The House approved a resolution backing Israel and condemning Hamas on Wednesday, the first piece of legislation to clear the lower chamber in more than three weeks because of the extended Speaker stalemate.

The legislation, which spans four pages, was the first measure approved under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who clinched the gavel hours before the chamber voted on the resolution. He succeeded former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in the position after the California Republican was ousted from the top job earlier this month.

The House approved the resolution in a 412-10-6 vote, a strong show of support for Israel after Hamas launched an unprecedented attack on the U.S. ally Oct. 7, massacring more than 1,000 civilians in the south of the country, kidnapping more than 200 and raining thousands of rockets down across the country.

  • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    One observation: this was a typical sense of the House given the situation and there were 10 Congress critters voting no. AOC voting no means she obviously is not contemplating running for statewide office.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          AOC voting no means she obviously is not contemplating running for statewide office.

          That is an assumption. And the only way it would make sense is if AOC would be willing to compromise her positions in the hopes it will get her a higher office.

          It does not mean that the only reason she stuck to her morals is she isn’t running for higher office.

          Maybe you meant something else, but that’s not what you typed.

          • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Again, the why doesn’t matter. The result is that a partisan Democratic base now has a reason not to like her in a primary.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Again, the why doesn’t matter

              It matters because you made an assumption that discredited her and presented it as obvious facts.

              The only reason I’m still trying to explain is this is important to understand in every facet of communication. If you just misspoke, no big deal it happened to me yesterday too. But it’s concerning if you don’t see the issue

              • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                It doesn’t matter because by the time she reaches a primary the only consideration is if she voted for the measure or not… Not any ideological reason you come up with.

    • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly, the further she stays away from the NY State Democratic Party, the better. If she runs for something bigger, I want her to win and/or maintain her dignity, not get held back by weird intra-party rivalries and kissing machine boss rings.

      • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The Democratic party is who elects folks in New York. To think you can win there without them is fantasy.

        • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I meant I don’t want her to run for governor of NY (or Senator) if it means getting dragged into the state party’s dysfunction. Look how poorly they handled the 2022 election. She has a chance to be president someday (or, at the very least, play a role like Bernie Sanders) and staying out of state politics probably helps with that.

            • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s precedent for it happening. It was awhile ago but in 2016, President Donald J. Trump (from NYC) won without holding a statewide office while his opponent, Secretary Hillary R. Clinton, lost despite having been a NY Senator based further upstate.

              Smart assery aside, I don’t think someone like AOC needs a stepping stone the way other politicians do. She‘s a national figure already and has a donor network and all the rest. Basically every other politician needs to take the conventional path you’re talking about.

              • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The reason Trump won was money, which is often the reason. During normal days, money can not be generated by someone who is not a proven winner (ie state or nationwide). He also won due to the electoral college (which is another conversation). The other exception was Eisenhower. But, these are exceptions and, for the most part, a candidate must prove they can win bigger electi9ns than district level.

                As someone recently said “Senators dream of being President, Congressmen dream of being King.”