Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

I B Hankering · 04-01-2019, 01:38 PM

TheDaliLama · 04-01-2019, 01:51 PM

Guest050619-1 · 04-01-2019, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiny

Ok, maybe she’s smarter than I thought. I stick by the “no common sense” though. Anyone who’d introduce legislation to promote ideas that cost $96 trillion with no idea how to pay the tab is not all there.

The 96 TRILLION DOLLARS-thing is a somewhat difficult number to wrap one's brain around....see my most recent thread, kiddies. It's mind-numbing what that amount actual means (that is, if you wanna have some fun with it....)

agrarian · 04-02-2019, 07:04 PM

If I were her age and hotly pursued by everyone for cover shoots and appearances I'd not fare as well as she. It's hard to be the fresh face attracting so much attention. She has a solid education, excelled in good schools, was supported by loving parents and loved them back. Her friends are loyal and they care about her. She is committed to ideals. She is inexperienced, that's for sure, but blame that on her age. But she has been committed to trying to make the world a better place for a long time. She's been suddenly cast into a frying pan of pressures. Based on what I heard during recent committee hearings, she was astute and poised. I think she has a bright future. Her victories in Brooklyn reveal she has generated considerable support among her neighbors.

bambino · 04-02-2019, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agrarian

If I were her age and hotly pursued by everyone for cover shoots and appearances I'd not fare as well as she. It's hard to be the fresh face attracting so much attention. She has a solid education, excelled in good schools, was supported by loving parents and loved them back. Her friends are loyal and they care about her. She is committed to ideals. She is inexperienced, that's for sure, but blame that on her age. But she has been committed to trying to make the world a better place for a long time. She's been suddenly cast into a frying pan of pressures. Based on what I heard during recent committee hearings, she was astute and poised. I think she has a bright future. Her victories in Brooklyn reveal she has generated considerable support among her neighbors.

Yeah, 4% of the registered voters voted in that primary. There wasn’t a Republican in the race. I’m not sure she received “considerable” support among her neighbors. Now that she’s the poster child for Amazon leaving NYC, I doubt her neighbors are too happy with her. But the fact of the matter is, she’s said some incredibly stupid stuff. But you’re enamored with her “raw intellect”.

The_Waco_Kid · 04-02-2019, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agrarian

If I were her age and hotly pursued by everyone for cover shoots and appearances I'd not fare as well as she. It's hard to be the fresh face attracting so much attention. She has a solid education, excelled in good schools, was supported by loving parents and loved them back. Her friends are loyal and they care about her. She is committed to ideals. She is inexperienced, that's for sure, but blame that on her age. But she has been committed to trying to make the world a better place for a long time. She's been suddenly cast into a frying pan of pressures. Based on what I heard during recent committee hearings, she was astute and poised. I think she has a bright future. Her victories in Brooklyn reveal she has generated considerable support among her neighbors.

Her MSNBC scripted pep rally still made her look dumber than a sack of rocks.

The FDR statement in a real interview let alone a debate would sink her and brand her as completely inarticulate on a subject you'd know before high school.

And remember she had plenty of time to research any talking points and the best this fubar bitch can come up with is this FDR thing?

this is why her handler aka Saikat Chakrabarti won't dare let he debate Ben Shapiro.

she will have to debate sooner or later. she walked into this job, after ousting Crowley she had a no-show paper ballet RNC opponent. Just for fun the RNC needs to find a strong candidate to take her on. Given the hugely Democratic base unless you find Reagan again you'd lose. But the RNC needs to embarrass her for the fun of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexan...neral_election

General election

Ocasio-Cortez faced Republican nominee Anthony Pappas in the November 6 general election.[68] Pappas, who lives in Astoria, is an economics professor at St. John's University. According to the New York Post, Pappas did not actively campaign. The Post wrote that "Pappas' bid was a long shot," since the 14th has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+29, making it the sixth most Democratic district in New York City. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by almost six to one.[69][70][71]

winn dixie · 04-02-2019, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agrarian

If I were her age and hotly pursued by everyone for cover shoots and appearances I'd not fare as well as she. It's hard to be the fresh face attracting so much attention. She has a solid education, excelled in good schools, was supported by loving parents and loved them back. Her friends are loyal and they care about her. She is committed to ideals. She is inexperienced, that's for sure, but blame that on her age. But she has been committed to trying to make the world a better place for a long time. She's been suddenly cast into a frying pan of pressures. Based on what I heard during recent committee hearings, she was astute and poised. I think she has a bright future. Her victories in Brooklyn reveal she has generated considerable support among her neighbors.

"she has been committed" ? To the new york looney bin? Thats where this stupid cunt belongs! A padded cell for aoc!

dilbert firestorm · 04-02-2019, 10:49 PM

MSNBC is saying she was partially right on FDR.

the amendment was proposed and passed before FDR's death. It wasn't ratified fast enough before 1944 election to stop FDR from running again. It wasn't ratified until 1947.

I B Hankering · 04-02-2019, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

MSNBC is saying she was partially right on FDR.

the amendment was proposed and passed before FDR's death. It wasn't ratified fast enough before 1944 election to stop FDR from running again. It wasn't ratified until 1947.

I'd wager MSNBC is lying to cover for AOC's stupidity.

Per Wiki, 1) it was a campaign issue Dewey mentioned during the 1944 election. It was something he said he would consider, but it was not an issue put into play while FDR was alive.

2) The actual bill wasn't proposed until 1947 and wasn't ratified until 1951.

This is a handy and inexpensive book to have in one's library:

It's a vestige of a Political Science course I took in college. The current, Third Edition, is only $13.00.

The part about Dewey wasn't in there, but the year it was proposed and ratified was. LBJ was in line to serve 9 years if he'd managed to run and win in 1968.

dilbert firestorm · 04-02-2019, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I'd wager MSNBC is lying to cover for AOC's stupidity.

Per Wiki, 1) it was a campaign issue Dewey mentioned during the 1944 election. It was something he said he would consider, but it was not an issue put into play while FDR was alive.

2) The actual bill wasn't proposed until 1947 and wasn't ratified until 1951.

This is a handy and inexpensive book to have in one's library:

It's a vestige of a Political Science course I took in college. The current, Third Edition, is only $13.00.

The part about Dewey wasn't in there, but the year it was proposed and ratified was. LBJ was in line to serve 9 years if he'd managed to run and win in 1968.

they also claimed that the text applied to FDR. it certainly didn't.

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

it did not apply to FDR, but to Truman.

they need to stop putting lipstick on pig that is AOC.

guess they can't help themselves.

Danielle Silver · 04-02-2019, 11:41 PM

That chick makes WOMEN everywhere look bad. I would go as far as to say even if everyone doesn't want to admit it do to pride, That chick is an uneducated fool and an embarrassment to the American People...

Hell Yeah we watch her, its better than SNL, lol its real life...

dilbert firestorm · 04-02-2019, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danielle Silver

That chick makes WOMEN everywhere look bad. I would go as far as to say even if everyone doesn't want to admit it do to pride, That chick is an uneducated fool and an embarrassment to the American People...

Hell Yeah we watch her, its better than SNL, lol its real life...

yeah, but its a stinky reality show everyone has to watch.

I B Hankering · 04-02-2019, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

they also claimed that the text applied to FDR. it certainly didn't.

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

it did not apply to FDR, but to Truman.

they need to stop putting lipstick on pig that is AOC.

guess they can't help themselves.

Correct, it did apply to Truman because it HAPPENED to be ratified in 1951. Who knows who it might have applied to if it wasn't ratified until, for example, 1955?

Danielle Silver · 04-02-2019, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

yeah, but its a stinky reality show everyone has to watch.

+1. I just can't believe someone who doesn't know shit from coal could be an elected official..
I rarely post personal opinions on here, but she SUCKS. Probably how she got into the political business. Ijs

bb1961 · 04-03-2019, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danielle Silver

+1. I just can't believe someone who doesn't know shit from coal could be an elected official..
I rarely post personal opinions on here, but she SUCKS. Probably how she got into the political business. Ijs

Have you heard of Sheila Jackassson Lee asking about the flag on mars??https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/998...iel-greenfield
She visited JPL and asked if the Mars Rover would be able to show "the flag the astronauts planted there before". Staffers were reportedly surprised that she didn't complain about cost overruns on the Death Star.