LOL.
The hour is later than you think.
Sure, but you get that him not being able to vote in the senate is helpful right now, right?
His staffers have committed fraud & have also apparently committed forgery.
They need to be indicted in 2029.
We will have to do it. Not them. By force and probobly indite some of them to. (edit, minor typo)
The Democrats have no appetite to indict the GOP
Democrats have no power to investigate, let alone indict, the GOP.
They’re too busy figuring out how to make Marxism work while the GOP shields pedophiles.
Thinking the Democrats have any connection to leftist ideology, much less Marxist philosophy, is a monumentally ignorant thing to say.
Social Democrats do. It’s part of their plank.
deleted by creator
It points to the fact that if you want things to change, the Dems are not going to help you. I’m sorry if the truth causes you to doom-out and not be able to fight. You should work on that. Pretending in a lie so your feelings don’t hurt, so you can fight for an “option” that will not save you, is far more harmful.
It’s the political ratchet. The GOP drives things to the right and the Dems obstruct movement in reverse. Because of the realities of how elections in the US work, you’re going to get one or the other, so the choice is between “make things actively worse” or “stall.”
The only real way to effect change while operating within the electoral system is to remake the parties from within, which the right is much better at than the left, see the Tea Party and MAGA. For some reason, anyone in the US even a hair left of center is terrible at messaging.
deleted by creator
Saying “the Democrats have no desire to change things or save us” is not the same as saying “there is no hope”.
I mean this from the bottom of my heart. Things are very very bad. If your mental state has deteriorated to the point where you feel that the truth is “doomerism” and that you need to believe in false hope just to mentally survive, you need to genuinely tend to your mental health. Fussing at your triggers online is not helping. In fact if you’re like most people, the online time is probably only hurting.
The Democrats are not going to save you. A future where you matter can be forged, just not through them. I hope you can find some real future to hold onto🧡
deleted by creator
I do discuss viable options. I didn’t in this post. It is not viable to do so in every interaction. To take your very valid frustration with the status quo out on me, someone who sees and fights, is far more harmful than my glib reminder that the Democrats will not fix the way things are, only perpetuate them.
You seem to be very thirsty for real action. You can’t get that here, my friend.
If you still want to hang out here, and you need viable suggestions to be mentioned for your own mental health, I would suggest that you add them any time you see a comment that you feel is “dooming”. If you want the work, do the work. Hoping that people leaving 3 second comments do it, is a losing strategy. Getting angry at allies, taking your very valid frustration at your current situation out on them, hurts your cause far far more than a comment like my original one could.
I feel like their point was that if being told that democrats wont save us sends you into a doomerism spiral of misery and despair, that’s maybe something you should work on yourself. And a more sober reading of our current situation is not that one should lose all hope, but that they should find it outside the democratic party.
deleted by creator
I don’t find any less validity in saying “That’s a bad idea” vs “This thing should happen” if both have no offered substance.
It’s tough to try to indict the GOP when the majority of american voters decided they don’t care and voted the ringleader back into the White House…
Its gotta be easy to run against the worst people possible. The ads write themselves. If you want to win of course.
Maybe thats why democrats didnt want to prosecute Trump. Gotta get one more election in with the big bad guy. Plus you can genocide whoever you want and break union strikes. What are they gonna do, let trump win? I wonder who will be the bad cop after Trump croaks.
That’s adorable.
Democrats coukd win every seat in every election and they won’t do jack shit against any of these criminals.
“TiMe tO mOvE oN aNd rEuNiTe tHe CoUnTrY” or some bull shit.
He died how he lived. Subverting democracy.
Does anyone remember when Biden stepped down and Republicans were real mad that the democrats were “hiding” his decline?
WHERE’S GEORGE CLOONEY TO SAVE US?!
To the Batmobile, stat!
Term limits wouldn’t have prevented this scenario, but they would mitigate the damage any one politician can do. Term limits would greatly reduce the opportunity for a corrupt politician to become entrenched.
We need term limits for Congress.
That might upset the American nobility
I understand the appeal of term limits, but I don’t think they actually solve the problem. If politicians know they only have 2 terms then they are encouraged to play nice with industry contacts since they know they’ll be out of a job soon. Additionally, I think there’s something to be said about knowing your constituents and the inner workings of politics. A lot of political projects take a long time to realize and if people like the plan their politician has I don’t see why we’d force them out. Consistent leadership can be very helpful for long term political goals. I don’t think corrupt companies would care who they’re bribing that year. They’re just as happy to bribe one person for 40 years as 10 people for 4. If you get a good rep then it’s nice to know that you don’t have to worry about vetting a new one every time the limits come up.
The problem with what you’re saying is that your idea of a good representative isn’t everybody’s idea of a good representative.
I’m not saying they get the seat automatically forever. If people don’t like them they can still vote them out. I just think having a rep with a proven track record that you can vote for helps stop things like the Platner situation from happening every cycle. It’s hard to find people willing to put up with a public life, and often harder to find those that don’t have skeletons in their closets. I don’t know why we want to force people to find a new rep if they feel like their current one is doing well. Obviously people should be able to run against them still.
Term limits just push things to the unelected “advisors” and aids.
An age limit would be a better option. I would push for 90% of life expectancy, which is 71 in the US. If you’re over that age, you can’t run again.
I’d set it at the retirement age. Nobody over 65. Go spend time with your families ffs.
What was that? Retirement age is now 100?
or 1000 in case of mitch.
👍 Which is why I didn’t say retirement age, it can be gamed. Life expectancy can be gamed too, but I would call it acceptable if they managed to raise it significantly.
No, no, it is 65 for our government if they want, everyone else is 100.
Retirement age can be gamed. Even worse, it’s to the rich’s benefit, and our cost. Life expectancy is harder to game in a way that hurts the plebs.
I’d go for a net worth restriction. Anyone who is in the top 10% of the net worth of their constituents cannot run. Anyone who is in the top 1% of the net worth of their constituents is immediately replaced.
A McDonald’s manager and McDonald’s hiring contract would have prevented this.
Term limits are anti-democratic. You’re saying that we can’t trust the voters, so we need a rule; like they’re children. If you think the voters are the problem, then you don’t believe in democracy.
The mistake is believing that the situation with McConnell and the other dinosaurs is what the voters chose, rather than a system where the voters don’t get a meaningful choice. A system where the Senate itself is undemocratic. Not to mention the electoral college. Is McConnell’s long carrier due to his popularity in KY, or his popularity with the donor class?
We need more democracy in our democracy, not less.
Term limits are not suggesting voter competence at all they are imposed to prevent systemic, anti-democratic corruption. it’s the opposite of what you said. term limits support a healthy representative democracy. more candidates flow through, the more change.
Without finance reform first, I think it will end up going the opposite direction honestly
And once we do have finance reform, I think term limits are unnecessary
I agree with you. Career politicians are not inherently bad. In fact, they can be very good, when someone strategically works for an issue or constituency over a long period and can enact long-term change, much like having a CEO for a decade vs having a CEO for a quarter. The problem is the corruption, which is not solved by term limits. Term limits actually make it easier to capture candidates, makes them cheaper and more disposable.
We need term limits because we can’t trust politicians to not abuse their indefinite stay in office to further their own agendas and line their pockets. Adding term limits won’t fully prevent this, but it will help.
Is he dead yet?
Not officially
Mitch got smarter when his brain died. I hope he is getting bed sores.
The only thing that’s surprising is that they didn’t immediately on the stroke of midnight submit a press release of his passing, given the suggestion that he needed to make it to August 3rd in order to avoid any chance of the governor appointing his replacement. I wouldn’t have bet my own life on it, but I was halfway expecting to wake up this morning to the news of his passing.
Maybe they’re waiting a few days to make it less obvious
Gotta figure out which day has the best payouts on polymarket.
It’s sad that this is probably the answer.
They’re all about the technicalities:
"We didn’t declare him dead immediately after the deadline…
…we waited a few days! STILL COUNTS! PSYCHE!"
Dont worry, the DNC is ON IT. Schumer hasnt written a strongly worded memo on it yet, but I think he’s considering it. I know that other than Beshear muttering some weak objections and not following through, the DNC has done and said nothing at all about it, but uh… yeah vote blue no matter who.
YESSSS go Dems GO! Show the orange CHEETO!!
Schmuck is busy with his side hustle with Israel, as well as insider trading, he doesn’t have time for this shit.
Democracy is having more then two options to choose from. If the two party system is so great and everyone is fully reoresented, the blue and red conservatives shouldn’t mind replacing First-past-the-post voting with something that let’s people transfer their vote if their first pick doesn’t win.
But I guess wanting to able to vote how I want is a purity test… and we dont do that here right?
“guys, I am going to say something really brave and really controversial: Kittens are cute.”
A lot of young people are just getting interested in politics, especially new Progressives, and they’ll be seeing this for the first time. A concise synopsis can do a lot of good, so it wouldn’t hurt to be patient and move on, without being condescending. Or not.
It’s about the last line of the comment.
Can someone explain to me what the upside for the republicans is in this game?
Mitch has a very safe seat and his replacement would probably be a dependable Republican vote. Now he can’t vote, can he?
There isn’t an upside. They’re just as stuck as the Democrats are. Mitch isn’t dead, he’s likely severely incapacitated. They’d love to have him on the Senate floor voting R but he isn’t healthy enough to do so, and the only way to remove a Senator is expulsion by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. That certainly wouldn’t get enough votes and, at this point, is pretty irrelevant anyway since the seat would simply remain vacant.
But you are correct that as long as he’s ill he isn’t voting, which is a good thing, which is why there was really no need for people to be all over Andy Beshear’s nuts this past month.
If they dragged Strom Thurmond’s barely animated husk in to vote, they can wheel Mitch in to pretend like he knows what he’s doing.
“And yet, they haven’t done so.” Captain Obvious.
In order to get the war powers resolution to fail, Fetterman had to vote with them. If Mitch were declared dead, a special election would have had to have been held and anyone could have run in it.
Tommy TubervilleThomas Massie would have run, split the Republican vote and a Democrat could/would have taken the seat and that resolution would not have failed. Let’s not pretend the Republicans aren’t engaging in fraud on purpose. They are. They know precisely what they are doing and they need to be held accountable. But they’re on a very long list in that regard.I think that anybody but a Republican winning that special election was always a pipe dream.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Nah, too busy watching you do that, lol. Because people from here know the difference between Massie and Tuberville.
You’re just another very new account warming up for the midterms.
Ah, and of course you never make mistakes. Like assuming that someone who has a five day old account didn’t just move to it from their other, 3-year-old account.
Ah, and of course you never make mistakes. Like assuming that someone who has a five day old account didn’t just move to it from their other, 3-year-old account.
What a bizarre take. It’s not for me to assume anything at all about a commenter, especially in a community where people operating in bad faith change up accounts more often than I change socks. They write what they write.
If you want someone to believe you post from a three-year-old account, there’s a way to do that besides posting from a five-day old account.
And you have yet to prove that I wrote in error, because – wait for it – I didn’t.
I verify what I write before I post (usually with supporting links, as above), and when I personally err – which I cannot ever recall having done in such an egregious fashion as above – I don’t lash out in rage at the person who pointed out my error.
There are people in the world who casually communicate untruths on the regular and then complain that everyone else is stupid. And now apparently you think others should be mindreaders too, lol. Carry on, don’t let me stop you.
I heard there was also a quirk of electing a replacement. Prior to August 3rd, it would have been a new election. While republicans would normally win, they have an issue with their primary. The other republican could have run and split the vote. This could have let a democrat sneak in for 6 months.
Things I have heard, that may or may not be accurate but do not sounds like “batshit stuff.”
-
If its after the 3rd, they can’t do the special election because its too close to the regular election, I guess it takes 3 months to organize the special election. Nevermind that the special election person would get sworn in for most of November and December.
-
I have also seen, I beleive for this one, that it may be that the GOP would pick 3 replacements, and the Governor who is a Democrat, picks from.thise three, maybe I am thinking of a different state, but they risk the Governor picking the “least crazy” of the three.
-
More likely, I saw a comment that if McConnel is gone, it disrupts several comittees and could shift them to the Dems or tie them. His successor is not guaranteed to be his replacement in these comittees.
-
Mitch’s seat isn’t as safe as you think it is. I believe Charles Booker has a good chance of defeating Andy Barr in the General.
Corruption by force of habit rather than directed toward any specific goal.
Republicans don’t want democracy, they want whatever puts their beliefs first and cheating is not out of the question.
Bring out your dead!
He’s not dead. He’s just pining for the fjords.
hes waiting to see lindsey grahams soul was enough to ressurect him.
