764
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 14 Nov 2023
764 points (100.0% liked)
politics
25059 readers
2012 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
He's the Chair of the Committee; it is quite literally his job to maintain decorum and everyone else's job to not speak out of turn. Only Mullin was being a child here, no reason to impugn everyone else in the room for doing what they were supposed to be doing and letting the Chair handle it.
And to be clear, mullin is doing this because he got his fee fees hurt by a mean twitter reply.
Really? The guy who challenged him to a fist fight "anytime, anywhere" and then agreed to it in the chambers wasn't being a child? Only the one who accepted the challenge? How does that work?
He was not challenged to a physical fight. He was the challenger. He challenged the senator to a physical fight. Then while in Congress, his challenge was accepted.
They're both clowns.
No, he fucking tweeted. Mullin is clearly in the wrong and the obvious instigator. It's like you've not even watched the fucking video
Yes, that's correct, the instigator tweeted a challenge to a fist fight to the senator "anytime, anywhere", which the senator accepted.
Both idiots are clearly in the wrong here but people here are only interested in defending their favorite tribe, and don't care about any sort of rational discussion.
I don't care if those "tough guys" want to slog it out, but the choice of time and place shows such a serious lack of common sense that it would be alarming for a professional fighter, not to mention an elected representative.
The guy thought that, when challenged anytime anywhere, there and then, in Congress, during a hearing would be a good time and place. smh
Okay well, what you care about has zero bearing on whether or not these actions are childish.
The choice of time and place is irrelevant when the instigating party said, and I quote, "anytime, anywhere", and then when their challenge was accepted, stood up, ready to engage in said challenge.
One of those people is not a US Senator. The Senator was the one bringing it up, getting all worked up over a Tweet. The Senator, chose "Congress" as the place and "during a hearing" as the time. Both these decisions are absolutely unfit for a US Senator.
Go fucking meet the guy behind a 7eleven after work or something like that. But nooo, the Senator said "here is a place, now is a time" because he needed to look like a tough guy in front of cameras.
I don't understand why you're telling me this like I don't know.
A Tweet where he was challenged to a fist fight.
After being challenged "anytime, anywhere".
This person is definitely following a script.
Okay at this point this conversation has devolved to name-calling and repeatedly straight-up lying about the events that transpired so I think it's safe to say you have no interest in an honest discussion. Bye bye now 👋
I think it's unreasonable to take the literal meaning od 'anytime, anywhere'. Like, if he was attending a funeral and the senator turned up and challenged him there, would that still be appropriate? How about if he was visiting a kindergarten? While he's helping an old woman cross the road? Performing first aid on an injured person?
There are still times that are appropriate and not appropriate. You could say that the challenge itself was childish and I would agree. But the anytime, anywhere condition doesn't make it unconditionally ok for the senator to pick this time and place.
There are no times or locations that are appropriate to challenge a grown man to a fist fight, as if that somehow would settle the differences.
Honestly I agree. I just don't think that excuses the Senator from actually accepting the challenge at that time and place (or arguably any time and place, but especially that one). Two wrongs don't make a right...
Which of my comments did you perceive as excusing the senator?
In response to people saying that the Senator acted inappropriately. But perhaps I misinterpreted. Are you saying they both acted inappropriately? In which case I agree, but I'd still say tweeting a challenge is less inappropriate than actually accepting that challenge at that time and place.
Yes that is exactly what I've said.
I choose trial by combat!
One is a senator, one is the president of the teamsters. There's a bit of difference there. That's not to mention one was summoned there and the other one works there. Sure, a physical fight is "silly", but it's only beneath one of their job positions.
What difference is that, exactly? They're both human adults. For the purposes of this conversation, that's all that matters. No one should be challenging anyone else to fist-fights. They're both children.
Totally okay for a union President to challenge a sitting US senator to a fist-fight. Okay. Sure. That makes a ton of sense.
Let’s not both sides this one. One had great power and one goes to jail for not showing up and smiling.
I will "both sides" every issue where there's more than 1 person to blame, which is almost always.
Let's not "my tribe" this one.
lol you’re really on a war path, what with your “you’re not the boss of me” and all
I really don't even know what that's supposed to mean...
Who are these others whose honor you are so concerned with? Those chairs are mostly empty. The bums didn't even show up.