230

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell moved behind the scenes to reassure his allies and donors he can do his job after he froze for the second time in as many months in public – even as questions persist over how long the 81-year-old Kentuckian will stay as Republican leader.

McConnell, who has served for 16 years as the GOP leader, the longest of any Senate leader in history, has repeatedly made clear he’s staying in his job until the end of next year when the 118th Congress ends – something his confidantes say hasn’t changed even after his recent health scares.

But McConnell has consistently sidestepped questions about whether he would run for leader in the next Congress, which begins in 2025.

Following a recent concussion after falling and hitting his head in March, coupled with his two public frozen moments, Republican senators and aides told CNN they are doubtful he will try to run for the job again – potentially opening up the GOP leadership role for the first time since McConnell took the reins in 2007.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MrJameGumb@lemmy.world 123 points 1 year ago

Every time a liberal gets a head cold the republicans start screaming that they're not physically capable to hold office anymore, but Mitch McConnell can have a stroke on live tv in the middle of a debate and they're ready to give him another year... Sound pretty typical

[-] Treczoks@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago

Just wait for the arguments they shell out when he permanently freezes on life TV.

"He is just temporarily inconvenienced, he will keep doing his job. Just disregard the libreal lies of that doctor who said he did the autopsy!"

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Speaking of which, I don't think I've heard Republicans calling for Feinstein to retire, even though that's a very obvious and easy target.

[-] Yewb@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

hE hAs a HeArInG PRoBleM

[-] creamed_eels@toast.ooo 3 points 1 year ago

I’m pretty sure they’ll just have someone jam their hand up his ass so they can control him like some kind of addled, desiccated muppet and prevent any more of these visible strokes

[-] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

No no, he was just up too late watching a baseball game!

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

As much as people make fun of when people say this, this really is a "both sides" problem. Celebrating Biden tripping is wrong, celebrating Trump tripping is wrong- same with mental health issues. But, Trump was attacked for mental health in 2020 with the whole cognitive test incident, so I don't think it's fair to act like it's entirely one sided. Ultimately it should be up to voters to decide whether their representative is fit, not an impeachment committee. Also, personally I prefer someone with memory issues but is representing what I vote for than someone who is perfectly neurotypical but contradicts my beliefs.

[-] MrJameGumb@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

Trump was made fun of because he went on national television to brag about how he aced a test that proved he could identify shapes and colors and pictures of cartoon animals.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It was a memory test, IIRC he was talking about the results because of accusations of dementia before he took the test.

[-] MrJameGumb@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Yes, I believe the issue was that he seemed to be saying "look, I don't have full on dementia and that proves definitively that I'm fit to lead an entire country"

He was really setting the bar pretty high there

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I mean yeah ideally the bar would be pretty high to depose an elected office undemocratically.

[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

Bro, Trump doesn’t have to trip over shit. I don’t care how that dude does or does not walk. Have you ever heard words come out of his mouth?

This word vomit was choked out in 2016 and mother fucker never decided to prove afterwards that he was just not feeling it that day. He never redeemed himself. He’s had 7 fucking years to show us otherwise. He hasn’t. Dude is legit missing something in his body that is very crucial in forming a coherent sentence.

"Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible."

The problem here is that is not a one off. It’s not a fluke. He just is like that 100% of the time and love the guy, hate the guy, whatever, but that should never be allowed anywhere near nuclear weapons. It is just unsafe to 9 billion other people. It’s not okay. It’s fucking terrifying.

[-] Gork@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

That word salad is so bad that apparently foreign news organizations had a hard time translating it into other languages.

[-] yata@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nevermind other languages, they have problems just translating it into English. There was the infamous A.P. interview back in 2017 where they had to write "unintelligible" several times throughout the interview when quoting what he said.

[-] Kalcifer@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You claim that you believe that there is a problem with elected officials being incompetent, and yet you then contradict yourself by stating that you are part of the problem:

personally I prefer someone with memory issues but is representing what I vote for than someone who is perfectly neurotypical but contradicts my beliefs.

You are correct that the voters have the power to change their representatives if they are found to be incompetent, so use it. Don't fall victim to the ostrich effect.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You claim that you believe that there is a problem with elected officials being incompetent,

I don't know where I said that to be honest. but I don't know that I would agree that its always clear based on someones behavior in publicly speaking that they are incompetent as a president.

[-] Kalcifer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Every time a liberal gets a head cold the republicans start screaming that they’re not physically capable to hold office anymore, but Mitch McConnell can have a stroke on live tv in the middle of a debate and they’re ready to give him another year [...]

As much as people make fun of when people say this, this really is a “both sides” problem. [...]

You quite evidently agreed that there is a problem with incompetence, as the previous user pointed out.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No the both sides problem is reveling in political opponents bad health

[-] Kalcifer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Hm, I would be very hesitant to say that the voters are enjoying the fact that their representatives are in poor health. Unless you are inferring that jests directed at one side for voting in an individual who is in poor health is "reveling in politicial opponents bad health".

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Hm, I would be very hesitant to say that the voters are enjoying the fact that their representatives are in poor health.

What do you mean? I'm saying saying most voters enjoy their own representatives poor health.

Unless you are inferring that jests directed at one side for voting in an individual who is in poor health is “reveling in politicial opponents bad health”.

That's not how I would interpret it- but that may be how you do.

[-] Kalcifer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

What do you mean? I’m saying saying most voters enjoy their own representatives poor health.

Yeah, that's what I just said that you said.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Haha I mistyped, I meant to say "I'm not saying"

[-] Kalcifer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I meant to say “I’m not saying”

Then what did you mean by "the both sides problem is reveling in political opponents bad health"? Taken litterally, that statement is saying that people are enjoying the fact that their political opponents are in poor health.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Kentucky voters might revel in Biden's health

Californian voters might revel in McConnell's health

[-] Kalcifer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I don't understand what you are objecting to in my interperetation, then. You are confirming that my interperetation of your statement is correct.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You said I was claiming voters revel in their own representatives poor health. I said instead that voters might revel in the poor health of the representatives of majority politically opposing voters.

[-] Kalcifer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Still, I would be very hesitant to make such a claim.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not claiming all or even the majority of voters are, I am saying I have seen plenty of individual voters- in person, on YouTube, and on here reveling in it

[-] syrooks@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

What do you mean you don’t know where you said that? It was the comment the other person directly replied to… the last sentence…

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I said the opposite on that sentence?

this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
230 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2148 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS