Ah yes. I agree, context matters.
You should take her seriously, not literally.
2 Likes
What she meant when she said the wrong thing was…
1 Like
She knows all the right info, but just says the wrong thing to piss off republicans.
1 Like
And much like Trumpists don’t care about Trump’s ignorance, I suspect die-hard AOCists won’t care about this either.
This’ll be excused by whataboutism and redeemed by how much bile the person in their corner induces in the opposition.
I see zero problem there as long as majority of voters still want them in the office. If people are tired of the same guy in the office, they can always vote them out.
Like McConnell said - we have term limits, they’re called elections.
I prefer the concept of fresh blood every decade.
Because that’s been working swell with Congress. Probably the reason there are more of us in the camp that there should be term limits for EVERY office and appointment. Even better would be going back to the letter of the law and not having unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists writing legislation instead of Congress.
1 Like
I understand that, of course. Then you’d be free to vote for fresh blood, along with everyone else.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants . It is its natural manure,” Jefferson wrote in a letter to William S. Smith, a diplomatic official in London, on November 13, 1787.
It’s been working fine with Congress. I’ve always thought that “OMG these lifetime career establishment politicians are making themselves rich and don’t care about the voters blah blah blah…” is hogwash (although a nice story that gets novices like AOC and Trump elected once in a while) .
But a lot of these people are smart, experienced and actually know what they’re doing, agree with them or disagree.
Don’t like that someone is in the office too long ? You’re free to vote for their opponent.
And those that run unopposed? I’d rather stick with the system that was intended, rather than the perverted bastardized version we have now. You know one where we could forcibly remove a “representative” from office who violated his oath.
Wait, can we not do that now ? If I’m not mistaken , egregious offenders can be removed with agreement of 2/3 of Congress, no ?
Those that run unopposed are usually in safe districts for their party but they can be primaried. Actually I believe that’s how Richard Lugar ended his Senate career.
Good luck getting 2/3 of Congress to agree on anything, let alone removing one of their own.
They probably would though if something truly terrible transpired; either way those people don’t automatically get put back in the office - majority of voters still have to punch their name on the ballot.
The bill was to stop someone like FDR in the future, Canada doesn’t have term limit our longest PM severed for 21 years in total would have stayed longer but retired.
I can understand why Congress would want to limit the power of the Administration branch.
Uh, again, all bets are off now.
NO high profile politician is more uneducated on our nation’s history than Donald J. Trump.
GOP’ers need to realize they’ve re-written the rules with their irrational support of the orange clown.
Nothing Dems could do will ever touch the absurdity of Trump’s nomination. NOTHING.
I don’t care if AOC thinks FDR named after a highway in NY.
So…WHO CARES!!!
1 Like
You mean like the majority of voters who would have put Clinton into office if our elections worked that way? The same people who sold their votes (and their freedom) for a chunk of the treasury? Because that isn’t what got us here to begin with. 
zero point zero.
Eat your peas, lib. Truth isn’t true anymore, remember?
