AOC wants to impeach SCOTUS justices following Trump immunity ruling
The congresswoman said the Supreme Court has become "consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control."
You're viewing a single thread.
The statement:
The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.
Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.
I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.
This is what leadership is, what voters want, and what wins elections.
Doesn't matter if it works, it's trying and highlighting that issues can be fixed. We might not succeed the first time, but we'll keep fucking trying till we do.
Put the votes on record and show voters where people stand.
AOC is earning my vote.
Imagine having a candidate that got more popular after speaking in public...
We literally haven't even passed that low of a bar in over a decade. I don't understand what's happened to people.
People as a whole are more politically aware than I've ever seen, but we're just wasting it.
We have to undo decades of policy enacted the much longer politically aware and active owner class. They've had a head start on us, so it's going to take tome to dismantle the political machinery they've created while minimizing harm done to the rest of us.
We actually don't.
A single progressive president means they get to name the DNC chair and a bunch of voting positions.
It's literally that easy to take over the party.
Obama just didn't do it because he didn't need the party after they turned on him for opposing Hillary.
If he'd have rebuilt it, we'd have a functional progressive party planning decades ahead already. And trump would still just be that guy from the Mac Miller song. The SC would be a progressive majority. The situation and Gaza wouldn't have turned into an open genocide, COVID would have been handled appropriately.
It's not some insurmountable task, but it gets harder and harder every cycle.
By all rights we should have had protests in the streets calling for Biden and the DNC leadership to step down for stealing NH's delagets. But not enough people had crossed their personal lines by then.
If we'd have had the fight then, we'd have had a full primary almost to figure shit out.
But we didn't.
Until we finally do, shit won't change.
We should have been in streets for Gore.
We should have learned that confidence is the one thing you can't fake. A candidate can be confident for illogical reasons, but that's still more convincing than being right but not being confident. It creates this weird effect where once people get too smart, they become less decisive and people perceive that as less confident.
The stereotypical nerd.
Gore probably would have been a top 10 president. But he couldn't sell himself to voters just a little more. And if memory recalls, he technically didn't even have to concede. Like, if he had waited I believe the recounts were actively happening. He didn't even let it run down to the final vote.
But I think its important to note not a single Dem Senator challenged it either which would have been even better than Gore challenging it
Bernie would have most likely, but he wasn't in yet. Biden could have done it, but he didn't, same with most of the current Dem leadership.
So Gore should have planted his feet, and voters should have gotten behind, probably would have. But the party didn't have Gore's back either. And Gore wasn't confident enough to try it without the party.
It's crazy how shit comes so close and has such widespread consequences. Just one Dem senator back then dragging it out till a final count would have done it.
Gore probably would have been a top 10 president. But he couldn’t sell himself to voters just a little more. And if memory recalls, he technically didn’t even have to concede. Like, if he had waited I believe the recounts were actively happening. He didn’t even let it run down to the final vote.
He pushed right up to the deadline. Like, Bush v Gore was decided literally hours before the state deadline to certify the vote.
We've had this sort of situation before, FDR was radically progressive on a lot of policy decisions, he made great strides ad pulling us out of the Great Depression, leading us through world war 2, dramatically reduced the wealth disparity and was so popular with the voting public he was elected 4 times. Then the politically connected wanted to make sure that kind of presidency never happened again, so they paid to get the political machinery altered to suit their needs, term limits were introduced, influential think tanks were created to push favorable public policy and install favorable political assets, launched propaganda campaigns to sway public perception and consolidated economic power.
I agree that a single properly progressive president can do a lot to make things better, and a president who actually wields power can make some very important structural changes within the political party but it doesn't disassemble the political machinery that led us to our current situation in the first place. It doesn't disassemble the vast propaganda networks and think tanks, it doesn't stop the flow of dark money into politician pockets. All these positive changes can be undone if the next guy that comes in is a shitbag.
During the Hillary vs Bernie times, I was talking with a Bernie supporter in a bar. He told me that the establishment Dems/DNC would promote Hitler himself before they promote an anti-establishment candidate.
Back then I thought he was a case of mentally sick person making it to the bar and having too much drink. As time passes I agree with him more and more.
Do you think the ownership class was upset when AOC voted to stop the rail union from striking?
During the Hillary vs Bernie times, I was talking with a Bernie supporter in a bar. He told me that the establishment Dems/DNC would promote Hitler himself before they promote an anti-establishment candidate.
Back then I thought he was a case of mentally sick person making it to the bar and having too much drink. As time passes I agree with him more and more.
We have a party entirely dedicated to the ownership class with literally 0 internal conflict, and we have a party almost entirely dedicated to the ownership class with some internal conflict (the squad.)
What we don't have is a party that gives one solitary fuck about the labor class and actively fights those that get too close to real power. The squad is a useful token to point to and say "see we aren't all corpo fascists! We allowed them to exist!" (Because there's only like 5 of them so they have no power whatsoever)
Imagine having a candidate that got more popular after speaking in public…
We literally haven’t even passed that low of a bar in over a decade. I don’t understand what’s happened to people.
I'd be happy if we just had an administration where no one in the DOJ, State Department or Cabinet quits in disgust. The last time that happened was what, Bush Sr.?
I want AOC with vice president Bernie.
That man may be in his final years of politics, and perhaps too old to be at the helm, but dammit, he deserves it.
I saw him speak the other day and he was totally with it. Like that super old person who lives to be 120 and is sharp as fuck right until their body gives up, but until then they are firy and physically fit.
Literally has had one minor mis-step with the railroad union strike, telling them to go back to work, and they still got the deal they wanted in the end. She hasn't just earned my vote for POTUS should she choose to run, but she's got my full support. Heck, I might start throwing campaign contributions her way if she makes a POTUS try.
So, not codifying RvW as promised, not protecting voter rights, not protecting civil liberties...
.... those aren't missteps?
and they still got the deal they wanted in the end
Is it in the fucking contract? no? Then they got jack shit.
not codifying RvW as promised, not protecting voter rights, not protecting civil liberties...
Conservatives (including Manchin and Sinema) stopped all of that. I hate the Dem party and despise neoliberals (AKA the other conservatives), but conservatives are fully to blame for those specific issues.
Manchin and Sinema
But... vote blue no matter who!
You don't get a choice where you get a progressive instead of Manchin. You get Manchin or a far right Republican. I voted for Manchin, for the same reason I voted for Clinton and Biden - they might suck, but holy shit is the alternative WORSE.
Who is your pick for POTUS? Wave your magic wand.
I’m not the one waiving a magic wand thinking Biden is a perfect candidate.
You are.
As I’ve said elsewhere, baring Biden himself stepping down it’s suicide for any one to oppose him. So no I’m not going to enter that fucking argument with someone who can’t even see what’s clearly before them.
Especially considering I’m guessing you give credit for the American recovery act to Biden even as you’d scramble to insist Biden doesn’t have the power to pass law.
Do you understand how Congress functions? Do you think they're fucking dukes and duchesses or some shit?
You apparently don't understand the difference between being a dictator and actually getting off your ass to stir up support for something.
stop acting like biden is powerless because one body of congress is in republican hands. biden is not powerless. If Biden is so powerless to get shit done in congress, how is it he claims credit for the American Recovery Act and the other big ones early term? that's right. He did some lifting for it. (he was, however, far from the only person, and a lot of people did a lot of heavy lifting to get that done.)
Have you seen the Republican Congress?
Trying to get anything through them is like preschoolers playing Red Rover against the New England Patriots.
I'm not saying they don't try. It's important to try, as long as they immediately call out the opposition at any and every opportunity. And loud. But if it comes from a D, fat chance actually getting it passed.
If we're having elections in 28 and she isn't a candidate. Something is wrong.
AOC will not survive after Trump wins.
"Haven't you heard it's a battle of words?"
\ The poster bearer cried
\ "Listen, son," said the man with the gun
\ "There's room for you inside"
Cool story bro
Hypothetical, yes. Fiction, not anymore.
That's the thing though, with the Republicans in charge there will NEVER be a vote on this. They won't allow it.
Yeah. But it's provocative, it gets the people going.
That translates to more voters and more small donors.
Two things that are kind of important 4 months before a general election.
People will call this sort of thing performative since the legislation will be dead in the water, but you're spot on. An important part of politics is virtue signaling. You're telling your supporters what you stand for and that you're at least trying.
Whether it's progressive or moderates doing so, it's an important political tool, and sometimes the only tool at their disposal. Showing people you're willing to fight, even if you know you're going to lose, is a big deal.
Is it terrible I always think of Kanye too when I hear it?
George Bush doesn't care about black people.
The minority party has seized control by eroding the foundation of democracy. The sad part is that most people don't even realize how fucked we are.
And yet, she'll never win a presidential election because she's too polarizing. There's literally no other way to win here if somebody else steps in. Sad that people try to do good in their job as a public representative for their people, and just fucking can't.
Edit to say: don't just take my word for it. Ask Bernie Sanders. Did he win the presidency at some point? I just must have..,..
And yet, she’ll never win a presidential election because she’s too polarizing
Imagine saying that after Obama flipped a bunch of red states and brought in a shit ton of down ballot races.
AOC is polarizing, but not as much as Obama and it's easier the second time around.
Hell, no body even really mentioned Biden being Catholic in 1988. You should have seen the shit they said about JFK. And similar time-frames passed between.
And strictly police wise, the country is a lot more open to progressive policy than in 08, and again, everyone said Obama was too "polarizing" right up till election results.
I will vote for her so hard given the chance. Unfortunately, I'm still just one vote. I want to agree with you, but I'm not sure I can. I'd sure love to see her give it a real run, with a DNC that supporter her and didn't drag her to the center or actively undercut her primary chances.
It's because Obama was polarizing, but he sold himself as progressive convincingly
He literally ran on the promise of change - unfortunately his actions were firmly neo liberal, and he prioritized compromise over meaningful reform
If Obama was a neo liberal in progressive clothing, Clinton was a diehard neo liberal from top to bottom.
Unfortunately, the lesson learned was "people don't like Hillary" rather than "people want a real progressive"
I don't understand your point... Obama won two presidential elections in a row. It would seem as though that "selling himself as a progressive convincingly worked out pretty well for him id say.
So you're saying that the people want a progressive candidate, but the Dems would, at most, give us the option of someone who sells themselves as progressive but is an actual neo-liberal?
Oh, maybe I do get it after all. I was going to say that Gore was pretty progressive and did technically win, but that was 25 years agola
There be the facts, friend. It's just how it works right now. Any time you figure out a better system you can get implemented, I'm all ears.
There be the facts, friend. It’s just how it works right now
What?
Literally what's how what works?
Any time you figure out a better system you can get implemented, I’m all ears.
Fair and open primaries, mate.
I've been saying it since NH had their delegates stolen.
Well, this cycle, almost a decade now in total. This ain't exactly a new problem, and it's not like no one can think of a solution.
It's just not easy beating corporate money in primaries until enough Dem voters demand the party sets higher standards. And most people only pay atteyonce every 4 years, then they're too exhausted to care about politics.
She's not polarising. The oligarchy controlled media that constantly paint her as some kind of radical are polarising.
She's vilified on Fox News as a Boogeyman literally every night of the week. WTF are you even talking about?
Have you seen what they say about Joe Biden?
They'd call trump Joseph Stalin if there was a D by his name.
It literally doesn't matter how progressive a candidate we run, because they'll say the same shit about anyone.
Moderates try to defend and talk about how conservative they really are. Alienating their voters. AOC would fucking own that shit and explain how it helps everyone.
What we're doing isn't working. And Biden himself keeps saying he's powerless as president, so why not fucking try what worked for literal decades and there was no rational reason we ever stopped?
You will just be downvoted from here on out because of who you are. Get right with something.
Disgraceful
You're not even trying at this point. Definitely lending yourself to be a troll more than a concerned citizen. Shame
Because they are afraid of her
I don't think many fox viewers are voting for any Democrat.
Obama was that bogeyman from 2008 to 2016. Considering that he won two elections during that time, I don't think Fox News is really relevant to AOC.
So? They aren't going to vote for a Dem anyway.
But it's a great excuse for shutting out progressives!
How come Trump gets to be as polarizing as he wants, but nobody to the left of McConnell can?
Repubs have spent decades feeding propaganda to their fear-addicted voting base. And they're still squawking away with Fox and Sinclair. I'd love to see her run but I'm not certain it would be successful.
Because entrenched Democrats are under a ridiculous belief that everyone who isn't voting for them is conservative. So if you spout "extreme" leftist ideals, you're too scary to the people they are courting, which is conservative voters who aren't Trumplicans.
because she’s too polarizing.
She shares a lot of views with Bernie Sanders, and Berni would almost surely have defeated Trump where Hillary failed.
As I see it, she is not nearly as polarizing as Trump. The only ones strongly against her, are probably extreme Christians and Nazis.
Not the point. She's a Boogeyman for right-wing media.
That doesn't really make her polarizing, that's just the right wing media treating her unfairly, as they do with every progressive Democrat, except a bit more, because she is popular.
No, it makes her polarizing because the viewers of certain media thinks she's a fucking liberal who will literally sweep your house, take you gums, sell them, and give the profit to "illegals'.
This was a literal interpretation about her from ImfoWars. It's a fucking thing. She won't win.
People who follow infowars are already radicalized, and will say any moderate is polarizing. They want a Fuhrer, they want to exterminate LGBT and colored people. Their opinion is irrelevant, because there is no talking sense to those people. Just see how the MAGA people threw a fit, because their house leader "compromised" after 8 months of negotiating, and getting everything they asked for!!!
They are beyond reach, and they are the ones polarizing, not rational sensible people like AOC, that actually tries to make life better for most people.
If not only wanting to do things for the rich, the white and Christians, makes you polarizing, then a polarizing candidate is the only reasonable option.
Literally, anyone who threatens the interests served by right-wing media is going to see themselves transformed into a bogeyman by right-wing media. That's how it works. That AOC is "polarizing" according to them is because of the threat she poses to them. If you're letting right-wing media define the boundaries of who is an acceptable candidate, you will never defeat them.
Show me on this doll where AOC touched you.
That is why she'd be so successful. She'd give them strokes. She'd get constant media coverage. They would give her so much publicity the news would always be about her. She's good looking and talks well. She'd look badass in the White House.
Which means nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Republicans boosted Sanders, not because they liked him. But because they knew it would, and did divide their opposition for the next decade or more. Had Sanders gotten the nomination. They'd have smeared him worse than Clinton.
That's the thing about Bernie. He's hard to smear. Unlike, "my husband cheated on me while serving as President" Hillary. You're delusional.
The fact that they didn't take the time to really try to smear him doesn't mean he's hard to smear. There were a lot of accusations that could have gotten a lot of play Propaganda wise. Like him and his wife honeymooning in Russia. That got bare minimal play during the campaign because it was much more handy to keep the Democrats divided. In fact I think it was probably Democrats that pointed that out. But since they don't directly control the messaging machine. And the people who do did not want that message out it didn't get out.
Just to point this out to you since you seem to not understand. Smears don't have to be true. Often they aren't. All you need to smear someone successfully is a consistent message driven into them.
IMHO, the only reason she’s “polarizing” is because the right has chosen to run a smear campaign on her. People like her are a threat to them. She’s young, smart, and charming. She’s like Obama once was, only she’s even younger than he was. She’s still a year too young to run.
the right has chosen to run a smear campaign on her
And they run smear campaigns on EVERYONE with a D in front of their name, regardless of how far to the left they actually are. Democrats are playing a losing game by worrying about how the Republican media are going to portray them.
Just saying that she has extra appeal and potential, so that why she gets extra attention by the right wing media.
Their screaming means nothing anymore. Conservative media will panic-attack absolutely anyone who runs against the GOP with the exact same extreme deception and conspiracy theories.
I really don't think that's true. People said the same with Obama, and he really never faced that in voters, the GOP was viciously attacking him and it never stuck. There is a stage big enough, that the most vicious attackers do get lost in the crowd.
Yup, never stuck. They won all the mid terms during his administration handily. Maintaining super majorities in Congress the whole time. Nope, they were never ever shellacked (Obamas phrasing) in the midterms over "obamacare". No matter how you phrased it obamacare or ACA the publics approval was always the same they adored it right?
And yet, she’ll never win a presidential election because she’s too polarizing.
She'll never make it through the primaries because she's a progressive.
You must be quite young. Everything you are saying about AOC was said, word for word, for Obama. Obama still won.
Bernie would have won (according to polls) if the DNC hadn't sabotaged him at every turn. Too polarizing? No, just too left for the Democrats.