Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

The Daily AOC

145791024

Comments

  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,506 Standard Supporter
    She's an angry and sorta arrogant kid.
  • TurdBomberTurdBomber Member Posts: 19,976 Standard Supporter

    She's an angry and sorta arrogant kid.
    But she can mix a mean Margarita, I hear.
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 27,021

    She's an angry and sorta arrogant kid.
    But she can mix a mean Margarita, I hear.
    Bullshit. She does that no Cointreau and just agave and tequila with not fresh lime
  • allpurpleallgoldallpurpleallgold Member Posts: 8,771
    Is it? She was wrong that it was specifically to prevent another FDR term however I don’t think that makes her point wrong. It was in response to FDR and it was a political power move.

    Think about it like this, what would the rights reaction have been had Obama pushed to end presidential term limits even if it wouldn’t affect him? It would have been psychotic outrage and the people most outraged are the ones attacking AOC for this and you can’t square those things.

    The singular point of it preventing another FDR term is wrong, the point she was making stands.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,607

    Is it? She was wrong that it was specifically to prevent another FDR term however I don’t think that makes her point wrong. It was in response to FDR and it was a political power move.

    Think about it like this, what would the rights reaction have been had Obama pushed to end presidential term limits even if it wouldn’t affect him? It would have been psychotic outrage and the people most outraged are the ones attacking AOC for this and you can’t square those things.

    The singular point of it preventing another FDR term is wrong, the point she was making stands.
    Probably about the same as the left's reaction to the claim that Trump is going to end Presidential term limits.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,607

    Is it? She was wrong that it was specifically to prevent another FDR term however I don’t think that makes her point wrong. It was in response to FDR and it was a political power move.

    Think about it like this, what would the rights reaction have been had Obama pushed to end presidential term limits even if it wouldn’t affect him? It would have been psychotic outrage and the people most outraged are the ones attacking AOC for this and you can’t square those things.

    The singular point of it preventing another FDR term is wrong, the point she was making stands.
    So fake but accurate, got it.
  • pawzpawz Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 21,156 Founders Club
    edited April 2019

    Is it? She was wrong that it was specifically to prevent another FDR term however I don’t think that makes her point wrong. It was in response to FDR and it was a political power move.

    Think about it like this, what would the rights reaction have been had Obama pushed to end presidential term limits even if it wouldn’t affect him? It would have been psychotic outrage and the people most outraged are the ones attacking AOC for this and you can’t square those things.

    The singular point of it preventing another FDR term is wrong, the point she was making stands.

    I'm FOR removing Presidential term-limits.

    In the event you have a great executive, why the hell would you want to cut off your nose to spite your face?

    Further, it keeps us? from playing long-ball in geopolitical terms. Something China is doing quite well.
  • HillsboroDuckHillsboroDuck Member Posts: 9,186

    Is it? She was wrong that it was specifically to prevent another FDR term however I don’t think that makes her point wrong. It was in response to FDR and it was a political power move.

    Think about it like this, what would the rights reaction have been had Obama pushed to end presidential term limits even if it wouldn’t affect him? It would have been psychotic outrage and the people most outraged are the ones attacking AOC for this and you can’t square those things.

    The singular point of it preventing another FDR term is wrong, the point she was making stands.
    I'm not really following you here. Obviously the amendment was in response to FDR getting elected twice as many times as anyone had ever before him, I don't think anyone would argue against that point. To call it a "political power" move suggests it's something like the GOP Senate not voting on Garland - a pure dick move intended to send a message to the other party/steal some power when they could. And I'm not super up on my late 40's early 50's politics but I can't imagine the GOP had that much power to put through a Constitutional amendment on their own with no cooperation from the Democratic Party.

    Again, maybe I'm just way off here but the bar for a Constitutional Amendment is extremely high for a reason. I find it highly unlikely that the GOP was able to consolidate enough power to pull that off.
  • HillsboroDuckHillsboroDuck Member Posts: 9,186
    pawz said:

    Is it? She was wrong that it was specifically to prevent another FDR term however I don’t think that makes her point wrong. It was in response to FDR and it was a political power move.

    Think about it like this, what would the rights reaction have been had Obama pushed to end presidential term limits even if it wouldn’t affect him? It would have been psychotic outrage and the people most outraged are the ones attacking AOC for this and you can’t square those things.

    The singular point of it preventing another FDR term is wrong, the point she was making stands.

    I'm FOR removing Presidential term-limits.

    In the event you have a great executive, why the hell would you want to cut off your nose to spite your face?

    Further, it keeps us? from playing long-ball in geopolitical terms. Something China is doing quite well.
    I almost never disagree with you on here but that's two in a row today. No fucking way I'm for getting rid of presidential term limits. The only minor saving grace we have in this two party dreckfest is the chinevitable pendulum swings every 8-12 years where the other party can undo some or most of the damage the prior ruling party did. Get rid of that and our political dumpster fire becomes a complete abortion.
  • pawzpawz Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 21,156 Founders Club

    pawz said:

    Is it? She was wrong that it was specifically to prevent another FDR term however I don’t think that makes her point wrong. It was in response to FDR and it was a political power move.

    Think about it like this, what would the rights reaction have been had Obama pushed to end presidential term limits even if it wouldn’t affect him? It would have been psychotic outrage and the people most outraged are the ones attacking AOC for this and you can’t square those things.

    The singular point of it preventing another FDR term is wrong, the point she was making stands.

    I'm FOR removing Presidential term-limits.

    In the event you have a great executive, why the hell would you want to cut off your nose to spite your face?

    Further, it keeps us? from playing long-ball in geopolitical terms. Something China is doing quite well.
    I almost never disagree with you on here but that's two in a row today. No fucking way I'm for getting rid of presidential term limits. The only minor saving grace we have in this two party dreckfest is the chinevitable pendulum swings every 8-12 years where the other party can undo some or most of the damage the prior ruling party did. Get rid of that and our political dumpster fire becomes a complete abortion.
    The flipside is I would impose in term limits on Congress. Back in Lincoln's day people only served single terms as a matter of Duty and then rotated out.

    It would also defang those that buy influence vis-a-vis longstanding members of Congress.
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,506 Standard Supporter

    Is it? She was wrong that it was specifically to prevent another FDR term however I don’t think that makes her point wrong. It was in response to FDR and it was a political power move.

    Think about it like this, what would the rights reaction have been had Obama pushed to end presidential term limits even if it wouldn’t affect him? It would have been psychotic outrage and the people most outraged are the ones attacking AOC for this and you can’t square those things.

    The singular point of it preventing another FDR term is wrong, the point she was making stands.
    TL;DR: She's morally correct
  • HillsboroDuckHillsboroDuck Member Posts: 9,186
    pawz said:

    pawz said:

    Is it? She was wrong that it was specifically to prevent another FDR term however I don’t think that makes her point wrong. It was in response to FDR and it was a political power move.

    Think about it like this, what would the rights reaction have been had Obama pushed to end presidential term limits even if it wouldn’t affect him? It would have been psychotic outrage and the people most outraged are the ones attacking AOC for this and you can’t square those things.

    The singular point of it preventing another FDR term is wrong, the point she was making stands.

    I'm FOR removing Presidential term-limits.

    In the event you have a great executive, why the hell would you want to cut off your nose to spite your face?

    Further, it keeps us? from playing long-ball in geopolitical terms. Something China is doing quite well.
    I almost never disagree with you on here but that's two in a row today. No fucking way I'm for getting rid of presidential term limits. The only minor saving grace we have in this two party dreckfest is the chinevitable pendulum swings every 8-12 years where the other party can undo some or most of the damage the prior ruling party did. Get rid of that and our political dumpster fire becomes a complete abortion.
    The flipside is I would impose in term limits on Congress. Back in Lincoln's day people only served single terms as a matter of Duty and then rotated out.

    It would also defang those that buy influence vis-a-vis longstanding members of Congress.
    I'm all for it but I think if you limit Congress and take the limit off the president you're really asking for an autocrat. Congress is designed to be the counterweight to the executive. I'm for taking power away from Congress but not for giving more to the Exec.
  • pawzpawz Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 21,156 Founders Club

    pawz said:

    pawz said:

    Is it? She was wrong that it was specifically to prevent another FDR term however I don’t think that makes her point wrong. It was in response to FDR and it was a political power move.

    Think about it like this, what would the rights reaction have been had Obama pushed to end presidential term limits even if it wouldn’t affect him? It would have been psychotic outrage and the people most outraged are the ones attacking AOC for this and you can’t square those things.

    The singular point of it preventing another FDR term is wrong, the point she was making stands.

    I'm FOR removing Presidential term-limits.

    In the event you have a great executive, why the hell would you want to cut off your nose to spite your face?

    Further, it keeps us? from playing long-ball in geopolitical terms. Something China is doing quite well.
    I almost never disagree with you on here but that's two in a row today. No fucking way I'm for getting rid of presidential term limits. The only minor saving grace we have in this two party dreckfest is the chinevitable pendulum swings every 8-12 years where the other party can undo some or most of the damage the prior ruling party did. Get rid of that and our political dumpster fire becomes a complete abortion.
    The flipside is I would impose in term limits on Congress. Back in Lincoln's day people only served single terms as a matter of Duty and then rotated out.

    It would also defang those that buy influence vis-a-vis longstanding members of Congress.
    I'm all for it but I think if you limit Congress and take the limit off the president you're really asking for an autocrat. Congress is designed to be the counterweight to the executive. I'm for taking power away from Congress but not for giving more to the Exec.
    I think it would encourage principled decision-making on both fronts.
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 27,021
    Swaye said:

    God she is dumb. And getting less attractive by the day.
    Being a democrat will do that to you. In 3 years shell look like Mexican hillary.

    At least Kamala aged well.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 106,804 Founders Club
    What if

    Reagan was done after two terms. Probably before because of Alzheimer. But the GOP would have Weekend at Bernie's him as long as they could. Would have missed Bush 1. NOC

    Bill Clinton ran and won in 2000 instead of W. Atta attacks and Bill gets a BJ and lobs some missiles at Africa and declares victory. No Iraq war. Saddam completes nukes and takes out Europe. NOC

    Obama and Trump meet in 2016 in the greatest Super Bowl ever. Trump upsets Obama and Obama declares martial law and moves to Kenya. NOC (Obama would have won allegedly)

    Bottom line, No one cares. And no one thought what they did in 1944 would effect FDR. At all
Sign In or Register to comment.