300
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 09 Aug 2023
300 points (95.2% liked)
politics
19170 readers
4612 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
I don't even think this is necessarily an age issue. You can get Alzheimer's at 50 too. To me the issue is a shameful unwillingness from Democrats to acknowledge Feinstein's inability to fulfill her duties. Pelosi straight up called people sexist for suggesting Feinstein should step down. It's despicable. If I was in California, I'd be pretty fucking mad right now that my senator was being used as a tool to advance other people's interests by preying on her dementia.
I was mad that we re-elected that mummy in 2020, but her opponent turned out to be pretty crappy, too.
Yeah, bullet dodged on that guy. It's pretty shitty when the choices are a racist or someone with Alzheimer's. Especially considering how large California is, I'm pretty sure they could have come up with better options.
Yeah, it's really fucked up to keep seeing comments from non-Californians blaming us for voting for her, as though we have any kind of real choice.
Regardless, it's yet another case of Americans blaming other Americans, as usual, instead of blaming a system that allows this shit to happen and doesn't give us viable choices of candidates in the first place.
Feinstein isn't the only problem here. In fact the 118th Congress average age is the third oldest since 1789 .
I cannot understand why people continue voting for the same incumbent year after year. Not once have I voted for the a politician, then thought to myself in the next election "they listen to me and deserve my vote again". I refuse to vote twice for any politician unless I actually believe they care about the average person and I'll be honest that has never happened. Maybe I just grew up in the wrong era and didn't get to appreciate these politicians when they were in their prime twenty years ago?
I just don't get it. Are we voting based on a popularity contest of names we recognize on the ballot with a D or R next to their name? How f*cking pathetic. Look across the asile, both ways - maybe there's someone decent out there. Unlikely, but maybe they're better than the current guy who's been there for thirty years.
Politicians like diapers should be changed often, and for the same reason.
Yes, ageism is horrible and too common especially against women. But it's really disingenuous to say there should be no age limit whatsoever, especially when it's acceptable in every other industry. No one is "preying on her dementia" as some kind of distraction. They have a political advantage to having her stay in office, it's really not that hard. The choices are bullshit, as usual, because it comes down to keeping her in office the rest of her life or open it up to some fascist conservative.
Of course reasonable Californians are mad. But do you have time to organize and get the signatures for a special recall election? Not many people do.
You act like it didn't take at least half the state to elect her