It's unfortunate that the one time someone from the opposing party agrees with her she calls back on something they don't agree on (and refuses to work with them because of it).
> she calls back on something they don't agree on (and refuses to work with them because of it).
Sure, complicity in a violent, deadly attack on one's workplace (even when it isn't the national Capitol and part of a coup attempt) is the kind of thing most people would just brush off and not let get in the way of working with people: actions have no consequences whatsoever.
How is she keeping him accountable by refusing to work with him? This seems wrong on 2 ways:
- It encourages others to do the same; someone doesn't agree with you on an important issue (pro life?) - just refuse to work with them. This furthers the divide in US politics and is (imo) an overall negative.
- It hurts her own cause by removing support she already has - is this what a representative is supposed to do?
Not working with supporters of the deadly insurrection in which people were targeting her is not a mere "difference of political opinion". That's nowhere near the same ballpark.
Although true this is hyperbole. We're not talking about the "deadly protests" for BLM so why did the capitol protest become a "deadly insurrection"?
A lot of people are calling for Donald Trump to go to prison/etc; does that mean (if he was still president) he should stop talking to anyone saying so?
In the same tweet she says she’ll work with (almost) any republican on this issue. Just not Ted Cruz (and presumably Hawley and the others pushing election disinformation).
I think your fist point is making this into something more than it really is.
The much more obvious and likely reason is it's because she was fearing rape and possibly murder just a few weeks ago, when the Capitol was stormed. As it was later revealed, there were people targeting AOC and Pelosi specifically. And those extremists are constantly egged on by Cruz and his ilk. Blaming this on cancel culture is just.. Odd
