According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected
Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Sun, 03/31/2019 - 10:09pm
I’m still laughing but I shouldn’t be. Because this is embarrassing.
According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected:
"They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt dd not get reelected."
(Reminder, FDR died in office in 1945; the 22nd Amendment came in 1947) pic.twitter.com/DImHj0caVy
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 31, 2019
Comments
Aw, man!
Now, lets enjoy the inception of my verbiage.
Woman comes into the office, tells her son (6 years old)to sit. He says, "aw, man!", and then she tells him he cannot eat the candy on my secretary's desk, "aw, man!" He was informed he had to go back to school after lunch, "aw, man!"
As to AOC, whom I am beginning to believe is a poseur/actress...
Aw, man!
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
6 year olds can be unintentionally very funny
Did you find it difficult to keep a straight face?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Impossible, actually.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Yup, she garbled a piece of history . . .
. . . that happened almost half-a-century before she was born. Sure am glad no one around here has ever done anything like that!
I'm not sure what she did to earn the ire of c99ers, but it happened the day she won the primary. And it must have been something even more awful than misinterpreting chronology.
It's like a spelling/grammer flame
This isn't a big deal. I do worse every day IRL.
If you look at the comments in that tweet you will find someone invested in hating AOC.
You will also find this:
"you will find someone invested in hating AOC"
Tom Elliott, the person who tweeted that top bit, is the founder of a right-wing news-aggregate site. Reading his other tweets, he hates anyone to the left of the Republican Party and has a particular ire for any mention of climate change or Green New Deals.
I do wish we here would stop using right-wingers as our go-to source. It only reinforces the centrists' claim that one can lean so far to the left that he/she ends up on the right. More importantly, it means we waste the next few years sneering at politicians instead of preparing folks for the climate shitstorm that's already topped the horizon and is bearing down on us.
I would like to rec this comment more than once!
But, so it goes...
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
Yep, so it goes. Other people have the same
right to post what they think is relevant and newsworthy. Just like you do. Apparently that really bothers you. Why is that?
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Glad to know that - I didn't..
Even so, a broken clock can be right 2x day. Having said that, it makes a broken clock useless 98% of the time. Makes me wonder if he even correctly repeated what AOC said.
What I find more interesting is the conversation in comments about how and why FDR was responsible for term limits on the Presidency. Michigan has term limits on elected state offices. They are useless. All the pols do is run or election in a different office when their time is up. From the House to the Senate to State Board of Ed, to County Exec., to Governor, etc. Once connected, always connected. Like federal programs, they never die - they just change their titles.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I have nothing against right wing sources
They do tend to dig up dirt on the Democratic party after all. But just as with all sources, we need to check our facts. Sometimes those facts get checked rather embarrassingly in the comments. Lord knows I've been there. But what seems imprudent is making judgments based on the source rather than the content.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
would you trust an article by Jennifer Palmieri?
to name one Hillary supporter.
Anything she writes is immediately suspect. I'd want to go through every sentence, looking for bias and inaccuracies. Same with these right wing sources. Line by line. Check them all. If, at the end, you think it's worthwhile then use it. But I start out at 0% trust in what they write.
There is NOBODY I trust an article by
On the less significant stuff or the things I'm less interested in then sure, I'll just roll along with people like Johnstone. But for anything important, I check everything anyway.... or try to. Then I bring it here because I have faith that others here will also check it. But I assume that everyone is lying on anything of any importance.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
People forget that the “con” in “con man” and “con game”
is short for “confidence” — in other words, “trust.”
That’s the way “cons” work — by, in the first phase of the con, performing just reliably enough that enough people are lulled into regarding them as worthy of trust, as an unconscious habit.
Incidentally, that’s Wikipedia’s Achilles heel. What Wikipedia calls its “reliable sources” policy is actually a “cons that have succeeded in establishing widespread habitual trust” policy.
When it comes to writing about public affairs, recognizing that nobody can be automatically trusted is just basic prudence.
You’re absolutely right about using wiki
as a source. I use it a lot though because the references at the end of an article give you places to look but more importantly, let you see where this ‘information’ is coming from. I really like it for stuff that I know is true because it’s a lazy person’s way to get info posted ( copy and paste) and I ALWAYS include the references so others can verify. If the references are something nuts like Infowars for a lame example, I don’t use it.
But those references are also useful to dig up articles to show what ‘others’ take is. And then there are some doozies on there that are so slanted ( both sides) that you know they aren’t even worth reading.
I’ve seen a couple where some internet vandals have gone in and ‘edited’ the material. Funny!! But that right there is the perfect illustration as to why wiki can’t be your only, or even primary, source of info.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
That's what I remember
learning in school.
Yes it appears
AOC actually had more history right than not, as the 22d Am effort did indeed begin during the 1944 campaign. So thanks for the post, which suggests to me that AOC, despite her young age and newness in politics, is actually rather well-versed in our US political history, far better than most pols I suspect. It could have been more clearly stated for sure.
She did however make one clear misstatement, which I thought all Dem NYites knew not to do.
ire of c99ers implies all
I think that overstates the situation. There have been one or two diaries here that were critical of AOC, and I am glad I can read both the good and the bad here about anyone. Many of us don't trust her, but then, she's a pol. We don't trust any of them including Bernie and why should we?
The following statement is not to or about you. It is just a statement in general that I happen to insert here, and it is more from the reaction to my comments that I got from some in the Tulsi diary on her TYT interview. I remember co-workers who took criticism of everything they did as a personal assault, somehow an extension of them that was being found fault with and they couldn't have that. People do that with their favorite pols too.
Going to be a very long year. I hope everyone can sit back and put some space between them and the editorial position of this site, of which there isn't one. A very convoluted way of saying you must give freedom to get freedom.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I wish I could recommend this comment more than once
While I am not invested in the horse race and feel impotent to address any of the real problems that we face as a society, I still feel as if critiquing the absurdity and the mendacity of the political process and the politicians who feed off of it is important. Call it truth telling as I see it. Others may have another term for it, as is their prerogative. Either way, it will not compel me to keep quiet because other people feel it's a "waste of time".
We all view our prism of the world differently, don't we?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Hear ya on the general front.
And I didn't mean to imply all c99ers, just a certain contingent we all recognize.
FTR, personally, I place no faith in any politician. Not a one. And I watch them vigilantly to see if any can surprise me.
I also watch those who seek any and every angle to snipe at pols who seem at least to be trying to improve something out there, because those snipers' intent to detract and distract is just as much an impediment to getting something good to happen as those pols who are in the pockets of the PTB.
I take none of these snipings personally, because my vested interests are not in politicians, but I also don't plan to be silent as people try to plant brambles across the paths we need to follow to survive all this. If someone has a critique that moves us forward, voice it, strenuously; if it's just a potshot to reduce the conversation to impotence, we ain't got time for that.
Speak away
As I will too
But don't assume we all agree that "surviving all this" has a road through the political process. That's your interpretation of surviving. Not mine.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
There are no 'contigents' here.
Nor are there cabals, gangs, coteries, cells, sects, juntas, rings, or any other groupthink epithet you wish to casually toss around to discredit anybody who disagrees with you.
We are all just various individuals here, some of whom have similar outlooks on specific topics.
I could say more about your slimy rhetorical tactic, but then I'd probably end up tossing around epithets of my own.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
In the future I wish to be known
as part of the BabeOlicious contingent here. Got that?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
That's SEXIST!
Or objectification of yourself, and you are NOT allowed to see yourself as a sexual being, ever! Ya got that? It also sexualizes children! Have you no shame? Wait, are you one of those baby pervs who wears diapers, or do you eat babies since you clearly implied that they're delicious?
I'm reporting this comment and sending it to the FBI!!!
/s
Eating Babies
Only after they've been washed and freshly diapered. No talcum powder please
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I gave them up for lent
But thoughts of snot bubbles . . . now that's appetizing.
Noted...
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Absolutely! I watch people here post whatever
they want but you say something contrary to their opinion and you’re a liar or something nefarious.
Tell me, do old posts get deleted from the system? I’m looking for the one where I posted the news that Sanders was out of the race and I was called a LIAR by a couple posters no longer here and told I should take it down. Yeah, I was a liar. But I posted backup and everything necessary that would have shown most people that he did withdraw. And, of course, their buddies chimed right in to back them up. I could name those people but I won’t. A couple are posting in this thread.
That happened in my early days of being here. And that’s why I say what I want and don’t care one single solitary iota about remarks like that ‘contingent’ nonsense. Reminds me of another place and posters...
EDIT: ehatever/whatever
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
The key word is no longer here.
I defy anyone to find two people at c99 with the same set of opinions on anything. We are a contrary lot, and I suspect we enjoy it. It is why it pains me when someone here internalizes something and turns it into something personal. I repeat. We must give freedom in order to take it.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Oh no. Some are still here. And in this post.
Here’s another example. Do you remember the OP where I said Clinton had all the symptoms of being a stroke survivor? Here’s the first 2 responses...
I DID. have the med Recs, didn’t I?
It’s been this way since I signed up at this place. And I should have known better than to think it would change.
Oh, I still owe you an explanation for why I had all her history. Because I’ve been following that wretched Clinton Creature for a long time. I have been on record for a long time regarding my absolute distrust and contempt for her and Slick. I know what vermin they are. And I always make sure I can back up what I say.
Nope, operative word(s) here isn’t ‘gone’. It’s same shit, different day.
EDIT: Rex’s/recs
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
I went looking
Somewhere around page 55 of your essays (holy shit you have posted a lot), is where Bernie starts hinting. I looked at a couple, but not sure which one you were referring to up thread. About page 55 is around June, 2016. Holy shit, someone who's no longer here was so abrasive and volatile in her comments on the essays I looked back on. Riverlover was there too, though, being his level headed self. I miss him.
I noticed something much more recently. Your essay (idk which one) was attacked and the attacker was defended because *long time poster here & shithole dkos* (by 2 admins also). Sounded like a condescending shit head, to me.
I see it. You won't like this, but I fully supported you in that recent essay, until you did what I do when I'm defending myself -- I go overboard. I stopped reading the comments after that. I'm pretty sure that happens when I lose my shit on here, even if I feel justified. People walk away. You're passionate, though. Nothing wrong with that. Just my 2 cents.
You use the term ‘overboard’ . There’s a lot
of truth in that. But I call it ‘tired of it all’.
Right around the Rush Limbaugh crack and ‘wildly whatever’ I decided he’ll with it. I’ve been fighting this crap since I got here and I figure why fight ‘em? Just give it back.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
The difference
The difference is, I get threatened with a TO (for paraphrasing a quote regularly attributed to Einstein even though the owner said it was contested that he actually said it). I've seen that same paraphrase/non-quote quote stated by several since, and not a word about it. The mods ignored my getting called a dumb shit kicker well before that. Not a single word.
It's very, very selective when it comes to moderation. Some of us are apparently expendable; some definitely not (like the condescending shit head who dropped a turd in your essay not too long ago).
At least you didn't get threatened with a TO or asked how many times would be fair to be called out before getting one. Just keep doing what you're doing.
Yep. Hilarious. I see someone already brought
up her cracks about the New Deal. With her everything’s racism and it can all be taken care of by giving people money. Her phoniness over voting on the GND was appalling. Why propose something THAT YOU DON’T WANT VOTED ON?
Yeah, she’s funny.!
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Riverlover was one of my favorite people
here. That was a gentle soul.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Indeed, he was =) /nt
What ‘contingent’ would that be, pray tell.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
It's why C99 is my "go to" political site.
For the most part, a wide range of views are allowed and presented here. And for the most part, people tend to be more aligned with facts than some tribal identity. We also delve deep into "less commonly held beliefs" which means that sometimes our conspiracy theories turn out to be wrong.
So as much as I lament the people who have made up their mind about AOC I'm glad as hell they post here. The last thing this place needs is to become just another echo chamber like DKOS except with a different tone in echo.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
As near as I can tell
AOC has done nothing at all to earn the ire of anyone here except that she's too popular on corporate media. In many's minds this implies she must be a corporate tool. Other lesser grievances I have heard are that she packaged up economic justice with the solution to global warming... thereby watering down the urgency of the global warming battle. I'm sure other individuals have their own specific complaints.
For me personally, I try not to take my cue... ANY cue... from the likes of CNN. I'm way less interested in what they are doing than what AOC and her brethren are doing.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
This is the "bone" I have to pick
This comment is not about the topic of the OP, but rather about your take on AOC.
You reduce five detailed essays on my part to a glib dismissal - because no reasons. There is plenty of meat in the five essays.
An Hispanic Amity Shales
03/11/2019
The Lady in the Green Astroturf Dress
02/11/2019
This is your politics on Media Drugs
02/08/2019
I am really annoyed at the beatification of AOC
01/07/2019
Worth a read: the Dems (and Ocasio!) just more of the same
07/11/2018
You are entitled to your opinion, but you blowing off fact after fact as "done nothing at all" sorta devalues your opinion. Just sayin'. Proposing public private partnerships is not "doing nothing at all".
As I said in response to the OP, I am not bothering with the lightweight media kerfuffle du jour. But, I will stand up to rebut yet another attempt to whistle past the graveyard of AOC's neoliberal connections and behaviors.
ON EDIT: You should note the large number of fake "progressives" showing up in the Dem Party. I just wrote an OP trashing the latest one, Pete Buttigieg.
Yet Another Slick Fraudulent Neoliberal Dem
After the 2018 primary season full of CIA Dems, after Beto-and-switch, after Andrew Yang, and now this PB guy, TPTB are really firing all their guns to get some of these frauds accepted as the genuine item.
So pardon my skepticism about AOC. We are all wary after President Empty Suit, another person with a very thin resume.
Many of us were fooled by Obama in 2008
because he did sound genuinely progressive, and he did sound like he was going to fight for us.
Hindsight tells us it was all a really good act.
So, then, here's my question: in what substantive way is our judgement here about AOC better than the one we used for Obama?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
First of all, its better to be safe than sorry
I don't accept somebody until I get a sense of where they are really coming from.
I, for one, was on the record as thinking Obama was a fraud before he was elected. I asked where the hell the money came from for him to fight a two year pre-primary battle with the all-but-crowned Queen Hillary.
I for one found the important time slot he got at the 2004 convention to be suspicious. I for one found the implosion of his opponent, Jack Ryan, in the 2006 IL Senate race just a tad too convenient.
Basically, when it comes to politics, I have had a 50 year master course in being paranoid.
So, when you ask, why should we trust our paranoia, I say why should we trust she's telling the truth.
You decide which stance is safer.
I'm not sure I'd describe your discernment as paranoia
In fact I think judging from some of our track records over who we have guessed right about, I'd characterize some of our inner weathervane as pretty unreliable.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I don't know about your or others judgment regarding
AOC or Obama, but what became clear to me under Obama was the political system, specifically this duopoly system which AOC, Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, the new Obama wannabe, as democratic party politicians are part of, is the problem, not necessarily AOC, Sanders or Gabbard in particular. They're all tools used to keep the system afloat, keep people voting and focusing on the next election so the oligarchy can retain control, instead of actually fighting back against this oligarchic political system that has been proven to not be a democracy and a system almost exclusively for the rich and their corporations and banks. So for me it's the same as it is with Sanders and Gabbard, they're part of the political party that is part of the problem and no amount of "progressive" talk is going to change that. So I can say personally my judgment regarding "AOC", and Gabbard, as it was with Sanders in 2016, is far better than it was with Obama, who I did make the mistake of voting for in 2008.
I consider and weigh comments critical of AOC, but so far I
am not swayed by them. To me her fire against right wingers and neoliberals seems genuine and impassioned.
Let's Face It
Nobody wants a dead man to be elected president (although honestly it might be better than the current situation . . .).
As far as AOC goes, though, I think people are either a) afraid she's a manchurian candidate like Obama was and will delay real progress with distractions whenever possible, or b) she's not very smart and will make progressives look stupid.
So far, I don't dislike her, but sometimes I do hit my head on the desk when something like this happens.
AOC misspoke, but contextually, she was more accurate...
...than what's, obviously, little more than a funny (but somewhat cheap shot) misstatement by her.
It is widely understood, historically speaking, that upon FDR's election to a fourth term, in 1944, the public--in general--rallied to enact the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, limiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office. However, it wasn't until the GOP regained control of both the House and the Senate, in 1947, that the Amendment successfully passed both houses of congress. And, it wasn't until 1951, when it was ratified by 2/3rd of the United States (state governments).
So, in fact, yeah AOC stumbled a bit (and the press and the GOP--and, I'm thinking some neolib Dems, as well, jumped on it.) But, the truth is, AOC really wasn't that far off from the truth.
Reiterating, in 1944 (when FDR was re-elected for a fourth time), the effort to limit the presidency to two terms became popular. But, it wouldn't become a formally-proposed Amendment to the Constitution until the Democrats no longer controlled both sides of Capitol Hill, in 1947.
So, yes, the movement to enact the 22nd Amendment was, in large part, initiated by FDR's re-election to a fourth term in office.
There are many comparisons to be made between that effort and what's happening right now, with the move to abolish the Electoral College, by many on the Democratic side of the aisle. And, yes, it's to the point where the election of Trump, who's held office since 2017, could largely be attributed to a successful effort to abolish the Electoral College a few years down the road, if the Democrats were to regain control of both the House and Senate in 2021, for instance; even if Trump were voted out of office in November of 2020.
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
I believe this proves...
That Obama promised all but it turned out he was a liar. Also that Bernie not only campaigned for Hills but also pushed Russia!
Therefore AOC must be an actress hired to play the part of a congresswoman.
Well, that's what's known as a "counterfactual." n/t
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
“Misspoke”? She sure seems to do that a lot.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
sounds like a lot of statements that make me uncomfortable
please let me ask a questions:
Why is limiting the election of a President to two terms a democratic tool, if the elections were the representation of a proportional vote of all Americans? (Now I don't consider US elections within the framework of the electoral college and campaign finance laws democratic, but that is another issue).
I never got that. Let's assume I like Merkel for some reason, I even can't explain and wouldn't verbalize and let's say I don't like AOC for some reasons, I can't or wouldn't try to verbalize in the open, because they are based on nothing but personal gut's feelings which for sure can't be unbiased.
Why would I dare to believe that a limitation of a vote to two Presidential terms would be democratic? I admit that not restricting the votes is quite dangerous, because the population just happens to like the most miserable figures and vote for them, as has been proven by the Germans quite 'nicely' in our history.
Should we trust our own judgments to be based on gut's feelings more than facts that we just don't want to see and end up be blinded by our emotional personal set-up and experiences?
I like my guts' feelings, just not when they start to get hyperactive and end up dropping shit like in diarrhea-like ways.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Here are 10 reasons why term limits are a good thing...
...from Listland, with good narrative, as well. (As it applies to all/most elected offices; and, from another perspective--your own--since the move, here in the U.S., was afoot near the end of WWII, you kinda [indirectly] answered your own question.)...
1. It Was Good Enough For the Ancient Greeks and Romans!
2. Less Opportunity to Outlast Usefulness
3. Protection From Indefinite Corporate Influence
4. Term Limits Provide For Less Corporate Influence
5. Extended Term Limits Provide Experience
6. More Options For Voters
7. More Opportunities For Leadership in Communities
8. Less Corruption
9. Fewer Career Politicians
10. No Specific Political Party Can Keep Control Indefinitely
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
thank you, I will study those, btw
I came to the US in 1982 being 34 years old, and started to become a little bit more aware of the political landscape in the US in 2003. I remember being amazed, but not really upset or scared, that Reagan was elected and Carter was put down by the American people. I didn't quite get that either at the time.
Now of course I am much wiser. /s
P.S. I scanned the arguments. Why don't you have then term limits for Senators and Congressmen and throw them out after they have been reelected more than two (or whatever appropiate number of times for Congressmen) times?
On first glance I am not convinced about the arguments. But I will read more and give it a thought. Thank you again for taking the time to respond.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Why don't we have term limits
for Senators and House representatives?
That's a good darned question.
With regard to term limits for POTUS: as long as the existing de facto uniparty (duopoly of Dems and Repubs, both of which are run by and for the benefit of the oligarchy) remains in power, I'm not sure the current term limits do much to accomplish their intended purpose. One neolib/neocon POTUS leaves office, to be replaced by the next.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
And they get increasingly worse with every
change.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Term limits for Congress I'd vote for that. Twice! lol
thanks, I thought this short essay was funny. AOC represents how many people? Where now? So she made a gaffe so what. torch passage
Back to term limits on congress. Yes we can? Moving toward a more perfect union, career politicians are dead weight anchors that's what I think. Every citizen should be trained to know how the government actually works without lobbyists bribing everything to death. Every one should know the job, like a real civil service or something. No PR, no marketing, no bullshit. government yawn
It's a training problem in my view, education lacks everywhere (points at self). externalized cost
Cronies do not concede power to dummies, why would they? The D-Machine in California makes me sick, the "bench" is pure crony. NY sounds about the same, despite AOCs new gaffes and stuff nothing much changed.
coastal flush
peace
Civics classes
I remember taking civics in high school, back in the 1960s. I'm trying to remember whether lobbyists were mentioned at all.
Come to think of it, maybe that's the reason why they don't teach civics anymore. They'd have to explain that bills are written by lobbyists to benefit their billionaire corporate clients, and passed into law by Senators and Reps who've been paid to do so by said billionaire corporate clients.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
I agree, there should be term limits...
...on Senators and Congresscritters. As I noted in my comment: "...it applies to all/most elected offices..."
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
Useless as all get out.
They just play rotating offices and titles. State office in MI is term-limited, and it does no good. Connected is connected. They never leave the gravy train.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
For the most part, they become lobbyists! n/t
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
How about “(increasing one’s) wealth” limits?
Something’s very fishy about people who get rich in, or promptly after leaving, office.
Any time somebody has tons of defenders to explain...
why something they said wasn't really a mistake, instead of just OOPS and moving on...
I smell Clinton.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Not a big deal...
and maybe even overall correct if not technically accurate.
But man, between this and AOC saying the New Deal was racist, she really does come across as an FDR revisionist. (I mean, seriously, why name your signature environmental initiative after legislation you say is racist? Talk about confuse-a-cat messaging.)
Also, maybe it's just a coincidence that just as Trump announces cuts to SS in his new budget, AOC decides to start discrediting old school Dems (and FDR especially) whenever she gets the chance... but I doubt it.
Grand Bargain and all that, you know?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Curious isn't it?
How it echoes one another as FDR rolls over in his grave. But, gosh. Ain't she cute when she's re-interpreting FDR's legacy!
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
As others have said
AOC's comment was contextually accurate. I'm not seeing the hilarity in this.
I'm missing it too.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
You don’t see the humor in all her
‘Misspeakings’?
I think it’s hilarious. Here’s the next shiny object spouting idiocy constantly, has no grasp of history, and thinks calling everything racist, including the ORIGINAL New Deal. She has no grasp of economics. In fact I’m still trying to figure out what her field of ‘expertise’ really is. And isn’t she a college grad?
This is going to piss some people off but AOC is what I think the outcome would be if it was possible for Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin could mate.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
I'm staying out of this one.
You all know my position on AOC.
IMHO, this one sentence kurfuffle is too brief and too vague to draw solid conclusions.
Its too small, so its just a Rohrshach blot onto which people project their positions. So, most of the thread has nothing to do with the one sentence topic. Its just an excuse to start what passes for a flamewar on c99p. (Here that would be a "gust of warm air" war.
)
So, props to everyone for keeping it cool.
I do have one bone to pick with a comment in this thread; its not about this quote. I will take that up with the author of the bone.
I don't see the humor.
The amendment obviously wasn't passed to prevent FDR's reelection. But it was passed to prevent anyone else from ever doing what FDR did. So AOC could have heard of FDRs 3 reelections in any discussion of the XXII Amendment.
Hilarious?
I think Germany would have been better off if
neither Helmut Kohl nor Angela Merkel had been able to hang on to power as long as he did and she has.
Status quo is treated as if divinely ordained. Stagnation or complacency sets in.
And ironically,
the reverse is true. If anything could be considered "divinely ordained", it would be change, not the status quo.
As the saying goes, the only constant is change. That's a fact that applies across the board, as seen in the natural world, history, the social sciences, and in our own individual lives. Nothing ever stays the same. That's how life on planet Earth works. Part of being psychologically and spiritually mature adult is accepting that fact.
It's a human proclivity to hold on to what we have and to resist change. But this bunch of greedy psychopaths we've got running the world have taken it to an art form.
They seem to believe they're going to live forever; that they can own the entire world, and then freeze time so it will be theirs forever. In their delusion, they're killing the world. They think that they will be able to escape to New Zealand or Mars and thereby survive the apocalypse they created.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall when the last surviving oligarch realizes "OMG! There's no one left to wait on me hand and foot! All of my gold and stock options are worthless!"
What a way for the human race to end.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Late news: Newsweek covers AOC's butt
I don't really care about this one sentence blip.
What is noteworthy is that Newsweek defended her. If it had been Bernie or Tusli, Newsweek would have piled on.
Gaffes only count when you are playing against TPTB. Therefore, AOC is playing for TPTB.
Funny how things work, isn’t it?
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa