CCTV footage will likely show the perps to be off duty cops, lol
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
295 points (98.0% liked)
politics
24856 readers
3559 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Please add the qualifier:
If found...
Off duty? Nah. Those motherfuckers probably got paid overtime for it.
The footage will be lost before it can show any duty cop.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Perhaps I'm not up to speed, but she was one of the first reps to call Israel's actions a genocide. What gives?
It's more bad-faith horseshit to get leftists to destroy one another, which a lot of leftists love to lap up because their critical thinking isn't real strong and they love nothing more than being "holier than" some kind of previously respected icon.
MTG's amendment left intact the funding for offensive weapons, but cut the funding for defensive weapons for Israel. So there is literally no way AOC could win. Leaving aside the fact that it was a kooky MTG amendment that was never going to pass in the first place... If she voted for the amendment, then everyone who is currently screaming that she's a fake leftist who supports genocide could say "See? SHE VOTED FOR KEEPING ISRAEL'S FUNDING INTACT, SHE SUPPORTS GENOCIDE!" Since she voted against it, they are currently screaming "See? SHE VOTED AGAINST DEFUNDING ISRAEL, SHE SUPPORTS GENOCIDE!"
It's just more can't-win, let's-eat-the-leftest-person-because-we're-super-leftist-I-promise horseshit.
Here's AOC voting against funding for Israel, in an actual bill that was actually a non-Hobson's-choice opportunity to vote against aid for Israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/biden-meets-with-aoc-in-wake-of-her-vote-against-military-aid-for-israel/
And her voting against the actual funding bill providing aid to Israel: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025212
I've also seen people say Bernie is a Zionist, because he says "ethnic cleansing" instead of "genocide." Both Bernie and AOC's vocal opposition to genocide doesn't matter to these people. Actually, it's that genuine leftism that they represent that makes them dangerous, and worthwhile to engineer cooked-up horseshit to use to get other people to turn on them, so the Marco Rubios of the world can take over un-contested.
I mean... it really doesn't take much to get people on the left to turn on each other. It's kind of a historic problem with leftist ideological groups in general - they're awfully quick to declare each other the wrong type of leftist, or not leftist enough, and then refuse to cooperate.
There certainly are outside provocateurs, but I wouldn't leap to that conclusion in every occasion. Hanlon's razor applies.
Maybe. It's real hard for me not to notice the pattern recognition of "Kamala Harris supports genocide!" "AOC supports genocide!" "Bernie supports genocide!", basically literally any person in American politics who's trying to do some kind of leftist thing with any level of popularity, there's some kind of bizarre moon logic whereby they must support genocide and we've got to start screaming it at them and never support them again.
I will agree with you that some stupid features of the left tend to provide some nice dry powder for this kind of thing but I don't remember this kind of thing happening in American politics any time previous to the social-media-mass-shilling age of political discourse. Like circa 2000, there was a super vigorous protest movement, but it was aimed at shadowy neoliberal quasi-governments, fascist police, war machines... you know, the enemy. No one was out screaming at Al Gore for destroying the climate and throwing red paint at his offices.
Al Gore may not have really invented the Internet, but when he was in politics we haven't figured out how to really weaponize it for political purposes yet. It's not bizarre moon logic, it's active manipulation.
"Genocide" is one of those hot button terms that short-circuit people's critical thinking whenever someone invokes it, that's why provateuers online like tossing it about. ("Pedo" is another one, which has been in the news lately). Turns out getting lasting peace in the region is difficult and can't be reduced to slogans....
Al Gore may not have really invented the Internet
Which, to point out, he never actually said. He said "creating" - which is actually accurate, since he pushed the policies that allowed for it to exist. Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn support his stance that he was a primary driver behind its development from a policy perspective. I believe they even said no other politician has been as important to the internet (rough paraphrase, someone else can grab the exact quote) as Gore.
The claim that he said he "invented the internet" came from dirtbag pundits, of course.
It was a very, very early instance of the horseshit lie that is easy and bite-sized, and sort of reality adjacent, where anyone who's trying to explain the reality sounds like they're making some kind of lame excuse and is easy to shout down and dismiss. In retrospect, it should have been an all-hands-on-deck emergency to make sure that strategy didn't work and take hold.
I think we need to acknowledge that left-wing groups (especially online) have just as much of a problem with extremists as right-wing groups do. It's not quite as systemic and weaponized as what's described in Innuendo Studio's excellent video, but it is there and it can just as easily result in violent behavior.
Whenever a community turns into an echo chamber, the ideological aspects of that community switch from principles to performances. The members of the community start trying to prove that they're holier-than-thou, usually to gain nothing more than attention.
but I don't remember this kind of thing happening in American politics any time previous to the social-media-mass-shilling age of political discourse.
I think you're right, but I think this has less to do with some false-flag conspiracy and more to do with the accelerant nature of social media in general. I think a lot of this kind of behavior is driven by the one-upmanship impulse, and the effect of online communities is to concentrate a self-selecting group of people with similar interests. The larger the group becomes, the more an individual has to work to stand out and receive recognition from the rest of the group. Frequently the easiest way to do that is to demonstrate some extreme form of whatever the group's ideology is.
Basically I think a lot of this is just people looking for an ego-stroking. It's attention-seeking behavior, the kind you see in teenagers. They fall into some community or other and then find a community-acceptable way to exhibit their narcissistic tendencies.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Hanlon's razor applies
No it doesn't. Why would anyone still put any stock in that bullshit after witnessing the pure malice that has infected every aspect of American society?
Hanlon's razor was never really a great axiom, imo, but now it's completely dead.
load more comments
(1 replies)
An old joke to your point:
A person calls the police and starts shouting, "help! There's a DEMOCRAT masturbating on my lawn!" The dispatcher says they're sending an officer and then asks, "uhhh... How do you know this person is a democrat?"
The caller responds, "they're not fucking everyone else, only themselves."
It's kind of a historic problem with leftist ideological groups in general - they're awfully quick to declare each other the wrong type of leftist, or not leftist enough, and then refuse to cooperate.
How dare you, you filthy liberal. You've made an enemy for life!
Any substantive cut on Israel’s funding needs to be made if it is introduced. I literally don’t care what they’re defunding or who introduced the bill; the less my taxpayer dollars go to genocidal psychos, the better. End of story.
load more comments
(4 replies)
"I've also seen people say Bernie is a Zionist, because he says "ethnic cleansing" instead of "genocide."
Liberals when they're both on the same page but use slightly different rhetoric 😡😡😡
"We're the People's Front of Judea! "
This is a bad faith interpretation of why leftists are upset. No one is saying the bill was enough. However, it would have had the effect of blocking Israel's defense aid, and in this desperate moment where Israel is being allowed to starve a whole people to death with no repercussions, it was something we could have done to mitigate their freedom to continue to do so. In her statement, AOC didn't just mention the offensive-vs.-defensive aid thing--she also brought up protecting innocent civilians, implying that not providing the defensive aid would result in innocent Isrealis dying. In the context of innocent Palestinians being a day or two from mass death, that is a fucking cop-out.
The bill providing funding for Israel, she voted against. Pretty sure I mentioned that.
So further if your metric for being able to support a vigorously left-wing politician who's been voting against aid for Israel, calling it a genocide, yelling about it on the house floor, and so on and so on, including pushing for justice for working people whose voice is basically nonexistent within the US congress, is that never once do they say one dumb thing on Twitter, then I would wonder who in or out of politics you would be willing to support. This is like the people who are yelling about how Mamdani is a "fake leftist" and as a good leftist they can't support him because he's just a fake for the Democrats and they won't get fooled again...
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
TL;DR is at MTG put forth a bill to remove funding for Israel's missile defense system from the US budget. 429/435 House reps voted against it, including AOC, but then she made a very tone-deaf tweet basically saying "The bill was trying to remove funding for Israel's ability to defend themselves from the people they're genociding, of course I voted against it!" and it's causing massive backlash against her.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If I had to guess, some kind of right wing nonsense, probably done by a Trump supporter. Any truly progressive person wouldn’t resort to vandalism in the first place
load more comments
(10 replies)
It’s probably some right winger trying to attack her from the left in an effort to split her support. Attacks from the right make her stronger, so they’ll attack from the left to make leftists abandon her.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I see a potential backdrop for a photo shoot.
What kind of perpetrator takes a photo of their activity... Do they want to get caught?
Someone whose primary purpose is the cred and self-aggrandization, and not the political impact
AOC supports what’s going on in Gaza? lol. Wut.
She literally just voted against throwing more money at the Iron Dome.
Didn't she literally vote against the MTG amendment that stripped all funding from Israel?
load more comments
(28 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
She should just paint the place red. And when they do it in another color… paint it in that color.