Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Democrats are reportedly desperate to rein in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s wild attacks on the Democrat establishment, such as her fury at being denied her new green deal, but at the same time they are terrified of upsetting her.
Exasperated Democrats try to rein in Ocasio-Cortez
The effort is part carrot, part stick. But it’s far from clear the anti-establishment political novice can be made to play ball.
By RACHAEL BADE and HEATHER CAYGLE 01/11/2019 05:03 AM EST
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is already making enemies in the House Democratic Caucus — and some of its members are mounting an operation to bring the anti-establishment, democratic socialist with 2.2 million Twitter followers into the fold.
…
Incumbent Democrats are most annoyed by Ocasio-Cortez’s threat to back primary opponents against members of their ranks she deems too moderate. But their frustration goes beyond that: Democratic leaders are upset that she railed against their new set of House rules on Twitter the first week of the new Congress. Rank and file are peeved that there’s a grassroots movement to try to win her a top committee post they feel she doesn’t deserve.
…
It’s an open question whether Ocasio-Cortez can be checked. She’s barely been in Congress a week and is better known than almost any other House member other than Nancy Pelosi and John Lewis. A media throng follows her every move, and she can command a national audience practically at will.
…
Still, fellow Democrats are giving it their best, or planning to in the near future.
So far, most of them have kept their criticism of Ocasio-Cortez private, fearful she’ll sic her massive following on them by firing off a tweet. But a few are engaging with her in the hopes she’ll opt for a different M.O., especially when it comes to trying to take out Democrats in primaries.
…
Ocasio-Cortez is an enigma to most House Democrats. She’s very friendly in person, chatting up fellow lawmakers and security workers in the Capitol as she’s tailed by admirers and reporters.
Then they see the Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter, where she frequently snaps at critics and occasionally at fellow Democrats. When House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters that a new climate committee that Ocasio-Cortez championed would not have subpoena power, she retweeted the news and chastised Democratic leadership.
“Our goal is to treat Climate Change like the serious, existential threat it is by drafting an ambitious solution on the scale necessary — aka a Green New Deal — to get it done,” she said. “A weak committee misses the point & endangers people.”
…
Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/11/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democrats-establisment-1093728
My prediction – Democrats who hoped to ride her popularity to victory will fail to control Ocasio-Cortez.
The 2020 Democrat Presidential challenger will be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Because in the harsh glare of Ocasio-Cortez’s green left extremism, Democrat moderates will look like sellouts, and will fail to inspire their base.
Correction (EW): Thanks Scott and everyone else for pointing out I forgot the 35 year minimum constitutional age limit on being President. I guess those founding fathers knew what they were doing. Fixed a typo (h/t Marcus).
So are you saying that the age limit on the presidency will be thrown Under the bus? Occasional cortex is only 29 she can’t run for office until 2024.
What’s the problem? All she has to do is self-identify as a 35-year old.
Would her chances improve further if she identifies as black lesbian? For that matter would I qualify with a chance if I identify as black american female?
I was hoping Trump would self identify as a female for a week or two, then he could claim to be the first female president.
Only if you had one leg as well and were either gender fluid, gender neutral or non binary (You would be a shoo in if you were the lot).
Just set a round cube up on a lectern, and you’ve got your candidate.
“Self identifying” as a 35 year old is somewhat impeded, when you have the consciousness of a child.
Ted Cruz was born in Calgary and Marco Rubio’s parents where not naturalized citizens at his birth. A moldy piece of paper did not stop them … or that Kenyan-Indonesian guy.
The Republicans should ask former Mayor of London, Boris Johnson to run in 2024. He has the same hair.
Last I heard that Kenyan-Indonesian guy was born in Hawaii.
That, unfortunately, like his school records, SATs, and actual accomplishments, is something the NSA is unable to find out.
ROTFLMAO: —–> NSA
….
It’s a domestic issue, try FBI
Unfortunately Boris has just surrendered his USA citizenship. He didn’t like the Capital Gains Tax when he sold his private residence.
If your parents are citizens, or if you are born inside the territorial US, then you are a natural born citizen.
Let us not get into the ‘natural born citizen’ crap again…
What if you were born on a foreign registered plane flying in American airspace?
That would be an interesting test case.
I read somewhere that air marshalls, even on US chartered planes, aren’t able to make arrests once the plane enters another countries air space. If that is the case, I suspect the baby would be a US citizen.
That so-called “moldy piece of paper” provides citizenship to both Cruz and Rubio as natural-born citizens, not naturalized citizens. Cruz was born to a mother who is a US citizen. Rubio was born in Miami and, born on US soil, is, as are so-called “anchor babies”, a natural-born citizen. There is NOTHING in their citizenship that is contrary to that “moldy piece of paper”. That “moldy piece of paper” is still the basis of US law, relevant and applicable.
You appear confident so maybe you’ll be the one to clear it up. I find the term Natural Born used twice in the body of U.S. law. Once in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution and, second, the First Congress (1790) passed legislation extending Natural Born status to children “born beyond sea or out of the limits of the United States” to U.S. citizen parents (plural) PROVIDED that citizenship will not be extended to any child whose father has never resided within the United States. And, of significant note is the act of the Third Congress (1796) where they repealed the entirety of the 1790 Act then enacted new legislation that extended citizenship to the same group of overseas born children but withheld “Natural Born” citizenship. Beyond that I find ample legislative updates and amendments to citizenship status and conferral but I’ve been unable to find where Natural Born status has been extended beyond children born on U.S. soverign territory to U.S. citizen parents with special emphasis on the status and residency of the father. Perhaps you’ll point me to the relevant section of the U.S. code.
The qualifications to be a senator or be a congressional representative are different that those for presidency:
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for representatives. Each representative must: (1) be at least twenty-five years old; (2) have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years; and (3) be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent.
Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution, sets three qualifications for senators: (1) they must be at least 30 years old; (2) they must have been citizens of the United States for the past nine years or longer; and (3) they must be inhabitants of the states they seek to represent at the time of their election.
They shouldn’t have dual citizenship in my opinion, and yet many senators and representatives, and at least one state governor have dual citizenship with Israel.
So, can I, having spent six and a half decades sliding down that slippery slope toward the final instant of ‘enlightenment’, self-identify with my immature inner 12 year old? I already act that way.
That’s been tried (changing your birth year) in a court of law (albeit not an American court, IIRC). The male in question claimed he had the health and fitness of a 45 YO, and would have better job opportunities if allowed to change his birth year.
Judge didn’t buy it. Not sure why. Should try again – in the Ninth Circus Court.
Major LOL, that. I was having yet-another-cuppa, and on reading your comment, it came flying out of my nose, like a firehose. Sobering. Now I’m cleaning up the keyboard and nursing a mouse. Thanks for the humor. GoatGuy
Shhhhh!
Thanks Scott – the 35 year age limit slipped my mind when I wrote this piece.
I don’t think she’ll be old enough to run in the 2020 elections. I hope by the time the 2024 elections come along that she’ll have burnt herself out.
Not likely. This young woman female freshman congress critter gets completely outsized media attention and the depressing part is that practically nobody in the Propaganda Press (aka the MSM) is pointing out how idiotic her comments are or how stupid she sounds. But it seems that “stupid” is what we are teaching in public schools in this new millennium. by 2024 the baby boomer population will have diminished by another 25 percent and registered but supremely ignorant millennials will outnumber reasoned voters. Right now the odds are even money she gets elected President in 5 more years. Just scatter my ashes before that happens.
She is being treated the way Obama was, for the same reason.
She won’t burn out. She has the supreme confidence of the enlightened ideologue. She is the harbinger of social justice warriors mass produced by academia. This article is an eye-opener: https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/12/why-ocasio-cortez-cant-be-wrong/
“Ocasio-Cortez is ideologue. She can’t “lose” and she is not humbled when she cannot answer a simple policy question or is abjectly wrong about a subject, because she thinks ideologically. Her answers, outlook, and attitude are predetermined absolutely, because they are all derivations of an ideology that is utterly shock-proof. There is no experiment, fact-check, or body of evidence potent enough to disarm her, plainly because a person who thinks ideologically will not be allow themselves to be refuted.”
Ontario Canada’s former premier, Kathleen Wynne is a dangerous ideologue and became hated by the citizens who dumped her and her party in the last election. link The problem with being an unbending ideologue is that eventually you give everyone a reason to hate your guts.
It’s difficult to imagine a more effective strategy
to drive voters to Trump.
Exactly. She is a loose cannon. The more she manages to move Democrats to the Radical Left, the more Trump will appear to be a reasonable centrist.
Watch for a third party move by either the far or center left in 2020. Cortez is driving a wedge in the Democrat part that will only get deeper. She is demanding power and control that the party leadership is not going to give up willingly.
Better for Trump, worse for the country. I hold the primary, secondary and university education system responsible for this mess. We are programing our next generation and not empowering them with the reasoning and critical thinking skills they so desperately need.
Bad days coming.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. A society’s future is shaped by its education system,
most importantly by higher education. It’s been infiltrated if not overtaken
by Marxist ideologues – Ocasio-Cortex is the iconic product.
This culture thrives on the destruction of critical thinking,
intimidation and censorship that’s used to silence discussion and discovery.
Hence the grossly one-sided treatment and support of climate.
Replacing critical thinking is blind acceptance of ideology – “a global village”.
Climate change is but a tool to achieve this ideological goal.
The only way to reverse the downward spiral is to restore critical thinking.
That requires the representation of all views – informed insight – just as in a court of law.
So long as government money is permitted to stream to one side,
a predetermined answer is what the education system will pursue.
https://youtu.be/iKcWu0tsiZM
“A society’s future is shaped by its education system”
For most of human history, there was no such thing as an ‘education system’. Most kids learned by working with their parents and only a small minority spent time in schools and universities.
Modern ‘education’ was invented by the Prussians for indoctrinating kids to do what they’re told, and the left just took it over to indoctrinate the kids into Marxists. Which is why the West is in such a mess; the right handed their kids to Marxists and expected them to come out as something else.
Fortunately, an ‘education system’ is a huge anachronism in a world where anyone can study any subject they want with the best teachers in the world, and will soon be impossible to justify.
In the early part of last century,teachers were taught that their job was to teach children how to teach themselves. The education system has been hijacked by mongrels and the modern teachers have not a clue.
No, no, no. Many people are born with their own minds, and cannot be subverted with illogical premises. It has always been so. Yes the Universities have become cesspools of mendacity, even so in 1978 when I began at The Big U, and yet independent thinking has not passed from this Earth.
Stop already…
During the 80’s and 90’s, campus radicals would routinely shout down any speaker that they disagreed with.
By the time the 2000’s had rolled around, the radicals controlled the campuses and the number of conservatives invited to these campuses dropped to zero.
The fascinating thing is that these mental midgets actually managed to convince themselves that they were striking a blow for free speech, by shutting down any and all speech they disagreed with.
“The fascinating thing is that these mental midgets actually managed to convince themselves that they were striking a blow for free speech, by shutting down any and all speech they disagreed with.”
They’d read Marcuse’s Repressive Tolerance.
democrats this time around are going to be a hoot….they are scattered to the 4 winds….will have at least a dozen candidates attacking each other and tearing each other apart….they will all try to out tax and out green each other…
and Occasional Horse Teeth is a twitter star……….and commands a large percentage of their base….that are all about policies the democrats know they can’t win on
Ocasio Cortez will not be eligible in 2020, as she will have not turned 35, the Constitutional minimum age to be President.
What Constitution?
And who’s going to stop her?
You think her followers care what an old piece of paper says?
“My prediction – Democrats who hoped to ride her popularity to victory will fail to control Ocasio-Cortez.”
Fortunately you must be 35+ to be eligible for either President or Vice-President.
She can do all the damage to the dems without needing to be 35. Trust me, she will not be president anyway. History is moving away from her direction.
She is not eligible to run for president she is only 29.
Since when have democrats or liberals ever worried about pesky little crumbs like laws or the Constitution…
“she is only 29”
…biologically.
Neurologically, about 14.
Don you are being very insulting…. to 14 year-olds. You own all 14-year olds an apology for that comment 😉
No, you have to mark progressives on the curve, so to speak.
They believe 5 year-olds can choose their gender, and 14 year-olds should be able to vote.
Or the other way around, hard to keep track.
Usually with $$ given to freshman Representatives for Political Standard appearances would fold the freshman into the Cartel Party organization. AOCortez may have some of the Pres 45Trump distracting independence.
Not a supporter, but this Representative has skill attracting attention.
Socialist Sandy Cortez’s modus operandi is “Winning by tantrum and backstabbing!”
She is the result of her parents not disciplining her tyro tantrums as a child.
What you tolerate is what you get more of…..
She went by Sandy Ocasio in high school, not Cortez.
I knew lots of Sandys in high school. All of them forgettable. On the other hand Alexandria has panache. Then add a hyphenated last name, you have a winner.
Ol’ AOC has the Dems frothing. What’s not to like.
She is a total airhead. But I’m of two minds. Her ideas are leftwing loon stuff. But knowing what she is doing to the Democrats leave me tingling with schadenfreude. I’m looking forward to her next video doing the boogaloo outside her office door.
MODS!
Messed up the blockquote.
It should have ended after – backstabbing!”-
PS Thanks for what you do.
Ah, yes, the briliant govt thinker who listed the three branches of govt as the Senate, the House, and the Presidency. Someone tell this historically ignorant girl that the original New Deal was a big flop – it caused the “Depression within a Depression” in 1937. The economy didn’t resume expansion until FDR gave up on the New Deal as war loomed and he needed support for his war policies, fought against by the isolationists.
Beuchert says: “The economy didn’t resume expansion until FDR gave up on the New Deal”
…
False.
…
FDR was sworn in March 4, 1933. and instituted the “New Deal” in the next 100 days.
…
Here is the result:
..
http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/10/30/336665-125687893092903-Howard-Richman_origin.png
Huh?
Are you suggesting that economic tinkering has an immediate effect?
Four years isn’t that long to have a big impact.
Ross Perot’s 1992 prediction of the sucking sound of jobs going to Mexico from NAFTA approval took about a decade for its effects to really start impacting manufacturing jobs.
FDR’s New Deal had an immediate effect, as the graphic shows.
OOOH! More “Fake News” ( and graphs )..lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937–38
Marcus fails for two distinct reasons. First and foremost, recessions are defined not by rising unemployment, but by falling GDP. In fact the definition of a “recession” is two successive quarters of declining GDP
…
The 2nd thing you fail for is using Wikipedia
David fails reading comprehension, as the article clearly states the economy went into a 13 month contraction. That’s over four (4) quarters, for the math-challenged like David.
If you are going to make it up, might as well go whole hog.
Prove me wrong Mr. MarkW
Again?
Try for the first time
Just because it makes you look bad, is not proof that it’s wrong.
“FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate”
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
Marcus forgot to read the part that says: “to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt’s policies not gone into effect.”
…
Duh…..cherry picked starting point? Was the 1929 benchmark before or after October of 1929?
…
It’s impossible to calculate what would have happened without the New Deal.
This is the kind of magical thinking that is so prominent in leftists.
The economy improved, a liberal is in office, therefore the improvement was due to the liberal.
I remember when Clinton was elected, several months prior to the election, much less Clinton taking office, the economy started to improve. Several prominent leftists declared that the only reason why the economy improved was that the financial markets realized Clinton was going to win the election.
On the other hand, they are still trying to claim that everything good that has happened since Trump was elected was the result of the groundwork that Obama laid down.
The New Deal is the Old Deal – More War 4 mo’ morons…mo’ 2 come…
After FDR served four terms as president (he died in Office during his fourth term), the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was voted into law limiting presidential terms to two.
The US really thinks it needs a Great Leap Forward ?? Especially high ranking democrats could be in BIG trouble. This girl has no friends and does not tolerate competicion.
She will only calm down once she realises that that ‘existential threat’ does not exist. Whether she will then have the courage to tell her 2.2 milion ‘followers’ remains to be seen.
Her followers will figure out what photosynthesis is long before she does.
Buy pot stox…
It’s a Greenie, she could be wading to work through 6 feet of snow and still be complaining about Global Warming.
Politics has been defined as “Acting for ugly people”.
President Trump has been hugely entertaining in a “Master Showman meets Ugly Actors” kind of way.
This Ocasio Cortez is full blown progressive politics, appearance is all,content and substance are absent.She is beyond reason so control is unlikely.
For two years we have been treated to president Trump trolling the press,the uni-party and living rent free in the minds of people who have T.D.S.(.Trump derangement syndrome is amazing to watch.)
The desperate divisiveness of our progressive comrades is coming home to roost, the Democrats will eat their own.
Those democrats who actually represent their voters will most likely end up supporting the Trump agenda.
Buy popcorn.
I’m about to turn 76 years old and I still vividly remember my grandfather telling me when I was 14, “Donny, if I had the choice of voting for the devil or a Democrat, I’d vote for the devil”. I now fully appreciate his comment and find myself repeating it.
AOC campaigned for Bernie Sanders. She may call herself a Democrat, but she’s a hard-core Socialist with heavy Marxist tendencies. She is the future of the Democrat party; all you need to do is recall how close Bernie came to being the Democrat nominee. That flood hasn’t crested yet and will find a comfortable home among the 47% of tax filers who don’t pay federal income tax.
Why not just ask her to justify her belief in AGW (CC does not qualify)? She is praying on (disputed) science and cannot use the so-called consensus – if such exists – and needs to give solid reasoning for her stand, as she would be expected to for any other political standpoint.
I really do not think she has the intellect to argue the case. But then, that’s politicians for you (Gore is a classic case)
Politics is Sales. Emotions sell. Facts do not.
A politicians gets elected by making the voter feel their voice will be heard. That the voter will be in the driver’s seat.
Trump did this. Bernie as well. Hillary did not.
The problem is the beaucracy. They hate politicians they cannot control, because they very much feel that they know better than the voters what is best for the country.
‘Politics is Sales. Emotions sell. Facts do not.’
Excellent.
You don’t git rich selling people what they need…you git rich selling them what they want…
Harry,
People like her who accept the legitimacy of the IPCC as the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science consider its position infallible, refuse to consider anything else and that justification is just a matter of referencing the consensus surrounding IPCC reports. It’s interesting how those within a loop of circular reasoning can’t see out of the loop they’re in.
To boil this down, Democrats want to spend trillions of dollars to remove the energy equivalent of 3.34 seconds of sunlight from the system.
It only takes the sun 1.16 hours to warm the oceans as much as Anthropogenic CO2 does in 1,250 hours.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/01/12/an-einstein-thought-experiment-on-climate-change/
Excellent – I long ago conducted similar thought experiments – as an engineer – and quickly concluded that the whole AGW etc. etc. was utter nonsense.
We can go back to neolithic existence by eliminating all our energy and buy maybe 7 hours on the existential threat of catastrophic global warming.
1.40E+08 area of ocean sq mi, http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8o.html
3.90E+15 area of ocean sq ft
6600 ft wuwt depth of interest
2.58E+19 ft^3, vol of interest
1.58E+17 Whr total world primary energy supply annual
5.37E+17 btu
1.60225E+21 lbs wtr wuwt in interest
0.0002 C, dT/yr
0.003 C, 2018 margin of error wuwt
16.100 error margin is 16x TPES in the top 2000 meters
5367 yrs at present TPES to lift top 2000 m 1C
But…if it becomes water vapor then the case is made…it’s the end of the world!
Heh. I “casually” brought up water vapour in a discussion with a progressive/greenie weenie once.
Her: We need to heavily tax CO2 so that bad industries will shut down!
Me: But water vapour far, FAR outweighs CO2 as a “greenhouse gas”. It would make more sense to shut down Niagara Falls and all that mist…
Her: WHAT?!?
Me: EXACTLY!…
Eric ,
“Democrats are reportedly desperate (to)? rein in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s wild attacks
There is no such thing as a “democratic socialist” ! IMHO….
One man, One vote, One time
“I am the man, and *I* have the vote.”
or as Richie Benaud used to say in the parodies, “We’re a team, and we’re doing it my way.”
FoxNews should give her 5 minutes every day to say whatever is on her mind. Could call it ‘an ocasio minute’.
A terrific ratings move.
Would she need five minutes?
Gr8 ider, I’ll let Tucker know…he covers female circumcision in the USA and is so fair and balanced that he never mentions the other kind…looks like a match made in Hollywood!
That might be because one has a medical justification and the other does not.
More likely it’s because one does no harm, and the other is designed to harm.
It will not because of the below at all.
But because the Left are obsessed by celebrity, and who they think are nice, or great.
The fact the person in question couldn’t run a raffle has no bearing in the matter, cos their great innit.
The 2020 Democrat Presidential challenger will be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Because in the harsh glare of Ocasio-Cortez’s green left extremism, Democrat moderates will look like sellouts, and will fail to inspire their base.
”The 2020 Democrat Presidential challenger will be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Because in the harsh glare of Ocasio-Cortez’s green left extremism, Democrat moderates will look like sellouts, and will fail to inspire their base.”
It is why rational people vote for rational people, even tho the options are sometimes limited to the least irrational of choices.
She will not be a presidential candidate in 2020. Because she is 29 years old and you have to be 35 years old according to the united constitution.
Regards
Climate Heretic
God save the republic from an electorate stupid enough to elect an idiot like this.
Every nation gets the government it deserves.
-Joseph de Maistre
French lawyer, diplomat, writer, philosopher
(often misattributed to more famous historical figures)
Every family gets the dog they deserve.
Every generation gets the music they deserve
It (the electorate stupid enough to elect Occasional Cortex) is called “New York,” mostly “downstate.”
Well, depending on the political system, technically only a small percentage of a small percentage of eligible voters actually put people in office.
Here in Canada, only 26,391 people actually voted for Justin Trudeau…
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
============
Seems the young lady is learning on the job, I’m sure She’ll come around.
Excellent!, NP quote that is
The old French adage says the higher up the tree the monkey goes the more it shows its derriere. And NO, for all the politically correct people who will try to defend the woman, I am not calling her a monkey. I am citing her as an example of the adage.
The Democrats have created a monster in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She’s grown-up believing every lie they’ve told her. Now they don’t know what to do with such an fervent believer.
The same has happened on college campuses, where professors become victims of abusive college students indoctrinated in college-taught identity politics, e.g., Bret Weinstein @ Evergreen College.
It’s…it’s…It’s like thermodynamics…what goes around….comes around……
How does this work, say, with moderates within the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party pretty much represents “responsible” or “institutional” or “mainstream” or “consensus” opinion on Global Warming/Climate Change as does much of the Republican Party and even most of Wall Street and good portions of even the Oil Lobby. Disputing the role of CO2 in climate or even being a Luke Warmer is what Anthony Watts’ fine Web site is all about, but in the grand scheme of things, it is an insurgent point of view.
So do the more senior and seasoned members of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez caucus “believe” in Climate Change, only they want to be more gradual about policy and not scare the public and their business donors? Or are these members cynical about the whole thing, much as it was said that the leaders in the late Soviet era didn’t really “believe” in Communism anymore apart from they wanted to be the guys and charge and keep things going pretty much they way they were?
If a person really took seriously what people from McKibben to Hansen are saying, some mush-mouthed fuel economy standards and the odd wind power subsidy are just don’t cut it, hence the Green New Deal. I mean, are we to think that Ms. O.-C. came up with all those carbon-free ideas by herself or did she get them from someplace?
So are the moderate Democrats “cognitively dissonant” in believing in Climate Change and at the same time thinking we can pursue our current path, with a few tweaks? Or do the “believe” and think their new colleague is scaring their voters and upsetting the apple cart? Or are they just plain cynical and simply about getting reelected?
“Correction (EW): Thanks Scott and everyone else for pointing out I forgot the 35 year minimum constitutional age limit on being President. I guess those founding fathers knew what they were doing.”
Then maybe, but yesterday’s 35 is today’s 45 and greater. Many today don’t ever reach the maturity that George Washington had when he was a child and young adult. He was running the family farm at age 11, and ran his own business surveying the wilds of Virginia at the age of 17. Contrast that with many of today’s 35-year-olds sitting in their mother’s basement playing video games.
I’d raise the voting age to 35 and eligibility to be President to 52 years old. And felons, illegal immigrants and, most of all dead people, could not vote.
technically it’s already not legal for illegal immigrants and dead people to vote (for felons it unfortunately depends on the state they reside). Doesn’t stop the dead from being the most reliable of voting blocks for the democrat party (with illegal immigrants a close second), but technically it’s still illegal, as such you law changes aren’t going to make any difference than the current laws. What you need is proper enforcement of the law, without that you can pass all the laws you want and they’ll just be as effective as the current batch of laws.
Good God, man! No Democrat would be elected to so much as Dog Catcher ever again.
○¿●
You say that like it would be a bad thing.
Not to mention knowledge in general. My father (dropped out of Grade 9 back in WWII as he was the last remaining boy on the farm) could do fractions in his head that mystified his kids.
You want to see humiliation? Give a university student a grade school math text book from before 1970 or so…
give anyone a high school graduation test from pre 1890.
Why are people so scared of twitter mobs? It’s just a bunch of electrons moving around, and only the mobs read their own spewings. It changes nothing.
An interesting question.
Twit holds a MASSIVE sway over people who believe Twit is important.
People who don’t Twit seem to think the entire platform is filled with bile filled Lefts varying between screaming abuse and begging for attention based on how clever their abuse had just been. And Trump, who seems to use Twitter because he knows how much it trolls the gatekeepers.
The problem with social media is that it can become incredibly powerful, being able to shame public figures in a way that conventional media cannot. The problem is that not everyone uses it, and people who rely on it as a slice of Mr and Mrs Voter usually end up getting burnt by the sort of people who only maintain a FBook account to talk to their overseas kids.
The fact that this lady has a massive Twit following and understands Social Media Warfare is probably a reflection on the sort of person she actually is. The fact her fellow party members are scared of her because of her of this is probably a reflection on just how well they understand Mr and Mrs Voter.
Neither are likely to end well.
Reminds me of a few years ago when Ron Paul raised a ton of money seemingly overnight from the “newfangled” interwebs. Media immediately raised his profile as “contendah”.
Yeah, until those folks didn’t get off the couch to actually, you know, vote and stuff.
Personally, I think Eric is right . The liberals WILL try to run her in 2020. If anyone complains about the rules (laws), liberals will scream age discrimination, sex discrimination, race discrimination, big googly eyes discrimination and worst of all….stupid young socialist discrimination….the Republicans don’t stand a chance !!! D’OH !
President Trump for the next 10 years….”winning”
p.s. .. I may even move back to Florida if she is their choice…
Take it over the cliff. It’s what they do.
Just shut down all of the gasoline pipelines like Mexico did by executive decree. The fun starts now.
“None of you understand. I’m not locked up in here with YOU. You’re locked up in here with ME.”
(Ocasio-Cortez, after Alan Moore)
happy new year griff, haven’t seen you for a while.
Griff, Happy New Year. Hope you are well, and still finding dubious factoids and other miscellaneous items of interest.
None of these people have raised a spoiled brat? I thought they knew everything!
I wonder why she has not pilgrimed to North Korea nor applied for a permanent residence there.
If you are a reporter, could you please ask her on my behalf ? Thanks in advance.
Oh come on, everyone knows the answer to that one. Socialism hasn’t failed, it has never been tried.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.
Who said this already, Maduro or Einstein, I’m confused. LOL 😉
NK, China’s Germany…
I am totally in favor of AOC becoming the face of the Democrats. Where do I send my contributions?
We couldn’t have asked for anything better having AOC as the spokesperson for the Left and Climate Change. She will be quickly marginalized in the House with her over-the-top attitude and all her spouting about a “Green New Deal” will turn into tiring rhetoric. I’m sure the Democrats are worried about this monster they created.
“So far, most of them have kept their criticism of Ocasio-Cortez private, fearful she’ll sic her massive following on them by firing off a tweet.”
It sounds like the snake will be eating its own tail.
I think that’s the inevitable result of identity politics. The cobbling together of disparate identity groups only works for so long. At some point intersectionalism exposes conflict between groups, and the expediencies of power take precedence over social justice and morality. For instance, not long ago a gay, black, democrat congressperson complained about the momentum to appoint a muslim as head of the DNC (or some high level position) because that religion tends to be anti-gay. He was basically told to shut up and take a seat in the back of the bus because a courted identity group was involved. And then there’s the hijab-wearing, sharia-loving Linda Sarsour who brought her anti-semitism to the Woman’s March mvmt, and people are now backing away because of that. Eventually, honest people get disillusioned with the double standards and walk away.
But diversity is strength, dude! The more competing identity groups, the stronger we ar!
It would be amusing to watch the Democrats hoist by their own identity petard, if they weren’t doing their best to take the rest of us down with them.
At the end they will find out that there are as many identity groups as there are people. Even identical twins are two different persons.
“Thanks Scott and everyone else for pointing out I forgot the 35 year minimum constitutional age limit on being President. I guess those founding fathers knew what they were doing.”The last couple under 50s didn’t work out that well. I think we ought to raise the limit to 50.
And put the voting age back to 21.
Joel, I’m OK with the voting age being 21, but if you do that, you cannot draft anyone younger than 21, nor can you permit anyone younger than 21 to enlist for military service.
You are forgetting the difficulty of passing an amendment. As the age 18 for voting is in place, change the age for drinking and buying handguns to 18 as well. One is either an adult or not.
David,
Your assertion is Provably False.
We drafted and fought wars with 18-20 year olds for 195 years prior to the voting age being lowered in 1971 from 21 to 18.
195 years ago we also permitted slavery, so your appeal to the past is irrelevant.
What makes this whole discussion even stranger is that if a 16 year old has a job, he/she has to pay income taxes and payroll taxes. Shouldn’t they be allowed to vote because of this?
Joel, Davids point is simple. Regardless of history, if a person can be drafted to fight and die for his country, he has earned the right to vote in how the country is run. Anything else is manifestly unjust.
I was 18 years old and serving in Vietnam and was not eligible to vote.
The reason the age was lowered to 18 was because all the college kids at the time were freaking out about being drafted for the Vietnam war so they wanted a vote to have a say in the process. If not for the Vietnam war, the voting age would stll probably be 21 years old.
That’s also the reason the U.S. went to an all-volunteer military.
I don’t think the voting age is so much the problem, although 18 should be a minimum. The real problem is the disinformation that floods the environment of young people today from the news media, the entertainment media and the school systems. I think an average 18-year-old could manage to vote in their own self-interests if they were provided the real picture of what is happening in the world, but for the most part, they are not getting that, they are getting a false reality which is created to promote a socialist agenda, and they are getting this message from what traditionally are the information sources people would normally go to and trust.
Even so, not everyone is fooled by the blizzard of falsity that takes place in modern society. There is a blizzard of CAGW alarmism going on and has been for years, yet most people don’t buy it. That should give us some hope for the future. Maybe there are enough right-thinking people out there to keep humanity on the right track.
the 1970 mid-term elections were not that long ago & 18-20 yr olds couldn’t vote then. And your point was about the draft, not slavery. I showed your point about voting and draft under 21 was invalid. And draft registration today has not been extended to include women, so your point trying to connect voting to military draft is still clearly invalid.
Joel O’Bryan January 13, 2019 at 2:56 pm
David,
“Your assertion is Provably False.
We drafted and fought wars with 18-20 year olds for 195 years prior to the voting age being lowered in 1971 from 21 to 18.”
Hi Joel , Americans being drafted ,
Revolution -No
War of 1812 -No
Civil war (War between the States) -yes for both sides.
Spanish American War -no
WW1 -yes
WW2 -yes
korea -yes
Vietnam -yes
We started to rely to heavily on the draft without getting the population’s total support.
The lowering of the voting age was a poor reaction to that failure. Instead of banning drafts without a declaration of war the voting age was lowered ” to be fair”.
It helped create this perception that no qualifications should be required for voting.
And yes their should minimal requirements and minor inconveniences. You have to want to vote and make the minor sacrifices to do so.
I am not sure how this will be received
michael
There not their,,,
Michael the Morelock,
The States variously used conscription to fill the ranks during the Revolutionary War. The central (Federal) government was too weak compared to the colonies/states.
The most curious thing is Conscription has been most heavily weighed upon by Democratic Administrations:
WW1: Woodrow Wilson
WW2: FDR
Korea: Truman
Vietnam: Kennedy/LBJ.
Curious.
Sort of like WW2 Internment Camps, deep South Jim Crow Laws, and Segregation. Democrats at the helm.
But yet the funny thing is today, with Feminism all the rage on the Left and demanding equal everything, we see none of them arguing for equal Draft registration.
195 years ago we also permitted slavery, so your appeal to the past is irrelevant.
what is irrelevant is your appeal to slavery, as it has nothing to do with the two things being discussed (age of fighting and age of voting). You made an assertion that if voting age is 21 than fighting age *can not* be lower. As such pointing out past precedence where voting age was 21 and fighting age *was* lower is extremely relevant (as it proves your assertion to be false by relevant example). slavery has absolutely nothing to do with it (other than to attack a strawman that does not reflect what Joel was actually saying)
Hi Joel , Americans being drafted ,
Revolution -No
technically there were no “americans” (as we think of citizens of the USA) to draft as The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) ended before the constitution was ratified leading to the formation of the US of A government that we know of today (The constitution was written to go into effect when it was ratified by 9 of the 13 states. , the 9th, New Hampshire, ratified it on June 21, 1788. the government under the U.S. Constitution didn’t begin until the following year on March 4, 1789) Prior to that, we had the articles of confederation in 1777, which established a weak government that operated until 1789, but mainly it was the states that had the power to do any conscription necessary to fight the war (in fact they denied General Washington’s request to have the central government be empowered to conscript) and several states did conscript.
War of 1812 -No
correct. Mainly it was an all-volunteer army at that time. The Madison administration tried unsuccessfully to adopt a national draft (The proposal was fiercely criticized on the House floor by antiwar Congressman Daniel Webster of New Hampshire)
Spanish American War -no
True, but mainly due to how short the war was (May to August 1898) – it ended before many soldiers had even been transported to the war zone.
John Endicott January 14, 2019 at 8:10 am
Hi John, True, the government of the United States was much weaker under the Articles but it was in fact the United States. Congress Negotiated with foreign Governments, entered into treaties and was recognized by foreign governments.
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/paris.html
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Articles-of-Confederation
The last paragraph of the declaration of independence.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled do , in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these states, reject and renounce the allegiance and subjection to the kinds of Great Britain and all others whe may herafter claim by, through, or under them; we utterly dissolve and break off all political connection which may have heretofore subsisted between us and the people or parliament of Great Britain; and finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states, and that as free and independent states they shall herafter have [full] power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
It was not the constitution that created the United States , it was the declaration of Independence
Changes of forms of government do not change a Nation as to being a nation.
Many of the regiments of the United States Army Marched under the first flags of the revolution.
As to the age of the United States soldiers some were as young as 14 and others possibly in their 90s
michael
Mike, as we are talking about the powers of government (IE drafting people to fight for the government) then the significant part is the actual forming of government and our current form of government did not come into existence until 1789 with the constitutionally set forth government that we have enjoyed since. The previous form of government (the 1777-1789 articles of confederation government), while being an interesting footnote, don’t really apply – it’s apples and oranges to talk about the two as if they were one in regards to specifics (like the power to draft) as they were not the same thing. The one did not exist during the Revolutionary War, whereas the other did not exists for all the other wars you listed.
hint: the key part of the post you were replying to is “the formation of the US of A government that we know of today”. We haven’t lived under the articles of confederation government for over 200 years.
And, BTW, a declaration does not a nation or a government make. All the declaration did was declare our independence (IE that we were no longer subject to British rule). It took the articles of confederation (and later the US constitution) to form the government. So yes we declared independence in 1776 (actually we declared the 13 colonies were “free and independent states”), but the government for the “united” states didn’t magically come into existence in that moment. we didn’t have a government until the articles of confederation (1777-1789) and didn’t have the form of government we have today until 1789-present.
Why is there a connection between voting and the obligation to serve?
Children who have income, either earned or through investments, must pay taxes. Children must obey the laws.
Children who live in this country benefit from the government in ways both large (public education) and small (safe streets), on the flip side they must contribute their efforts to the preservation of our country.
Voting, OTOH, is an exercise in judgement. Judgement arises from maturity and experience. We know that the human cerebral cortex does not mature until around 25 years. 18 year olds do not have the requisite maturity or experience.
Walter are you arguing that we should not draft 18 year olds into military service because their cerebral cortex is not mature enough for them to determine if they should fire their weapon at the advancing enemy?
…
Do you realize that 18 year olds can conceive and bring offspring into this world. That requires a heck of a lot more “judgement” than voting. It requires a heck of a lot more “responsibility” also.
…
Don’t be afraid of young people, they are our future. I personally know of a lot of 16 year olds that are much more mature than 25 year olds.
David: There is no draft. If one is needed, I will leave it to the commanders to determine who should be sent into combat.
Do you realize that 18 year olds can conceive and bring offspring into this world. That requires a heck of a lot more “judgement” than voting
Actually, no. Raising that offspring does, but conceiving and giving birth to that offspring? sorry. but no. that can be the result of a drunken one-night stand (not good “judgement” on any participants part) or rape (definitely not good “judgement” on the rapists part, and “judgement” doesn’t even enter into it for the one being raped as they’re not given a choice in the matter) or just plain old unthinking hormones (a young couple “fooling around” and not thinking about the consequences). So once again you spout nonsense.
No David, you are once again strawmanning what others are saying.
If anything militaries like young recruits *because* they are not mentally mature. Far easier to get them to “do as they’re told” than if they are mentally mature enough to question the orders.
We know that the human cerebral cortex does not mature until around 25 years. 18 year olds do not have the requisite maturity or experience.
Not only that, they don’t have the life experience. What does an 18 year old, who still lives with their parents, has never had a full-time job, never had to pay rent or a mortgage, etc know about finance in general let alone taxes in specific. So when candidate promise pie-in-the sky government will take care of everything programs, they don’t understand that the money to pay for those utopian programs has to come from somewhere, they don’t understand what it will mean to their paycheck (they don’t even have yet). They just hear of the positives of such programs that sound good without the experience to understand the negative side of such programs nor how it will really affect them in the pocketbook.
John, that’s exactly why leftists like David like the idea of lowering the voting age.
Bring in more people who’s only desire is to find someone to take care of them and believe that money comes from Mom and Dad, so that they can vote for a government that promises to be an eternal and bottomless mommy and daddy.
Those who are drafted or enlist, get to vote.
Nobody else does.
Joel, I’m OK with the voting age being 21, but if you do that, you cannot draft anyone younger than 21, nor can you permit anyone younger than 21 to enlist for military service.
David, the two are not related in law. at all. separate laws cover voting age and service age. A change in the one law does not automatically change the other. so you are talking nonsense (as others have repeatedly pointed out to you) strawmen about slavery (and another separate legal issue) does not alter the fact that you are spouting nonsense.
Neuro-imaging conducted over the past 15 years shows that the human cerebral cortex does not reach full maturity until age 25. (Car rental companies figured this out empirically a while ago) 21 is a compromise between that and the social necessity of getting kids to assume adult roles in society.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708
One does not need a mature cerebral cortex to give one’s life in war in service to they country. Do you need a mature cerebral cortex to be a fireman or a policeman?
Obviously one doesn’t need a functioning cerebral cortex to be a liberal.
What about women being drafted? Equal? or not?
I see no Feminists clamoring to register for the Draft.
Yet Federal Law requires males > 18 yo register.
Go Figure.
Make no mistake: I’m not arguing young women should register for the Draft. Just as I think there are combat roles that are generally unfit for women. Yes, I said that. And the military does not exist as an EEO employer. It exists to defend our nation from all threats foreign and domestic with the use of violence. Extreme violence if needed. The female sex usually has many misgivings about the “extreme violence” part. Nature.
no, you do not NEED to have a fully mature cerebral cortex to be a fireman or a policeman, but it would certainly be the preferred alternative.
What is your (rational) point?
DonM, Judging by his posts, I don’t think David does have a rational point. Makes one wonder just how mature his cerebral cortex is 😉
Occasional Cortex is a wrecking ball within the Democrat Party. The wilder her ideas become the more damage that she will do to the Democrat Machine. She may be a secret Republican Agent.
Her win in the Dim-ocrat primary last June against Joe Crowley in their Bronx NY primary stripped the House Democratic Leadership of one of its senior members. Crowley certainly would have had a major committee chair or House Leadership position if he were still there. So there is bright spot there.
There is the charnal reek of millions of dead people wafting off this bug-eyed crazy and I’ve considered her as the most dangerous person in America for some considerable time. She of course just spouts insane, ignorant, emotional gibberish from her My-Little-Pony universe but this is exactly the kind of thing to inspire the ignorant and emotional. She’s trouble.
She’s Big trouble for the Dumb-ocrats trying to maintain their faux image of reasonableness on policy to mainstream middle-class voters.
She’s not dangerous to anyone else.
She may lead to trouble, but only if there is a replacement for her kind of crazy. There is a significant portion of the left followers (not leaners) that will not follow a woman over the edge.
Based on her being female, enhanced by her obvious stupidity, she will not garner the 98% level from that portion of the base.
I remember during the 2008 Dem primary, many old guy Dems around here were in a mild state of crisis over the frontrunners being a black man and a woman. 😮
Yes, when I try to explain just how socially conservatives many on the left are, I run into the usual “where did you see that, on Fox News”?
“No”, I reply, “I don’t watch Fox News. I don’t watch any news. I did belong to a union, though…”
I also grew up working class in rural Canada. Not exactly what you would call a ton of support for progressive causes (other than “for the working man” stuff) but always seemed to elect liberal and social democrats all the time. Makes me wonder if any of the voters actually read the party literature.
Ooh! I seem to remember someone in a similar fix but a few words soon solved the problem. ”Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? ”
She is a very clever girl. Look at how much attention she has gotten here from (mostly) people who have more IQ points in their little fingers than she has in her entire body.
Yes let the young lady speak k out on Climate matters, the more she talks the better for our cause.
Regarding FDR and the 1930 tees. While not quite old enough to have witnessed the start, from what I have read if it had not been for Harry Hopkims and FDR acceptance of his suggestions, the USA could have become either fachism or Communism. Limburg was very pro Hitler and his way of running things.
Later post 1945 Hopkins was accused of being a Commusist, but I don’t agree. He was a good man.
MJE
Michael January 13, 2019 at 2:48 pm
Michael, maybe not in regards to Lindbergh
I have come across several references over the years that Lindbergh was actually a spy for the War department. Here are a couple links.
FDR seemed to think think he was a German sympathizer
michael
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/11/04/Lindberghs-spy-missions-in-Germany/8186468392400/
https://spartacus-educational.com/USAlindbergh.htm
Lindbergh
AOC primaried congressman Crawley and won, mainly because almost nobody took her seriously, but she managed to GOTV (Get Out The Vote). In 2020 I expect a serious attempt to unseat her, with the establishment throwing everything into the effort to restore Crawley.
David Dirkse January 13, 2019 at 3:00 pm
195 years ago we also permitted slavery, so your appeal to the past is irrelevant.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
This is a new infantile retort, trying to claim that history is irrelevant when it refutes your point, and at the same time use a historical point in constructing a strawman. Thanks for the laugh, even though it is laughing at you and not with you.
Excellent point on David’s creation of a Strawman Argument.
I understood his point as a moral issue of fairness. But until the Vietnam War, the issue of fairness in dying for one’s country thru military service and voting was simply not an issue. If it were, feminists would today be demanding to be subject to the Draft/conscription. And they aren’t, so that tells everyone where their limits of fairness ends.
Joel and Mike, there is no strawman here. Joel makes the statement, “We drafted and fought wars with 18-20 year olds for 195 years prior”
…
He makes the assertion that if it was OK for 18 year olds to fight 195 years ago, it’s OK today. I merely pointed out what a stupid argument that is, in light of the fact that 195 years ago it was OK for slavery. I you apply Joel’s logic, since slavery was OK 195 years ago, then it’s OK today.
Argument by analogy is not a “strawman”
This is as weak as your asserting the use of history to refute you is irrelevant. You can claim anything you want in order to salvage yourself, but you are only fooling you, but it was a lovely touch on your part to pervert logic. The fact remains you got your head handed to you with a fact and instead of bowing out gracefully, you continue to claw and fight like a small child, and that might be giving you too much credit.
A swing and a miss Mike H, strike one.
The umps blind.
David,
You and you alone bring in the slavery argument. Why stop at 195 years with slavery. Slavery probably goes back to the dawn of hamn’s recorded history in Mesopotamia. Slaves are in the Old Testament.
But it is only You that brings them up in here to try and cover-up for your intellectual shortcomings regarding voting and the Draft.
As you try and assert that I said that (or implied that) slavery of the past is part of this discussion, you are creating a Strawman to tear down. Yes, a text book example of a Strawman Argument – A logical fallacy.
Just becasue you want to believe in your mind the analogy was one I made, that is your cognitive dissonance-induced delusion…. not mine.
David, you are suffering from severe Cognitive Dissonance that is causing you to hallucinate I said something I did not.
Joel O’Bryan
David, your strawman start with “He makes the assertion that if it was OK for 18 year olds to fight 195 years ago”. No he did not. Nowhere does he make an assertion about it’s OKness or not OKness. OK doesn’t enter into it anywhere. As that strawman is the premise that you built your “analogy” off of, that means your analogy is set up to defeat a starwman and has nothing to do with anything that was actually stated by Joel. As such, it’s just more nonsense from you.
Simple question David: when the voting age was 21 in the 1960s what was the fighting age? was it 21 or was it 18? The answer. as most people aware of history know, is 18. That alone proves your statement that if the voting age is 21 “you cannot draft anyone younger than 21, nor can you permit anyone younger than 21 to enlist for military service” as we have historic proof that you can have a voting age of 21 and a fighting age of 18 contrary to your assertion that it cannot be that way. No strawmen claiming slavery to be OK will change the simple historical fact that you were wrong.
Should have read:
That alone proves your statement that if the voting age is 21 “you cannot draft anyone younger than 21, nor can you permit anyone younger than 21 to enlist for military service” is false as we have…
where is that edit button when you need it LOL.
The fact remains you got your head handed to you with a fact and instead of bowing out gracefully, you continue to claw and fight like a small child, and that might be giving you too much credit.
Not to mention being insulting to small children.
Oh, and what makes the analogy even stronger is that in both slavery and voting, Constitutional amendments are involved.
David,
You made the false assertion, “but if you do that, you cannot draft anyone younger than 21, nor can you permit anyone younger than 21 to enlist for military service.”
If you had said “should not” instead of cannot, I would have let it go.
Your “cannot” and “nor can you permit”, are clearly false. Provably false.
You have confused “can” with “should”.
One the is a fairness argument (should), the other (can) is a legal/constitutional argument. Clearly our laws and constitution allows conscription of 18 year olds for military service, while the voting age can be anything else under the same constitution.
The law is often not fair, despite popular misconceptions.
+42, spot on Joel.
And David, no he did not make “the assertion that if it was OK for 18 year olds to fight 195 years ago, it’s OK today”. He said nothing about it being OK or not therefore you are attacking something he wasn’t saying (that is known as a strawman). He merely pointed out that 18 year olds were fighting during that time period whereas the voting age was different (and thus unrelated to fighting age) during that same time period. So your bringing slavery into it is totally **IRRELVANT** because, like fighting age, slavery has nothing to do with what the legal age to vote is per the law. Those are 3 separate and unrelated laws.
He makes the assertion that if it was OK for 18 year olds to fight 195 years ago, it’s OK today. I merely pointed out what a stupid argument that is
It is a stupid argument, good thing then that it is not an argument he was making. It’s an argument you created (IE a strawman argument) in order to attack what he did say – which was to point out the historical *FACT* that voting age and fighting age have been different for the majority of this countries history, as such your statement that they cannot be different (“I’m OK with the voting age being 21, but if you do that, you cannot draft anyone younger than 21, nor can you permit anyone younger than 21 to enlist for military service.”) is *FALSE*.
“…Ocasio-Cortez is an enigma to most House Democrats. She’s very friendly in person, chatting up fellow lawmakers and security workers in the Capitol as she’s tailed by admirers and reporters…”
How clueless is this writer? Democrats and Repubs are “friendly in person” to each other as well. They have their wars in social media and to the press.
Alan Tomalty
@ATomalty
1h1 hour ago
Alan Tomalty Retweeted Alexandra Ocaso-Cortez
Are you a Communist?
Alan Tomalty added,
Alexandra Ocaso-Cortez
@Alexocasocortez
Replying to @KDogg2point0 @SteveSGoddard @TheDemocrats
Correct, I say stupid things that I do not actually believe, you say things you actually believe that are stupid.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Alexandra Ocaso-Cortez
@Alexocasocortez
Replying to @ATomalty
Not even close, I am a Democratic Socialist!
2:54 PM – 13 Jan 2019
Alan Tomalty
@ATomalty
1h1 hour ago
Alan Tomalty Retweeted Alexandra Ocaso-Cortez
Socialism is impossible. 100% socialism leads to Communism and dictatorship. If you aren’t in agreement with 100% socialism, then where do you draw the line?
She did not respond.
I then tweeted Tony Heller with the following comment.
I asked OcasioCortez if she was a Communist. She said :Democratic Socialist. I said 100% socialism always leads to Communism and dictatorship and asked where did she draw the line? She did not respond. Socialists never draw the line. They really are Communists.
What is a democratic socialist? That has to be an oxymoron like social justice.
democratic = foot in the door.
socialist = once the door is jammed and the way is clear…
What is a democratic socialist?
It’s democratic in name only. It pays lip service to democracy but only allows votes for their socialist agenda. If you dare speak out against, then you are a -ist or -phobe of one sort or another and thus must be marginalized and silenced.
Soft socialist establishment getting some hard left pumping.
Always vote for the hard left; it’s the smartest thing a conservatives can do in this era.
Remember pick the worst socialist in your district and vote for them at every opportunity.
Once you release the commie kracken you never knew who it’ll attack.
Her attacks will hurt the leftist party since they WANT to be the ones pulling the strings, including her.
Like most young liberals, she is absolutely convinced of both her own righteousness and her own infallibility.
She won’t be controlled. She’s on a mission to save the world.
She’s going to be seriously ugly if she reaches Pelosi’s age.
What she is doing is based on ignorance and hype. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work with models one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is not real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty scientific rationale to support the idea that climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. What we really need to be doing is strengthening our economy and that includes lowering our debt so that we are a better state to solve future problems. Some of these socialist schemes my sound good at first but history has shown that they just do not work. We should be emphasizing what works and what does not work. Rededicating our entire economy to lowering CO2 emissions will make us all poorer yet it will have no beneficial effects in terms of a better climate what ever that is and fewer extreme weather events. We do not even know what the ideal climate is let along how to achieve it. We have been unable to avoid one extreme climate event let alone change global climate. For example, where I live we are expecting rain tomorrow and there is nothing that I can do within my power to stop it. The best I can do is deal with it and just stay inside as much as I can. Making major changes to our economy is not going to help anyone.
The real question you have is whether she debates through reason or appeals to emotion.
You will get nowhere analysing facts if she is preaching to climate flat earthers.
You need to get ascerbic, irritable and loud:
‘I’ve heard all your rabble-rousing pile of crap, now show me you know the first thing about science before I kick your arse into the Hall of Fame for Ignorant Half Wits!’
When you have got the audience engaged through verbal pugilism, now you go for the scientific right hook and blitz her with three undeniable reasons why her IPCC ranting is a waste of money, will achieve nothing and panders to corrupt Big Green lobbyists.
You want to get into the ring with a brawler, you need to school her like Muhammed Ali would have….
What she is doing is based on ignorance and hype.
You’ve heard the expression “facts don’t care about your feelings”, with AOC it’s “your facts don’t matter to her feelings”. To her (as she said in a 60 minutes interview) being factual correct is a irrelevancy, what matter to her is being “morally right”. Of course, what is “morally right” to her is what she feels is “morally right” regardless of how factually horrible the end results will actually be.
Agreed, except for one thing
“We have been unable to avoid one extreme climate event…” – there are NO “climate events.” You are allowing the propaganda to seep in. The “events” are WEATHER, not “climate.”
Why not let her institute her ideas in her constituency, and show how well it works?
Only EVs allowed, no fossil fuel electricity generation, just windmills and solar panels.
“US fully renewable energy in 12 years”
Cortez is an illiterate clown
Not if you see wood as a renewable energy source. The only problem is that you would eliminate your forest in less than 10 years.
Maybe Occasional Cortex has Australia’s Krudd and Gillard as her advisors? That would explain a lot.
America needs a cull:
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure,” – Jefferson
Tyrants being the main cull target. He also saw that extreme patriots become tyrants.
Without fake news she would have no attention at all. So now are the democrats hostage to this socialist radical or do they agree in private.
See: the Khmer Rouge, and every other far-left movement.
Its never enough to be only slightly radical.
First, you kill the class enemies.
THEN you kill the only slightly radical.
THEN you kill those who helped you kill THEM.
THEN your children kill you.
Ok, the USA isn’t Cambodia after Kissinger, but still…
Actually, twitter is the great equalizer…..for stupidity in both Parties.
She’s definitely got ‘crazy eyes.’
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crazy%20eyes
The beauty of this situation is a popular, maverick Democrat is possibly about to thrust deluded green policies down too many throats not keen to swallow. And this across party lines too.
Let the sanctimonious winds reach hurricane levels so even the apathetic awake to the insanity and hubris of the ‘climate movement’.
This woman is a blessing in every way! We should only promote her work more.
Yes, but it’s hard to play along with young delusions with no basis in fact. The game loses its fun more quickly with the informed and turns to sadness and frustration. Better education for others is never fast enough in those times.
John Endicott January 14, 2019 at 12:43 pm
Hi again, John.
Goodness, where to begin.
“Mike, as we are talking about the powers of government (IE drafting people to fight for the government)”
Yes and no. Joel set the time frame from 195 years before 1971. That is 1776 when our means of government was still the Continental Congress.
And yes, John, the power and authority to declare independence, raise armies, assign ambassadors, secure treaties and trade, do in fact, demonstrate a nation. Never before has any group of people set off to create a nation based on the premise that the people themselves were masters of the government and could change it or modify it to suit their needs. Or if they chose to, this day, dispense with it.
The United States has had three different governments. All had to examine the moral justifications and obligations in drafting its citizens. Individual states during the revolution in some cases set the age as low as 14. Citizens would belong to the local Militias and the states would call for members to be deployed.
John, we are not defined by the government we use, but by who we are as a nation, people, and civilization. Our government is defined by who we are. (No need to change) Oh and I am agreeing with you and Joel.
michael
And yes, John, the power and authority to declare independence, raise armies, assign ambassadors, secure treaties and trade, do in fact, demonstrate a nation.
Not in the sense you mean. We had 13 “nations” capable of doing all the above. The colonies were already in existence (their own distinct borders demarcating one from the others) and had their own governments, governments that could raise armies (and did, to fight the British during the war), and do all those other things should they choose. They need not have formed a “greater nation” state after departing from British rule.
John, we are not defined by the government we use, but by who we are as a nation
And our nation is defined, in part, by the existence of it’s government (you don’t have a nation if that nation doesn’t have a government). If one or two of the colonies chose not to join the government formed by the Constitution (by not ratifying it, for whatever reasons) the nation would have been different than the one that was formed by all 13 colonies coming together.
Oh and I am agreeing with you and Joel.
I know, we’re just picking nits here.
Forget the carrot, beat her with the huge Stupid Stick she carries around with her.
How long before she’s referred to as OCD instead of AOC? I’m guessing many Dem’s are already using the term in private . . .