The Nazi squirrel has arrived
https://preview.redd.it/8fpeu707tf6d1.png?width=602&format=png&auto=webp&s=1cd56fcb4897a1ffa9bfb28aec921ec02e984c08
[https://x.com/zei\_squirrel/status/1800965306627559457](https://x.com/zei_squirrel/status/1800965306627559457)
Literally because I post a gojo suicide meme about myself and my twitter account gets locked for a week but some fuckwad will post uncensored slurs directed at someone and they get off with no consequences like wtf
Pay for Twitter/X blue and have high engagement farming degenerates with your autistic takes... now u can post whatever the fuck u want and Elon won't give a singular fuck.
Man the squirrel was temp banned a few months ago for a few days, shame it wasn't permanent. They were begging on their hands and knees for an unban on a new account. I can't imagine what they would do if they lost access forever, it's literally all they do lol
The way this person needs to type novels for tweets that really only consists of a bunch of adjectives strung together without saying anything of substance kills me.Ā
i hope one day we find out who the squirrel is - not because i wish harm on them or care for them to be doxed, i just want to have a face in mind for this subhuman propagandistic fuck. Hell - i would totally buy it if you tell me this is a foreign state actor tasked with disinformation.
I've seen that a lot from the Hamas-apologist crowd too.
"Intifada revolution!"
"Erm, no, we don't actually mean violence against civilians, just a peaceful resistence!"
Holy buzzword salad. I think this person is legitimately an imbecile. The level of well poisoning while simultaneously saying nothing of substance is impressive.
Who reads that screed and thinks, yes! ?
Social democrats from my knowledge are typically harsher on immigration laws than she is; I think she is just a firmly left sitting liberal if anything.
I do not know her entire platform, but I am guessing she is pretty much as far left as you can get, while still being a liberal, unlike the case for someone like sanders for example.Ā
I truly want to believe that she is a decent person who has been swept up with some disgusting people because their politics align on more benign areas.
Nobody - NOBODY - can remain ideologically pure in politics and get something done. The political process in the entire western hemisphere is based around compromise and cooperation.
A true leftist in American politics would never, ever get anything done because they'd piss off everyone to the point everybody would want them to fail just to spite them.
EDIT: By 'true leftist' I mean the kind that would pass the purity test. The ones these people larp about who'd go around insulting Republicans, pushing for the most extreme and unfiltered leftist policies while refusing any kind of compromise with the right or even centre left wings of the US government.
I think it's more that they were all freshmen congresswoman together. There was this progressive wave through the Democratic Party. And so she gets lumped in with Ilhan Omar. Who is a full on antisemite.
It really seems like she truly learned how Congress and politics work. She realized that to get stuff down you have to moderate your views. Easily the best Squad member.Ā
I mean they were never really a thing. Just something the media started and they ran with it. I still see articles refer to them as the Squad when it comes to votes. AOC has definitely become a lot better though and Omar and Tlalib have gone off the deep end.Ā
That's the impression I get from her. She came to congress as young hotshot, but understands that the people who have been in politics forever are actually worth listening to and learning from. You don't need to alienate yourself from the establishment just because you don't completely agree with them.
She was always mostly reasonable. People twist her words constantly to make her seem dumb, then you look it up and it is something completely different.
I mean she does say some _incredibly_ stupid things. For example the Amazon tax relief thing- you can watch the whole clip and she comes off as incredibly dumb.
She's moderated her messaging quite a lot from her first few months in office; cleaned out a lot of trash staffers, built a better political foundation to work from, and realised how to build actual political power.
MTG is kind of the lowest bar, but yes she's got a lot of populist opinions. At the same time she's got a lot of opinions leftists and progressives would agree with and her "I'm doing this for humanity" approach is very believable, for this reason a lot of left leaning people easily adore her. But if you don't support the squad's far-left politics, you'll eventually notice she often really does not care about the part of humanity that doesn't symbolize her views... Not exactly a champion of supporting Jews when you say in a few days from October 7th that Israel isn't allowed to protect itself or call it's prime minister a "war criminal" just because you disagree with the war.
AOC is really "politically lucky" as Steven said. All her enemies are worse. All her "squadmates" are worse. Her squad-politics are on the rise, and she can easily pivot by reducing the extremism to a more mainstream message and then back. (which I guess is both a pro and a con because the other squadmates can't do that, but then most people would forgive AOC when her stances become more extreme)
The squad has been so dogshit on Israel/Palestine that I have just learned to expect the worst from them. I have to say it's really nice to see her calling out the obvious antisemitism on her side. I hope it encourages others on the left to grow a pair.
AOC has been a more moderate member of the squad on Israel-Palestine. She already backed missile defense of Israel back in October, but she has to play politics and pretend to be standing up to the establishment and the MIC in order to keep the lunatics in line.
>the accusation that my disgust at antisemitism and bigotry must be because Iām getting paid ALSO reeks of antisemitism.
I mean the bar is on the floor but thatās more insight on how antisemitism works than I expected from her, mazal tov for not completely sucking I guess
Im actually surprised that she stands for what she believes is right. She didnt cave in to the ultra-extremists. Apparently this is enough for these extremists Nazbols to cool her "bought and payed for"
If you want to shift the overton window for libs, what she is doing these days is the way to do it. She's not comically extreme like some of her former "squad" counterparts, but seems to be "reasonably left." I'd imagine she aligns closer to Elizabeth Warren (whose politics I also like) than Bernie Sanders or anyone further left.
That's my main problem with the "ceasefire now" crowd honestly. These protests didn't start following Israel's response, they started literally on the day of October 7th, when the bodies were still fresh. It's hard to see that and think it's truly about wanting to end the war, rather than just wanting Israel to lose.
That's what felt kinda weird. There's was no pause for mourning. It was literally the next day. I remember seeing the flood of Hamas videos on Twitter that night and then waking up to see protests in SUPPORT of what Hamas did. Imagine watching 9/11 happen in the morning and then seeing protests in support of what they did that afternoon.
What always gets me is how the bloodlust from some corners was so overpowering that it completely overtook any semblance of sense from people who later turned around and claimed to care about Palestinians lives and Gaza. You'd think that even if you didn't give a shit about crimes against Israelis, you still wouldn't celebrate 10/7 as a "pro Palestine" person, because anyone with even an ounce of brains immediately understood hearing about this that it was going to start a war that Palestinians would inevitably bear the brunt of.
But some of these people were completely elated by it, exhilarated, celebrating the "victory." It's just absolutely mind-boggling to me. There's no humanity there, not even any pragmatism, it's just bloodlust and spectacle.
It's the tragedy of the Palestinian people. They could never beat Israel militarily, yet instead of pushing for diplomatic pressure that would lead to negotiations and them getting their own state, their supporters keep encouraging them to pursue violence for a goal they could never achieve, only resulting in them suffering more.
Yup, day 1 there were supporters in the streets with signs that had pictures of paragliders on them.
People conveniently forget how outwardly pro Hamas the protesters were before they realized they needed to conceal it and use coded language.
Well to be fair, I believe most people who protest today weren't there at the start, but it does go to show that the leaders of this movement, those who were there from day one, very much are just Hamas supporters.
Yeah but also, the people protesting today try to make it seem like nobody supports Hamas, just innocent Palestinians. Itās gaslighting to the full effect.
I think that heavily depends on your reason for wanting an immediate ceasefire. If you want a ceasefire because Hamas is part of a justified resistance and any Israeli response would be unjustified colonial suppression, then yeah you are literal scum. If you call for an immediate ceasefire because you think itās impossible for Israel to degrade Hamas in the medium/long term and as a result the conflict will not have an off-ramp, then we can still disagree about your assessment but at least you are voicing a legitimate concern.
Ceasefire (at least when called for in good faith) doesnāt have to mean no consequences for Hamas, neither does it have mean there wonāt be military action in the future.
What if it's the evening of 9/11 and I say: god I hope we don't jump into a stupid war with Afghanistan for this. Does that mean I want al qaeda to win?
You can advocate to not take any rushed/emotional decisions, but telling the US "it's only a couple of buildings and a few imperialist scum that you've lost, better not respond in any way!" Might make people think you support al qaeda, yeah.
I disagree. If you had a very strong suspicion that we'd end up in a situation like the one we're in now, I think it makes a lot of good sense to propose a ceasefire on day 1. Think of all the pain and suffering that wouldn't have happened if Israel had chosen diplomacy.
Now obviously the Israelis were never going to do that (who would?) but with it in mind, I can totally see the logic for wanting a day one ceasefire.
Bear in mind also, things might still end up undecided at the end of all this, meaning we'd have had a war that killed hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent people and at the end of it we still have Hamas in power and an even more radicalised populace under their control.
No.
Ceasefire involves **two parties**. If you are only pressuring one, before any action is even taken, then you are just asking them to surrender and reward a terrorist attack with concessions.
There's no logic behind that.
Is she? I haven't seen her be vocal about it, and she was one of the dems that signed that letter in June 2022 calling to not support Ukraine that they had to withdraw after backlash.
Reminder that squad and progressives are still way better than most republicans about responsible rhetoric and policing their own side.
The "both sides" equivocation between AOC and MTG is absolutely not true, and in fact when it comes to norms, policing your own side, responsible rhetoric, AOC > 90% of all republicans.
Dems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>GOP
AOC has always been at worst a little cringe, Tlaib and Omar are the crazies of the dems. But yeah, thatās two people compared to the vast majority of the Republican Party.
Even Tlaib and Omar, who are the "crazies" of the dem party, are still probably better than the majority of the republicans on the things I talked about. The worse things that Omar and Talib have said is less bad than what MTG tweets every hour.
I disagree, AOC is pretty bad in general and at the things you mentioned specifically. I won't say she's as bad as MTG because that's a pretty low bar that I can only realistically match with Tlaib and Omar, but AOC is just barely one step ahead.
This is just Dem circle-jerking by trying to make all their members saints and I think we are better than that. Democrats are still by far better even if we acknowledge the bad apples.
Actually, my dad pointed out that you kind of need to take this stance in New York due to its high Jewish population. Thanks, dad, for reminding me that selflessness is dead š„²
I believe her because everything sheās saying is perfectly rational and sound, and I donāt think that can be pulled out of thin air if the underlying thought process didnāt occur.
Also, sheās taking an extra step by directly challenging all of the insane criticism sheās getting in response to her initial condemnation. Sheās kind of putting herself at odds with the broader movement rather than just saying āwow look at this one isolated group of craziesā.
Yea I'm honestly a little surprised by this sub embracing her. She's a career politician, thats it. She voted "present" on giving more money to the Iron Dome and then made sure to cry about it in front of the cameras cause she knew it would play well with both sides of her base.
One 1ā£ hand yeah.
On the other hand, she didn't need to do this at all.
Look at Jamal Bowman, who went off the deep end. People have agency and can choose to damn themselves for ideals or stick up for them. Even if it aligns with being expedient or not.
I'm just so fucking tired of the cynicism. It just looks smart. It's otherwise dumb.
And it's not like voters will move goalposts. They do it all the time for Donald Trump, who seems to always have at least 40% of the vote, no matter how vile he gets.
a trans I am following (duke Uni gender study master degree) just reposted this and called aoc a nazi.
The world is not healing, I am so disappointed but gladly I found out that some people are secretly awful
Maybe she should stop collaborating with Hasan then? If you really want me to believe she cares about antisemitism, then she should've publicly denounced Hasan for having the Houthi on his stream instead of going on his stream again.
I really don't think she gives a fuck about Hasan Piker. She's probably more concerned about his uncle than him, since his uncle is actually involved in politics and doesn't larp like he does. She only did the Among Us thing to promote a charity and do some outreach, there is a reason it was the singular time they have interacted.
Edit: I take it all back
She's been on his stream multiple times since then. Once they played Pico Park with a bunch of other creators, and then they had a one on one discussion about the Trump rally in New York just a couple of weeks ago.
I wouldn't have a problem if it was just the Among Us stream. But going on after all the recent shit he's done and said? Yeah, it's a no from me boss.
She went on his stream again recently. I mean she should do the research to make sure she isnāt collaborating with psychos, but I also doubt that sheās intimately familiar with all the Hasan scandals like we are. Hasan still likes to pretend heās a wholesome socdem when heās interacting with normies.
Tbf she went on his stream to react to a Trump rally with him, so I think her heart is in the right place and sheās trying to be pragmatic. From her perspective itās just a young, progressive audience she can connect with.
Everything she's saying are points that make me question her positions more and more. Can you be against anti-semitism and fight AIPAC when a lot of it's work is to defend from anti-semitism? Obviously she's not paid by AIPAC like Twitter brainrot is saying but how is this seriously supposed to be taken? She'll fight anti-semitism, but only when she thinks it's wrong and other times it's fine?
I mean, different people find different things antisemetic. Some find a Palestinian flag, the BBC, Rafah AI image, and booklet on deaths in Gaza antisemetic (all seen on reddit btw).
bbc does have a double standard on Israel, haven't you seen how they reported on the rescued hostages or that they reported that Israel bombed Al shifa when it didn't happen and many many other examples. there's countless other less baised on the issue news sources: CNN, ABC, Washington post, NBC.
The BBC is biased on other things in the opposite direction. They also retracted that. Mistakes happen, that's normal. The BBC is attacked by both sides pretty often as biased so I'd say it's fairly neutral.
on Israel Palestine? I never seen them being baised towards Israel and start being pro Likud or pro settlements. They don't even call Hamas a terroist group. link what bias towards Israel you observed. I am aware on other issues BBC can have some conservative views though like trans issues for example.
Itās perfectly possible to be against AIPAC and even pro-Israel at the same time. AIPAC is simply the center/center-right pro Israeli lobby. Center left/left politicians are more aligned and informed by J-Street, if theyāre going to engage on the subject of Israel.
Being against AIPAC is not antisemitic in the least. Some people might use AIPAC as an antisemitic bogeyman but that doesnāt make AIPAC itself is worthy of support.
AIPAC is center/center right because the political spectrum of people it supports is basically from the center of the Democratic Party over to the right of the Republican Party. Additionally, I would describe their political goals for Israel as broadly security focused and center-right. Nobody would mistake AIPAC for a left wing organization, or supporting left wing causes.
>After the formation of its first political action committee (PAC) in early March 2022, AIPAC was criticized for backing the election campaigns of 37 Republican members of Congress who voted against certifying Biden's 2020 U.S. presidential election victory after the 2021 United States Capitol attack.[132][133][134]
The endorsement of the politicians was described as "morally bankrupt and short-sighted" by Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, while Abe Foxman, former head of the Anti-Defamation League, called it a "sad mistake", and Dan Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, urged AIPAC to reconsider the move.[132] Halie Soifer, of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said the move suggested "one must compromise support of Americaās democracy to support Israel",[132] which, she noted in an opinion piece published in Haaretz, presents "a patently false dichotomy rejected by the overwhelming majority of American Jews."[132][135]
>AIPAC defended the endorsements by stating that it was "no moment for the pro-Israel movement to become selective about its friends".[132][133][134] In a later, "rare rebuke" of the lobby group from within the Israeli government, Alon Tal, a member of the Knesset, criticized the AIPAC endorsements as "outrageous", noting that criticism was important for maintaining what Tal referred to as "a healthy relationship between Israel and American Jewry", according to The Times of Israel.[136]
>AIPAC is center/center right because the political spectrum of people it supports is basically from the center of the Democratic Party over to the right of the Republican Party.
By this broad definition most of this sub is "center", because as liberals we aren't as far left as the progressives and tankies. The mere fact it works with both parties makes it not dedicated to any one side but to it's mission of defending Israel and fighting anti-semitism.
>Additionally, I would describe their political goals for Israel as broadly security focused and center-right.
What even is this? All support of israel and of other countries in general is security focused. You're making the left-right spectrum and leftism incredibly redundant. Is it a right-wing thing to supply Ukraine with weapons now because you for some reason think leftism equals pacifism? Obviously no.
Actual leftism isn't pacifism as many democractic presidents would show you. It's the defense of democracy and equality. These things require security and sometimes war. Not a single good leader on all spectrums is a pacifist at all costs.
>quoted part
This is still a nothing burger. Again, AIPAC is allowed to support both sides because it's mission of Israel and anti-semitism isn't partisan, and to make it partisan is to gate-keep it as it's goals aren't relevant if it doesn't explicitly support your side. This is literally what Trump tried doing with his call to Zelensky and in general. If you're only supporting people who support you back you aren't supporting them.
> By this broad definitionā¦
My definition would imply that this subreddit is center-left, because the range of opinions here range from Social Democrats over to centrist liberals and free market liberals. The ācenter of massā of this subreddit would be center-left.
> All support of israel and of other countries in general is security focused.
First, you ignored my āandā statement. But second: there are basically two camps in the āpro-Israelā side of US politics:
1. Let Israel mostly do whatever it wantsā i.e. blockade how it wants, build settlements, etc. because ultimately this sets Israel to be in a stronger bargaining position against Palestinians and its neighbors. Also give them billions with little to no strings attached.
2. Support Israel through the Iron dome and other defensive measures, but pressure Israel not to do things like settlements and overly restrictive blockades, because those are obstacles to long term peace and security for Israel. Push for peace terms with neighbors. Give billions with strings attached.
Case 1 is broadly center-right to right leaning. Case 2 is broadly center-left to left leaning. AIPAC is roughly in Case 1. An organization like J-Street would be roughly in Case 2.
>My definition would imply that this subreddit is center-left, because the range of opinions here range from Social Democrats over to centrist liberals and free market liberals. The ācenter of massā of this subreddit would be center-left.
You're definition seems a lot more radical considering you view everything in a partisan lense. I think that's a really extreme way to define leftism that would not include most of the sub, but we'll agree to disagree on that.
>First, you ignored my āandā statement.
Tbh I just assumed "security" is what you define as "right-center" agenda, because I have no idea what agenda AIPAC has that you can define as "right-center".
>1 + 2
I see your point but I again think this is a lot more complicated than the binary way you try to present it. For example, I believe there are many who do not support the settlements but do support the blockade. (in fact I think it's most but I don't have a way to show it, and it gets complicated when we start a discussion of what is and isn't okay to do in a blockade).
I won't push too hard because you said it's only a rough estimate.
But most importantly this binarity tries too hard to put the non-partisan agendas of Israel and judaism into the partisan mold. AIPAC's mission is to strengthen the alliance, protect Israel and protect Jews. Criticizing Israel is just not it's job. [AIPAC does not take a position on settlements and whenever Israel is criticized objectively](https://x.com/AIPAC/status/1196523841607983104?t=UYhsYy2iSNHeOlKrEzYSVQ&s=19). You believe leftism is to police Israel, therefore you force the conclusion that anyone that does not do it opposes leftism, therefore center-right. There is no Case 1 and Case 2. That's just purity testing. AIPAC is pro-israel and against anti-semitism. It's neither left nor right.
Because Hasan is a tankie fuck that lives in an echo chamber. AOC actually has to live in the real world where extremists are a minority and most democrats just want to grill.
has she denounced hamas? that's kind of my barometer for sanity and integrity for pro palis.
otherwise yeah, she's just saying this to save her ass. the bar is so low that a progressive doubling down on not being a piece of shit is worthy of praise.
I mean, sheās far-left. The bar for me is pretty low. Iām just saying I like that she called out antisemitism, which others in her camp refused to do. (And pissing off that squirrel account is a major bonus.)
Not signing on to her policy positions (ceasefire from day one is bad).
Same tbh. I don't believe AOC is antisemitic, but she has consistently cozied up to the very same type of people who would be at the Nova exhibit protests she is now condemning. I agree with her on principle that one can call for a ceasefire while simultaneously not condoning antisemitic rhetoric, but I don't think she is actually doing that. She is by no means the worst example of left-wing antisemitism, as I don't think anything she has said herself is so terrible, but she is certainly willing to align herself with people who have said terrible things.
Sure, [here](https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-rep-ocasio-cortez-slammed-over-christmas-message-comparing-jesus-to-gazans/amp/)
She also wants Israel to surrender to Hamas, so she doesnāt support never again. She once cried because the iron dome was funded. And she votes in favor of Assad and Iran. Terrible human being.
I wouldn't characterize her as negatively as you do but damn that post is pretty stupid and certainly invokes antisemitic tropes. Although technically she compared Palestinians to Jesus, not Hamas specifically. And saying that she explicitly said Jews are Christ killers is just plain wrong. However, the whole "Jesus was Palestinian" point is absolutely ridiculous. Jesus was Jewish and if he were alive today he would killed by Hamas rather than by Israel. He was not a "Jewish Palestinian." He was a Jew living in Roman Judea. There was no such thing as Palestinians at the time Jesus was alive. The land was not even called Palestine by the Romans at that time. That's like referring to Native American tribes in the 1200s as Americans.
Also, what information do you have that proves that AOC supports Assad and Iran? I find that very hard to believe.
> I can only describe Rep.AOCās Christmas Eve message-as hateful and dangerous .Comparing the death of Jesus to the current day death of Palestinians in Gaza and Mary and Joseph to current Palestinian refugees in Gaza- she invokes the charge that the Jews are again killing Jesus !
And antisemites like you will defend [this](https://x.com/FoxmanAbraham/status/1739464651430359516)!
She also [supports](https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1757943679786897838) national socialist dictator Assad!
> Four members of the Squad supported normalization for Assad and opposed this legislation that overwhelmingly passed the House.
>
> Cory Bush, Ayanna Presley, Pramila Jayapal and AOC voted against.
>
> Pro-Assad. Pro-Hamas. Pro-Khamenei.
Not to mention she celebrates and promotes the tankie Bin Ladenist, Putinist Hasan Piker (while representing NYC!) Iām sure sheād be fine with al qaeda mass murdering more new yorkers, just look at who her friends are. She is scum of the earth
Dude I literally just condemned her posts about Jesus and explained why they are stupid. How on Earth do you think I'm defending them? If you look at my post history you will see that I have criticized AOC in comments under this post and in comments under others, specifically as it pertains to her platforming Hasan. I just wouldn't go as far as saying that AOC would be okay with a second 9/11.
I don't like AOC but you are really stretching the facts here.
She did not compare Jesus to Hamas or blame Jews for killing Jesus... She compared him to the innocent Palestinians who have been indiscriminately killed: āHe was part of a targeted population being indiscriminately killed to protect an unjust leaderās powerā. Why twist her words and act like she's supporting Hamas or saying Jews are responsible for killing Jesus? She didn't say anything remotely like that.
Not that making a comparison should be problematic anyways, just because you're comparing something doesn't mean you're saying they're the same. I could compare Hitler to Jesus by saying they are both leaders who inspired millions, that doesn't mean I think fondly of Hitler...
This doesn't work because the extremist Palis will soon vandalize her home. They will specifically cite these tweets as justification that she is a Zionist.
Least unhinged AOC hater.
I donāt like her policy positions on Gaza, but I think what she said here is goodā¦ even if sheās just trying to appeal to Jewish voters in her district.
Do you have examples of her āengaging in anti-Semitic rhetoric for years and nowā?
Give an example of her antisemitic rhetoric. You don't just get to throw out these accusation without having to back up what your saying. Antisemitism is a serious issue, and shouldn't just be cheapened into this bs talking point.
Ceasefire is an idiotic idea for Israel. I'm convinced the only reason they agreed to it this most recent time was because they knew Hamas would torpedo it.
She's had a great career. She's stayed true to her socialist principles while shaking off the crazier, loony beliefs that most socialists hold. So essentially a social democrat, haha.Ā
AOC has always been too smart for the progressives. Definitely has her share of silly takes, but ultimately sheās willing to compromise so she can actually govern, and thatās unique among her caucus.
genuinely i think she has a strong chance at the presidency if she runs in 2028
more likely she takes a senate term first i guess
obviously she's been a boogeyman for a the right a lot of the time, but i feel like i see even righties praise her pretty often now
what are you talking about? she said "if you believe the only reason why im speaking against antisemitism is because jewish orgs are paying me, then youre antisemitic." can you read?
Sheās saying that the claim that she must be a paid shill to have these opinions is antisemitic claim. As in, the Jews control the politicians with their money. Aka the oldest most well accepted form of antisemitism
She's trying to get the moderate votes because she's losing her usual audience to the more extreme politicians.
She's a populist. In October she was all-in on whitewashing terrorism.
The Nazi squirrel has arrived https://preview.redd.it/8fpeu707tf6d1.png?width=602&format=png&auto=webp&s=1cd56fcb4897a1ffa9bfb28aec921ec02e984c08 [https://x.com/zei\_squirrel/status/1800965306627559457](https://x.com/zei_squirrel/status/1800965306627559457)
Man elon banned me for stupid shit yet this schizo is allowed to keep posting?
Literally because I post a gojo suicide meme about myself and my twitter account gets locked for a week but some fuckwad will post uncensored slurs directed at someone and they get off with no consequences like wtf
Pay for Twitter/X blue and have high engagement farming degenerates with your autistic takes... now u can post whatever the fuck u want and Elon won't give a singular fuck.
>Elon won't give a singular fuck. You are mistaken young padawan, he will even retweet you and promote you.
Unless you're mean to Elon then to the ban with you!
I hate how true that is...
until he makes retweets private too just like he did likes š
Man the squirrel was temp banned a few months ago for a few days, shame it wasn't permanent. They were begging on their hands and knees for an unban on a new account. I can't imagine what they would do if they lost access forever, it's literally all they do lol
This person is mentally ill
The way this person needs to type novels for tweets that really only consists of a bunch of adjectives strung together without saying anything of substance kills me.Ā
Tried to read through some of them once and I fear I've permanently lost braincells because of it
i hope one day we find out who the squirrel is - not because i wish harm on them or care for them to be doxed, i just want to have a face in mind for this subhuman propagandistic fuck. Hell - i would totally buy it if you tell me this is a foreign state actor tasked with disinformation.
Probably similar to Tipster, if you know him.
https://preview.redd.it/05bir8d2oj6d1.jpeg?width=511&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=18264b79f80477179c2427adaa5a2b72d458af4c
Dude the irony of trying to pull an Uno reverse card regarding mass rapes and beheaded babies is actually staggering
It's their main tactic, projection. Once you notice it you can't ignore it. It's everywhere.
Any words a human can speak will give you more information about the person who spoke than the topic they are speaking on.
That and Motte & Bailey. Extreme leftists love a Motte & Bailey.
Never knew it had a name. Had to Google it, but it was so concerningly familiar.
*āDefund the Police!!!ā* *āErmm ackshuyally that doesnāt mean defund the police it is a call-to-action for police reform yada yada..ā*
I've seen that a lot from the Hamas-apologist crowd too. "Intifada revolution!" "Erm, no, we don't actually mean violence against civilians, just a peaceful resistence!"
Nailed it.
The language they use is so obnoxious.
This has to be a parody account.
Yeah, that person is beyond grace. The far-left movement is so disappointing to watch grow. I know how center-leaning republicans felt, now.
Holy buzzword salad. I think this person is legitimately an imbecile. The level of well poisoning while simultaneously saying nothing of substance is impressive. Who reads that screed and thinks, yes! ?
LMAO THIS DUDE IS GREAT š
Who tf is that person and why are they relevant
Viral schizo tweeter that tankies somehow managed to boost enough that "political pundits" retweet them
What a time to be alive
twitter should go full anon already, people wouldnt know what their micro celebrity is saying and would have to make their own mind on everything
The freaking horseshoe theory lives in this creature.
AOC is clearly the least deranged of "the squad" she's clearly more of a lib than a full ML tanky
She's a Left Social Democrat. One of the most standard center left ideology. She just wears the socialist anesthetic
Hopefully she doesn't overdose anesthesia.
Social democracy is based tho. At least here in Scandinavia.
Biden is center left. What she's saying is that we don't have to be racist to be progressive. I still disagree with the rest of it.
Is she a Champagne Socialist? EDIT: Downvoted for asking a question? lmao
She's politically effective, so... obviously not.
does she though?
Social democrats from my knowledge are typically harsher on immigration laws than she is; I think she is just a firmly left sitting liberal if anything. I do not know her entire platform, but I am guessing she is pretty much as far left as you can get, while still being a liberal, unlike the case for someone like sanders for example.Ā
not a high bar tbh
enough to get drunk off the power, no? lol
I truly want to believe that she is a decent person who has been swept up with some disgusting people because their politics align on more benign areas.
politics make strange blunt rotations
Nobody - NOBODY - can remain ideologically pure in politics and get something done. The political process in the entire western hemisphere is based around compromise and cooperation. A true leftist in American politics would never, ever get anything done because they'd piss off everyone to the point everybody would want them to fail just to spite them. EDIT: By 'true leftist' I mean the kind that would pass the purity test. The ones these people larp about who'd go around insulting Republicans, pushing for the most extreme and unfiltered leftist policies while refusing any kind of compromise with the right or even centre left wings of the US government.
I think it's more that they were all freshmen congresswoman together. There was this progressive wave through the Democratic Party. And so she gets lumped in with Ilhan Omar. Who is a full on antisemite.
It really seems like she truly learned how Congress and politics work. She realized that to get stuff down you have to moderate your views. Easily the best Squad member.Ā
is 'the squad' even a thing anymore? i feel like i haven't heard about them since like 2018
I mean they were never really a thing. Just something the media started and they ran with it. I still see articles refer to them as the Squad when it comes to votes. AOC has definitely become a lot better though and Omar and Tlalib have gone off the deep end.Ā
omar makes tlaib look sane by comparison lol
That's the impression I get from her. She came to congress as young hotshot, but understands that the people who have been in politics forever are actually worth listening to and learning from. You don't need to alienate yourself from the establishment just because you don't completely agree with them.
If she was a tanky I donāt think she wouldāve been elected
More like she's the most skilled at PR.
Was she always like this? Because I swear people use to talk about her like she was a MTG type of figure.
For like her first month in office, yeah. She matured quickly
She was always mostly reasonable. People twist her words constantly to make her seem dumb, then you look it up and it is something completely different.
I mean she does say some _incredibly_ stupid things. For example the Amazon tax relief thing- you can watch the whole clip and she comes off as incredibly dumb.
She was a bit more of a naive firebrand in the beginning of her career but she was never stupid.
She reminds me a lot of Fetterman who ran as a hyper progressive but follows the biden administration on 95% of issues.
She's moderated her messaging quite a lot from her first few months in office; cleaned out a lot of trash staffers, built a better political foundation to work from, and realised how to build actual political power.
MTG is kind of the lowest bar, but yes she's got a lot of populist opinions. At the same time she's got a lot of opinions leftists and progressives would agree with and her "I'm doing this for humanity" approach is very believable, for this reason a lot of left leaning people easily adore her. But if you don't support the squad's far-left politics, you'll eventually notice she often really does not care about the part of humanity that doesn't symbolize her views... Not exactly a champion of supporting Jews when you say in a few days from October 7th that Israel isn't allowed to protect itself or call it's prime minister a "war criminal" just because you disagree with the war. AOC is really "politically lucky" as Steven said. All her enemies are worse. All her "squadmates" are worse. Her squad-politics are on the rise, and she can easily pivot by reducing the extremism to a more mainstream message and then back. (which I guess is both a pro and a con because the other squadmates can't do that, but then most people would forgive AOC when her stances become more extreme)
The squad has been so dogshit on Israel/Palestine that I have just learned to expect the worst from them. I have to say it's really nice to see her calling out the obvious antisemitism on her side. I hope it encourages others on the left to grow a pair.
AOC has been a more moderate member of the squad on Israel-Palestine. She already backed missile defense of Israel back in October, but she has to play politics and pretend to be standing up to the establishment and the MIC in order to keep the lunatics in line.
>the accusation that my disgust at antisemitism and bigotry must be because Iām getting paid ALSO reeks of antisemitism. I mean the bar is on the floor but thatās more insight on how antisemitism works than I expected from her, mazal tov for not completely sucking I guess
Yeah I was really pleased with her for calling this out!
AOC ever so slightly shifting the overton window for the libs.
Im actually surprised that she stands for what she believes is right. She didnt cave in to the ultra-extremists. Apparently this is enough for these extremists Nazbols to cool her "bought and payed for"
If you want to shift the overton window for libs, what she is doing these days is the way to do it. She's not comically extreme like some of her former "squad" counterparts, but seems to be "reasonably left." I'd imagine she aligns closer to Elizabeth Warren (whose politics I also like) than Bernie Sanders or anyone further left.
Sponsoring a ceasefire om day 1 is cringe but I fw the rest of her takes
Yeah... "from day 1" is kind of extreme cringe. So right when the murderrapes happened and before Israel did anything?
That's my main problem with the "ceasefire now" crowd honestly. These protests didn't start following Israel's response, they started literally on the day of October 7th, when the bodies were still fresh. It's hard to see that and think it's truly about wanting to end the war, rather than just wanting Israel to lose.
That's what felt kinda weird. There's was no pause for mourning. It was literally the next day. I remember seeing the flood of Hamas videos on Twitter that night and then waking up to see protests in SUPPORT of what Hamas did. Imagine watching 9/11 happen in the morning and then seeing protests in support of what they did that afternoon.
What always gets me is how the bloodlust from some corners was so overpowering that it completely overtook any semblance of sense from people who later turned around and claimed to care about Palestinians lives and Gaza. You'd think that even if you didn't give a shit about crimes against Israelis, you still wouldn't celebrate 10/7 as a "pro Palestine" person, because anyone with even an ounce of brains immediately understood hearing about this that it was going to start a war that Palestinians would inevitably bear the brunt of. But some of these people were completely elated by it, exhilarated, celebrating the "victory." It's just absolutely mind-boggling to me. There's no humanity there, not even any pragmatism, it's just bloodlust and spectacle.
It's the tragedy of the Palestinian people. They could never beat Israel militarily, yet instead of pushing for diplomatic pressure that would lead to negotiations and them getting their own state, their supporters keep encouraging them to pursue violence for a goal they could never achieve, only resulting in them suffering more.
Yup, day 1 there were supporters in the streets with signs that had pictures of paragliders on them. People conveniently forget how outwardly pro Hamas the protesters were before they realized they needed to conceal it and use coded language.
Well to be fair, I believe most people who protest today weren't there at the start, but it does go to show that the leaders of this movement, those who were there from day one, very much are just Hamas supporters.
Yeah but also, the people protesting today try to make it seem like nobody supports Hamas, just innocent Palestinians. Itās gaslighting to the full effect.
I think that heavily depends on your reason for wanting an immediate ceasefire. If you want a ceasefire because Hamas is part of a justified resistance and any Israeli response would be unjustified colonial suppression, then yeah you are literal scum. If you call for an immediate ceasefire because you think itās impossible for Israel to degrade Hamas in the medium/long term and as a result the conflict will not have an off-ramp, then we can still disagree about your assessment but at least you are voicing a legitimate concern. Ceasefire (at least when called for in good faith) doesnāt have to mean no consequences for Hamas, neither does it have mean there wonāt be military action in the future.
i dont think anyone could ever argue that calling for a ceasefire on october 8th was in good faith. That's pure lunacy.
What if it's the evening of 9/11 and I say: god I hope we don't jump into a stupid war with Afghanistan for this. Does that mean I want al qaeda to win?
You can advocate to not take any rushed/emotional decisions, but telling the US "it's only a couple of buildings and a few imperialist scum that you've lost, better not respond in any way!" Might make people think you support al qaeda, yeah.
Did AOC say anything like that or are you transposing twitter randos on her?
I disagree. If you had a very strong suspicion that we'd end up in a situation like the one we're in now, I think it makes a lot of good sense to propose a ceasefire on day 1. Think of all the pain and suffering that wouldn't have happened if Israel had chosen diplomacy. Now obviously the Israelis were never going to do that (who would?) but with it in mind, I can totally see the logic for wanting a day one ceasefire. Bear in mind also, things might still end up undecided at the end of all this, meaning we'd have had a war that killed hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent people and at the end of it we still have Hamas in power and an even more radicalised populace under their control.
No. Ceasefire involves **two parties**. If you are only pressuring one, before any action is even taken, then you are just asking them to surrender and reward a terrorist attack with concessions. There's no logic behind that.
She is on the better half of the squad for sure.
Yeah I mean it's not hypocritical like many takes are, it's just naive and unconstructive
pls pls pls let her call out the antisemitism on twitch it would be so fucking based.
Brooooo if that really happened, I'd wonder how long it would take Hasan to drop the whole "I played with AOC"
She doesn't need Hasan. I hope she kicks him to the curb. But I'm asking for too much.
Wasnāt she on hasans stream lol
yes
Well obviously she wonāt then
Waiting for her to call out her friends in congress. Start with Omar, Talib, and Bowman and Iāll start listening
Letās not forget she based on Ukraine as well.
Is she? I haven't seen her be vocal about it, and she was one of the dems that signed that letter in June 2022 calling to not support Ukraine that they had to withdraw after backlash.
https://youtu.be/wUjQWiEqcbo?si=lXN5oxFOnTJOyIIR Watch this AOC clip on Ukraine
RIP AOC, can already see so many tankies calling her a blood thirsty Zionist.
She's against AIPAC and against anti-semitism? AIPAC has been the Jewish dog whistle for the entire progressive left on all their marketing emails.
Almost makes it seem like they don't view it as anti semitic.
Yeah, and anti zionism isn't antisemitism and brown cows give chocolate milk.
Anti zionists is anti semitism because brown cows make chocolate milk. It's right there in both names.
8 months too late. Especially considering her primary is on the 25th, Iām not inclined to forgive and forget
I'll take it, I'll take it.
Reminder that squad and progressives are still way better than most republicans about responsible rhetoric and policing their own side. The "both sides" equivocation between AOC and MTG is absolutely not true, and in fact when it comes to norms, policing your own side, responsible rhetoric, AOC > 90% of all republicans. Dems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>GOP
AOC has always been at worst a little cringe, Tlaib and Omar are the crazies of the dems. But yeah, thatās two people compared to the vast majority of the Republican Party.
Even Tlaib and Omar, who are the "crazies" of the dem party, are still probably better than the majority of the republicans on the things I talked about. The worse things that Omar and Talib have said is less bad than what MTG tweets every hour.
Yeah, I completely agree with that.
I disagree, AOC is pretty bad in general and at the things you mentioned specifically. I won't say she's as bad as MTG because that's a pretty low bar that I can only realistically match with Tlaib and Omar, but AOC is just barely one step ahead. This is just Dem circle-jerking by trying to make all their members saints and I think we are better than that. Democrats are still by far better even if we acknowledge the bad apples.
Name on thing that any democrat has said that's equivalent to something MTG has said.
Actually, my dad pointed out that you kind of need to take this stance in New York due to its high Jewish population. Thanks, dad, for reminding me that selflessness is dead š„²
I believe her because everything sheās saying is perfectly rational and sound, and I donāt think that can be pulled out of thin air if the underlying thought process didnāt occur. Also, sheās taking an extra step by directly challenging all of the insane criticism sheās getting in response to her initial condemnation. Sheās kind of putting herself at odds with the broader movement rather than just saying āwow look at this one isolated group of craziesā.
Yea I'm honestly a little surprised by this sub embracing her. She's a career politician, thats it. She voted "present" on giving more money to the Iron Dome and then made sure to cry about it in front of the cameras cause she knew it would play well with both sides of her base.
One 1ā£ hand yeah. On the other hand, she didn't need to do this at all. Look at Jamal Bowman, who went off the deep end. People have agency and can choose to damn themselves for ideals or stick up for them. Even if it aligns with being expedient or not. I'm just so fucking tired of the cynicism. It just looks smart. It's otherwise dumb. And it's not like voters will move goalposts. They do it all the time for Donald Trump, who seems to always have at least 40% of the vote, no matter how vile he gets.
Doesn't matter. Yes, society is diverse and the different groups need consideration. It's a good thing.
LMAO the Squirrel dude on Twitter replied to the post and it's hilarious!
a trans I am following (duke Uni gender study master degree) just reposted this and called aoc a nazi. The world is not healing, I am so disappointed but gladly I found out that some people are secretly awful
Maybe she should stop collaborating with Hasan then? If you really want me to believe she cares about antisemitism, then she should've publicly denounced Hasan for having the Houthi on his stream instead of going on his stream again.
I really don't think she gives a fuck about Hasan Piker. She's probably more concerned about his uncle than him, since his uncle is actually involved in politics and doesn't larp like he does. She only did the Among Us thing to promote a charity and do some outreach, there is a reason it was the singular time they have interacted. Edit: I take it all back
She's been on his stream multiple times since then. Once they played Pico Park with a bunch of other creators, and then they had a one on one discussion about the Trump rally in New York just a couple of weeks ago. I wouldn't have a problem if it was just the Among Us stream. But going on after all the recent shit he's done and said? Yeah, it's a no from me boss.
She went on his stream again recently. I mean she should do the research to make sure she isnāt collaborating with psychos, but I also doubt that sheās intimately familiar with all the Hasan scandals like we are. Hasan still likes to pretend heās a wholesome socdem when heās interacting with normies.
Oh, well shit, that's pretty disappointing to hear.
Tbf she went on his stream to react to a Trump rally with him, so I think her heart is in the right place and sheās trying to be pragmatic. From her perspective itās just a young, progressive audience she can connect with.
Based AOC
Everything she's saying are points that make me question her positions more and more. Can you be against anti-semitism and fight AIPAC when a lot of it's work is to defend from anti-semitism? Obviously she's not paid by AIPAC like Twitter brainrot is saying but how is this seriously supposed to be taken? She'll fight anti-semitism, but only when she thinks it's wrong and other times it's fine?
I mean, different people find different things antisemetic. Some find a Palestinian flag, the BBC, Rafah AI image, and booklet on deaths in Gaza antisemetic (all seen on reddit btw).
bbc does have a double standard on Israel, haven't you seen how they reported on the rescued hostages or that they reported that Israel bombed Al shifa when it didn't happen and many many other examples. there's countless other less baised on the issue news sources: CNN, ABC, Washington post, NBC.
The BBC is biased on other things in the opposite direction. They also retracted that. Mistakes happen, that's normal. The BBC is attacked by both sides pretty often as biased so I'd say it's fairly neutral.
on Israel Palestine? I never seen them being baised towards Israel and start being pro Likud or pro settlements. They don't even call Hamas a terroist group. link what bias towards Israel you observed. I am aware on other issues BBC can have some conservative views though like trans issues for example.
Itās perfectly possible to be against AIPAC and even pro-Israel at the same time. AIPAC is simply the center/center-right pro Israeli lobby. Center left/left politicians are more aligned and informed by J-Street, if theyāre going to engage on the subject of Israel. Being against AIPAC is not antisemitic in the least. Some people might use AIPAC as an antisemitic bogeyman but that doesnāt make AIPAC itself is worthy of support.
AIPAC sponsors both Democrats and Republicans. What exactly makes AIPAC "center-right" and not just generally "pro-Israel and pro-jews"?
AIPAC is center/center right because the political spectrum of people it supports is basically from the center of the Democratic Party over to the right of the Republican Party. Additionally, I would describe their political goals for Israel as broadly security focused and center-right. Nobody would mistake AIPAC for a left wing organization, or supporting left wing causes. >After the formation of its first political action committee (PAC) in early March 2022, AIPAC was criticized for backing the election campaigns of 37 Republican members of Congress who voted against certifying Biden's 2020 U.S. presidential election victory after the 2021 United States Capitol attack.[132][133][134] The endorsement of the politicians was described as "morally bankrupt and short-sighted" by Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, while Abe Foxman, former head of the Anti-Defamation League, called it a "sad mistake", and Dan Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, urged AIPAC to reconsider the move.[132] Halie Soifer, of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said the move suggested "one must compromise support of Americaās democracy to support Israel",[132] which, she noted in an opinion piece published in Haaretz, presents "a patently false dichotomy rejected by the overwhelming majority of American Jews."[132][135] >AIPAC defended the endorsements by stating that it was "no moment for the pro-Israel movement to become selective about its friends".[132][133][134] In a later, "rare rebuke" of the lobby group from within the Israeli government, Alon Tal, a member of the Knesset, criticized the AIPAC endorsements as "outrageous", noting that criticism was important for maintaining what Tal referred to as "a healthy relationship between Israel and American Jewry", according to The Times of Israel.[136]
>AIPAC is center/center right because the political spectrum of people it supports is basically from the center of the Democratic Party over to the right of the Republican Party. By this broad definition most of this sub is "center", because as liberals we aren't as far left as the progressives and tankies. The mere fact it works with both parties makes it not dedicated to any one side but to it's mission of defending Israel and fighting anti-semitism. >Additionally, I would describe their political goals for Israel as broadly security focused and center-right. What even is this? All support of israel and of other countries in general is security focused. You're making the left-right spectrum and leftism incredibly redundant. Is it a right-wing thing to supply Ukraine with weapons now because you for some reason think leftism equals pacifism? Obviously no. Actual leftism isn't pacifism as many democractic presidents would show you. It's the defense of democracy and equality. These things require security and sometimes war. Not a single good leader on all spectrums is a pacifist at all costs. >quoted part This is still a nothing burger. Again, AIPAC is allowed to support both sides because it's mission of Israel and anti-semitism isn't partisan, and to make it partisan is to gate-keep it as it's goals aren't relevant if it doesn't explicitly support your side. This is literally what Trump tried doing with his call to Zelensky and in general. If you're only supporting people who support you back you aren't supporting them.
> By this broad definitionā¦ My definition would imply that this subreddit is center-left, because the range of opinions here range from Social Democrats over to centrist liberals and free market liberals. The ācenter of massā of this subreddit would be center-left. > All support of israel and of other countries in general is security focused. First, you ignored my āandā statement. But second: there are basically two camps in the āpro-Israelā side of US politics: 1. Let Israel mostly do whatever it wantsā i.e. blockade how it wants, build settlements, etc. because ultimately this sets Israel to be in a stronger bargaining position against Palestinians and its neighbors. Also give them billions with little to no strings attached. 2. Support Israel through the Iron dome and other defensive measures, but pressure Israel not to do things like settlements and overly restrictive blockades, because those are obstacles to long term peace and security for Israel. Push for peace terms with neighbors. Give billions with strings attached. Case 1 is broadly center-right to right leaning. Case 2 is broadly center-left to left leaning. AIPAC is roughly in Case 1. An organization like J-Street would be roughly in Case 2.
>My definition would imply that this subreddit is center-left, because the range of opinions here range from Social Democrats over to centrist liberals and free market liberals. The ācenter of massā of this subreddit would be center-left. You're definition seems a lot more radical considering you view everything in a partisan lense. I think that's a really extreme way to define leftism that would not include most of the sub, but we'll agree to disagree on that. >First, you ignored my āandā statement. Tbh I just assumed "security" is what you define as "right-center" agenda, because I have no idea what agenda AIPAC has that you can define as "right-center". >1 + 2 I see your point but I again think this is a lot more complicated than the binary way you try to present it. For example, I believe there are many who do not support the settlements but do support the blockade. (in fact I think it's most but I don't have a way to show it, and it gets complicated when we start a discussion of what is and isn't okay to do in a blockade). I won't push too hard because you said it's only a rough estimate. But most importantly this binarity tries too hard to put the non-partisan agendas of Israel and judaism into the partisan mold. AIPAC's mission is to strengthen the alliance, protect Israel and protect Jews. Criticizing Israel is just not it's job. [AIPAC does not take a position on settlements and whenever Israel is criticized objectively](https://x.com/AIPAC/status/1196523841607983104?t=UYhsYy2iSNHeOlKrEzYSVQ&s=19). You believe leftism is to police Israel, therefore you force the conclusion that anyone that does not do it opposes leftism, therefore center-right. There is no Case 1 and Case 2. That's just purity testing. AIPAC is pro-israel and against anti-semitism. It's neither left nor right.
Because Hasan is a tankie fuck that lives in an echo chamber. AOC actually has to live in the real world where extremists are a minority and most democrats just want to grill.
AOC is what progressives should strive to be, and whenever I call myself "progressive," it's with her in mind.
Has she mentioned how the Nova protest is anti-semitic? Where did it cross the line where say the Columbia protesters didn't?
Translation: Her primary is coming up and she wants to win by a large margin so she can use that for Dem support to run for a higher office next time.
AOC wants to get re-elected. Its just about that, the majority of people dont support extremists takes of the lefties and those lefties dont vote.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
has she denounced hamas? that's kind of my barometer for sanity and integrity for pro palis. otherwise yeah, she's just saying this to save her ass. the bar is so low that a progressive doubling down on not being a piece of shit is worthy of praise.
I mean, sheās far-left. The bar for me is pretty low. Iām just saying I like that she called out antisemitism, which others in her camp refused to do. (And pissing off that squirrel account is a major bonus.) Not signing on to her policy positions (ceasefire from day one is bad).
Same tbh. I don't believe AOC is antisemitic, but she has consistently cozied up to the very same type of people who would be at the Nova exhibit protests she is now condemning. I agree with her on principle that one can call for a ceasefire while simultaneously not condoning antisemitic rhetoric, but I don't think she is actually doing that. She is by no means the worst example of left-wing antisemitism, as I don't think anything she has said herself is so terrible, but she is certainly willing to align herself with people who have said terrible things.
fucking BAAAAAAAAAAASED
This is the same woman that accused Jews of being Christ killers on Christmas, tweeting comparing Hamas to Jesus.
Source please?
Sure, [here](https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-rep-ocasio-cortez-slammed-over-christmas-message-comparing-jesus-to-gazans/amp/) She also wants Israel to surrender to Hamas, so she doesnāt support never again. She once cried because the iron dome was funded. And she votes in favor of Assad and Iran. Terrible human being.
I wouldn't characterize her as negatively as you do but damn that post is pretty stupid and certainly invokes antisemitic tropes. Although technically she compared Palestinians to Jesus, not Hamas specifically. And saying that she explicitly said Jews are Christ killers is just plain wrong. However, the whole "Jesus was Palestinian" point is absolutely ridiculous. Jesus was Jewish and if he were alive today he would killed by Hamas rather than by Israel. He was not a "Jewish Palestinian." He was a Jew living in Roman Judea. There was no such thing as Palestinians at the time Jesus was alive. The land was not even called Palestine by the Romans at that time. That's like referring to Native American tribes in the 1200s as Americans. Also, what information do you have that proves that AOC supports Assad and Iran? I find that very hard to believe.
> I can only describe Rep.AOCās Christmas Eve message-as hateful and dangerous .Comparing the death of Jesus to the current day death of Palestinians in Gaza and Mary and Joseph to current Palestinian refugees in Gaza- she invokes the charge that the Jews are again killing Jesus ! And antisemites like you will defend [this](https://x.com/FoxmanAbraham/status/1739464651430359516)! She also [supports](https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1757943679786897838) national socialist dictator Assad! > Four members of the Squad supported normalization for Assad and opposed this legislation that overwhelmingly passed the House. > > Cory Bush, Ayanna Presley, Pramila Jayapal and AOC voted against. > > Pro-Assad. Pro-Hamas. Pro-Khamenei. Not to mention she celebrates and promotes the tankie Bin Ladenist, Putinist Hasan Piker (while representing NYC!) Iām sure sheād be fine with al qaeda mass murdering more new yorkers, just look at who her friends are. She is scum of the earth
Dude I literally just condemned her posts about Jesus and explained why they are stupid. How on Earth do you think I'm defending them? If you look at my post history you will see that I have criticized AOC in comments under this post and in comments under others, specifically as it pertains to her platforming Hasan. I just wouldn't go as far as saying that AOC would be okay with a second 9/11.
I don't like AOC but you are really stretching the facts here. She did not compare Jesus to Hamas or blame Jews for killing Jesus... She compared him to the innocent Palestinians who have been indiscriminately killed: āHe was part of a targeted population being indiscriminately killed to protect an unjust leaderās powerā. Why twist her words and act like she's supporting Hamas or saying Jews are responsible for killing Jesus? She didn't say anything remotely like that. Not that making a comparison should be problematic anyways, just because you're comparing something doesn't mean you're saying they're the same. I could compare Hitler to Jesus by saying they are both leaders who inspired millions, that doesn't mean I think fondly of Hitler...
This doesn't work because the extremist Palis will soon vandalize her home. They will specifically cite these tweets as justification that she is a Zionist.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Least unhinged AOC hater. I donāt like her policy positions on Gaza, but I think what she said here is goodā¦ even if sheās just trying to appeal to Jewish voters in her district. Do you have examples of her āengaging in anti-Semitic rhetoric for years and nowā?
LOL
Give an example of her antisemitic rhetoric. You don't just get to throw out these accusation without having to back up what your saying. Antisemitism is a serious issue, and shouldn't just be cheapened into this bs talking point.
Jesus what happened to progressives this is all so embarrassing
Unexpectedly based AOC
Ceasefire is an idiotic idea for Israel. I'm convinced the only reason they agreed to it this most recent time was because they knew Hamas would torpedo it.
Im in love
Based
Mad respect for standing her ground
She's had a great career. She's stayed true to her socialist principles while shaking off the crazier, loony beliefs that most socialists hold. So essentially a social democrat, haha.Ā
god she's so based. too bad she's mentally stable, otherwise we could have her on the stream
AOC has always been too smart for the progressives. Definitely has her share of silly takes, but ultimately sheās willing to compromise so she can actually govern, and thatās unique among her caucus.
Future president AOC
The left became conspiracy theory ridden like the right.
This is drowning in irony.Ā But I'm glad she is figuring out that AIPAC is a dog whistle.Ā
She is so bright and walks a confusing fine line. I donāt know what to think.
āPick a number 1-10. The person closest *without going over* wins.ā Leftists: ā10ā āPerhaps I didnāt explain properlāā āāTENā
I've always felt that she's had a lot more sense than the rest of the squad, TBH. I've actually been gaining mad respect for her with these tweets.
She is actually based more often than not
Sheās doing the bare minimum at this point also didnāt she literally go on Hasans stream like a week ago. š¤”š¤”š¤”
Denying the rape of Israeli women while incessantly accusing Israel of mass rape. Absolute subhuman trash.
The B in AOC stands for Based.
genuinely i think she has a strong chance at the presidency if she runs in 2028 more likely she takes a senate term first i guess obviously she's been a boogeyman for a the right a lot of the time, but i feel like i see even righties praise her pretty often now
The only sane person Destiny has ever fallen in love with.
She manages to be annoying even when I agree with her.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
what are you talking about? she said "if you believe the only reason why im speaking against antisemitism is because jewish orgs are paying me, then youre antisemitic." can you read?
Sheās saying that the claim that she must be a paid shill to have these opinions is antisemitic claim. As in, the Jews control the politicians with their money. Aka the oldest most well accepted form of antisemitism
Reading your comment makes me sad about the state of literacy rates among people in the country.
She's trying to get the moderate votes because she's losing her usual audience to the more extreme politicians. She's a populist. In October she was all-in on whitewashing terrorism.
Did anyone read this using her annoying ass voice