264 points

You watch. They will only take his congressional seat from his cold, dead hands. He would have to be a drooling vegetable.

Anyway, if Democrats won’t get rid of Feinstein, Republicans sure as hell won’t get rid of McConnell.

permalink
report
reply
141 points
*

It’s going to take these old assholes dropping dead in the Capitol before we start doing anything but bitching about the ages of our congresspeople. And yes, anyone selfish enough run for re-election when they’re over the age of 70 is an asshole in my book

permalink
report
parent
reply
91 points

Strom Thurmond was wheeled into the Senate in his hospital bed at 99 years old and died in office in 2003, didn’t change a thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

That’s still insane and I lived through it. Never got over the shocked pikachu face of that one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I remember that. Man, that was so weird to watch.

permalink
report
parent
reply
67 points

It’s not really about age. There are plenty of older people who are still functioning fine. Hell, Biden is almost as old as Mitch, but he’s physically fit and doesn’t go into fugue states. (And the claims that his stutter and verbal gaffs are evidence of decline are utter bullshit. He’s been that way his entire life.)

Where we’re fucking up is that we don’t have any systems in place to require our elected officials or candidates to be mentally sound. We should require people running for or in elected office to pass cognitive tests the same way we require people on the roads to pass driving tests. Yes, more of the elderly will fail those tests because age is a factor, but the focus should be on “can this person do the job,” not “is this person too old.”

Mitch might be someone who’d be removed from office with a test like that, but it would also potentially catch young guys with catastrophic mental health issues, like Herschel Walker, who got frighteningly close to public office while showing blatant signs of illness.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

An independent health exam to determine cognitive fitness every year you serve in public office once you’re over 65 was my thought when I saw this news last night.

It wouldn’t have stopped Walker but it would take care of McConnell and Finnstein. As well as any Supreme Court Justices that go that way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I think it would be completely reasonable to put an upper age limit on elected officials - say you can’t run after 75. You can run right before 75 and serve as an elected official for a few more years, but after that you’re done.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

And the claims that his stutter and verbal gaffs are evidence of decline are utter bullshit. He’s been that way his entire life.

I mean, it’s not reason to get rid of him, but he hasn’t had it his whole life.

He had it as a child, but there’s a bunch of footage of him in politics for over 40 years…

The vast majority of that time he didn’t have any stutter or gaffes. I don’t even think it was happening when he was VP.

But as we age we lose that “filter” where we think before we speak. Which often causes the re-emergence of childhood speech impediments along with a lot more serious stuff.

Like I said, it’s not a reason to impeach him, but it’s definitely a reason to ask why we’re expecting him to be president for four more years.

Especially since the main reason he said he ran was the country needed him because only he has the Senate experience to work with Republicans…

And then immediately after assuming office he said he can’t do anything to even get Democratic senators to support the party platform.

So why are we running him again instead of a primary?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

My question is why are Americans electing them? While we have a similar age group structure, if anything our median age is larger, middle age of our parliament is little bit over 47 years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Ribbit

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

Both parties should agree they’ll force McConnell to step down if Feinstein is also forced to step down.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

Would you give up your queen for a rook?

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Depends on the position of the board.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

McConnell is still a powerhouse in the senate. Feinstein is basically a babbling sack of flesh that votes as she’s told.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Is Santos still there?

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

He’s the new Strom Thurmond

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

A lot of these guys want to be zipping around in those beeping, star trek chairs. Just a room full of beeps as they still try and “talk” over each other.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Republicans are more likely to drop McConnell than Dems are to drop Feinstein before 2024. Trump keeps blasting on McConnell and turned the MAGA crowd against him.

permalink
report
parent
reply
114 points
*

Lol I love these articles always “calling for resignation” of Congress people. Mitch will resign when he’s dead and not a moment sooner, this slimy piece of shit has more power than the president and he has the position for life. And he’s evil enough to wield it very effectively. He’ll never give it up.

permalink
report
reply
27 points

Pretty much. The Fed is more and more becoming an assisted living center and those being assisted will go out when they’re dead. We need term and age limits, but that will be one issue the aisle is crossed many times to put down.

permalink
report
parent
reply
53 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-40 points

In context it’s pretty obvious I’m talking about the federal government in general. Nit picking that is just an excuse to start something.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

and even doesn’t even know what’s happening enough to make a decision whether or not to resign, his staff will keep him propped up for as long as they can wring a little bit of power out of his husk.

just like feinstein’s staff have been doing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Yet his constituents keep voting for him

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Kentucky voting numbers are absolutely embarrassing

https://elect.ky.gov/Resources/Pages/Turnout.aspx

14% turned out to vote but that’s not because voters don’t want to vote, the state just makes it impossible for the majority to even cast a vote

permalink
report
parent
reply
91 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
41 points

People are pissed about that, but we know from experience that repugnicans don’t resign over that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I’ll still never get over Bill Clinton resigning over a blowjob but Trump paid for a hooker and got off scott free

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

Clinton didn’t resign, but he did get impeached.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

It’s called hypocrisy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

One side’s calling for it because he’s destroying democracy

The other side is calling for it because he’s not destroying democracy fast enough.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

How much Kentucky land has he sold off to to foreign businesses? Guy has been a walking security nightmare.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

They think in his current state he will be less effective in screwing over his republican voters

permalink
report
parent
reply
68 points

Dude’s bones are barely propping him up. Why are these geriatrics allows to continue to run our government?

permalink
report
reply
49 points

Because people keep voting for them, or they simply run unopposed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

They run unopposed because the people voting for them are literally brainwashed

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

They live in Kentucky. Saying they have a brain is far fetched.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

While I understand the urge to come to this conclusion, it’s a simpler hypothesis that they just like the policies these people have pushed for, so much so that they disregard all the negatives that seem to be connected to Republican control (lower life expectancy, ineffective government programs[^1], lower standard of living, etc. You might call it “brainwashing” but that term in this context is too vague; they could claim we are also brainwashed with the same amount of accuracy.

Also, while it isn’t your point, this would be a reason they keep getting voted in-- not a reason they run unopposed.

[1] This may be seen as a good thing, for some of them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Because a lot of our government runs off seniority, so people that have been around for decades are disproportionately powerful.

And the party leaders for both sides won’t support age/term limits, because they’d be the first ones affected.

The ones next in line don’t want to change the system, because it’s almost “their turn”.

So only the most junior politicians have a reason to support it, and they know if they do, it’s a death sentence to their political careers because senior leaders will take it personally

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Dont forget the bonus money that comes from holding key committee assignments.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Agreed.

The power of being an incumbent and having all that money from special interest groups paying you to influence your policies is hard to run against.

Democrat or Republican, why would they walk away from that cash cow? They’re all out for themselves and not for who they represent.

permalink
report
parent
reply
61 points

They forgot to feed him enough poor people this week.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

He’s eaten enough poor people, they forgot to give him his daily head of lettuce.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Emergency treatment was nutra-blend of low-income household babies.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 476K

    Comments