing for some people on this board.

Had the 12 Democrats waited a fraction the amount of time afforded Manchin before going public, you would have a stronger case.

[JohnSJ]

20. No your examples are NOT entirely accurate, especially in regard to the WWII examples

If people use a public forum to express their thoughts, they should not be surprised if there is a rebuttal, and then argue the case that there shouldn't rebuttal in public, and even going as far as making accusations that those rebuttals are due to race or gender, not because they necessarily are, but perhaps those rebuttals have to do with a disagreement on the comparisons

Fortunately, this situation has been replaced with the spying of the DOJ under trump on Democrats in Congress

[TiberiusB]

21. I never argued against rebuttal

But isn't that arguing that AOC or Ilhan Omar should be free to make statements in opposition to the other Democrats? If something is said in public, they shouldn't be surprised by a rebuttal.

Regardless, I am not a complete fan of Representative Omar's less than elegant approach to politics. Her opposition to the recognition of the Armenian Genocide was pretty clumsy and rash with little obvious benefit, regardless of her rationale. However, the U.S. has a wildly distorted, self congratulatory history it promotes that ignores horrific actions on a scale that dwarf those of Hamas or even Isis. This isn't to excuse Hamas' or Isis' actions. Killing ten doesn't excuse murdering one. It is simply calling out a kettle/pot situation and the need to address decades of horrendous foreign policy.

What is wrong with the WWII examples, for instance? Simply saying they are wrong doesn't prove they are. The firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo were indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets. Hundreds of thousands were killed. Many were children. There are many articles easily found on Google that argue those are war crimes.

https://www.history.co.uk/article/was-the-destruction-of-dresden-an-allied-war-crime

https://allthatsinteresting.com/firebombing-of-tokyo

Similar arguments exist against the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[WA-03 Democrat]

5. All or nothing seem to be fine with

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez

Is that even politics?

[TiberiusB]

12. Do people just selectively decide to ignore reality?

1 Senator votes "no" and no legislation passes, no filibuster reform, no anything. Yeah, all or nothing...or, perhaps with more context, "all Senators or nothing gets passed and Biden is a lame duck President less than 6 months into his term."

How's that?

[WA-03 Democrat]

22. Does she support the infrastructure comprising being proposed by the senate republicans?

Was the question. She said no and said something to the effect of “We have been waiting so long and suffered for so long” and she could not support anything but the initial Democratic version of the house bill on infrastructure.

With a skinny margin in both chambers we need to get jobs and grow the economy. We need infrastructure spending. I don’t know the right number for the Bill but we need support from some republicans to get the bill. The math on this is abundantly clear. The faster it’s passed the sooner the results we will need for 22 and 24. I wish we had the votes alone. Would I take less than we originally asked for? Yes I would because I think the pay off is in large economic growth retooling our economy for the American people. This is why the republicans are obstructing it and I wish AOC support the leadership of the Democratic Party.

[brush]

7. AOC is absolutely spot on on all of Manchin's Quixotic bi-partisahship silliness...

as that Senate era has long since passed. As for the Omar issue, she struggled to depend her friend who made comments on the US and terrorism she had to walk back. I don't necessarily disagree that Israel under Netayahu has acted repeatedly in unfair ways towards the Palestinians.

[Magoo48]

8. This!

[TiberiusB]

13. It goes back way before Netanyahu

The illegal occupation and forced displacement have been going on for decades. Netanyahu has been more visibly right wing and aggressive, but he's only accelerated what was already going on.

[brush]

14. Absolutely. The continuing settler aggressions gets me the most.

They won't stop taking Palestinian land.

[rpannier]

23. Joe Manchin... Bipartisanship for the sake of

If the Republikkans were advocating murdering 10000 people, Manchin would be there to hail the bipartisan compromise of just 5000.

[jalan48]

9. K & R

[George II]

10. She voted "Present" on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, as did 2 of her colleagues...

....Bowman and Tlaib. The other three colleagues of hers - Bush, Omar, and Pressley - voted Nay. Every other Democrat voted Yea.

The bill passed by one skinny vote - 213 to 212. https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2021/roll156.xml

So please, let's not talk about "blocking legislation". As the Bible says, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone."

[TiberiusB]

15. Almost correct "Emergency Security Supplemental Funding Bill"

Here's their statement:

https://omar.house.gov/media/press-releases/reps-bush-omar-pressley-statement-emergency-security-supplemental

And it passed, so, that would be the opposite of "blocked".

[JohnSJ]

17. and their statement for not recognizing the Armenian genocide, something to the effect

“Because it was political”

That reason can be used for everything. I will remember it when I am asked to take out the garbage

[TiberiusB]

18. Actually, that is incorrect

Try, "because it doesn't address the problem", at least in her opinion.

Here is the statement for people interested in actual facts and not fictional four word summations.

“On January 6th, some Republican Members of Congress and the former President incited an insurrection that they refuse to accept responsibility for and continue to deny to this day. A bill that pours $1.9 billion into increased police surveillance and force without addressing the underlying threats of organized and violent white supremacy, radicalization, and disinformation that led to this attack will not prevent it from happening again. Increasing law enforcement funds does not inherently protect or safeguard the Capitol Hill or surrounding D.C. community. In fact, this bill is being passed before we have any real investigation into the events of January 6th and the failures involved because Republicans have steadfastly obstructed the creation of a January 6th commission.



“The bill also does far too little to address the unspeakable trauma of the countless officers, staff, and support workers who were on site that day - dedicating fifty times more money to the creation of a ‘quick reaction force’ than it does to counseling. We cannot support this increased funding while many of our communities continue to face police brutality while marching in the streets, and while questions about the disparate response between insurrectionists and those protesting in defense of Black lives go unanswered.



“While we appreciate the efforts of our colleagues to put forth a supplemental that provides necessary pay to our essential workers, there must be a comprehensive investigation and response to the attack on our Capitol and our democracy, one that addresses the root cause of the insurrection: white supremacy. This bill prioritizes more money for a broken system that has long upheld and protected the white supremacist violence we saw on display that day.



“We look forward to working towards systemic policy solutions that meet the scale and scope of the crises our communities and our nation face.”

[George II]

24. So because something doesn't go far enough we shouldn't do anything? Using that logic...

...I should have refused to go to grammar school. If asked why not, "well, I'm not going to get my bachelor's degree, so grammar school doesn't go far enough!"

It was a FUNDING bill, not a bill to create laws and policy. It was a FUNDING bill!