ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ MISQUOTES THE CONSTITUTION

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

No doubt, and it was good that Trump won in 2016 even with all the media attacks he has endured from day 1.  However, Hillary could take over the DNC again financially (I hear they are fairly deep in debt from 2018) and put herself up there again.  She is the smartest woman in the world after all.

Oh I believe we disagree on whether Trump winning in 2016 was "Best for the country" (I tend to not take a retrospective stance since we only know the outcome of the choice that was made. We can't know now what was "best" choice in 2016). I was talking specifically about a second election between the two of them. I just don't think it's a good idea to rehash 2016 over again. Democrats need someone fresh.

 

Healthy competition can be good for the country no matter who wins. I don't think a Trump v Clinton in 2020 would be "healthy competition". It remains to be seen whether any potential match up can be "healthy competition", unfortunately.

[Dashinka 23,238]

15 minutes ago, bcking said:

Oh I believe we disagree on whether Trump winning in 2016 was "Best for the country" (I tend to not take a retrospective stance since we only know the outcome of the choice that was made. We can't know now what was "best" choice in 2016). I was talking specifically about a second election between the two of them. I just don't think it's a good idea to rehash 2016 over again. Democrats need someone fresh.

 

Healthy competition can be good for the country no matter who wins. I don't think a Trump v Clinton in 2020 would be "healthy competition". It remains to be seen whether any potential match up can be "healthy competition", unfortunately.

I am all for term limiting career federal politicians at the ballot box.  New blood is a good thing every so often.  My general rule is if an incumbent for a House seat has served three terms, or a Senate incumbent has served 2 terms, I tend to vote for the challenger regardless of party.  There are exceptions of course as I will do my best to never vote for a Socialist/Communist, but that is my general rule.  The presidency is different since they are Constitutionally term limited.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I am all for term limiting career federal politicians at the ballot box.  New blood is a good thing every so often.  My general rule is if an incumbent for a House seat has served three terms, or a Senate incumbent has served 2 terms, I tend to vote for the challenger regardless of party.  There are exceptions of course as I will do my best to never vote for a Socialist/Communist, but that is my general rule.  The presidency is different since they are Constitutionally term limited.

I agree about term limits.

 

I just also figure a 2020 Presidential election between Clinton and Trump would very quickly devolve into essentially one big cat fight with very little substance regarding issues.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

17 hours ago, Randyandyuni said:

Yes you could have, he's had more time to hone his craft, she is a natural at it. Would you still get the same pleasure? I look forward to her disparaging new nickname from you

Not as disparaging as our previous President had to deal with. Mango Mussolini and Fat Orange Nixon are mild in comparison. 

[JimandChristy 1,689]

31 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I am all for term limiting career federal politicians at the ballot box.  New blood is a good thing every so often.  My general rule is if an incumbent for a House seat has served three terms, or a Senate incumbent has served 2 terms, I tend to vote for the challenger regardless of party.  There are exceptions of course as I will do my best to never vote for a Socialist/Communist, but that is my general rule.  The presidency is different since they are Constitutionally term limited.

I think they need to increase the term of a Representative from two to four years and reduce the term of a Senator from six to four. Make it uniform right across the board. The problem with two years for a Representative is they spend the majority of the time campaigning for their re-election bid instead of doing their job. Senators get too comfortable in my opinion, six years is a long time and they need to be kept on their toes more. 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

8 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

Not as disparaging as our previous President had to deal with. Mango Mussolini and Fat Orange Nixon are mild in comparison. 

Huh? Do you even read or just respond to the first limbic flicker in your head? You will be more disparaging to our previous president? Or you will be more disparaging to AOC? It's hard to follow your ramblings...

Edited December 11, 2018 by Randyandyuni

[Dashinka 23,238]

Just now, JimandChristy said:

I think they need to increase the term of a Representative from two to four years and reduce the term of a Senator from six to four. Make it uniform right across the board. The problem with two years for a Representative is they spend the majority of the time campaigning for their re-election bid instead of doing their job. Senators get too comfortable in my opinion, six years is a long time and they need to be kept on their toes more. 

I thought we were going to abolish the Senate?

[JimandChristy 1,689]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I thought we were going to abolish the Senate?

No keep the Senate of course, just make it represent the country/people as a whole. Increase the number of senators for California and Texas etc.

[Dashinka 23,238]

1 minute ago, JimandChristy said:

No keep the Senate of course, just make it represent the country/people as a whole. Increase the number of senators for California and Texas etc.

Sort of off topic, but I guess Representative Ocasio-Cortez does think the Senate is one of the three branches of government.  The Senators are meant to represent the States, and are not supposed to be population based.  If you want to change the House (required to represent the people) and increase their numbers so it is not one Representative for approximately every 700k people then fine, that is something I believe can be done without a Constitutional Convention. 

[Boiler 43,430]

Would it not be easier to restrict voting to registered Democrats?

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

Would it not be easier to restrict voting to registered Democrats?

Racist

[Boiler 43,430]

Exactly, exclude Racists from voting.

Just now, Randyandyuni said:

Racist

 

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Boiler said:

Exactly, exclude Racists from voting.

 

Question 1: "Are you a racist?"

Question 2: "Are you a terrorist?"

 

14 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

No keep the Senate of course, just make it represent the country/people as a whole. Increase the number of senators for California and Texas etc.

You are describing what the House is intended to be. There is a reason we have both. I think a lot could be done so that the House actually represents "the people", but I don't think we need to turn the Senate into basically a second House.

 

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Sort of off topic, but I guess Representative Ocasio-Cortez does think the Senate is one of the three branches of government.  The Senators are meant to represent the States, and are not supposed to be population based.  If you want to change the House (required to represent the people) and increase their numbers so it is not one Representative for approximately every 700k people then fine, that is something I believe can be done without a Constitutional Convention. 

I can't read those two words without it sounding like that one song in Hamilton. They just roll off the tongue so well. It's great alliteration.

[Boiler 43,430]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Question 1: "Are you a racist?"

Question 2: "Are you a terrorist?"

 

You are describing what the House is intended to be. There is a reason we have both. I think a lot could be done so that the House actually represents "the people", but I don't think we need to turn the Senate into basically a second House.

 

I can't read those two words without it sounding like that one song in Hamilton. They just roll off the tongue so well. It's great alliteration.

Just one Question - are you a Registered Democrat? Deplorables do not need to have voting privileges.

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Just one Question - are you a Registered Democrat? Deplorables do not need to have voting privileges.

What about:

 

Are you a member of the Media? - Surely we wouldn't want the "Enemy of the People" voting?

 

We should just keep on coming up with more exclusions until we have an electorate of no one.

Edited December 11, 2018 by bcking