Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Exposes The Dark Side Of Politics In 5 Incredible Minutes

a reply to: Krakatoa

The thing is, on ATS at the mo, if you say ANYTHING positive about AOC...you are a commie, pinko, left wing snowflake.

But here is why I like her. Nancy and Chuck HATE her. She is a rabble-rouser. How many times on ATS have people begged for outsiders to come in and drain the swamp? IMO she is gonna drain it from the other side of Trump.

She is young, inexperienced, and devoid of common sense at the moment on her "policies". BUT, she is a breath of fresh air compared to Pelosi, Shumer, Waters, and the host of ancient retards in the D party.

And that other stuff will come with experience. Peeps actin like she's gonna run for prez, but she isn't eligible for that for 11 freakin years man.

In the mean time, Repubs better man up and get some young blood in the limelight to compete or else they will lose a generation of voters, and Millennials are the largest demographic out there.


I'm an Indy voter. I look for what is best for the country, not one party. AOC aint it...yet.

a reply to: Krakatoa

She is a freshman, 29 year old, ex bartender....and now a United States Senator. Peeps be acting like she is speaker of the house. So why the fear? Why the pig-piling? Because really, she is striking a chord. Peeps may not want to admit it, but her ideas have merit.


They will just need to be toned down so it won't crash the economy.


I can hear the creaking of old dinosaurs wailing as they slowly die off into obscurity. She goes against all sensibilities, but America was built on peeps like her. Like it or not.

(Just a general observation BTW, not directed at you Krak!!!!)

a reply to: lakenheath24

And that other stuff will come with experience. Peeps actin like she's gonna run for prez, but she isn't eligible for that for 11 freakin years man.

Five years. She'll have just turned 35 when Election Day '24 rolls around.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

HOLY JESUS. You think America is gonna elect a 35-year-old. No. And it's 6. She is 29. Unless her birth certificate has been altered.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

So then you believe that most politicians actually do what's best for their constituents as opposed to their own bank account?

I think I explained what I believe and in short careerism is what we see mostly, and any politician that works to fill their pockets, like what Clintons did with their charity while she was in office, or their extremely high paid for speeches are highly suspect to what you are suggesting. Instead of trying to tell me what I think, do you have an example?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Let me use her logic...

Ocasio-Cortez: Is it true that there is little or no laws to prevent an upstanding citizen from owning a gun?

True

Ocasio-Cortez: Ok cool, is it also true that a person with a gun can kill anyone?

True

Ocasio-Cortez: Great, so lets say we have this murderer and what you are saying is that there is no way that we can stop them from killing

True, if they want to kill they can kill

Ocasio-Cortez: Fantastic, so I just want it to be on the record that anyone with a gun can kill, and that alone is why we need to ban guns.

Please provide a link to a quote where any Democrat said they wanted to ban all guns?

Do you think you should be able to buy a stinger missile off the street near airports? At which point do you draw the line for regulation? I'm just wondering where you stand.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: Krakatoa

She is a freshman, 29 year old, ex bartender....and now a United States Senator. Peeps be acting like she is speaker of the house. So why the fear? Why the pig-piling? Because really, she is striking a chord. Peeps may not want to admit it, but her ideas have merit.

She creates the most outrage with Republicans. It's all about TV ratings. TV ratings equals money.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Let me use her logic...

Ocasio-Cortez: Is it true that there is little or no laws to prevent an upstanding citizen from owning a gun?

True

Ocasio-Cortez: Ok cool, is it also true that a person with a gun can kill anyone?

True

Ocasio-Cortez: Great, so lets say we have this murderer and what you are saying is that there is no way that we can stop them from killing

True, if they want to kill they can kill

Ocasio-Cortez: Fantastic, so I just want it to be on the record that anyone with a gun can kill, and that alone is why we need to ban guns.

Please provide a link to a quote where any Democrat said they wanted to ban all guns?

Do you think you should be able to buy a stinger missile off the street near airports? At which point do you draw the line for regulation? I'm just wondering where you stand.

Hyperbole and red herring statement. For the record, a stinger missile is NOT classified as an "arm".

Nice try.

In response to her, I would ask, can anyone driving a car kill someone?
Yes? Then we should ban all cars. That would be easier than guns since they it is not a Constitutionally protected right to own a car.

Her assessment is so simplistic as to be equivalent to a 6 year old thinking.

Yes, she deserves to be running this country..... /sarc

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: deadlyhope

Shes not wrong.

Occasional kotex for the win.

But I do find it odd that she only points to big oil and big pharma as paying for legislation.
No fahr llc.
No Bloomberg.
Why no mention of labor unions?

Shes right, politicians are paid for but let's get all of the money out.

Is she going to bring up the $3k suit she wore for her campaign photos?

All or none.
All or just shut the hell up.

Well, she has to look snazzy to have any sort of credible public profile.

and, Trump himself, dresses in rags, as we all know.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I don't know about you but I want our president to be the biggest badass on the planet.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: deadlyhope

Shes not wrong.

Occasional kotex for the win.

But I do find it odd that she only points to big oil and big pharma as paying for legislation.
No fahr llc.
No Bloomberg.
Why no mention of labor unions?

Shes right, politicians are paid for but let's get all of the money out.

Is she going to bring up the $3k suit she wore for her campaign photos?

All or none.
All or just shut the hell up.

It is not odd... it is hypocritical and typical if the left. Lobbying is bad as long as it isn't unions or lobbyist who favor the left.

Lobbying is a necessary component of politics. An industry or company has to make sure pols are not developing regs that could negatively affect them. The problem is that there is no transparency and politicians and lawyers often use lobbying for graft and nefarious purposes.

You would also think someone would point out to her that there are no ethics rules preventing the president from passing legislation for personal gain because the president can't pass legislation.

But hey, who needs details?

The President can sign legally enforceable executive orders, memorandum and proclamations, without oversight. Similarly, the president can pass legislation generated from the legislative branch, including those proposed by members from their own party. As executive of the party and the country, the President can generate legislation in their own interest.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Hey listen, not everyone right of center hates the so-called "AOC".

I am a bit right of center, and can give another post later to anyone needing more info on that, but overall I am pretty independent and neutral.

I must say though, even after the above disclaimers … that I actually very much LIKE AOC, and why? BECAUSE SHE IS ANTIESTABLISHMENT, and bucking the trend in the United States.

I don't like socialists, and mostly the majority of the things "AOC" says are socialist, and I don't like that, but I VERY MUCH DO like that she is shaking things up. I like that very much

Is she smart? *Irrelevant* … is she right? *irrelevant* … is she leading us to good analysis of what is truly our reality? *YES*

a reply to: deadlyhope

Hey listen, not everyone right of center hates the so-called "AOC".

I am a bit right of center, and can give another post later to anyone needing more info on that, but overall I am pretty independent and neutral.

I must say though, even after the above disclaimers … that I actually very much LIKE AOC, and why? BECAUSE SHE IS ANTIESTABLISHMENT, and bucking the trend in the United States.

I don't like socialists, and mostly the majority of the things "AOC" says are socialist, and I don't like that, but I VERY MUCH DO like that she is shaking things up. I like that very much

Is she smart? *Irrelevant* … is she right? *irrelevant* … is she leading us to good analysis of what is truly our reality? *YES*

a reply to: chr0naut

Legislation comes from the legislature.

The president only signs what they have passed.

The president has plenty of oversight. Not only can Congress refuse to cooperate with him but they can also impeach him. The Supreme Court, or any federal court for that matter, can overrule his decisions and executive orders. If appealed, it will possibly go to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the electorate get a say during the election. His term in office is shorter than a senator.

I hope to see the day when those purchasing politicians along with corporate and banking lobbyists are flushed down the toilet.
In the 70s, you had less than 200 lobby offices in DC, today that number is in the thousands.
It has been downhill ever since for the majority of Americans.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Then she pulls this
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: chr0naut

Legislation comes from the legislature.

The president only signs what they have passed.

The president has plenty of oversight.

Yes, the President does have oversight in many regards, but not in regard to EO's, Memoranda or Proclamations (which were the specific subject of my post). All of which can only be blocked from enactment after the fact. This is why Trump has issued EO's which have been blocked from enactment by the Supreme Court.

Not only can Congress refuse to cooperate with him but they can also impeach him. The Supreme Court, or any federal court for that matter, can overrule his decisions and executive orders. If appealed, it will possibly go to the Supreme Court. Nothing really blocks issuance.

Only the supreme court, among the judiciary, can block the execution of EO's.

If there is an appeal, it must be adjudged by a supreme court justice, and rules dictate that the justice for the appeal must be a different one than who blocked the EO.

Ultimately, the electorate get a say during the election. His term in office is shorter than a senator.

Well, the Electoral College, and by implication, the electorate has that power.

a reply to: chr0naut

Any federal judge can block an executive order. It stays blocked unless it is successfully appealed. It can be appealed to an appellate court, does not have to be the Supreme Court.

Only the supreme court, among the judiciary, can block the execution of EO's.

If there is an appeal, it must be adjudged by a supreme court justice, and rules dictate that the justice for the appeal must be a different one than who blocked the EO.

entire section is incorrect

a reply to: Krakatoa

Let's see.. Plenty of lower/middle class people getting screwed hard on taxes, realizing that Trump did not represent them but his millionaire and billionaire buddies.

Trump is involved with Russia in some way where Trump benefits personally ( I really don't care for the boogeyman Russia narrative started generations ago - I just don't like politicians gaming the system )

He's inflating the importance of a nearly pointless wall while not combating true issues like climate change..

He was called an outsider that would drain the swamp - can you show me what he's done to raise awareness, suggest legislation, pass executive orders to.... Impose congressional and senator term limits, end PAC funding and corporate lobbyism, reduce corporate subsidies for fossil fuel industries, get money out of politics?

Or hell, you don't even have to agree with what I would call draining the swamp - did he indict Hillary Clinton as promised? Has he replaced the harmful aca with something better as he said he would? Has he really done much at all when it comes to draining the swamp?

Now, kudos to him for being president during low unemployment, and for making isis a thing for the history books. But as far as changing policies, introducing ideas that get traction in congress/etc for "draining the swamp" I just don't see it.