Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez misquoted the U.S. Constitution while threatening to run for president

Those are pretty much the same choice. One is socialism for everyone but whites, and the other is for socialism for whites.

 

Yes, they could vote if they owned property. It was in democrat states that the right to own property was limited to men so women couldn't vote. Even black men who owned property could vote in the founding days of the constitution.

 

Don't forget the alt-right leader, Richard Spencer is a socialist...for only white people. Being racist for white people don't make them right wing, just as being racist against whites doesn't make you left wing. Its their economic policies that define your left/right stance.
https://libertarianheathen.com/2017...r-i-am-a-socialist-and-i-hate-the-right-wing/

 

How would that even be possible?

 

Trans age of 35? Seen it done in reverse where a 40 y/o man claims to be a 7 y/o girl.

 

I get a quick kick from watching the Fringe Right talk about politics and political systems they don't understand.

 

The alt right are economically spread from capitalist to socialist, but all share ubernationalism, ethnocentrism, racialism, border walls, anti-democracy, anti-free speech, love of the Leader Trump cult. Some are religious extremists who government to stop abortion, gay marriage, gay civil liberties, so forth and so on.

 

I doubt that Congress will ever change the definition of "age!"

 

You seem to be holding your cards pretty close to the vest. What do you want?

But in general, small government supporters want to limit the federal government to those few functions delineated by the Constitution. Note that there is no mention of healthcare or redistribution of income as Federal functions. There is no mention of controlling public education. All you have to do is look at the Federal budget. What things are specifically allowed/mandated by the Constitution?

 

I think that you will find perhaps 10 people, but probably less than that in the Venn diagram you just painted.

 

Really? They are spread out economically? I would love for some proof of this, unless you are going to say anyone who isn't establishment right is "alt-right". Many who started with the moniker of "alt-right" have abandoned that name because of the co-opt of the word by Richard Spencer. Spencer's "alt-right" is the most commonly associated movement of the phrase "alt-right" while many others, especially those who elected Trump in the primaries, are anti-establishment or now known as "right light". Their social politics line up with moderate left, ok with abortions, ok with gay marriage, ok with weed and other illicit drugs. Live and let live attitude.

 

Since you are holding the cards, you can show them. Note that no one cares whether health care or whatever is not mentioned in the Constitution. Yet the protection of slavery was in the Constitution. A common sense person realizes that the Constitution will change over time. The wave of the last 100 years, which has enveloped the Democratic Party and submerged most of the GOP, is Progressivm, a big government philosophy to use government to make necessary changes. The Constitution allows what the voters, the Congress, and SCOTUS says it allows.

 

I think you are wrong, and I am sure you can't support substantially your opinion.

 

I understand the Fringe Right cons are afraid of Big Government mainstream GOP, but there it is: tough.

 

And subsequently abolished by an amendment which falls into the realm of the way the constitution is written. Keep going back to this idea that the constitution still supports slavery is disingenuous because it doesn't.

Then it must be changed before there is a federal law that is unconstitutional. Its why the federal government made the amendment against alcohol instead of just making it illegal. The constitution was designed to keep the federal government from just making whim type laws because that wouldn't be bound by a constitutional republic type system. The Amendment process was supposed to be long and arduous to keep things that maybe didn't have the full support of the population, like Obamacare, from just being rammed down the Americans' throats.

Yep, and that's why progressivism is so dangerous. They redefine words all the time to suit their wants and needs. There is not set foundation as to what the basic wording in the 2nd A means to a progressive cause they don't like it when the people actually have power to defend themselves. Progs try to define and change grammar and syntax to strip away the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, and it shall NOT be infringed.

 

Actually many people care what is and isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Where did you get the impression that no one does? That is bizarre.
Yes, the Constitution changes. And we have a procedure to do that whenever the need arises. But you seem to favor short circuiting the process and just let mob rule govern and ignore the wisdom of the past. Good luck with that. It worked in Venezuela just fine.

 

"hey redefine words all the time to suit their wants and needs" is the mark of Trump and the fringe right.

Talk responsibly please, John: you wrote "many people care what is and isn't mentioned in the Constitution" in response to my " one cares whether health care or whatever is not mentioned in the Constitution." If you were right, we would not have the changes of the last 100 years.

Your silliness in equating Venezuela with the US is as sensible as equating Alabama with Colorado. Please think before you write.

We are not going back to pre-1913.

 

She has a nice ass

 

She cannot get around the age requirement without the Constitution appropriate statute being amended.

We all know that.

 

What words have been redefined?

Your claim re the changes of the last 100 years is simply wrong. Many people do actually care about what is said in the Constitution. Start with SCOTUS. It is their job to care. That doesn't mean changes can't occur. And they have. But you are as wrong as someone who claims no one dislikes Trump because he could not have been elected otherwise. Democrats get elected despite Republicans and vice versa. Likewise changes to the country occur in spite of people who are strict Constitutionalists and genuinely care about following it.

 

A nice smile with nice teeth, too. I might vote for her just to say I did as a conversation starter. Just like I'd like to plant a marijuana plant in the back yard, get a concealed carry permit and a motorcycle license. I don't use drugs, I don't own a gun, and I don't own a motorcycle. But just think how interesting I would be if I did all that?

 

Most of those where made by constitutional amendments.

No one is saying we should, other than to pass amendments for federal laws instead of arbitrarily making new "acts" because "amendments are hard".

 

Nonsense. I have it on good authority from this board that "the Constitution allows anything voters, congress, and SCOTUS says it does." LOL.

 

"hey redefine words all the time to suit their wants and needs" is the mark of Trump and the fringe right.

Talk responsibly please, John: you wrote "many people care what is and isn't mentioned in the Constitution" in response to my " one cares whether health care or whatever is not mentioned in the Constitution." If you were right, we would not have the changes of the last 100 years.

Your silliness in equating Venezuela with the US is as sensible as equating Alabama with Colorado. Please think before you write.

We are not going back to pre-1913.

None of that supports "strict" Constitutionalism as espoused by the Fringe Right.

 

. . . which requires an Amendment. Oh, please keep writing.