Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Oh good, his number's coming up. This wicked man is a big reason why the world has fallen to the state it's in.
Do you want to make the Bitch McTurtle sub or shall I?
Wow. That does not look good.
Can we have some term limits, please?
Can you imagine how many problems simple term limits would fix?
Term limits empower lobbyists and career staffers and encourage legislators to give less of a shit about their constituents. I know "career politician" is often considered a dirty word, but having competent, knowledgeable elected officials is a good thing.
They are already openly corrupt. Term limits would result in younger candidates in touch with this century. Lobbyists would also have to bribe new people. It might also break up the ridiculous 100% party voting.
Not to mention help with our Supreme Court problems. Randomly giving appointments that last decades to whoever is president in at the time is insane.
I really don't think we have that many competent elected officials anyway.
Yes, eliminating gerrymandering and citizens united would be more effective, but I wouldn't kick term limits out of bed.
We have term limits in Florida. They have done nothing to solve any problems, and arguably have made the quality of our officials worse, while giving much more power to lobbyists.
None of that has happened in the states that have term limits. If you think Republicans, no matter how long they have been in office, are going to start putting anyone other than Federalist Society drones on the courts, I'm not sure I can have a good faith argument with you.
Finally hells freezing over.
Like. He's hell and got real cold. Not that hells freezing over.
NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
No person shall hold an elected or appointed position past the age of 10 years younger than average life expectancy, to be updated each census year. A special election is held to replace the person when this age is reached in the case of elected office. A new appointment required in 30 days for appointed positions.
One of the few issues where you can legit say "both parties are as bad as each other".
Half these people should be retired.
Because it isn't right vs left, it's various flavors of have vs the have nots. Just half the have nots (probably more) are stupid as shit, according to the other half. Then we just bicker while they fucking fleece our dumbasses.
Keep saying it. Everyone agrees and yet congress doesn't enact it 🤔 I'm just glad the oligarchs understand the will of the people better than us rabble!
I like this, but I'd drop the special election in favor of disqualifying candidates who would age out during their term.
Or just make it so the age is a limit for the start of their term, and if they age out, they simply can't run again.
Already you can be removed if you are unable to carry out your duties. It is the will to do it that is lacking. I don't think tying terms to an average life expectancy is reasonable. You could have a pretty wide range across states for instance and people would constantly sue over how it should be calculated.
I think a better angle would be to just set term limits. Set them longer for congressmen if people want.
Imagine if this happened to Biden... How different the Maggots would have reacted.
They were calling for McConnell's resignation. They'd be right to do so if this happened to Biden as well.
Oh goodness, I hope it's nothing minor.
I generally don't wish ill will on people. That being said, this asshole isn't a human in my book. He's just an evil hate filled pile of shit, and it will be a great day for democracy and America when he does die.
I am not going to openly condemn anyone. That said, Mitch opens himself up to some interesting ethical questions.
Is it ok to sacrifice one man to save 300 hundred million?
How about to reduce the medium / long term risk to billions?
Mitch is gonna be fine, unfortunately. He just needs to consume the soul of another several hundred children to recharge the battery where his heart should be.
Everyone saying he's just old but I've reacted the same way as McConnell did multiple times when I realized the shrooms have kicked in.
We are governed by senile folks who belong in a nursing home not ruling over us.
Too bad he didn’t just die then.
Here's a write-up I made 4-years-ago, just to give a refresher on what kind of piece of shit McConnell is:
Recently, a Harvard Constitutional Law School professor denounced Mitch McConnell as a, "flagrant dickhead," now, Trump supporters might contend that this Harvard Constitutional Law Professor is a deep-state liberal agent or without any evidence whatsoever (Edit: I'm not far off; observe this right-wing article calling him a, "crazed leftist"....). Nevertheless, the professor is in my view correct.
##Let's review some of Mitch McConnell's hypocrisy, double-standards, and blatant corruption:
Mitch McConnell in 2010:
Claims he wants bipartisanship, immediately slaps down any hope of working with Democrats.
Refusal to Cooperate with Obama on Russian Cyber-attack findings
In the run-up to the 2016 election, Mitch McConnell denied aiding and exposing to the public the fact that Russians were committing domestic cyber-attacks and attempting to covertly influence the outcome of the 2016 election for Trump:
FROM PBS FRONTLINE DOCUMENTARY:
NARRATOR: Top intelligence officials traveled to Capitol Hill to tell congressional leaders what they knew.
JEH JOHNSON, Sec. of Homeland Security, 2013-17: They were all there— the speaker, leader Pelosi, leader McConnell, leader Reid, the Foreign Affairs Committees, the Intel Committees. They were all there. And we briefed them on what we knew.
NARRATOR: Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell expressed skepticism about the intelligence and warned that he would not join an effort to publicly challenge Putin.
RYAN LIZZA:They’re told by Mitch McConnell, the majority leader of the Senate, that, “If you do that, we’re going to interpret that as you putting the thumb on the scales for Hillary Clinton.”
NARRATOR: The meetings were top secret, held behind closed doors.
JOHN BRENNAN: In those briefings of Congress, some of the individuals expressed concern that this was motivated by partisan interests on the part of the administration. And I took offense to that and told them that this is an intelligence assessment. This is an intelligence matter.
GREG MILLER: It’s a moment when politics and partisan positioning appears to take precedence over national security. In other words, they’re so worried about each other, the Democrats and Republicans as adversaries, that they can’t get around the idea that there is a bigger adversary.
NARRATOR: In Moscow, President Vladimir Putin denied being at the center of the hacking, but he seemed pleased to be the center of attention.
McConnell's blocking of Executive Appointments & the Supreme Court Nuclear Options:
In 2013 The Republicans were blocking every routine (70+) appeals court appointment by Obama. Reid got pissed at the obstructionist games and bypassed the super-majority approval requirement to keep the executive branch moving:
In 2013, Reid invoked the “nuclear option,” a historic move that changed a long-standing Senate rule, dropping the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster from 60 to a simple majority for executive appointments and most judicial nominations — a decision he justified because of trouble getting through court confirmations in the latter half of the Obama Administration
... to which McConnell responded:
At the time, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other Republicans warned Reid that he would regret implementing the nuclear option.
“What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority,” Republican Sen. John Thune warned.
The key part? Reid specifically excluded Supreme Court appointments from the nuclear option.
Reality is that McConnell would've done that regardless and if he really cared about the Constitution he would've taken the high road and not lowered the bar. Reid was just a convenient nonsensical excuse. It falls entirely on McConnell, not only for lowering the Supreme Court nomination bar, but causing the unprecedented obstructionism in the first place. McConnell's true colors and lack of standard is shown by his recent actions of having one standard for Dems in, "Not letting an outgoing President appoint a lifetime Supreme Court Justice," to—suddenly—saying "we'd fill a Supreme Court vacancy during a Presidential election year." Pure. Hypocrisy.
By the way: The obstructionism was unprecedented in 2013 by Republicans. In 2005, Democrats were blocking only 10 of 214 judicial nominations. In 2013? Republicans were blocking 59 executive branch nominees and 17 judicial nominees. (And again, in 2005, excluding the Supreme Court wasn't under discussion, either).
Per Politifact:
In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was much closer to being correct when he said, "In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents." His figure included non-judicial nominees.
The bottom-line is that McConnell and McConnell alone invoked the Nuclear Option for Supreme Court Appointments, a step Reid did not take and had restraint. Reid could've, but he didn't. If he did, then yes, it would've been the Dems' fault. If the best argument conservative apologists have truly is that "But the Dems did it," then not only are they invoking a Whataboutism, Tu Quoque (aka, two-wrongs-make-a-right) fallacy, they're also invoking a false-equivalence since they never touched Supreme Court appointments.
What makes this all so amusing is that Merrick Garland once had bipartisan support for being appointed to the SCOTUS 6 years prior, but following Scalia's death in 2016 and being an Obama nomination, McConnell was blocking it (sticking to his outright declared commitment to obstructing Obama from the very beginning of his Presidency when he, again, said):
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president
Those aren't the words of someone willing to compromise and work together. Let me be very clear: Republicans were to blame for the division, the gridlocking, the obstructionism. Let's not forget that McConnell also fell in line when the government was twice shutdown by Republicans when they held peoples' safety & paychecks hostage for political expediency.
During Obama's final term in office, McConnell denies appointing Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS (and who by the way had no sexual assault accusations), and who originally had bipartisan support—only because Obama nominated him:
Senator Orrin Hatch, President pro tempore of the United States Senate and the most senior Republican Senator, predicted that President Obama would "name someone the liberal Democratic base wants" even though he "could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man."[79][80] Five days later, on March 16, Obama formally nominated Garland to the then vacant post of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.[81][82]
In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.[
That outright proves Republicans are the issue at coming to agreement on nominations, not Democrats.
On enabling the potential obstruction of the Mueller investigation
Later, after again spouting vacuous words about bipartisanship, denies passing simple "better safe than sorry" legislation to protect the integrity of Robert Mueller's investigation from the likes of Sessions, Whitaker, and then Barr. (literally no reason not to unless you're enabling or hoping for obstruction).
He blue screened
Lmao
The libs bending over backwards to lick his arse in the name of "civility" despite spending every single day of his life working to kill the poor and inflict maximum suffering on the working class in the name of extracting the largest amount of wealth into bougie pockets all deserve the same suffering. The man has killed thousands of people with a pen. Frankly this only happening to him now that he's 81 is far less than he deserves.
Obviously he pooped his pants.
This old ghoul needs to retire - or be retired.
This is the weirdest old people’s home.
That's actually a great idea. Just like they make those old folks homes with a fake old town, maybe we can make an old folks home for old politicians where we let them speak to each other on podiums. provide fake news that refers to their speeches, and lets them think red or blue or taking the lead.
Then lets put most of congress there.
I was talking to a friend about it earlier. We need a congressional old folks home with locks on the doors.
The best speech he's ever delivered
Anyway, remember how hard he worked to take away benefits from 9/11 first responders?
I have no sympathy for this man, anybody else want to just reminisce about the horrible shit he's done instead?
I hope he just dies. He isn't a human being.