Knowing a lot of specific details, probably low. Knowing the general process it takes to pass a Constitutional amendment, very high. Knowing it was passed after FDR died, very high.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter JohnnyU
- Start date
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
From BU, cum laude, with degrees in international relations and economics? I'd say it's a very low percentage from that group who don't know the story.
And at the time the next generic popular leader was more likely to be a McArthur, who at that time had a cult of personality, or Eisenhower, who was on the horizon, not the next FDR.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don’t see what international relations or economics has to do with it. It’s an American History question.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
jonessed
Footballguy
I don’t think her degree really matters and I doubt many people even know this. I just don’t think politicians should be peddling conspiracy theories without a basic understanding of what they are talking about. It’s dangerous. It’s one of the primary reasons I think Trump is dangerous.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
But this is the Cortez thread. There is plenty of bashing going on in the Trump thread.
timschochet
Footballguy
Obviously this is tongue in cheek (nice BTW) but another similarity is the willingness of their fans to give them the benefit of the doubt in all situations.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
When others point out hypocrisy and inconsistency in something you agree with, you love to trot out the term "troll" though. And you refer to them as the "usual suspects". Be consistent regardless of what side you're on.
joffer
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Not by the same people. Which of course is the point. Anyone who supports or remains largely silent on the current President of the United States and his stunning record of lying repeatedly even after being corrected, without consequence or correction, doesn't actually care about the things they're pretending to care about here.
Which obviously leads to the question of why are they pretending to care about it here.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
I agree but that goes both ways too. Same people that bash Trump for his Twitter gaffes never say a peep about Cortez`s blunders.
joffer
Footballguy
she either misspoke or was genuinely ignorant on the timing of the 22nd Amendment relative to FDR's death
before this I didn't know what year it was passed or ratified. although i'm pretty sure I knew it was after his death.
squistion
Footballguy
I do? I don't recall labeling that as trolling. If you mean those who have used
just to ridicule me without any real explanation as to what they found so hilarious, then yes, I have called that trolling.And when I have used "usual suspects" it is referring to the regulars on the other side who always show up in every discussion (see Kaepernick thread). I don't recall labeling those regulars collectively as trolls (although it might be apropos for someone ***cough cough** who follows me around to comment in every thread).
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump is a liar and I have not been silent about it. So who is your point directed at here?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I don't think people would bash Trump for his "gaffes" if he committed them only once or twice a week and/or if he corrected his statements or at least responded to questions about them, as AOC does, rather than repeating him and vilifying those who point out the mistakes and ask questions about them as "fake news" or the "enemy of the people." So I'm not sure it does go both ways.
Last edited by a moderator:
Where has she corrected them? I can think of several gaffs and incorrect accusations that remain uncorrected. She usually blames the media.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
You don't call him out with 1% of the passion you display in calling out AOC daily, even though Trump is the president and intentionally lies all the time without remorse and AOC is a first term congresswoman whose mistakes are less frequent or IMO intentional. So I'm not sure you really come off as an objective truth-seeker on this subject.
Still, you are correct that you're not really a hypocrite, or who my point was directed at here. In this thread you're more like the guy complaining that Russell Westbrook took an extra step before a bunch of highlight reel dunks against his favorite team.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
This is a fair criticism. I saw her doing so a couple months ago and assumed she was continuing to do it. A quick google search indicates she doesn't do it as much as she should or said she would. She should do better at this, as should many other politicians. I'll edit the previous post.
What is the point of calling Trump out on a daily basis here, there are dozens of people who do that. I will occassionally reel some back in if they go too far, but for the most part I agree with the criticism. AOC on the other hand, some people are gushing over and are completely ignoring her huge flaws. Her proposals are completely whack with zero thought behind, and yet there are people here who treat them as serious.
Skoo
Footballguy
So what you're saying is that the bolded does NOT go for Trump as well?
This is what @TobiasFunke was talking about.
You may not like Trump, but you certainly don't get all fired up when he does the same things AOC does.
His mistakes are FAR more egregious, and he's the President which makes them MUCH more consequential.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
If the things you claim bother you about AOC genuinely bothered you about other politicians too, you would oppose Trump far more passionately (obviously conservative voices are far more important and effective in opposition to him here and everywhere else) and you would presumably also criticize the Republicans who empower, protect and defend him and his constant lying and gaslighting which is orders of magnitude worse than anything we've ever seen. Instead you pick apart every word uttered by a first-term congresswoman because, for example, you wrongly think she's speaking only about greenhouse gasses rather than the broader social justice perspective on environmental issues.
I'm not gonna bother getting into your substantive criticism of her policies again. I've said plenty about your credibility on that already.
There are nearly zero supporters of Trump on this forum and when one does happpen to show up they are ganged up on by a half dozen posters. I do not see a point in piling on. AOC proposals deserved to be mocked as they are basically Marxist. They are utterly ridiculous, but yet people applaud them here. I am not sure what you are confused about. There is not much point contributing to the echo chamber. There is something to be be discussed in pointing out the flaws in the consensous here.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Regardless if AOC had her facts wrong about the timing of Presidential term limits and the death of FDR, the fact remains he was one of America's most popular presidents winning 4 elections promoting democratic socialist programs. His policies led America to a very prosperous era.
I agree. More importantly, criticizing Trump's bad statements is just so much tedious drudgery. It's the same thing over and over again, and it's tiresome.
AOC is the fresher, more captivating personality.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Croissants at LaGuardia cost $7. Each!!
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Here's my complete list of American conservatives who remain loyal to the GOP in the Trump era and who have strongly criticized Trump's false statements with any regularity:
(Jeff Flake did it that one time I guess)
I dunno, seems to be that would be a lot more interesting (and effective!) for someone like jon to call out Trump's shameless nonsense than for him to just engage in partisan nitpicking about a first term congresswoman.
Skoo
Footballguy
Yeah, not buying that for a second.
You're a conservative so Trump's foibles don't enrage you nearly as much. Which is understandable, but at least be honest about it.
The President says utterly ridiculous things on a daily basis, and the things he says are 10,000X more important because he's the President of the United States. He can actually single-handedly make very big decisions that effect us all.
Trump has repeatedly claimed that wind power only works when the wind is blowing, which is a million times dumber than anything AOC has ever said.
But he's not part of "the left", so he gets a pass.
Waste of time. I could point to dozens of times I have been highly critical of Trump, but it does not matter to you. You just don't like what i posted so you make it about me and ignore what I said. Same old game that is played everyday here. Ether be man enough to debate my point or don't bother.
The Football Freak
Footballguy
Johnnymac
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
This is not a fair characterization of what happened in my opinion.She had an agenda. She was trying to argue that being bold with social initiatives was rewarded politically, not dangerous. She was talking about how when the government was at its boldest the democrats won more and were very popular. Her comments came right after how she was blasting her colleagues for arguing that they couldn't do bold things because their district wouldn't go for it.
"When we look at our history, when our party was boldest...we had and carried super majorities in the house and the senate. We carried the presidency. They had to amend the constitution of the united states to make sure Roosevelt did not get reelected."
In my opinion she had zero clue he died in office and thought that they amended the constitution to get him out as like a back door subversion of the will of the american people and this is what ended Roosevelt's presidential tenure. I don't see what else her intent could be interpreted as. What other explanation can be given for her just throwing that random statement into the middle of her argument?
Given the context of what she was saying I don't see how people can say she was mostly correct. Especially when you consider that even Truman could have still run again since he was grandfathered.
Whole segment is here. Specifics to FDR are around 15 minute mark. The "my district wont go for it" is at about 9:45ish
squistion
Footballguy
Yes, he should because (rightfully or wrongfully) the perception is that he spends almost all of his time defending POTUS from attacks. Now it is possible that one might have missed the literally "dozens of times" where he was in complete agreement with Trump's critics, but in absence of providing any examples, the perception will stand.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
joffer
Footballguy
According to the National Constitution Center, "Talk about a presidential term-limits amendment started in 1944, when Republican Thomas Dewey said a potential 16-year term for Roosevelt was a threat to democracy"
John Blutarsky
Footballguy
It’s interesting you want him to back his claim up considering you posted that 90% of Trump supporters think Mexico has 3 countries because of Fox News.
The Football Freak
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
That is a misstatement of what I actually said, as I gave an opinion about probability and not an easily verifiable statement of fact (such as the number of times that one has criticized Trump in this forum).
Carry on.
Last edited by a moderator:
John Blutarsky
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
joffer
Footballguy
So the impetus for the amendment may have been to keep FDR from getting re-elected again?
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Again. So what?
You are trying so hard to make her completely inaccurate and used with an obvious agenda statement to be at least somewhat true.
In order to do so we have to first let her slide on the complete inaccuracy of the statement. Then we have to let her slide on the fact that democrats didnt like the idea of him running for a third term as well and he knew it. That's why he arranged for a political stunt at the convention where he had somebody read a fake phone transcript and had a guy hiding in the sewer with a microphone.
Then we have to let her slide on the fact that the amendment grandfathered in truman, you know the guy AFTER.
Then we have to let her slide on the fact that 16 democratic senators voted in favor (in 1947) and it passed the house by well over 2-1.
That's just too much effort to ignore the obvious logical conclusion..
Young is no excuse for that blunder. Jesus, it's taught in like the 7th or 8th grade at the latest....or don't they each history in school anymore? Sure trump is dumb, I admit it but she is most definitely not above his level as far as IQ. People like her should not be holding any position in the US govt.
Last edited by a moderator:
joffer
Footballguy
ok. It sounds like you're biggest problem is her representation of why it was passed rather than being incorrect on the timing. fair enough.
Similar threads
