AOC for president.
I was gonna say she’s too young, but apparently she’d turn 35 about a month before the election. A president who’s barely old enough… What a nice change of pace that would be.
WOW, that would skip an entire generation from presidential representation. I’m sick of voting for geriatrics but to jump straight to someone younger … I still would but ouch.
The march of time is steady towards the sounds of that waterfall. We’re fucked.
Who cares? A good president is suppose to represent the country not just their demographic.
At this point, I think us millenials as an entire generation should agree to just hand the keys directly over to Gen Z. I think it’s probably good policy to do the exact opposite of whatever the boomers have done.
Old people just finished destroying the environment and AOC just filed articles of impeachment against sitting SCOTUS justices. She is rising to the occasion and deserves your support.
The idea is to have some experience in politics in lower positions before taking on the hot seat.
True. There’s this fun quirk of US law, though, that makes ageism against young people completely fine and dandy!
You can discriminate against people for being young all you want. That’s the Gerontocracy in action…
Ah, so that’s why as we all know everyone above 26 is perfectly adult and competent
Edit: My point was not very evident but that study is not as clear as people thinks it is on the fact that brains are fully developed at 25. They probably keep developing for much longer. But it’s not an excuse to exclude people from politics
Only issue is she’s a divisive figure so center shitters might be driven to vote for trump. I think she’s awesome and would love if she was the first woman pres
A huge part of the poor youth vote attendance is due to them not feeling represented by geriatric nominees. If she were to run she would get very strong youth and minority support in addition to all the left voters.
TBH it would be a dream come true for her to run and win this year and I’m not even American.
I’m Canadian and agree with you.
Just imagine a ticket with AOC and Bernie Sanders! Now that would so something to see!
A huge part of the poor youth vote attendance is due to them not feeling represented by geriatric nominees.
I’d say a larger reason is that they’re simply not interested in the politics at that age.
I know I didn’t care at all who was in government when I was at that age. The fact that they were a couple generations older than me wasn’t a part of my thought process.
I simply couldn’t be bothered to even think about politics or governments.
My worry about AOC as candidate is that she’s relatively alone in her political space, and is far from having Bernie’s weight as of today. She’s in the Democratic party, sure, but she’s in a very small faction inside of it, which may lead to a Corbyn situation: she takes the helm of the party, but centrist figures begin attacking her from her own ranks with the support of the media until she’s forced to concede to a moderate.
On the other hand, if you manage to get 100, 200 elected representatives in the Democratic party who are clearly ideologically aligned with AOC, making her the nominee is no longer a battle, but rather, it becomes the natural consequence of the balance of power within the party.
I completely agree with you and I hate it. Our political system will advance at the rate politicians croak, since apparently retiring from office has gone out of fashion.
women do tend to live longer than men, so maybe we could see a 91 year-old AOC on the ballet in 2080…
And AOC didn’t even get the sharpest part of the blade. Those would be Omar, and most especially Bowman.
Biden should pick her up as a running mate. So she’ll just automatically be president if Biden dies. You’ll see conservatives doing their level best to ensure Biden is in the best of health.
when Biden dies. I don’t expect him to last another 4 years. We’re pretty much voting for Kamala at this point.
AOC from NYC is the MVP in DC.
It’s giving Bojack Horseman.
Our main story: ominous and anomalous accusations against Hank Hippopopalous. Who is this anonymous “Diane Nguyen” and what does she have against our beloved Hippopotamus? Joining me now is Hippopapalous apologist, and armchair sociologist, Cardigan Burke.
Fuck yeah. Probably won’t go anywhere with a traitorous house majority but it’s worth it to try and get them on the record.
Just today I read that Clarence Thomas accepted a yacht trip to Russia. There’s a huge air of corruption around him and I’ve heard people are calling for him to step down.
And it was from 2003. So he’s been taking this shit forever and not reporting it.
The term corruption doesn’t even begin to cover it. The man is a paid actor. A rubber stamp for republican party political positions.
Wasn’t trump impeached twice? What does this even mean concretely?
Not knocking the sentiment, just questioning the practicality
Without getting too technical, and someone please correct anything that may be represented incorrectly: It’s basically like a trial. The House is the prosecutor, and jury and the Senate is the judge. The plaintiff is the United States itself, and the defendant is the political figure (president, SC justice, etc)
The House gathers / presents evidence and tries them then renders a verdict (Impeachment)
The Senate is responsible for sentencing or acquitting. Without a 2/3 majority voting to remove them from office, the impeached is acquitted.
In both of Trump’s, the House found him guilty of the charges (impeached) but the Republican controlled Senate acquitted him.
Hard to edit it in on mobile, but see @ricecake@sh.itjust.works 's clarifications below to my analogy.
Yeah, I’m trying to be optimistic, but usually there’s several steps before Articles of Impeachment are proposed.
- https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/what-is-impeachment-process.html (no paywall when I viewed it)
- https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/
The House still needs to vote on the articles, and that requires only a simple majority vote. So they would need at least a few Republicans to vote “yea” for it to go anywhere. What I’m unclear on is if the Speaker of the House can prevent it from getting a vote (researching this on mobile is harder than I thought lol).
Impeachment is the decision to press charges, and the Senate trial is closer to the actual trial.
“Charged and convicted” -> “impeached and convicted”
Otherwise a perfectly good analogy. :)
The distinction only matters for people who bring up due process concerns. The impeachment proceedings aren’t actually a trial, but a decision to have one, as such you aren’t obligated to the same ability to speak in your own defense as you would be at a proper trial. With the Senate trial there’s more expectation of due process because it’s an actual trial.
Put simply, an impeachment happens in the House of Representatives and is akin to an indictment by Grand Jury. If successful, the proceeding then moves to the Senate for trial, where the party is either convicted or acquitted. A conviction would mean removal from office and the possibility of facing criminal charges.
Trump was impeached twice, but he was not convicted either time.
Unfortunately it means as much as it did for the Trump impeachments. There is zero chance any, let alone enough, Republicans would vote to convict these conservative judges regardless of the evidence and validity of the charge(s).
