Jon Stewart & AOC Take On Trump’s Comeback and Rebuilding the Democratic Party
...so you have this act that's brought forth. And Republicans say, OK, well, you know,
this person, if you have a criminal record, if you've, you know, sexually assaulted somebody,
you know, you should be deported. And so that's the guise of this bill, right?
And they said, so that should be the law. Except that's not what's in this law because, A,
that is existing US law. It is existing US law. ... But this is what the right does. They exploit these, like, very narrow individual cases. But the existing law in the United States is that if you are undocumented and you commit a crime, you are put on priority number one for deportation. That is standing US law.
Now, here's what Laken Riley does, actually, is that they use that guise to then dramatically erode constitutional rights in the United States tucked into that bill.
JON STEWART: No due process, then, for someone who is--
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: That's right. So now, in this bill, all you need to do is be accused of a crime. And you don't have to be fully undocumented. It works against Dreamers, too. So you could be here. You could have lawful, you know--
JON STEWART: So they take a narrow common sense issue, and then what they do is they expand the margins out on it to things that would not be common sense.
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: This is Patriot Act all over again. This is using this guise of national security to ... erode not just the civil rights of this population, but your civil rights, too.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Be kind. Don't be mean. If you are mean, you are deleted.
Tags
Who is online
64 visitors
I think that she is smart, perceptive and engaging. And we cannot possibly get any worse than the current President.
promote this to the front page, Thomas
I tried putting it there to begin with, but I must have done something wrong because the little check box "Promote to front page" was not there...
wonky computers. Mine's been acting up
AOC is my Rep. I met her first in the lobby to my building when she first ran for Congress. There are damn good reasons MAGA are desperate to defame her. She is brilliant, beautiful, energetic. AOC is incredibly visible here. She seems to always be distributing food to the needy, planting a community garden or helping clean a blighted park. She scares the bejesus out of MAGA throwbacks. Rightfully so...
Consider yourself lucky. Elise Stefanik is mine at least for the remaining time till she is confirmed as UN Ambassador.
[✘]
[✘]
test
ing
test
[✘]
I'll definitely vote for her if I am alive when she runs.
Thank you for your support.
Can't see the video for some reason (even though I am logged in). My view of AOC is mixed. I don't fully understand all of her progressive points of view, because. . . although there does not appear to be an actual Middle (Moderate) ground all to itself in politics (most of us are liberal in some ways and conservative in others), I firmly believe the extremes of politics-on either end-is aiding in tearing this nation's cohesion apart. We have to get back to compromise and not 'winner take all' if we wish to continue with any semblance or literal peace.
Perhaps this will work.
And, I am not sure this country is ready (certainly republicans that might crossover to join democrats in a crisis vote appear to not be) for its first female president. The last two tries have failed to bring the female president results!
Then it needs to get ready. That is a point of shame for the US, excluding a competent candidate on the basis of her sex.
For cryin' out loud, even Pakistan has had a female prime minister. When are we going to decide it's time to be less misogynistic than friggin' Pakistan?
Using misogyny as the reason the last two female POTUS candidates lost is disingenuous at best.
Run a good candidate and they will win. Condi Rice for example would have destroyed Trump if she ran.
I didn't say that it was.
I was responding specifically to CB's comment that the US is not ready for a female POTUS. That supposed lack of readiness absolutely is based in misogyny.
Twice Donald Trump used femininity versus masculinity to his advantage to put himself in the NARRATIVE driver's seat. And, we best believe there is a REASON why (I heard it stated) he is at the Super Bowl today: Support payback to NFL players/Fans who came out for him and 'toughness.'
One thing that disturbed me (deeply) during the campaign was this: during the 'run-up' to the presidential campaign there as this running democrat narration that the "prosecutor" would be taking on the "defendant," but after Trump had his rally. . . "incident" —the first time (I will leave it unnamed but we know what it was) she moderated her political strategy and deserted a proper application of what she really knew how to do. and (another reference to the Super Bowl here) tackle the player in the middle of the field . . . Donald Trump, then saw an opening play went she went into packaging herself on women's issues and the woman's vote. . . and he called onto the field his long-term "he Man" squad. . . invokers of thousands of butts in seats: Hulk Hogan (WWE) and Dana White (MMA) and . . and as we can see from 'ballers' signing after his presidential win that peculiar 'daddy' dance step he does to YMCA.
Trump has a proven record of winning against women candidates, even over and beyond women. (I give the 'devil' its due, here. Though I don't like it.)
Nah, it’s based on running shitty candidates. At least so far it has been. AOC will be no different if she runs. She’s less mainstream than Harris was.
I see you will continue to use the dishonest tactic of willfully misunderstanding what I wrote.
No surprise there.
That does nothing to dispel that discounting a female candidate merely on the basis of her being female is misogynistic, and something of which a nation that supposedly values equality should be ashamed.
Arvo Sandy...hmm to be honest haven't seen a decent female PM or president in yonks... certainly not down this part of the world anyway...
Gillard was an absolute dill here never got voted in, it was a change of leadership and what a disaster she was....
The NZ PM started off well then absolutely stuffed NZ and then conveniently jumped ship because they were going to get white washed in the next election...and they did...
Very few females seem to have what it takes, they are to wishy washy, start dragging their personal woes into Parliament and couldn't make a decision to save themselves or the country..
To busy with the minority issues and sucking up to the Greens eg breast feeding in Parliament or throwing personal hissy fits when the going gets tough. Or worse bawling their eyes out..God save us instead of getting on with the Government of the country...
Israel, Germany, UK probably have been the shining lights but they are very few and far between....
The one brilliant light here Julie Bishop chucked it in and left politics completely much to our detriment...
Liberals would not support a Condi Rice (and honestly I don't think conservative would either. . . did not see anybody on that side persuading her to run either). Wonder why?
My point is if the name of the game is 'Winning' . . .then if we don't want a 'three-peat' we had better get a. . . Brawler' who can ignite the passion for politics of the voting masses. . . because the republicans have a 'model' of how to win against a female candidate. Because that is what the republicans are 'teaching' themselves . . . Winning. . . personal 'honor' need not apply.
To be clear, I wanted and voted for the former V.P Harris to win. . . but, I was not so sure of her strategy once the former president opened up the 'male versus female' -angle. . . I was on 'edge' and 'deflated' when I felt that it was 50/50 and we would have to see where the 'cut' fell. Unfortunately for me, it was on Trump's side of the line.
Male heads of state have messed up every bit as badly.
I mean, we have Trump. Nuff said.
George W. Bush, who ignored intelligence leading up to 9-11 and got us into a war that destabilized the ME even worse than it already was, over nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
Putin, who seems intent on starting WWIII for shits and giggles.
I thought that overall, Jacinda Ardern did a pretty good job as PM for New Zealand. She handled the Christchurch shooting very well, and NZ did far and away better than the rest of the world in the early days of the Covid pandemic, largely due to her leadership. Perhaps she thought that in resigning, she gave the Labour Party a chance at winning the next election, as her popularity was waning.
I have no reason to believe that women are not every bit as capable of running a country as men are.
And as you seem to think that Julie Bishop did well as Minister for Foreign Affairs for Australia, I assume you believe she'd have been a good PM, had she held that position.
I'm not saying that I think you personally are misogynistic. On the contrary, I have always known you to stand up for women.
I'm saying that the mindset that a woman shouldn't be nominated for an office just because she's a woman is backward and speaks ill of the nation. The same was said about Black candidates before Obama. It prevents progress, both for the country as a whole, and for groups that have been denied representation.
And TBH, any party that chose its candidate on the basis of such outdated prejudices deserves to lose the vote of those it excludes. There are more registered female voters than male voters. It is not wise to piss us off.
[deleted][✘]
Yes Bishop had the quality and leadership this country is lacking...she got on with the job, didn't mince her words and had a "presence" about her..even the Labor party admired her...
There are no female politicians here that are in the wings that are anywhere near what Bishop was and what we do have, are the pits along with males...
Going to be a very long time here before another female PM graces our presence after the disaster Gillard was...
There was a line I heard (and had seen 'played out' throughout the presidential campaign and is actually being executed in real-time in D.C now in policy 'prescriptions'). .that is: "The end justified the means" - I can't recall who stated it on one of the cable news. The point being this. There were some 'serious' and persistent lies told by Trump during the campaign season. . . and Trump even met with Muslims (remember that last-dig meeting which occurred in Dearborn, Michigan - home of the controversial 'Islamic' vote this season, which likely went to Trump). I remember the short and 'sweet' presser where the Mayor of Dearborn, Michigan appeared at the arrival of Trump, took brief questions from the assembled press and then stated he and "Mister" Trump would now go into a meeting. . . presumably to see if they could get something from him. . . they could not from V. P. Harris.
Republicans played "hardball." They "lied." They gaslighted the voters. And as we can see with Elon Musk . . . they took elections because they had the 'excesses' of a billionaire who had surely set his designs on being a 'player' in the game.
In hindsight we can see this was politics as usual, and at the same time - politics as we have never known it.
We have to be fully aware that a "wedge" formation is occurring on the Right. They simply plan to win: Winning is the game. They are smearing, 'spitting,' splitting, cheating, 'massaging,' cutting 'quick and dirty' deals, not honoring their spoken words, changing the rules in the middle of the 'play,' and above all hoping that taking RISK will get them the prize.
In the last two elections. . . it has. A 'three-peat' would seriously cripple the democrats and 'totally' demoralize us. We have to be strong. . . in our next 'chapter' because all our marbles are at risk.
No one said they would.
Don’t worry, it won’t happen. She is too smart to get involved in todays politics.
Just so.
Basically, CB, that boils down to "you women expecting to have a place in government weakens us. Go home. You don't belong here. Oh, but be sure to vote for us."
Once Trump is gone, that shit ain't gonna fly. The Dems have played softball for years. When the GOP prevented Obama's SCOTUS nomination from being confirmed, they grumbled quietly. When Clarence Thomas was shown to have financial conflicts of interest while hearing cases before SCOTUS - barely a peep. So, their feebleness finally led to women losing the right to abortion, even when their lives are in danger, in some states.
But, hey, women are supposed to trust them to protect our interests, and also accept that somehow WE are the problem, and will just be in the way?
Nope.
[✘]
No, Sandy that means we have an opponent that is forming a phalanx (of lies, smearing, projections, 'fierce rhetoric,' gaslighting, 'blocking,' calling right-wrong, stamping wrong-right, and the list goes on and on) of which they have surmised a heading: WINNING.
Our candidate, male or female, female or male, with have to fight "like hell," to use a common parlance politically, to stand victorious. Hell, they will even have to do so in 2026 election cycle. Because, well, the conservatives imagine they have a 'playbook' now. Apparently, they have been watching our training videos and 'game tape' and learned from the 'best' what to do and—not.
We have to be smart(er) next time. I want a 'win' we will need it. May the best "woman" or "man" win (for us)!
Women are NOT the problem. I believe in women and believe in a woman skills to lead us. I have been made to 'understand' that for whatever reason young men and some other voters of both sexes, did and do not believe in women in the last two presidential election where women went against Trump. That's a problem which needs the 'right' fix whatsoever it is this time around. It is what it is.
It will be a cold day in Hades before I would ever even think about voting for AOC for president. But doubt I will he alive if she ever makes it that far so it's a non issue for me.
Indeed, but that is the sort of person we need to lead us the most right now. Someone smart, qualified, understands the realities of the world, but who hates politics.
[✘]
Couldn’t agree more. One of the big reasons Trump has won twice imo. He is not part of the political status quo.
[✘]
I cannot see the precursor to your comment. Could you say to whom you refer?
i believe they are referring to Condi Rice
Correct
BTW, since this Super Bowl Sunday (and testosterone is 'flowing'), let's observe the obvious: There is a playbook (a logic) that goes if a woman runs for president. . . her political opponent when male will use male dominance factors against her to persuade the public. So the woman had better be tough as nails, and can deliver political punches hard and not 'pull' them.
I think AOC will be president someday, but it is at least 8 years away. She is for the working people, and not in the phony manipulative way Trump is. And she has real charisma. She needs some more experience though,
"She is for the working people,..."
Try telling that to the folks in her home district that she has thrown under the bus with ignoring the very high crime rates in downtown areas.
Then she really needs to work on her image to the general public. Based on the below, she would have a very hard time winning the primary races for the nomination.
That’s because she is nowhere near mainstream America. She might be mainstream Newstalkers but that’s about it.
The left wing populists are no better than the right wing populists. AOC will have to move a lot more to the center if she ever wants to sit in the Oval Office.
Yep and that ain’t happening. If does happen ….. she is lying.
Her Marxist academia indoctrination is just bored it too tight. Of that I have little doubt.
hmmm...
Jon Stewart and AOC - now that is truly a political powerhouse
There is no such thing as a little illegal, either you are here legally, or you are not.
There are people who are here legally now that Trump would make illegal. That is what she meant. Your obfuscation is noted.
“There are people who are here legally now that Trump would make illegal”
Like who exactly?
I hope he isn't talking about the dreamers, the courts have ruled that Obamas action concerning them was illegal, so they can't be for illegal actions by presidents? can they?
I am at a bit of a cross roads with dreamers.
If they were actually brought here as small children by their parents, then I think they should be able to stay, however, if they are over the age of 18 now, then their parents need to be sent back if they are still here.
There are too many of them claiming they were brought here as children, are over 18, but have no proof of this. These are the ones that need to be sent back because more than likely they are pulling a scam.
I don't blame small children for what their dumb ass parents did.
Why not just let them all stay? Except the criminals. It is ok to deport the criminals under standing law, without the added screw-turns of Laken Riley.