1154
Like her or not, that lady got some hard as steel balls. AOC for president woooo!
Hey, DNC, aren't you desperate to put a woman up for election? You've got a fiery, quick-witted, awesome, young one here that is full of ideas and not afraid to try stuff. The conservatives haven't had time to run decades of smear tactics against her and she hasn't been threatening her husband's SA victims. I bet she already has a plan to deal with someone accusing her of being born in Mexico (I understand she's Puerto Rican, but that's not the bogeyman) and shut it down before years of idiocy bring it up again.
She's standing behind Biden this time around. I'm hoping for a run in 2028. It would be the first presidential candidate in a while that I didn't hold my nose to vote for.
She’s a firebrand—that’s not an insult. But it is a fact that if the DNC puts her to run, she will mobilize a lot of voters who may otherwise sit this one out. Hard to say definitively how many on either side; but I think she’s likely more hated by the rightwing base than she is loved by the left wing/centrist base.
I don’t think it would be a good strategic move in this cycle. Although I’d love to see her in the Oval Office and would vote that way should the chance arise.
Uh, late 40s here. I didn’t want to vote for Clinton (I did), but I’ll be first in line for AOC. She’s the right kind of direction to inspire us Genx who vote liberal. Time for Joe to step down.
Any good leftist candidate would mobilize opposition voters, that is unavoidable. It's no reason to not run a good candidate.
load more comments
(1 replies)
You've got a fiery, quick-witted, awesome, young one here that is full of ideas and not afraid to try stuff.
All evidence suggests that's the opposite of what the DNC wants
A moderate Crusty old white guy or bust! And then when he's too old say he shouldn't be running....
load more comments
(38 replies)
AOC for president woooo!
She's eligible right now because she'll be 35 by inauguration day.
OMFG Her vs trump debate. PLEASE!!
I don't want Trump to be around when she's running. 😇
On one hand, she has more efficacy in congress, on the other hand: fuck those fucking fucks AOC 24 let's fucking go!
load more comments
(1 replies)
She's the best, incredibly inspiring.
Pretty open and shut for the both of them, presiding over cases they have material interest in.
Kick their ass.
Which is why I'm honestly surprised reich-wingers haven't tried to murder her
Knocking on wood.
There was that creepy anime assassination video by fellow congressman gosar, AOC has mentioned receiving multiple death threats and one of the capital rioters said he'd bring guns next time to "assassinate AOC", so awful threats are happening.
Same guy that tweeted a selfie from inside the capital "just want to incriminate myself a little lol.”
AOC is very clear that she believes had they not escaped during the riot, assassinations would have occurred.
I'm happy that she is safe.
Knock on wood.
I have no doubt they'd have killed more then have people there if given the chance.
I just want you to know, I read this comment after a single toke and got concerned someone laced my weed with something.
load more comments
(1 replies)
She hasn't done anything to directly go after Fuckface 45. Once she does that...
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Well.... they did just legalize gratuities for political favors.
Not quite as open and shut anymore.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Good on her for keeping this in the news for another cycle. This doesn’t go anywhere after she hands them the speaker of the republican controlled House. Johnson is basically going to throw them right in the bin.
But I imagine her goal is to get the media to cover the drama, and therefore keep this corruption story in the news.
She and others should just keep filing articles of impeachment every week until Nov. Keep this shit in the news.
Forcing them to put it in the trash is good though... Another thing to report on so perhaps it shifts house seats a bit.
It also tries to help Democratic congressional candidates in close races. Once these get thrown in the bin, they can remind voters that if they flip enough seats, they can have meaningful impeachment hearings in the next Congress.
Doesn't matter, the attempt had to be made for a firm historical objection.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Thank you AOC for standing up for the American people! Her speech introducing the articles of impeachment is well worth watching: https://youtu.be/1H1R_qtPiVY
load more comments
(1 replies)
Time to write my representative in support, and have him laugh at me via bulk form letter!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., on Wednesday introduced articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, saying that their refusal to recuse from certain prominent cases "constitutes a grave threat to American rule of law."
In a statement, the New York congresswoman said that justices' refusal to step aside from cases "in which they hold widely documented financial and personal entanglements" has created an "unchecked corruption crisis on the Supreme Court."
The resolutions were co-sponsored by Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., Rashida Talib, D-Mich., Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. and Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y.
Both flags have each been carried in recent years by members of the "Stop the Steal" movement, whose supporters claim that President Joe Biden did not lawfully win the 2020 presidential election.
Extensive reporting last year by ProPublica showed that Thomas has accepted lavish gifts like vacations and flights without disclosing them in official ethics forms.
In the aftermath of the election, Ginni Thomas also sent messages to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, urging him to stand with Trump.
The original article contains 548 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Can't they just make it a law they can't be impeached? Can't they just say the rulings and bribes are official acts?
No, the court interprets laws. Congress writes them.
"We think the intent of this 'Impeach These Clowns Act' was actually to permanently enshrine our positions - so said with a 6-3 majority."
I mean, at the end of the day, the SC only has power if we allow it to. The two other branches could decide to ignore them and pick a new supreme court. Aka the supreme Court has no army
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(13 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
1154 points (98.8% liked)
politics
18586 readers
4403 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS