421
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
421 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3398 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"On Sept. 29, Dianne Feinstein, 90, died of natural causes. She had cast a vote in the Senate less than a day prior."
Banger first two sentences. As an observer not from the US, this feels like Emperors New Clothes to me. But instead of a naked emperor, you have paraded a corpse through the senate and acted as if she was a fighter like Xena, Warrior Princess or something.
As a Californian, I’ll say its been feeling damn near “Weekend and Bernie’s” for months now.
I dunno who was actually casting her votes, but I doubt they were aligned with what the people of my state would have wanted.
Natural causes my ass. Cunt had dementia and they kept her around for power ever one of her votes for the last 3 years should be invalidated.
Dementia would still be considered natural causes wouldn't it?
Not if it's magical dementia.
Anything not an accident or homicide is natural causes when you are 90.
Whose joke was it? "Hit by a car? Natural causes: if he weren't 90, he'd been fast enough to get out of the way!"
realistically the US media treats car accidents like natural causes.
The media? Damn near everybody. I can't remember who said it, but the easiest way to get away with murder is to hit somebody with a vehicle.
Especially if they are on a bike.
Something awful must have happened to you as a child to refer to an old lady you’ve never met that way. IDGAF about politics. Have some respect for your damned self.
No reason to respect anyone who hasn't earned that respect. Age has nothing to do with it.
I’m saying respect yourself and show some fucking decency. This ain’t about anyone but you. Hold yourself to a higher standard.
Bro you're not even responding to the person who said the original comment that you were responding to. She was a cunt don't let her age make her into a saint in your eyes. She was a greedy self-serving cunt her entire adult life. To show her respect is to kneel and submit to this bullshit continuing for another 90 years.
I’m sorry, is it particularly stupid in here today?
It doesn’t matter what she was.
You are disrespecting yourself AND degrading your point of view.
How about instead of ranting like an imbecile you pop down a couple of bullet points enlightening us as to this woman’s shortcomings?
This is a discusssion forum. “She’s a cunt.” gets us nowhere.
Why is this a controversial thing for me to point out?
Ok I agree it doesn't matter what she was. You defended her and said we disrespect ourselves for calling an "old lady a cunt". Which is it? Is it not ok to call a cunt a cunt because they're old? Just because you don't like the language we choose to use to describe this person doesn't put you on a moral high ground. I think she was a cunt care to discuss otherwise? No? Then kindly fuck off 👌
You’re so ornery you’re failing to read properly.
My ENTIRE assertion is that it’s isn’t decent to refer to an elder person person who has passed away in this fashion. Not that she deserves respect but rather that one should respect ones self by behaving in a nobler manner, at least nobler than this.
Pointless to keep arguing with children though.
Good day.
And you are raising your nose over my whole point. Fuck respecting elders for being old, most old people sure when you're talking about normal people but when it comes to these leaches on society they don't get a pass just because they are dinosaurs, their age and the fact they stay in office til the day they croak is half the god damn problem and your sticking your nose up at the language people choose to use. We are fucking fed up and you are a concern troll.
Have a day. Or don't idgaf.
Fuckity fuck fuck fuck fuck.
I said good day.
Yet you came back to have the last word. 🤡🧌
You edited your comment after I replied
Reagan “governed” with Alzheimer’s?
And astrology!
I think, tbh and fair, it was Nancy governing with astrology while Ronnie was unwell.
I think you missed one letter and a dot there.
Are we at stage "invalidating votes of senile old coots" yet? Have you SEEN how many crusty bastards are in there? I'd say the Dems would LOVE this as the demographic helps them immensely.
Weekend at Bernie’s. The film, not Sanders.
I honestly think there are now a few of those "Weekend at Bernie's" scenarios playing out in congress. McConnell comes to mind as the most obvious, he has already had a couple of public examples of him losing his cognitive abilities, but everyone pretends not to notice and they keep tripping over themselves trying to cover for him, similar to how they did with Feinstein.
I am not allowed to say hateful things here I think, but man I really hope McConnell lives a long life. He seems to be in perfect health and enjoys living by the looks of it, and I want that joy to continue for him as long as possible :) :) :)
And the rest of the establishment’s politicians seem undead. :-/
I am in favour of both age and term limits for politicians. For one, if regular people are supposed to retire at 65ish and realistically often struggle to find work once they go past their 40s, there is no reason why politicians should be allowed to stay in their jobs through their 70s and sometimes 80s.
And I am in favour of term limits because it would keep the career politicians out of the game. Very few of them are any good.
Politicians who know that their political career is about to end have the nasty habit of doing favors for their big corporation of choice, knowing that they'll receive a cushy board position in return afterwards.
If you want to establish term limits, you also need to establish some sort of accountability for the time afterwards.
Accountability is needed with or without term limits. Too many politicians are deep in the pockets of big businesses. "Professional board member" is already one of the most popular sinecures for spent politicians. Term limits aren't a silver bullet for general politician misconduct. Everything needs checks and balances, and politics has way too little of it.
I agree that we need younger people in these positions. We need those more in touch with what the average person is going through these days.
However, I disagree that we should set a hard age limit. If anything have them take some sort of cognitive exam every few years once they hit a certain age.
You need an impartial hard limit. Otherwise you get people like trump getting doctors to lie about their health. Sorry if you’re in good health and get the boot, but you knew what the limits were when you signed on.
Makes sense. Perhaps it could be something variable based on the average lifespan of the people in the country... it might even give them a little incentive to come up with a working healthcare system if it means they get to stay in office a little longer.
That’s a good idea. But cynical me says people in power like to keep that power, and they’d manipulate and restrict what data they used to calculate that average as it applies to their tenure.
True, but you can only fudge the numbers so much. And it would help to keep things in check if medical advancements are made in a way that only allows the rich to have a drastically longer lifespans.
You'd really want a hard number right around 65-70. People by that age have some level of cognitive decline, there's evidence that around 50 is where it starts going down.
Right, what I mean by "based on the lifespan of the people" would be more of a percentage... not the full expected average lifespan.
So, for example, it could be 80% of the average life expectancy in the U.S. which looks to be around 76, so that would put the cap around 61.
But perhaps we could base it on studies of cognitive decline instead. If some future medicine is discovered (that most people have access to) which would allow everyone to continue functioning well at an older age, then I don't have a problem if the average person is still doing well at an older age. In this case we could use some percentage of the average age of cognitive decline instead.
A cognitive exam would be a good idea regardless of any age. They need to be fit to serve.