and btw the term amendment WAS created for FDR, to make sure that the proles could not get another FDR into office...the elites did not like what he did..

AOC was right..

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4233299&forum_id=2#38382570)

i'm not sure what point she was trying to make though. The democratic party of 1945 was to the right of Trump on the issues she cares about.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4233299&forum_id=2#38023831)

As for the status quo, that is preserved by filling Scalia's seat with another conservative. Dems foolishly underestimated republicans on this. They thought they would just roll over an accept a "moderate" appointment to the seat formerly occupied by the most beloved conservative Justice in living memory. More than anything they were just fucking stupid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4233299&forum_id=2#38024231)

but notice WHAT POLICIES ACTUALLY GET IMPLEMENTED. they are literally what GC demands. that, too, hasn't changed since reagan

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4233299&forum_id=2#38024217)

But I do care about using the DOJ’s civil rights division to harass white communities, using the DoEdas a weapon on campus, using the HuD to forcibly “diversify” white communities, and using the military to spread shitliberalism around the globe.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4233299&forum_id=2#38024435)

on foreign intervention there is literally zero daylight between trump and any of the other 2016 candidates including hillary

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4233299&forum_id=2#38024445)

the "system" of the 1940s was completely rigged beyond ways one can even understand today, and it was completely accepted as such. Trying to learn life lessons from FDR, Truman, Dewey era as "Republican bad, democrat good" is absurdity.

also, what is she arguing? That term limits are bad?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4233299&forum_id=2#38023973)

The amendment wasn't retroactive: Truman. the POTUS at the time, would have been eligible to run as often as he wanted as per the text of the amendment.

Even if FDR *HAD* been in office when it was passed it wouldn't have done anything to prevent him from running again.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4233299&forum_id=2#38024096)

The anti-intellectualism taking over the left wing is dangerous, just as dangerous as it consuming the right.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4233299&forum_id=2#38024388)

but agree that the view that this was some "republican" scheme to undermine democracy was a stupid point. That was my point above, I don't understand what point she was making.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4233299&forum_id=2#38024450)

She said it was to prevent FDR himself from being re-elected, not to prevent someone *like* from being re-elected.

To use a contemporary analogy: this would be like, in 2024, Dems passing a bill requiring a POTUS candidate release his tax returns, and saying they did it to stop Trump from running for president.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4233299&forum_id=2#38382756)