Not so fast: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1354848253729234944

Cruz's antics nearly got AOC killed, she isn't going to forget that.

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).

> It's unfortunate that the one time someone from the opposing party agrees with her

That's not “the one time” such agreement has occurred.

Here's the bills she's cosponsored with Republicans:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse#congress=116&c...

> 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.

Complicit isn't quite accurate though, is it?

I find AOC actually refreshingly principled.

Is this principled? It seems to me like going against your principles/ideals just to stick it to someone you (usually) disagree with.

She's actually even more so principled by not taking the insurrection lightly and holding insurrection proponents accountable.

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.

>deadly insurrection

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?

You do not appear to be arguing in good faith.

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

> She should be sued for that. She's claiming that Ted Cruz is actually trying to get her killed.

Ted Cruz would have to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he not only was not doing so, but that AOC actually knew, or reasonably should have known, he was not. Given that the specific notional basis for her accusations is her knowledge (and not only from public sources) of his involvement with the Jan. 6 insurrection, that’s probably not something he wants publicly litigated in a court of law, since it's something he desperately wants to erase from the minds of everyone not actually sympathetic to the insurrection, while still staying on the good side of the pro-insurrectionists.

Since when do you have to prove your innocence? It is AOC who should prove that.

There's a huge difference between trying to get someone killed and calling for an election audit or objecting against the election results.

Are the Democrats guilty for all the BLM/Antifa murders? I don't think so and they supported and fuelled the protests/riots.

> Since when do you have to prove your innocence?

Were he charged with a crime, he would not.

Were he to file a civil lawsuit for defamation, he would have to prove the required elements of that case. In defamation law in the US, falsity is an element (in some other places truth is a defense, which is somewhat different), and for defamation against public figures, in the US, so is actual malice.

Note that both of those requirements have been found by the courts to be necessary to preserve Constitutional freedom of speech.

> There's a huge difference between trying to get someone killed and calling for an election audit or objecting against the election results.

Sure, and in court Cruz would have the opportunity show that he was only doing what you described and neither trying to get anyone killed nor doing anything that might reasonably be mistaken for that. But that's not something Cruz probably wants litigated in court of law, which is why he won't file and litigate a defamation claim.

That's not what she's claiming. She said previously that during the capitol riot, there was a moment when she thought she might be killed (don't know more than that). She blames Ted Cruz for his role in creating that situation.

The present tense here is misleading without the additional context.

She used the past tense. Not sure if there is any problem getting sued though. It's all public record and well known. Not even sure what it would be for, defamation? Not likely when it's pointing out what occurred.

  "Happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed."

From that I understand Cruz is trying to get her killed, which is a very serious accusation and should not be taken lightly.

No, “any other X not doing Y” indicates that the one being addressed is also an X not doing Y.

So, it reads like she thinks Cruz should resign becauss he tried to kill her in the past, but isn't currently trying that, while other GOP members are (or at least may be) still trying to do that.

Yeah, no.

If you come to me asking to work together and I tell you no because I don't work with people that are trying to get me killed, it's pretty obvious what I mean.

> If you come to me asking to work together and I tell you no because I don't work with people that are trying to get me killed, it's pretty obvious what I mean.

But that's not what she said, even as a summary.

She said (summarized at the same level):

1. You tried to get me killed recently.

2. So, you need to quit.

3. Still, I am willing to work with almost anyone else in your party who isn't trying to get me killed.

Her unwillingness to work with Cruz was expressly predicated on his perceived recent past, not present, efforts to have her killed.

As they say at https://ncatlab.org/nlab, "cobipartisan".

While it is quite satisfying to see Ted Cruz and AOC sometimes agree on issues, it hasn't so far been an indicator of legislative victory.