• TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      104
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

      • model_tar_gz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 days ago

        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.

        • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          9 days ago

          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.

        • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 days ago

          Agreed on this cycle. Agree or not we’ve got Biden. That’s not changing and that’s who I’ll be behind. But damn, next cycle if she’s in the primary I’m going to get even more involved than I already am.

      • Revan343@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        9 days ago

        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

        • Frozengyro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          9 days ago

          A moderate Crusty old white guy or bust! And then when he’s too old say he shouldn’t be running…

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        9 days ago

        AOC suffers the same problem as Nancy Peloci: she’s too demonized by the GOP. It’s an odd problem to have but she would need to retire from the House for a few years and run later.

        If you want AOC-like, Kathy Porter is actually a very viable candidate. The question is whether the DNC is willing to let her actually run or if they’ll pull a “It’s Hillary’s turn” like they did to Bernie.

          • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            9 days ago

            Voters do after decades of shit tactics, but she hasn’t been embroiled in anything and they haven’t had time to really put it into people’s subconscious.

            Also, I agree with your sentiment. I can’t give the slightest shit what a bunch of homophobic, regressive, hateful, Nazi cuntbags and their enablers think. If we work hard and get lucky we may be able to live in a world where what they think never matters again.

            • Omega_Man@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              9 days ago

              Democrats always want to please the GOP. Anytime they appoint someone (for example a special counsel) it always has to be a Republican to avoid the bad optics. Fuck that noise.

              Meanwhile the GOP takes its gifted position and furthers it’s goals.

        • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          9 days ago

          she’s too demonized by the GOP.

          This will be true of any candidate another party runs. It is their primary MO, so ultimately, it needs to be factored out of discussions like these. If Joe Voter believes that shit anyway, it doesn’t actually matter what candidate you run.

        • danc4498@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          9 days ago

          I think AOC has a lot of the same features that made Bernie so popular on 2016 with the added benefit of youth.

          The GOP will try to demonize, but she will rise above the noise the same way Bernie did. Given that she is so young, she can stay relevant and pick and choose the exact moment she wants to run for president. Or even VEEP as the gateway to presidency.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        I’d vote for her, but I don’t think she’s ready. Better than Biden though.

        Personally, I want Jon Stewart. He’s not perfect, but there’s not a single person on the planet better equipped to take down Trump.

        I don’t know if Jon or AOC would make a better president, but Jon would be better at campaigning against Trump.

        But really just give us someone under 65. (Note: I’ll still vote for the good person who’s too old for the job if the alternative isn’t better.)

          • Serinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 days ago

            There’s a bit of a difference. Jon Stewart has made his reputation and career in political commentary. That’s not exactly The Apprentice.

            • billwashere@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 days ago

              Yeah Jon is very intelligent, very quick witted, and a deep thinker. He reads a lot, listens, and learns from his mistakes. He knows to admit he doesn’t know something and listen to advice. And most importantly, he actually wants to do what’s right. I’m pretty sure he’d be a top 10 president.

              To compare him to a reality tv personality like Trump is a little disingenuous.

            • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              9 days ago

              That’s not fair, you don’t always get to choose what you’ll be successful at. But we could use a doctor president…

        • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          9 days ago

          I definitely get the love for Stewart. However, he holds no elected position and has repeatedly stated that he has no interest in running for president. So I’m not going to be the one to hold a gun to his head and force him to run.

          AOC has the proper ambitions. If she’s not ready then let her decide that because the only reason she wouldn’t be is because a bunch of out of touch old dudes refuse to mentor her and I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing.

        • billwashere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          I would literally pay hundreds of dollars to see Jon Stewart debate Trump, like pay per view. Jon would eviscerate Trump. He might frustrate him so much he’d have a heart attack right there on stage …. or better yet cause Trump to shit and completely overflow his diaper. Trump should probably wear his brown pants just in case.

          • Jarix@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            Bet you if AOC said to Jon stewart ill run for president if you are my running mate he would do it.

            That would be the best campaign in history

            I would love AOC and bernie sanders to be on the supreme court, however impossible that is

            • Freefall@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 days ago

              He might just jump on that grenade because the US would need it and I’d give him better than even odds he would self-sacrifice to counter evil winning.

              • Jarix@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 days ago

                I also think he would do an actual good job as vice president. Like break the mould type good

        • commandar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Personally, I want Jon Stewart. He’s not perfect, but there’s not a single person on the planet better equipped to take down Trump.

          Stewart would be terrible for it.

          Smart guy, great at calling BS, but he’s continued to preach understanding and cooperation in the post Trump world in a way that, plainly, isn’t possible when the American right operates in pure bad faith at basically every turn.

          Take all the issues Obama had getting walked all over because he tried to work with the GOP and amplify it.

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        She would have a real chance at winning this cycle…thus there’s no way they’d run her.

        This will be the last cycle we have Democrats…a LOT of people are about to fall out of windows Russia style after Trump takes office.

        The Supreme Court made him a king and people like AoC will be first on his hit list.

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        First and foremost, she isnt eligible to be president until next year. She’s only 34, and won’t be 35 until after the inauguration.

        Whoops, looks like I misread and was off by a year. I don’t think it’s going to matter this time around, but hopefully they keep her in mind for the future.

        • Resonosity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 days ago

          Per US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1:

          No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

          AOC was born in New York City, NY, USA on 10/13/1989. On 10/13/2024, as in this October 13th, AOC will turn 35 years old. At that point she will be eligible to take the office of the presidency.

          35 would be the youngest age of any president, though. The most recent younger presidents were Barack Obama and Bill Clinton at 47 and 46, respectively. The youngest ever president was Theodore Roosevelt at 42.

          It would be a hard line to cross given that the majority of voters seem to be older, but it would be monumental in my nation’s history.

      • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        9 days ago

        she only turns 35 in october so she’s got a long future ahead of her but she wouldn’t be eligible until 2028.

        • ripcord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          9 days ago

          She only needs to be 35 when taking office, from what I understand. So would be eligible now.

    • craigers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 days ago

      On one hand, she has more efficacy in congress, on the other hand: fuck those fucking fucks AOC 24 let’s fucking go!

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    135
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    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.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 days ago

      Open and shut case… if the Dems controlled the house. But not enough democrats were voted into office, so these articles go to MAGA Mike Johnson, and unfortunately, his trash can.

      But AOC knows this. Her goal is to keep this in the press so voters remember it in Nov. That’s the real play. No one is actually getting impeached this term. Mike Johnson is a Christian nationalist who loves what those activist judges are doing. No way he’s brining this to the floor. And if he did, AOC doesn’t have a simple majority.

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    113
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

    • Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      9 days ago

      Forcing them to put it in the trash is good though… Another thing to report on so perhaps it shifts house seats a bit.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

    • kinther@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 days ago

      People have no attention span these days. Our media has trained us to move on quickly to the next thing. They will probably only cover it if someone makes a spectacle of it like Trump does.

    • anomoly@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 days ago

      Thanks for posting this. I wouldn’t have gone looking for it and it was definitely worth watching.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    9 days ago

    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!

  • The Pantser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 days ago

    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?

    • Questy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 days ago

      That’s not necessary, as far as I understand there’s a 2/3 majority required to carry an impeachment (not American, so could be wrong). That’s not possible with roughly 50% republican votes. The impeachment can’t succeed, but it’s their job to try, and it also puts the evidence on the record.

      • kautau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        And ensure that we align those who voted “the president should have the power of the king” and “I can be bought and sold” are at least written in history for their deeds. There’s far more that needs to happen, but this is a good thing

    • Corigan@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      Action denied is just more evidence of their complicitness rather than supposed. Also makes it very clear who does operate for their constitutes and only for their self interest.

      • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        Correct. This isn’t an open debate anymore - the bribes were accepted. Every no vote is a vote saying it’s ok to bribe the court.

        • Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 days ago

          The people who need to be convinced to care already don’t care. The GOP isn’t going to help remove their staunchest pawns on the court.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 days ago

            Especially not if in doing so Biden gets to appoint two judges. I mean honestly it wouldn’t be smart for them to do from their POV at least until another republican is in office.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 days ago

      It’s not entirely meaningless. Her aim is to keep the justices recent rulings in the media so that voters are aware of them come Nov.

      AOC isn’t a dummy, and she’s knows that Johnson will immediately throw this in the trash.

      I’d like to see someone else do this next week, and then another person the week after, etc etc. keep doing it until Nov. Keep reminding voters about the corruption.

    • Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      Yep this is as performative as the GOP threatening impeachment of Mayorkas. I get why she’s doing it but it’s going to be dead by Friday.

  • S_204@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    This lady will do anything to keep her name in the news.

    This has as much chance of going somewhere and she does it being president which is to say zero.

    This is political theatre to distract from the party’s current issues.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 days ago

      You’re correct in that the press coverage is the point, and it’s impossible to get past Johnson.

      I disagree that this is about getting her name in the press. She’s trying to keep the supreme court’s last session in the press. The media will focus on the court for a week, then move onto the new shiny thing.

      The only way to keep the SCOTUS in the news right now is to do stuff like this. The big broadcasters flock to the drama.