Less than a year after Democrats and liberals led a nationwide anti-police protest movement, they unite to vote to spend $2 billion more to boost security at the Capitol (6 Squad members, to their credit, voted no or abstained).
No matter what is done to the police, those who control power and money will always have ample armed security to protect themselves, as House Democrats just demonstrated.
See this thread on why the Democrats' bill which just passed by one vote -- that, among other things, spends $2 billion more on Capitol police and otherwise increases security state measures at the Capitol -- is so dangerous:
As this above thread correctly notes, there's more to the Squad's "no" votes and abstentions than it appeared.
The bill passed by one vote. That happened because 3 Squad members -- AOC, Bowman & Tlaib -- voted "present" instead of "no." Had they voted no, it would have failed.
In other word, the Squad gave the appearance of making it look like they were taking a principled stand against an additional $2 billion on Capitol police.
But it was a fraud. They had the power to stop the bill, but the exact number needed voted "present" instead of "no."
It's true that 3 Squad members -- Omar, Pressley and Bush -- joined with all GOP members to vote *against* the added security at the Capitol.
But the other 3 -- AOC, Bowman & Tlaib -- made sure that it passed. Read @ShantMM on the Squad:
Omar still deserves credit for being so vocal in opposing a new War on Terror and for voting no.
I have no idea if the Squad all planned to create this fraudulent appearance or if the only cynical votes were the "present" votes that ensured the bill's passage. But it's gross.
The cynicism and contempt for their following that at least half the Squad demonstrated with the fraud they just perpetrated today -- pretending to oppose the $2 billion spending increase for Capitol police while purposely enabling it to pass by 1 vote -- is staggering.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The only reason Pelosi's More-Capitol-Police-Funding bill passed is because @AOC, @JamaalBowmanNY & @RashidaTlaib spent a year demanding "Defund the Police!" for everyone else, but then did what they had to (voted "present") to ensure they got more police funding for themselves:
It's one of the most cynical, opportunistic and deceitful things I've seen in awhile. Credit to @CoriBush, @IlhanMN & @AyannaPressley for voting with all GOP House members to try to stop this bill, but at least 3 Squad members ensured more police funding.
Three Squad members -- all of whom recently chanted "Defund the Police" -- all had the power to kill a $1.9 billion increase in Capitol Police and security spending.
Three other Squad members -- @IlhanMN, @CoriBush and @RepPressley -- joined all GOP members in voting "no." But all Squad members previously said they opposed this.
So just enough of them voted "no" to create an appearance of radical resistance while achieving nothing.
The Intercept's editors went to the media reporters at both WashPost and The Daily Beast to voice all sorts of accusations against me. Their smear campaign never ends.
These are the emails I get when The Intercept and their well-funded staff attack me. Thanks for the harassment.
When will The Intercept stop endangering journalists and subjecting us to harassment campaigns by inciting this sort of hatred among their small but vicious readership?
They already have Antifa followers vowing to target the journalists attacked by them:
Also, I cannot wait for either one of these articles The Intercept tried to plant against me -- in the WashPost or The Daily Beast -- to be published so that I can publish my full responses to their questions about the Intercept and their top editors. 🙏
That Trump was controlled by Putin and served his agenda was the opposite of reality. First Obama, and now Biden, have accommodated Moscow far more.
Obama’s “meekness” when it came to Putin was a common line of attack from both parties and the foreign policy pundit class.
Meanwhile, Trump reversed almost every one of those accommodations toward Moscow, yet the demented conspiracy theory of Trump as Kremlin asset remained.
For the last year, anyone questioning let alone rejecting CDC/WHO guidance on COVID was vilified as an anti-science crank, to the point of being censored off the internet.
Yet it's now totally common for liberals with no scientific training to go on TV & reject new CDC guidance:
All "consensus" should be subject to questioning and dispute. There's nothing wrong with doing it.
But for most of the COVID pandemic, it wasn't allowed - certainly not culturally, and often at all. It's only allowed now that liberals don't like the new CDC guidance on masks.
If someone like @morningmika or @maddow or whoever wants to keep wearing masks, that is their right. I have no interest in critiquing that choice.
But if you go on TV and keep defending that choice, it is 100% an anti-vax message: you don't believe the vaccine really works.
Since the Intercept is *still* whining about how journalists objected to their abuse of a huge archive of private data on Gab users they got -- claiming we (and me) "lied" -- here's their own description, when begging for donations, of their intentions to target private people:
I'm not on the Intercept's email list (sadly). I learned of this horrific email when an ex-Intercept editor forwarded it to me, furious they were acting like the NSA/FBI: violating privacy, not protecting it.
It's an ongoing pathology in liberal journalism. They think they can do whatever they want to people: make 20-minute films of their faces, baselessly accuse them of grave crimes, dig through their personal data.
But nobody can criticize *them* because doing so "endangers" them.