It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moron barmaid AOC once again proves her gross ignorance of US History

page: 2
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

Doesn't matter, It was FDR's legacy and his threat to Republican values that fueled the fire that scored the 22 Amendment. That Social Security Act still burns Republicans.

It seems that some historians believe FDR's long reign influenced ratification of the 22 Amendment too!


The third-term decision dominated his election campaign against the Republican contender, Wendell Wilkie. In the end, Roosevelt won the election by a wide margin, and he was able to win a fourth election in 1944.

But the popular fallout about the concept of a long-term president led to the ratification of the 22nd amendment in 1951.
“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,” the amendment read, in a clear reference to Roosevelt.


constitutioncenter.org...




posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Republicans didn't change the COTUS, the States ratified it.

The same states that voted for FDR.

Sheesh.



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: RazorV66
whites above the eyes showing.

en.wikipedia.org...

there is often wisdom in old folk legend

Graves' ophthalmopathy

it is a common sign of Graves ophthalmopathy

which results in
hypothyroidmom.com...

So... that should explain a lot for you fellas. It may not be necessarily true in all instances of it's occurrence, but it is a natural sign that you can see in people, and we react to it accordingly.


edit on 1-4-2019 by dubiousatworst because: fixed link

edit on 1-4-2019 by dubiousatworst because: maybe fixed this time



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: M5xaz

Doesn't matter, It was FDR's legacy and his threat to Republican values that fueled the fire that scored the 22 Amendment. That Social Security Act still burns Republicans.

It seems that some historians believe FDR's long reign influenced ratification of the 22 Amendment too!


The third-term decision dominated his election campaign against the Republican contender, Wendell Wilkie. In the end, Roosevelt won the election by a wide margin, and he was able to win a fourth election in 1944.

But the popular fallout about the concept of a long-term president led to the ratification of the 22nd amendment in 1951.
“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,” the amendment read, in a clear reference to Roosevelt.


constitutioncenter.org...


Your AOC-defending BS does not matter

AOC stated it was "to prevent FDR having another term."
AOC's exact words.
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG


Republicans passed it because they believe unlimited terms are a threat to democracy



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

She may not be as dumb as we may think. The Democrats have been tipping their hands as of late.

Get rid of the Electoral College so that power can be consolidated from a few coastal states and large cities. The rest of the country can go to hell and serve as their tax cows and should have no say in their future.

Kill term limits so that next time they have power they can complete the plan of replacing military leadership, complete control of government agencies like the IRS, FBI, DOJ, FCC, etc to become a hammer against any political opponents / resistance.

With no term limits and no electoral college they will complete the task of complete control with no fear of ever loosing their positions or experiencing setbacks.



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

I'm not sure if she's maniacally unstable or what... it piques my interest though.


She's nuts, or on drugs.



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: M5xaz

She's not completely wrong though.


The Republicans campaigned heavily against a third-term president, and the Democrats countered with claims that Wilkie was a “third-rate” candidate.

Later in the campaign, Roosevelt insisted that he was in the race to keep America out of war in Europe, and he easily defeated Wilkie on Election Day.

But talk about a presidential term-limits amendment started in 1944, when Republican candidate Thomas Dewey said a potential 16-year term for Roosevelt was a threat to democracy.

In March 1947, a Republican-controlled Congress approved a 22nd Amendment, with an exception that would exclude a president in office from term limits during the ratification process. It took until February 1951 to get enough states to ratify the amendment, and President Harry Truman decided to opt against running for a third term. Since then, some members of Congress have introduced efforts to repeal the 22nd Amendment, but they haven’t made it out of committee.


FDR’s third-term election and the 22nd amendment constitutioncenter.org...

Not completely?
My god
Lolololol

Mkay
Whatever you say



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz




AOC stated it was "to prevent FDR having another term."
AOC's exact words.
WRONG


Okay. So, it was really to prevent another FDR from having 3 or 4 or more terms. That Social Security still burns hard line Republicans! LOL



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: M5xaz

Cortez is dangerous.

It’s not that she is evil, a megalomaniac, it’s because she has people that believe her.

Yep
Some here apparantly.
Crazy



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That is true but the amendment itself would have excluded FDR on his term if were to live and get reelected.


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.


So if we play whatif, President Roosevelt lives, gets elected yet again to another term, that would have taken him to 1952. The 22nd was ratified in '51 and FDR could have served out the term.

Also considering the legislation itself had broad support (needed to become an amendment) and all but one state ratified.

While aimed at FDR, the process was followed and we changed the USC.
edit on 1-4-2019 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:46 PM
link   


edit on 1/4/2019 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: M5xaz




AOC stated it was "to prevent FDR having another term."
AOC's exact words.
WRONG


Okay. So, it was really to prevent another FDR from having 3 or 4 or more terms. That Social Security still burns hard line Republicans! LOL





Social Security is great as long as somebody else pays for it 😎



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu




The Republicans didn't change the COTUS, the States ratified it.


A constitutional amendment changes/adds to the constitution, no? It was a Republican Party goal, that was achieved. WIN!

The Republican Party has another Constitutional Amendment in it's platform right now, by the way.



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ownbestenemy

No disagreement there!



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ownbestenemy

No disagreement there!


While '47 was an outlier year in regards to House/Senate control when the bill was introduced, it was, as designed, accepted wholly by the various States.

In 1951, when ratified, the majority of Federal and State governments were of the Democratic party.

P/VPOTUS, speaker of house, senate majority leader, majority of State governors...

Just actually looks like the country wanted to change the Constitution and Dewey read the tea leaves right in '44 when he brought up the question of term limiting the Pesidency.

For AOC to make this political jab is just juvenile and shows she isn't (not the only politician from either party I might add) at least thinking about what she is saying. It was to score points with her base...nothing more, nothing less.
edit on 2-4-2019 by ownbestenemy because: Spelling


I should clarify thay State Governor party affiliation doesnt always relate to Legislative party affiliation. Im on a phone and there is no readily available information about the makeup of each state in the 50s without going to each state and researching archives.
edit on 2-4-2019 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Why use barmaid? Is it supposed to be a dig? Nobel profession is working a bar.



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: MyToxicTash
Why use barmaid? Is it supposed to be a dig? Nobel profession is working a bar.


The term is used loosely and inside the parameters of @AOC 😎



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: MyToxicTash
Why use barmaid? Is it supposed to be a dig? Nobel profession is working a bar.


Yeah its a dig just like Obummer, Drumpf, etc. Its cheap and all politicians have enough stupidity to challenge than silly names.

Its not wrong but can easily distract from what is actually being talked about.



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: MyToxicTash

Was she not a barmaid?



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: MyToxicTash
Why use barmaid? Is it supposed to be a dig? Nobel profession is working a bar.


@AOC claims the professional term is "chemical engineer" 😎







 
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join