Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a really, really bad guy.

A pretty interesting hypothetical game played pretty brilliantly by the AOC.

TLDW: She plays a bad guy and asks hypothetical questions about the legalities of enriching herself (as a politician) at the expense of the American public. She then wraps up by showing that the president actually has even more room to do so.

I thought it was pretty well done and would probably watch a lot of CSPAN if congress and their committee meetings were always like this.

Does anyone find flaws in her argument?

Does it matter? “There’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right”

This is why they are terrified of her. She’s calling out the game that everyone there knows about, and most participate in, but dare not speak of. She’s threatening that golden goose and they hate her for it. That’s why there is such an obsession over this freshmen representative. They are trying to abort her career, if you’ll pardon the expression, because she poses a threat to their cash flow.

Ooof! That was harsh!

You must be apoplectic over Trump’s “abolishing civil rights” gaffe then huh?

I don’t get “apoplectic” over much, so no.

Well you certainly seem to think its a big deal for some people to misspeak. Almost seems like you can tell by the politics of whoever was speaking whether you are going to react or not.

Where did you get the idea that I thought it was “a big deal”?

You felt the need to respond with that quote as if it had any relevance to the OP. Must be important to you.

Don’t threadshit. This is about the segment linked in the OP. Generally the ethical rules that cover congress people and the executive branch.


Tangent happily dropped.

IMO she nails in this video exactly why our government is not working. Too many agendas being represented that are at odds with the interests of the American people.

To be specific, AOC asks “is there any hard limit … on the laws I can write or influence” and the response is “there’s no limit”. I don’t think that’s correct. There are, in reality, limits on what laws Congress can enact.

You don’t think that’s correct? Based on your gut? What limits are you referring to?

What restrictions are in place to prevent representatives from writing or influencing legislation that benefits the corporations that paid to get them elected at the expense of the American public?

The Constitution, for one, imposes some limits on the laws Congress can enact. The Supreme Court has seen fit to unwind a number of Congressional actions that have run afoul of various limits. Congress also needs to either get the consent of the president to enact a law, or alternatively receive the consent of 2/3 of it’s own members in each house to override a presidential veto. That’s also a limiting factor.

That’s not precisely what was said either. Here is what was said:

If you want to get super precise, AOC is not talking about what laws Congress can enact. AOC is talking about her specific actions as a member of Congress. In any event, what limits are you thinking of? Because later in the segment they do mention certain ethical limits but those aren’t specified. Essentially her point is largely correct and I don’t find any factual errors.

That’s not the question she was asking.

Where did you find the transcript? Or did you type that up yourself?

I typed it.

So, what you effectively saying is that the limits are only imposed politically? If you have a sympathetic court, a sympathetic president, and a sufficient majority, then there are no limits. None. I think that is within the realm of what she was getting at.

I don’t doubt that AOC has good motives and intentions, but she is introducing a “bumper-sticker” mindset to politics (not that it wasn’t there before, but she’s worsening it.) Shortening every complex social/economic issue of the day down into a simple, incorrect, oversimplified misleading argument and then feeding it to the masses.
A younger, female, less-crass Democratic version of Trump.