AOC has issued a letter to their constituents addressing her "present" vote yesterday:

[George II]

A Note from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
September 24, 2021
Press Release
To our NY-14 community,

Yesterday, the House called to the floor a rushed, $1 billion supplemental military funding bill for Israel’s Iron Dome defense system. I want to be clear with our community that I am opposed to this bill, but ultimately cast a PRESENT vote. My job as your representative is to first and foremost serve with transparency and remain accountable to you, the people of New York’s 14th Congressional District.

First, let me begin with why I believe this bill should have been opposed: contrary to popular narrative, this bill was not for all U.S. funding of the Iron Dome, and opposing it would not defund U.S. financing of the system in any way, shape, or form. Since 2011, the U.S. has provided $1.7 billion for the Iron Dome and is already financially committed to continuing these funds through 2028. This bill adds an additional $1 billion in funding in one year to this system alone - for context, that is an amount in one year that approaches all the funding to this system we have provided over the last decade - and this is in addition to $3 billion authorized earlier this year in other forms of military funding to the Israeli government. I believe strongly that Congress should take greater scrutiny with all military funding across the world. I also believe that, for far too long, the U.S. has handed unconditional aid to the Israeli government while doing nothing to address or raise the persistent human rights abuses against the Palestinian people, and that this imbalance of power must be centered in any honest conversation about Israel and Palestine - in addition to the many other governments we militarily fund with a pattern of human rights abuses, such as the Saudi and Colombia related amendments I introduced last week as well.

In addition to opposing the substance of the Iron Dome supplemental bill, the process of bringing it to the House floor was deeply unjust. The legislative language itself was initially introduced, earlier this week, by way of an attempt to quietly slip this funding into routine legislation, without any of the usually-necessary committee debate, markup, or regular order. A funding leap this significant in a policy area that is already so charged and fraught for many communities, particularly our own, deserves the respect of a proper legislative process.

Unfortunately, that process did not happen. And, the reckless decision by House leadership to rush this controversial vote within a matter of hours and without true consideration created a tinderbox of vitriol, disingenuous framing, deeply racist accusations and depictions, and lack of substantive discussion on this matter. I want to be clear that the decision to rush this vote - virtually preventing any member from meaningfully consulting with their community - was both intentional and unnecessary. Even the night before, as it became clear that the discourse around this issue was quickly devolving from substance to hateful targeting, I personally had a call with the House Majority Leader to request a 24 hour stay of the vote, so that we could do the work necessary to bring down the temperature and volatility, explain our positions, and engage our communities. That request was summarily dismissed. Not only was the request dismissed, but despite the House having almost 8 straight hours of votes yesterday, this vote was chosen to be the first despite being one of the most controversial.

The damage of this careless process created very real spillover effects into our community. It created a real sense of panic and horror among those in our community who otherwise engage thoughtfully in these discussions, and fueled the discussion to devolve to a point where it became clear that this vote would risk a severe devolution of the good faith community fabric that allows us to responsibly join in a struggle for human rights and dignity everywhere - from Palestine to The Bronx and Queens. In short, the rush of this vote into a matter of hours was threatening to tear our community apart, and permanently close the doors that we desperately need open in order to progress. Yes, I wept. I wept at the complete lack of care for the human beings that are impacted by these decisions, I wept at an institution choosing a path of maximum volatility and minimum consideration for its own political convenience. And I wept at the complete lack of regard I often feel our party has to its most vulnerable and endangered members and communities - because the death threats and dangerous vitriol we’d inevitably receive by rushing such a sensitive, charged, and under-considered vote weren’t worth delaying it for even a few hours to help us do the work necessary to open a conversation of understanding.

It certainly wasn’t the first time people’s wellbeing was tossed aside for political convenience, and sadly I do not believe it will be the last. To those I have disappointed - I am deeply sorry. To those who believe this reasoning is insufficient or cowardice - I understand. To those who asked me to quell the volatility of this moment in our community, which constituted the majority of constituent feedback our office received - I hope we can take this moment and opportunity to more deeply engage in and grow a true, substantive movement of community support for human rights around the world - which includes cherishing and respecting the human rights of Palestinian people.

Yours,

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/note-rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez

[boston bean]

1. Wow. This is ridiculous. I am sorry but it is.

Just vote. Take your lumps and move on best you can.

Voting present wasn’t a gift to people who probably disagree with her regarding what she describes as Israeli human rights abuses against Palestinians.

It’s a tough subject. No winning side, imho.

[betsuni]

38. +1

[Dorian Gray]

52. She was cowardly

in not voting no.

She's trying to have it both ways in this instance.

[NurseJackie]

2. Did she (or someone else) offer criticism/scorn for others who voted "present" in the past?

I seem to recall that she criticized others for this, but maybe it was someone else who did that. I want to be fair.

[TheProle]

3. She went after Gabbard

for her present vote on impeachment.

[NurseJackie]

5. Yes! That's it.

Thank you.

[betsuni]

51. Well, she said voting "present" is quite difficult for consequential votes.

"Whenever we have a vote, we should vote 'yes' and we should vote 'no.' Voting 'present' is a very tough position to be in."

[George II]

57. I believe she said that about a fellow House Democrat a couple of years ago, right?

[betsuni]

65. Yes. I guess she was right, it IS a tough position to be in!

[tonedevil]

70. It certainly is...

you may remember President Obama being criticized for doing so in the Illinois State Senate.

[betsuni]

77. Then she's learning from one of the best. That's politics.

Don't think Obama ever cried, though.

[tonedevil]

81. I think he did not cry. /nt

[Budi]

4. K & R

5 paragraps to explain a 'present' vote.

[NurseJackie]

7. Ghosts appear and fade away. 🎵

[Hortensis]

10. Long paragraphs. Made me think of Kyrsten Sinema's "justifications,"

but I haven't read this so don't know if there's any similarity.

In any case, guessing those who adore her won't need to read, and most others won't be interested. I was bemused that she thought people might read it all. Or perhaps she doesn't?

Whatever.

[rgbecker]

69. Wait. 5 paragraphs are too much to read but you need to comment anyway?

Whatever?

[JohnSJ]

24. Exactly, and all I got out of that so-called explanation for her present vote was:

blah blah blah

Here is how I interpret what she said. “I think it should be voted down which is why I voted present”

WTF!!!

[Dorian Gray]

53. Yeah

I skimmed it and wasn't interested in reading that overlong justification of her non-vote.

[Marius25]

6. Lol, it's not a controversial vote.

How many bills get a 420-9 bipartisan agreement in the House?

The Iron Dome is an entirely defensive system. It protects lives, both Israeli and Palestinian. Opposition to the Iron Dome indicates a lack of concern for civilian lives.

There is a huge amount of disinformation surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[PoliticAverse]

9. This is not about "opposition to the Iron Dome" this is about who should pay for it. n/t

[Marius25]

11. Since the US helped build it and helps maintain it

it's not surprising that the US funds part of it. It's expensive to operate and it benefits America to help fund it.

[PoliticAverse]

13. What you mean is it benefits American defense contractors and the US paying for it is corporate

welfare. The people who should be paying for it are the people that use it.

[Marius25]

15. I find it odd that so many people that oppose

providing aid to Israel, are not as vocal about opposing funding to all the other countries we fund - Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Palestinians, Ukraine, Sudan, Ethiopia, Syria, Uganda, South Africa, Nigeria, etc.

[PoliticAverse]

20. Yes it is a shame so many people seem to support the US funding all those other countries, isn't it.

But here's a DU thread today about the US funding Columbia: https://democraticunderground.com/10142804865

[treestar]

46. who cares what countries they are

why do we spend on all this? No wonder we don't have health care.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

60. Israel has universal healthcare

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/israel

Israel provides universal coverage to citizens and permanent residents as part of its national health insurance law. Residents choose from four competing nonprofit health plans that provide a mandated benefit package, including hospital, primary, specialty, mental health, and maternity care, as well as prescription drugs and other services. There are no deductibles, but some cost-sharing is required for specialist visits and prescription drugs. The compulsory insurance system is funded primarily through a national income tax and an income-related health tax. Most citizens also purchase voluntary health insurance for medications not covered by the benefit package and for faster access and greater provider choice. Almost all governmental health functions are organized by the Ministry of Health, which has regional and district health offices.1

[George II]

62. I read through their universal healthcare plan, injury from incoming rockets isn't covered. Ergo....

Iron Dome is necessary.

[George II]

59. Apparently a HUGE majority of the members of the House understand the historic relationship....

....between the US and Israel over the last 7 decades and the importance of funding Iron Dome.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

61. Lol. It benefits defense contractors.

[George II]

63. It saved countless lives, both Jewish AND Palestinian, when it intercepted thousands of rockets....

...launched into Israel by Hamas.

Inasmuch as 1 in 5 Israeli citizens is Arab, obviously Hamas doesn't care about Arab or Palestinian lives, except when they want to.

Iron Dome benefits innocent civilians.

[PoliticAverse]

78. All the more reason Israel should be willing to pay for it. n/t

[George II]

80. With that in mind, maybe Hamas should pay for it. They're the main reason Israel needs it....

...and one out of every life saved in Israel is Palestinian/Arab.

[Budi]

12. Sure.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

74. Gee. I don't know that having all the republicans vote for it is such a selling point.

[Nixie]

83. 420-9 is quite a humiliation, certainly not a selling point for

brand building.

[Marius25]

87. 1 Republican didn't and almost all Democrats also voted for it.

[George II]

93. All the republicans didn't vote for it.

[stillcool]

8. I can't argue with the

battles she chooses, nor can I argue with her expressing her disappointment with people she represents. I do wonder how more time would calm emotions. In these times. Must be very depressing being in a member of Congress who cares, is willing to stick her neck out, and appears to believe in what I would consider impossible. I hope she doesn't lose her spirit.

[Budi]

17. Well.Imagine what Speaker Pelosi has had to stand firm through all her years of battles in the House

Years of doing her job against most apalling odds.
Yet She stands tall in their faces.






Bravo to your indomitable spirit Speaker Pelosi.

[stillcool]

23. There's only one Nancy Pelosi...

and she has paid her dues, learned her lessons, and knows her job. The clarity she possesses amazes me damn near every time she speaks. The amount of information she can recall in a heartbeat is stunning. AOC has the ambition, the heart, the drive, but like anyone else new to a position doesn't yet know, what she doesn't know. Hopefully she tempers her expectations so she doesn't crash and burn

[LetMyPeopleVote]

30. We are so very fortunate to have a leader like Speaker Pelosi

I am so impressed with her leadership

[PatSeg]

106. Yes, she does have the heart and the drive, as well as the intelligence

We've all been the newbie on a job, but most people keep a low profile as they figure out how things work. Look and listen, ask questions from people more experienced, and absorb as much as they can.

That was what Al Franken did when he first went to the senate. In the beginning he rarely appeared on national TV and when he did, he was very reserved and constrained. He felt he had to prove himself to the constituents who voted for him. Once he was reelected, he felt comfortable being more outspoken. Franken knew what an enormous privilege it was to serve and never took it for granted.

[onenote]

14. Can someone point me to where she explains voting present instead of Nay

since she says she opposed the bill.

[leftstreet]

18. +1

I've read it twice. Don't see it

[PoliticAverse]

21. Welcome to the club. n/t

[LetMyPeopleVote]

98. I am happy to be a member of this club

[JohnSJ]

26. Exactly.

[Spazito]

43. From the letter...

"Yesterday, the House called to the floor a rushed, $1 billion supplemental military funding bill for Israel’s Iron Dome defense system. I want to be clear with our community that I am opposed to this bill, but ultimately cast a PRESENT vote."

It is her second sentence in her letter. The capitalization is also in the letter and not added by me.

[onenote]

44. That isn't an explanation of why she voted present instead of voting nay.

In fact, it's the opposite of an explanation.

[Spazito]

45. I get your point...

The first paragraph infers there will be an explanation as to why she chose to vote PRESENT instead of NAY but, instead, there are five more paragraphs about why one should vote NAY from her perspective but nary a word about why she did not do so.

[George II]

84. If she is truly opposed to the bill she would have voted Nay. And it certainly wasn't rushed...

What is in the bill is essentially the same as that taken out of the overriding funding bill two days earlier. Right after that happened Steny Hoyer announced that the stand alone bill would be voted upon Thursday. The bill was available for reading early Tuesday (or earlier, inasmuch as it was the same as that objected to on Monday and Tuesday).

Plus, unlike most bills, it is only one page and 406 words including the usual legalese boilerplate. That can be read in about 10 minutes.

No, it wasn't rushed and there was plenty of time to read it, as evidenced by 429 other members casting definitive votes.

[Spazito]

85. I completely agree...

From what I've read there was enough time to read and understand the bill and vote yea or nay.

[lapucelle]

110. Jamaal Bowman, who had said he was not given enough time to "consider" it the first time around,

had enough time in the two day interim and voted "yea" on the Iron Dome funding.

Military aid for Israel removed from U.S. funding bill, but leadership pledges vote later this week
September 21, 2021

Democratic Representative Jamaal Bowman, one of the Democrats who had concerns about the provision, said earlier that House members had not been given enough time to consider the matter.

"The problem is leadership (will) just throw something on our table, give us about five minutes to decide what we're going to do and then tries to move forward with it," Bowman told reporters.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/military-aid-israel-removed-us-bill-fund-government-2021-09-21/

[George II]

112. Bowman has a significant Jewish community in his District

[lapucelle]

114. From her letter to their constituents:

It certainly wasn’t the first time people’s well being was tossed aside for political convenience...

[betsuni]

118. +1

[fescuerescue]

243. She didn't want to be grouped in with the 10 against it

it makes her look like an outlier,

[onenote]

245. Sarcasm, right?

Because since when has she ever been concerned about being grouped in with:
Ilhan Omar
Ayanna Pressley
Rashida Tlaib
Cori Bush
Andre Carson
Jesus García (IL)
Raul Grijalva
Marie Newman

An outlier is being one of two members of Congress to vote present on the bill. (The other was Hank Johnson)

[fescuerescue]

246. Not so much the people. But the numbers

Only 10 against isn't exactly mainstream.

Voting Present lets her get the benefits of being against the bill, without any perceived negatives that come with actually voting against it. Plus since it passed with such a huge majority, 1 vote was irrelevant.

She can also when needed claim to be for the bill, but couldn't vote for it because of such-n-such.

Essentially its political image management which is a good thing.

Like all things politics, it was a political calculation.

[onenote]

247. If she was concerned about being perceived as opposed to the bill, why write her letter

saying she opposed it? Hard for her to claim she was for the bill after writing: "I want to be clear with our community that I am opposed to this bill"

[fescuerescue]

248. That's exactly why she wrote the letter.

In the letter she qualified that she is on both sides of the issue.

Feel free to propose other theories.

[PoliticAverse]

16. If you really oppose something vote NO. n/t

[Budi]

19. K & R

[Bettie]

22. Why does the US government have to pay for this?

Why can't the Israeli government pay for it? Seems like something they should pay for on their own.

Related question: Why is it that we have plenty of money for defense of a foreign nation, but no money for the human beings living here in the US.

[George II]

29. We also give roughly $1.5B to both Egypt and Jordan.

[Bettie]

31. And again, I ask, why?

When we have domestic needs?

Humanitarian aid, I understand.

Paying for their military, I don't.

At very least, there shouldn't be the attitude of "No money for people here, but all the money they want for foreign militaries."

But, I'm sure you'll have a dismissive quip about how stupid I am for suggesting we take care of human beings rather than buying more missiles.

[George II]

34. Israel has had a long history (73 years) of being one of our closest allies, and during most....

....of those 73 years has been surrounded by countries who have vowed to end their existence.

Were it not for American military aid over the years Israel would have been obliterated decades ago, if not sooner certainly in the 1960s.

[pwb]

35. It pays for their National Health Insurance?

And other shit.

[Bettie]

36. Wow, it would be nice to have national health insurance for

our citizens.

I'm frustrated with there always being plenty of money for war, none for people here. None for refugees, none for health care...and so many other things.

I'd care less about spending in other countries if our house was in order.

[Marius25]

68. The Iron Dome has nothing to do with war.

It's a defense system that protects people in Israel from missiles and rockets launched by Hamas and Hezbollah towards civilian populations.

It has no offensive capabilities.

[Bettie]

91. And yet, no one can tell me WHY after this many years

WE still have to pay for it.

Their government should be able to pay for it.

If they want it, they will find a way to fund it without another country paying for it.

THAT is my point.

[George II]

95. It's known as foreign policy. As I suggested elsewhere, perhaps Hamas should pay for it....

They're the primary reason it's necessary PLUS one out of every five lives saved by intercepting Hamas' rockets is a Palestinian/Arab.

Seems fair, doesn't it?

[Bettie]

96. Right, so there's a lot of money to gift to a foreign government

and none to help humans here at home.

Corporations? Oh, of course. They want that money!

Wars? Yes! All the money for that!'

Billionaires? Hey, what insanely rich person doesn't want a government handout for space tourism?

How about health care for people in the US? Nah, can't expect the government to do anything for ordinary citizens...the money is all spent!

[George II]

97. It's interesting that many question US foreign aid to Israel but not to dozens of other countries...

...two of which are Jordan ($1.5B) and Egypt ($1.5B)

The US spends roughly $50B every year on foreign aid.

[Bettie]

101. If we are paying for their military assets

then we shouldn't be. Simple.

I don't recall a stand-alone bill demanding that we pay for their military assets.

But, whatever, if you don't see that there is never money for the people here, then I can't help you. Besides, I was a fool for even engaging in any sort of conversation with you. I find some things "interesting" too.

[Bettie]

103. Wouldn't it be nice if the US had a laudable

national health care system?

Yeah, there is no point asking for logic.

But, every so often, I forget.

[George II]

108. We could but some are too bound and determined to tear down the existing system and replace it...

....instead of expanding and strengthening it.

[Marius25]

107. Because we get benefits out of it.

1) It helps secure US interests in the Middle East. Lots of US Companies have large offices in Israel. Microsoft just built a massive Research and Development office in Tel Aviv. Intel is there. Google and Apple are there. What do you think the US is going to do if a Hamas rocket blows up Microsoft's headquarters in Tel Aviv?

2) Because of our assistance, Israel is sharing defense technology with the US. In fact, the US has built its own Iron Dome system in various places based on the technology we've obtained from Israel.

3) It provides some modicum of stability to the Middle East and our Democratic and oil interests over there. The last thing you want is Hamas successfully hitting Tel Aviv with a bunch of rockets. That would cause all out war and destabilize much of the region.

4) Israel is our ally and just from a basic diplomatic perspective, we should want to protect the lives of civilians in an ally country constantly under attack by terrorists.

I'm far more bothered by the fact that we give aid to countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt than I am Israel.

[Nixie]

25. It's interesting that nowhere in her letter did she mention the 420-9

clobbering.

[Bettie]

37. It isn't a competition.

so, she didn't like this particular bill, it passed anyway and she knew it would, so why obsess over it?

[Nixie]

41. Her letter was sort of worded like a competition.

It had a lot of emotional wording to it, so who is obsessing with a letter…? Just vote no.

[wellst0nev0ter]

48. She didn't want to dignify that bill with a vote

Seems like a good explanation as any.

[Bettie]

49. Exactly

It seems to mystify people that she feels the need to answer to her constituents.

Or they just look for reasons to bash her.

[George II]

94. That's what members of Congress do - answer to their constituents. It's not unusual, it's the norm.

[FBaggins]

55. Then why did she set it up in the first place?

It didn't have to be a stand-alone vote that so clearly placed her in the extreme minority.

[George II]

58. Good observation. If it wasn't stripped out of the bill that passed earlier in the week....

...there wouldn't have been a vote on the stand-alone bill.

Plus, there was a debate prior to the vote. Did she get up and speak against it or express her concern about a "rush"?

[wellst0nev0ter]

66. She set up the vote?

What?

[FBaggins]

73. Yes

The funding was originally part of the bill extending government funding that both parties supported. But when Pelosi tied a debt ceiling measure to that, the squad saw an opening to cut iron dome funding from that bill (because it no longer had bipartisan support).

That forced leadership to create a stand-alone bill - putting her on the record with such an out-off-touch position and no way hide it.

[wellst0nev0ter]

79. Then the leadership set up the bill

[FBaggins]

82. Did you note the overwhelming bipartisan support?

There was never any question that Israel’s self defense was going to get funded. But it could have been buried in something they had an excuse to vote for that would have left them aligned with their party.

The ones to blame for it being an embarrassing smack-down defeat putting her humiliatingly in the spotlight… include the woman in her mirror this morning.

[wellst0nev0ter]

86. The war on Afghanistan was also popular

Only Barbara Lee voted against it.

Turned out to be a humongous waste of time and money.

[FBaggins]

88. So?

It’s an entire different thing to say “I think she’s right and people will eventually realize that” and “she didn’t cause this public embarrassment herself”

[wellst0nev0ter]

89. And just because a measure is "popular"

Doesn't make it right. I would think twice before handing money over to a country HRW says practices apartheid.

[FBaggins]

90. Sure

Just keep in mind that we’ve just seen proof that your position is in the extreme minority in the party.

For which, if nothing else, we owe the squad a debt of thanks.

[tonedevil]

92. The Patriot act was very popular...

if you aren't ashamed of supporting and/or voting for it now you have no soul.

[George II]

56. She didn't say that in her 2-page letter to "our NY-14 community"

[wellst0nev0ter]

67. Things don't have to be spelled out to be obvious, chief

It's just like Defense Secretary Mattis' resignation letter that dissed Trump.

[George II]

71. She did vote.

[wellst0nev0ter]

72. Sure she did, boss

[lapucelle]

113. She changed her "no" vote to "present".

Eight Democrats — Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Cori Bush, Andre Carson, Marie Newman, Jesus Garcia, Raul Grivalva — and one Republican, Rep. Tom Massie, cast “no” votes against HR 5323.

Ocasio-Cortez had initially voted “no” when the voting began but changed her vote to “present” at the last minute after she was seen huddling with fellow progressive colleagues.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/aoc-seen-visibly-shaken-after-casting-vote-to-abstain-on-iron-dome-funding-bill/

On C-SPAN's coverage of the vote, you can see some sort of discussion with Nancy Pelosi and other members (including the sophomore representative fro NY-14) on the left hand side of the screen at 9:48 to 10:32.

You can watch the vote change at the 11:00 to 11:05 mark. The nay votes drop from 9 to 8 and the present votes switches from 1 to 2.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4978492/user-clip-nancy-pelosi-aoc

[Cha]

235. Yes, "Present" with an "apology"..

and Not taking responsibility.

[ShazzieB]

27. AOC issued a letter to "their" constituents about "her" vote?

Shouldn't that say "AOC has issued a letter to her constituents addressing her 'present' vote"?

If AOC has decided to start using they/them pronouns, the subject line should say "their" in both instances. Both pronouns both refer to AOC, so using "their" in one instance and "her" in the other does not make sense.

I usually bend over backward to avoid being a grammar nazi, but referring to the same person with two different pronouns (one gendered and one nongendered) has pushed me over the brink. I'm sure no harm was intended, believe me, but the pronouns people choose to use these days can mean a lot, and I think we should therefore be extra mindful of what pronouns we use to identify someone else.

If I sound a little cranky, I apologize. I'm feeling a bit salty about some of the responses to AOC's lettter, and I fear some of that may be creeping in. If AOC takes an action that she knows is going to be controversial, i don't see wtf is wrong with her putting out a statement to explain herself. I don't understand why some here seem to be making fun of her, either for the vote or for the explanation.

[comradebillyboy]

32. One should expect proper English grammar from a member

of congress.

The only good Nazi is a grammar Nazi!

[Celerity]

50. The grammatical error is the OP's, not AOC's. nt

[George II]

105. It wasn't an error. nt

[Celerity]

109. Yes it is. Incorrect mixing of possessive determiners. nt

[George II]

111. It's correct and consistent with the salutation and vote.

[Celerity]

117. No, you committed extremely basic English grammatical errors as has been pointed

out to you by other posters as well.


The basic rules you broke:

Do not use 'their' as an alternative to his or her; 'their' should be used only when referring to a plural subject or (more recently) a subject of unknown gender.

You not only know AOC's gender, but you also used the SINGULAR GENDERED 'her' as well in the same sentence, thus committing an error of intrasentence singular/plural possessive pronoun nonconformity.

I am done here.

You made very basic grammatical errors in your subject line, which have now been explained to you in fairly granular detail by multiple posters (both from an American AND a British English perspective) as to how you erred.

I am no longer going to boost this OP with superfluous replies to a settled argument.

[George II]

121. No rules were broken. Her letter was addressed to "our NY-14 community"....

So to her and whoever else is included in "our", speaking in the third person it's "their". As you point out, "...'their' should be used only when referring to a plural subject", and that is what was done.

On the other hand, inasmuch as her vote in the House was singular it was "her" vote.

And there you have it, no "...error of intrasentence singular/plural possessive pronoun nonconformity".

But I did err somewhat - the letter was addressed "our NY-14 community". NY-14 is composed of dozens of communities - Throgs Neck, Castle Hill, Rikers Island, Sound View, E. Elmhurst, Corona, etc. So we don't know exactly which community in NY-14 it was addressed to (a dangling participle by the way). But since she lives in the community of Parkchester, we could assume it was addressed to them - a small part of the District, but not the constituents of NY-14 as a whole.

English is such an amazing and intricate language - for that I love it.

[Celerity]

122. 'Our' is a first person possessive pronoun. You are incorrectly conflating forms of address

via the grammatically incorrect usage of BOTH singular and plural possessives in the same sentence, all when referring to a SINGLE person, the same person, a specific one, AND one who is of known gender, all of which combines to negate the usage of 'their' when referring to her (AOC). Your OP subject line is out of agreement in terms of singular versus plural possessive pronoun usage.

You already defined the subject as singular (by your use of her), you cannot drag in her addressing her constituents using the inclusive 'our' (which by definition includes the first person singular speaker in this case, as she alone is addressing them) as a justification. You are making the error of incorrect subject attribution via indirect conflation. Her constituents were never the main subject. The subject is singular.



Furthermore;

Even removing the plural/singular conflict (via entering into the binary/non-binary arena's modern usage of they/them/their), you also are in error by forcing a non-binary identity (their) upon a woman who identifies as she/her, AND then, to truly put the icing on the cake, you reverse it, literally mid-sentence, to a gendered binary possessive pronoun (her). You are all over the place.

https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/singular-they

[George II]

158. I haven't incorrectly conflated anything. The initial reference in the letter is "our", meaning...

....the "possession" of more than one person, otherwise it would have been "my". I used the "our" reference in first part of my subject line by saying "their".

For example, let's say someone says "our baseball team lost last night". A correct comment by SOMEONE ELSE (me) would be "their baseball team lost last night."

Simple and straightforward - and correct!

The second part of my subject line referred to the VOTE by a singular person, i.e., "her".

You're giving the English lesson to the wrong person, or perhaps misunderstanding the salutation in the letter. Have you read it?

Now, I find it very curious in your 15-20 posts in this discussion, virtually all of them are concerning your belittlement of my grammar and others' sources of fact about Iron Dome. Have you considered addressing the contents of the letter mentioned in the OP, the results of the vote, OR even the efficacy of Iron Dome itself, that is to save lives, all of which are related to the topic of the discussion?

Interestingly though you DO mention, in post #143, your perceived "belittlement and subject/focus changing" by others. Hmmm.

[Celerity]

161. I have not belittled you, I am pointing out an obvious grammatical error made by you.

None of your attempts to deny the error are correct. There is nothing belittling in my actions. I simply refuse to accept your incorrect positings.

[George II]

162. No one expects that you accept my positings, which are correct. I'll pit my education against....

...anyone's here on that.

The belittling wasn't entirely directed toward me, but whatever. It happened.

Now, how do you feel about the bill that passed last week by a vote of 420-9-2, the vote itself, and the funding and overall importance of the Iron Dome defense system?

[Hekate]

174. So in the midst of a discussion about AOC, I discover DU has a putative Style Manual. Who knew?

In my years here I can’t recall a discussion of grammar going on past maybe two posts. Hm.

[Nixie]

187. I guess talking about grammar is a way to personalize things, which is the way these AOC

threads/responses usually go. Arguing over someone's grammar instead of addressing getting humiliated by a 420-9 vote is obviously more comfortable. It's a very predictable tactic.

Good point, though, as I don't remember this much diversion over grammar, either.

[betsuni]

189. +1

[Mosby]

28. Comparing Israel to Saudi Arabia and Colombia

Tells me everything i need to know about this "clarification".

[JustAnotherGen]

169. n/s

Me too.

[Cha]

221. Exactly.. TY!

[mcar]

33. TL;DR

Just do your damn job, Congresswoman.

[PunkinPi]

160. +1 nt

[Cha]

223. Excellent Advice!

[betsuni]

39. The "reckless decision" to "rush this controversial vote" was the reason for her "present" vote?

I don't understand.

[George II]

42. The bill was very similar to what was voted on the day before, and there was more than....

...."a few hours" notice. It was NOT a rush and a 420-9-2 vote was clearly not "controversial".

[betsuni]

47. Yes, so I also don't understand why a delay would change anything, what "even a few hours

to help us do the work necessary to open a conversation of understanding" means.

[George II]

54. Steny Hoyer announced right after the funding bill was passed on Tuesday evening that he planned...

...to have a vote on the stand-alone Iron Dome bill on Thursday, almost 48 hours later. The bill was basically identical to the provision that was voted out of the Tuesday funding bill.

It's relatively short and simple as bills go - it's only 406 words, less than a 10-minute read.

You're right, what the heck is "the work necessary to open a conversation of understanding"? There was a debate on the floor of the House prior to the vote, the purpose of which is essentially "the work necessary to open a conversation of understanding"!

[lapucelle]

116. She had a chance to talk to her constituents & "open a conversation" when she was in NY on Sep. 13.

She could have had a town hall.

[betsuni]

119. Yes, I think a town hall would've been a better use of time, job wise.

[lapucelle]

115. It wasn't a "decision". There was a vote to suspend the rules. Why is she blaming leadership? N/T

[Cha]

228. Just because

[cinematicdiversions]

64. Somebody is very unfamiliar with the Streisand effect.

Does this strike anyone else as extremely self-centered and ridiculously overdramatic. I feel like I am reading the breathless accounts of a JR high school student.

[BlueLucy]

75. She will never win a state wide office in New York being apposed to funding for Israel. nt

[Patton French]

76. Love AOC

But generally not a fan of the present vote.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

99. I agree with the comments and analysis of Steny Hoyer

[betsuni]

100. +1

[LetMyPeopleVote]

120. Memo to Progressives: Israel's Iron Dome Saves Palestinian Lives, Too

Link to tweet

Progressives in the House of Representatives stripped $1 billion for Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system from a must-pass continuing resolution to fund the government last week. In so doing, they were putting prejudice and politics above peace and handing a victory to the Iran-backed Hamas regime in Gaza, which tyrannizes Palestinians and terrorizes Israel. Thankfully, the House acted quickly to pass overwhelmingly an alternative, clean standalone bill to provide the full funding. The Senate must now do the same, without the conditions and additional provisions some have suggested they want to add. At stake is America's very commitment to Israel's right of self-defense, our U.S. allies, and the fight against terror.

Iron Dome, a missile defense system co-developed with the United States, is capable of intercepting 90 percent of rockets fired at Israel's populated areas. It's essential to limiting conflict and protecting Israeli and Palestinian civilians alike. But the most recent conflict with Hamas last May diminished Israel's stockpile of the expensive Tamir interceptors used by the Iron Dome system; in 11 days of fighting, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad fired 4,455 rockets toward Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv, and other Israeli population centers, about as many they did in the entire 50-day war in 2014.....

Just as critically, Iron Dome also serves to protect Palestinian civilians. Without Iron Dome, Hamas is emboldened, facilitating it to further tyrannize its Palestinian subjects. And should Hamas unleash a rocket barrage that kills many Israeli civilians, Israel would likely be compelled to launch a ground invasion and take over all of Gaza, costing many Palestinian (and Israeli) lives. Instead, thanks to Iron Dome and its effectiveness, Israel eschewed a ground campaign and managed to take unprecedented precautions in minimizing civilian casualties as it retaliated against Hamas forces hiding behind innocent Palestinians.

President Biden recognized the importance of restocking of Iron Dome interceptors, promising in May after the last conflict that he would "replenish Israel's Iron Dome system to ensure its defenses and security in the future." So did President Obama when he urged Congress to replenish Iron Dome after the 2014 conflict.

[NurseJackie]

123. "Israel's Iron Dome Saves Palestinian Lives, Too"

https://www.newsweek.com/memo-progressives-israels-iron-dome-saves-palestinian-lives-too-opinion-1632789

[Cha]

234. TY.. So what's the Gripe?

Ot.. LOVE your Sig LIne!!

[Celerity]

124. lol, so not only are you using a RW rag (Newsweek) BUT are literally using a RW Rethug MAGAt

congressman's (August Pfluger of TX-11) and RW necon warmonger's (Michael Makovsky) joint article to try to score anti-Prog points.

Plus posting it here via a DU-banned anti-Semitic, racist AF troll's (you know I have the receipts on that) Twitter account, one of dozens (hundreds?) of that crackpot's Twitter accounts, many of which have been banned by Twitter itself, along with many other social media platforms where she is persona non grata.

smdh

https://www.augustpfluger.com/endorsements/







https://www.thedailybeast.com/neocon-scheme-send-nuke-bombers-to-israel




https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/michael-makovsky/








Newsweek has become a right wing rag with a RW agenda and pushing RW tropes and CT

I have been seeing its content posted here at times, including OP's, and its articles quite often inject RW tropes and ideologies on a one-sided basis, which are given cover by its name and due to so many being familiar with it as a major magazine at one point in the past.


Newsweek and the Rise of the Zombie Magazine

How a decaying legacy magazine is being used to launder right-wing ideas and conspiracy theories.

https://newrepublic.com/article/158968/newsweek-rise-zombie-magazine

Writing in The Columbia Journalism Review last year, Daniel Tovrov depicted Newsweek, once one of America’s most distinguished magazines, as a shell of its former self. All that was left was clickbait, op-eds from the likes of Nigel Farage and Newt Gingrich, and a general sense of drift. “Nobody I spoke to for this article had a sense of why Newsweek exists,” Tovrov wrote. “While the name Newsweek still carries a certain authority—remnants of its status as a legacy outlet—and the magazine can still bag an impressive interview now and then, it serves an opaque purpose in the media landscape.”

Last week, Newsweek suggested one possible purpose: The legitimization of narratives straight out of the right-wing fever swamps. An op-ed written by John Eastman, a conservative lawyer and founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, coyly suggested that Kamala Harris, who was born in California, may not be eligible to serve as vice president because her parents were immigrants. It was, as many pointed out, a racist attack with no constitutional merit, on par with the birther conspiracy theory that claimed Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Within a few hours, Eastman’s op-ed was being brandished by President Trump, who told reporters he had “heard” Harris may not be eligible to serve.

Three days after the op-ed was published, Newsweek apologized, sort of. In an editor’s note signed by global Editor-in-Chief Nancy Cooper and opinion editor Josh Hammer, the magazine acknowledged, “We entirely failed to anticipate the ways in which the essay would be interpreted, distorted, and weaponized.... This op-ed is being used by some as a tool to perpetuate racism and xenophobia. We apologize.” Still, the magazine refused to recognize what was obvious—that the op-ed was intended to spark questions about the eligibility of a Black woman running for high office. Newsweek’s editors merely feigned horror that the op-ed was taken in the only possible way it could have been taken.

The publication of Eastman’s op-ed says a great deal about the state of Newsweek’s opinion section, which has become a clearinghouse for right-wing nonsense. But it also points to a larger crisis in journalism itself: The rise of the zombie publication, whose former legitimacy is used to launder extreme and conspiratorial ideas. Even by the volatile standards of journalism in the twenty-first century, Newsweek’s recent problems are extraordinary. There are the usual issues: a sharp decline in print subscribers, Google and Facebook, the difficulty of running a mass-market general interest news magazine in an age of hyperpartisanship. But Newsweek has also been raided by the Manhattan district attorney’s office (a former owner and chief executive pleaded guilty to fraud and money laundering charges in February) and has been accused of deep ties to a shadowy Christian cult, amid many other scandals.

snip



Newsweek is at the point of being as bad as Fux Snooz in many of its articles


Russia: A Problem, Not a Threat

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-problem-not-threat-opinion-1584852


Georgia's Voting Law Doesn't Go Far Enough (Charlie Kirk, Founder and President, Turning Point USA )

https://www.newsweek.com/georgias-voting-law-doesnt-go-far-enough-opinion-1581740


Most Voters Don't Want More Judges on the High Court

https://www.newsweek.com/most-voters-dont-want-more-judges-high-court-opinion-1585484


Why Derek Chauvin's Guilty Verdict May Be Overturned

https://www.newsweek.com/why-derek-chauvins-guilty-verdict-may-overturned-supreme-court-opinion-1585401


Countless Lives Have Been Cut Short by Marijuana

https://www.newsweek.com/countless-lives-have-been-cut-short-marijuana-opinion-1584819


Tucker Carlson Says Derek Chauvin Verdict Taught BLM That 'Violence Works'

https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-says-derek-chauvin-verdict-taught-blm-that-violence-works-1585582


Biden UN Ambassador's Attack on America Won't Win the U.S. Any Friends

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-un-ambassadors-attack-america-wont-win-us-any-friends-opinion-1584773


Joe Manchin's $11 Minimum Wage More Popular Than Biden's $15—Among Democrats and Republicans

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-manchins-11-minimum-wage-more-popular-bidens-15among-democrats-republicans-1573489


Biden's 'Right Verdict' Comments Ripped After Maxine Waters Controversy

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-bidens-right-verdict-comments-about-chauvin-trial-ripped-after-maxine-waters-controversy-1585161


Daunte Wright Protester Bashes Joe Biden for Failing Black Community

https://www.newsweek.com/daunte-wright-protester-bashes-joe-biden-failing-black-community-you-said-you-got-our-back-1584539


On Anti-Asian Hate, Frustration Builds on Biden's Slow Response

https://www.newsweek.com/anti-asian-hate-frustration-builds-bidens-slow-response-1584361

[LetMyPeopleVote]

125. Do you tire of being wrong?

I am laughing really hard at the concept of Newsweek being a right wing rag. Thank you for the laughs

[Celerity]

127. I am not wrong, I provided a shedload of documentation, and you are dodging the fact you posted a RW

hit piece by a MAGAt House member and a RW 'mad bomber' neocon. All documented.

You seem to be permanently under the incorrect assumption that simply disagreeing with you and your tactics somehow makes me (and anyone else) 'wrong' by your mere repetitive utterances of said opinions.

Sorry, logic and debate do not work that way.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

132. I apologize but I am still laughing at your post

I debated at the high school and college level and judged college debate all during law school. In addition, I Am Jured (look it up) in Evidence. Your post is so bad that it is funny. No decent high school debater would make this argument and any law student who made this argument would be counseled out of law school.

There is a concept that is common to debate and the law that is called relevancy. Here is a simple definition of this concept https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401

Relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case. Does the item of evidence tend to prove the matter sought to be proved? Whether the relationship exists depends upon principles evolved by experience or science, applied logically to the situation at hand. James, Relevancy, Probability and the Law, 29 Calif.L.Rev. 689, 696, n. 15 (1941), in Selected Writings on Evidence and Trial 610, 615, n. 15 (Fryer ed. 1957). The rule summarizes this relationship as a “tendency to make the existence” of the fact to be proved “more probable or less probable.” Compare Uniform Rule 1(2) which states the crux of relevancy as “a tendency in reason,” thus perhaps emphasizing unduly the logical process and ignoring the need to draw upon experience or science to validate the general principle upon which relevancy in a particular situation depends.

The standard of probability under the rule is “more * * * probable than it would be without the evidence.” Any more stringent requirement is unworkable and unrealistic. As McCormick §152, p. 317, says, “A brick is not a wall,” or, as Falknor, Extrinsic Policies Affecting Admissibility, 10 Rutgers L.Rev. 574, 576 (1956), quotes Professor McBaine, “* * * t is not to be supposed that every witness can make a home run.” Dealing with probability in the language of the rule has the added virtue of avoiding confusion between questions of admissibility and questions of the sufficiency of the evidence.

The rule uses the phrase “fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action” to describe the kind of fact to which proof may properly be directed. The language is that of California Evidence Code §210; it has the advantage of avoiding the loosely used and ambiguous word “material.” Tentative Recommendation and a Study Relating to the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Art. I. General Provisions), Cal. Law Revision Comm'n, Rep., Rec. & Studies, 10–11 (1964). The fact to be proved may be ultimate, intermediate, or evidentiary; it matters not, so long as it is of consequence in the determination of the action. Cf. Uniform Rule 1(2) which requires that the evidence relate to a “material” fact.

Your amusing post does not address the issue in this thread which is whether the Iron Dome system protects both Israelis and Palestinians. Your attacks on Newsweek were both weak (so weak that they were funny) and not relevant

Let me provide you with some examples of relevant material. Colin is a former election law attorney at Marc Elias' firm and I am on his dialing for dollars list

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

It is time to donate to this committee again

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Celerity]

147. I wonder what your law school profs would say about this wanton disregard of due process

Did you miss that lecture as a 1L?

Apparently the one on writs of habeas corpus as well.

Were you having a kip those days?


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215895105

[LetMyPeopleVote]

150. I graduated at the top of my class and was the high grade on the bar for my law school

This attack is so funny that I am hurting from laughing. Again, you are ignoring the fact that Newsweek was quoting a number of members of Congress who made the exact same argument for funding Iron Dome

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

It is time to donate to this committee again

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

The fact that you are unable to deal with these facts amuses me greatly

[George II]

126. "Overall, we rate Newsweek Left-Center Biased based on editorial positions"

Overall, we rate Newsweek Left-Center Biased based on editorial positions that slightly favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and timely correction of errors.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/

[Celerity]

128. And I provided voluminous examples as to why that is no longer a valid labelling.

You also are dodging the point that it IS a RW hit piece written by a MAGAT Tex Rethug congressman and a RW neo con war monger, who was a huge Obama foe, and is a crackpot with a proven record of shitty proposals.

[George II]

129. Media Bias/Fact Check : "Last updated on August 6th, 2021 at 11:16 am"

[Celerity]

130. I provided MANY RW written articles from it, just like the one you are defending now for some reason

examples



https://newrepublic.com/article/158968/newsweek-rise-zombie-magazine

snip



snip



snip





Go on, keep defending THAT.

Or this:

Georgia's Voting Law Doesn't Go Far Enough (Charlie Kirk, Founder and President, Turning Point USA )

https://www.newsweek.com/georgias-voting-law-doesnt-go-far-enough-opinion-1581740


Real 'centre-left' there!




more on Kirk from another source

To Protect “White Demographics In America,” Charlie Kirk Wants Citizen Militia At Border

https://hillreporter.com/to-protect-white-demographics-in-america-charlie-kirk-wants-citizen-militia-at-border-113360

[LanternWaste]

131. You lay out a very good case.

You appear to value evidence-based objectivity much more than talking points and grudges.

To flip the coin, it's posters like you that make DU a great place.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

134. LOL Please consider using posts that are relevant

For grins, here are some sources for you to ignore
Colin is a former election law attorney at Marc Elias' firm and I am on his dialing for dollars list

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

It is time to donate to this committee again

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Celerity]

136. All my replies were and are relevant to my claims that you posted a RW, part MAGA House member, part

RW neo con war monger-written screed, which was published by a magazine that has fallen into the alarming habit of pushing RW claptrap FAR too often.

You also used (and thus gave voice to here again) a tweet from a loathsome, DU-banned anti-Semitic, racist, mentally unstable, vicious troll.

You continuously, for ages try to belittle me, bully me, downplay my intellect, ignore and spin and deflect my very detailed, evidence-based, documented posts.

You do all whilst falling back to a default position of pumping up yourself via self-praise and authority projection into some sort of ultimate arbiter of what is valid and invalid on a political stance.

You constantly attempt to frame things and people that disagree with you as not just inherently wrong, but inherently malicious.

You literally have falsely, outrageously accused me on another thread of supporting things/people that want to destroy our Party, all because I push back when you relentlessly attack and malign elected, seated Democrats whose stances you simply do not like.

You (at times, like now, with your reply above) do your targeting and attacks using RW (or RW friendly, RW adjacent) sources, RW authors, and also extremely problematic Twitter accounts, accounts that smear and malign elected Dems, or in the case of the DU banned twitter troll you used in this thread, also sink to open anti-Semitic tropes and overt racism.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

139. Again thank you for the laughs

Your attacks are really so weak that they amuse me.

Again, in the real world, 420 members of the House voted for this bill because the Iron Dome defense system defends both Israelis and Palestinians

In the real world arguments have to be based on facts that are relevant to the discussion. Your attacks on Newsweek (which are all false anyway) are not relevant to the fact The Iron Dome is a good thing for the US to funs

Link to tweet

[Celerity]

143. Once again, you have nothing but attempted belittlement and subject/focus changing.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

145. The subject of this thread is the funding of the Iron Dome system

None of your silly posts (which are totally false) are relevant to this topic. Again very junior debaters try to take the issue off topic but this tactic does not work in the real world. The fact that you think Newsweek is the subject of this thread is really amusing/cute and adorable

Again 420 members of Congress supported the funding of Iron Dome. This is the key issue on this thread.

Link to tweet

[Celerity]

146. They are not 'totally false'. That is laughable. They are all thoroughly documented and true.

You used a RW-written article, taken from a rag that often pushes RW agitprop, and the method of introduction into the discourse for said article was via a vile, DU-banned, anti-Semitic, racist trolls' tweet.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

148. Again you are still wrong about everything

Your posts about Newsweek were not relevant to the topic of funding Iron Dome. Read the other posts on this thread. As for your silly but wrong Newsweek attacks, you are again wrong according to the material posted on this thread.

Again, I am Jewish and have been active in my Temple for a long time. I have friends who were in Israel last month and they are happy to have Iron Dome in place. My older two kids were unable to go to Israel their junior summers due to Hamas attacks (this was before Iron Dome). The temple has had far less concerns about sending our students to Israel with Iron Dome in place.

I note with great amusement you are ignoring the quotes from members of Congress and others who agree that Iron Dome is a good thing

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

It is time to donate to this committee again

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Thank you for the laughs

[Celerity]

149. My reply was absolutely relevant to your first choice of sourcing. You have since posted other

less problematic sources (thus showing you had access to other sourcing), yet you chose to lead with a RW-written one (written by a MAGA Trumper Rethug congressman and also by a war mongering RW neocon crackpot). That article did indeed come from an often RW screed-pushing rag, and it was introduced by you via an anti-Semitic, racist twitter troll's account, a person who is DU-banned, yet who is continuously given a voice here by some.

All that says far more about you than me.

[Celerity]

152. Can you get any more condescending?

That is so cute and adorable

Despite your repetitive ad hominem attacks, your belittling, your bullying, your generally faulty dismissiveness and/or wilfull ignoring of salient points that hurt your case, your misdirection attempts, your tendency to employ pettifogging, and a seemingly endless usage of self-aggrandising appeals to your own authority, I have seen nothing in the entire multiyear history of our interactions that would tend to disabuse myself of the notion that I, not you, would usually (perhaps always) prevail in a formalised, academic debate, a setting that I am no stranger to, I can assure you. It likely would not even be a close-run thing.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

153. Have you heard of the concept of projection?

Have you heard of the concept of projection? Look it up. Your silly attacks on me make a great deal of sense if you realize that you are guilty of these exact same sins that you are accusing me of. This is really cute and adorable

I am amused that you made a false and rather stupid attack on a source that was quoting a number of members of Congress who voted to fund Iron Dome. Making a bogus and false attack on one source does not change the facts that the Iron Dome system protects both Israelis and Palestinians. Such attacks would be laughed out court if someone pulled this stunt in the real world

I again note with great amusement that you are unable to deal with the facts here. Again here are members of congress another decision makers who are all making the same statement as was in the Newsweek article. The fact that you are unable to deal these facts amuses me greatly

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

It is time to donate to this committee again

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

If we were in a debate in the real world you would be laughed at. Thank you for the laughs.

[Celerity]

154. Zero projection.

I take issue with what you post (whether on the substance or the authors), how you frame things, and your sources and messengers employed.

You (as evidenced clearly by this and many other threads) on the other hand, constantly employ personal attacks of a myriad number of stripes, as well as use many other tactics that I find to be very problematic.

To point this out is not projection at all.

It is called speaking truth to self-perceived (and loudly proclaimed) power. It is called pushing back on a specific set of actions, a repetitive modus operandi that you exhibit.

You are the one who gets personal, not me.

[betsuni]

156. "It is called speaking truth to ... power" "a repetitive modus operandi that you exhibit"

[George II]

157. But ALL the sources provided say pretty much the same thing - that Iron Dome SAVES LIVES...

....both Israeli and Palestinian.

That is the fact that you've ignored, but instead have, as they say, "attacked the messenger". You called Newsweek itself, NOT the individual writer, a "RW rag", which it is not.

Colin Allred is far from a RW neocon crackpot, and he essentially said the same thing.
Lois Frankel is far from a RW neocon crackpot, and she essentially said the same thing.
Elissa Slotkin is far from a RW neocon crackpot, and she essentially said the same thing.
The American Jewish Committee is far from a RW neocon crackpot organization, and it essentially said the same thing.

Attention should be paid to the message itself, not the person or entity who says it.

Bottom line, the message that you're ignoring entirely, is that IRON DOME SAVES LIVES - Israeli and Palestinian lives.

[Celerity]

164. my point was not about the validity or invalidity of the claims about Iron Dome

The poster led with the RW written article, from a RW agitprop-pushing rag, and used a DU-banned, racist, anti Semitic troll's tweet to introduce that RW-written article.

They had all those other options (some that that you just listed) yet rolled, as their first choice, with the RW-MAGA Trumper and RW neocon-written article, from a RW pushing site, and with a an anti-Semitic, DU-banned, racist troll's tweet as the method of delivery for said article.

Very problematic, and that is what I was addressing. Nothing more, nothing less.

[George II]

165. In your 20 posts in this thread you still have not addressed the subject matter contained....

....in the OP, you've only criticized the (correct) grammar used in the subject line and the source of commonly agreed upon opinions regarding the necessity of maintaining the Iron Dome defense system.

I had a superior education, attended an excellent high school where I was taught the ins and outs of the English language and yes, grammar (!). I don't need a gratuitous lesson in grammar, particularly since it's wrong.

Now, about the bill in question, the result of the vote and nature of the one vote in particular, and the Iron Dome defense system itself. Anything?

[George II]

166. It might surprise you that everything you said about that "anti-Semitic, DU-banned, racist troll"...

....is false.

She's most certainly NOT anti-Semitic
She's most certainly NOT a racist troll

And most importantly she is NOT DU-banned.

She's very active on Twitter, and she's the exact opposite of those first two characterizations you've made.

[betsuni]

159. What is wrong with the article? Why not tell us?

Just saying a source is right-wing doesn't explain why the article is wrong.

[Hekate]

170. You said at one point that you "had receipts," regarding the "DU-banned racist twitter troll"...

I am all confused. Who the hell are you talking about?

[Celerity]

172. receipts

The poster I replied to

(this was the post I replied to) https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215891676#post120

used a vile twitter troll to post a RW-written (written jointly by a RW neocon crackpot and a MAGA Trumper congressman) article.

They had many other options (which they ex post facto then proceeded to post to me) to post the same general type of article about Iron Dome, yet they wilfully chose a RW written article first, and also chose to use a horrid troll to introduce that article, when they could have simply posted the article and a link itself.



That twitter troll, Bravenak ie Bianca Delarosa aka (until it is banned like dozens of her other twitter sock puppets) @TheeKHiveQueenB is a bottom of the barrel raging POS. She is one of the most banned, most vile trolls on all major social media.


A small groups of people here are repeatedly using a loophole (posting her tweets) to skirt DU bans/TOS by giving this terrible person a voice here.



Here she is calling a Latino Warren supporter a coon (more on that at the bottom)



Here she is posting a truly fucked up anti-Semitic meme (rub two coins together and a Jew appears)

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1303415056080744450.html

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

https://twitter.com/RealKHiveQueenB




How A Twitter Fight Over Bernie Sanders Revealed A Network Of Fake Accounts

One Democratic Party consultant said an unnamed client controlled many of these accounts.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democratic-bot-network-sally-albright_n_5aa2f548e4b07047bec68023


Kamala’s KHive trolls boosted by bots while media defends harassment campaigns









https://twitter.com/bravenak



https://twitter.com/BravenakBlog

Link to tweet

[Hekate]

173. Ooooookaaaaay. That was excessive. Back away slowly from the keyboard & have some decaf.

Peace out.

[sheshe2]

175. No kidding.

[betsuni]

177. Seriously.

[Budi]

176. Nor should this.

[Celerity]

180. sunlight is the best disinfectant, I simply exposed that troll using lots of documentation

That troll is a serial banned offender across most all major social media platforms, and she constantly makes new accounts (or uses moth-balled sock puppets) after they are banned to skirt those bans. That troll is the epitome of the toxicity that pervades social media.

[George II]

178. You realize in all that you posted the personal identity of someone several times, right?

[Celerity]

179. No, it's public knowledge, I didn't 'expose' anything. That is a ridiculous and false charge.

She herself uses her name on some of her social media accounts and her LinkedIn. Also, many articles about her do the same.

Here she is LITERALLY self-identifying with her real name on her Twitter account:




https://tinyurl.com/fzt73pxf (this link works)



https://twitter.com/biancandelarosa?lang=en




https://www.linkedin.com/in/bianca-delarosa-realkhivequeenb/




https://medium.com/@biancadelarosa




Welcome To The KHive, Kamala Harris’ Online Fan Club

https://www.bustle.com/rule-breakers/khive-kamala-harris-vp



that Twitter account at the link above in that article, is (as almost always happens with her) now banned

https://twitter.com/realkhivequeenb?lang=en

[George II]

181. Yes, her TWITTER account, not here, until you posted it here.

[Celerity]

182. Again, I exposed nothing that was not public knowledge, the articles and she herself already

completely linked everything, including ON HERE.

Many of her (almost all banned now) accounts used her DU name as well.

It is widely known and talked about for years on here at DU.

Here she is using her real name HERSELF, ON DU

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10026376558#post393



another example of linkage, right here on DU

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213931175




https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210476661



and at THAT LINK (the Wonkette one)

[sheshe2]

183. All of your posts here on Bravenak must have taken weeks of research.

Yet the first long entry took you only 41 minutes to post. Hmm.

[Celerity]

184. Weeks of research? Hardly, as the internet, when used correctly, speeds things up dramatically.

The internet itself has been around since 1969 (I date it to when the first data packets were sent), the World Wide Web since 1990.

I was born in 1996, so I know nothing of a pre web-world in terms of actual information gathering.

Hobbes' Internet Timeline

https://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/

1969

First packets sent by Charley Kline at UCLA as he tried logging into SRI. The first attempt resulted in the system crashing as the letter G of LOGIN was entered. (October 29) [ Log entry ]
Univ of Michigan, Michigan State and Wayne State Univ establish X.25-based Merit network for students, faculty, alumni (:sw1: )





1991

World-Wide Web (WWW) released by CERN; Tim Berners-Lee developer (:pb1: ). First Web server is nxoc01.cern.ch, launched in Nov 1990 and later renamed info.cern.ch.

[sheshe2]

185. Okay then.

You are truly an amazing woman. It only took you 41 minutes to research Twitter and DU….then speed posted in an amazing short period of time.

Next time I need some research done is it okay if I contact u for some assistance? It would be greatly appreciated.

[NurseJackie]

190. It's remarkable, isn't it? 😂🤣😂🤣

[sheshe2]

191. Truly.

[betsuni]

201. That gives me a little PTSD, or maybe Post Irritation Stress Disorder is more like it.

Ugh.

[lapucelle]

192. ...

[sheshe2]

194. ;)

[Nixie]

200. Ahh!!!

Yes, that’s it! It all makes sense now.

[Sympthsical]

195. Literally one google search was all it took to find a name

I know. I just checked. Type in the DU name. Boom. Real name on the first page of results. (And a lot of other stuff as well. Yikes to that trainwreck)

Y'all are making fun of Celerity for being a highly educated woman with experience searching the internet and databases.

As someone currently in college, this is something we're taught. How to search for things online in ways that are quick and effective and don't eat up a ton of time.

It's a freshman level class.

So, mocking her and snarking at her for being educated is certainly . . . a choice. Boy, is that a choice.

"Hahahaha, she knows how to effectively use online tools! That fool!"

[sheshe2]

196. Yep.

Sympthsical

195. Literally one google search was all it took to find a name

I know. I just checked. Type in the DU name. Boom. Real name on the first page of results. (And a lot of other stuff as well. Yikes to that trainwreck)

Posted Bravenak/ Bianca's name. Lots of stuff came up. It would take time to read and choose the juiciest tidbits. She did it in 41 minutes including her post time.

Y'all are making fun of Celerity for being a highly educated woman with experience searching the internet and databases.

As someone currently in college, this is something we're taught. How to search for things online in ways that are quick and effective and don't eat up a ton of time.

It's a freshman level class.

I have no clue what Celerity's educational status is so I could not possibly make fun of someone I do not know.

You seem to know far more about her than I do. What college did she graduate from, what degree did she attain and what was her graduating class status, Summa cum laude ?

[wellst0nev0ter]

222. Do people really count the number of minutes between posts to prove a point?

[sheshe2]

229. On this one?

Yes I did. It caught my attention.

Perhaps you should have counted as well. Shows me it was locked and stored.

Frankly wellstone you should be concerned as well. We all should be.

[wellst0nev0ter]

230. No I engage honestly with the contents of posts

I don't count minutes and speculate.

[Nixie]

199. Are you on LexisNexis? RW radio types like Rush Limbaugh

made it more popular since he used it during his shows to answer people. I used it in some law classes and on a couple jobs, and your methods look familiar. There are internet search engines, then there’s LexisNexis.

[Celerity]

203. Google plus DU search only, zero use of LexisNexis, none. No need for it. nt

[Nixie]

204. Some of what you dig up seems like there's history

to it in your searches, hmm. For this thread’s purpose, at least now we know that your assertions about RW sources are not accurate. The poster you dug up just didn’t like Bernie, which doesn’t make her a RWer.

[betsuni]

207. Your last sentence is what it's all about.

[Nixie]

208. Absolutely! We're seeing the...slippage.

Slip sliding away.

[betsuni]

211. Any and every source is RW, a quote without any commentary is an attack.

It's absurd. And we're not supposed to laugh at how ridiculous it is!

[Nixie]

213. And so much agita about long-gone DUers.

It’s almost as if, well, as if there was personal history or something. Or something.

[Cha]

226. It sure as hell doesn't.. Brave is a

Dem and I respect her views.. especially on 3rd party RF Stein & Sarandon. She doesn't like Nina Turner, either.

I follow her on Twitter.. can I expect to be doxed? Get Exposed for all my twitter tweets?

Aloha, Nixie!

[Nixie]

249. Aloha, Cha! I learned a lot from Bravenak! Her only internet

crime is she didn’t like Bernie and didn’t like being harassed for that. The fact that she’s still being harassed by people who claim to be new to the internet —who weren’t here at the time she posted — seems very…strange. Bravenak was no RWer and is not a RW source. It negates all the other BS accusations about RW sources…makes it comical to see it, lol.

Aloha!

[sheshe2]

193. We do not dox our own here, past or present.

You took from twitter and brought it here so even more people see it. Bravenak was a member since 2013. Her last post was 2017, a year before you joined. You seem to have a distaste for someone you never knew here.

You would not know it but we had a very active African American Group here, you weren't a member then. Sad to say the AA group that was supported by many people here, people of all colors, is gone. They turned off the lights and left. Sadly they were not welcome on a Democratic board.

We can DU better than doxing one of our own.

[Celerity]

197. There was ZERO doxxing, that is a slanderously false charge. You owe me an apology.

That person used their real name on here, DU, literally said in a DU post (which I posted) made on their Bravenak DU account that her name is Bianca Delarosa, and also did the same with their Twitter accounts. Other posters (again shown by me above) on DU did the same thing, yet no ridiculous false charges of doxxing were lobbed. Also, right now, on the very twitter account the other poster posted, she uses the tag 'Aggressively Black Bianca' plus a link to bravenews.

Her real name and her DU name and her social media accounts were also not only in multiple articles, but she herself self identified and linked all, including Bravenak, on her Wonkette bio as well. Again ALL documented by me.










There is ZERO doxxing. I exposed NO personal details that are not in the public domain and zero personal details that she herself had not already shared publicly for years, including on DU herself.

You are trying to falsely use that term as weapon to malign me simply for my documentation that she is an anti-Semitic, racist troll, who is banned in DU, yet is still given a voice here.

[sheshe2]

205. No apology.

You brought it here in 20 plus selected posts, all documented and posted by you in 41 minutes.

There is ZERO doxxing. I exposed NO personal details that are not in the public and zero personal details that she herself had not already shared publicly for years, including on DU herself.

Yet you had to repeat it here to spread the word. This is pretty sad, someone you never knew existed on DU is a target now. She was bright and at times funny here. Yes, she was adamant that black lives matter. She was loved by the African American group.

You speak of years of details, yet you joined a year after she left. Why? How could you know her?

PS. She was not banned from DU, she was censored. Huge difference.

[Celerity]

216. I know of her from seeing people on here talk about her, from reading articles AFTER I joined DU,

from reading tweets about her AFTER I joined DU, from DU search, and seeing her tweets posted here (right up until now). She was spoken of a lot in the 2020 primaries when she tried to solicit people to make false sex claims about Sanders. I have also had old school DU'ers (some back to 2001) fill me in on her. It is hardly a difficult thing to delve into. The internet remembers, the internet documents. Also, if you look at this thread, I did not post a big drop on her until I was challenged as to my 'receipts' on her. They were asked for, I provided them.

PS. She was not banned from DU, she was censored. Huge difference.

Lol, oki, nice spin.

via DU search

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=300456

That is not censuring. Anyone who loses their account's right to post here via too many hides can claim 'I was censured!', but that hardly makes it so. Censuring implies an active controlling force wilfully supressing something.

[sheshe2]

217. Aaah.

Celerity

216. I know of her from seeing people on here talk about her, from reading articles AFTER I joined DU,

Links to all the articles you read in 2018? You are a wiz at that as you have said. Please link to what you read on DU in 41 minutes or less.

[Celerity]

220. I never claimed I read all those articles in 2018 only. Some are of more recent vintage.

You are obsessed with this 41 minutes. I had collated most of the evidence and documentation I posted before I made that drop 41 minutes after I was challenged to produce. I would never have claimed I had receipts (which I did claim 2 hours before I posted them, look back at my original reply to the poster who used that troll to inject a RW-written article) before I actually had something to back it up.

[sheshe2]

225. Hm

I had collated most of the evidence and documentation I posted before I made that drop 41 minutes after I was challenged to produce.

Interesting. How long had you "collated" the evidence? Weeks? Months? How long did you hold all this info back?

What happens on twitter with your issues with bravenak belong on twitter and not on DU. Take them there and leave those of us that applaud AA for their voice.

Hm

I would never have claimed I had receipts (which I did claim 2 hours before I posted them, look back at my original reply to the poster who used that troll to inject a RW-written article) before I actually had something to back it up

And here ya go dissing LetMyPeopleVote.

[George II]

242. So here we are, five days and 30 posts, and yet you STILL haven't addressed the substance....

....of the OP, just what you (incorrectly) perceive as poor grammar, (incorrectly) perceive a left leaning publication as a "RW rag", (incorrectly) perceive a "DU-banned" member, AND (incorrectly) perceive that member as an anti-Semitic racist.

Again, not once have you addressed the OP, the vote in the House last week, the content of the bill in question (actually no longer in question, it passed 420-9-2), and the merits of the Iron Dome defense system, which saves Israeli, Palestinian, and countless other lives - both in Israel and indirectly in Gaza.

Do you have any intention of doing so or continue to concentrate on self-created side issues?

[betsuni]

244. Some people believe everything they see on the Internet.

[sheshe2]

215. Enjoy

https://www.democraticunderground.com/118722819#top

Free Bravenak

[Celerity]

218. That post is from 2015, yet her last post according to her profile was in2017, so she obviously

was given another chance (maybe more, my knowledge on her is not THAT deep and I was not here then, I can only reconstruct what I can find via search or through others who have filled me in on her) and blew that as well.

It hardly is surprising given her anti-Semitic and racist Twitter posts.

Curious choice for a person to want back here.

[sheshe2]

219. Yes it was from 2015.

[div class="excerpt" ]That post is from 2015, yet her last post according to her profile was in2017, so she obviously

was given another chance (maybe more, my knowledge on her is not THAT deep and I was not here then, I can only reconstruct what I can find via search or through others who have filled me in on her) and blew that as well.

Others that filled you in.....hm.

She is NOT anti-semitic or RACIST.

Your knowledge is not that deep? 20 plus comments and tweets from you trying to destroy her, yet you admit your knowledge is not that deep and it fact you can only reconstruct what others have said about her? Are you serious?

FFS!

[betsuni]

231. There's a new definition for anti-semitic, racist, troll.

Not supporting ... you know.

[sheshe2]

233. Lol...

It is 2 am......................I gotta sleep!

[NurseJackie]

238. I know. I'm not buying it either.

Are you serious?

I know. I'm not buying it either. There's clearly more to this than meets the eye.

This is so bizarre. It's an upside-down world. Black is white, up is down, water is dry, the desert is wet. I read through all this and I feel like I've been transported to the surface of an alien planet. Nothing makes sense. I just want to reach for my communicator walkie-talkie and shout "Beam me up Scotty!"

[betsuni]

240. +1

[Nixie]

250. Yes! There's a beam in your eye, like a big pizza pie

[sheshe2]

252. Star Trek!

One of my favorite shows!

[betsuni]

227. It was hilarious that no matter how many times AA members said they weren't Clinton supporters,

it just wouldn't sink in, wasn't believed. As if it was a big AA conspiracy to lie about it. But they weren't fooled! Somebody had filled them in and they believed it even though they didn't have deep knowledge (any knowledge) about the group.

[betsuni]

198. Any hint of a point to any of this was lost way back at the turn off to Kill the Messenger Boulevard

The AA group was the best, incredibly smart people who were almost always correct. I learned a lot. I love Bravenak's funny tweets. She always keeps coming back (I have to resist the urge to launch into something about "silencing a strong woman of color" who's "speaking truth to power" and "taking on" those who "will stop at nothing to defeat her," indeed, "throw the kitchen sink" at her to get her off Twitter). Heh. She wins.

[sheshe2]

209. Yep.

The AA group was the best of the best. I learned a lot from them as well.

Think about it, our biggest voting block are black women and there voices are no longer heard on DU. The AA group, lights out.

Bravenak, Number23, Morpheous, Heaven, 1Strongblackman, JAG, still here...so many others gone.

[betsuni]

212. The real base, not the fantasy one.

[Cha]

237. It says it all about anyone who is

doxing and trying to kill the messenger and nothing about their target.

Brava & Viva Brave!

[Nixie]

202. Ah, you know about Bravenak?? Interesting.

Very interesting. 👋. Hi!

[sheshe2]

210. It is interesting.

[Nixie]

214. It's quite a little data mining nugget there...

It’s quite extra.

[sheshe2]

232. Ya think?

[betsuni]

241. No.

[Nixie]

188. LOL, such irony.

[Hekate]

236. This is the Sub-thread that Will Not Die

[betsuni]

239. Well, since supposedly Newsweek is a RW "zombie magazine," this zombie thread should

not die. Halloween is coming.

[Nixie]

251. Exactly. The zombie grammar subthread is epic.

🧟‍♀️

[LetMyPeopleVote]

133. Have you ever been right on an issue?

Here you are wrong. Your attacks would be laughed at in a court. For grins, here are some relevant facts Colin is a former election law attorney at Marc Elias' firm and I am on his dialing for dollars list

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

It is time to donate to this committee again

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Celerity]

137. The same question in your subject line could be asked of you as well.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

138. Your continue to make me laugh

Thank you for the laughter. Your amusing attempts at defending the attempted defunding of Iron Dome ignores reality. 420 members of the House voted for this measure and they had good reasons for such vote

Link to tweet

Again, thank you the laughs

[Celerity]

142. You have little but continuous attempts to evade and change focus from what I said.

I do not find anything humorous about you at all.

In fact your relentless, apparently never-ending (across multiple threads) new tropes (variations on the general theme) of personal attack such as

Your continue to make me laugh

Thank you for the laughter.

Your amusing attempts

etc etc

are condescending AF, and expose you far more than me.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

144. But I really enjoy laughing at your attempts at making an argument

You do realize that I am Jewish and was on the board of my temple for 12 years. You accusing me of being anti-Semitic was really cute and adorable. I have friends who just got back from Israel and they were happy that Iron Dome was in place.

Again, I am a college debater and got the high grade in law school in evidence. None of your amusing posts re relevant to the issue that is subject of this thread which is the funding of Iron Dome. Your attacks on Newsweek are silly and not relevant to the issue being discussed

Link to tweet

I have posted quotes from several members of Congress that you are unable to cope with or answer. That is amusing to me

[George II]

163. "You have little but continuous attempts to evade and change focus from what I said".....

Is that not what you've done with respect to the OP?

All you've done is attack the grammar of the subject line and then attack a publication, by calling it a "RW rag", that is accepted almost universally as a left-leaning publication.

Not once have you addressed the OP, the vote in the House last week, the content of the bill in question (actually no longer in question, it passed 420-9-2), and the merits of the Iron Dome defense system, which saves Israeli, Palestinian, and countless other lives - both in Israel and indirectly in Gaza.

[Nixie]

206. +1000, you personally seem to be the desperate subject line.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

135. You are using relevant facts

Here the facts are clear. If the Iron Dome system was down and Hamas attacked Israel, then Israel would have to go into Gaza which would cause a great deal of loss of life in the real world

These facts are not in dispute and attacking Newsweek is they type of tactic that I find to be funny

[betsuni]

140. I find these long, drawn-out Kill the Messenger things a huge waste of time.

Simply point out what in the article you think is wrong.

On the bright side, I've decided what to wear for Halloween, a scary horrible zombie costume: Newsweek magazine!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

141. That is why these silly attacks are not used in the real world

If someone tried such an attack in the real world they would be buried with facts. Thie funding of the Iron Dome was approved by a vote of 420 votes. The real world is a nice place

Link to tweet

[Cha]

171. Rt TY for the Reality Check, LMVP

[burrowowl]

155. Kick for later

[George II]

167. Another knowledgeable advocate for the Iron Dome defensive system, a PALESTINIAN!

Who better to have a first-hand opinion of Iron Dome?

Link to tweet

In advance of the inevitable critique of the source(s):

Times of Israel

Last updated on September 20th, 2021 at 01:48 pm

?w=600&ssl=1

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-israel/

Bassem Eid (born 5 February 1958) is a Palestinian living in Israel who has an extensive career as a Palestinian human rights activist. His initial focus was on human rights violations committed by Israeli armed forces, but for many years has broadened his research to include human rights violations committed by the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the Palestinian armed forces on their own people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassem_Eid

[Cha]

186. TY.. just Rt it.

[wellst0nev0ter]

224. Hey look, an entire community

https://www.facebook.com/Jews-Against-Genocide-694634937278932/

[fescuerescue]

168. If you are explaining, you are losing.