Democrats appear to be adopting an “impeach-them-all-and-let-God-sort-them-out” approach to the upcoming session of Congress.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) suggested this week that Democrats may want to impeach United States Supreme Court justices because “you know, they kind of legalized a lot of his criminality.”
The democratic socialist has been promising “many, many, many” investigations into what she now calls the “criminals” in the Administration. In an interview with CNN’s Manu Raju, she added the justices to the list of potential targets:
“There are so many criminals in this administration, it’s hard to figure out who should be, you know, the order of operations. There are going to be many, many, many investigations. I imagine many subpoenas, and we have to follow wherever the evidence takes us…I mean, I think we should leave all options on the table. Absolutely. I mean, of course this Supreme Court as well has also kind of legalized a lot of his criminality, and they’re pointing at impeachment. Impeachment in this Republican majority at that time was pointing at the Supreme Court/ We’ll see. We’ll approach it, but I think all options are on the table.” (emphasis added)
This is not the first such call by Ocasio-Cortez. She previously announced that she wants the impeachment of all six of the conservative justices. Other Democratic members immediately joined her call for Supreme Court impeachments. Ocasio-Cortez also admitted that she does not understand why we even have a Supreme Court. She asked, “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”
Democratic members have been calling for impeaching conservative justices for years on specious grounds. Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch have all been named in past impeachment demands. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, however, is suggesting a type of collective guilt for “high crimes and misdemeanors…and legalizing a lot.”
So, as Democratic leaders call to pack the Court with an instant liberal majority, others would like to remove conservatives through impeachment. These voices show the impact of the rage politics used to secure power in Congress. Since Democrats do not have enough votes to overcome a veto, they are looking at gridlock on legislation. What they can offer is rage in the form of investigations and impeachments.
In the meantime, the Democratic Party is sounding like a party of berserkers. There is little recognition of the dangerous, destabilizing impact of such actions on our constitutional system.
If one ever wondered what U.S. society would look like if it became a society ruled by the whims of men (and women) and no longer ruled by established laws, just follow the illogical utterances of AOC to their likely conclusion.
The society they are building is an amalgam of current seattle and early 80s detroit.
How could I forget…and recent Minneapolis
Early on I read where AOC was told by her brother that a group was interviewing candidates to run for office. Apparently with her background in mixology she was the perfect candidate. Since that time the only thing she’s done was to successfully keep Amazon from opening in her district and embarrass herself when asked a simple question regarding Taiwan. Now this brain trust is seriously being considered as a candidate for the US Presidency. The republic and its citizens must stop the nonsense before it’s too late or is it?
It is quite clear that the DNC is the current form inhabited by the highest level of organized crime in the nation, and that pathocracy is the only way they can rule. AOC is ultimately irrelevant, because if she were to fade away, there are plenty of other empty fonts fillable for her place. This phenomenon is where the similarity the dnc has with islam is, having a never-ending supply of useful idiots to sacrifice for the leadership.
The demo-commies are doing everything they can to cause another Civil War to save our republic! Why can’t their party–communism (let’s call it what it truly is)–be outlawed? Trying to destroy our republic should be a high crime against our nation if it isn’t already! These people are truly evil.
AOC proves you cannot fix stupid. Let her run wild and watch her fall. This should be fun.
She’s been around for some 6 years. She ain’t fallen yet. It won’t be fun.
In all due time.
AOC and the other idiot squad and other women in the DNC, as well as the enormous number of vapid, social-media and anti-depressant-addled, female white democrat voters will enable me to make the inevitable transition to islam a bit easier.
The detroitization of the entire nation is rapidly gathering momentum, tragic.
Ayana Presley (sp) is up for the Speaker’s job? Imagine being that close to the presidency. What a comedy it is!
It really doesn’t matter if she, aoc, pelosi, jeffries, s]chumer is the figurehead, they all get their orders from the same criminal cabal since obama. JFC, they had a braindead biden run the show.
It is easy to laugh at AOC. She is, after all, terminally stupid and says stupid things. But, she also has proven to be a trailblazer for even more crazies who are taking over the Democrat party– the Michigan Senator Elect, for example. If these types gain control, all of the Democrats who were so proud to vote for them will learn the real meaning of the “tyranny of the majority.” Meanwhile, when Congress cuts off any funding for opposing Iran, Iran will develop the greatest terror weapon of them all and will launch a nuclear strike unless Israel hits it first. From a Democrat’s point of view, high gas prices– even if they were lower than Biden’s– are far more important to get under control than a rogue “state” determined to destroy Israel, the US and any others who dare challenge them. We are paying the price for the unrelenting propaganda of the main stream media with its countless lies, repeated so often they became the truth, that Trump Derangement Syndrome is reshaping what once was an incredible country.
You are correct. Where is John Kerry on all this?
“It is easy to laugh at AOC. She is, after all, terminally stupid and says stupid things.”
Despite that, the Democrats defeated the Republicans big time, and even Republicans vote for Republican dummies in the legislature. Is ‘the Stupid will inherit the earth’ true?
honestlawyermostly,
As I have commented before, Democrats won. Then after a brief celebration, the moderate Democrats looked at exactly what they voted in, e.g.
New nonbinary lawmaker calls election win proof that ‘Woke 3.0 has commenced’
https://nypost.com/2026/11/13/us-news/new-nonbinary-lawmaker-calls-election-win-proof-that-woke-3-0-has-commenced/
Lefty freshmen lawmakers known as ‘The Bloc’ swarm Capitol Hill for cringey photos
https://nypost.com/2026/11/12/us-news/lefty-freshmen-lawmakers-known-as-the-bloc-swarm-capitol-hill/
Honest lawyer, a think a better characterization is a dangerous sociopath.
AOC is a modern example of The Peter Principle. She arrived at her level of incompetyence long ago. Now it’s time for “Lateral arabesque”
‘
‘
She was probably a bad bartender. In a sane nation she would have been stopped there.
Well, duh; I think that it’s in the Constitution, dumbass.
God save us from the ignorant, radical, Looney Left.
And AOC is one of the leading contenders for the 2028 president election for Democrats?
Show trials and circus clowns in the foreseeable future. I can hear the circus music now.
You pal are a lot dumber than her. You prove with every comment. She’s has a uni degree, you ain’t got nuttin. No HS, no nuttin. She a congress-women, and you?
Dad, please take a shower, come up out of the basement and go look for a real job. These kinds of comments allow potential employers to suspect you are nothing but a DEIer with a worthless poli-sci degree. BTW, please stop bragging on job applications that you received ‘well above average’ ranking on your remedial reading and math courses at Harvard.
To whom, precisely, is this comment directed?
Alec Leamas,
At me.
Whenever I make factual observations, smart comments, the annony has to make up lies that I do not have a high school degree. I then point out I enlisted in the USMC and currently am attending college. For both, one is required to have a high school degree. I also have a DD-214 under Honorable conditions.
All annony has are lies. As you can see by some 98% of annonys comments here on the good professor’s blog. Whenever the good professor points out Democrats or far left illiberals saying or doing stupid and crazy things, annony attempts to comment bomb the good professor’s blog. Same with the village idiot GSX.
Fake Farmer
For someone attending college and supposedly running a farm, you spend a lot of time here every day from morning to evening.
Aren’t you supposed to be in class, or studying, or doing homework, or writing papers, or tending to your farm.
How do you manage to do all this and still read all the comments here and post your own comments all day, every day.
Something doesn’t add up.
You are an obvious underperformer. It will never “add up” for you. Too bad.
Upstate demonstrates intelligent thought in his responses. What do you demonstrate except Stupidity? Now, as usual, you can run away to your sewer
Upstate’s responses are merely an “informal approximation” of intelligent thought.
I assume you are Sigmund the Fraud; what do you know? We have already proven you to be a low-level thinker. You cannot understand the difference between the words “similar” and”same” at the same time, nor can you recognize the context in the use of the word “actual”. Without a doubt, you are a FRAUD.
Her is dumb? You don’t say.
Is America Already in the Early Stages of a Civil War?
The possibility deserves serious consideration, particularly if we stop defining civil war exclusively through the historical experience of 1861.
A future American civil conflict may develop through decentralized political violence, institutional resistance, and the progressive rejection of opposing political authority. It may never involve conventional armies, clearly defined territories, or formal declarations of war.
The premises explored in John Grisham’s The Pelican Brief and John Ross’s Unintended Consequences illustrate two aspects of this possibility. The first demonstrates how targeted political assassination can affect national institutions. The second portrays an escalating confrontation driven by individuals acting against a government they believe has become illegitimate.
Neither novel predicts what will happen in America. However, both illustrate mechanisms that deserve examination.
1. The conditions for decentralized conflict already exist
America has experienced politically motivated assassinations, attempted assassinations, attacks against government facilities, and violence directed at political opponents.
These incidents have occurred across ideological lines, although their motivations and connections differ.
The significant development is the environment surrounding such attacks.
Political opponents are increasingly portrayed as existential threats rather than fellow citizens with different beliefs. Repeated accusations of extremism, authoritarianism, and threats to democracy can convince susceptible individuals that ordinary political disagreement is inadequate.
This process does not require centralized planning.
A sufficiently radicalized individual may act independently, believing violence serves a legitimate political purpose.
The FBI and Department of Homeland Security have repeatedly identified lone offenders and small groups as significant domestic terrorism threats.
2. Political incentives can sustain escalating hostilityPolitical polarization creates rewards for the people who intensify it.
Research has established that hostile messaging about political opponents attracts greater social media engagement. Additional research has associated polarizing congressional communications with increased campaign fundraising.
The consequences are significant.
An individual who celebrates political violence might lose professional standing among mainstream Americans while gaining influence, recognition, or financial support within a smaller ideological community.
Therefore, public condemnation does not necessarily eliminate the rewards associated with extreme behavior.
This creates a potential cycle in which increasingly hostile rhetoric receives attention, small groups normalize extreme positions, and individuals become more susceptible to justifying violence.
The critical distinction is that such a process can occur without political leaders deliberately organizing attacks.
3. Political violence can precede an organized civil conflict A conventional civil war requires sustained organized armed confrontation over political authority or territory.
By that standard, the United States is not currently experiencing a civil war.
However, the absence of organized armies does not establish the absence of dangerous internal conflict.The more defensible assessment is that America already exhibits some conditions associated with potential internal escalation:
– Severe political polarization.- Declining trust in opposing institutions.
– Politically motivated violence.
– Ideological communities that sometimes tolerate or celebrate attacks.
– Individuals willing to use violence for political purposes.
The question is whether these conditions remain isolated or become connected through a sustained rejection of legitimate governing authority.
4. Supreme Court packing could become the catalyst.
The Supreme Court occupies a unique position because Americans depend on it to resolve constitutional disagreements.
Congress has the constitutional authority to change the Court’s size through legislation. However, legality and public legitimacy are different questions.
Suppose Democrats expand the Court from nine to thirteen justices specifically to establish a reliable ideological majority.
Suppose that majority subsequently upholds major federal policies opposed by Republican-controlled states.
A significant portion of the country might conclude that the Court had been deliberately restructured to obtain predetermined political outcomes.
The resulting confrontation could extend beyond ordinary disagreement over policy.
Republican-controlled states might challenge the federal government through litigation, legislative opposition, and refusal to administer certain federal programs where constitutionally permitted.
Those actions can remain lawful.The more dangerous threshold would be reached if state officials began defying binding federal court orders or physically obstructing federal enforcement.
At that point, an existing political legitimacy dispute could become a constitutional enforcement crisis.
5. Why court packing could bring existing tensions into the openThe greatest danger is the interaction between two developments.
First, some individuals may already believe that political opponents represent an unacceptable threat to the country.
Second, a partisan restructuring of the Supreme Court could convince those individuals that established constitutional remedies have been compromised.
For a small extremist minority, that combination could reinforce the belief that political violence is justified.Meanwhile, broader state resistance could make the conflict between federal and state authority visible at an institutional level.
The country could then face two simultaneous challenges: decentralized extremist violence and an escalating constitutional confrontation.
Neither necessarily causes the other. But together, they could make restoring public confidence considerably more difficult.
The central conclusion
America may already be experiencing some of the political and social conditions from which a decentralized internal conflict could develop.
The historical model of two armies fighting for territory is not the only conceivable form of sustained domestic conflict.
Political demonization, individual radicalization, targeted violence, competing political loyalties, and declining institutional legitimacy can create instability without centralized command.
Supreme Court packing could intensify those conditions because it would directly affect an institution responsible for resolving constitutional disputes.
If millions of Americans came to believe that the Court had become an instrument of permanent partisan control, confidence in constitutional remedies could weaken further.
However, this outcome is not inevitable. Court expansion alone would neither establish a civil war nor demonstrate that the constitutional system had failed. The response of political leaders, courts, state governments, and the public would determine whether the dispute remained within constitutional boundaries.
The most serious danger would arise if a substantial number of Americans stopped accepting legitimate political and judicial outcomes while a smaller extremist minority increasingly viewed violence as an acceptable alternative.
That is the distinction between a severely divided country and one progressing toward sustained internal conflict.
And it is why the consequences of Supreme Court packing deserve examination beyond the immediate question of which political party would control the Court.
“America has experienced politically motivated assassinations, attempted assassinations, attacks against government facilities, and violence directed at political opponents.
These incidents have occurred across ideological lines, although their motivations and connections differ.”
Across ideological lines? Explain please. Please cite examples of conservative or right wing violence directed agains the left.
Conservatives don’t have the equivalent of a Louis Mangione or the assassin of Charlie Kirk.
There is a reason obama replaced so much of the military leadership and then Trump undid a lot of that. The civil war is coming, I’m afraid, the obama’s cabal cannot proceed without it, unless the right simply caves to the nonsense.
obama had the media, the military, and big pharma, but he was too early to act. Once his corrupt cabal gets AI and the military again, there may be no alternative to fight or flight.
Revolution is a big deal.
Impeaching one or even two Supreme Court Justices may be appropriate from time to time under certain circumstances, but impeaching the majority of them (or even just one of them) because you don’t like their interpretation of the Constitution is just one piece of the puzzle of Revolution.
Let us not forget that Revolutionaries also want to eliminate the Electoral College, Senate, Supremacy Clause, First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, law enforcement, prisons, private ownership of property, national borders, parental rights, equality for all races, the right of inner-city children of color to learn how to read and do math, elections we can believe in, and the memory of our Founding Fathers.
Instead of complaining about Revolutionaries attacking the Supreme Court, wouldn’t the American Dream have a greater chance of success if we concentrated on providing all our children with an education, a real education by real educators?
I’m not sure what ‘the American Dream’ is supposed to mean. Maybe we just concentrate on suppressing street crime, respecting everyone’s right to speak and to publish (withing conventional limits), respecting freedom of contract and association, respecting everyone’s property rights (with limits being measures to contain externalities), maintaining conventional laws of personal status, suppressing illegal immigration and setting immigration on low flow, limiting subsidized services and income transfers to a fixed share of our domestic product, balancing public sector budgets, and putting an end to systematic government favoritism (the grant money spew, the tax preferences, the subterfuge in regulatory regimes).
==
As for real eduction, we benefit from tracking, from annual regents examinations, from emphasis on basic skills, from reducing the devotion of manpower to secondary academic instruction and increasing it to vocational technical instruction, from increasing manpower devoted to primary and secondary schooling, reducing it to tertiary schooling, from the closure of extant teacher training programs and the exile of their faculty, and from an end to collective bargaining in the public sector.
X,
You say you’re not sure what the American Dream is. Let’s think about that.
The United States of America was created by the Constitution. The Preamble to the Constitution says: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
That’s the American Dream. It may not be sufficiently clear to you, to AOC, or to lots of people (including me). But there it is.
May the day soon come when nobody understands the American Dream to mean this: eradicate domestic Tranquility, eradicate the Blessings of Liberty, eradicate the Bill Of Rights, and eradicate the Constitution.
That’s the American Dream.
I was at Duke this past week and stayed at one of the hotels near the medical center. As I waited for my elevator to check out of the hotel early morning and travel back home, a group of 4 hotel housekeepers, all Latinas, descended on my hotel floor. They were ready to turnover the hotel rooms. I greeted them in Spanish, they replied with a smile, and I told them thus (in Spanish):
Mi madre…….(My mother cleaned hotel rooms when I was a child. She and my father worked 6 days per week, often double shifts, to support their family. They told us that they wanted their children to be better than them, since they never finished grammar school. They are gone now but I owe everything to them. Everything I am today is because of them.)
The women dropped their laundry bags filled with clean linens, were noticeably moved, thanked me for recognizing them and asked me what I did for a living. I told them. Their eyes got wide and then I told them that what they did for a living mattered, and not to let anyones opinion of them influence their drive. My elevator car arrived, I remarked, que Dios los bendiga, and they thanked me profusely for the note of encouragement. That is the American Dream, available to all.
Estovir,
Yes, I’ve heard that definition of the American Dream too. It resonates within me.
When I chose to spend time volunteering at a soup kitchen and food distribution center, I chose one that focused on the “working poor” instead of one that focused on people who don’t work. In other words, the hotel housekeepers you mention resonate with me.
Nevertheless, from childhood I’ve always had a special place in my heart for the Preamble to the Constitution. I’ve always appreciated and respected the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
The American Dream is a high trust, low crime and corruption society, where people are free to pursue their personal individual goals without interfering with their neighbors’ goals or depending on their neighbor for their existence. The catering to the lowest common denominator simply increases the lowest common denominator.
The DNC represents the EXACT opposite of this and therefore must be extinguished, by any means necessary.
Just “our children”? Obviously you don’t get what’s happening in America.
That American Dream was marketing B$. And you fell for it.
Anonymous,
Martin Luther King Jr. fought and died for the American Dream … the part where nobody judges anybody else by the color of their skin (or, as stated in the Declaration Of Independence, “all men are created equal”).
How sad that you (and today’s Revolutionaries) consider that Dream to be “marketing B$”!
King’s book was an improved social position for blacks. The business of ‘content of their character’ was a sales pitch, though there indubitably were those in his circle who believed it or believed it at the time – arguably King himself. You’d have to scrounge to find anyone in King’s circle who objected to the race patronage regime which emerged after 1969; Bayard Rustin objected, but he was a pretty singular figure before, during, and after. (Mr. Rustin landed a job on the research staff of the AFL-CIO in 1964 and was not an influential figure in black politics after that).
X,
May Martin Luther King Jr. rest in peace.
My view is slightly different, x.
If the treatment of Blacks at the time had been based on character rather than color, MLK wouldn’t have been needed, as blacks would have already achieved that “improved social position.” Of course, I can see how people of the day viewed things through different lenses
Yes, we get what’s happening. People who have no real skills but considerable ambient resentment and will to power have been ascendent and making use of imported foreigners to advance their objects.
If you believed that the American Dream was someone giving you something outside the ability to freely and safely pursue your ambition, yes, I can see why you would think it BS. Sorry, the American Dream is not a guarantee for success and happiness, it is the ability to pursue those, only.
AOC is what happens when you elect a barista into a position of governmental authority.
A 42 year old wife and mother who supplements the family income waitressing might make a satisfactory addition to a municipal council or school board. The trouble with AOC is that she had no real skills and no mundane accomplishments (not unusual among leftoid Democratic pols.
X,
Let’s not forget that Barak Obama was a “community organizer”.
He did that for about 2.5 years. Before that, he was a copy editor at a firm which composed and printed up company newsletters under contract; he did that for about 2.5 years. He earned a law degree and did some temporary work for law firms. He spent a couple of years attempting to produce a book (not clear who finished it). He was hired as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School (he taught there 40% time for 12 years; the number of scholarly articles published in that time = 0). He was hired two years after completing law school as an associate in a 12 lawyer firm, assigned a mix of labor law and landlord-tenant law cases. He did that for three years, then was re-classified as ‘of counsel’ for six years until his law license lapsed. He was also chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a project of the Joyce Foundation; he ran that into the ground. He was in the Illinois legislature for eight years. During his time there, he did not earn recognition as a maven in any area of policy. He did manage to cadge a consequential assignment on a committee which supervised legislation on medical organizations. His wife, then an apparatchik at the University of Chicago Hospitals, received a handsome raise after that one.
lol You mean a community psychopath.
If you look at the work history of BO and Mooch during the years running from 1985 to 2008, you see something odd, particularly in her case. One is that they had little interest in practicing law. The time they put in working for law firms (including stints of summer clerking) amounted to less than four years in each case. For 17 years, she went from one what-do-you-do-all-day-? job to another in institutional bureaucracies, paid a salary in excess of $300,000 per year before taxes in the last of them. When she departed her last position, it was eliminated in a hiring freeze. As for him, the two periods in his life which suggest normal engagement with the labor market ran from 1983-85 (copy editor) and 1993-96 (associate in a law firm of modest size). How many recent law school graduates are handed faculty positions at fancy law schools? How many are retained absent any record of scholarly publication?
==
I suppose you could say that his entry into electoral politics did not look abnormal, but he managed to prosper after he was shellacked in a primary by Bobby Rush in 2000. The sequence of events in 2004 when he was elected to the U.S. Senate was bizarre and involved a conspiracy between people with access to confidential records about his opponent and members of the media.
==
And there he was in 2007 / 08 running for president on the basis of 11 years in legislative bodies (eight of them in the Illinois legislature) wherein he never established himself as an autodidact in any area of policy. One of the lowlights of the 2008 campaign was Charles Fried’s denunciation of Sarah Palin; Gov. Palin had 11 years under her belt as a public executive, Barack Obama and Joseph Biden had 0 and 0, but somehow in the ‘mind’ of Charles Fried of the Harvard Law School, they were more ‘qualified’.
==
If they’d had normal lives, Mooch would have received her tertiary schooling at one of Illinois state campuses. She would have earned a living as a common-and-garden small practice lawyer or perhaps selling real estate or working in the dean’s office of a local college. Obama was a classroom slacker who performed well on standardized tests, so his tertiary schooling might have taken one of several pathways. If he were like most people, he’d have attended one of the state institutions where he lived. His occupational life might have looked very much like his wife’s or his grandmother’s. Except it’s a reasonable wager his bride would not have been a skilled technician’s daughter from the South Side of Chicago, but a local drawn from Honolulu’s haole population. Someone rather like his sister, perhaps.
Unfortunately, his community was somalia and iran, and he reorganized those in the US.
You have to have a constituency dumber than the candidate too get someone like AOC and the rest of the Democrat stable voted into Congress. New York is the epicenter of stupid voters.
or more racist and dumber
“You have to have a constituency dumber than the candidate..” Well she found them, didn’t she. She expanded her constituency beyond the borders of her district by inviting the entire planet into her bedroom after hours, becoming everyone’s BFF. All those C.B. Demile closeups and soft talk about this, that, and the other. It was a self-promoting social media fest, her nightly news, one-sided, which she brilliantly employed to market herself to the nines. I once alluded to the idea that Groucho Marx might have said “I could never respect an electorate which would raise me to high office”. Well she found some that did, and opted to feed the golden geese, not kill them. Feed them she did!! Didn’t she!
AOC and Criminality, has a familial ring to it.
She’s not a criminal, she’s a dingbat.
X “She’s not a criminal, she’s a dingbat.”
Can’t she be both?
I have never tried to defend a client with proposition that he is too stupid to know what crimes are, though some have come close.
Modern Dem Witch Burnings – burn first and if you survive you are a WITCH on SCOTUS. If you don’t survive, well, apologies and your still toast! It’s a DEM WIN-WIN!!
“you know, they kind of legalized a lot of his criminality.” (AOC)
KBJ is happy this morning. Now she’s only the second dumbest person in DC.
Sam,
Respectfully, it’s dangerous to think that AOC is dumb.
Maybe so, but she she is scary ignorant of the foundations of our constitutional republic and the checks and balances holding it together for 250 years
AOC is nothing more than a placeholder mouthing the latest socialist paroles.
Anonymous,
Respectfully, it’s dangerous to think that AOC is ignorant of anything that she works so hard to destroy.
“. . . she is scary ignorant of . . .”
Exactly what I meant by “dumb.” She’s the embodiment of today’s D’s: Ignorant, Soviet-style power-lusters with a single urge: to subpoena, impeach, jail the opposition for political “crimes.”
Sam,
AOC is “dumb” or “ignorant”? Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, and Mao Zedong too? Adolph Hitler too? Oh, okay … I guess we’ve got nothing to worry about.
Stephen, the point I believe you are mistaken with is that AOC is so kind of leader like those you listed. IMO, she’s simply a replaceable figurehead. The people that tell her what to think are the dangerous ones – she’s a spokesmodel.
bob,
Oh. Okay. I guess you have more information about her than I do.
“AOC is “dumb” . . .”
You’re making this much more complicated than it is.
There are dumb plumbers, bakers, mechanics — as in: They don’t know what they should know about their subject matter. And, as with AOC, there are dumb politicians.
Your attempted reductio ad absurdum is absurd (and insulting). And your hostile sarcasm is childish.
You equate dumb with “nothing to worry about.” If an electrician is dumb, that’s a lot to worry about. More so for politicians in power.
Sam,
You call AOC dumb. You call me childish. I get it.
“but she she is scary ignorant of the foundations of our constitutional republic and the checks and balances holding it together for 250 years.”
Disagree. SHE is not ignorant of those facts. She was graduated from Yorktown Heights High School. Not too shabby a community. Politics notwithstanding, she was graduated cum laude from Boston University in 2011 with a degree in international relations and economics. She deems the aforementioned irrelevant where her socio-political and economic philosophies are concerned in that the electorate which supports her is scary ignorant and therefore serve as a useful tool to her purpose.
Trapper John,
I don’t know how smart AOC is. I don’t know how informed she is.
I’ve long been troubled by Tucker Carlson, President Trump, and people (even on this blog) who probably don’t have all that much information about her, and who simply call her dumb and uninformed.
I’m glad there are people (like you) who understand that who AOC is (and who her relationships are with) is a question that deserves more thoughtfulness and less name-calling.
“I don’t know how informed [AOC] is.”
Then why do you criticize those of us who call her “dumb?” (And, yes, I am fully aware of her political convictions and her flighty style.)
“. . . she was graduated cum laude . . .”
Academic pedigree today is meaningless. The well-known expression for AOC and her type is: degreed illiterates.
She is the newly powerful. It goes to the head in most cases making many dizzy and drunk with power. Is that what causes arrogance? It’s a roof with a rotten beam and most dangerous. Is the vice pride, Esq?
Carpe Diem,
When it comes to vice, I’m the wrong person to ask. However, I agree with you about the “newly powerful” being “dizzy and drunk with power”. We should not forget that Leon Trotsky was the “newly powerful”, until Joseph Stalin (the even-more “newly powerful”) had another “newly powerful” person bash Leon Trotsky in the head with an axe.
Right. It’s unfortunate that dems chose to be bulls in a china shop. Most unfortunate…
Steven, this is a problem with Republicans (and Democrats). As you noted, they don’t assess a political rival intelligently, which is necessary to deal with them effectively. Even though AOC is unaware of important knowledge for a legislator, I judge AOC as significantly above average. She graduated cum laude from BU, which puts her at the minimum in the top third of her class. One can guess indirectly that her IQ ranges from 115 to 135.
Unlikely, Obama was also president and a Nobel winner. These days anyone can claim anything and plant papers to prove it. She’s exceedingly clever. Exceedingly manipulative is not a treasured characteristic. She’s also a media creation. imho
“She’s also a media creation.”
This is important to remember. The left relies on the media, and her team knows how to use it.
Democrats are fascists!
Remember Millions of Socialists just like our democrats VOTED for Hilter and HIS FASCISM!
Democrats are fighting a CIVIL WAR…every Democrat voter is STUPID!
So you’re saying Americans voted for Hitler?
“So you’re saying Americans voted for Hitler?”
Perhaps a re-visiting of the pre-WWII times and activities of the German-American Bund across these United States is in order, then fast forward to the present. It gives one insight as to what is possible in the minds of this citizenry, or any citizenry for that matter. France, perhaps?
Gotta love AOC! Just when you thought mankind had achieved a new level of intellectual achievement, then nature farted, and she’s the result. Calling her a bimbo is far too kind.
You just want to date her, anon.
Happy Holidays one and all!
Every time I think I’ve heard the absolute craziness, they go further. As as 2028 presidential candidate…will she declare herself “president” forever in a “democracy”?
Ahhh, the anti-depressant crowd has arrived. She will not declare herself anything she isn’t told to declare.
But those that tell her what to think may very well believe they will become ‘president or mullah for life.’
It’s fitting that one such as she should rise to such a position in the end of it. It’s creepy quite honestly. lol
AOC is an exemplar of two things:
==
A. Misspent youth
==
B. Lily Tomlin’s observation that sometimes the worst thing that can happen to you is to get what you want.