AOC gets history wrong on FDR and the 22nd Amendment

[Cratic3947]

and his economy sucked, and his policies stalled the recovery. And we are 22 trillion in debt just from SS and medicare type socialism.

[BillBrown]

The framers voted to give the president one 7 year term with no reelection. It was the next to last day of the Constitutional Convention.
The drafter (scribe or penman) didn’t like that. He wrote it as re-electable 4 year terms.
The next day was the signing. The Convention noticed the change and decided to let it go and sign anyway. It was stifling hot in the Hall and they wanted to go home.

[zantax]

@W_and_C

@zantax

@W_and_C

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

The problem is, if you pay attention to history anyway, is that the longer you give a countries leader in office to appoint loyalists, the less likely he is to leave office peacefully when voters try and vote him out.

Has that been the case in this country ?

No, but we have never had a President sitting at the head of the government for twenty or thirty years either.

[TheRedComet]

If FDR had been twenty years younger and in better health he would have done it.

The cult of personality that surrounded FDR was terrifying.

[W_and_C]

@zantax

@W_and_C

@zantax

@W_and_C

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

The problem is, if you pay attention to history anyway, is that the longer you give a countries leader in office to appoint loyalists, the less likely he is to leave office peacefully when voters try and vote him out.

Has that been the case in this country ?

No, but we have never had a President sitting at the head of the government for twenty or thirty years either.

Twelve years. But maybe that in itself proves that term limits are unnecessary. It’s very unlikely that someone will be in power for that long in a democracy such as ours.

So then what harm could it be if a super popular president whose policies are good for the country were eligible for more than two terms ?

[WuWei]

@hindsight

These AOC threads are quite fringy. She’s a freshman congresswoman, virtually zero power… yet she’s like a boogeyman around here.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/boston.cbslocal.com/2019/04/17/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-elizabeth-warren-time-100/amp/

Alex is an acknowledged leader of the progressive wing of the Democratics.

[TheRedComet]

I don’t trust the cult of personality that inevitably develops.

[WuWei]

@TheRedComet

I don’t trust the cult of personality that inevitably develops.

Trump has it.

[TheRedComet]

Exactly.

Now we imagine someone who is actually competent and could use their cult of personality to undermine the republic.

I’m not afraid of someone like Trump or even JFK or Reagan. Someone like Stalin, who is patient, extraordinarily competent, and absolutely ruthless. That is the danger of the cult of personality. And it can happen anywhere.

[SimplyTrying]

@zantax

Well that’s an odd remark, you believe in souls but ignore one of the key facets of that belief system, that everyone has one.

No, some sold theirs for the sake of partisan politics.

[WuWei]

The real danger is in the other two branches.

[TheRedComet]

Agreed. Especially the judiciary.

[wiley8425]

And neither of those branches are comparable. There are members in Congress who have been there for 30 years or more. SCOTUS appointments and many of the judgeships are for life. Either of those examples are more than enough evidence that term limits are a good thing.

[WuWei]

@wiley8425

And neither of those branches are comparable. There are members in Congress who have been there for 30 years or more. SCOTUS appointments and many of the judgeships are for life. Either of those examples are more than enough evidence that term limits are a good thing.

I don’t disagree, I’m just saying that’s where the danger is.

[wiley8425]

I know. Just echoing the sentiment.

[SpacemanSpiff]

@Calvin_Reagan

This is a massive whooper for AOC. I mean, massive. She lost all credibility I ever had of her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by0ty41Ho3c

AOC doesn’t know history.

A couple of weeks, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez claimed that when FDR was president, we had a strong economy, civil rights, and the Democrats had massive majorities in congress. It wasn’t until the mean-old Republicans came by and stopped FDR from running for a 5th term. She stated that the GOP had to amend the constitution in order to prevent FDR from being President again.

This is one of the ridiculous statements I have ever read. It’s a massive re-vision of history.

For starters, FDR was no friend to civil rights. He put Japanese Americans into interment camps. He jailed media figures for saying bad stuff about the war. He opposed integrating the military. The economy was in the Great Depression, and only got out of it, when we got into WW2.

The 22nd amendment was passed in Congress in 1947 and was ratified in 1951. FDR died on April 12th 1945, less than 3 months in his fourth term.

How in the world can she get this terribly wrong? Does AOC really believe the GOP stopped FDR from running again? Is she really against the 22nd amendment or believe we should have Presidents for life?

If there’s any AOC fans around here, please tell me this was a joke or she recanted on her statements?

So let me get this straight: When a politician screws something up like that we should call him/her out on it instead of making excuses and rewriting history to the narrative? Man, that’s so 2016!

[altair1013]

Honestly. AOC is a clown who simply cannot stop talking. She’s beginning to bore me.

[WuWei]

@altair1013

Honestly. AOC is a clown who simply cannot stop talking. She’s beginning to bore me.

[W_and_C]

@TheRedComet

Exactly.

Now we imagine someone who is actually competent and could use their cult of personality to undermine the republic.

I’m not afraid of someone like Trump or even JFK or Reagan. Someone like Stalin, who is patient, extraordinarily competent, and absolutely ruthless. That is the danger of the cult of personality. And it can happen anywhere.

Someone like Stalin would not happen under our system, though. Soviet Union never had fair democratic elections AND if I’m not mistaken, it was codified in the constitution that only members of Communist party were even eligible to hold office.

Additionally, during Stalin’s reign all press was controlled by the government, there obviously wasn’t internet and one could not even tell as much as a joke about Stalin in public without fear of severe repercussions.

In our country, I suspect if an office holder develops a cult of personality, their popularity would dip and they would be in danger of losing their gig.

[WuWei]

And yet it happens over and over right here.