this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
145 points (95.0% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4434 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AncientFutureNow@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No! Don't think about The Turtle! Look everybody! The libs are old and senile too! LOOK! [please don't look at the turtle. Nothing to see here. Nope The Turtle is fine. Look! It's a sleepy old person who is a democrat!!!]

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago (5 children)
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd be very supportive of disallowing senior citizens from holding any public office.

Very, very supportive.

[–] Kernal64@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

65 is generally considered the retirement age, so my proposal that I responded to another comment with is that if you're gonna turn 65 during your hypothetical term, you're not eligible to run. It's time to sail off into the sunset or sit on your porch to yell at the kids to stay off your lawn or whatever the hell. You're no longer representative of the general population and are in no position to be crafting policy for years after your death. You did your service, now step aside and let the next generation have their turn.

[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

65 is also, coincidentally, the age after which the majority of strokes occur in the US. Not to say we don’t have people who aren’t awesome senior citizens (far from it!) but the stakes are so damn high for people who are in government positions, especially when you have 6-year terms or lifetime appointments and your party really, REALLY wants to hold that seat.

[–] donescobar@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes they do, watching him do a reboot live on TV is plain sad.

[–] cyd@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

To be fair, that's about how long the typical android takes to reboot. Nothing exceptional.

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's true, but in Mitch's case it might be that staying literally kills him. He's the minority leader in the Senate, which has got to be stressful, and if the fugue state he entered was caused by a mini-stroke, he needs to be resting and avoiding stress like a literal plague.

[–] toasteecup@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But how does a plague avoid plague?

[–] Dark_Blade@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Unsuccessfully?

[–] Yendor@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

She’s already said she won’t run at the next election.

But if she steps down now, the republicans can refuse to let a new democrat sit on the judiciary committee (that she’s on), then the Republicans can just deadlock the vote to appoint any new federal judges (exactly like they did when she was on sick leave).

The US political system is broken, but Feinstein is doing the best thing she can for her party and the people who voted for her.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think they can prevent a new member being seated when they're the minority.

[–] Yendor@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Appointing a new committee member would require unanimous consent. Generally that’s easy - it’s a procedural step and the party in majority will ultimately get their way, so senators all give consent so they can get back to doing some actual work on the senate floor. But some first-term far-right republicans are withholding unanimous consent now, forcing the senate to decide if they want to waste days debating so they can vote, or just move on to something else.

Eg, Senior military promotions require senate approval, and it’s typically a matter dealt with in a few minutes because the promotions are given unanimous consent. Senator Tuberville is a first-term MAGA Republican and an anti-abortion zealot. For months now, he has been blocking military promotions, demanding that the pentagon reverse their decision to allow service members to travel out-of-state if they require reproductive healthcare. Even if the other 99 senators approve of the promotions, to take a vote they would need to table it, go to committee, debate it, avoid a filibuster, and ultimately vote on it. So a task that should take minutes can instead turn up the senate for days or weeks, preventing the senate from getting anything else done in that time.

[–] pozbo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Turtle bro didn't have a stroke, my aunt is a doctor and I'm sure he is perfectly fine. /s